THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCEOF THE DICTATORSHIPOF THE PROLETARIAT

FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS

P E K I N G

From Marx to Mao

ML

Digital Reprints2006

THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCEOF THE DICTATORSHIPOF THE PROLETARIAT

FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS

PEKING 1959

Printed in the Peoples Republic of China

C O N T E N T S

ON THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE DICTATOR-

SHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 1

MORE ON THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 21

A copy of this material has been filed with the Foreign Agents

Registration Section, Department of Justice, Washington D.C.

where the registration statement of China Books & Periodicals,

2929 - 24th St. San Francisco 10, Calif. as an agent of Guozi

Shudan aqnd China Reconstructs, both of Peking, China, is

available for inspection. The fact of registration does not in-

dicate approval of this material by the Government of the

United States.

1ON THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT1

The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of theSoviet Union summed up the fresh experience gained bothin international relations and domestic construction. Ittook a series of momentous decisions on the steadfastimplementation of Lenins policy in regard to the pos-sibility of peaceful co-existence between countries withdifferent social systems, on the development of Sovietdemocracy, on the thorough observance of the Partysprinciple of collective leadership, on the criticism ofshortcomings within the Party, and on the sixth Five-YearPlan for development of the national economy.

The question of combating the cult of the individualoccupied an important place in the discussions of the 20thCongress. The Congress very sharply exposed the preva-lence of the cult of the individual which, for a long timein Soviet life, had given rise to many errors in work andhad led to ill consequences. This courageous self-criticismof its past errors by the Communist Party of the SovietUnion demonstrated the high level of principle in inner-Party life and the great vitality of Marxism-Leninism.

1 This article was written by the Editorial Department ofRenmin Ribao (Peoples Daily) on the basis of a discussion atan enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Com-mittee of the Communist Party of China. It was published inRenmin Ribao on April 5, 1956

2In history and in all the capitalist countries of today,no governing political party or bloc in the service of theexploiting classes has ever dared to expose its seriouserrors conscientiously before the mass of its own membersand the people. With the parties of the working classthings are entirely different. The parties of the workingclass serve the broad masses of the people; by self-criticism such parties lose nothing except their errors,they gain the support of the broad masses of the people.

For more than a month now, reactionaries through-out the world have been crowing happily over self-cri-ticism by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union withregard to this cult of the individual. They say: Fine! TheCommunist Party of the Soviet Union, the first to estab-lish a socialist order, made appalling mistakes, and, whatis more, it was Stalin himself, that widely renowned andhonoured leader, who made them! The reactionariesthink they have got hold of something with which todiscredit the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union andother countries. But they will get nothing for all theirpains. Has any leading Marxist ever written that wecould never commit mistakes or that it is absolutelyimpossible for a given Communist to commit mistakes?Isnt it precisely because we Marxist-Leninists deny theexistence of a demigod who never makes big or smallmistakes that we Communists use criticism and self-criticism in our inner-Party life? Moreover, how could itbe conceivable that a socialist state which was the firstin the world to put the dictatorship of the proletariatinto practice, which did not have the benefit of any prec-edent, should make no mistakes of one kind or another?

3Lenin said in October 1921:

Let the curs and swine of the moribund bourgeoisieand the petty-bourgeois democrats who trail behind itheap imprecations, abuse and derision upon our headsfor our reverses and mistakes in the work of buildingup our Soviet system. We do not forget for a momentthat we have committed and are committing numerousmistakes and are suffering numerous reverses. Howcan reverses and mistakes be avoided in a matter sonew in the history of the world as the erection of astate edifice of an unprecedented type! We shall strug-gle unremittingly to set our reverses and mistakes rightand to improve our practical application of Sovietprinciples, which is still very, very far from perfect.1

It is also inconceivable that certain mistakes made ear-lier should for ever preclude the possibility of makingother mistakes later or of repeating past mistakes toa greater or lesser degree. Since its division intoclasses with conflicting interests, human society has pass-ed through several thousand years of dictatorshipsofslave-owners, of feudal lords and of the bourgeoisie; butit was not until the victory of the October Revolution thatmankind began to see the dictatorship of the proletariatin action. The first three kinds of dictatorship are all dic-tatorships of the exploiting classes, though the dictatorshipof feudal lords was more progressive than that of slave-owners, and that of the bourgeoisie more progressive thanthat of feudal lords. These exploiting classes, which onceplayed a certain progressive role in the history of social

1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. II, Part 2, Moscow, 1952,p. 597.

4development, invariably accumulated experience in theirrule through making innumerable mistakes of historicimport over long periods of time and through repeatingthese mistakes again and again. Nevertheless, with thesharpening of the contradiction between the relations ofproduction which they represented and the productiveforces of society, still they inevitably committed mistakes,bigger and more, precipitating a massive revolt of the op-pressed classes and disintegration within their own ranks,and thus eventually bringing about their destruction. Thedictatorship of the proletariat is fundamentally differentin its nature from any of the previous kinds of dictator-ship, which were dictatorships by the exploiting classes.It is a dictatorship of the exploited classes, a dictatorshipof the majority over the minority, a dictatorship for thepurpose of creating a socialist society in which there isno exploitation and poverty, and it is the most progres-sive and the last dictatorship in the history of mankind.But, since this dictatorship undertakes the greatest andthe most difficult tasks and is confronted with a strugglewhich is the most complicated and tortuous in history,therefore, many mistakes, as Lenin has said, are boundto be made in its operation. If some Communists indulgein self-exaltation and self-complacency and develop arigid way of thinking, they may even repeat their ownmistakes or those of others. We Communists must takefull account of this. To defeat powerful enemies, thedictatorship of the proletariat requires a high degree ofcentralization of power. This highly centralized powermust be combined with a high level of democracy. Whenthere is an undue emphasis on centralization, many mis-takes are bound to occur. This is quite understandable.But whatever the mistakes, the dictatorship of the pro-

5letariat is, for the popular masses, always far superior toall dictatorships of the exploiting classes, to the dictator-ship of the bourgeoisie. Lenin was right when he said:

If our enemies reproach us and say that Lenin himselfadmits that the Bolsheviks have done a host of foolishthings, I want to reply by saying: yes, but do you knowthat the foolish things we have done are entirely dif-ferent from those you have done?

The exploiting classes, out for plunder, have all hopedto perpetuate their dictatorship generation after genera-tion, and have therefore resorted to every possiblemeans to grind down the people. Their mistakes areirremediable. On the other hand, the proletariat, whichstrives for the material and spiritual emancipation of thepeople, uses its dictatorship to bring about communism,to bring about harmony and equality among mankind, andlets its dictatorship gradually wither away. That is whyit does its utmost to bring into full play the initiativeand the positive role of the masses. The fact that, underthe dictatorship of the proletariat, it is possible to bringinto play without limit the initiative and the positive roleof the masses also makes it possible to correct any mis-takes committed during the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Leaders of Communist Parties and socialist states invarious fields are duty bound to do their utmost to reducemistakes, avoid serious ones, endeavour to learn lessonsfrom isolated, local and temporary mistakes and makeevery effort to prevent them from developing into mis-takes of a nation-wide or prolonged nature. To do this,every leader must be most prudent and modest, keep closeto the masses, consult them on all matters, investigateand study the actual situation again and again and con-

6stantly engage in criticism and self-criticism appropriateto the situation and well measured. It was precisely be-cause of his failure to do this that Stalin, as the chiefleader of the Party and the state, made certain seriousmistakes in the later years of his work. He became con-ceited and imprudent. Subjectivism and one-sidednessdeveloped- in his thinking and he made erroneous deci-sions on certain important questions, which led to seriousconsequences.

