Mao Zedong on the Chinese Revolution – Chen Pota
Return to China
Mao Zedong on the Chinese Revolution 1
by
Chen Pota
1953
(1) Comrade Mao Tse-tung Is the Most Outstanding Exponent of Marxism-Leninism in China
Comrade Mao Tse-tung writes in On People’s
Democratic Dictatorship: “The salvoes of the October Revolution awoke us to Marxism-Leninism. The October Revolution helped the progressives of China and of the whole world to adopt the proletarian world outlook as an instrument for foreseeing a nation’s future and considering anew one’s own problems. ‘Follow the path of the Russians’ was the conclusion.”
As everybody knows, the first and most outstanding representative of such progressives in China is none other than Comrade Mao Tse-tung.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s greatest contribution to the Chinese revolution is his correct and living synthesis of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the actual practice of the Chinese revolution, which has resulted in the solution of a series of problems in the Chinese revolution. He has further developed the science of Marxism-Leninism with reference to the conditions in China and in the East, there-by leading the Chinese people’s revolution to victory.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung says:
“The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is a ‘universally applicable’ truth.” 2
However, to correctly apply their theory to China and to transform it into an invincible power of the masses, it is essential to make constant efforts to clear away ideological obstacles and to wage ideological struggles, and bitter struggles at that. For 30 years Comrade Mao Tse-tung has waged unceasing and irreconcilable struggles against various reactionary ideologies outside the Party and against opportunism which took various forms inside the Party; such as the struggles against the nationalists, against the Right wing and the compromisers within the Kuomintang, against Chen Tu-hsiu-ism and Trotskyism, against the Right wing of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie who harbored various reformist illusions about the reactionary Kuomintang rule, against the “Left” adventurism which occur-red inside the Party on several occasions, against the repetition of the mistakes of Chen Tu-hsiu-ism and so forth and so on. In the course of this series of struggles, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has proved him-self a great master in propagating and applying the revolutionary theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. The series of struggles which he conducted have served to strengthen and consolidate the Communist Party of China.
Marxism-Leninism is characterized by its unity of theory and practice. Following in the footsteps of the great teachers-Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin-Comrade Mao Tse-tung likewise pays the utmost attention to the great creative power of the revolutionary masses in revolutionary China. Comrade Mao Tse-tung has never separated his Marxist-Leninist theoretical work from the revolutionary movement of the masses. Under all circumstances and at all times, he combines Marxist-Leninist theory with the practice of the Chinese revolution and “uses the basic Marxist viewpoint-the method of class analysis,” as Comrade Mao Tse-tung often says, to study, absorb and crystallize the practical experiences of the Chinese revolution. By so doing the correct-ness of Marxism-Leninism has been further demonstrated and its boundless, living, revolutionary power revealed.
It is precisely by relying upon the creative power of the revolutionary masses of China; by relying upon the many-sided, complex experiences of the Chinese revolution (it is precisely on this basis) that Comrade Mao Tse-tung has developed Marxism-Leninism, forcing every kind of nonsense aimed at vitiating or distorting Marxism-Leninism to declare its bankruptcy before the masses.
In his famous article On the Significance of Militant Materialism published in 1922, Lenin said:
“…the dialectics which Marx. . applied so successfully that now every day of the awakening to life and struggle of new classes in the East (Japan, India and China) -i.e., the hundreds of millions of human beings who form the greater part of the population of the world and whose historical passivity and historical torpor have hitherto been conditions re-sponsible for stagnation and decay in many advanced European countries-every day of the awakening to life of new peoples and new classes serves as a fresh confirmation of Marxism.”
Without doubt, the very fact that the Chinese under the leadership of the Chinese people working class rose to struggle and have recently won great victories is a fresh confirmation of the large-scale, outstanding victory of Marxism-Leninism in the East; a confirmation that the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin are a universal, all-powerful science applicable everywhere without exception; and a confirmation that Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the leader of the Communist Party of China, has applied this science to the conditions of China and developed it with very brilliant success,
(2) Modern China Was the Focal Point of the Many Contradictions in the East
For the last hundred years, and especially since the end of the 19th century, China was the focal point of the many contradictions in the East.
In the first place, China was a semi-colony of the imperialists. All the imperialist countries in the world laid their hands on China which was regarded among them as the biggest and meatiest bone of contention.
Lenin pointed out in 1916 in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism:
“It is natural that the struggle for those semi-dependent countries should have become particularly bitter during the period of finance capital, when the rest of the world had already been shared out.” … “The partition of China is only beginning, and the struggle between Japan, U.S.A., etc., in connection there-with is steadily gaining in intensity.”
Stalin pointed out in 1927:
.” “Taken as a nation, China, a compact country with a population of several hundred million, is a most important market in the world for commodities for the export of capita.”
“… Imperialism must strike at the living body of the Chinese nation, hacking it into small pieces and wresting away entire provinces in order to preserve its old positions or at least retain part of them.” 3
Inasmuch as all imperialists regarded China as their object of exploitation, they had on many occasions formed a united front to oppose the Chinese revolution. For example, in 1900 the allied armies of eight imperialist powers invaded Peking and massacred the patriotic masses, the I Ho Tuan (called “… Imperialism must strike at the living body Inasmuch as all the imperialists regarded China “Boxers” abroad. – Translator). In 1927, the imperialists jointly opposed China’s great revolution. On such occasions, the partition of China was jointly undertaken. However, the ambitions of each of the imperialists to seize and monopolies a lion’s share led to profound contradictions among them. It resulted, as Comrade Mao Tse-tung puts it, in “conflicts between the imperialists in China.”
That is to say, as a result of the contradictions between the imperialists in their fight for the possession of China, their front in China was often split up rather than unified. Secondly, the contradictions and struggles be-tween the imperialists had had the effect of aggravating and sharpening the contradictions and struggles within the old ruling classes of China-the feudal and comprador classes, leading to endless wars among the warlords.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung said in 1928:
“Since the first year of the Republic, the various cliques of old and new warlords supported by imperialism and the comprador class and the landed gentry at home have waged incessant war against one another; this is one of the characteristics of semi-colonial China. Two things account for its occurrence, namely, localized agricultural economy (instead of unified capitalist economy) and the imperialist policy of division and exploitation by mark-That is to say, the Chinese feudal and comparing off spheres of influence.” 4
That is to say, the Chinese feudal classes served different imperialists and represented the interests of different local feudal forces. As a result, the ranks of this ruling camp were also split rather than unified.
Thirdly, joint oppression by imperialism and feudalism subjected the Chinese people to severe sufferings. Since the Opium War of 1840, however, the Chinese people have waged repeated and unceasing struggles against imperialism and feudalism. If there were pauses in these struggles they were of short duration. And inasmuch as China is a big country with a huge population, the number of people mobilized in the course of every one of these struggles was colossal.
The Chinese people fought against each and every one of the imperialists that encroached upon China. The Chinese people have never succumbed to any of the counter-revolutionary regimes. China has been a country engaged in a long-drawn-out revolution.
That is to say, the contradictions between the Chinese people on the one hand and imperialism and feudalism on the other were irreconcilable. In the course of their struggle against imperialism and feudalism, the Chinese people steadily became an extremely powerful, united force.
It can thus be seen that modern China constituted the focal point of contradictions in the East. Generally speaking, China was, in the first place, the focal point of the bitter struggle between the imperialists, and secondly the focal point of the bitter struggle between revolution and counter-revolution.
Obviously, only the victory of the Chinese people’s revolution could solve these contradictions and, beginning with China, break the fetters of imperialism in the East. The Chinese people had the strength to win this victory. But it was only under the leadership of the proletariat that the strength of the Chinese people could be organized into a force that could actually win victory.
The remarkable militancy displayed by the Chinese working class was chiefly due to three reasons. Firstly, the Chinese working class was subjected to the ruthless oppression by foreign imperialism, and domestic feudalism and capital-ism. Secondly, it is highly concentrated. Although Chinese industries are underdeveloped, they are highly concentrated. The total number of workers engaged in modern industrial enterprises each employing more than 500 workers is very large. Thirdly, although the industrial workers are in a minority in relation to the total population, the number of proletarians and semi-proletarians of various kinds is large. If the semi-proletarians in the countryside—the poor peasants—are taken together, the proletarians and semi-proletarians constitute far more than half the total population. The oppression to which they were subjected was extremely cruel. For these rea-sons, the working class of revolutionary China constitutes a powerful fighting force, has formed its own strong political party, the Communist Party, and has become the leader of all the revolutionary classes of China.
Such a consolidated revolutionary working class, in such a big country engaged in protracted revolution, succeeded in becoming the leader of the broad masses of militant peasants, and of all the revolutionary forces. At the same time, as it was, inter-nationally, in the epoch of proletarian revolution, the epoch in which Socialism had scored victory first in Russia, the Chinese revolution received excellent international help. These things explain why the victory of the Chinese people’s revolution, the victory of the Chinese people over imperialism and its lackeys, the feudal and comprador classes, was in-evitable.
Stalin pointed out in 1927:
“… In China, the struggle against imperialism must adopt a profoundly popular and strikingly national character and must develop step by step until it reaches a desperate battle with imperialism, shaking the very foundations of imperialism throughout the world.” 5
That is just the way events have turned out.
Of course, it should not be supposed that the victory of the revolution could be easily won in such a vast country which had become the bone of contention between the various imperialist countries and where the feudal system had long been in existence. No, victory could not be won easily. In an article written in August 1949, Comrade Mao Tse-tung de-scribed the process of winning this victory as follows:
“Struggled and failed, struggled and failed again; with experiences accumulated through 109 years, through hundreds of major and minor struggles, be they military or political, economic or cultural, bloody or non-bloody, before the basic success as that of today is won.” 6
That is to say, the process of the Chinese revolution has been an extremely ruthless, intricate and circuitous one. And that is the reason why the Chinese working class and the Chinese people are thoroughly steeled; and why the party of the Chinese working class—the Communist Party of China—Is thoroughly steeled. The rich experiences of the revolution have become the precious treasure of the Chinese working class and the Chinese people. Such rich revolutionary experiences could not but enrich the Marxist-Leninist theory.
The works of Comrade Mao Tse-tung and his theory of the Chinese revolution are the crystallization of China’s rich revolutionary experiences.
