Download the book by Ludo Martens
Download the book by Ludo Martens
For us, Marxist Leninists, the brilliant theses of Stalin on nationality question remains the bedrock on understanding the nationality issue a barometer to formulate our policy and tactics. Along with Stalin’s theses, there are the extant text of writings by Marx, Engels, Lenin and of the Marxists of this country where the issue has been discussed and deliberated in detail. We have dedicated a section on the understanding of nationality question with respect to Kashmir, where some of the theses have been quoted, from that period after the transfer of power, before the entire movement degenrated into the abyss of revisionism and dogmatic-Marxism of the CPI(ML) era. Apart from Stalin’s article Marxism and National Question, the Marxist-Leninist understanding on the subject is elaborated in two of Lenin’s articles dealing with the subject– “Critical Remarks on the National Question” and “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” Continue reading “Marxist Leninist Understanding on the Right of Self Determination and National Question”
This book was written when the deeper truths about the Soviet Union, to which the eyes of many millions were opened for a short while during the war against Nazi Germany, were being temporarily obscured again by the passion of controversy about the settlement of Europe after the war.
Experience throughout the thirty years’ existence of the Soviet Union, however, suggests that study of the permanent features of the Soviet economy and polity, as they are, is a better guide to Soviet policy, and therefore to European peace and prosperity, than passion or prejudice. Continue reading “Man and Plan in Soviet Economy by ANDREW ROTHSTEIN”
Stalin Society of India has published this booklet written by veteran Communist intellectual late comrade Moni Guha.
In this small but very important work, comrade Guha has analysed in detail the events that unfolded immediately after the death of Stalin. In fact MG raised question on the death and circumstances leading to the death. It has been well established now that Stalin, was very much aware of the deviations that had cropped in the party and Soviet government. Continue reading “Book Published , Why was Stalin Denigrated.., by Moni Guha”
by LOIZOS MICHAIL
Trotskyism Study Group CPGB
The theory of “Permanent Revolution”, as elaborated by Leon Trotsky, constitutes a central doctrine of the various groups which internationally form the “trotskyist” tendency within the Marxist movement. For the Trotskyist groups, the theory of Permanent Revolution is not just an analysis of the dynamics of the Russian revolution, but, more importantly, a major “tool” by which they interpret contemporary social reality, and upon which they construct their strategies for revolutionary transformation. Continue reading “The Theory of Permanent Revolution: A Critique”
There are some discussions that refuse to die, one of the prime reason for this is the obduracy of some who refuses to acknowledge history. This may be either due to their ignorance or due to a deliberate move on their part to sow more confusion, amongst the rank and file of the communist movement.
Dimitrov to Stalin, 1 July 1934. Original in Russian. Type-written, with handwritten comments by Stalin.
The Bolshevik Revolution not only overturned the political and economic system that was based on exploitation but also brought with it a revolutionary reorganisation of the entire society. One of the major component was the reorganisation and implementation of a socialist health care system, which took care of the citizen from their cradle to grave. Continue reading “The Soviet Union Looks To Its Health”
It has always been our understanding on Mao, that he was a revisionist and an Anti-Marxist Leninist. With new documents and papers coming out of various Archives, our view has been solidified in light of such information. Mao, had always adopted a vacillating position when it came to matter of international import…document titled “MINUTES, MAO’S CONVERSATION WITH A YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST UNION DELEGATION, BEIJING” further exposes the sheer un-Marxist attitude of Mao when he shamelessly puts blame on Stalin even stating that Stalin blocked our revolution.
It has always been our understanding on Mao, that he was a revisionist and an Anti-Marxist Leninist. With new documents and papers coming out of various Archives, our view has been solidified in light of such information. Mao, had always adopted a vacillating position when it came to matter of international import that concerned the International Communist Movement. At one hand he went to China and asked Stalin of every possible help, including to get his works reviewed by Soviet experts to asking for help on industrialisation.
On numerous occasion he did not fail to eulogies Stalin and writing to him that Soviet Party being the headquarters and Stalin the captain, and immediately after the 20th CPSU Party Congress like Khrushchev turned all guns again same Stalin whom he had called in 1939 as “…Stalin is the leader of the world revolution. This is of paramount importance. It is a great event that mankind is blessed with Stalin. Since we have him, things can go well. As you all know, Marx is dead and so are Engels and Lenin. Had there been no Stalin, who would there be to give directions?“
The below document titled “MINUTES, MAO’S CONVERSATION WITH A YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST UNION DELEGATION, BEIJING” further exposes the sheer un-Marxist attitude of Mao when he shamelessly puts blame on Stalin even stating that Stalin blocked our revolution.
But, it was not the end in 1958 Mao again did a U turn and in October 25, 1966 said “The revisionist leading clique of the Soviet Union, the Tito clique of Yugoslavia, and all the other cliques of renegades and scabs of various shades are mere dust heaps in comparison, while you, a lofty mountain, tower to the skies.”
We leave it to the discretion of our dear comrades who still harbour respect and faith in Mao, and to what is said as Mao-Tse-Tung thought or Maoism.
[All emphasis and underline are ours.]
We welcome you to China. We are very pleased at your visit. We have been supported by you, as well as by other brotherly [Communist] parties. We are invariably supporting you as much as all the other brotherly parties. In today’s world, the Marxist and Communist front remains united, whether in places where success [of Communist revolution] is achieved or not yet achieved. However, there were times when we were not so united; there were times when we let you down. We listened to the opinions of the Information Bureau  in the past. Although we did not take part in the Bureau’s [business], we found it difficult not to support it. In 1949 the Bureau condemned you as butchers and Hitler-style fascists, and we kept silent on the resolution [condemning you], although we published articles to criticize you in 1948. In retrospect, we should not have done that; we should have discussed [this issue] with you: if some of your viewpoints were incorrect, [we should have let] you conduct self-criticism, and there was no need to hurry [into the controversy] as [we] did. The same thing is true to us: should you disagree with us, you should do the same thing, that is, the adoption of a method of persuasion and consultation. There have not been that many successful cases in which one criticizes foreign parties in newspapers. [Your] case offers a profound historical lesson for the international communist movement. Although you have suffered from it, the international communist movement has learned a lesson from this mistake. [The international communist movement] must fully understand [the seriousness of] this mistake.
When you offered to recognize new China, we did not respond, nor did we decline it. Undoubtedly, we should not have rejected it, because there was no reason for us to do so. When Britain recognized us, we did not say no to it. How could we find any excuse to reject the recognition of a socialist country?
There was, however, another factor which prevented us from responding to you: the Soviet friends did not want us to form diplomatic relations with you. If so, was China an independent state? Of course, yes. If an independent state, why, then, did we follow their instructions? [My] comrades, when the Soviet Union requested us to follow their suit at that time, it was difficult for us to oppose it. It was because at that time some people claimed that there were two Titos in the world: one in Yugoslavia, the other in China, even if no one passed a resolution that Mao Zedong was Tito. I have once pointed out to the Soviet comrades that [they] suspected that I was a half-hearted Tito, but they refuse to recognize it. When did they remove the tag of half-hearted Tito from my head? The tag was removed after [China] decided to resist America [in Korea] and came to [North] Korea’s aid and when [we] dealt the US imperialists a blow.
The Wang Ming line was in fact Stalin’s line. It ended up destroying ninety percent of our strength in our bases, and one hundred percent of [our strength] in the white areas. Comrade [Liu] Shaoqi pointed this out in his report to the Eighth [Party] Congress. Why, then, did he not openly attribute [the losses] to the [impact of] Stalin’s line? There is an explanation. The Soviet Party itself could criticize Stalin; but it would be inappropriate for us to criticize him. We should maintain a good relationship with the Soviet Union. Maybe [we] could make our criticism public sometime in the future. It has to be that way in today’s world, because facts are facts. The Comintern made numerous mistakes in the past. Its early and late stages were not so bad, but its middle stage was not so good: it was all right when Lenin was alive and when [Georgii] Dimitrov was in charge. The first Wang Ming line dominated [our party] for four years, and the Chinese revolution suffered the biggest losses.Wang Ming is now in Moscow taking a sick leave, but still we are going to elect him to be a member of the party’s Central Committee. He indeed is an instructor for our party; he is a professor, an invaluable one who could not be purchased by money. He has taught the whole party, so that it would not follow his line.
That was the first time when we got the worst of Stalin.
The second time was during the anti-Japanese war. Speaking Russian and good at flattering Stalin, Wang Ming could directly communicate with Stalin. Sent back to China by Stalin, he tried to set [us] toward right deviation this time, instead of following the leftist line he had previously advocated. Advocating [CCP] collaboration with the Guomindang [the Nationalist Party or GMD], he can be described as “decking himself out and self-inviting [to the GMD];” he wanted [us] to obey the GMD whole-heartedly. The Six-Principle Program he put forward was to overturn our Party’s Ten-Principle Policy. [His program] opposed establishing anti-Japanese bases, advocated giving up our Party’s own armed force, and preached that as long as Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek] was in power, there would be peace [in China]. We redressed this deviation. [Ironically,] Jiang Jieshi helped us correct this mistake: while Wang Ming “decked himself out and fawned on [Jiang],” Jiang Jieshi “slapped his face and kicked him out.” Hence, Jiang Jieshi was China’s best instructor: he had educated the people of the whole nation as well as all of our Party members. Jiang lectured with his machine guns whereas Wang Ming educated us with his own words.
The third time was after Japan’s surrender and the end of the Second World War. Stalin met with [Winston] Churchill and [Franklin D.] Roosevelt and decided to give the whole of China to America and Jiang Jieshi. In terms of material and moral support, especially moral support, Stalin hardly gave any to us, the Communist Party, but supported Jiang Jieshi. This decision was made at the Yalta conference. Stalin later told Tito [this decision] who mentioned his conversation [with Stalin on this decision] in his autobiography.
Only after the dissolution of the Comintern did we start to enjoy more freedom. We had already begun to criticize opportunism and the Wang Ming line, and unfolded the rectification movement. The rectification, in fact, was aimed at denouncing the mistakes that Stalin and the Comintern had committed in directing the Chinese revolution; however, we did not openly mention a word about Stalin and the Comintern. Sometime in the near future, [we] may openly do so. There are two explanations of why we did not openly criticize [Stalin and the Comintern]: first, as we followed their instructions, we have to take some responsibility ourselves. Nobody compelled us to follow their instructions! Nobody forced us to be wrongfully deviated to right and left directions! There are two kinds of Chinese: one kind is a dogmatist who completely accepts Stalin’s line; the other opposes dogmatism, thus refusing to obey [Stalin’s] instructions. Second, we do not want to displease [the Soviets], to disrupt our relations with the Soviet Union. The Comintern has never made self-criticism on these mistakes; nor has the Soviet Union ever mentioned these mistakes. We would have fallen out with them had we raised our criticism.
The fourth time was when [Moscow] regarded me as a half-hearted Tito or semi-Titoist. Not only in the Soviet Union but also in other socialist countries and some non-socialist countries were there some people who had suspected whether China’s was a real revolution.
You might wonder why [we] still pay a tribute to Stalin in China by hanging his portrait on the wall. Comrades from Moscow have informed us that they no longer hang Stalin’s portraits and only display Lenin’s and current leaders’ portraits in public parade. They, however, did not ask us to follow their suit. We find it very difficult to cope. The four mistakes committed by Stalin are yet to be made known to the Chinese people as well as to our whole party. Our situation is quite different from yours: your [suffering inflicted by Stalin] is known to the people and to the whole world. Within our party, the mistakes of the two Wang Ming lines are well known; but our people do not know that these mistakes originated in Stalin. Only our Central Committee was aware that Stalin blocked our revolution and regarded me as a half-hearted Tito.
We had no objection that the Soviet Union functions as a center [of the world revolution] because it benefits the socialist movement. You may disagree [with us] on this point. You wholeheartedly support Khrushchev’s campaign to criticize Stalin, but we cannot do the same because our people would dislike it. In the previous parades [in China], we held up portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, as well as those of a few Chinese [leaders]—Mao, Liu [Shaoqi], Zhou [Enlai], and Zhu [De] —and other brotherly parties’ leaders. Now we adopt a measure of “overthrowing all”: no one’s portrait is handed out. For this year’s “First of May” celebration, Ambassador Bobkoveshi already saw in Beijing that no one’s portrait was held in parade. However, the portraits of five dead persons—Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin and Sun [Yat-sen]—and a not yet dead person—Mao Zedong—are still hanging [on the wall]. Let them hang on the wall! You Yugoslavians may comment that the Soviet Union no longer hangs Stalin’s portrait, but the Chinese still do.
As of this date some people remain suspicious of whether our socialism can be successfully constructed and stick to the assertion that our Communist Party is a phony one. What can we do? These people eat and sleep every day and then propagate that the Chinese Communist Party is not really a communist party, and that China’s socialist construction is bound to fail. To them, it would be a bewildering thing if socialism could be built in China! Look out, [they warn]. China might become an imperialist country—to follow America, Britain, and France to become the fourth imperialist country! At present China has little industry, thus is in no position [to be an imperialist country]; but [China] will become formidable in one hundred years! Chinggis Khan might be brought to life; consequently Europe would suffer again, and Yugoslavia might be conquered! The “Yellow Peril” must be prevented!
There is absolutely no ground for this to happen! The CCP is a Marxist-Leninist Party. The Chinese people are peace-loving people. We believe that aggression is a crime, therefore, we will never seize an inch of territory or a piece of grass from others. We love peace and we are Marxists.
We oppose great power politics in international relations. Although our industry is small, all things considered, we can be regarded as a big power. Hence some people [in China] begin to be cocky. We then warn them: “Lower your heads and act with your tails tucked between your legs.” When I was little, my mother often taught me to behave “with tails tucked between legs.” This is a correct teaching and now I often mention it to my comrades.
Domestically, we oppose Pan-Hanism, because this tendency is harmful to the unity of all ethnic groups. Hegemonism and Pan-Hanism both are sectarianism. Those who have hegemonious tendencies only care about their own interests but ignore others’, whereas those Pan-Hanists only care about the Han people and regard the Han people as superior to others, thus damaging [the interests of] all the minorities.
Some people have asserted in the past that China has no intention to be friends with other countries, but wants to split with the Soviet Union, thus becoming a troublemaker. Now, however, this kind of people shrinks to only a handful in the socialist countries; their number has been reduced since the War to Resist America and Assist Korea. It is, however, a totally different thing for the imperialists: the stronger China becomes, the more scared they will be. They also understand that China is not that terrifying as long as China has no advanced industry, and as long as China continues to rely on human power. The Soviet Union remains the most fearsome [for the imperialists] whereas China is merely the second. What they are afraid of is our politics and that we may have an enormous impact in Asia. That is why they keep spreading the words that China will be out of control and will invade others, so on and so forth.