With the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolu-tion, the people and the Communist Party of the SovietUnion, under the leadership of Lenin, established thefirst socialist state on one-sixth of the earth. The SovietUnion speedily carried out socialist industrializationand collectivization of agriculture, developed socialistscience and culture, established a solid union of manynationalities in the form of a union of the Soviets, andthe formerly backward nationalities in the Soviet Unionbecame socialist nationalities. During the Second WorldWar, the Soviet Union was the main force in defeatingfascism and saving European civilization. It also helpedthe peoples in the East to defeat Japanese milita-rism. All these glorious achievements pointed out to allmankind its bright futuresocialism and communism,seriously shook the rule of imperialism and made theSoviet Union the first and strong bulwark in the worldstruggle for lasting peace. The Soviet Union has en-couraged and supported all other socialist countries intheir construction, and it has been an inspiration to theworld socialist movement, the anti-colonialist movementand every other movement for the progress of mankind.These are the great achievements made by the people andthe Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the history

7of mankind. The man who showed the Soviet peopleand Communist Party the way to these great achieve-ments was Lenin. In the struggle to carry out Leninsprinciples, the Central Committee of the CommunistParty of the Soviet Union, for its vigorous leadership,earned its credit, in which Stalin had an ineffaceableshare.

After Lenins death Stalin, as the chief leader of theParty and the state, creatively applied and developedMarxism-Leninism. In the struggle to defend the legacyof Leninism and against its enemiesthe Trotskyites,Zinovievites and other bourgeois agentsStalin expressedthe will and wishes of the people and proved himself tobe an outstanding Marxist-Leninist fighter. The reasonwhy Stalin won the support of the Soviet people andplayed an important role in history was primarily becausehe, together with the other leaders of the CommunistParty of the Soviet Union, defended Lenins line on theindustrialization of the Soviet state and the collectiviza-tion of agriculture. By pursuing this line, the CommunistParty of the Soviet Union brought about the triumphof socialism in the Soviet Union and created the conditionsfor the victory of the Soviet Union in the war againstHitler; these victories of the Soviet people conformed tothe interests of the working class of the world and allprogressive mankind. It was therefore quite natural forthe name of Stalin to be greatly honoured throughout theworld. But, having won such high honour among thepeople, both at home and abroad, by his correct applicationof the Leninist line, Stalin erroneously exaggerated hisown role and counterposed his individual authority tothe collective leadership, and as a result certain of hisactions were opposed to certain fundamental Marxist-

8Leninist concepts which he himself had propagated. Onthe one hand, he recognized that the masses were themakers of history, that the Party must keep in constanttouch with the people and that inner-Party democracyand self-criticism and criticism from below must bedeveloped. On the other hand, he accepted and fosteredthe cult of the individual, and indulged in arbitrary indi-vidual actions. Thus Stalin found himself in a contradic-tion on this question during the latter part of his life,with a discrepancy between his theory and practice.

Marxist-Leninists hold that leaders play a big role inhistory. The people and their parties need forerunnerswho are able to represent the interests and will of thepeople, stand in the forefront of their historic strugglesand serve as their leaders. It is utterly wrong to denythe role of the individual, the role of forerunners andleaders. But when any leader of the Party or the stateplaces himself over and above the Party and the massesinstead of in their midst, when he alienates himself fromthe masses, he ceases to have an all-round, penetratinginsight into the affairs of the state. As long as this wasthe case, even so outstanding a personality as Stalin couldnot avoid making unrealistic and erroneous decisions oncertain important matters. Stalin failed to draw lessonsfrom isolated, local and temporary mistakes on certainissues and so failed to prevent them from becoming seriousmistakes of a nation-wide or prolonged nature. Duringthe latter part of his life, Stalin took more and more pleas-ure in this cult of the individual, and violated thePartys system of democratic centralism and the principleof combining collective leadership with individual re-sponsibility. As a result he made some serious mistakessuch as the following: he broadened the scope of the

9suppression of counter-revolution; he lacked the necessaryvigilance on the eve of the anti-fascist war; he failed topay proper attention to the further development of agri-culture and the material welfare of the peasantry; he gavecertain wrong advice on the international communistmovement, and, in particular, made a wrong decision onthe question of Yugoslavia. On these issues, Stalin fellvictim to subjectivism and one-sidedness, and divorcedhimself from objective reality and from the masses.

The cult of the individual is a foul carry-over from thelong history of mankind. The cult of the individual isrooted not only in the exploiting classes but also in thesmall producers. As is well known, patriarchism is aproduct of small-producer economy. After the establish-ment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, even when theexploiting classes are eliminated, when small-producereconomy has been replaced by a collective economy anda socialist society has been founded, certain rotten, poi-sonous ideological survivals of the old society may stillremain in peoples minds for a very long time. Theforce of habit of millions and tens of millions is amost terrible force (Lenin). The cult of the individualis just one such force of habit of millions and tens of mil-lions. Since this force of habit still exists in society, itcan influence many government functionaries, and evensuch a leader as Stalin was also affected by it. The cultof the individual is a reflection in mans mind of a socialphenomenon, and when leaders of the Party and state,such as Stalin, succumb to the influence of this backwardideology, they will in turn influence society, bringinglosses to the cause and hampering the initiative and crea-tiveness of the masses of the people.

10

The socialist productive forces, the economic and polit-ical system of socialism and the Party life, as they de-velop, are increasingly coming into contradiction andconflict with such a state of mind as the cult of theindividual. The struggle against the cult of the individualwhich was launched by the 20th Congress is a great andcourageous fight by the Communists and the people of theSoviet Union to clear away the ideological obstacles in theway of their advance.

Some naive ideas seem to suggest that contradictionsno longer exist in a socialist society! To deny the ex-istence of contradictions is to deny dialectics. The con-tradictions in various societies differ in character as dothe forms of their solution, but society at all times de-velops through continual contradictions. Socialist societyalso develops through contradictions between the produc-tive forces and the relations of production. In a socialistor communist society, technical innovations and improve-ment in the social system inevitably continue to takeplace; otherwise the development of society would cometo a standstill and society could no longer advance. Hu-manity is still in its youth. The road it has yet to traversewill be no one knows how many times longer than theroad it has already travelled. Contradictions, as betweenprogress and conservatism, between the advanced and thebackward, between the positive and the negative, willconstantly occur under varying conditions and differentcircumstances. Things will keep on like this: one con-tradiction will lead to another; and when old contradic-tions are solved new ones will arise. It is obviously in-correct to maintain, as some people do, that the contradic-tion between idealism and materialism can be eliminatedin a socialist or communist society. As long as contradic-

11

tions exist between the subjective and the objective, be-tween the advanced and the backward, and between theproductive forces and the relations of production, thecontradiction between materialism and idealism willcontinue in a socialist or communist society, and willmanifest itself in various forms. Since man lives insociety, he reflects, in different circumstances and tovarying degrees, the contradictions existing in each formof society. Therefore, not everybody will be perfect,even when a communist society is established. By thenthere will still be contradictions among people, and therewill still be good people and bad, people whose thinking isrelatively correct and others whose thinking is relativelyincorrect. Hence there will still be struggle between peo-ple, though its nature and form will be different fromthose in class societies. Viewed in this light, the ex-istence of contradictions between the individual and thecollective in a socialist society is nothing strange. Andif any leader of the Party or state isolates himself fromcollective leadership, from the masses of the people andfrom real life, he will inevitably fall into rigid ways ofthinking and consequently make grave mistakes. Whatwe must guard against is that some people, because theParty and the state have achieved many successes in workand won the great trust of the masses, may take advantageof this trust to abuse their authority and so commit somemistakes.

The Chinese Communist Party congratulates the Com-munist Party of the Soviet Union on its great achieve-ments in this historic struggle against the cult of theindividual. The experience of the Chinese revolution,too, testifies that it is only by relying on the wisdom ofthe masses of the people, on democratic centralism and on

12

the system of combining collective leadership with indi-vidual responsibility that our Party can score great vic-tories and do great things in times of revolution and intimes of national construction. The Chinese CommunistParty, in its revolutionary ranks, has incessantly foughtagainst elevation of oneself and against individualistheroism, both of which mean isolation from the masses.Undoubtedly, such things will exist for a long time tocome. Even when overcome, they re-emerge. Theyare found sometimes in one person, sometimes in another.When attention is paid to the role of the individual, therole of the masses and the collective is often ignored.That is why some people easily fall into the mistake ofself-conceit or blind faith in themselves or blind worshipof others. We must therefore give unremitting attention toopposing elevation of oneself, individualist heroism andthe cult of the individual.