In November 1919, Lenin pointed out to the Communists of the East:
“You are confronted with a task which has not previously confronted the Communists of the world: relying upon the general theory and practice of communism, you must adapt yourselves to specific conditions such as do not exist in the European countries; you must be able to apply that theory and practice to conditions in which the bulk of the population are peasants, and in which the task is to wage a struggle against medieval survivals and not against capitalism.”
And again: “You must find specific forms for this alliance of the foremost proletarians of the world with the laboring and exploited masses of the East whose conditions are in many cases medieval.” 7
Lenin also pointed out:
“The task is to arouse the working masses to revolutionary activity, to independent action and to organisation, regardless of the level they have reached; to translate the true communist doctrine, which was intended for the Communists of the more advanced countries, into the language of every people; to carry out those practical tasks which must be carried out immediately, and to join the proletarians of other countries in a common struggle.
“Such are the problems whose solution you will not find in any communist book, but will find in the common struggle begun by Russia. You will have to tackle that problem and solve it through your own independent experience.” 8
As everybody knows, in a series of writings, Lenin and Stalin have already solved the problem of the basic principles underlining the above-mentioned task put forward by Lenin. And Stalin has made outstanding theoretical contributions on the Chinese question.
The task of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, leader of the Communist Party of China, was to continue the work of Lenin and Stalin, to study Chinese experience unceasingly, to synthetize the general theory and practice of Communism with the actual practice of the Chinese revolution, to translate real Communist teachings intended for the Communists of advanced countries into the language of the Chinese people, to supplement such teachings by taking Chinese conditions into consideration, to transform them into the theory and practice of the great revolution, to inspire hundreds of millions of people to join hands with the world-wide general struggle against imperialism, to ally themselves with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to unite with the working class, the progressive elements in various countries and with all the oppressed nations the world over. This task has been fulfilled. As a result, Chinese the rule of imperialism and its lackeys in the land of China was overthrown.
(3) The Chinese Revolution is Part of the World Revolution
To regard the liberation movements of the oppressed nations as part of the world proletarian-Socialist revolution is the theory of Lenin and Stalin.
In accordance with this theory of Lenin and Stalin, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has never regarded the Chinese revolution as an isolated problem, but has viewed it in the light of the world proletarian revolution as a whole and of the struggle against imperialism as a whole.
This is because our epoch is the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the epoch when Socialism has achieved its victory first in the Soviet Union, a new epoch of Marxism, i.e., the epoch of Leninism. This is because the Chinese revolution is, above all, a revolution against imperialism.
In denouncing Tai Chi-tao-ism of the then Kuomintang, Comrade Mao Tse-tung in March 1926, in an article entitled An Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, made an analysis of the situation arising out of the division of the world into two big camps:
“… The present world situation is one in which the two big forces, revolution and counter-revolution, are engaged in the final struggle. Two big banners have been raised by these two great forces: one is the big red banner of revolution held aloft by the Third International, a banner under which all the oppressed classes of the world are rallied; the other is the big white banner of counter-revolution held aloft by the League of Nations, a banner under which all the counter-revolutionary elements of the world are rallied. The intermediate class will beyond doubt rapidly fall apart, some sections turning Left and hastening into the ranks of the revolutionaries while others turning Right and hastening into the ranks of the counter-revolutionaries; there is no room for them to remain ‘independent.’”
What is meant here by Comrade Mao Tse-tung is quite clear. Since the October Socialist Revolution, the world has been divided into an anti-imperialist camp led by the general world proletarian-Socialist revolutionary movement, and an imperialist camp which embraces all counter-revolutionary forces. Representing the Right wing of the bourgeoisie at that time, the Tai Chi-tao clique of the Kuomintang, which actually served as spokesman in preparation for Chiang Kai-shek’s betrayal of the revolution, opposed the theory of class struggle. This clique was opposed to the Kuomintang allying itself with Russia and with the Communist Party and hoped vainly for “independence” between the two big camps, and for the realization of a state under the sole rule of the bourgeoisie. Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that their attempts were doomed to total bankruptcy. The disintegration of the inter-mediate class was inevitable. The national bourgeoisie had either to go Left, ally itself with Russia and the Communist Party, accept the leader-ship of the proletariat and join hands with the world. wide general struggle against imperialism; or it had to go Right, oppose Russia, the Communist Party and the proletarian revolutions and become the lackey of imperialism. Apart from these two, there was no room for “independence.” As everybody knows, this was what actually happened at that time; the Right wing of the national bourgeoisie soon followed Chiang Kai-shek in his betrayal of the revolution and went over to the side of imperialism.
During the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression, the broad national united front was re-established as a result of the initiative and leadership of our Party. But the Kuomintang diehards returned once more to their rotten theme of the so-called bourgeois dictatorship. Their actual motive was to camouflage and preserve the dictatorship by the big landlords and bureaucratic capitalists as represented by Chiang Kai-shek, the “one-party dictatorship” of the Kuomintang, the kind of dictatorship described by Comrade Mao Tse-tung as a semi-colonial and semi-feudal dictatorship. On the other hand, there once again appeared inside our Party a form of Right opportunism which attempted to turn the proletariat into the tail of the big bourgeoisie. To lay bare the absurdities of the Kuomintang diehards, to smash the Right opportunism inside the Party, and thus enable the Chinese proletariat, the broad masses of the Chinese people and our Party not to lose their bearings in the complex situation of the new national united front, Comrade Mao Tse-tung wrote an important militant work, i.e., New Democracy.
In this militant new book, Comrade Mao Tse-developed, more concretely and most profoundly, the above-mentioned theory of Lenin and Stalin concerning the revolution in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Comrade Mao Tse-tung quoted from the writings of Stalin, and on the basis of the long experiences accumulated in the Chinese revolution once again raised and dealt in detail with the basic direction of the Chinese revolution-that is, the problem of the basic line of the Chinese revolution.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung explained:
“… the first victorious Socialist revolution, the October Revolution, has changed the direction of the history of the whole world and marked a new era in the history of the whole world.”
He continued:
“In an era when the world capitalist front has collapsed in one corner of the earth (a corner which covers one-sixth of the surface of the world) while in other corners it has fully revealed its decadence; in an era when those remnant parts of capitalism can-not survive without relying more than ever on the colonies and semi-colonies; in an era when a Socialist state has been established and has declared that it is willing to fight in support of the liberation movements of all colonies and semi-colonies; and in an era when the proletariat of the capitalist countries is freeing itself day by day from the social-imperialist influence of the Social-Democratic parties, and has also declared itself in support to the liberation movements of the colonies and semi-colonies in such an era, any revolution that takes place in a colony or semi-colony against imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie and international capitalism, no longer belongs to the old category of bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but to a new category; it is no longer part of the old bourgeois or capitalist world revolution, but part of the new world revolution, the proletarian-Socialist world revolution.”
This is the basic Marxist-Leninist appraisal and analysis of the revolution in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. From this analysis there naturally flows a very clear-cut conclusion concerning the basic direction of the Chinese revolution. This conclusion is: The Chinese revolution is part of conclusion at the same time explains the following points:
Firstly: “Such a revolution deals unrelenting blows to imperialism, and therefore it is not permitted by imperialism but opposed by it. However, it is permitted by Socialism and supported by the Socialist state and the Socialist international proletariat.” “In this world all imperialism is our enemy; if China wants independence, she can never attain it apart from the aid of the Socialist state and the international proletariat. That is to say, she cannot attain it apart from the assistance of the Soviet Union, from the assistance given through the struggles against capitalism waged by the proletariat of Japan, Britain, the United States, France, Germany and Italy in their respective countries.”
Secondly: “… the heroes in the colonies and semi-colonies have either to stand on the side of the imperialist front and become part of the force of world counter-revolution or to stand on the side of the anti-imperialist front and become part of the force of world revolution. They must become either one or the other, for there is no other path.” “As the struggle between the Socialist Soviet Union and the imperialist powers becomes further intensified, it is inevitable that China must stand either on one side or on the other. Is it possible not to incline to either side? No, this is an illusion. All the countries in the world will be swept into one or the other of these two camps, and from now on ‘neutrality’ in the world becomes merely a deceptive term.”
Thirdly: “The world today is in a new era of revolutions and wars, a new era when capitalism is definitely dying and Socialism is definitely flourishing. Under such conditions is it not sheer raving as in a dream to desire to establish in China a capitalist society under bourgeois dictatorship after her victory in fighting imperialism and feudalism?” “It is certain, definite, and true that if the diehards among the Chinese bourgeoisie do not awaken, things will not go smoothly with them and their prospect is one of self-sought ruin.”
Fourthly: “… with a momentum that can move mountains and make the seas heave and with the power of a mighty thunderbolt, the Communist ideological system and social system are sweeping the world and remaining wonderfully young. Since the introduction of scientific Communism into China, the Chinese people are improved in their understanding, and the Chinese revolution has changed its physiognomy. Without the guidance of Communism, the democratic revolution in China can-not succeed, let alone the later stage of revolution…. The world today depends on Communism for its salvation, and so does China.” “Whoever wants to oppose Communism must prepare to be smashed to pieces.”
All the above points were raised by Comrade Mao Tse-tung ten years ago in his work, New Democracy. From that time on, Comrade Mao Tse-tung continued to develop them in his many writings. Events in the world and in China during the past ten years testify to the truth of the above-mentioned points made by Comrade Mao Tse-tung.
Of course, the elucidation of these points has crushed the narrow and reactionary nationalism of the bourgeoisie. It has also liquidated the national prejudices of the petty bourgeoisie which is contented with its own small world, backward and isolated.
To study and analyze the Chinese revolution from the basic viewpoint that this is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and by making use of the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, especially the teachings of Lenin and Stalin, thereby developing this basic viewpoint and leading the Chinese revolution forward in the correct direction-this is the victorious path of Mao Tse-tung’s theory of the Chinese revolution.
(4) The Revolution of the Masses of the People Under the Leadership of the Proletariat
On the basis of the fundamental changes in world history brought about by the October Socialist Revolution, and of the fundamental changes in Chinese history brought about by the ascent of the modern Chinese proletariat to the political arena, Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that before the changes took place, the Chinese revolution was a democratic revolution of the old category, i.e., a democratic revolution under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, and that after the changes had occurred the Chinese revolution became a democratic revolution of a new category, i.e., a democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat.
