By Ted Grant, May 1965
Introduction
In 1949 Mao’s Communist Party came to power in China. Right from the very
beginning the new regime was modelled on Stalinist Russia. This meant that power
was in the hands of a privileged bureaucracy and not the working class. Even
before the Chinese Stalinists came to power Ted Grant had explained that
implicit in the situation was an inevitable conflict between the Russian and
Chinese bureaucracies. "Socialism in one country", the theory espoused by the
Stalinists, involved a nationalist outlook as opposed to an internationalist
one.
If the leaders of the Soviet Union and China had been genuine Communists, the
economies of the two countries could have been integrated into an international
plan of production which would have greatly benefited the workers of both
countries. But for this to be, the workers would have needed to be in power.
Instead each national bureaucracy had their own narrow interests which led to
the famous Sino-Soviet split.
For several years there was an intense exchange of insults between the two
regimes which ended with the Soviet Union withdrawing aid from China in August
1960. This event was to lead to an international split throughout the Communist
parties of the world. The Chinese bureaucracy hid the real reasons for the split
and claimed that it was defending genuine revolutionary ideas as opposed to the "revisionist
Russians". This meant that many leftward leaning Communist party members around
the world turned to China as an alternative to the ever more rightward moving
leadership of the official Communist parties. This was a tragedy as they were
merely swapping one form of Stalinism for another.
Today the nature of the Chinese bureaucracy is clear for all to see. It has
been introducing ever more "market economy reforms", which are endangering the
nationalised planned economy. This article, written in May 1965 by Ted Grant,
shows how genuine Marxism was able to see the real processes going on and not be
fooled by the words of the Chinese leaders. Then as now Marxism was a tool that
allowed one to see through the fog of seemingly contradictory and
incomprehensible events. (October 3, 2003)
Using the pretext of support for national liberation movements, the Chinese
"Communist" Party and Government denounced the recent Conference of
Communist Parties in Moscow in almost hysterical terms. The Peking Review of
March 26th writes, "Of the 26 Parties whose attendance was ordered by
the leaders of the CPSU, the seven fraternal Parties of Albania, China,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Rumania and Viet Nam firmly refused to take part in the
divisive meeting. The fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties of Australia, Brazil
and India likewise condemned and opposed the meeting. The 19 units in attendance
were rent by contradictions and disunity."
"Against revisionism"
In attacking the Conference, the article, representing the position of the
Chinese Stalinist leaders, continues, "The communiqué... is larded
with many high sounding hypocritical phrases, such as ‘oppose imperialism’,
‘support the national liberation movement’... What a striking similarity
there is here to the adoption by US Imperialism of some of the main slogans of
the CPSU! Peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition, peaceful transition,
relaxation of tension, general and complete disarmament, the two-power
domination of the world, (our
emphasis) joint support to the reactionaries
of all countries, joint efforts to undermine the world revolutionary
movements
through the United Nations, joint efforts to oppose China, and so on -
these slogans and schemes of Khrushchev’s have all been taken over by
the US
Imperialism! The leaders of the CPSU and the US Imperialists have
joined in a
love feast, exchanging information and working in common against
communism,
against the people, against revolution and against the
national-liberation
movement for the purpose of maintaining imperialism, revisionism, and
reaction
everywhere against all revolutionaries." And to sharpen the split "The
divergence between Marxism-Leninism and Khrushchev revisionism ...is a
divergence between two antagonistic classes, the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie".
The article sums up "In a nutshell, they are continuing to adhere to
Khrushchev’s reactionary policy of Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the do
urination of the world."
Reason for split
The real reason for the split is indicated here: the attempt of the Soviet
bureaucracy to arrive at an agreement with the US Imperialists on the basis of
the status quo, without any consideration for the interests of the Chinese
bureaucracy, controllers of a sub-Continent of 700 million people.
The objections in relation to the "sell-out" of the colonial or
semi-colonial peoples of Latin America, Asia and Africa, are for the purpose of
striving to obtain influence and the use of this influence to increase the
power, privileges, prestige and income of the Chinese bureaucracy. Thus
the Chinese Government attempts to compete with the American Imperialists and
the Soviet bureaucracy, in giving "aid" and loans to
"underdeveloped" parts of the world, despite the enormous needs of
China itself, which remains, a backward area despite the progress made since the
Revolution.
The real attitude of the Chinese Government is shown in the very same issue
where they laud the reactionary military-police state of Pakistan, a
feudal-capitalist-theocratic regime. "Chairman Liu Shao-Chi and Premier
Chou En-Lai in a joint message on March 22nd greeted President Ayub Khan on the
occasion of Pakistan's National Day and congratulated him on reassuming the
presidency following his election in January." This followed the giving
of £50 million in aid to this reactionary government. So much for the support
of the national liberation movement. China, like Russia is playing the game of
power politics.
The struggle between China and Russia, following on the exposure of the
crimes of Stalin, the events in Hungary and other developments has resulted in
the splitting of the "Communist" Parties on nationalist lines.
From the point of view of the Moscow bureaucracy the meeting in Moscow was a
failure. The attempt to reassert Russian control did not succeed. Each party was
given a relative independence of movement as a result of the split.
Nearly 40 years ago Trotsky predicted that the theory of "Socialism in
one Country" would result in the destruction of the Communist International
and the nationalist degeneration of all sections of the International. Even
formally the Communist International was dissolved during the last war, now each
Communist Party has a nationalist outlook. The bureaucracy of each Party while
maintaining domination over the rank and file has completely abandoned the
revolutionary Internationalist outlook of Marx and Lenin. Thus ingloriously the
British "Communist" Party carries the Union Jack in its
demonstrations.
Chinese pariahs
From the side of the Chinese the working class can expect no better a lead
than from the Russian Stalinists. The Chinese while mouthing revolutionary
phrases have opposed the reforms carried out by the Russian bureaucracy in order
to maintain their rule. Because of their position as a "pariah" in
international affairs, which American Imperialism has imposed on them, they can
pose as being more revolutionary than the Russians.
This can lead to sincere workers in the Communist Party, despairing of the
opportunism of their leaders, looking to China for a revolutionary lead. This is
to move from the policy of Beelzebub to that of Satan.
The lesson of modern developments underlines the correctness of the great
theorists of Socialism: the need for an internationalist policy. The world has
become far more integrated economically, with every part dependent on every
other part, than even in the early stages of capitalist development. No country
can stand on its own. Internationalism is an expression of the fact that the
interests of the working class of the world are organically linked.
Need internationalism
The abandoning of the pretence of internationalism by the so-called Communist
Parties, the split between Moscow and Peking, the open reformism of the
Communist Parties of the West, lays the basis for a new and deeper crisis in the
Communist Parties. The rank and file no longer accepts without question the
policies of the leadership. The confusion caused by 3 or 4 decades of
miseducation by the so-called leaders of these parties still plays a great part
in the thought of the ranks. But great events will put these leaders to the test
again and again.
The ideas of Marxism, the simple and pure ideas of Lenin on the class
struggle, of international solidarity; of the need for workers democracy, of
control of industry and the state by the workers, will find their way to the
consciousness of the ranks.
The Moscow meeting marks a new stage in the degeneration of Stalinism. It
will mark a new stage too in the regeneration of the ideas of Marxism throughout
the world.
May 1965.
See also:
From Ted Grant's "The
Unbroken Thread"
|