To counter subjectivist methods of leadership, the Cen-tral Committee of the Communist Party of China adopteda resolution in June 1943 on methods of leadership. Indiscussing now the question of collective leadership inthe Party, it is still worthwhile for all members of theChinese Communist Party and all its leading personnelto refer to this resolution, which declared:

In all practical work of our Party, correct leadershipcan only be developed on the principle of from themasses, to the masses. This means summing up (i.e. co-ordinating and systematizing after careful study) theviews of the masses (i.e. views scattered and unsys-tematic), then taking the resulting ideas back to themasses, explaining and popularizing them until themasses embrace the ideas as their own, stand up for

13

them and translate them into action by way of testingtheir correctness. Then it is necessary once more to sumup the views of the masses, and once again take theresulting ideas back to the masses so that the massesgive them their whole-hearted support . . . and so on,over and over again, so that each time these ideasemerge with greater correctness and become more vitaland meaningful. This is what the Marxist theory ofknowledge teaches us.

For a long time, this method of leadership has been de-scribed in our Party by the popular term the mass line.The whole history of our work teaches us that wheneverthis line is followed, the work is always good, or rela-tively good, and even if there are mistakes they are easyto rectify; but whenever this line is departed from, thework is always marred by setbacks. This is the Marx-ist-Leninist method of leadership, the Marxist-Leninistline of work. After the victory of the revolution, whenthe working class and the Communist Party have becomethe leading class and party in the state, the leading per-sonnel of the Party and state, beset by bureaucratism frommany sides, face the great danger of using the machineryof state to take arbitrary action, alienating themselvesfrom the masses and collective leadership, resorting tocommandism, and violating Party and state democracy.Therefore, if we want to avoid falling into such a quag-mire, we must pay fuller attention to the use of the massline method of leadership, not permitting the slightestnegligence. To this end, it is necessary for us to estab-lish certain systems, so as to ensure the thorough im-plementation of the mass line and collective leadership,to avoid elevation of oneself and individualist heroism,

14

both of which mean divorce from the masses, and to re-duce to a minimum subjectivism and one-sidedness inour work which represent a departure from objectivereality.

We must also learn from the struggle of the Com-munist Party of the Soviet Union against the cult of theindividual and continue our fight against doctrinairism.

The working class and the masses of the people, guidedby Marxism-Leninism, won the revolution and took statepower into their hands, while the victory of the revolu-tion and the establishment of the revolutionary regimeopened up boundless vistas for the development of Marx-ism-Leninism. Yet because Marxism, since the victoryof the revolution, has been generally recognized as theguiding ideology in the whole country, it often happensthat not a few of our propagandists rely only on admin-istrative power and the prestige of the Party to instil intothe minds of the masses Marxism-Leninism in the formof dogma, instead of working hard, marshalling a wealthof data, employing Marxist-Leninist methods of analysisand using the peoples own language to explain convinc-ingly the integration of the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the actual situation in China. We have,over the years, made some advances in research in philos-ophy, economics, history and literary criticism, but, ona whole, many unhealthy elements still exist. Not afew of our research workers still retain their doctrinairehabit, put their minds in a noose, lack the ability to thinkindependently, lack the creative spirit, and in certainrespects are influenced by the cult of Stalin. In this con-nection it must be pointed out that Stalins works should,as before, still be seriously studied and that we shouldaccept, as an important historical legacy, all that is of

15

value in them, especially those many works in which hedefended Leninism and correctly summarized the ex-perience of building up the Soviet Union. Not to do sowould be a mistake. But there are two ways of study-ing themthe Marxist way and the doctrinaire way.Some people treat Stalins writings in a doctrinaire man-ner, with the result that they cannot analyse and seewhat is correct and what is not correctand even whatis correct they treat as a panacea and apply indiscrimi-nately; inevitably they make mistakes. For instance,Stalin put forward a formula that in different revolu-tionary periods, the main blow should be so directed asto isolate the middle-of-the-road social and politicalforces of the time. This formula of Stalins should betreated according to circumstances and from a critical,Marxist point of view. In certain circumstances it maybe correct to isolate the middle forces, but it is not cor-rect to isolate them under all circumstances. Our ex-perience teaches us that the main blow of the revolutionshould be directed at the chief enemy to isolate him,while as for the middle forces, a policy of both unitingwith them and struggling against them should be adopted,so that they are at least neutralized; and, as circumstancespermit, efforts should be made to shift them from theirposition of neutrality to one of alliance with us, for thepurpose of facilitating the development of the revolution.But there was a timethe ten years of civil war from1927 to 1936 when some of our comrades crudely appliedthis formula of Stalins to Chinas revolution by turningtheir main attack on the middle forces, singling them outas the most dangerous enemy; the result was that, insteadof isolating the real enemy, we isolated ourselves, andsuffered losses to the advantage of the real enemy. In

16

the light of this doctrinaire error, the Central Committeeof the Communist Party of China, during the period ofthe anti-Japanese war, formulated a policy of devel-oping the progressive forces, winning over the middle-of-the-roaders, and isolating the die-hards for the pur-pose of defeating the Japanese aggressors. The progres-sive forces in question consisted of the workers, peasantsand revolutionary intellectuals led by, or open to theinfluence of, the Communist Party. The middle forces inquestion consisted of the national bourgeoisie, the demo-cratic parties and groups, and democrats without partyaffiliation. The die-hards referred to were the compra-dor-feudal forces headed by Chiang Kai-shek, who werepassive in resisting the Japanese and active in fightingthe Communists. Experience, gained through practice,proved that this policy of the Communist Party suitedthe circumstances of Chinas revolution and was correct.

The invariable fact is: doctrinairism is appreciated onlyby the mentally lazy; it brings nothing but harm to therevolution, to the people, and to Marxism-Leninism. Toenhance the initiative of the masses, to stimulate theirdynamic creative spirit, and to promote rapid developmentof practical and theoretical work, it is still necessary, rightnow, to destroy blind faith in dogma.

The dictatorship of the proletariat (in China it is a peo-ples democratic dictatorship led by the working class) haswon great victories in countries inhabited by nine hundredmillion people. Each of them, whether it is the SovietUnion, or China or any other Peoples Democracy, hasits own experience of success as well as its own experi-ence of mistakes. We must keep on summing up suchexperience. We must be alive to the possibility that wemay still commit mistakes in the future. The important

17

lesson to learn is that the leading organs of our Partyshould limit errors to those of an isolated, local, tem-porary nature, and permit no isolated, local, initial mis-takes to develop into mistakes of a nation-wide orprolonged nature.

The history of the Communist Party of China recordsthe making of serious mistakes on several occasions. Inthe revolutionary period from 1924 to 1927, there ap-peared in our Party the wrong line represented by ChenTu-hsiu, a line of Right opportunism. Then, during therevolutionary period from 1927 to 1936, the erroneousline of Left opportunism appeared in our Party on threeoccasions. The lines pursued by Li Li-san in 1930 andby Wang Ming in 1931-1934 were particularly serious,while the Wang Ming line was the most damaging to therevolution. In this same period the erroneous, anti-PartyChang Kuo-tao line of Right opportunism in oppositionto the Partys Central Committee, appeared in a key rev-olutionary base, doing serious damage to a- vital sectionof the revolutionary forces. The errors committed inthese two periods were nation-wide, except for that causedby Chang Kuo-taos line which was confined to one im-portant revolutionary base. Once again there emergedin our Party during the war of resistance to Japaneseaggression a wrong line, represented by ComradeWang Ming, which was of Right opportunist nature.However, since our Party had drawn lessons fromwhat happened during the previous two periodsof the revolution, this wrong line was not allowed to de-velop, but was corrected by the Central Committee of ourParty in a comparatively short time. After the foundingof the Peoples Republic of China, there appeared in ourParty in 1953 the anti-Party bloc of Kao Kang and Jao

18

Shu-shih. This anti-Party bloc represented the forces ofreaction at home and abroad, and its aim was to under-mine the revolution. Had the Central Committee not dis-covered it quickly and smashed it in time, incalculabledamage would have been done to the Party and to therevolution.

From this it will be seen that the historical experienceof our Party testifies that our Party too has been temperedthrough struggles against various wrong lines of policy,thus winning great victories in the revolution and in con-struction. As to local and isolated mistakes, they often oc-curred in our work, and it was only by relying on the col-lective wisdom of the Party and the wisdom of the massesof the people, and by exposing and correcting these mis-takes in time, that they were nipped in the bud beforethey became mistakes of a nation-wide or prolongednature, doing harm to the people.