Ever since his opposition to Chen Tu-hsiu’s Right opportunism in the first revolutionary period following the founding of the Party, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has consistently adhered, under all conditions, to the Leninist-Stalinist theory concerning the leader-ship of the proletariat and has developed this theory in a concrete manner, in accordance with the conditions in China. During the first stage of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression, Comrade Mao Tse-tung conducted an irreconcilable struggle against Right opportunism which had just emerged, and consistently laid special emphasis on taking warning from the criminal consequence of the defeat of the revolution in 1927 brought about by Chen Tu-hsiu’s opportunism in abandoning the leadership of the proletariat. Comrade Mao Tse-tung constantly told the members of the Chinese Communist Party to thoroughly read that great ideological work of Lenin’s Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution. Comrade Mao Tse-tung regarded this work of Lenin’s as a powerful weapon in opposing Right opportunism.
The problem of the leadership of the proletariat in the Chinese revolution is connected with the weakness of the Chinese national bourgeoisie. In 1926, when dealing with the weakness of the big national bourgeoisie, Stalin wrote in his article, On the Perspectives of the Chinese Revolution:
“… but it follows that the role of the initiator and leader of the Chinese revolution, the role of the leader of the Chinese peasantry must inevitably pass into the hands of the Chinese proletariat and its Party.”
Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“In China it is quite evident that whoever can lead the people to overthrow imperialism and the feudal forces will win the people’s confidence, for the mortal enemies of the people are imperialism and the feudal forces, especially imperialism. History has proved that the Chinese bourgeoisie is unable to discharge this responsibility, and consequently the responsibility cannot but fall on the shoulders of the proletariat.”9
Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out:
“The historical course of the Chinese revolution must be divided into two steps: first, the democratic revolution, and secondly, the Socialist revolution.” Although according to its social character, the first step, the first stage of the Chinese revolution, is basically a bourgeois-democratic revolution, “… yet it is no longer one of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship; it is a new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim of establishing, in the first stage, a New Democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes.” 10
Comrade Mao Tse-tung defined this revolution in the following simple and clear-cut formula:
“The New Democratic revolution is an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution of the masses of the people under the leadership of the proletariat.”
In some cases, Comrade Mao Tse-tung also called it a “people’s democratic revolution against imperialism and feudal forces.” Owing to the fact that in the course of their long-term counter-revolutionary rule, the Four Big Families, headed by Chiang Kai-shek, finally became a monopolistic clique of bureaucratic capitalists, a new element was added to the character of the revolution: opposition to bureaucratic capitalism. Comrade Mao Tse-tung added this new element, opposition to bureaucratic capitalism, to his formula which became: “the revolution of the masses of the people against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism under the leadership of the proletariat.” Comrade Mao Tse-tung regarded this formula as the general line and policy in the first stage of the Chinese revolution.
What are spoken of as the masses of the people in the formula proposed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung are mainly the peasants. This revolution is based on the alliance of the workers and peasants and em-braces all people who are opposed to imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism. According to Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese proletariat, the peasants, the intellectuals and other sections of the petty bourgeoisie are the basic forces in deciding the destiny of the nation and the proletariat is the leading force.
The revolutionary democratic dictatorship established by this revolution is, of course, based upon the same class foundation. Comrade Mao Tse-tung called this revolutionary democratic dictatorship “the joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes under the leadership of the proletariat” or “the people’s democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the working class and based upon the alliance of the workers and peasants.”
The problem of the leadership of the proletariat was regarded by Comrade Mao Tse-tung as the central problem in solving a series of problems of the Chinese revolution. It was also the central problem which concerned the success or failure of the Chinese revolution. In May 1937, while speaking about the problem of the Anti-Japanese National United Front, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“Is the proletariat to follow the bourgeoisie, or is the bourgeoisie to follow the proletariat? This question of the responsibility of leadership in the Chinese revolution is the pivot upon which depends the success or failure of the revolution.” 11
In his famous work On People’s Democratic Dictatorship published in 1949, he again pointed out:
“The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class, a revolution will fail, but with it, a revolution will end in victory. In the era of imperialism, no other class in any country can lead any genuine revolution to victory. The proof lies in the fact that China’s petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie have led revolutions on many occasions, but all ended in failure.”
At the same time, according to Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the peasant problem was the central problem in solving the question of the leadership of the proletariat.
In his report on the national and colonial question made at the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin proposed:
“It would be utopian to think that proletarian parties, if indeed they can arise in such countries, could pursue Communist tactics and a Communist policy in these backward countries without establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without effectively supporting it.”
Stalin pointed out on several occasions:
“… The national question is, in its essence, a peasant question.” 12
Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s viewpoint concerning the problem of China was precisely in line with the viewpoint of Lenin and Stalin and was a development of this viewpoint.
In bourgeois democratic revolutions, the main divergence in the disputes between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and between the proletariat and all other parties was the peasant problem. In his work, On Coalition Government, Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out:
“Mobilizing all available forces, the anti-popular bloc of the Kuomintang has directed at the Communist Party of China all kinds of venomous attacks—open and secret, military and political, sanguinary and non-sanguinary.
“The controversies between the two parties, viewed from their social implications, really all hinge on the issue of agrarian relations.”
To assume leadership in the peasant revolution is a fundamental symbol of the leadership of the proletariat. That the bourgeoisie cannot become the leader of the bourgeois-democratic revolution is basically because it cannot lead the peasant re-volution, because it fears the peasant revolution and opposes the peasant revolution. There is no doubt that only under the leadership of the proletariat, will it be possible effectively to organize the extremely broad and disorganized peasant population into an unlimited fighting force, to talk of the alliance of the workers and the peasants, to talk of uniting, on the basis of this alliance, all potential revolutionary forces and winning them over to our side, and to talk of the unity of Chinese revolutionary forces with the international revolutionary forces.
As everybody knows, during the first revolutionary period Chen Tu-hsiu maintained that
“If the bourgeois-democratic revolution loses the assistance of the bourgeoisie, it will cease to have any class significance and social basis in the revolutionary cause.”
That is to say, he regarded “the class significance and social basis” of the bourgeois-democratic revolution as pertaining to the bourgeoisie only. Chen Tu-hsiu did not take the peasant problem into account. (See Chen Tu-hsiu’s article, The Bourgeois Revolution and the Revolutionary Bourgeoisie published in 1923.)
It should be pointed out that it was in connection with the peasant question that the opportunists of every description, beginning with Chen Tu-hsiu, opposed and misrepresented the leadership of the proletariat. Either they directly denied the leadership of the proletariat and acknowledged the leadership of the bourgeoisie, thus of course directly rejecting the peasant revolution, as did Chen Tu-hsiu-ism in the first revolutionary period and Right opportunism in the initial stage of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression. Or they adopted a “Left” form and actually denied the necessity of uniting with the middle peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie, thus reality denying the leadership of the proletariat, did “Left” opportunism during the period of ten in as years of civil war.
There is no doubt that it was precisely the leadership of the proletariat and the alliance of the working class and the peasantry brought about by it which made possible, on the one hand, the victory of the revolution against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism. As Comrade Mao Tse-tung puts it, “these two classes are the main force in over-throwing imperialism and the reactionary clique of the Kuomintang.” On the other hand, they make possible the growth of the New Democratic revolution into Socialist revolution because, as Comrade Mao Tse-tung says,
“The transition from New Democracy to Socialism also depends primarily upon the alliance of these two classes.” 13
Of course, if we had acted along the lines of the opportunists who surrendered the leadership of the proletariat, then, as some past historical facts have indicated, we would have led the revolution to suffer defeat and reverses. In that case, the Chinese revolution could not become what it is today, nor what it will be in the future.
(5) From Revolutionary Bases in the Countryside to the Nation-wide Victory of the Revolution
As everybody knows, the Chinese revolution won victory after going through a long-drawn-out and bitter struggle and after successively capturing one fighting position after another. After 1927, the capture of fighting positions did not start from the cities but from the countryside. After 1927, the Communist Party of China, represented by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, shifted the centre of gravity of its work to the countryside in order to build up strength there, in order to encircle the cities from the countryside so as to capture them. This was the line of work which Comrade Mao Tse-tung insisted upon. Facts have long proved that this line was completely victorious because it was a correct line and the only correct line.
This line was based upon a sound Marxist-Leninist scientific analysis of the conditions in China.
The enemies of the Chinese revolution were numerous and powerful. As early as May, 1927, Stalin said,
“Because, in the first instance, the enemies of the Chinese revolution, both domestic (Chang Tso-lin, Chiang Kai-shek, the big bourgeoisie, the gentry, the landlords, etc.) and external enemies (the imperialists) are far too numerous and powerful….” 14
In analyzing the conditions of the enemy of the revolution, who included not only powerful imperialists but also powerful feudal forces and the big bourgeoisie which was linked with imperialism and the feudal forces and was hostile to the people, Comrade Mao Tse-tung raised a series of problems as follows:
“Confronted with such enemies the Chinese re-volution becomes long drawn-out and bitter. Since the enemies are extremely powerful, the revolutionary forces, unless allowed a long period of time, cannot be massed and steeled into a power that will finally crush them. Since the enemy’s suppression of the Chinese revolution is exceedingly ruthless, the revolutionary forces cannot hold their own positions steadily and take over those of the enemy unless they steel themselves and develop their tenacity in the course of steeling themselves. The view that the forces of the Chinese revolution can be built up in a twinkling and the Chinese revolutionary struggle can triumph in a moment is therefore incorrect.
“With the presence of such enemies, it becomes certain that the principal means, the principal form of the Chinese revolution cannot be a peaceful, but must be an armed one. This is because our enemy allows to the Chinese people, who possess no political freedoms and rights whatsoever, no possibility of peaceful activities. Stalin said, ‘In China, armed re-volution is fighting against armed counter-revolution. This is one of the peculiarities and one of the advantages of the Chinese revolution.’ This is a perfectly correct formulation. That view which belittles armed struggle, revolutionary war, guerrilla war, and army work is therefore incorrect.
“With the presence of such enemies, the question of revolutionary base areas also arises. Since the powerful imperialism and its allies, the reactionary forces in China, have occupied China’s key cities for a long time, if the revolutionary forces do not wish to compromise with imperialism and its jackals but want to persist in the struggle, and if they intend to accumulate strength and steel them-selves, and avoid decisive battles with the powerful enemy before they have mustered enough strength, then they must build the backward villages into advanced, consolidated base areas, into great military, political, economic, and cultural revolutionary positions, so that they can fight the fierce enemy who utilizes the cities to attack the rural districts, and gradually win a complete victory for the revolution through protracted fighting.” 15
To establish revolutionary bases by armed force was the starting point of the road along which Comrade Mao Tse-tung led the revolution to nation-wide victory. Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that it was necessary to establish revolutionary bases even if they were only several small pieces of territory at the beginning; and that if this course was persisted in, then a spark might start a prairie fire.