We have been very cautious and modest, trying to overcome arrogance but adhering to the “Five Principles.” We know we have been bullied in the past; we understand how it feels to be bullied. You would have had the same feeling, wouldn’t you?
China’s future hinges upon socialism. It will take fifty or even one hundred years to turn China into a wealthy and powerful country. Now no [formidable] blocking force stands in China’s way. China is a huge country with a population of one fourth of that of the world. Nevertheless, her contribution to the world is yet to be compatible with her population size, and this situation will have to change, although my generation and even my son’s generation may not see the change taking place. How it will change in the future depends on how [China] develops. China may make mistakes or become corrupt; the current good situation may take a bad turn and, then, the bad situation may take a good turn. There can be little doubt, though, that even if [China’s] situation takes a bad turn, it may not become as decadent a society as that of Jiang Jieshi’s. This anticipation is based on dialectics. Affirmation, negation, and, then, negation of negation. The path in the future is bound to be tortuous.
Corruption, bureaucracy, hegemonism, and arrogance all may take effect in China. However, the Chinese people are inclined to be modest and willing to learn from others. One explanation is that we have little “capital” at our disposal: first, we did not invent Marxism which we learned from others; second, we did not experience the October Revolution and our revolution did not achieve victory until 1949, some thirty-two years after the October Revolution; third, we were only a branch army, not a main force, during the Second World War; fourth, with little modern industry, we merely have agriculture and some shabby, tattered handicrafts. Although there are some people among us who appear to be cocky, they are in no position to be cocky; at most, [they can merely show] their tails one or two meters high. But we must prevent this from happening in the future: it may become dangerous [for us] in ten to twenty years and even more dangerous in forty to fifty years.
My comrades, let me advise you that you should also watch out for this potential. Your industry is much modernized and has experienced a more rapid growth; Stalin made you suffer and hence, justice is on your side. All of this, though, may become your [mental] burden.
The above-mentioned four mistakes Stalin committed [concerning China] may also become our burden. When China becomes industrialized in later years, it will be more likely that we get cocky. Upon your return to your country, please tell your youngsters that, should China stick her tail up in the future, even if the tail becomes ten thousand meters high, still they must criticize China. [You] must keep an eye on China, and the entire world must keep an eye on China. At that time, I definitely will not be here: I will already be attending a conference together with Marx.
We are sorry that we hurt you before, thus owing you a good deal. Killing must be compensated by life and debts must be paid in cash. We have criticized you before, but why do we still keep quiet? Before [Khrushchev’s] criticism of Stalin, we were not in a position to be as explicit about some issues as we are now. In my previous conversations with [Ambassador] Bobkoveshi, I could only say that as long as the Soviet Union did not criticize Stalin, we would be in no position to do so; as long as the Soviet Union did not restore [diplomatic] relations with Yugoslavia, we could not establish relations with you. Now these issues can be openly discussed. I have already talked to the Soviet comrades about the four mistakes that Stalin had committed [to China]; I talked to [Soviet Ambassador Pavel] Yudin about it, and I shall talk to Khrushchev about it next time when we meet. I talk to you about it because you are our comrades. However, we still cannot publish this in the newspapers, because the imperialists should not be allowed to know about it. We may openly talk about one or two mistakes of Stalin’s in the future. Our situation is quite different from yours: Tito’s autobiography mentions Stalin because you have already broken up with the Soviet Union.
Stalin advocated dialectical materialism, but sometimes he lacked materialism and, instead, practiced metaphysics; he wrote about historical materialism, but very often suffered from historical idealism. Some of his behavior, such as going to extremes, fostering personal myth, and embarrassing others, are by no means [forms] of materialism.
Before I met with Stalin, I did not have much good feeling about him. I disliked reading his works, and I have read only “On the Basis of Leninism,” a long article criticizing Trotsky, and “Be Carried Away by Success,” etc. I disliked even more his articles on the Chinese revolution. He was very different from Lenin: Lenin shared his heart with others and treated others as equals whereas Stalin liked to stand above every one else and order others around. This style can be detected from his works. After I met with him, I became even more disgusted: I quarreled a lot with him in Moscow. Stalin was excitable by temperament. When he became agitated, he would spell out nasty things.
I have written altogether three pieces praising Stalin. The first was written in Yanan to celebrate his sixtieth birthday [21 December 1939—ed.], the second was the congratulatory speech [I delivered] in Moscow [in December 1949—ed.], and the third was an article requested by Pravda after his death [March 1953—ed.]. I always dislike congratulating others as well as being congratulated by others. When I was in Moscow to celebrate his birthday, what else could I have done if I had chosen not to congratulate him? Could I have cursed him instead? After his death the Soviet Union needed our support and we also wanted to support the Soviet Union. Consequently, I wrote that piece to praise his virtues and achievements. That piece was not for Stalin; it was for the Soviet Communist Party. As for the piece I did in Yanan, I had to ignore my personal feelings and treat him as the leader of a socialist country. Therefore, that piece was rather vigorous whereas the other two came out of [political] need, not my heart, nor at my will. Human life is just as contradictory as this: your emotion tells you not to write these pieces, but your rationality compels you to do so.
Now that Moscow has criticized Stalin, we are free to talk about these issues. Today I tell you about the four mistakes committed by Stalin, but, in order to maintain relations with the Soviet Union, [we] cannot publish them in our newspapers. Since Khrushchev’s report only mentioned the conflict over the sugar plant while discussing Stalin’s mistakes concerning us, we feel it inappropriate to make them public. There are other issues involving conflicts and controversies.
Generally speaking, the Soviet Union is good. It is good because of four factors: Marxism-Leninism, the October Revolution, the main force [of the socialist camp], and industrialization. They have their negative side, and have made some mistakes. However, their achievements constitute the major part [of their past] while their shortcomings are of secondary significance. Now that the enemy is taking advantage of the criticism of Stalin to take the offensive on a world-wide scale, we ought to support the Soviet Union. They will certainly correct their mistakes. Khrushchev already corrected the mistake concerning Yugoslavia. They are already aware of Wang Ming’s mistakes, although in the past they were unhappy with our criticism of Wang Ming. They have also removed the “half-hearted Tito” [label from me], thus, eliminating altogether [the labels on] one and a half Titos. We are pleased to see that Tito’s tag was removed.
Some of our people are still unhappy with the criticism of Stalin. However, such criticism has positive effects because it destroys mythologies, and opens [black] boxes. This entails liberation, indeed, a “war of liberation.” With it, people are becoming so courageous that they will speak their minds, as well as be able to think about issues.
Liberty, equality, and fraternity are slogans of the bourgeoisie, but now we have to fight for them. Is [our relationship with Moscow] a father-and-son relationship or one between brothers? It was between father and son in the past; now it more or less resembles a brotherly relationship, but the shadow of the father-and-son relationship is not completely removed. This is understandable, because changes can never be completed in one day. With certain openness, people are now able to think freely and independently. Now there is, in a sense, the atmosphere of anti-feudalism: a father-and-son relationship is giving way to a brotherly relationship, and a patriarchal system is being toppled. During [Stalin’s] time people’s minds were so tightly controlled that even the feudalist control had been surpassed. While some enlightened feudal lords or emperors would accept criticism, [Stalin] would tolerate none. Yugoslavia might also have such a ruler [in your history] who might take it well even when people cursed him right in his face. The capitalist society has taken a step ahead of the feudalist society. The Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States are allowed to quarrel with each other.
We socialist countries must find [better] solutions. Certainly, we need concentration and unification; otherwise, uniformity cannot be maintained. The uniformity of people’s minds is in our favor, enabling us to achieve industrialization in a short period and to deal with the imperialists. It, however, embodies some shortcomings, that is, people are made afraid of speaking out. Therefore, we must find some ways to encourage people to speak out. Our Politburo’s comrades have recently been considering these issues.
Few people in China have ever openly criticized me. The [Chinese] people are tolerant of my shortcomings and mistakes. It is because we always want to serve the people and do good things for the people. Although we sometimes also suffer from bossism and bureaucracy, the people believe that we have done more good things than bad ones and, as a result, they praise us more than criticize us. Consequently, an idol is created: when some people criticize me, others would oppose them and accuse them of disrespecting the leader. Everyday I and other comrades of the central leadership receive some three hundred letters, some of which are critical of us. These letters, however, are either not signed or signed with a false name. The authors are not afraid that we would suppress them, but they are afraid that others around them would make them suffer.
You mentioned “On Ten Relationships.” This resulted from one-and-a-half-months of discussions between me and thirty-four ministers [of the government]. What opinions could I myself have put forward without them? All I did was to put together their suggestions, and I did not create anything. Any creation requires materials and factories. However, I am no longer a good factory. All my equipment is out-of-date, I need to be improved and re-equipped as much as do the factories in Britain. I am getting old and can no longer play the major role but had to assume a minor part. As you can see, I merely played a minor role during this Party’s National Congress whereas Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and others assumed the primary functions.
 The content of this conversation suggests that it occurred between 15 and 28 September 1956, when the CCP’s Eighth National Congress was in session.
 This refers to the Information Bureau of Communist and Workers’ Parties (Cominform), which was established in September 1947 by the parties of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and Yugoslavia. The Bureau announced that it was ending its activities in April 1956.
 Wang Ming (1904-1974), also known as Chen Shaoyu, was a returnee from the Soviet Union and a leading member of the Chinese Communist Party in the 1930s. Official Chinese Communist view claims that Wang Ming committed “ultra-leftist” mistakes in the early 1930s and “ultra-rightist” mistakes in the late 1930s.
 The white areas were Guomindang-controlled areas.
 Liu Shaoqi was vice chairman of the CCP Central Committee and chairman of the Standing Committee of the People’s National Congress. He was China’s second most important leader.
 The Chinese Communist party’s eighth national congress was held in Beijing on 15-27 September 1956.
 Georgii Dimitrov (1882-1949), a Bulgarian communist, was the Comintern’s secretary general from 1935 to 1943.
 Mao here pointed to the period from 1931 to 1935, during which the “international section,” of which Wang Ming was a leading member, controlled the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
 Zhu De was then vice chairman of the CCP Central Committee and vice chairman of the PRC.
 Bobkoveshi was Yugoslavia’s first ambassador to the PRC, with whom Mao Zedong met for the first time on 30 June 1955.
 Chinggis Khan, also spelled Genghis Jenghiz, was born about 1167, when the Mongolian-speaking tribes still lacked a common name. He became their great organizer and unifier. Before his death in 1227, Chinggis established the basis for a far-flung Eurasian empire by conquering its inner zone across Central Asia. The Mongols are remembered for their wanton aggressiveness both in Europe and in Asia, and this trait was certainly present in Chinggis.
 The Han nationality is the majority nationality in China, which counts for over 95 percent of the Chinese population.
 The “War to Resist America and Assist Korea” describes China’s participation in the Korean War from October 1950 to July 1953.
 The five principles were first introduced by Zhou Enlai while meeting a delegation from India on 31 December 1953. These principles—(1) mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, (2) mutual non-aggression, (3) mutual non-interference in international affairs, (4) equality and mutual benefit, and (5) peaceful coexistence—were later repeatedly claimed by the Chinese government as the foundation of the PRC’s foreign policy.
 China did not establish diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia until January 1955, although the Yugoslavian government recognized the PRC as early as 5 October 1949, four days after the PRC’s establishment.
 P. F. Yudin (1899-1968), a prominent philosopher and a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party from 1952 to 1961, was Soviet ambassador to China from 1953 to 1959.
 “On Ten Relationships” was one of Mao’s major works in the 1950s. He discussed the relationship between industry and agriculture and heavy industry and light industry, between coastal industry and industry in the interior, between economic construction and national defense, between the state, the unit of production, and individual producers, between the center and the regions, between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities, between party and non-party, between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, between right and wrong, and between China and other countries. For an English translation of one version of the article, see Stuart Schram, ed., Chairman Mao Talks to the People (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), 61-83.
 Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were all leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. At the Party’s Eighth Congress in September 1956, Liu and Zhou were elected the Party’s vice chairmen, and Deng the Party’s general secretary.
Mao Zedong waijiao wenxuan [Selected Diplomatic Papers of Mao Zedong] (Beijing: The Central Press of Historical Documents, 1993), 251-262. Translated and Annotated by Zhang Shu Guang and Chen Jian
This document taken from
The Dissolution of the Communist International Answer to Reuter’s Correspondent
May 28, 1943
Mr. Harold King, Moscow correspondent of Reuter’s Agency, addressed a letter to J. V. Stalin, Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R., in which he requested an answer to a question of interest to the British public. Marshal Stalin replied with the following letter:
DEAR MR. KING,—I have received your request to answer a question referring to the dissolution of the Communist International. I am sending you my answer.
QUESTION: British comment on the decision to dissolve the Comintern has been very favourable. What is the Soviet view of this matter and of its bearing on future international relations?
ANSWER: The dissolution of the Communist International is proper and timely because it facilitates the organization of the common onslaught of all freedom-loving nations against the common enemy—Hitlerism.
The dissolution of the Communist International is proper because:
(a) It exposes the lie of the Hitlerites to the effect that “Moscow” allegedly intends to intervene in the life of other nations and to “Bolshevize” them. From now on an end is put to this lie.
(b) It exposes the calumny of the adversaries of Communism within the Labour movement to the effect that Communist Parties in various countries are allegedly acting not in the interests of their people but on orders from outside. From now on an end is also put to this calumny.
(c) It facilitates the work of patriots of all countries for uniting the progressive forces of their respective countries, regardless of party or religious faith, into a single camp of national liberation—for unfolding the struggle against fascism.
(d) It facilitates the work of patriots of all countries for uniting all freedom-loving peoples into a single international camp for the fight against the menace of world domination by Hitlerism, thus clearing the way for the future organization of a companionship of nations based upon their equality.
I think that all these circumstances taken together will result in a further strengthening of the United Front of the Allies and other united nations in their fight for victory over Hitlerite tyranny.
I feel that the dissolution of the Communist International is perfectly timely—because it is exactly now, when the fascist beast is exerting its last strength, that it is necessary to organize the common onslaught of freedom-loving countries to finish off this beast and to deliver the people from fascist oppression.
(Signed) J. Stalin
May 28, 1943
The strength of socialist democracy lies precisely in the fact that, having arisen as a result of the victory of the proletarian dictatorship, it is growing and expanding day by day, particularly with the growth of culture among the masses. And this reflects the mighty growth of our strength.. After the complete victory of socialism in our country the democracy of the Soviet system is developing with greater force and on a wider scale than ever; and, in its turn, it serves as a powerful lever for the further acceleration of the growth of the forces of socialism. The development of democracy in our country reveals the superiority of socialist democracy over the democracy of bourgeois states.
But here I must make a slight digression and deal with a very peculiar form of “democracy”, that of German fascism.