Communists must adopt an analytical attitude to er-rors made in the communist movement. Some peopleconsider that Stalin was wrong in everything; this is agrave misconception. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist,yet at the same time a Marxist-Leninist who committedseveral gross errors without realizing that they wereerrors. We should view Stalin from an historical stand-point, make a proper and all-round analysis to see wherehe was right and where he was wrong, and draw usefullessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and thethings he did wrong were phenomena of the internationalcommunist movement and bore the imprint of the times.Taken as a whole, the international communist move-ment is only a little over a hundred years old and it isonly 39 years since the victory of the October Revolution;experience in many fields of revolutionary work is still

19

inadequate. Great achievements have been made, butthere are still shortcomings and mistakes. Just as oneachievement is followed by another, so one defect or mis-take, once overcome, may be followed by another whichin turn must be overcome. However, the achievementsalways exceed the defects, the things which are rightalways outnumber those which are wrong, and the defectsand mistakes are always overcome in the end.

The mark of a good leader is not so much that he makesno mistakes, but that he takes his mistakes seriously.There has never been a man in the world completely freefrom mistakes. Lenin said:

Frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasonsfor it, analysing the conditions which led to it, andthoroughly discussing the means of correcting itthat isthe earmark of a serious party; that is the way it shouldperform its duties, that is the way it should educateand train the class, and then the masses.

True to the behest of Lenin, the Communist Party of theSoviet Union is dealing in a serious way both with certainmistakes of a grave nature committed by Stalin in direct-ing the work of building socialism and with the survivingeffects of such mistakes. Because of the seriousness ofthe effects, it is necessary for the Communist Party ofthe Soviet Union, while affirming the great contributionsof Stalin, to sharply expose the essence of his mistakes,to call upon the whole Party to take them as a warning,and to work resolutely to remove their ill consequences.

We Chinese Communists are firmly convinced that as aresult of the sharp criticisms made at the 20th Congressof the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, all thosepositive factors which were seriously suppressed in the

20

past as a result of certain mistaken policies will inevitablyspring everywhere into life, and the Party and the peopleof the Soviet Union will become still more firmly unitedin the struggle to build a great communist society, suchas mankind has never yet seen, and win a lasting worldpeace.

Reactionary forces the world over are pouring ridiculeon this event; they jeer at the fact that we are overcomingmistakes in our camp. But what will come of all thisridicule? There is not the slightest doubt that thesescoffers will find themselves facing a still more powerful,for ever invincible, great camp of peace and socialism,headed by the Soviet Union, while the murderous, blood-sucking enterprises of these scoffers will be in a prettyfix.

21

MORE ON

THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT1

In April 1956, we discussed the historical experience ofthe dictatorship of the proletariat in connection with thequestion of Stalin. Since then, a further train of eventsin the international communist movement has causedconcern to the people of our country. The publication inChinese newspapers of Comrade Titos speech of Novem-ber 11, and the comments on that speech by variousCommunist Parties, have led people again to raise manyquestions which call for an answer. In the present articlewe shall centre our discussion on the following questions:first, an appraisal of the fundamental course taken by theSoviet Union in its revolution and construction; second,an appraisal of Stalins merits and faults; third, the strug-gle against doctrinairism and revisionism; and fourth,the international solidarity of the proletariat of allcountries.

In examining modern international questions, we mustproceed first of all from the most fundamental fact, theantagonism between the imperialist bloc of aggression and

1 This article was written by the Editorial Department ofRenmin Ribao on the basis of a discussion at an enlarged meet-ing of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of theCommunist Party of China. It was published in Renmin Ribaoon December 29, 1956.

22

the popular forces in the world. The Chinese people,who have suffered enough from imperialist aggression,can never forget that imperialism has always opposed theliberation of all peoples and the independence of all op-pressed nations, that it has always regarded the com-munist movement, which stands most resolutely for thepeoples interests, as a thorn in its flesh. Since the birthof the first socialist state, the Soviet Union, imperialismhas tried by every means to wreck it. Following theestablishment of a whole group of socialist states, thehostility of the imperialist camp to the socialist camp, andits flagrant acts of sabotage against the latter, have be-come a still more pronounced feature of world politics.The leader of the imperialist camp, the United States,has been especially vicious and shameless in its interfer-ence in the domestic affairs of socialist countries; for manyyears it has been obstructing Chinas liberation of its ownterritory Taiwan, and for many years it has openly adopt-ed as its official policy the subversion of the East Europeancountries.

The activities of the imperialists in the Hungarian affairof October 1956 marked the gravest attack launched bythem against the socialist camp since the war of aggres-sion they had carried on in Korea. Just as the resolutionadopted by the meeting of the Provisional Central Com-mittee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party pointedout, the Hungarian affair was the result of various causesboth internal and external; and while any one-sided ex-planation is incorrect, among the causes internationalimperialism played the main and decisive part. Follow-ing the defeat of their plot for a counter-revolutionarycome-back in Hungary, the imperialist powers headed bythe United States have manoeuvred the United Nations

23

into adopting resolutions directed against the Soviet Unionand interfering in Hungarys internal affairs. At thesame time, they stirred up a hysterical anti-communistwave throughout the Western world. Although U.S.imperialism is taking advantage of the fiasco of the Anglo-French war of aggression against Egypt to grab Britishand French interests in the Middle East and North Africain every way possible, it has pledged itself to eliminateits misunderstandings with Britain and France and toseek closer and more intimate understanding withthem to repair their united front against communism,against the Asian and African peoples and against thepeace-loving people of the world. To oppose communism,the people and peace, the imperialist countries shouldunite this is the gist of Dulles statement at the NATOcouncil meeting on the so-called need for a philosophyfor living and acting at this critical point in world history.Somewhat intoxicated by his own illusions, Dulles assert-ed: The Soviet communist structure is in a deterioratingcondition (?), with the power of the rulers disintegrat-ing (?). . . . Facing this situation, the free nations mustmaintain moral pressures which are helping to underminethe Soviet-Chinese communist system and maintain mili-tary strength and resolution. He called on the NATOcountries to disrupt the powerful Soviet despotism (?)based upon militaristic (?) and atheistic concepts. Healso expressed the view that a change of character ofthat [communist] world now seems to be within the realmof possibility (!).

We have always considered our enemies our bestteachers, and now Dulles is letting us have another les-son. He may slander us a thousand times and curse usten thousand times, there is nothing new in this at all.

24

But when Dulles, putting the matter on a philosophicplane, urges the imperialist countries to place their con-tradiction with communism above all other contradictions,to bend all their efforts towards bringing about a changeof character of that [communist] world and towardsundermining and disrupting the socialist systemheaded by the Soviet Union, this is a lesson that is ex-tremely helpful to us, though such efforts will certainlycome to naught. Although we have consistently heldand still hold that the socialist and capitalist countriesshould co-exist in peace and carry out peaceful compe-tition, the imperialists are always bent on destroying us.We must therefore never forget the stern struggle withthe enemy, i.e. the class struggle on a world scale.

There are before us two types of contradiction whichare different in nature. The first type consists of con-tradictions between our enemy and ourselves (contradic-tions between the camp of imperialism and that ofsocialism, contradictions between imperialism and thepeople and oppressed nations of the whole world, con-tradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariatin the imperialist countries, etc.). This is the funda-mental type of contradiction, based on the clash of in-terests between antagonistic classes. The second typeconsists of contradictions within the ranks of the people(contradictions between different sections of the people,between comrades within the Communist Party, contradic-tions between the government and the people in socialistcountries, contradictions between socialist countries, con-tradictions between Communist Parties, etc.). This typeof contradiction is not basic; it is not the result of a funda-mental clash of interests between classes, but of conflictsbetween right and wrong opinions or of a partial con-

25

tradiction of interests. It is a type of contradictionwhose solution must, first and foremost, be subordinatedto the over-all interests of the struggle against the enemy.Contradictions among the people themselves can andought to be resolved, proceeding from the desire forsolidarity, through criticism or struggle, thus achievinga new solidarity under new conditions. Of course, reallife is complicated. Sometimes, it is possible that classeswhose interests are in fundamental conflict unite to copewith their main common enemy. On the other hand,under specific conditions, a certain contradiction amongthe people may be gradually transformed into an an-tagonistic contradiction when one side of it graduallygoes over to the enemy. Finally, the nature of such acontradiction may change completely so that it no longerbelongs to the category of contradictions among the peoplethemselves but becomes a component part of the con-tradiction between ourselves and the enemy. Such aphenomenon did come about in the history of the Com-munist Party of the Soviet Union and of the CommunistParty of China. In a word, anyone who adopts the stand-point of the people should not equate the contradictionsamong the people with contradictions between the enemyand ourselves, or confuse these two types of contradiction,let alone place the contradictions among the people abovethe contradictions between the enemy and ourselves.Those who deny the class struggle and do not distinguishbetween the enemy and ourselves are definitely notCommunists or Marxist-Leninists.