“Only thus can we win the confidence of the revolutionary masses throughout the country, just as the Soviet Union has done throughout the world. Only thus can we create tremendous difficulties for the reactionary ruling classes, shake their very foundations, and precipitate their internal disintegration. And only thus can we really create a Red Army that will be the chief weapon in the coming great revolution. In short, only thus can we accelerate the revolutionary upsurge.” 16
Why was there the possibility of establishing bases which could exist for a long time and why could this possibility be transformed into reality? Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out the following conditions existing in old China:
“The unevenness of political and economic development in China—the coexistence of a frail capitalist economy and a preponderant semi-feudal economy; the coexistence of a few modern industrial and commercial cities and the boundless expanses of stagnant rural districts; the coexistence of several million industrial workers on the one hand and, on the other, hundreds of millions of peasants and handicraftsmen under the old regime; the coexistence of big warlords controlling the central government and small warlords controlling the provinces; the coexistence of two kinds of reactionary armies, i.e., the so-called central army under Chiang Kai-shek and the troops of miscellaneous brands under the warlords in the provinces; and the coexistence of a few railway and steamship lines and motor roads on the one hand and, on the other, the vast number of wheelbarrow paths and trails for pedestrians only, many of which are even difficult for the pedestrians.
“China is a semi-colonial country the disunity among the imperialist countries has caused the dis-unity among the various ruling blocs in China. A semi-colonial state controlled by several countries is different from a colony controlled by a single country.
“China is a vast country where when the east is still dark, the west is lit up; when night falls in the south, the day breaks in the north; and one need not worry about whether there is room enough to move round.
“China has gone through a great revolution which has prepared the seeds of the Red Army, the Chinese Communist Party which leads the Red Army, and the masses who have participated in a revolution.” 17
Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out with special emphasis the split and war within the comprador and feudal ruling circles which were controlled from be-hind the scenes by imperialism. He pointed out:
“Because of the prolonged splits and wars within the White regime, a condition is provided for one or several small Red areas under the leadership of the Communist Party to emerge and hold out amid the encirclement of the White political power on all sides.”
“If we but realize that splits and wars are incessant within the White regime in China, we shall have no doubt about the emergence, existence, and daily growth of the Red political power.” 18
It can be seen from the foregoing that Comrade Mao Tse-tung applied to semi-colonial China the theory of the law governing the uneven political and economic development of capitalism in various countries as expounded by Lenin and Stalin; and after concrete analysis of the actual situation, worked out a series of complete conclusions: that the political and economic development of China was extremely uneven, thus giving rise to the extreme unevenness of the development of the revolution; that it was possible for the revolution to take advantage of the weakness of the enemy to achieve victory first in the countryside, and that it was possible to establish long-term revolutionary bases there.
Obviously, after the defeat of the revolution in 1927, this series of conclusions of Comrade Mao Tse-tung was of enormous significance for the revolution. Comrade Mao Tse-tung recalled in 1936:
“We had Hunan-Kiangsi border area) during the period from the winter of 1927 to the spring of 1928, soon after pointed this out (at the first Party conference of the guerrilla warfare was started in China, when some comrades in the Hunan-Kiangsi border area-the Chingkang mountains-raised the question: ‘How long can the Red flag be kept flying?’ For this was a most fundamental question: without answering the question whether China’s revolutionary base areas and the Chinese Red Army could exist and develop, we could not advance a single step.” 19
It constituted an extremely heroic attack against the counter-revolution of Chiang Kai-shek and Wang Ching-wei when Comrade Mao Tse-tung led the revolutionary forces to march to the Chingkang mountain. This attack gave birth to the first revolutionary base. Precisely at the time when the people were suffering most, this revolutionary base inspired the whole nation with hope, and in its wake many other revolutionary bases were established.
After the defeat of the revolution in 1927, the Chen Tu-hsiu capitulationist clique immediately lost all hope in the revolution and became liquidators. They opposed Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s line and the heroic march he led to attack the counter-revolution. Their former denial of the peasant revolution already constituted the basis for their merging with the Trotskyite clique. Not long afterwards, they became linked with the Trotskyite clique and for this reason they were expelled from the Party. The Trotskyite Chen Tu-hsiu clique tried their best to praise the reactionary rule of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang and the strength of the Kuomintang reactionaries. They even became so shameless as to laud Chiang Kai-shek’s counter-revolutionary war as a “war of unification” and openly declared themselves to be “at one with the reaction.” They used the most venomous words to insult and curse Comrade Mao Tse-tung and the revolution. This small bunch that degenerated into the most despicable counter-revolutionary trash carried out the basest work of imperial-ism and counter-revolution from start to finish.
On the other hand, some comrades inside our Party committed the mistake of petty-bourgeois revolutionary impetuousness. They bitterly hated the Kuomintang’s policy of massacre and were enraged by Chen Tu-hsiu’s capitulationism. However, they lacked the patience to carry on protracted, arduous and exacting revolutionary struggle and were impatient with the task of persistently preserving the revolutionary bases in the countryside for a long period of time. As a result, the theory that the re-volution could gain a quick victory arose. These comrades actually denied the political and economic unevenness of China; they denied the unevenness of the development of the revolution and harbored the illusion that the revolution could gain complete victory overnight or capture many cities overnight. This kind of “Left” adventurism gained temporary ascendancy inside the Party on three occasions, opposed the correct line of Comrade Mao Tse-tung and, as a result, caused losses to the revolution. Particularly after the adventurism represented by Comrade Li Li-san, the third adventurism represented by Comrade Wang Ming (Chen Shao-yu) and Comrade Po Ku (Chin Pang-hsien) caused the greatest losses to the revolution. However, it was again the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung that saved the critical situation created by such adventurism.
It was through armed struggles that the revolutionary bases were established and preserved. There-fore, the problem of the revolutionary bases was connected with the strategic problems of the revolutionary war. Hence, the controversy over viewpoints concerning the revolutionary bases was actually a controversy over the strategic problems of the revolutionary war.
One of the greatest contributions made by Comrade Mao Tse-tung to military science was that, in the course of the long-term development of the Chinese revolution, he placed the guerilla warfare of the Chinese revolution in an extremely important strategic position and studied it in this light. Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out:
“… the protracted revolutionary struggle conducted in such revolutionary bases is chiefly a pea-sant guerrilla war led by the Chinese Communist Party. The view which neglects building up. revolutionary bases in the rural districts, the view which neglects performing arduous work among the peasants, and the view which neglects guerrilla war are therefore all incorrect.” 20
“Left” opportunists who in the ten-year civil war period ignored the problem of persisting in the bases in the countryside for a long time inevitably ignored guerilla warfare and the line of achieving great victories by accumulating small ones. They did not admit that guerilla warfare and mobile warfare of a guerilla nature were the main forms of the war but harbored the illusion of fighting decisive battles of positional warfare in conditions when the enemy’s strength and ours were at great variance. The disastrous results brought about by this erroneous strategy led to the loss of the bases. Then, when their theory of gaining a quick victory was not realized but, on the contrary, many bases were lost, they sank into pessimism and turned to the Right. In the period of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression, they also adopted the viewpoint of quick victory in the question of strategy. They had no interest in the policy of persisting in the anti-Japanese bases in the countryside and the anti-Japanese guerilla warfare and in extending them vigorously and on a large scale. With regard to the policy of people’s war they wanted nothing short of “regular warfare,” disregarding the circumstance that the enemy’s strength and ours were at great variance at the initial stages of the war. All this was similar to what they had advocated during the ten-year civil war period. What was different was that, in the period of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression, they completely demonstrated that they had lost confidence in the strength of the people. They pinned their hopes of victory in the anti-Japanese war mainly on the “re-gular warfare” adopted by the Kuomintang army and failed to see the great role and future of the people’s armed forces.
The method of conducting guerilla warfare as ex-pounded by Comrade Mao Tse-tung was, in certain cases, “to break up the whole into parts” and “to divide up the forces in order to arouse the masses,” while, in other cases, “to gather parts into a whole” and “to concentrate the forces to deal with the enemy.” The main strategy of the revolutionary war as ex-pounded by Comrade Mao Tse-tung was to develop guerilla warfare to the fullest possible extent and on a large scale and then, under certain conditions, after the growth of our strength, to transform it into regular warfare as in the latter period of the ten-year civil war. During this period, the regular warfare still took the form of mobile warfare of a guerilla nature. Under other conditions, in accordance with the changes on the part of the enemy, regular warfare was transformed into guerilla warfare, as in the first period of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression. During this period, the main form of fighting was guerilla warfare but the chance of waging mobile warfare under favorable conditions was not given up. Owing to new conditions, new growth of the revolutionary strength, and new changes on the part of the enemy, guerilla warfare was changed into regular warfare as in the last stage of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression and in the period of the War of Liberation against Chiang Kai-shek and the United States. In the latter period of the War of Liberation, regular warfare developed to such an extent that it included the operations of army corps in which large numbers of heavy arms were employed and attacks on strongholds were launched. All these strategic changes occurred at the same time as changes in the revolutionary bases-the change from small bases to large bases, to bases which included cities, to victory in half of China and to victory throughout the country.
After the revolution had achieved nation-wide victory, Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out the necessity of building a completely modernized army in order to defend our Motherland. In September, 1949, Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out in his opening speech at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference:
“Our national defense must be consolidated and no imperialists will be allowed to invade our territory again. Our people’s armed forces must be preserved and strengthened, with our heroic and tested People’s Liberation Army as their foundation. We will not only have a powerful army but also a powerful navy and a powerful air force.”
The seizure of Taiwan, a part of our territory, by American imperialism and its aggression against the Korean Democratic People’s Republic have fully borne out the necessity of building modernized national defense forces as Comrade Mao Tse-tung directed two years ago. While the Chinese people organized the volunteers to fight triumphantly shoulder to shoulder with the Korean People’s Army against American aggression, we were doing our best to build a completely modernized army, a powerful navy and a powerful air force.
` Comrade Mao Tse-tung vividly and brilliantly applied the dialectics of Marxism-Leninism to the strategic problems of the revolutionary war and proved these dialectics triumphantly step by step. However, the opportunists and dogmatists always ignored the relative ratio of strength between us and the enemy and laid one-sided stress on “regular warfare.” They castrated dialectics from life, and, therefore, life brought them nothing but sufferings.