In order to free the hands of the ruling capitalist oligarchy, the German fascists are consistently imbuing the masses, and all the members of the National-Socialist Party itself, with the following idea: “My leaders know what they want. And if they do not know, how can I know and decide?” In other words, this is “democracy” according to the principle: “Don’t dare think for yourself, it will be the worse for you.”
That is why all the Nuremburg congresses are so unlike real congresses. They are-not congresses but something else.
These “congresses” meet only to listen to two i of ‘three speeches by “Fuehrers”. No discussion or debates are permitted at these “congresses”. No decisions or resolutions are voted on. The masses are permitted to do only one thing and that is to put up with the consequences of such congresses…
A comparison between Soviet democracy and the democracy .of bourgeois countries, even in its best forms, reveals the radical difference between them and the superiority in principle of the former over the latter. One thing is clear, and that is that socialist democracy alone is democracy for the toilers, democracy for the real masses of the people who have emancipated themselves from the rule of the exploiters.
Whoever wants to convince himself of the democratic character of our system must not forget the main thing. And the main thing in the Soviet system, as you know, is what is set forth in Article 6 of the Constitution:
“The land, its deposits, waters; forests, mills, factories, mines, railways, water and air transport, banks, means of communication, large state-organized agricultural enterprises, such as state farms. (sovkhoz), machine and tractor stations and the like, as well as the principal dwelling fund in the cities and industrial localities, are state property, that is, the property of the whole people.”
Today all this belongs to the whole people. What more consistent democracy can anyone desire?
Let any other state introduce such measures. If it does we shall admit that the democracy of that state is genuine, universal democracy, such as the democracy in the U.S.S.R.
The new Constitution now gives all citizens of the U.S.S.R. equal rights. It may even be said that the former property-owners have returned-although in a special way-to the administration of property. But today, in taking part in this work through. the medium of the toilers’ Soviets, they have become immeasurably richer, for they are now taking part in the administration not of private property but of the property of the whole people.
Of course, there is a deep thought at the back of the minds of the toilers of our country on this matter. They say: “The ‘former rich’ are receiving rights, that’s not bad; but we expect, them to work honestly!”
Comrade Stalin emphasized the democratic character of our system by yet another remarkable fact. He said:.
“The Soviet government liquidated the landlord class and transferred to the peasants more than 150,000,000 hectares of former landlord, government and monastery land; and this was over and above the lands that were already in the possession of the peasants.”
We would like to see any bourgeois state, transferring to the peasants without compensation; not 150,000,000 hectares, perhaps, but only 15,000,000 hectares of landlord and other land. We would then be prepared to admit that such a state was beginning to make A serious approach to the position of real democracy, democracy for the toilers.
And yet, somehow, we do not hear that the landlords, the nobility and the monastic hierarchy, consider, from their class point of view, this transfer of land to the peasants to be “democratic”. It must be admitted that revolutionary democracy is alien to them.
In 1917, Socialists such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were in power in our country. Everybody knows that they did not use their power for the purpose of transferring the land to the peasants, but for the purpose of procrastination in this matter.
Here, too, they proved to be the direct allies of the landlords and the bourgeoisie. And yet, how they boasted about their devotion to “democracy”! Hence, in our times, Menshevik and SocialistRevolutionary “democracy” plays into the bands of the capitalists, landlords, kulaks, nobility and the priests. Hence, “democracy” as conceived by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries has nothing in common with genuine democracy, which the people need so much.
One other example of Soviet democracy.
The celebrated author A; N. Tolstoi spoke here, just before me. Who does not know that this is ex “Count Tolstoy? And now? One of the best and most popular authors in the Land of Soviets is Comrade Aleksei Nikolaevich Tolstoi.`History’is to blame for this.’ But the change was in the right direction. On this all of us, including A. N., Tolstoy himself, are agreed.
The new Constitution will consolidate our prcsfoundly democratic system more than ever. And by the fact that, side by side with the distinct reference to the definite duties of the citizens of the USSR, it firmly guarantees such right as the right to work, the right to rest and leisure, the right to material security in old age, the right to education, complete equality of rights for men and women, complete equality for the nations and races in the USSR etc., we loudly proclaim how socialist democracy should be interpreted.
Even the most perfect forms of democracy in bourgeois states are in reality very restricted and tightly compressed within”the limits of what is actually the rule of the bourgeois minority over the people. No form of democracy under capitalism extends, nor can extend, beyond the limits of the rule of the privileged minority of the bourgeoisie; it fits the rights and liberties of the people to the hard bed of Procustes.
With the aid of its ideologists and its press the bourgeoisie succeeded in acquiring for wretched capitalist democracy, the democracy of ‘the bourgeois states, fame as democracy in general, as the “above-class” form of democracy, and even as the “human” form of democracy. In this respect the dexterity of the bourgeois and Social-Democratic politicians and “theoreticians” has been brought to the perfection of that of a juggler.
In actual fact, however, not a single bourgeois state grants, or has ever granted ‘the toilers, even a fraction of the genuine democratic rights and liberties which are enjoyed by the toilers of the USSR, and which they will enjoy to an even greater degree under the new Constitution.
In the guise of “people’s democracy”, bourgeois democracy eulogizes what at best, are the extremely, restricted and extremely curtailed rights of the toilers under the bourgeois system, under which the press, the print shops, printing paper, premises, all the capital and all the power, and hence, actually all rights, belong to the ruling classes. The toilers merely get the crumbs from the rich man’s table.
Nevertheless, the workers and the other working strata of the population have learned to use even these “curtailed” bourgeois liberties, even these restricted democratic rights in their own interests for the political enlightenment of the masses, and for the preparation of the forces necessary for the impending battles. One can understand, therefore, why. the workers, and all democratic elements in capitalist countries, are waging such a determined struggle to preserve, and to enlarge, even minor bourgeoisdemocratic rights and liberties.
On the other hand, it is precisely for this, reason that,in, those countries where they have already lost confidence in, the possibility of influencing the masses the ruling bourgeois classes are adapting the fascist methods of open bourgeois, terrorist dictatorship. It may be said, of course, that one cannot hold on for long by means of terrorism and by committing endless acts of violence against the masses. But evidently the fascis bourgeoisie reasons as follows: “Even if it’s only a day, it’s mine.”
Is it surprising, therefore, that not only the workers and peasants but all honest democratic elements among the petty bourgeoisie and even among the middle bourgeoisie more and more openly refuse to support fascism and fascist-inclined groups?
The rapidity with which the pillars of fascism are being. undermined is evident from a number of facts. Not only do the fascists today refuse to tolerate any survivals of democracy, in their own countries, where, as it is, the people, are “silent, for they prosper”, but, it is characteristic that they regard. the very existence of democracy, even democracy in other countries, as a danger to themselves.
Therefore, utterly djsregarding state frontiers and violating all international laws and customs, the fascists of countries well known to. all are interfering with sword in!hand, and. with German “Heinkels” and Italian “Savoys” in the air, in the internal affairs of another country, the people of which refuse to tolerate such gentlemen. It is not without reason that certain good folk, seeing all this going on, say compassionately about the fascists: “Poor fellows, they seem to be in a desperate hurry. Pray God they don’t break their necks.”
Our attitude toward democracy as one of the most precious boons to the toilets, is ‘well known. The successes of democracy in any country are near and dear to us. We rejoice when democratic rights are won no matter where the masses of the people are marching, forward, along this road.
We can have no common language with fascism, the danger of which we do not intend either to belittle or to exaggerate. But we are heart and soul and, what is more, in actual practice, with those who are fighting the fascist reactionaries. We are entirely on the side of those who have at heart the interests of “the whole of advanced and progressive humanity”. (Stalin)
The adoption of the new Constitution will further enhance the significance of the USSR as the bulwark and beacon of democracy.
The adoption of the new Constitution, with its complete democratization of the state, which increases the possibilities of achieving further and still greater success in improving the life of the peoples of the USSR -will render invaluable assistance to international socialism, and will give an impetus to the struggle of the workers, peasants and all the oppressed for their rights, for their complete emancipation from fascism, and from capitalism, which engenders and fosters fascist regimes.
The more deeply the Stalin Constitution permeate our lives, the more widespread will be its influence as the, Constitution of socialism and of consistent. democracy, not only in the USSR, but far beyond its frontiers-and the wider will its revolutionary influence spread among the masses of the toilers who are flghting for their emancipation from fascism, imperialism and colonial oppression.
Source: V. M. Molotov, On the New Soviet Constitiution. Moscow:
Cooperative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R, 1937.
Original Source: Rech tov. V. M. Molotova o novoi konstitutsii, Pravda, 30 Nov 1936, 2.
Anil Rajimwale, the leader of Communist Party of India and one of the party’s leading theoretician has published a review of Grover Furr’s Book Khrushchev Lied, in the pro CPI and pro Congress magazine Mainstream Weekly, titled A Pathetic Defence of Stalinist Repressions, the link to Rajimwale’s review is http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3616.html
Below we are publishing a short comment on the review made by Anil Rajimwale, written by comrade Manbhanjan (member editorial committee of Other Aspect)
One can understand the pain in the heart of die-hard Khrushchevite, Anil Rajimwale, while reviewing the book Khrushchev Lied. The pain is very genuine and inevitable because for some people it is extremely difficult to digest the truth. Since 20th Party Congress they have been deceived by anti-Marxist leadership of CPSU and their blood brother CPI regarding the truth in Soviet Union.
This time the truth was revealed by American Marxist scholar comrade Grover Furr. He has done exemplary research and attempted to publish facts hitherto unknown to the world. He discovered all the lies perpetuated by Khrushchev during the so called Secret speech during the 20th Party congress of CPSU.
This congress is regarded as the “Black Congress” in the history of International Communist Movement, as Khrushchev and his clique were successful in launching coup-d’état and overthrew socialism in the land of the first successful proletariat revolution. Khrushchev distorted the Marxist-Leninist teachings and presented to the world number of so-called “new theses”, i.e. “the peaceful co-existence between two systems”, “peaceful competitions between two system”, “peaceful transition identified with the parliamentary road”. After all in the “secret report “On the Cult of the Individual and its consequences”, that blackened the glorious road pursued by the Bolshevik Party since the death of Lenin. During the period Socialism was consolidated in Soviet Union under Dictatorship of Proletariat that defeated and eradicated the menace called fascism from the face of earth and liberated vast majority of human kind from capitalistic tyranny with the creation of the socialist camp after Second world war.
Comrade Anil Rajimwale in his whole political life has stuck to the lies propagated by Khrushchev and later Gorbachev regarding Stalin and has never moved beyond that. He has not only closed his eyes and seems oblivious about the criticism of Party of Labour of Albania under Comrade Enver Hoxha and later by the Chinese Party on the 20th Party Congress but also about the recent acknowledgement made by the Communist Party of Russian Federation on the achievement of Stalin. This is the high time for all communists to once again do a serious discussion by referring to the documents republished from the Archives by Revolutionary Democracy (India), Direct Democracy (Communist) Party and even by the overtly Trotskyite site Marxist Internet Archive, and then make correct assessment of the work and life of J.V.Stalin and the fundamental changes that occurred in the Soviet Union and the nternational communist movement, after the disastrous 20th CPSU congress.
YEARS AGO, when I first lunched with President Roosevelt just after he had seen H। G. Wells, I found that of all the subjects in the Soviet Union the one that interested him the most was the personality of Stalin and especially the technique of “Stalin’s rule.” It is a natural interest; I think it interests most Americans. The unbroken rise of Stalin’s prestige for twenty years both within the Soviet Union and beyond its borders is really worth attention by students of politics.
Yet most of the American press brags of its ignorance of Stalin by frequently alluding to the “enigmatic ruler in the Kremlin.” Cartoons and innuendo have been used to create the legend of a crafty, bloodthirsty dictator who even strives to involve the world in war and chaos so that something called “Bolshevism” may gain. This preposterous legend will shortly die. It was based on the fact that most American editors couldn’t really afford to understand the Soviet Union, and that Stalin himself was usually inaccessible to foreign journalists. Men who had hit the high spots around the world and chatted cozily with Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin D. Roosevelt and even Chiang Kai-shek were irritated when Josef Stalin wouldn’t give them time. The fact of the matter was that Stalin was busy with a job to which foreign contacts and publicity did not contribute. His job, like that of a Democratic National Chairman, was organizing the ruling party and through it the country.
Since the German-Soviet war began, Stalin has become chief of the army and government. He will see more foreigners now. He made a good beginning with Harry Hopkins and W. Averell Harriman. They seem to have been impressed! I know how they were impressed for I also met Stalin. In the light of the impressions that leading Americans and Britons are now going to have of him, the legend of the inscrutable dictator will die. We may even come to hear Stalin spoken of, as a Soviet writer once described him, as “the world’s great democrat”!
When I met Stalin, I did not find him enigmatic. I found him the easiest person to talk to I ever met. He is far and away the best committee chairman of my experience. He can bring everybody’s views out and combine them in the minimum of time. His method of running committees reminded me somewhat of Jane Addams of Hull House or Lillian D. Wald of Henry Street Settlement. They had the same kind of democratically efficient technique, but they used more high pressure than Stalin did.
If Stalin has been inaccessible to foreigners—there were exceptions even to this—that does not mean that he lived in isolation, in a sort of Kremlin ivory tower. There were close to 200,000,000 people keeping him busy. He was seeing a lot of them. Not always necessarily the party leaders. A milkmaid who had broken the milking record, a scientist who had broken the atom, an aviator who flew to America, a coal miner who invented a new labor process, a workman with a housing difficulty, an engineer balked by new conditions—any person representing either a signal achievement or a typical problem might be invited by Stalin to talk it over. That was the way he got his data and kept in touch with the movement of the country.
That, I realized afterwards, was why Stalin saw me. For nearly ten years I had liked his country and tried to succeed there, for nearly two I had organized and tried to edit a little weekly newspaper for other Americans who had come to work for the Five Year Plan. And what with censorship, red tape, and what seemed the wanton emergence of another competing weekly, I wanted to give up. My editor-in-chief was practically blackmailing me that, if I resigned, he would ruin my reputation. Exhausted and angry, I was feeling trapped. A Russian friend suggested that I complain to Stalin. I did. Three days later his office called me up and suggested that I come down and talk it over with “some responsible comrades.” It was done so casually that I almost refused, for the editor-in-chief had finally agreed to my resignation and I was “through with it all.” But I felt that after sending that letter it was only polite to go.
I expected to see some fairly high official at the party headquarters, and was rather stunned when the auto drove straight to the Kremlin and especially when I entered a large conference room and saw not only Stalin rising to greet me, but Kaganovich and Voroshilov too! It seemed overwhelmingly disproportionate. Later I realized that it was not my little problem that chiefly concerned them. I was one of several thousand Americans who had begun to worry them. We had come to the Soviet Union to work in its industries. We were reasonably honest and efficient, but we couldn’t make good. Stalin wanted to know what was the matter with us in our adjustment to Soviet industry. By investigating my troubles he would learn what made us Americans click, or more often not click, in the Soviet land. But if he learned about Americans from me, I learned from him something equally important—how the Soviet Union is put together and how Stalin works.