We think it necessary to settle this question of funda-mental standpoint first, before proceeding to the questionsto be discussed. Otherwise, we are bound to lose our

26

bearings, and will be unable to explain correctly inter-national events.

I

The attacks by the imperialists on the internationalcommunist movement have long been concentratedmainly on the Soviet Union. Recent controversies in theinternational communist movement, for the most part,have also involved the question of ones understanding ofthe Soviet Union. Therefore, the problem of correctlyassessing the fundamental course taken by the SovietUnion in its revolution and construction is an importantone which Marxist-Leninists must solve.

The Marxist theory of proletarian revolution and thedictatorship of the proletariat is a scientific summing-up ofthe experience of the working-class movement. However,with the exception of the Paris Commune which lastedonly 72 days, Marx and Engels did not live to see forthemselves the realization of the proletarian revolutionand the dictatorship of the proletariat for which they hadstriven throughout their lives. In 1917, led by Lenin andthe Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Russianproletariat carried the proletarian revolution to victoryand established the dictatorship of the proletariat; it thensuccessfully built up a socialist society. From this timeon, scientific socialism was transformed from a theory andideal into a living reality. And so, the Russian OctoberRevolution of 1917 ushered in a new era, not only in thehistory of the communist movement but also in the his-tory of mankind.

The Soviet Union has achieved tremendous successesin the 39 years since the revolution. Having eliminated

27

the system of exploitation, the Soviet Union put an endto anarchy, crisis and unemployment in its economic life.Soviet economy and culture have advanced at a pacebeyond the reach of capitalist countries. Soviet industrialoutput in 1956 is 30 times what it was in 1913, the peakyear before the revolution. A country which before therevolution was industrially backward and had a high rateof illiteracy has now become the worlds second greatestindustrial power, possessing scientific and technicalforces which are advanced by any standards, and a highlydeveloped socialist culture. The working people of theSoviet Union, who were oppressed before the revolution,have become masters of their own country and society;they have displayed great enthusiasm and creativenessin revolutionary struggle and in construction and a fun-damental change has taken place in their material andcultural life. While before the October Revolution Russiawas a prison of nations, after the October Revolutionthese nations achieved equality in the Soviet Union anddeveloped rapidly into advanced socialist nations.

The development of the Soviet Union has not beenplain sailing. During 1918-1920, the country was at-tacked by 14 capitalist powers. In its early years, theSoviet Union went through severe ordeals such as civilwar, famine, economic difficulties, and factional splittingactivities within the Party. In a decisive period of theSecond World War, before the Western countries openedthe second front, the Soviet Union, single-handed, metand defeated the attacks of millions of troops of Hitlerand his partners. These stern trials failed to crush theSoviet Union or stop its progress.

The existence of the Soviet Union has shaken im-perialist rule to its very foundations and brought un-

28

bounded hope, confidence and courage to all revolutionarymovements of the workers and liberation movements ofthe oppressed nations. The working people of all coun-tries have helped the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Unionhas also helped them. It has carried on a foreign policythat guards world peace, recognizes the equality of allnations, and opposes imperialist aggression. The SovietUnion was the main force in defeating fascist aggressionthroughout the world. The heroic armies of the SovietUnion liberated the East European countries, part ofCentral Europe, north-east China and the northern partof Korea in co-operation with the popular forces of thesecountries. The Soviet Union has established friendlyrelations with the Peoples Democracies, aided them ineconomic construction and, together with them, formed amighty bulwark of world peace the camp of socialism.The Soviet Union has also given powerful support to theindependence movements of the oppressed nations, to thepeace movement of the people of the world and to themany peaceable new states in Asia and Africa establishedsince the Second World War.

These are incontrovertible facts that people have knownfor a long time. Why is it necessary then to bring themup again? It is because, while the enemies of com-munism have naturally always denied all this, certainCommunists at the present time, in examining Sovietexperience, often focus their attention on the secondaryaspects of the matter and neglect the main aspects.

There are different aspects to Soviet experience in rev-olution and construction as far as its international sig-nificance is concerned. Of the successful experience of theSoviet Union, one part is fundamental and of universalsignificance at the present stage of human history. This

29

is the most important and fundamental phase of Sovietexperience. The other part is not of universal signif-icance. In addition, the Soviet Union has also had itsmistakes and failures. No country can ever avoid theseentirely, though they may vary in form and degree. Andit was even more difficult for the Soviet Union to avoidthem, because it was the first socialist country and hadno successful experience of others to go by. Such mis-takes and failures, however, provide extremely usefullessons for all Communists. That is why all Soviet ex-perience, including certain mistakes and failures, deservescareful study while the fundamental part of the success-ful Soviet experience is of particular importance. Thevery fact of the advance of the Soviet Union is proof thatthe fundamental experience of the Soviet Union in revolu-tion and construction is a great accomplishment, the firstpaean of victory of Marxism-Leninism in the history ofmankind.

What is the fundamental experience of the SovietUnion in revolution and construction? In our opinion,the following, at the very least, should be consideredfundamental:

(1) The advanced members of the proletariat organizethemselves into a Communist Party which takes Marx-ism-Leninism as its guide to action, builds itself up alongthe lines of democratic centralism, establishes close linkswith the masses, strives to become the core of the labour-ing masses and educates its Party members and themasses of people in Marxism-Leninism.

(2) The proletariat, under the leadership of the Com-munist Party, rallying all the labouring people, takesstate power from the bourgeoisie by means of revolu-tionary struggle.

30

(3) After the victory of the revolution, the proletariat,under the leadership of the Communist Party, rallyingthe broad mass of the people on the basis of a worker-peasant alliance, establishes a dictatorship of the prole-tariat over the landlord and capitalist classes, crushes theresistance of the counter-revolutionaries, and carries outthe nationalization of industry and the step-by-stepcollectivization of agriculture, thereby eliminating thesystem of exploitation, private ownership of the means ofproduction and classes.

(4) The state, led by the proletariat and the Com-munist Party, leads the people in the planned develop-ment of socialist economy and culture, and on this basisgradually raises the peoples living standards and activelyprepares and works for the transition to communistsociety.

(5) The state, led by the proletariat and the Com-munist Party, resolutely opposes imperialist aggression,recognizes the equality of all nations and defends worldpeace; firmly adheres to the principles of proletarian in-ternationalism, strives to win the help of the labouringpeople of all countries, and at the same time strives tohelp them and all oppressed nations.

What we commonly refer to as the path of the OctoberRevolution means precisely these basic things, leavingaside the specific form it took at that particular time andplace. These basic things are all universally applicabletruths of Marxism-Leninism.

In the course of revolution and construction in dif-ferent countries there are, besides aspects common to all,aspects which are different. In this sense, each countryhas its own specific path of development. We shall dis-cuss this question further on. But as far as basic theory

31

is concerned, the road of the October Revolution reflectsthe general laws of revolution and construction at a par-ticular stage in the long course of the development ofhuman society. It is not only the broad road for theproletariat of the Soviet Union, but also the broad roadwhich the proletariat of all countries must travel to gainvictory. Precisely for this reason the Central Committeeof the Communist Party of China stated in its PoliticalReport to the Partys Eighth National Congress: Despitethe fact that the revolution in our country has manycharacteristics of its own, Chinese Communists regardthe cause for which they work as a continuation of theGreat October Revolution.