(6) A Broad United Front of Both Unity and Struggle
China was formerly an agricultural country, and in more recent times, as the result of the aggression of the various imperialists, she became an extremely turbulent, semi-colonial country, the focus of the many contradictions in the East, as previously mentioned. Thus, it was possible for the Chinese New Democratic Revolution against imperialism, feudal-ism and bureaucratic capitalism to make full use of the various contradictions and concentrate all possible forces to defeat the enemies of the people one by one.
In connection with this question, two kinds of mistakes occurred in the history of the Communist Party of China. One kind was Right opportunism: for instance, Chen Tu-hsiu-ism in the revolutionary period from 1924 to 1927 and the Right opportunist mistake committed by some comrades in the early period of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression. The Right opportunists advocated an unprincipled united front, attempting to transform the proletariat into an appendage of the bourgeoisie. Comrade Mao Tse-tung called this mistake of Right opportunism “all unity and no struggle.” Another kind of mistake was that of “Left” opportunism which occurred on three occasions in the ten-year civil war period. It denied any united front, attempting to place the proletariat, the farm laborers and the poor peasants in an isolated position. Comrade Mao Tse-tung called this mistake of “Left” opportunism “all struggle and no unity.”
Obviously, it was a great mistake to deny the possibility of a broad united front in the Chinese revolution and the necessity of such a broad united front under certain conditions. In August, 1927, when refuting the Trotskyites in relation to the Chinese problem, Stalin pointed out that the basic starting point of Leninism in solving revolutionary problems in the colonial and dependent countries is to distinguish strictly between the revolution in imperialist countries and the revolution in countries that are oppressed by the imperialist countries. The bourgeoisie in the former countries is different from the national bourgeoisie in the latter. The difference is that the bourgeoisie in imperialist countries is the oppressor of the people of other countries,
“Opposed to revolution in every stage of the revolution,” while the national bourgeoisie in countries oppressed by imperialism “will be able to support the revolutionary movement of its own country against imperialism at a certain stage and for a certain period.” 21
In other words, it is possible for the proletariat in the colonial and semi-colonial countries to establish a revolutionary united front with the national bourgeoisie under certain historical conditions.
Of course, in this united front, the proletariat must not obscure its own independent face and must absolutely maintain the independent character of the proletarian movement. The proletariat must build up its own leading position in the united front. This principle was also laid down by Lenin and Stalin.
In accordance with the experience of the Chinese revolution, especially the experiences of the united front set up between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang, Comrade Mao Tse-tung developed these viewpoints of Lenin and Stalin and created a set of complete and correct policies concerning the united front in the Chinese revolution.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung called the policy of the united front of the Chinese Communist Party with the bourgeoisie, especially the policy towards the Kuomintang big bourgeoisie in the period of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression a policy of both unity and struggle. The reason why it called for both unity and struggle were that the Chinese bourgeoisie possessed a dual character. The closed-door-ism of the “Left” did not realize the dual character of the Chinese bourgeoisie and therefore denied the possibility and necessity of unity; the Right opportunists also did not realize the dual character of the Chinese bourgeoisie and therefore denied the necessity for struggle. The correct policy of Comrade Mao Tse-tung was to carry out a resolute and serious struggle on two fronts against both Right and “Left” opportunism.
The dangerous character of these two forms of opportunism was different in various periods. The history of the Chinese revolution proves that before the united front with the bourgeoisie was formed, “Left” closed-door-ism was the main danger to the Party; but after the united front was already formed, Right capitulationism was often the main danger to the Party. For instance, during the period of the Second Revolutionary Civil War in China, from 1927 to 1936, the “Left” opportunists even denied the possibility and necessity of a united front with the petty bourgeoisie in general, and regarded as the most dangerous enemies of the revolution some small parties of the petty bourgeoisie and some sections of the national bourgeoisie that were not in power. In 1931, the invasion of Northeast China by Japanese imperialism gave rise to new changes in the political relations of classes in China, but there was still no change in the views of the “Left” opportunists. This “Left” opportunism was the main danger at that time because it hindered the Party from linking itself with the broad masses and hindered the Party from having the possibility of fully utilizing all contradictions to facilitate the revolution. But in 1937 after the Anti-Japanese National United Front was formed, some comrades who had committed “Left” opportunist mistakes, as represented by Comrade Chen Shao-yu, began to commit Right opportunist mistakes instead. These Right opportunist mistakes were the main danger at that time because they hindered the Party from struggling against reactionary forces and reactionary trends in the united front and exposed the proletariat to the danger of losing its independence.
During the period of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression the united front even included that clique of the Kuomintang which was in power, with Chiang Kai-shek as its representative, the clique of the pro-Anglo-American big landlords and big bourgeoisie which had carried on cruel warfare against the Communist Party for ten years. It was necessary to include this clique in the united front because at that time it commanded large military forces, and at that time, American imperialism and Japanese imperialism were in conflict, fighting for supremacy in the Far East. After this broad anti-Japanese united front was formed, Comrade Mao Tse-tung, using the method of class analysis, pointed out that within this united front, there existed a left, middle and right group and pro-posed the policy of enlarging and consolidating the left-wing group, of urging the middle group to progress and change and of isolating the right-wing group, i.e., a policy “of developing the progressive forces, of winning over the middle forces and of isolating the diehard forces.” But comrades who committed Right opportunist mistakes opposed the policy of Comrade Mao Tse-tung and ignored the class dis-tinctions in the united front. In opposition to the policy of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, they proposed to make “no distinction between left, middle and right,” denied the existence of fascism in China and even ignored the class distinction between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang. They regarded both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party as “the con-fluence of most of the excellent, progressive Chinese youth.” (See Key to Saving the Present Situation by Comrade Chen Shao-yu, published in December, 1937.) This viewpoint of the Right opportunists was in fact protecting the diehard elements of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang.
Comrades committing this Right opportunist mistake denied the principle of “independence and autonomy in the united front” as proposed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in the period of the War of Resistance, and in fact advocated that everything must be decided by Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang government. Militarily, comrades committing this Right opportunist mistake advocated “unifying the command, organisation, arms, discipline, war plans and war operations.” As a matter of fact, this would have meant merging the people’s army led by the Communist Party into the army of the Kuomintang and letting Chiang Kai-shek swallow it as he pleased. This coincided perfectly with the counter-revolutionary demand for the so-called “unification of military and administrative orders” later proposed by Chiang Kai-shek. Just as Comrade Mao Tse-tung said, these comrades
“… made concessions to the Kuomintang’s policies against the people; had greater trust in the Kuomintang than in the masses; lacked the courage to launch mass struggles with a free hand or to expand the Liberated Areas and the people’s army in the Japanese-occupied areas; and, in fine, surrendered the leading role in the Anti-Japanese War to the Kuomintang.” 22
When explaining the principle of “independence and autonomy in the united front,” Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“What then is our purpose in doing so? In one respect, it is to maintain the foothold that we have already gained. This foothold is the take-off base in our strategy; once it is lost, then nothing further can be said. But the chief purpose lies in another aspect, namely, to expand one foothold to realize the positive aim of ‘mobilizing millions upon millions of the masses to join the Anti-Japanese National United Front and overthrow Japanese imperialism.’” 23
The political principles and the principles on war strategy laid down by Comrade Mao Tse-tung and the series of policies formulated in accordance with these principles were to lead to the great general aim of turning the outcome of the War of Resistance into a victorious outcome for the people. These problems of principle and policy were decisive in bringing about such an outcome.
However, as the Right opportunist viewpoint and policy, first of all, abandoned the positions that had been taken, there was nothing to speak of expanding those positions. Consequently, the Right opportunist mistakes committed by some comrades could not but lead to a conclusion directly opposite to Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s. For instance, at that time, in his article Key to Saving the Present Situation, Comrade Chen Shao-yu made the following estimate of the perspective of the War of Resistance:
“The actual situation in China is: If the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China, through their cooperation, can drive out the Japanese invaders and gain victory, then the Kuomintang will in fact prove itself the big-gest political party fighting for the national existence of the Chinese people, and the leader of the Kuomintang Mr. Chiang and other persons who firmly lead the War of Resistance will become immortal national heroes of China. When that time comes, who will be able to violate the will of the Chinese people by carrying on a struggle to overthrow the Kuomintang?
“Therefore, it can be said that those who believe in the rumor that ‘after the victory of the War of Resistance, China will belong to the Communist Soviet’ are not only unfamiliar with the actual situation in China but also have no confidence in the fighting strength and brilliant perspective of the Chinese Kuomintang. Obviously, this is a very harmful thing.”
This opinion meant that after the victory in the War of Resistance, China would still have to be the China of the most reactionary Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang and could not be the China of People’s Democracy led by the Communist Party. This was the inevitable logical conclusion derived from the series of Right opportunist viewpoints and the incorrect policy of the Right opportunists at that time. This was precisely the ignominious conclusion which was very harmful to the fighting strength and brilliant perspectives of the Chinese people. The fighting life of the Chinese people, however, has long since overthrown this ignominious conclusion. Entirely contrary to Comrade Chen Shao-yu’s estimate, Chiang Kai-shek turned out to be a traitor “whom every person in the country considers worthy of death,” while the genuine immortal national heroes, those who will perpetually light up the way along which the Chinese people advance are the innumerable Communist Party members and people’s warriors who have won our praise and respect. Thus, it can be said that it was none other than the Right opportunists who were themselves most unfamiliar with and wholly ignorant of the actual situation in China. The comrades who committed Right opportunist mis-takes desired to maintain unity with Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang by one-sided and passive concessions. This was utterly wrong. Comrade Mao Tse-tung, contrary to the Right opportunist comrades, advocated the adoption of a policy of active struggle as a means to unite all the anti-Japanese forces. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“In the period of the anti-Japanese united front, struggles are the means to solidarity and solidarity is the end of struggles. Solidarity exists when sought through struggles and disappears when sought through concessions.” 24
The events that took place in the country through-out the period of the War of Resistance testified perfectly to this truth stated by Comrade Mao Tse-tung. With regard to the united front, our Party, in accordance with the policy of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, resolutely adopted a revolutionary twofold policy of unity and struggle to cope with the double-dealing policy of the Kuomintang big bourgeoisie of resisting Japan and at the same time preparing to surrender, and of uniting with the Communist Party while at the same time opposing it. As a result, our Party unrestrainedly mobilized the broad masses, united all possible forces that were against Japan, stabilized the vacillating elements, isolated the diehard clique, repulsed Chiang Kai-shek’s repeated anti-Communist campaigns, and consequently persisted in the War of Resistance and maintained the anti-Japanese united front to the very end.