My first impression of him was vaguely disappointing. A stocky figure in a simple suit of khaki color, direct, unassuming, whose first concern was to know whether I understood Russian sufficiently to take part in discussion. Not very imposing for so great a man, I thought. Then we sat down rather casually, and Stalin was not even at the head of the table; Voroshilov was. Stalin took a place where he could see all our faces and started the talk by a pointed question to the man against whom I had complained. After that Stalin seemed to become a sort of background, against which other people’s comments went on. The brilliant wit of Kaganovich, the cheerful chuckle of Voroshilov, the characteristics of the lesser people called to consult, all suddenly stood out. I began to understand them all and like them; I even began to understand the editor against whom I had complained. Suddenly I myself was talking and getting my facts out faster and more clearly than I ever did in my life. People seemed to agree with me. Everything got to the point very fast and smoothly, with Stalin saying less than anyone.
Afterward in thinking it over I realized how Stalin’s genius for listening helped each of us express ourselves and understand the others. I recalled his trick of repeating a word of mine either with questioning intonation or a slight emphasis, which suddenly made me feel I had either not quite seen the point or perhaps had overstated it, and so drove me to make it plainer. I recalled how he had done this to others also. Then I understood that his listening has been a dynamic force.
This listening habit dates back to the early days of his revolutionary career. “I remember him very well from the early days of our Party,” said a veteran Bolshevik to me. “A quiet youth who sat at the edge of the committee, saying almost nothing, but listening very much. Toward the end he would make a few comments, sometimes merely as questions. Gradually we came to see that he always summed up best our joint thinking.” The description will be recognized by anyone who ever met Stalin. In any group he is usually last to express his opinion. He does not want to block the full expression of others, as he might easily do by speaking first. Besides this, he is always learning by listening.
“He listens even to the way the grass grows,” said a Soviet citizen to me.
On the data thus gathered, Stalin forms conclusions, not “alone in the night,” which Emil Ludwig said was Mussolini’s way, but in conference and discussion. Even in interviews, he seldom receives the interviewer alone; Molotov, Voroshilov, or Kaganovich are likely to be about. Probably he does not even grant an interview without discussing it first with his closest comrades. This is a habit he formed very early. In the days of the underground revolutionary movement, he grew accustomed to close teamwork with comrades who held each other’s lives in their hands. In order to survive, they must learn to agree quickly and unanimously, to feel each other’s instincts, to guess even at a distance each other’s brains. It was in such a group that he gained his Party name—it is not the one that he was born with—“the Steel One, Stalin.”
If I should explain Stalin to politicians, I should call him a superlatively good committeeman. Is this too prosaic a term for the leader of 200,000,000 people? I might call him instead a farseeing statesman; this also is true. Put more important than Stalin’s genius is the fact that it is expressed through good committee work. His talent for co-operative action is more significant for the world than the fact that he is great.
Soviet people have a way of putting it which sounds rather odd to Americans. “Stalin does not think individually,” they say. It is the exact opposite of the “rugged individualist” ideal. But they mean it as the very highest compliment. They mean that Stalin thinks not only with his own brain but in consultation with the brains of the Academy of Science, the chiefs of industry, the Congress of Trade Unions, the Party leaders. Scientists use this way of thinking; so do good trade unionists. They do not “think individually”; they do not rely on the conclusions of a single brain. It is a highly useful characteristic, for no single human brain today is big enough to decide the world’s complex problems. Only the combination of many brains thinking together, not in conflict but in co-operation, can safely handle the problems of today.
Stalin himself has said this a score of times to various interviewers. When Emil Ludwig and, later, Roy Howard sought to learn “how the great dictator made up his mind,” Stalin told them: “Single persons cannot decide. Experience has shown us that individual decisions, uncorrected by others, contain a large percentage of error.”
Soviet people never speak of “Stalin’s will” or “Stalin’s orders”; they speak of “government orders” and “the Party line,” which are decisions produced collectively. But they speak very much of “Stalin’s method” as a method that everyone should learn. It is the method of getting swift decisions out of the brains of many people, the method of good committee work. It is studied carefully in the Soviet Union by bright young men who go in for politics.
For me, the method was emphasized again in the days that immediately followed that first conference. It had seemed to me that Stalin, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, and everybody else had agreed on a certain action. Then the days went by and frothing happened, till the conference seemed almost a dream. I confided my worry to a Russian acquaintance. He laughed.
“That is our ‘terrible democracy,’” he told me. “Of course, your affair is really settled, but technically it must be approved by all the members of the Political Bureau, some of whom are in the Caucasus and some in Leningrad. It will go as routine with a lot of other decisions and none of them will bother about your question because they know nothing about it. But this is our usual safeguard for anyone of the members may wish to add or change something in some decision. That decision will then go back to committee till all are satisfied.”
Stalin brings certain important qualities to these joint decisions. People who meet him are first of all impressed by his directness and simplicity, his swift approach. Next they notice his clearness and objectivity in handling questions. He completely lacks Hitler’s emotional hysteria and Mussolini’s cocky self-assertion; he does not thrust himself into the picture. Gradually one becomes aware of his keen analysis, his colossal knowledge, his grip of world politics, his willingness to face facts, and especially his long view, which fits the problem into history, judging not only its immediate factors, but its past and future too.
Stalin’s rise to power came rather slowly. The rise of his type is slow and sure. It began far back with his study of human history and especially the history of revolutions. President Roosevelt commented to me with surprise on Stalin’s knowledge of the Cromwellian Revolution in Britain as shown in his talk with H. G. Wells. But Stalin quite naturally studied both the British and the American historical revolutions far more intimately than British and American politicians do. Tsarist Russia was due for a revolution. Stalin intended to be in it and help give it form. He made himself a thorough scientist on the process of history from the Marxian viewpoint: how the masses of people live, how their industrial technique and social forms develop, how social classes arise and struggle, how they succeed. Stalin analyzed and compared all past revolutions. He wrote many books about them. But he is not only a scientist; he also acts.
In the early days of the Revolution, Stalin’s name was hardly known outside the Party. In 1923, during Lenin’s last illness, I was told by men whose judgment I trusted that Stalin was “our coming man.” They based this on his keen knowledge of political forces and his close attention to political organization as secretary of the Communist Party. They also based it on his accurate timing of swift action and said that thus far in the Revolution he hid not once guessed wrong. They said that he was the man to whom “responsible Party men” turned for the clearest statement of what they all thought., In those days Trotsky sneered at Stalin as the “most average man” in the Party. In a sense it was true. Stalin keeps close to the “average man”; the “average man” is the material of politics. But Stalin does it with a genius that is very far from average.
“The art of leadership,” said Stalin once, “is a serious matter. One must not lag behind the movement, because to do so is to become isolated from the masses. But one must not rush ahead, for this is to lose contact with the masses.” He was telling his comrades how to become leaders; he was also expressing his own ideal, which he has very effectively practiced.
Twenty years ago in the Russian civil war, Stalin’s instinct for the feeling of the common people more than once helped the Soviet armies to victory. The best known of these moments was the dispute between Stalin and Trotsky about an advance through the North Caucasus. Trotsky wanted to take the shortest military route. Stalin pointed out that this shortcut lay across the unfriendly lands of the Cossacks and would in the end prove longer and bloodier. He chose a somewhat roundabout way through working-class cities and friendly farming regions, where the common people rose to help the Red Armies instead of opposing them. The contrast was typical; it has been illustrated since then by twenty years of history. Stalin is completely at home in the handling of social forces, as is shown by his call today for a “people’s war” in the rear of the German Armies. He knows how to arouse the terrible force of an angry people, how to organize it and release it to gain the people’s desires.
The outside world began to hear of Stalin in the discussions that preceded the first Five Year Plan. (I wrote an article some five years earlier, predicting his rise as Lenin’s successor, but the article went unnoticed; it was several years too soon.) Russian workers outside the Communist Party began to think of Stalin as their leader during the first spectacular expansion of Soviet industry. He first became a leader among the peasants in March, 1930, through his famous article, “Dizziness from Success,” in which he checked the abuses that were taking place in farm collectivization. I have described its effect on the rural districts in the preceding chapter. I remember Walter Duranty waving that article at me and saying, “At last there is a leader in this land!”
Stalin’s great moment when he first appeared as leader of the whole Soviet people was when, as Chairman of the Constitutional Commission, he presented the new Constitution of the Socialist State. A commission of thirty-one of the country’s ablest historians, economists, and political scientists had been instructed to create “the world’s most democratic constitution” with the most accurate machinery yet devised for obtaining “the will of the people.” They spent a year and a half in detailed study of every past constitution in the world, not only of governments but of trade unions and voluntary societies. The draft that they prepared was then discussed by the Soviet people for several months in more than half a million meetings attended by 36,500,000 people. The number of suggested amendments that reached the Constitutional Commission from the popular discussions was 154,000. Stalin himself is known to have read tens of thousands of the people’s letters.
Two thousand people sat in the great white hall of the Kremlin Palace when Stalin made his report to the Congress of Soviets. Below me, where I sat in the journalists’ box, was the main floor filled with the Congress deputies; around me in the loges sat the foreign diplomatic corps; behind me, in a deep gallery, were citizen-visitors. Outside the hall tens of millions of people listened over the radio, from the southern cotton fields of Central Asia to the scientific stations on the Arctic coast. It was a high point of Soviet history. But Stalin’s words were direct and simple and as informal as if he sat at a fireside talking with a few friends. He explained the significance of the Constitution, took up the suggested amendments, referred a large number of them to various lawmaking bodies and himself discussed the most important. He made it plain that everyone of those 154,000 suggestions had been classified somewhere and would influence something.
Among the dozen or more amendments which Stalin personally discussed, he approved of those that facilitated democratic expression and disapproved of those that limited democracy. Some people felt, for instance, that the different constituent republics should not be granted the right to secede from the Soviet Union; Stalin said that, while they probably would not want to secede, their right to do so should be constitutionally guaranteed as an assertion of democracy. A fairly large number of people wanted to refuse political rights to the priests lest they influence politics unduly. “The time has come to introduce universal suffrage without limitations,” said Stalin, arguing that the Soviet people were now mature enough to know their own minds.
More important for us today than constitutional forms, or even the question of how they work, was one very significant note in Stalin’s speech. He ended by a direct challenge to the growing Nazi threat in Europe. Speaking on November 25, 1936, before Hitlerism was seriously opposed by any European government, Stalin called the new Soviet Constitution “an indictment against Fascism, an indictment which says that Socialism and Democracy are invincible.”
In the years since the Constitutional Congress, Stalin’s own personality began to be more widely known. His picture and slogans became so prominent in the Soviet Union that foreigners found this “idolatry” forced and insincere. Most Soviet folk of my acquaintance really do feel tremendous devotion to Stalin as the man who has built their country and led it to success. I have even known people to make a temporary change of residence just before election day in order to have the chance to vote for Stalin directly in the district where he was running, instead of for the less exciting candidate from their own district.
No information about Stalin’s home life is ever printed in Soviet newspapers. By Russian tradition, everybody, even a political leader, is entitled to the privacy of his personal life. A very delicate line divides private life from public work. When Stalin’s wife died, the black-bordered death notices in the paper mentioned her by her own name, which was not Stalin’s, listed her work and connection with various public organizations, and the fact that she was “the friend and comrade of Stalin.” They did not mention that she was his wife. The fact that she worked with him and might influence his decisions as a comrade was a public matter; the fact that she was married to him was their own affair. Some time later, he was known to have married again, but the press never mentioned it.
Glimpses of Stalin’s personal relations come chiefly through his contacts with picturesque figures who have helped make Soviet history. Valery Chkalov, the brilliant aviator who made the first flight across the North Pole from Moscow to America, told of an afternoon that he spent at Stalin’s summer home from four o’clock till after midnight. Stalin sang many Volga songs, put on gramophone records for the younger people to dance, and generally behaved like a normal human being relaxing in the heart of his family. He said he had learned the songs in his Siberian exile when there wasn’t much to do but sing.
The three women aviators who broke all world records for women by their spectacular flight from Moscow to the Far East were later entertained at an evening party at the Kremlin in their honor. One of them, Raskova, related afterwards how Stalin had joked with them about the prehistoric days of the matriarchate when women ruled human society. He said that in the early days of human development women had created agriculture as a basis for society and progress, while men “only hunted and went to war.” After a reference to the long subsequent centuries of woman’s slavery, Stalin added, “Now these three women come to avenge the heavy centuries of woman’s suppression.”
The best tale, I think, is that about Marie Demchenko, because it shows Stalin’s idea of leaders and of how they are produced. Marie was a peasant woman who came to a farm congress in Moscow and made a personal pledge to Stalin, then sitting on the platform, that her brigade of women would produce twenty tons of beets per acre that year. It was a spectacular promise, since the average yield in the Ukraine was about five tons. Marie’s challenge started a competition among the Ukrainian sugar beet growers; it was featured by the Soviet press. The whole country followed with considerable excitement Marie’s fight against a pest of moths. The nation watched the local fire department bring twenty thousand pails of water to the field to beat the drought. They saw that gang of women weed the fields nine times and clear them eight times of insects. Marie finally got twenty-one tons per acre, while the best of her competitors got twenty-three.
That harvest was a national event. So Marie’s whole gang went to Moscow to visit Stalin at the autumn celebration. The newspapers treated them like movie stars and featured their conversation. Stalin asked Marie what she most wanted as a reward for her own good record and for stirring up all the other sugar beet growers. Marie replied that she had wanted most of all to come to Moscow and see “the leaders.”
“But now you yourselves are leaders,” said Stalin to Marie.
“Well, yes,” said Marie, “but we wanted to see you anyway.” Her final request, which was granted, was to study in an agricultural university.
When the German war was launched against the Soviet Union, many foreigners were surprised that Stalin did not make a speech to arouse the people at once. Some of our more sensational papers assumed that Stalin had fled! Soviet people knew that Stalin trusted them to do their jobs and that he would sum the situation up for them as soon as it crystallized. He did it at dawn on July 3 in a radio talk. The words with which he began were very significant.
“Comrades! Citizens!” he said, as he has said often. Then he added, “Brothers and Sisters!” It was the first time Stalin ever used in public those close family words. To everyone who heard them, those words meant that the situation was very serious, that they must now face the ultimate test together and that they must all be closer and dearer to each other than they had ever been before. It meant that Stalin wanted to put a supporting arm across their shoulders, giving them strength for the task they had to do. This task was nothing less than to accept in their own bodies the shock of the most hellish assault of history, to withstand it, to break it, and by breaking it save the world. They knew they had to do it, and Stalin knew they would.