In the present international situation, it is of partic-ularly great significance to defend this Marxist-Leninistpath opened by the October Revolution. When the im-perialists proclaim that they want to bring about achange of character of the communist world, it is pre-cisely this revolutionary path which they want to change.For decades, the views put forward by all the revisioniststo revise Marxism-Leninism, and the Right-opportunistideas which they spread, have been aimed precisely atevading this road, the road which the proletariat musttake for its liberation. It is the task of all Communists tounite the proletariat and the masses of the people to beatback resolutely the savage onslaught of the imperialistsagainst the socialist world, and to march forward reso-lutely along the path blazed by the October Revolution.

32

II

People ask: Since the basic path of the Soviet Unionin revolution and construction was correct, how didStalins mistakes happen?

We discussed this question in our article published inApril this year. But as a result of recent events inEastern Europe and other related developments, the ques-tion of correctly understanding and dealing with Stalinsmistakes has become a matter of importance affectingdevelopments within the Communist Parties of manycountries, unity between Communist Parties, and the com-mon struggle of the communist forces of the worldagainst imperialism. So it is necessary to further expoundour views on this question.

Stalin made a great contribution to the progress of theSoviet Union and to the development of the internationalcommunist movement. In On the Historical Experienceof the Dictatorship of the Proletariat we wrote:

After Lenins death Stalin, as the chief leader ofthe Party and the state, creatively applied and devel-oped Marxism-Leninism. In the struggle to defendthe legacy of Leninism against its enemiestheTrotskyites, Zinovievites and other bourgeois agentsStalin expressed the will and wishes of the people andproved himself to be an outstanding Marxist-Leninistfighter. The reason why Stalin won the support of theSoviet people and played an important role in historywas primarily because he, together with the otherleaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,defended Lenins line on the industrialization of theSoviet state and the collectivization of agriculture. By

33

pursuing this line, the Communist Party of the SovietUnion brought about the triumph of socialism in theSoviet Union and created the conditions for the victoryof the Soviet Union in the war against Hitler; thesevictories of the Soviet people conformed to the interestsof the working class of the world and all progressivemankind. It was therefore quite natural for the name ofStalin to be greatly honoured throughout the world.

But Stalin made some serious mistakes in regard to thedomestic and foreign policies of the Soviet Union. Hisarbitrary method of work impaired to a certain extent theprinciple of democratic centralism both in the life of theParty and in the state system of the Soviet Union, andled to a partial disruption of socialist legality. Becausein many fields of work Stalin estranged himself from themasses to a serious extent, and made personal, arbitrarydecisions concerning many important policies, it was in-evitable that he should have made grave mistakes. Thesemistakes stood out most conspicuously in the suppressionof counter-revolution and in relations with certain foreigncountries. In suppressing counter-revolutionaries, Stalin,on the one hand, punished many counter-revolutionarieswhom it was necessary to punish and, in the main, ac-complished the tasks on this front; but, on the other hand,he wronged many loyal Communists and honest citizens,and this caused serious losses. On the whole, in relationswith brother countries and parties, Stalin took an interna-tionalist stand and helped the struggles of other peoplesand the growth of the socialist camp; but in tackling cer-tain concrete questions, he showed a tendency towardsgreat-nation chauvinism and himself lacked a spirit ofequality, let alone educating the mass of cadres to be

34

modest. Sometimes he even intervened mistakenly,with many grave consequences, in the internal affairs ofcertain brother countries and parties.

How are these serious mistakes of Stalins to be ex-plained? What is the connection between these mistakesand the socialist system of the Soviet Union?

The science of Marxist-Leninist dialectics teaches usthat all types of relations of production, as well as thesuperstructures built up on their basis, have their owncourse of emergence, development, and extinction. Whenthe old relations of production on the whole no longercorrespond to the productive forces, the latter havingreached a certain stage of development, and when the oldsuperstructure on the whole no longer corresponds to theeconomic basis, the latter having reached a certain stageof development, then changes of a fundamental naturemust inevitably occur; whoever tries to resist suchchanges is discarded by history. This law is applicablethrough different forms to all types of society. That isto say, it also applies to socialist society of today andcommunist society of tomorrow.

Were Stalins mistakes due to the fact that the socialisteconomic and political system of the Soviet Union hadbecome outmoded and no longer suited the needs of thedevelopment of the Soviet Union? Certainly not. Sovietsocialist society is still young; it is not even 40 years old.The fact that the Soviet Union has made rapid progresseconomically proves that its economic system is, in themain, suited to the development of its productive forces;and that its political system is also, in the main, suited tothe needs of its economic basis. Stalins mistakes didnot originate in the socialist system; it therefore followsthat it is not necessary to correct the socialist system in

35

order to correct these mistakes. The bourgeoisie of theWest has not a leg to stand on when it tries to use Stalinserrors to prove that the socialist system is a mistake.Unconvincing too are the arguments of others who traceStalins mistakes to the administration of economic affairsby the socialist state power, and assert that once thegovernment takes charge of economic affairs it is boundto become a bureaucratic machine hindering the de-velopment of the socialist forces. No one can deny thatthe tremendous upsurge of Soviet economy is the resultprecisely of the planned administration of economic af-fairs by the state of the working people, while the mainmistakes committed by Stalin had very little to do withshortcomings of the state organs administering economicaffairs.

But even where the basic system corresponds to theneed, there are still certain contradictions between therelations of production and the productive forces, betweenthe superstructure and the economic basis. These con-tradictions find expression in defects in certain links ofthe economic and political systems. Though it is not neces-sary to effect fundamental changes in order to solve thesecontradictions, readjustments must be made in good time.

Can we guarantee that mistakes will not happen oncewe have a basic system which corresponds to the need andhave adjusted ordinary contradictions in the system (touse the language of dialectics, contradictions at the stageof quantitative change)? The matter is not that simple.Systems are of decisive importance, but systems them-selves are not all-powerful. No system, however excel-lent, is in itself a guarantee against serious mistakes inour work. Once we have the right system, the mainquestion is whether we can make the right use of it;

36

whether we have the right policies, and right methodsand style of work. Without all this, even under a goodsystem it is still possible for people to commit seriousmistakes and to use a good state apparatus to do evilthings.

To solve the problems mentioned above, we must relyon the accumulation of experience and the test of practice;we cannot expect results overnight. What is more, withconditions constantly changing, new problems arise as oldones are solved, and there is no solution which holds goodfor all times. Viewed from this angle, it is not surprisingto find that even in socialist countries which have beenestablished on a firm basis there are still defects in certainlinks of their relations of production and superstructure,and deviations of one kind or another in the policies andmethods and style of work of the Party and the state.

In the socialist countries, the task of the Party and thestate is, by relying on the strength of the masses and thecollective, to make timely readjustments in the variouslinks of the economic and political systems, and to dis-cover and correct mistakes in their work in good time.Naturally, it is not possible for the subjective views ofthe leading personnel of the Party and the state to conformcompletely to objective reality. Isolated, local and tem-porary mistakes in their work are therefore unavoidable.But so long as the principles of the dialectical materialistscience of Marxism-Leninism are strictly observed andefforts are made to develop them, so long as the principlesof democratic centralism of the Party and the state isthoroughly observed, and so long as we really rely on themasses, persistent and serious mistakes affecting thewhole country can be avoided.

37

The reason why some of the mistakes made by Stalinduring the later years of his life became serious, nation-wide and persistent, and were not corrected in time,was precisely that in certain fields and to a certain degree,he became isolated from the masses and the collective andviolated the principle of democratic centralism of theParty and the state. The reason for certain infractionsof democratic centralism lay in certain social and historicalconditions: the Party lacked experience in leading thestate; the new system was not sufficiently consolidatedto be able to resist every encroachment of the influenceof the old era (the consolidation of a new system and thedying away of the old influences do not operate in astraightforward fashion but often assume the form of anundulating movement at turning points in history); therewas the constricting effect which acute internal and ex-ternal struggles had on certain aspects of the develop-ment of democracy, etc. Nevertheless, these objectiveconditions alone would not have been enough to trans-form the possibility of making mistakes into their actualcommission. Lenin, working under conditions whichwere much more complicated and difficult than thoseencountered by Stalin, did not make the mistakes thatStalin made. Here, the decisive factor is mans ideolog-ical condition. A series of victories and the eulogieswhich Stalin received in the latter part of his life turnedhis head. He deviated partly, but grossly, from the dia-lectical materialist way of thinking and fell into subjec-tivism. He began to put blind faith in personal wisdomand authority; he would not investigate and study com-plicated conditions seriously or listen carefully to theopinions of his comrades and the voice of the masses. Asa result, some of the policies and measure he adopted

38

were often at variance with objective reality. He oftenstubbornly persisted in carrying out these mistaken meas-ures over long periods and was unable to correct hismistakes in time.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has alreadytaken measures to correct Stalins mistakes and eliminatetheir consequences. These measures are beginning to bearfruit. The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of theSoviet Union showed great determination and courage indoing away with blind faith in Stalin, in exposing thegravity of Stalins mistakes and in eliminating their ef-fects. Marxist-Leninists throughout the world, and allthose who sympathize with the communist cause, supportthe efforts of the Communist Party of the Soviet Unionto correct mistakes, and hope that the efforts of the Sovietcomrades will meet with complete success. It is obviousthat since Stalins mistakes were not of short duration,their thorough correction cannot be achieved overnight,but demands fairly protracted efforts and thoroughgoingideological education. We believe that the great Com-munist Party of the Soviet Union, which has alreadyovercome countless difficulties, will triumph over thesedifficulties and achieve its purpose.