On the one hand, the Right opportunists completely failed to understand that our united front with Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang during the period of the War of Resistance was based on the people’s armed forces. Chiang Kai-shek was compelled to join the united front. If there had been no people’s armed forces, Chiang Kai-shek would certainly not have established any kind of united front with us. On the other hand, the Right opportunists completely failed to understand that after Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang had been compelled to establish a united front with us, he was constantly attempting, relying on his counter-revolutionary armed forces, to use every means and every chance to attack us and to eliminate the Communist Party and the people’s armed forces. This was the reason why we had to rely on the armed forces of the people in order to carry out justified, advantageous and restrained struggles against such counter-revolutionary attacks by Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang. Comrade Mao Tse-tung criticized the mistakes of the Right opportunists on these two basic points, pointing out that this union against Japan was mainly a union of armed forces, that struggle within the united front was inevitable, and that should Chiang Kai-shek, in co-ordination with the Japanese aggressors, launch armed attacks upon the people’s armed forces and the anti-Japanese bases, we must not let him run wild but must carry on such just and necessary armed struggles in self-defense as are justified, advantageous and restrained. As a matter of fact, when, in co-ordination with the Japanese aggressors, Chiang Kai-shek launched armed attacks against the Communist Party on three occasions, the Communist Party of China was by no means daunted by these counter-revolutionary as-saults but, on the contrary, resolutely repulsed them and thus safeguarded the people’s armed forces and anti-Japanese bases and won victory in the War of Resistance.
Concerning the struggle against the diehard clique of the Kuomintang in the anti-Japanese united front, in addition to the Right opportunist viewpoint that the struggle would split the united front, there was the “Left” opportunist viewpoint that the struggle could be carried on without any limits, as well as that which adopted an incorrect policy towards the middle-of-the-road forces. Comrade Mao Tse-tung criticized not only the Right opportunist viewpoint but also the “Left” opportunist viewpoint. In order to prevent the possibility of any “Left” opportunist mistake at the time, Comrade Mao Tse-tung raised his three well-known principles in the struggle against the diehard clique of the Kuomintang. The principles were “justified,” “advantageous” and “restrained.” By “restrained” is meant that a struggle should stop at an appropriate stage. Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out:
“Persisting in such justified, advantageous and restrained struggle, we can develop the progressive forces, win over the middle-of-the-road forces, isolate the diehard forces, and make the diehards wary of heedlessly attacking us, or heedlessly compromising with the enemy, or heedlessly starting a large-scale civil war.” 25
The policy of unity with the bourgeois diehards as well as struggle against them in the national united front was the realization of
“The consistency of the national struggle with the class struggle” 26
as once explained by Comrade Mao Tse-tung. This is the art of revolution which Comrade Mao Tse-tung has very successfully practiced. This is the Marxist-Leninist art of revolution. During the War of Resistance, this policy of Mao Tse-tung, a policy of unity as well as struggle isolated the diehard forces to the greatest extent, won over the middle-of-the-road forces, developed the progressive forces and fully pre-pared the Communist Party and the people ideologically, politically, organizationally and militarily. Consequently, after the surrender of Japan, the Communist Party of China was able to lead the people in two or three years to steadily and unhurriedly smash the counter-revolutionary war against the Chinese people which was launched by American imperialism and its faithful lackey Chiang Kai-shek, overthrow the last counter-revolutionary dynasty in China head-ed by Chiang Kai-shek and achieve the victory for which the Chinese people had striven for a hundred years.
During the period of the War of Resistance, the national bourgeoisie, the middle class, formed a middle force between the workers, peasants and other petty-bourgeois elements on the one hand and the big landlords, and big bourgeoisie represent-ed by Chiang Kai-shek on the other. The Communist Party of China adopted a policy of winning over the middle force. At that time, Comrade Mao Tse-tung explained the situation:
“Although there are class contradictions between it and the workers and it does not approve of the independence of the working class, yet, as it is oppressed by Japanese imperialism in the enemy-occupied areas and restricted by the big landlord class and the big bourgeoisie under Kuomintang rule, it still wants to resist Japan and win poli-tical power for itself. On the question of resistance to Japan, it favors solidarity in resistance; and on the question of winning political power, it favors the movement for constitutional government and attempts to achieve its objective by exploiting the contradictions between the progressives and the diehards. It is a stratum that we must win over.” 27
A policy of unity was adopted towards the revolutionary potentialities of the national bourgeoisie and a policy of criticism was adopted towards its wavering and compromising character, the policy of critic-ism being another form of struggle. This policy of criticism was different from the form of struggle against the diehard clique in the Kuomintang, because the national bourgeoisie was not in power. It was, however, also a kind of combined policy of unity and struggle. This policy aimed at stiffening the attitude of the national bourgeoisie in the struggle against imperialism.
After the War of Resistance had come to an end the national bourgeoisie continued to suffer from the restriction and oppression of the big landlords and bureaucratic bourgeoisie (the big bourgeoisie) re-presented by Chiang Kai-shek. And after the Japanese oppression was overthrown, American oppression came in its stead, which also harmed the interests of the national bourgeoisie. Thus, there existed the possibility of the continuation of the united front between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie. The question remained much the same: to adopt a policy of unity towards its revolutionary potentialities and to adopt a policy of criticism and struggle towards its wavering and compromising character.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung also pointed out that because of the backwardness of China’s economy, it would still be necessary after the victory of the revolution to carry on an economic united front with the national bourgeoisie.
Of course, as explained by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the economic united front must conform to the twofold policy of both unity and struggle. A policy of unity should be adopted towards the enthusiasm of the bourgeoisie to develop industrial production; while a policy of struggle should be adopted towards speculation, manipulation and monopoly by the bourgeoisie, and its violation of Government laws, decrees and economic plans.
The events of the last few years have consistently proved the correctness of Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s policy:
“In order to offset imperialist pressure and to push her backward economy a step forward, China must utilize all elements of urban and rural capital-ism which are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people’s livelihood. She must unite with the national bourgeoisie in the common struggle.”
Its correctness can be discerned in the various financial and economic achievements of the People’s Republic of China; and also, in such massive people’s movements as the Resist-American-Aggression and Aid-Korea Movement, the suppression of the counter-revolutionaries and the agrarian reform.
The events of recent years have continuously proved that Right opportunism was wrong because it attempted to sacrifice the independence, autonomy, and leading position of the proletariat in the united front and therefore inevitably sacrificed the victory of the people. Likewise, these events have continuously proved that “Left” opportunism was also wrong be-cause, at the time when it was necessary and possible to isolate the enemies of the revolution to the greatest extent, it tended to isolate ourselves and thereby benefited the enemy.
(7) Problems Regarding the Transition from Democratic Revolution to Socialist Revolution
Comrade Mao Tse-tung writes in his book On Coalition Government:
“We Communists never conceal our political stand. It is definite and beyond any doubt that our future or maximum Program is to make China advance into the realm of Socialism and Communism. Both the name of our Party and our Marxist world outlook unequivocally point to this highest ideal of the future, a future of dazzling bright-ness and unsurpassable beauty. Every one of us, ever since he joined the Party, has kept in mind two clearly defined objectives: to struggle for the present new bourgeois-democratic revolution and for the future proletarian-Socialist revolution. We have upheld these two objectives despite the enmity, libel, slander, and ridicule that are born out of the sheer ignorance and meanness of the enemies of Communism. All such attacks we must resolutely repulse. As to well-intentioned skeptics, we shall not attack them but explain to them with good intent and much patience. All this is clear and definite. There is nothing ambiguous about it.”
This paragraph expounds with complete clarity China’s future—a future which, governed by the laws of world history as well as Chinese history, is absolutely inevitable.
The Right opportunists either lost sight of this future or regarded it as extremely uncertain or extremely gloomy. Regarding the bourgeoisie as lead-er of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, they considered that the fruit of the revolution should fall to the bourgeoisie alone. For instance, in his article The Bourgeois Revolution and the Revolutionary Bourgeoisie, published in 1923, Chen Tu-hsiu wrote:
“The victory of such a democratic revolution certainly means the victory of the bourgeoisie.”
From the Rightist standpoint, he flatly denied the future of Socialism. Conversely, the “Left” opportunists ignored the difference between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the Socialist revolution or considered that the initial victory of the revolution in one or several provinces would mark the beginning of the transition to the realization of Socialism. Or they considered that by the time the victory of the revolution had spread to the “major parts” of China, the fundamental task would be to carry out the Socialist revolution and that the rule of the Kuomintang reactionaries and imperialists could be overthrown only on the basis of realizing Socialism. From the “Left” standpoint, “Left” impetuosity flatly denied the possibility of the victory of the democratic revolution, thus denying in essence the possibility of the victory of Socialism.
“Left” opportunism and Right opportunism are interchangeable on this question, as on many others. As has been stated above, when during the initial stage of the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression our Party, under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, was striving to prepare itself in every step of its work to turn the outcome of the War of Resistance into a victory for the people, those comrades who had committed “Left” mistakes during the period of the Second Revolutionary Civil War made a conclusion entirely to the contrary, considering the victorious “future” of the War of Resistance as belonging to Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang rather than to the people. This conclusion, obviously, denied both the victorious future of the democratic revolution and the future of Socialism.
Following 1927, Comrade Mao Tse-tung incessantly refuted the erroneous “Left” ideology in relation to problems concerning the nature of the revolution. He considered that the Chinese democratic revolution must be carried out to the end.