Stalin made perfectly plain that the danger was grave, that the German armies had taken most of the Baltic states, that the struggle would be very costly, and that the issues were between “freedom or slavery, life or death to the Soviet State.” He told them: “The enemy is cruel and implacable. He is out to seize our lands, watered with our sweat . . . to convert our peoples into the slaves of German princes and barons.” He called upon the “daring initiative and intelligence that are inherent in our people,” which he himself for more than twenty years had helped to create. He outlined in some detail the bitter path they should follow, each in his own region, and said that they would find allies among the freedom-loving peoples of the world. Then he summoned them “forward—to victory.”
Erskine Caldwell, reporting that dawn from Moscow, said that tremendous crowds stood in the city squares listening to the loud speakers, “holding their breath in such profound silence that one could hear every inflection of Stalin’s voice.” Twice during the speech, even the sound of water being poured into a glass could be heard as Stalin stopped to drink. For several minutes after Stalin had finished the silence continued. Then a motherly-looking woman said, “He works so hard, I wonder when he finds time to sleep. I am worried about his health.”
That was the way that Stalin took the Soviet people into the test of war.
Courtsey: Proletarian Alternative
In this article late communist thinker comrade Moni Guha, exposes the revisionist ploy of denigrating Stalin so that the renegade from Marxism like Titos and Khruschevs could tighten their regime at the cost of socialism and revolution.
An extremely important document and equally important analysis.
Chapter – 1
Immediately after the 19th Congress of the communist party of the Soviet Union, held in November 1952, only a few months before his death, Stalin was given final touch to the implementation of the Congress decisions. Leningrad organization headed by Khrushchev was severely criticized in Molotov’s political report for “wrong consumer approach to collective farm development” and “attention to economic affairs only, neglecting ideological matters”. The 19th Congress detected a number of ‘shortcomings’, ‘errors’ and ‘inadmissible and moribund features’ in the internal life of many organizations of the CPSU. ‘Evasion and suppression of criticism from below’, ‘pernicious and profoundly anti-party attitude to criticism by subordinates’, ‘concealment by some leading workers of the true state of the affairs in the plants and institutions in their charge’, ‘close coteries who constituted themselves into a sort of mutual insurance society’, ‘bureaucratic degeneration’, ‘filching of collective farm property by some party, Soviet and agriculture officers’ were pin pointed in Molotov’s political report. Marshal Zukhov and Kosygin had already been demoted. Verga’s and Vozenesesky’s ‘theories’ of ‘non-inevitability of war’, ’emergence and development of new elements of socialism in post war capitalist economy’, “peaceful and gradual development of socialism in capitalist countries’ and possibility of development of non-antagonistic relations between the socialist and capitalist countries and stable and permanent peaceful co-existence of the two systems” etc. were already demolished through long debates and polemics organised under the leadership of Stalin and Vozenesesky was taken to task and Varga admitted his “revisionist mistakes”. Malenkov’s political report gave a clarion call to “wage a determined struggle against private property mentality and morality, against ideological corruption of unstable elements and the task of reforming the Central Committee brining into leadership of a large number of new – people was just taken up by Stalin.Economic problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R already demolished the theory of “Market Socialism” and policies of capitulation and restoration of capitalism. A new programme of the CPSU for building communism was under preparation.
Together with all these, in January, 1953, less than two months before Stalin’s death, it was also announced by the Security department that an investigation was proceeding into conspiracy among opposition elements. These elements, it was further said , were linked with British and American intelligence and some arrests had already been made. The investigation had been initiated directly from Stalin’s secretariat. It was also announced that the investigation had arrived at a conclusion that the opposition elements had been responsible for Zdhanov’s death in 1948.
In this connection we would request the reader to direct back their attention to a news item published in the New York Times in December 1948 which said that some leading members of the Soviet Union were interested to end the war of nerves (Cold War) between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. , in opposition to Stalin’s policy of continuing the cold war.
However, who was Zdhanov ? Zdhanov had been the best Marxist theoretician in the Soviet Union after Stalin. In the post war years, he, together with Stalin was engaged in cleansing the Augean stables of the Soviet Union. During the war years entire efforts and energies were concentrated for wining the war and patriotism was the central slogan. As a result much deviations from proletarian ideology was rampant. Zdhanov , together with Stalin , played a leading role to correct these deviations in almost all walks of Soviet life. Zdhanov also had led the Soviet delegation to the inaugural meeting of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) . Naturally he became the target for the opposition elements, to say nothing of the imperialists.
You can well imagine the condition. As soon as the January, 1953 announcement and the news of arrest of some persons were made the situation was then at the sharpest point. Malenkov’s political report, Zukhov’s and Kosygin’s demotion, Stalin’s Economic problems, proposal for the reform of the Central Committee and last Stalins probing into opposition conspiracy. Either swift and resolute action to prevent the revelation of the opposition intrigue to the full extent or the inevitable dreadful consequences. The opposition elements thought correctly that the probe was obviously coming to close with which their fate is indissolubly connected.
A hectic preparation to remove Stalin was now on the immediate agenda of the opposition elements. Two weeks before Stalin’s death , the news of sudden death of General Kosynkin appeared in Izvestia of February 17, 1953. General Kosynkin was the chief of the department for the security of the Administration of Kremlin and was personally responsible for security of Stalin. On February 28, 1953, four days before the death of Stalin , the personal bodyguard of Stalin was found nowhere. His whereabouts or fate still remains unknown ! If the death of Stalin was unexplained and from natural cause , certainly the prior deaths, in this situation, of the Kremlin security Chief, General Kosynkin and the sudden vanishing of Stalin’s body guard were clearly remarkable coincidences !
It was on the night of March 3, 1953. It was Wednesday. Moscow radio announced that Stalin had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage on the previous Sunday , that is on March 1, 1953. It remains still unexplained why the announcement was made after long three days.
Stalin dies on 5th March , 1953.
Undoubtedly, the announcement of the trial of opposition elements hastened Stalin’s death and it was the immediate cause of his death.
It may be noted that all the accused of the “Doctor’s plot” were released on March 6, 1953 with an announcement that the arrests were made due to some misinformation and misunderstanding !
Though detailed medical bulletins were issued, until the announcement of Stalin’s death, there was no report on the cause of his death except the first brief announcement of brain haemorrhage. It is noteworthy to point out that in the very first medical bulletin, the Soviet leaders hastened to emphasis that even in the event of Stalin’s recovery, he would not be able to return to his “leading responsibilities”. It was not ‘normal activities’ but “leading responsibilities”. Obviously, it was of highest importance to them.
At the present point in history, no one as yet, except those directly concerned, can know the exact cause of Stalin’s death. There has been no investigation as yet into the cause of Stalin’s death and no official report on the subject, in spite of the fact that doubtful reports about the cause of his death “leaked” from time to time. Among all those “leakages”, we may mention one. After the 20th Congress of CPSU, Tito, the blood brother of Khrushchev , visited the Soviet Union. After his return from conclusion with the Soviet leaders Tito was reported to have told a senior official of a NATO Country that from his visit to the Soviet Union he had formed the opinion that Stalin was murdered by Soviet Party leadership. This statement of Tito was published in the British press, for example, in Daily Telegraph in July 1956 under the heading “Tito Says Stalin Was Murdered”. In spite of this public statement, the rank and file of the world communist movement, being so lulled by their respective leaderships into illusions of class peace during those three years, had so lost their revolutionary vigilance that this public statement could pass without any out cries in the parties, without any demand for independent investigation as to the cause of Stalin’s death, without any public party comment !
Of course, the statement of Tito a renegade from Marxism, in all probability was made on behalf of Khrushchev another renegade from Marxism as part of ‘leaking’ of information to gauge the reaction of the world communists. Khrushchev became doubly sure that he had won the hearts (if there was any) of the renegades.
Let alone an investigation into cause of Stalin’s death, a decision was pushed through the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, that Stalin’s body be removed from the Lenin Mausoleum to a Kremlin grave. Do you think that this was an act of mere revenge, or of political sadism on the part of Khrushchev or merely the culminating point in a campaign of Stalin’s denigration? If you think in this over-simplistic way, you are gravely mistaken, dear comrades. Recall the event that happened in that Congress. Chou -En – Lai brought to Moscow a wreath for Stalin with an inscription in large golden letters “A GREAT MARXIST – LENINIST”. A powerful speech was delivered by him, in defense of Albania which Khrushchev angrily told the delegates not to applaud when the delegates were already applauding it. Albania had already withdrawn its public support to the Soviet revisionist policies and had launched polemics undermining the revisionist position in the international communist movement. Now Khrushchev had to face the withdrawal of public support from the powerful and most respected Communist Party of China. That was a new and unpleasant prospect for Khrushchev. It is clear that the decision of removing Stalin’s body was an urgent practical necessity for the leading Soviet revisionists and there were rumors that Stalin’s body was reduced to ashes before burial. In advance of any “unfavourable” turn of events Khrushchev wished to prevent any later independent investigation into the cause of Stalin’s death.
Whatever conclusion we reach on the available evidence does not invalidate the undeniable existence of two opposing groups in the Soviet leadership and the equally undeniable conflict between their policies and their basic ideology. That was the basic cause of Stalin’s mysterious death and that was the class struggle on international scale.
What , then, was this conflict ?
Chapter – 2
The victory of the Soviet Union and freedom-loving nations in the Second World War radically changed the entire international situation. Above all, it changed the relation of the forces between two social systems – socialism and capitalism – in favour of socialism. Immediately before the Second World War the situation – so far the alignment of the class forces was concerned internationally – was most unfavourable to the world communist movement. Accordingly the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International took a correct defensive path, a path of conscious and organised retreat with a view to retrieve the position in favour of the world proletariat. The victory of the Soviet Union, the emergence of people’s democracies, the upsurge of National Liberation struggle in the oppressed countries and the upsurge of the democratic movement in the capitalist countries changed the international situation in favour of the world proletariat and socialism.
This was a situation which the imperialists did not want. The ruling circle of the United States and Great Britain expected that as a result of the exhausting war, the Soviet Union would be bled-white and enfeebled, would cease to be a great power and would become dependent upon the United States and Great Britain. The hopes of the imperialists proved to be illusory and groundless.
Though, during the war of Soviet Union and the allied countries acted together, in spite of the difference about the war aims, the difference between the two conceptions of the object of war and of the post-war world became exceptionally glaring when the war came to an end. The U.S.S.R., the peoples’ Democracies and other democratic countries launched a determined struggle to liquidate remnants of fascism and to strengthen the democratic order. The ruling circle of the United States and Great Britain, however, began to protect the remnants of fascism to strangle the forces of democracy and national liberation and to prepare for a new war with the object of establishing their own domination of the world. Thus two lines on question of post-war policy became revealed and this led to the formation of two camps – the imperialist camp – and the democratic camp.
Already concerned with the visible world development from capitalism to socialism and developing opposition to imperialism, the imperialist thought that their possession of nuclear weapons, especially in the period of their temporary monopoly and the unprecedented military force would enable them to arrest and if possible reverse the wheel of history. In other words, the imperialists were using all their class power and energy in an attempt to maintain imperialist status quo. That was the role of nuclear weapons for the imperialists. Molotov said , “As we know , a sort of new religion has become widespread among expansionist circles in the U.S.A.; having no faith in their own internal forces they put their faith in the secret of atom bomb although this secret has long ceased to be a secret.”( Speech at the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution , 6th November, 1947: Speeches – Molotov , vol. II , F.L.P.H. Moscow, 1949 )
The attitude towards the nuclear weapons become the central issue in the determination of foreign and home policy of the Soviet Union in the leadership of the CPSU.
Despite the temporary imperialist nuclear monopoly, Stalin continued to carry forward a consistent proletarian internationalist foreign policy without any concession or ideological retreat, knowing that the answer to the perennial imperialist threat lay in unwavering opposition to imperialism and mobilization of socialist camp and all anti-imperialist forces. The launching of international peace offensive in Stalin’s days had the aim of carrying this policy forward on a board front, again, as principled and practical answer to imperialist pressure.
The opposition elements, the revisionist section of the leadership of the Soviet party believed that Stalin’s through-going opposition to imperialism, specially in the “nuclear age” was becoming highly dangerous to Soviet national interest. They believed that the Soviet Union must at all cost buy off the threat of nuclear destruction by concessions to imperialism – easing the tension between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. The threat of nuclear weapons gave rise to fear in a section of the communists of the world including a section of the Soviet leadership and this was the international basis of modern revisionism. For the revisionists nuclear weapons are a force in themselves, outside objective social laws, the threatened use of which can act as some kind of the catalyst in international politics to compel the basic social forces to forego the historically necessary world mission of emancipating the people as well as themselves! So, to them Marxism became outdated in the ‘nuclear age’ and that required thorough revision. The essence of Khrushchev’s position in this respect was long ago publicly recognized by a leading capitalist politician, Harold Macmillan , who described Khrushchev approvingly as the “first Soviet statesman to recognize that Karl Marx was a pre-atomic man.” This deflection from dialectical and historical materialism promoted fear in them and the fear led them to opportunism, capitulation and bourgeois nationalism. Thus the revisionist section of the leadership of the Soviet party demanded a line of “least resistance” and “smooth-sailing” – to which Stalin did not pay any heed.
It may be noted in this connection that this line of “least resistance” and “smooth sailing” was persisting in the Soviet party since its very birth in a section of diplomats of foreign commissariat (Ministry), but could not come as a party line due to Stalin’s unflinching Marxist leadership for more than 25 years, from Lenin’s death to the victory over fascism. Stalin had personified the firm Soviet opposition to the class enemies of socialism with marked clarity and theoretical foresight.
Let us recapitulate the past to understand the position of Stalin vis–vis the revisionists. In 1925, in a talk to the students of Sverdlov University Stalin analysed the opposition of certain Soviet diplomats to proletarian internationalist foreign policy:
“Support the liberation movement in China? But why? Wouldn’t that be dangerous? Wouldn’t it bring us into conflict with other countries? Wouldn’t it be better if we established “spheres of influence” in China in conjunction with other “advanced” powers and snatched something from China for our own benefit? That would be both useful and safe
“Such is the now new type of nationalist “frame of mind” which is trying to liquidate the foreign policy of the October Revolution and is cultivating the elements of degeneration.”