It was not to be expected, of course, that this effort ofthe Communist Party of the Soviet Union to correct mis-takes would get any support from the bourgeoisie and theRight-wing Social-Democrats of the West. Eager to takeadvantage of the opportunity to erase what was correctin Stalins work as well as the past immense achieve-ments of the Soviet Union and the whole socialist camp,and to create confusion and division in the communistranks, the Western bourgeoisie and Right-wing Social-Democrats have deliberately labelled the correction of

39

Stalins mistakes de-Stalinization and described it asa struggle waged by anti-Stalinist elements againstStalinist elements. Their vicious intent is evidentenough. Unfortunately, similar views of this kind havealso gained ground among some Communists. We considerit extremely harmful for Communists to hold such views.

As is well known, although Stalin committed somegrave mistakes in his later years, his was neverthelessthe life of a great Marxist-Leninist revolutionary. Inhis youth, Stalin fought against the tsarist system and forthe spread of Marxism-Leninism. After he joined thecentral leading organ of the Party, he took part in thestruggle to pave the way for the revolution of 1917. Afterthe October Revolution, he fought to defend its fruits. Inthe nearly 30 years after Lenins death, he worked tobuild socialism, defend the socialist fatherland andadvance the world communist movement. All in all,Stalin always stood at the head of historical developmentsand guided the struggle; he was an implacable foe of im-perialism. His tragedy was that even when he madethe mistakes he believed what he did was necessary for thedefence of the interests of the working people against en-croachments by the enemy. Stalins mistakes did harm tothe Soviet Union, which could have been avoided. None-theless, the Socialist Soviet Union made tremendous prog-ress during the period of Stalins leadership. This undeni-able fact not only testifies to the strength of the socialistsystem but also shows that Stalin was after all a staunchCommunist. Therefore, in summing up Stalins thoughtsand activities, we must consider both his positive and nega-tive sides, both his achievements and his mistakes. As longas we examine the matter in an all-round way, then,even if people must speak of Stalinism, this can only

40

mean, in the first place, communism and Marxism-Leninism, which is the main aspect; and secondarily itcontains certain extremely serious mistakes which goagainst Marxism-Leninism and must be thoroughly cor-rected. Even though at times it is necessary to stressthese mistakes in order to correct them, it is also neces-sary to set them in their proper place so as to make acorrect appraisal and avoid misleading people. In ouropinion Stalins mistakes take second place to his achieve-ments.

Only by adopting an objective and analytical attitudecan we correctly appraise Stalin and all those comradeswho made similar mistakes under his influence, and onlyso can we correctly deal with their mistakes. Sincethese mistakes were made by Communists in the courseof their work, what is involved is a question of rightversus wrong within communist ranks, not an issue ofourselves versus the enemy in the class struggle. Weshould therefore adopt a comradely attitude towards thesepeople and not treat them as enemies. We should defendwhat is correct in their work while criticizing their mis-takes, and not blankly denounce everything they did.Their mistakes have a social and historical backgroundand can be attributed especially to their ideology andunderstanding. In just the same way, such mistakesmay also occur in the work of other comrades. That iswhy, having recognized the mistakes and undertakentheir correction, it is necessary that we regard them as agrave lesson, as an asset that can be used for heighteningthe political consciousness of all Communists, thus pre-venting the recurrence of such mistakes and advancingthe cause of communism. If, on the contrary, one takesa completely negative attitude towards those who made

41

mistakes, treats them with hostility and discriminatesagainst them by labelling them this or that kind of ele-ment, it will not help our comrades learn the lesson theyshould learn. Moreover, since this means confusing thetwo entirely different types of contradictionthat ofright versus wrong within our own ranks and that ofourselves versus the enemyit will only help the enemyin his attacks on the communist ranks and in his at-tempts at disintegrating the communist position.

The attitude taken by Comrade Tito and other leadingcomrades of the Yugoslav League of Communists towardsStalins mistakes and other related questions, as theirrecently stated views indicate, cannot be regarded by usas well-balanced or objective. It is understandable thatthe Yugoslav comrades bear a particular resentmentagainst Stalins mistakes. In the past, they madeworthy efforts to stick to socialism under difficult con-ditions. Their experiments in the democratic manage-ment of economic enterprises and other social organiza-tions have also attracted attention. The Chinese peoplewelcome the reconciliation between the Soviet Union andother socialist countries on the one hand, and Yugoslaviaon the other, as well as the establishment and developmentof friendly relations between China and Yugoslavia. Likethe Yugoslav people, the Chinese people hope that Yu-goslavia will become ever more prosperous and powerfulon the way to socialism. We also agree with some of thepoints in Comrade Titos speech, for instance, his condem-nation of the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries, his sup-port for the Worker-Peasant Revolutionary Governmentof Hungary, his condemnation of Britain, France andIsrael for their aggression against Egypt, and his condem-nation of the French Socialist Party for adopting a policy

42

of aggression. But we are amazed that, in his speech, heattacked almost all the socialist countries and many of theCommunist Parties. Comrade Tito made assertions aboutthose hard-bitten Stalinist elements who in various Par-ties have managed still to maintain themselves in theirposts and who would again wish to consolidate their ruleand impose those Stalinist tendencies upon their people,and even others. Therefore, he declared, Together withthe Polish comrades we shall have to fight such tendencieswhich crop up in various other Parties, whether in theEastern countries or in the West. We have not comeacross any statement put forward by leading comrades ofthe Polish United Workers Party saying that it was neces-sary to adopt such a hostile attitude towards brother par-ties. We feel it necessary to say in connection with theseviews of Comrade Titos that he took up a wrong attitudewhen he set up the so-called Stalinism, Stalinist ele-ments, etc., as objects of attack and maintained that thequestion now was whether the course begun in Yugo-slavia or the so-called Stalinist course would win out.This can only lead to a split in the communist movement.

Comrade Tito correctly pointed out that viewing thecurrent development in Hungary from the perspectivesocialism or counter-revolutionwe must defendKadars present government, we must help it. But helpto and defence of the Hungarian Government can hardlybe said to be the sense of the long speech on the Hunga-rian question made before the National Assembly of theFederal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia by ComradeKardelj, Vice-President of the Federal Executive Councilof Yugoslavia. In the interpretation of the Hungarianincident he gave in his speech, Comrade Kardelj notonly made no distinction whatsoever between ourselves

43

and the enemy, but also told the Hungarian comradesthat a thorough change is necessary in the (HungarianEd.) political system. He also called on them to turnover state power wholly to the Budapest and other re-gional workers councils, no matter what the workerscouncils have become, and declared that they need notwaste their efforts on trying to restore the CommunistParty. The reason, he said, was because to the massesthe Party was the personification of bureaucratic des-potism. Such is the blue-print of the, anti-Stalinistcourse which Comrade Kardelj has designed for brothercountries. The comrades in Hungary rejected this propos-al of Comrade Kardeljs. They dissolved the Budapestand other regional workers councils which were con-trolled by counter-revolutionaries and persisted in build-ing up the Socialist Workers Party. We consider that itwas entirely right for the Hungarian comrades to act inthis way, because otherwise Hungarys future wouldbelong not to socialism but to counter-revolution.