“Only by acting in this way can a Socialist future of the Chinese revolution be nursed. Misconceptions such as denying the period of revolution for the people’s rights and considering that the Chinese revolution has reached the opportune moment for a Socialist revolution are extremely detrimental to the Chinese revolution.” 28
Comrade Mao Tse-tung regarded as completely correct the opinion then held by the Communist International that the nature of the Chinese revolution was still that of a bourgeois-democratic revolution:
“The struggle which we have passed through verifies the truth of the opinion of the Communist International.” 29
In accordance with the concrete conditions in China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung developed the teachings of Lenin and Stalin regarding the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the Socialist revolution. He said:
“We are advocates of the theory of the transition of revolution, not advocates of the Trotskyite theory of a permanent revolution. We stand for the attainment of Socialism through: all the necessary stages of the democratic republic. We are opposed to tailism, but we are also opposed to adventurism and impatience.” 30
Comrade Mao Tse-tung also said:
“Every Communist must know that the whole Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Chinese Communist Party is a complete revolutionary movement embracing the two revolutionary stages, democratic and Socialist, which are two revolutionary processes differing in character, and that the Socialist stage can be reached only after the democratic stage is completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the Socialist revolution, and the Socialist revolution is the inevitable trend of the democratic revolution. And the ultimate aim of all Communists is to strive for the final achievement of Socialist society and Communist society. We can give correct leadership to the Chinese revolution only on the basis of a clear understanding of both the differences and the connections between the democratic and Socialist revolutions.” 31
Therefore, viewed from the development of the entire revolutionary movement, the period of the New-Democratic revolution
“Is a transitional stage between the termination of a colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal society and the establishment of Socialist society.” 32
Why are such a transformation and transition possible? From the class point of view, it is because of the leadership of the proletariat; from the Party point of view, it is due to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Comrade Mao Tse-tung point-ed out with all correctness:
“Except the Communist Party, no political party, bourgeois or petty-bourgeois, is equal to the task of leading the two great revolutions, democratic and Socialist, in China to their thorough realization. And the Chinese Communist Party, from the very day of its birth, has undertaken this twofold task upon its own shoulders.” 33
As stated above, it is entirely mistaken to mix up the period of democratic revolution and the period of Socialist revolution. On the other hand, this does not imply that the period of democratic re-volution cannot include any Socialist factors. To think so is of course utterly wrong. In 1939, dealing with the outcome of the victory of the New-Democratic revolution, Comrade Mao Tse-tung wrote:
“It is an inevitable result of the victory of the democratic revolution in the economically backward China that capitalism will develop to a certain degree. But this will be only one aspect of the result of the Chinese revolution, not its whole outcome. Its whole out-come will be the development of the capitalist factors on the one hand, and of the Socialist factors on the other.” 34
Comrade Mao Tse-tung then reached this conclusion according to the basic standpoint of the leadership of the proletariat. Both political and economic developments following the victory of our New-Democratic revolution have completely verified Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s Marxist-Leninist conclusion.
What is the Socialist factor in the political sphere resulting from the victory of the New Democratic revolution? It is the leading position of the working class in the organs of State power and in the people’s armed forces, as stipulated in The Common Program of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.
What is the Socialist factor in the economic sphere resulting from the victory of the New Democratic revolution? It is the confiscation of enterprises owned by imperialists and bureaucratic capitalists and the transfer of their ownership to the People’s Republic led by the working class. In the words of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, this
“Enables the People’s Republic to take hold of the main artery of the country’s economy and to turn it into the leading element of the entire people’s economy. This section of the economy is an economy of a Socialist nature, not a capitalist nature.”
The Common Program, following the teachings of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, has also clearly stipulated this. It is stated in The Common Program:
“State-owned economy is an economy of a Socialist nature. All enterprises relating to the economic life of the country and exercising a dominant influence over the people’s livelihood shall be under the unified operation of the State. All State-owned resources and enterprises are the public property of the people as a whole, are the main material basis on which the People’s Republic will develop production and bring about economic prosperity, and are the leading force of the entire social economy.”
The mutual-aid teams, the agricultural producers’ co-operatives and the supply and marketing co-operatives of the laboring masses of the peasants which have been developed in the course of the New Democratic revolution also contain Socialist factors and serve as transitional forms on the way to Socialism.
It is true that we need a considerable length of time to bring about Socialist transformation throughout the country. But we possess the prerequisites. We have opened up the road. Preparations and struggles are still needed, but our progress is fully assured. As Comrade Mao Tse-tung has pointed out:
“Our country will thus steadily advance and pass through war and New Democratic reform; and in the future, when the economic and cultural prosperity of the country has been achieved, when various conditions are ready, and when agreement has been reached by the people throughout the country after mature deliberations, we shall embark upon the new era of Socialism deliberately and properly.” 35
The Right opportunists attempted to make a museum piece of this great ideal of Communism, while the “Left” opportunists attempted to strip it of its rich, living flesh and blood. Comrade Mao Tse-tung, taking into account all the roads which Chinese history had to traverse, combined rigidity in matters of Communist principle with flexibility in matters of policy for the attainment of the objective of Communism. Thus, Communism in China is neither Utopian nor unattainable; it is entirely attainable, irresistible and full of living force.
(8) Problems on the Building of the Party
The process through which Comrade Mao Tse-tung has synthesized Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution is also the process through which the Communist Party of China has become daily more Bolshevized.
How can all the correct lines of the Party be consistently carried out and become mass lines? How can all the possibilities which the Party points out and is struggling for be turned into realities? The central problem is the problem concerning the Party itself.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung has often said that with-out a Bolshevized party of the Lenin-Stalin type, the victory of the Chinese revolution would be impossible. Comrade Mao Tse-tung says:
“If we want to carry on the revolution, we must have a revolutionary party of the Lenin-Stalin type. Without such a revolutionary party, built in accordance with the revolutionary theory and style of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people to vanquish imperialism and its jackals. In the period of more than one hundred years since Marxism came into being, it was only when the Russian Bolshevik Party set an example in leading the October Revolution and Socialist construction and in defeating fascist aggression that revolutionary parties of the new type were established and developed on a world-wide scale. With such new revolutionary parties, the physiognomy of the world revolution has changed. The change has been so radical that trans-formations utterly inconceivable to people of the older generation have spectacularly taken place. The Communist Party of China is precisely a party established and developed after the model of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Since the Communist Party of China came into being, the Chinese revolution has assumed an entirely new physiognomy.” 36
Without a compact Marxist-Leninist theory, it would be impossible to have such a revolutionary party. As Lenin’s maxim states:
“The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced theory.” 37
Stalin says in the conclusion of The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course:
“Only a party which has mastered the Marxist-Leninist theory can confidently advance and lead the working class for-ward.”
Comrade Mao Tse-tung firmly believed that our Party, in order to be fully competent to shoulder a series of great historical tasks and to be really capable of leading the Chinese people from one victory to another, must first of all bring about Marxist-Leninist ideological unity in its own ranks, raise the ideological level of Marxism-Leninism in the whole of the Party and consolidate the correct leadership of Marxism-Leninism. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“To defeat the enemy, our ranks must be in good order, our steps in perfect co-ordination, our troops well-trained, and our weapons well-made.” 38
As viewed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, what is the foundation for the good order in our ranks and for our steps to be in perfect co-ordination? It is Marxist-Leninist unity. How can we become well-trained troops? How can our weapons become good weapons? Only by raising the ideo-logical level of Marxism-Leninism throughout the Party. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“But if we can make ourselves masters of the science of Marxism-Leninism and have faith in the masses, stand closely by them and lead them forward, we shall be fully able to surmount any obstacle and overcome any difficulty. And our strength will be invincible.” 39
Thus, Comrade Mao Tse-tung could not but make considerable efforts to fight against various erroneous ideologies and to build and consolidate our Party ideologically.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung has very clearly linked the attitude towards Marxism-Leninism with Party spirit and regards the two as being identical. He pointed out:
“Without a scientific attitude or with an incompletely scientific attitude or, in other words, not having, or having only but incompletely, the Marxist attitude to the unity of theory and practice is to be devoid of Party spirit or deficient in it.” 40
Two subjectivist ideologies, dogmatism and empiricism, which had made their appearance in the Party and which the Party had to oppose with great vigor were pointed out with extreme conciseness by Comrade Mao Tse-tung. He said: “Arising from two opposite extremes, dogmatism and empiricism alike are subjectivism.” Emerging from two opposite extremes, both ideologies converged into a common fundamental point, that is, one-sidedness.
“Both see only a part rather than the whole.” 41
On the basis of this one-sidedness which they have in common, both ideologies, in face of certain practical problems at a given time, would link up with each other and arrive at a common viewpoint. These two subjectivist ideologies constituted the foundation of the ideology of all those who were guilty of either Right opportunism or “Left” opportunism within the Party. They deviated completely from Marxism-Leninism in epistemology, and became the most fundamental problem in the inner-Party struggle between correct ideology and erroneous ideology. Therefore Comrade Mao Tse-tung deemed it essential to defeat opportunism on this most fundamental ideological problem, with a view to effectively combating various forms of opportunism.
The petty bourgeoisie is the social basis of these two kinds of subjectivism. The reason why these erroneous reactionary ideologies were so serious with us was that a considerable number of our Party members came from the petty bourgeoisie. As Comrade Mao Tse-tung has said:
“China is a country with a very large petty bourgeoisie. Our Party is surrounded by this enormous class; many of our Party members come from this class and it is unavoidable that each of them joins the Party with a long or short petty-bourgeois tail on him.” 42
Therefore, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has never relaxed his fight against subjectivist ideologies which he began a long time ago. In 1929, Comrade Mao Tse-tung had already concretely pointed out that it was necessary to:
(1) “teach Party members to apply, in place of subjective analysis and appraisal, the Marxist-Leninist method in analyzing a political situation and appraising class forces;”
(2) “direct the Party members’ attention to social and economic investigations and studies, to determine thereby the tactics of struggle and the methods of work, and make comrades understand that straying from the investigation of actual conditions they will fall into the abyss of phantasy and adventurism.” 43
In 1937, generalizing from his long experiences, Comrade Mao Tse-tung wrote his outstanding philosophical works, On Practice and On Contradiction, which were directed against these two kinds of subjectivism. The rectification movement which Comrade Mao Tse-tung initiated later, and which was of extremely great historic significance in the history of our Party was launched because of such subjectivist ideologies.
One of the very salient contributions made by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in relation to the problems concerning the Party was his exposure of these two kinds of subjectivism–dogmatism and empiricism-which stemmed from two opposite extremes and which could end in convergence and his pointing out of the correct orientation in overcoming these two kinds of subjectivism. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“In opposing subjectivism, therefore, we must make each of the two above-mentioned types of people develop the aspect in which they are found wanting, and make each type complement itself with the strong qualities of the other. Those with knowledge of books must turn to actuality, so that they will develop, and not stop dead at books or commit the mistake of dogmatism. Those who have working experience must turn to the study of theory and take up reading seriously, so that they can systematize and synthesize their experiences to raise them to a theoretical plane, and will not erroneously take partial experiences for the universal truth or commit the mistake of empiricism.” 44
To be guided by the orientation pointed out by Comrade Mao Tse-tung means the attainment of the unity of theory and practice. In the exposition of his views, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has made frequent use of the following well-known saying of Stalin:
“Theory becomes aimless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory.” 45
The error of dogmatism belongs to the former category; the error of empiricism belongs to the latter. To correct both errors means to achieve unity of theory and practice.