Stalin said further, “That is a path of nationalism and degeneration, the path of complete liquidation of the proletariat’s international policy, for people afflicted with this disease regard our country not as a part of the whole that is called the world revolutionary movement, but as the beginning and the end of the movement believing that the interests of all other countries be sacrificed to the interests of our country(Stalin : Works, vol. VII, F.L.P.H. Moscow , 1954, Proletarian Path. 69 and 70, emphasis added)”
In a later work Stalin contrasted opposite lines of foreign policy for the Soviet Union. Stalin said: “either we continue to pursue a revolutionary policy rallying the proletarians and oppressed of all countries around the working class of the U.S.S.R. Or we renounce our revolutionary policy and agree to make a number of fundamental concessions to international capital”
“Britain for instance, demands that we join her in establishing predatory spheres of influence somewhere or other in Persia, Afghanistan or Turkey, say, and assures us that if we made this concession, she would be prepared to establish “friendship” with us
“America demands that we renounce in principle the policy of supporting the emancipation movement of the working class in other countries and says that if we made this concession everything would go smoothly
“… We cannot agree to these or similar concessions without being false to ourselves…”(Stalin – works, vol. XI; pp.58-60)
It is clear that both in this and above example , Stalin is not arguing in the abstract but resisting a tendency in a Soviet leadership. It appears rather as if Stalin was arguing with the Khrushchevite revisionists.
During the Spanish Civil War in 1936-37, a section of the foreign Ministry of the Soviet Union wanted to follow the same line of “least resistance” and the line of nationalism giving concession to imperialism. Litvinoff wanted to accept the British plan but Stalin stuck to his guns and the Soviet Union refused to grant Franco international status as a combatant as per with the international Brigade insisting that it had every right in the world of continue aiding the duly elected Republican Government, which it did until the bitter end. The controversy in the Soviet leadership “leaked” and the New York Times of October 29, 1937 described how the “unyielding Stalin ” representing “Russian stubbornness” refuse to go along. It wrote, “A struggle has been going on all this week between Joseph Stalin and foreign minister Maxim Litvinoff.”
Stalin said, ” the danger of nationalism, must regarded as springing from the growth of bourgeois influence on the party, in the sphere of the foreign policy, in the sphere of struggle that the capitalist states are waging against the state of the proletarian dictatorship. There can scarcely be any doubt that the pressure of the capitalist states on our state is enormous, that the people who are handling our foreign policy do not always succeed in resisting this pressure, that the danger of complications often gives rise to temptation to take the path of least resistance, the path of nationalism.
“On the other hand it is obvious that the first country to be victorious can retain the role of standard bearer of the world revolutionary movement only on the basis of consistent internationalism, only on the basis of foreign policy of October Revolution, and that the path of least resistance and of nationalism in foreign policy is the path of the isolation and the decay of the first country to be victorious.”( Stalin – Works, pg. 170-71)
In connection with the role of standard bearer of the world revolutionary movement of the first victorious country following is the attitude and stand of the modern revisionist. In a speech to the delegates from the fraternal “socialist” countries on February, 1960, Khrushchev declared : “What does ‘at the head’ gives us? It gives us neither milk, nor butter, neither potatoes nor vegetables, nor flats. Perhaps it gives us something morally? Nothing at all.” Again in a speech to the fraternal delegates on June 24, 1960 he declared : “What is the use of ‘at the head’ for us? To hell with it.” Khrushchev treated the role of standard bearer as cash-crop.
The starting point of the argument of the modern revisionist section of the CPSU leadership was that the existence of the nuclear weapons cancels out Marxism and makes any principled policy “out of date”. They basically retreated from Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and departed from the Leninist position that imperialism was the source of war. Instead they argued that the source of war was the conflict between the two camps of imperialism and socialism. Reducing this theory further they said that the conflict between the Soviet Union and Anglo-U.S. imperialisms was the direct source of conflict and war and the Soviet Union’s all sorts of support to the liberation war, especially of Korea and Vietnam was the source of intensification of the world tension. Hence they demanded the betrayal of the cause of the Korean and Indo-Chinese people for the relaxation of the international tension. They demanded to change the thorough-going opposition to imperialism for the replacement of this policy with a policy of ‘deal’ with imperialism sitting around the table.
From this basis perspective of deal with imperialism stemmed all other revisionist policy. The revisionist section of the leadership of the CPSU opposed all the formulation of Stalin contained in his Economic Problems of Socialism In The U.S.S.R. We have seen how the revisionists opposed the Leninist theory that imperialism is the source of war. They also opposed Stalin’s formulation of two parallel world markets – socialist and capitalist which we will discuss now, as this is one of the cardinal question of building socialism in the period when socialism is one country was replaced by socialism in many countries and orthodox colonialism was replaced by neo-colonialism.
Two Parallel World Market : Stalin said, “The disintegration of the single, all-embracing world market must be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World War . The economic consequence of the existence of the two opposite camps was that the single all-embracing world market disintegrated, so that now we have to parallel world markets also confronting one another.
” It follows from this that the sphere of exploitation of the world’s resources by the major capitalist countries will not expand but contract; that their opportunities for sale in the world market will deteriorate and their industries will be operating more and more below capacity. That .. is what is meant by the depending of the general crisis of the world capitalist system in connection with the disintegration of the world market.”( Stalin : Economic Problems of Socialism In The U.S.S.R.)
We are told by the revisionists that it is another of “Stalin’s error”. They refute Stalin by saying :
“In no way whatever does the socialist international division of labour imply autarchy [Economic self-sufficiency – Moni.Guha] on the side of socialist camp. it follows from the Leninist principle of peaceful co-existence that the socialist and capitalist economic system together form the world economy. And this entirely forms the economic base for the peaceful co-existence of two world systems. The more developed the socialist division of labour, the greater the opportunities for exchange between two systems.
“The fact that world prices are used as the first basis for price formation on the socialist world market indicates that the socialist and capitalist markets are part of a single world market. ” (World Marxist Review: “The International Division of Labour” – December, 1958. )
We will briefly discuss this question here.
It has always been held by Marxist – beginning from Marx down to Stalin – that socialism would abolish the division of labour. Marx said, with the division of labour in which all these contradictions are implicit – is given simultaneously the distribution and indeed unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labour and its products, hence property the division of labour implies the possibility, nay the fact, that intellectual and material activity – enjoyment and labour, production and consumption – devolve on different individuals, and that the ONLY POSSIBILITY OF THEIR NOT COMING INTO CONTRADICTION LIES IN THE negation IN ITS TURN of the division of labour.”( K. Marx : “Germaldeology” F.L.P.H., Moscow 1949 pg. 44; Emphasis in italics are original while the emphasizes in capital letters and bolds of the last sentence supplied.)
While Marx said that in order to end the contradictions inherent in the division of labour it was necessary to negate the division of labour itself, the revisionist say “more developed the socialist division of labour, the greater the opportunities for exchange between the two system”! Not only that. The revisionist “theory” further says that the “socialist international division of labour” “frees the division of labour from the antagonistic form”! ( World Marxist Review – “International division of labour”, December 1958) Why, then, you are not bold enough, my dear revisionists, to say that Marx was wrong, he could not understand that the socialist international division of labour frees the division of labour from all antagonism? Why, then don’t you say that it was wrong for Marx to conclude that the negation of division of labour can only resolve the contradiction inherent in it? Here you see, the revisionists are not prepared to create a material basis for the abolition of division of labour, on the contrary, they are interested in creating a material basis for the emancipation of the division of labour from its antagonistic form through greater development of international division of labour with a view to “facilitate greater exchange between the two system”. And it is called by them socialism!
Indeed “Stalin’s error” on this point dates back to Marx.
The revisionists prove their “single world market” theory by saying that since the “world prices are used as the first basis for price formation on the socialist world market price” the socialist world market must be “a part of a single world market”. But who said that the world prices would be used as the first basis for the price formation of the socialist world market? There cannot be any basis for socialist competition if the imperialist world prices are used as the first basis for the price formation of the socialist world market. It is a capitalist competition not socialist competition if the socialist countries trade in international arena on the basis of the imperialist world prices as all the vices inherent in the imperialist world prices will gobble up “socialism.” In speaking of two parallel world markets – capitalist and socialist – Stalin did neither mean nor say that the socialist world market will use imperialist world price as its first basis for its price formation.
After all what are the world prices?
According to the Marxist economics world prices pattern put only developed country in a position of exploiting less developed ones. The totally of exchange relations between a developed country, which exchanges manufactured goods and underdeveloped country which exchanges primary products has been organised by the imperialists in such a way as to work systematically to the disadvantage of the undeveloped country and to the advantage of the developed country. The difference in level of productivity between two types of countries – less productive and less skilled on the part of undeveloped country and more skilled and more productive on the part of developed country is a fact. As a result more labour of undeveloped country is exchanged with less labour of the developed country. This is what is called “unequal exchange”. It is unequal exchange between the developed and underdeveloped country by which the capitalist class (and the “socialist” of single world market) of the developed country gains at expense of the people of undeveloped territory, even if it is sold cheaper by one of the developed countries than other developed countries. It is capitalist competition.
Marx drew the attention to such unequal exchange:
“Capital invested to foreign trade are in a position to yield a higher rate of profit , because , in the first place, they come in competition with commodities produced in other countries with lesser facilities of production, , so that an advanced country is enabled to sell its goods above their value even when it sells cheaper than the competing countries.”(K. Marx, Capital, vol.3; emphasis added)
The Soviet Union, rejecting and repudiating Stalin’s theory of two parallel world markets and following the revisionist “theory” of single world market and “international division of labour” based on imperialist world prices as the first basis for the price formation is gaining at the expense of Comecon countries and the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America capitalistically competing with the imperialist competitors. The “higher rate of profit” which they earn are invested as capital in the Soviet Union and hence the Soviet Union is no longer a socialist country.
Che Guevara, then the Finance Minister of “socialist” Cuba strongly criticized the practice of world market prices and argued, ” How can it be ‘mutually advantageous’ to sell at world market prices the primary materials which cost the under-developed countries boundless sweat and suffering and to buy the world market prices the machines produced in the great automatized factories of the present day?” He further said, “If we establish this sort of relation between two groups of nations, it must be admitted that the socialist countries are, in a certain way, accomplices of imperialist exploitation. The socialist countries have the moral duty to liquidate their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the west.”( Che Guevara : Speech at the “”2nd Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity” on 24th February ,1965)
China, Rumania, Hungary and the other “socialist” countries said almost the same thing like Che Guevara. They felt the sting of Soviet Union’s exploitation, but failed to go beyond bourgeois nationalist protest. None of them demanded a parallel world socialist market based on socialist pricing system. On the contrary, these countries also trade on the basis of imperialist world prices. India, U.A.R. and other countries also protested against the unequal exchange of the “socialist ” Soviet Union. They do not find any fundamental or radical difference between the capitalist competition and “socialist” competition.
Stalin envisaged a parallel socialist world market on the basis of a socialist theory of international trade based on un-exploitative socialist pricing policy which would socialistically compete with the ever shrinking capitalist world market and thus would draw the undeveloped countries towards socialist camp, which would in turn intensify the general crisis of capitalism more and more.
The single world market theory based on imperialist world prices and capitalist nature of competition in the world market by the revisionists has brought the “socialist” countries in the orbit of the capitalist crisis. The Economist of London in its January, 1976 issue writes: “western inflation is pushing up the price of Comecon’s imports while western recession is making it increasingly difficult for Comecon members to maintain, let alone expand.” It is not only the London Economist but Soviet prime minister also had to admit this fact. In his speech to the 29th Comecon Council meeting, in June 1975, he openly admitted that the inflation in the west has certain effect on the Soviet bloc.
The tremendous and increasing indebtedness of the Comecon countries, including the U.S.S.R. to west European, Japanese and U.S. banking interest is noteworthy. The U.S. imperialism is gaining an ever greater economic and political foothold in the Comecon countries at the expense of peaceful co-existence on the basis of peaceful competition in capitalist way in a single world market. We are neither opposed to peaceful co-existence nor to peaceful competition with capitalism, but we like to follow that line on the basis of socialist pricing system of the parallel world socialist market competing capitalismSocialistically. Herein lies the fundamental ideological and political difference between Marxism and revisionism.
The revisionist section of the leadership of the CPSU did not find any other suitable alternative to save the situation in their favour but Stalin’s death and that was why Stalin “died”.
Chapter – 3
To understand clearly what happened after the death of Stalin, it is necessary to know the situation when Stalin died.
Stalin died in March 1953. He died at a time when the relative stability of capitalist markets had become a thing of the past and the ‘disintegration of the single all-embracing world market’ had already set in and two parallel world markets – the socialist and capitalist – confronting one another, contracting the capitalist world market more and more further deepening the general crisis of capitalism – was in the process of offing.
Stalin died at a time when the “theories expounded by Lenin in the spring of 1916, namely that in spite of the decay of capitalism “on the whole capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before” had lost its validity”(Stalin : Economic Problems of socialism in the U.S.S.R.), at a time when, capitalism had even lost its tendency to relative growth in the framework of all-round absolute decay.
Stalin died at a time when, the development of social contradiction had been moving the world proletariat towards revolution and the imperialist towards a new war; at a time when, the fight for peace ‘the peace offensive’ had become the fight against the social forces that were conspiring a war; at a time when, the whole world had become a single field of social battle in which the forces of socialism and national liberation on the one hand and the forces of capitalism and national reaction on the other, confronted one another eye ball to eye ball as two organised forces, the former headed by STALIN, socialist camp and the Cominform and the latter by Anglo-American imperialisms together with modern revisionism; at a time when, every local crisis had assumed a world-wide importance.
Stalin died at a time when, the national liberation struggle of the oppressed people had become not only objectively, but also subjectively, the part and parcels of the world proletarian socialist revolution on the one hand and at a time when, the imperialist vultures, through neo-colonial policy had been buying off, in addition to the feudal class, national reformists and had been engineering a policy of localized civil warin an attempt at crushing the national liberation struggle one by one on the other; at the time when, the unified and joint intervention by the world socialist forces and the forces of national liberation struggle had been foiling the conspiracy of localized civil war by imperialism as in Korea.
Stalin died at a time when, the development of socialism in the Soviet Union had reached crucial turning point demanding transformation of the collective farmers into the property of the whole people – replacing group ownership – by an “all-embracing production sector” and ‘products-exchange’ thus doing away with the commodity-money relations and market economy, opening the floodgates of the second, higher phase of socialism, viz., communism.
Stalin died at the time when the ‘theories’ of peaceful growing of socialism, ‘structural reform of capitalism’ form within the framework of Yalta and UNO on the one hand and ‘sudden nuclear attack as the decisive factor in the out come of war’ and ‘peace at any price’ on the other giving right to opportunism had been rising their ugly heads in the international communist movement, in the Soviet Union and countries of People’s Democracies; at a time when Stalin had already launched a bitter ideological as well as political struggle against the liquidationism of Verga, Vozenesesky, Browder and Tito.
Stalin died at a time when the deviations and errors of the wartime had already been detected and pin-pointed and the investigation of the crimes of the opposition elements had been undertaken; at a time when the reforms of the Central Committee, purging out the weak-nerved and wavering elements had been undertaken.