To combine the study of the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin with a continuous study of the experiences of the masses such is the leader-ship of Comrade Mao Tse-tung. This is what Comrade Mao Tse-tung calls “the synthesis of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.”
Based on the experience of our Party in the field of leadership, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has pointed out:
“In all practical work of our Party, any correct leadership must come from the masses and return to the masses. This means that we should assemble the scattered, unsystematic opinions of the masses, make a study of them, and crystallize them into systematized ideas. Then we propagate these ideas among the masses, explain them, and turn them into ideas of the masses themselves. The masses are further guided to hold on persistently to these ideas through their actions, and, through such mass actions, to test their correctness. Subsequent opinions of the masses are then again crystallized and returned to the masses for them to hold on persistently. Such an unending cycle brings to us each time a higher degree of correctness, vividness, and richness. This is the Marxist-Leninist epistemology or methodology.” 46
How can we continually crystallize the opinions and experiences of the masses and then apply such crystallized opinions and experiences to the masses? It is by adhering to the general guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism. The empiricists, forsaking the general guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism, could only linger in a condition of scattered and un-systematic opinions. The dogmatists, forsaking the opinions and the new experiences of the masses, were unable to conduct any research or to crystallize and systematize the opinions of the masses. All this doomed their leadership to errors and doomed the work under their leadership to failure.
The 30-year history of our Party is the history of the struggle between the correct Marxist-Leninist leadership and the erroneous, anti-Marxist-Leninist leadership. It is also the history in which Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s correct leadership has defeated the erroneous leadership, thereby overcoming the setbacks and difficulties encountered in the revolution, and leading the revolution finally to its great victory.
The struggle carried out by this correct leader-ship in ideologically opposing subjectivism and in politically opposing opportunism was linked with the fight against sectarianism in organisational matters.
Petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness takes the form of sectarianism in political life and in organisation, in addition to one-sidedness in ideology. Subjectivism means ideological isolation from the masses both inside and outside the Party, while sectarianism means political and organisational isolation from the masses both inside and outside the Party. They are two aspects of one and the same thing. Such sectarianism once produced evil consequences over a long period.
In 1929, Comrade Mao Tse-tung severely attacked cliquism, pointing out that “it is possessed of a great corrosive and centrifugal effect.” 47 The so-called cliquism means sectarianism. In 1942, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
“After twenty years’ steeling our Party is no longer dominated by sectarianism. Remnants of sectarianism, however, still exist both in the Party’s internal and external relations. Sectarianism in the Party’s internal relations leads to mutual exclusiveness among ourselves and affects the unity and solidarity of the Party. Sectarianism in the Party’s external relations leads to our exclusiveness of all non-Party people and hinders the Party in its task of uniting the people of the whole country. The Party can advance unimpeded in its great mission of achieving solidarity among all the comrades of the Party and all the people of the country only when these two evils are eradicated.” 48
Another very salient contribution made by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in relation to the problems of the Party was that by hoisting this banner against sectarianism he consolidated the entire ranks of the Party and developed correct relations between the Party and the masses. Obviously, it is only when we are ideologically and politically correct and only when we are correct in inner-Party relations and in relations with the masses that our victory will become inevitable.
How can we most effectively overcome to a great extent subjectivism and sectarianism within our Party? Since our Party, because of historical conditions, includes a large number of members of petty-bourgeois origin, to overcome their various mistakes and to consolidate the unity of the Party requires that we adopt an attitude at once serious and prudent rather than liberalistic and rash.
The third salient contribution made by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in relation to the problems concerning the Party was that he advanced a form of movement befitting our inner-Party struggle, that is, the form of the rectification movement, the study movement. The form of this movement consists in organizing, under the unified leadership of the Party, and among the Party cadres and the masses of Party members, an adequate study and discussion of problems of our inner-Party history, the problem of errors within the Party, and Marxist-Leninist literature and Party documents to be made available to them by the Party; and in adopting the form of criticism and self-criticism with a view to leading them along the road of ideological and political consciousness and making them, with the assistance of the Party, consciously “stick to truth and correct mistakes.” The purpose of the movement is described by Comrade Mao Tse-tung as follows:
“First: take warning from the past so as to be more careful in the future; and second: treat the illness in order to cure the patient. We must ruthlessly expose all past errors and analyze and criticize them scientifically so that we will take greater care in our future work and do better. This is the meaning of the first principle. But we have the same aim in exposing errors and criticizing defects as a doctor in his treatment of a case, that is, to treat the illness but not to kill the patient. A person suffering from acute appendicitis will recover if his appendix is removed by the surgeon. Any person who has committed errors, no matter how serious, is welcome to treatment until he is sound again and becomes a good comrade, so long as he does not conceal his malady for fear of taking medicine, i.e., does not persist in his errors until he becomes incorrigible, but honestly and sincerely wishes to be cured and made better.” 49
This is what Comrade Mao Tse-tung has stated repeatedly:
“For the twofold purpose of clarifying ideology and uniting the comrades.”
In other words, in dealing with the erroneous ideologies within the Party, we need a serious attitude as opposed to liberalism and a prudent attitude as opposed to harshness. That this has greatly benefited our Party and has been very successful is verified by the history of our Party since the initiation of the rectification movement in 1942.
As can be seen, the rectification movement altered the physiognomy of our Party very profoundly and on a vast scale. First, the Marxist-Leninist ideological level has thus been greatly elevated throughout our Party. Secondly, our Party membership has rallied with unprecedented unity around the Central Committee and Comrade Mao Tse-tung. These two aspects have ensured and are ensuring that the political line of Comrade Mao Tse-tung is carried through in every respect, enabling us to defeat one enemy after another.
In April, 1945, the Party held its Seventh Congress. It was this Congress that unified the whole of the Party, summarized the achievements of the Party resulting from the carrying out of Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s correct policy during the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression and laid the groundwork for the victory of the people of the whole country. The political report which Comrade Mao Tse-tung delivered at the Congress set forth the policy and programme for rallying the entire Party and the people of the country in the struggle for nation-wide victory of the revolution. The march of events during the past six years has testified to the total correctness of the political line decided upon at the Congress, as evidenced by the complete realization of the nation-wide victory of the great revolution. This Congress was held on the basis of the ideological rectification movement, and the whole body of the Party cadres, having gone through this movement, were therefore able to carry out triumphantly the historical task assigned them by the Congress.
The casualties in the ideological rectification movement were nothing but subjectivism and sectarianism together with the form in which they manifested themselves-Party jargon. What was gained was that our Party made ideological preparation for and gave political leadership to the victory of the people’s great revolution against imperialism.
That is to say, under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, our Party has become a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party capable of shouldering any historical task. That is to say, under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, following the example of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, our Party has be-come a Bolshevized revolutionary party.
Herein lies the reason why our continued advance and our victory in future tasks are assured.
(9) Conclusion
The victory of the Chinese people’s revolution is the victory of Marxism-Leninism in a large country of nearly 500 million people. This is another great re-volution since the Great October Socialist Re-volution. It is another type of great revolution occurring in a country oppressed by imperialism, since the October Socialist Revolution.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s writings are the crystallization, both ideological and theoretical, of this type of revolution in China; they are the crystallization of the extremely dynamic power of Marxism-Leninism in this revolution.
Lenin once wrote:
“We do not regard Marx’s theory as something final and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the cornerstones of the science which Socialists must advance in all directions if they do not want to lag behind the march of life. We think that an independent elaboration of Marx’s theory is especially necessary for Russian Socialists, since this theory provides only general guiding principles which, in particular, are to be applied differently to England than to France, differently to France than to Germany, differently to Germany than to Russia.” 50
In the conclusion of The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), it is pointed out:
“The power of the Marxist-Leninist theory lies in the fact that it enables the Party to find the right orientation in any situation, to understand the inner connection of current events, to foresee their course and to perceive not only how and in what direction they are developing in the present, but how and in what direction they are developing in the future.”
In this conclusion it is also pointed out:
“Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means being able to enrich this theory with the new experience of the revolutionary movement, with new propositions and conclusions, it means being able to develop it and advance it without hesitating to e-place-in accordance with the substance of the theory -such of its propositions and conclusions as have become antiquated by new ones corresponding to the new historical situation.”
The spirit in which Comrade Mao Tse-tung applies Marxism is precisely this spirit of Lenin and Stalin.
Obviously, it requires great theoretical courage and creativeness on Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s part to apply the general guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism to Oriental countries because here the conditions are very different from those in European capitalist states. It is precisely for this reason that Comrade Mao Tse-tung has met with opposition; but it is for this very reason that the theory of Mao Tse-tung has triumphed.
The conclusion concerning the waging of protracted revolutionary warfare in the countryside and of surrounding the towns with the villages and then taking the towns, the conclusion concerning the establishment and maintenance of revolutionary power in many small, scattered bases and the gradual development and expansion of these bases through prolonged struggles until the seizure of power throughout the country these constitute the clear-cut conclusions reached by Comrade Mao Tse-tung some twenty years ago by applying Marxism-Leninism in his study of the problems of the Chinese revolution. They are the new conclusions of Marxism for colonial and semi-colonial countries. These new conclusions are correct because they have been verified by the Chinese revolution and because they are being verified by the activities in the countries of Southeast Asia. This demonstrates the irresistible power of the theory of Marxism-Leninism, the irresistible power of dialectics.
In his inaugural speech at the Trade Unions Conference of Asian and Australasian Countries in 1949, Comrade Liu Shao-chi said:
“The way taken by the Chinese people in defeating imperialism and its lackeys and in founding the People’s Republic of China is the way that should be taken by the peoples of the various colonial and semi-colonial countries in their fight for national independence and people’s democracy.”
“This way is the way of Mao Tse-tung.”
The theory of Mao Tse-tung is a development of Marxism-Leninism in the East. This crystallization of the revolutionary experiences of the East is of important significance for Marxism-Leninism. For the entire world struggle as a whole, it is of universal significance.
50 Footnotes