In fine, Stalin died at a time when, on the one hand, under his far-sighted leadership the world imperialist system had been brought to the brink of precipice ushering the world system of socialism – replacing socialism in one country, at a time when the material basis of exerting a decisive influence on world politics as a whole by the international dictatorship of the proletariat exercised through the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) had already emerged and on the other hand, when Anglo-American imperialisms, in league with the modern revisionists had already infiltrated deeply into the international communist movement; at a time, when the world proletariat had stood against the world bourgeoisie as class against class and eye to eye.
Stalin died at such a crucial point of history when the brightest unique prospect and greatest black danger – a prospect of revolution and the danger of counter-revolution – at the highest of the greatest class battle of history-confronted each other. It demanded a dynamic subjective leadership at least equal to Stalin.
Frederic Engles wrote to F. Sorge, just immediately after the death of Karl Marx ” mankind is shorter by a head and the greatest head of our time at that. The proletarian movement goes on, but gone its central figure to which Frenchmen, Russian, Americans and Germans spontaneously turned at critical moments to receive always that clear, incontestable counsel which only genius and perfect understanding of the situation can give. Local and lesser minds, if not humbugs will now have free hands. The final victory is certain, but circuitous path, temporary and local errors, things even now are so unavoidable,will become more common than ever. Well , we must see it through. What else are we here for?”(Marx Engles Correspondance : National Book Agency , 1946, Emphasis supplied)
It was more true after the death of Stalin. After his death we have not only “local and lesser minds” but also “humbugs”. The darkest period in the international communist movement descended after the death of Stalin.
What happened after the death of Stalin?
Stalin died in March 1953, and abruptly the high tide of revolution so far the subjective role of the leadership was concern reversed. In July, 1953, within less than four months of Stalin’s death, the leaders of the Soviet Union and China capitulated to U.S. imperialism and forced the Korean people to accept division of their nation and a permanent occupation of the southern half by U.S. forces. It was declared that the era of the cold war between socialism and capitalism was ended replacing it by an era of mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence between capitalism and socialism based on ‘relaxation of international tension’ as it the struggle for socialism and national liberation were the sources responsible for the intensification of international tension and war conspiracy ! The struggle against the threat and danger of the third world war was arbitrarily separated from the struggle against imperialism implying that classes and nations oppressed by imperialism should abandon revolutionary struggles in the interest of “preserving peace”. The problem of peace was isolated from the problem of human emancipation, from all kinds of exploitation, placing “peace” in abstract way. It meant the repudiation and rejection of the thorough-going struggle against the social forces that conspire and make war, it meant the repudiation and rejection of the differentiation between Revolutionary war and the war of aggression, it meant the repudiation and rejection of Marxism and class struggle. (See explanatory Note.)1
Stalin died in March 1953 and by July of that year the socialized means of production of agriculture sector of Soviet Union – the Machine Tractor Stations (MTS) were desocialized and were sold to those collective farms which were financially capable of outright purchasing it, thus laying the foundation of differentiation and inequality among the collective farm peasantry and making a tiny section of the peasants group owners of one of the most vital economic sectors, of the means of production doing away with the very economic basis of socialism in agriculture thus laying the foundation of the restoration of capitalism. Collective farms were allowed to sell their kitchen garden products together with their hens, pigs, milk, butter, eggs and meat in the ‘free market’ as commodity, thus extending the scope and range of the operation of the law of value , commodity – money relations and market economy intensifying the instincts and morality of the private property thus opening widely the gates for capitalism to enter into, guaranteeing the consumer approach to collective farm production for which Khrushchev was criticized at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in November, 1952. (See explanatory Note.)2
Stalin died in March 1953 and in September of that year Soviet Red Army General Talensky rejecting Stalin’s formula of “permanently operating factors” in war (See explanatory Note.)3 introduced the ‘theory’ that in the ‘nuclear age’ atom bomb can determine the fact and outcome of war at the very first phase of war by attacking suddenly(See explanatory Note.)4, once more providing Stalin’s prophetic words that “Atom bombs are intended for intimidating the weak nerved(See explanatory Note.)5“.
Stalin died in March 1953, and in November of that year – the World Peace Council – a creation of Stalin – planned for a world conference for the “relaxation of international tension” renouncing the struggle for peace against the source of war and the conspirators of war, under the cloak of “saving the world from the war”, forgetting that appeasement of imperialist aggression and aggressive designs cannot preserve peace, on the contrary, makes the war inevitable.
Stalin died in March 1953 and in 1954 when Dulles – the U.S. state secretary – threatened mass retaliation with atom bomb should the Vietnamese proceed further beyond Dien-bein Phu and the Chinese overtly intervene in Indo-China, the Soviet Union and China, in the name of ‘preserving peace’ ‘preventing another world war’ forced the Vietnamese army and the indo-Chinese people to end the war of liberation short of gaining complete independence. The Geneva capitulation(See explanatory Note.)6 was the continuation of the Korean capitulation translating the ‘peace at any price’ into reality in the name of averting atomic disaster.
In the same year, 1954, Afro-Asian Bandung conference was held under the joint leadership of Pandit Nehru and Chou-En-Lai virtually denouncing the two world theory of Lenin and Stalin, with a view to create a ‘Third Neutral Force’ comprising of the ruling classes of the colonial type countries – who would be neither in the socialist camp nor in the imperialist camp and who would purse a ‘third path’ which would neither be proletarian nor be imperialist, thus, in the name of erecting a ‘Chinese wall against imperialist penetration’ erected a real Chinese wall between the world proletarian socialist revolution and the national liberation struggle as well as between the democratic (agrarian) revolution and struggle for national independence, surrendering the interest of the peasantry in particular and workers in general at the feet of national-reformist-feudal alliance, making the national liberation struggle pawn of power politics and appendage of this or that great power bloc.(See explanatory Note.)7
Stalin died in March 1953, and in may 1955 Warsaw Military bloc was formed with the blessing and participation of China as fraternal observer, basing on power politics – minus the people. Khrushchev declared that the maintenance of peace or unleashing of war depended on the two super powers – the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., rejecting and repudiating the inexorable social law of war and peace and following the imperialist logic of ‘force theory’(See explanatory Note.)8. Rejecting Stalin’s line of relying on people and mobilizing them against war preparation and war conspiracies of the imperialist(See explanatory Note.)9 the leader of the ‘socialist’ countries relied on power politics and power diplomacy, creating the illusion of false peace thus disarming the people ideologically, politically and organizationally.
In the same year in June 1955, the gang of Tito was rehabilitated in complicity with China and modern revisionism in the shape of ‘national communism’ was recognized as Marxism-Leninism by the leaders of the Soviet Union and China denouncing Stalin as ‘big nation Chauvinist’ and embracing Tito as ‘Great Comrade.’(See explanatory Note.)10
Thus the stage was set for the drama of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and denunciation of the Marxism-Leninism in the name of denunciation of the ‘cult of personality’ and Stalin.
Stalin was again murdered, in February in 1956, in the secret chamber of Khrushchev, in presence of the fraternal delegates from all countries(See explanatory Note.)11, without a single voice of protest.
In 1956, in July, the Cominform, the embryonic Communist International was winded up with the support of China, thus burying the disciplined proletarian internationalism in the shape of international democratic centralism, giving everybody the right to interpret proletarian internationalism as it thinks fit.(See explanatory Note.)12
The April and December 1956 articles On the historical experience and More on historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the deliberations of the 18th Congress of the CPC held in September, 1956, including Mao – Tse – Tung’s opening speech in which he said “At its 20th Congress held not long ago, the Communist Party of Soviet Union formulated many correct policies and criticized shortcomings which were found in the party “, were nothing but the loyal echo of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
The capitulation and sellout that began in Korea failed to produce desired result. Nuclear threat gave rise to fear and fear led the revisionist capitulation for the preservation of national interest at the expense of others but even such capitulation failed to preserve nationalist interest, more capitulation was demanded by imperialism. As a result, first the revisionist Soviet leadership tried to pacify U.S. imperialism at the expense of China and then the policy of threat against threat emerged. By this process the Soviet Union transformed itself into Russian neo-imperialist super power.
The two world parallel markets – socialist and capitalist – are today again a thing of the past, the material basis of exerting decisive influence in world politics as a whole by the socialist camp no longer exist today as there is no longer socialist camp. Instead of contracting the imperialist world market, it is extending and even successfully penetrating in all ‘socialist’ countries including the Soviet Union and China. The ‘socialist’ countries are fighting one against other – one calling the other “expansionist”. The Soviet Union, the Comecon countries and China are today partners of joint enterprise and joint exploitation with the imperialists in a single one market. Moscow and Beijing both are providing more and more breathing space to the imperialists and are busy in building fence after fence around the brink of the precipice where Stalin had driven the imperialists – so that imperialists may not fall tumbling down into the very precipice and may gather strength and overcome the danger of falling straightaway.
Stalin’s death was a dire necessity for the bourgeoisie and their henchmen, the revisionists and so Stalin had to die and the capitalist world was made safe, at least for some decades.
It is no use to chant like ‘mantras‘ was what splendid things Stalin did in his life time, it is of no use to celebrate Stalin’s birth centenary as rituals. It is necessary and imperative to discuss and judge how and why the post-Stalin leadership of the international communist movement betrayed Stalin, the world proletariat, the oppressed people and Marxism-Leninism and that only can enable us to resurrect Marxism-Leninism and help us to find out the root as to WHY WAS STALIN DENIGRATED AND MADE A CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE. Otherwise “What else we are here for?”
Explanatory Note : 1
Korean capitulation :Since the U.S. intervention of Korea under the flag of United Nation, Stalin was urging for a peaceful settlement of the Korean issue on the basis of complete withdrawal of foreign troops Korea to enable the Korean people to settle it by themselves. In response to Nehrus appeal to Stalin for peaceful settlement of the Korean issue, Stalin re-iterated the same thing. Even in the Armistice Agreement in June 1953, after the death of Stalin, it was stipulated that the forthcoming political conference will discuss the question of withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea. Kim II Sung said in the 6thPlenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Workers Party of Korea on 5th August 1953:
The armistice signifies a great victory for us. Through the armistice did not bring complete peace to Korea, the conclusion of the Armistice Agreement marked an initial step towards the peaceful settlement of the Korean issue, – a first exemplary contribution to the relaxation of international tension. By concluding the Armistice Agreement we have come to open up the possibilities for the peaceful settlement of the question of our countrys unification.
The forthcoming political conference should naturally reflect and defend the just claims, desire, will and fundamental interests of the Korean people. Therefore, our people will under no circumstances tolerate and thoroughly reject any attempt or plot of the imperialist interventionists contrary to them.
The basis aim of the political conference is to get all the troops of the United States and its satellite countries to withdraw from South Korea and to enable the Korean people to settle the Korean issue by themselves and to prevent foreigners from interfering in the internal affairs of our country.
We do not find any difference in the basis aim of proposed political conference to be held between the representative of the United States on the one hand and Korea, the Soviet Union, China and etc. on the other side as it corresponds with the policy declared by Stalin, before his death.
But after stating the basic aim of the political conference Kim II Sung went on :
With the political conference approaching the U.S. imperialist are already making a fuss behind the scenes. Notwithstanding the singing of Armistice Agreement in which it was stipulated that the chief aim of the political conference is to discuss the question of withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea, the notorious war monger Dulles U.S. Secretary of state concluded the so-called ROK-U.S. Mutual defense pact(ROK: Republic of Korea,South) with Syngman Rhee. This pact is aimed at stationing aggressive forces of the United States in south Korea indefinitely, and whenever necessary, unleashing another criminal war of aggression in Korea, in violence of the Armistice Agreement. The ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Pact is an aggressive pact which allows U.S. imperialism to obstruct peaceful reunification of our country and interfere in our domestic affairs. It is a glaringly country selling pact under which Syngman Rhee clique sell the southern half of our country to the U.S. bandits. To conclude such a pact at a time when the political conference is in the offing is an act of hindering a reasonable solution of the Korean question at the political conference(Kim II Sung : Selected Works. Vol. 1; F.L.P.H. ; Pyogyang, Korea, 1976, pp 416-18, emphases supplied)
In spite of this categorical statement about the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Pact on the eve of the political conference, the leaders of the Soviet Union and China did not hesitate to hatch a Korea-selling conspiracy with the U.S. imperialists. They made a treaty of peace with the U.S. imperialists and allowed to remain U.S. military force in South Korea agreeing to the partitioning of the country indefinitely. Even today Korea remains divided and U.S. military base remains in South Korea. The declared basic aim of political conference and the stipulations of the Armistice Agreement were smoke screens with a view to lull the Korean and world people.
The question is : Was a capitulation or compromise or a tactical retreat necessary from the military and political position on the part of North Korea, China and the Soviet Union? Was the continuation of war and settlement of it by military means really quite unfavourable to the position of the socialist camp? Let us quote Mao – Tse Tung, who was one of the architects of this ignominious betrayal to the cause of Korean as well as world people. Mao – Tse – Tung said the following in September 1953, immediately after Peace Treaty was signed :
After three years we have won a great victory, in the war to resist U.S. aggression and aid Korea
We fought U.S. imperialism, an enemy welding weapons many times superior to ours and yet we were able to win and compelled it to agree to a truce. Why was the truce possible?
First, military, the U.S. aggressors were in unfavourable position and were on receiving end. If they have not accepted truce, then the whole battle line would have been broken through and Seoul would have fallen into the hands of Korean people. The situation became evident in the summer of the last year.
Second, politically, the enemy had many internal contradictions and the people of the world demanded peace.
Third economically, the enemy spent vast sum of money in the war of aggression against Korea and his budgetary revenue and expenditures were not balanced. (Mao – Tse – Tung: Selected Works, vol. V, Peking, 1977, pp. 115, emphasis supplied)
May we then ask, why, in spite of such a favourable situation the Soviet Union and China did not compel the U.S. imperialist for the abrogation of ROK-U.S. Mutual Defence Pact and for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from South Korea which was the declared aim of the political conference as stipulated in the Armistice Agreement? May we then, ask, who compelled whom? Obviously, the peace Treaty was neither a military necessity nor a tactical retreat, Mao – Tse – Tung said, that it was a great victory. May we ask, on whose terms the peace treaty was drafted and signed? The U.S. forces remained in South Korea, Korea remained partitioned, not a single item of the declared basic aim of the political conference was agreed by the U.S., then how can it be said that the U.S. was compelled to make a truce? How can it be said that it was a great victory? Whose position was made advantageous by the peace treaty?
In fact, it was a great betrayal and sell out so far the interests of the Korean people and world proletarian interest were concerned. It was the fear of nuclear threat and peace at any price which compelled the modern revisionists to sell out Korean people for the sake of narrow bourgeois nationalist interests of the Soviet Union and China.
Elsewhere Mao – Tse – Tung said that Korean peace treaty was a compromise. There he did not say it as great victory. Did not we compromise with the Americans on the 36th parallel in Korea? (Ibid, pp.575, written on November 18, 1957). Of course, the peace treaty was both a great victory and compromise to Mao – Tse – Tung and the modern revisionists. It was a great victory for nationalist China, because the threat against China remained no more after the withdrawal of imperialist forces from North Korea, especially from the banks of Yulu River. It may be noted in this connection that China did not involve herself in Korean War before Pong yang, the capital of North Korea, fell to the U.S. hands, before the U.S. forces were near the Yulu River, in spite of the repeated requests from Stalin. China join the Korean War only when she was directly threatened. Apparently the volunteer action of China in Korea would appear like proletarian internationalism, though in fact, it was bourgeois nationalism. In spite of that it was objectively anti imperialist. It may also be noted that, in spite of the military support of the Korean cause by China, China did not confiscate and nationalize U.S. owned enterprises, in spite of the fact that the U.S. imperialist imposed economic blockade against China and freezed Chinas overseas assets. The U.S. enterprises were only placed under the state control.
When the United States used the Korean War as a pretext to freeze our overseas assets and impose on economic blockade and embargo on us, our government retaliated with the announcement, on December 28, 1950, that control would be exerted over property belonging to the United States imperialists. (Liao Kai-lung : From Yenan To Peking ;1954, pp.154)
So, withdrawal of the U.S. forces from North Korea was a great victory from the point of bourgeois nationalist interest of China and a compromise from the point of interest of the Korean people.
Now it is up to the readers to judge whether it was a betrayal and capitulation to imperialism.
Explanatory Note : 2
Marx said, The fact that (capitalism) produces commodity does not differentiate it from other mode of production ; but rather the fact that being a commodity is dominant and determining characteristic of its products.Furthermore, already implicit in the commodity.is the materialization of the social features of production, which characterise the entire capitalist mode of production. (Marx , Capital ; vol. 3 ; pp.858)
That is why it has been fundamental to Marxism that the abolition of cap meant abolition of the commodity system.
The seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production, and therewith to the domination of the product over the producer (Engles , Anti-Duhring; pp.311).
Socialism, as is known, means the abolition of the commodity economy. (Lenin ; The Agrarian Questions vol.15)
Now after the October Revolution commodity production was not abolished all at once in the Soviet Union. In fact, commodity production grew rapidly for some years after 1921. This was made necessary by the destruction of productive forces in the civil war. To get production going it was necessary to free commodity production and exchange for a period – (Lenin told it a temporary retreat). while at the same time building up the productive forces owned by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
For a certain period in the development of socialism commodity production and circulation could play a positive role provided that the dictatorship of the proletariat was upheld and strengthened, that the level of consciousness of the masses was being raised, that the area of socialist production for area was strengthened and expanded contracting simultaneously the area of commodity circulation through the medium of money. But, in the long run, socialism and commodity production and circulation were incompatible. This Marxist-Leninist position was clearly stated by Stalin in 1952 in his Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., especially, in Reply to Comrades Sanina and Venzher.
The argument of the opposition elements of the CPSU leadership was as follows, which revealed after the triumph of modern revisionism in the CPSU after the death of Stalin:
The idea gained wide currency in recent years that commodity circulation is allegedly incompatible with the prospect of going over from socialism to communism. Such a formulation of the question is wrong. The dialectics of the socialist economy consists precisely in the fact that we shall arrive at the withering away of commodity production and money circulation in the phase of communism as a result of the utmost development of commodity-money relations in the socialist stage of development. ( Ostrovityanov, Marxism today; August, 1958 issue)
We have seen in the question from Marx above that the capitalist production in the heighest form of commodity production. Besides that question, Marx made it more clear when he said , the production, untilcapitalist production serves as it basis. (Marx , Capital , vol.2;pp.31)
We have also seen that socialism involve abolition of the commodity economy from the question of Engles and Lenin. But to the modern revisionists it was Stalins another mistake. They say, it is not capitalism, but socialism which is the heighest form of commodity economy. Indeed, to them, the bad thing about capitalist production is not commodity production, production for sale and profit, but that it hinderscommodity production and hence the task of socialism is to remove this hindrance and make socialism the heighest form of commodity production!
It is necessary to mention here that the communist party of China and the communist party of India (then undivided) supported Khrushchev when Khrushchev desocialized the MTS. The CPC appealed to the world communists to support it and rally around Khrushchev while the CPI through the article of Bhowani Sen (Who came back from Moscow) in Swadhinata, paid a glowing tribute to the Unique Silent Revolution in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev leadership! Subsequently Mao wrote:
My view is that the last of the three appended letters is entirely wrong. It expresses a deep uneasiness a belief that the peasantry cannot be trusted to release agriculture machinery but would hang on it (Mao – Tse – Tung ; Comments on Stalins Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. Monthly Review Publication. 1979, Emphasis supplied; For a reply on Mao – Tse – Tungs comment see Revisionism Against Revisionism by Moni Guha.)
Explanatory Note : 3
Stalins Permanently operating factors in war :Stalin said : The element of the surprise and suddenness, as a reserve of German fascist troops is completely spent. This removes the inequality in fighting conditions created by the suddenness of the German fascist attack. Now the outcome of the war will be decided not by such fortuitous elements as surprise, but the permanently operating factors: stability of the rear; morale of the army, quantity and quality of divisions, equipment of the army and organizing ability of the commanding personel of the army. (Stalin: On the great patriotic war of the Soviet Union,Moscow, 1946, pp.45; emphasis supplied.)
What are stability of rear and morale of the army?
The Pravda correspondent asked Stalin during the Korean war Are the American and British General and officers inferior to Chinese and Korean? In reply Stalin said : No they are not. The American and British Generals and officer are not a whit inferior to the generals and officers of any other country. as to the soldiers of U.S.A. and Great Britain , they, as we know gave a good account of themselves in war against Hitler and militarist Japan. What, then, is the reason (of the defeat of the interventionists)? The reason is that the soldiers regard this war against Korea and China as unjust, whereas the war against Hitler and militarist Japan they regarded as fully just. The fact is that this war is extremely unpopular with the American and British soldiers. (Stalin : Interview with Pravda, February, 17, 1951)
So war aim is another factors in the permanently operating factors, which is the secret of the morale of the people in rear and the army in front.
Explanatory Note : 4
General Telensky in September 1953, issue of the Military Thought – a journal for the officer of the Red Army opened a debate questioning the validity of the Stalins permanently operating factors in the outcome of the war in Nuclear age. Marshal Rotmistov of the Red Army, also, supporting General Talensky wrote that surprise and sudden atomic attack can determine the outcome of the war. Stalin called this factor of suddenness as fortuitous and emphasized on permanently operating factors. However in April 1955, Talenskys thesis was accepted officially and Stalins permanently operating factors were rejected saying it as outdated. Thus the force theory minus the people came into being, Malenkov upheld Stalins permanently operating factors and as a result Malenkov was forced to resign from the Premiership !
Explanatory Note : 5
Stalin, in reply to the question of the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times Alexender Werth, on September 17, 1946 said :
I do not consider the atom bomb to be serious a force as some politicians are inclined to consider it. Atom bombs are intended for intimidating the weak nerved, but they cannot decide the outcome of the war, since for this atom bombs are not entirely sufficient. Of course, the monopolist possession of the secret of the atom bomb creates a menace, but against this, there are at least two remedies : (a) the monopolist possession of the atom bomb cannot last long ; (b) the use of atom bomb will be prohibited. (Interview with Stalin; emphases added)
Explanatory Note : 6
Geneva Capitulation : According to the account given by the General Giap in his Dien-bien Phu, at the time of victory at Dien-bien Phu, the Pathet Lao guerrilla forces in Laos were consolidating its power and rule in a considerable area in the alliance with the Vietnamese forces, the Khmer rouge revolutionary forces of Cambodia were organizing themselves under the instruction of the communist party of Indo-China and military defeat of Franco-U.S. forces throughout Indo-China were more than certain. Giap also said that after the spectacular victory at Dien-bien Phu the Franco-U.S. forces were taking shelters and mobilizing their forces in South Vietnam.
Giap said that the victory of the revolutionary forces throughout Indo-China was more than certain after the victory at Dien-bien Phu. Why, then, the Geneva agreement? Immediately after the ignominious defeat at Dien-bien Phu, Dulles, the U.S. secretary of state released a bellicose statement saying that should the Vietnamese proceed further beyond Dien-bian Phu and should the Chinese overtly intervene in Indo-China, U.S. will retaliate with atom bomb. This threat un-nerved Khrushchev, Chou-Engles-Lai, Jawharlal Nehru, Tito and Nasser equally. All of them put their brains together to find out a path to avert the danger of another world war and atomic disaster on the basis of the prescription of relaxation of international tension. It was the continuation of the same policy of capitulation to atomic threat that started in Korea.
What were the stipulations of the Geneva agreement? The North Vietnam up to the north of 18th parallel would be recognized as Democratic Republic of Vietnam and America, France and other powers will not interfere in the internal affairs of DRV and the DRV will have sovereign rights to organize their territory as they like. Secondly, the South Vietnam, south of 18th parallel (where, it may be noted, the Franco-U.S. force have taken shelter and were mobilizing their forces, according to General Giap), will constitute a government with Ngo Dinh Diem as head of the government (please also note the revisionist leaderships did not learn from the bitter experience of the ROK-US Mutual Defense Pact in South Korea ) and an election would be held there after one year to decide the question of reunification of both the North and South Vietnam. Thirdly, Indo-China will be partitioned into three distinct sovereign states viz. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Laos and Cambodia will be ruled by their respective kings and Vietnam must not interfere in their internal affairs. Fourthly, the DRV will ask the people of the South Vietnam to lay down and surrender their arms to carry out only open, legal and peaceful propaganda for peaceful reunification. A neutral observer commission will be formed to observe that the stipulation of the Geneva agreement were strictly followed. The Soviet Union, China and other members of the socialist camp, at once, withheld proletarian internationalist support to become members of the neutral objective observer and enforcers commission, thus becoming arbiter between imperialism and the oppressed peoples !
It is also to be noted that the U.S.A. did not sign the Geneva agreement. It only gave a gentlemens (?) assurance that it will respect the stipulations of the agreement. U.S. imperialism entered into South Vietnam no sooner the French troops pulled out and tore up the agreements, established puppet Diem in power, massacred thousands of people. In Indo-China,… both the Chinese and Soviets actually put pressure on the Vietminh to accept far less territory than they had liberated by force of arms and drop claims on Cambodia and Laos. (Vietnam : History, document and opinions on a major world crisis Editor, Marvin E. Gelleman, New York, 1965). The promised election in South Vietnam was never held.
Explanatory Note : 7
The false idea on which Khrushchev and all modern revisionists based their incorrect attitude to imperialism that imperialist politician like Kennedy and Johnson can alter the very nature of imperialism by their good intentions, can decide to remove from imperialism its drive towards war if certain concessions were given, proved to be wrong in course of time. The more the policy of appeasement failed, the more Khrushchev was compelled to brandish nuclear weapons at the imperialists in an effort to compel them meet half-way and thus Khrushchev who surrendered to nuclear threat-resorted to nuclear threat and joined the imperialists by adopting same imperialist attitude to nuclear weapon-threat against threat. Thus Khrushchev organised the Warsaw Military Pact against NATO. The force theory naturally disregarded the internal basic social forces and relied on force. The process of becoming a super power with force theory began and the socialist Soviet Union degenerated into a Russian neo-imperialist.
Explanatory Note : 8
In reply to the question Do you consider another world war inevitable? By the Pravda correspondent on February 17, 1951, Stalin said the following :
No, at the present time, at any rate, it cannot be considered inevitable.
Of course, there are in the United States of America and Great Britain, as well as in France, aggressive forces, who are thirsting for another war. They need war in order to rake in super-profits and to plunder other countries. These are billionaires and millionaires, who regard war as a paying proposition yielding gigantic profits.
The aggressive forces hold the reactionary governments in their grip and direct them. But at the same time they fear their people, who do not want another war and stand for the maintenance of peace. They are, therefore, trying to use the reactionary governments to enmesh their people in a web of lies, to deceive them and represent another war as a defensive war and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as an aggressive policy. They are trying to deceive their people in order to foist their aggressive plans upon them and inveigle them into another war.
It is for this reason that they are scared of the peace campaign, fearing that it might expose the aggressive designs of the reactionary governments.
How will this struggle between aggressive and peace loving forces end?
Peace will be preserved and consolidate if the people take the cause of preserving peace into their own hands and uphold it to the end. It may become inevitable if a web of lies, deceiving them and inveiling them into another world war.
Hence a broad campaign for the preservation of peace, as a means of exposing the criminal machinations of the warmongers is now of paramount importance (Interview with Pravda correspondent;Moscow, 1951, emphasis added)
In another place, in February, 1952, Stalin said :
The object of the present-day peace movement is to rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace and for the prevention of another world war. Consequently the aim of this movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism it confines itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace. In this respect, the present-day peace movement differs from the movement of the time of the First World War for the conversion of the imperialist war into Civil War, since the latter movement went further and pursued socialist aims.
Stalin did not stop here. He viewed the peace movement dialectically and dynamically. He did not restrict the peace movement into the boundaries of four walls of bourgeois democracy. Stalin further said :
It is possible that in a definite conjunction of circumstance the fight for peace will develop here or there into a fight for socialism. But then it will no longer be the present-day peace movement; it will be a movement for the overthrow of capitalism.
Regarding the peace movement itself Stalin further said :
But, all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries generally. It will not be enough, because, for all the success of the peace movement, imperialism will remain, continue in force and consequently, inevitability of wars will also continue in force.
To eliminate the inevitably of war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism.(Stalin, Economic Problem of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.)
Thus we see how Stalin linked the problem of peace with the aim of socialism.
Explanatory Note : 9
See, Yugoslav Revisionism and the Role of the CPC and CPSU by Moni Guha.
Explanatory Note : 10
Roger Garudy was one of the fraternal delegates to the 20th Congress of the CPSU from France. He wrote in his revisionist book The turning point of socialism:
True, the manner of self criticism [meaning Khrushchevs secret report Moni Guha] was strange, having made in camera and ON CONDITION THAT FRATERNAL PARTIES SHOULD NOT DIVULGE ITS TERMS.
Explanatory Note : 11
Opening address of Mao – Tse Tung, at the 18th National Congress of the CPC.
A brilliant analysis of Stalin and his teaching, an eye opener for all those who denigrate him.
A must read for all Communist Revolutionaries.
Note: This post was earler posted on another site but was taken down due to some policy issue. It is being uploaded here: Continue reading “He who does not defend Stalin, is an opportunist and a coward”