Clearly, the Yugoslav comrades are going too far.Even if some part of their criticism of brother parties isreasonable, the basic stand and the method they haveadopted infringed the principles of comradely discussion.We have no wish to interfere in the internal affairs ofYugoslavia, but the matters mentioned above are by nomeans internal. For the sake of consolidating the unityof the international communist ranks and avoiding thecreation of conditions which the enemy can use to causeconfusion and division in our own ranks, we cannot butoffer our brotherly advice to the Yugoslav comrades.

44

III

One of the grave consequences of Stalins mistakes wasthe growth of doctrinairism. While criticizing Stalins mis-takes, the Communist Parties of various countries havebeen waging a struggle against doctrinairism among theirranks. This struggle is entirely necessary. But by adoptinga negative attitude towards everything connected withStalin, and by putting up the erroneous slogan of de-Stalinization, some Communists have helped to fostera revisionist trend against Marxism-Leninism. This revi-sionist trend is undoubtedly of help to the imperialistattack against the communist movement, and the impe-rialists are in fact making active use of it. While reso-lutely opposing doctrinairism, we must at the same timeresolutely oppose revisionism.

Marxism-Leninism holds that there are common, fun-damental laws in the development of human society, butthat in various nations there are strongly differentiat-ed features. Thus all nations pass through the class strug-gle, and will eventually arrive at communism, by roadsthat are the same in essence but different in specific form.The cause of the proletariat in a given country will tri-umph only if the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism isproperly applied in the light of its special national fea-tures. And so long as this is done, the proletariat will ac-cumulate new experience, thus making its contribution tothe cause of other nations and to the general treasury ofMarxism-Leninism. Doctrinaires do not understand thatthe universal truth of Marxism-Leninism manifests itselfconcretely and becomes operative in real life only throughthe medium of specific national characteristics. They arenot willing to make a careful study of the social and

45

historical features of their own countries and nations orto apply in a practical way the universal truth of Marx-ism-Leninism in the light of these features. Consequentlythey cannot lead the proletarian cause to victory.

Since Marxism-Leninism is the scientific summing-upof the experience of the working-class movementof various countries, it follows that it must attach impor-tance to the question of applying the experience ofadvanced countries. Lenin wrote in his book What Is ToBe Done?:

The Social-Democratic movement is in its very es-sence an international movement. This means notonly that we must combat national chauvinism, butalso that a movement that is starting in a young countrycan be successful only if it implements the experienceof other countries.1

What Lenin meant here was that it was necessary for theRussian working-class movement, which was just begin-ning, to utilize the experience of the working-class move-ment in Western Europe. His view applies, likewise, to theuse of Soviet experience by younger socialist countries.

But there must be a proper method of learning. Allthe experience of the Soviet Union, including its funda-mental experience, is bound up with definite nationalcharacteristics, and no other country should copy it me-chanically. Moreover, as has been pointed out above,part of Soviet experience is that derived from mistakesand failures. For those who know how best to learnfrom others this whole body of experience, both of successand failure, is an invaluable asset, because it can help

1 V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. I, Part 1, Moscow, 1952, p. 227.

46

them avoid roundabout ways in their progress and reducetheir losses. On the other hand, indiscriminate and me-chanical copying of experience that has been successfulin the Soviet Union let alone that which was unsuc-cessful theremay lead to failures in another country.Lenin wrote in the passage immediately following theone quoted above:

And in order to implement this experience, it is notenough merely to be acquainted with it, or simply totranscribe the latest resolutions. What it requires isthe ability to treat this experience critically and totest it independently. Anybody who realizes how enor-mously the modern working-class movement has grownand branched out will understand what a reserve oftheoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary)experience is required to fulfil this task.1

Obviously, in countries where the proletariat has gainedpower, the problem is many times more complex thanthat referred to by Lenin here.

In the history of the Communist Party of China be-tween 1931 and 1934, there were doctrinaires who refusedto recognize Chinas specific characteristics, mechanicallycopied certain experiences of the Soviet Union, and causedserious reverses to the revolutionary forces of our coun-try. These reverses were a profound lesson to our Party.In the period between the Tsunyi Conference of 1935and the Partys Seventh National Congress held in 1945,our Party thoroughly examined and repudiated this ex-tremely harmful doctrinaire line, united all its members,including those who had made mistakes, developed the

1 V. I. Lenin, op. cit., Vol. I, Part 1, pp. 227-28.

47

peoples forces and thus won victory for the revolution.If this had not been done, victory would have been im-possible. It is only because we discarded the doctrinaireline~ that it has become possible for our Party to makefewer mistakes in learning from the experience of theSoviet Union and other brother countries. It is becauseof .this too that we are able to understand fully hownecessary and arduous it is for our Polish and Hungariancomrades to correct today the doctrinaire errors of thepast.

Errors of doctrinairism, whenever and wherever theyoccur, must be set right. We shall continue our effortsto correct and prevent such errors in our work. Butopposition to doctrinairism has nothing in common withtolerance of revisionism. Marxism-Leninism recognizesthat the communist movements of various countries nec-essarily have their own national characteristics. Butthis does not mean that they do not share certain basicfeatures in common, or that they can depart from theuniversal truth of Marxism-Leninism. In the present anti-doctrinaire tide, there are people both in our country andabroad who, on the pretext of opposing the mechanicalcopying of Soviet experience, try to deny the inter-national significance of the fundamental experience of theSoviet Union and, on the plea of creatively developingMarxism-Leninism, try to deny the significance of theuniversal truth of Marxism-Leninism.

Because Stalin and the former leaders in some othersocialist countries committed the serious mistake of violat-ing socialist democracy, some unstable people in thecommunist ranks, on the pretext of developing socialistdemocracy, attempt to weaken or renounce the dicta-torship of the proletariat, the principles of democratic

48

centralism of the socialist state, and the leading role ofthe Party.

There can be no doubt that in a proletarian dictatorshipthe dictatorship over the counter-revolutionary forcesmust be closely combined with the broadest scope ofpeoples, that is, socialist, democracy. The dictatorshipof the proletariat is mighty and can defeat powerfulenemies within the country and outside it andundertake the majestic historic task of buildingsocialism precisely because it is a dictatorship of theworking masses over the exploiters, a dictatorship of themajority over the minority, because it gives the broadworking masses a democracy which is unattainable underany bourgeois democracy. Failure to forge close links withthe mass-of the working people and to gain their enthu-siastic support makes it impossible to establish the dic-tatorship of the proletariat, or at any rate impossible toconsolidate it. The more acute the class struggle be-comes, the more necessary it is for the proletariat to rely,most resolutely and completely, on the broad masses ofthe people and to bring into full play their revolutionaryenthusiasm to defeat the counter-revolutionary forces.The experience of the stirring and seething mass strugglesin the Soviet Union during the October Revolution andthe ensuing civil war proved this truth to the full. It isfrom Soviet experience in that period that the massline our Party so often talks about was derived. Theacute struggles in the Soviet Union then depended mainlyon direct action by the mass of the people, and naturallythere was little possibility for perfect democratic pro-cedures to develop. After the elimination of the exploit-ing classes and the wiping out in the main of thecounter-revolutionary forces, it was still necessary for the

49

dictatorship of the proletariat to deal with counter-revolu-tionary remnantsthese could not be wiped out com-pletely so long as imperialism existedbut by then itsedge should have been mainly directed against the ag-gressive forces of foreign imperialism. In these circum-stances, democratic procedures in the political life of thecountry should have been gradually developed and per-fected; the socialist legal system perfected; supervisionby the people over the state organs strengthened; demo-cratic methods of administering the state and managingenterprises developed; links between the state organs andthe bodies administering various enterprises on the onehand, and the broad masses on the other, made closer;hindrances impairing any of these links done away withand a firmer check put on bureaucratic tendencies. Afterthe elimination of classes, the class struggle should notcontinue to be stressed as though it was being intensified,as was done by Stalin with the result that the healthydevelopment of socialist democracy was hampered. TheCommunist Party of the Soviet Union is completely rightin firmly correcting Stalins mistakes in this respect.

Socialist democracy should in no way be pitted againstthe dictatorship of the proletariat; nor should it be con-fused with bourgeois democracy. The sole aim of social-ist democracy, in the political, economic and culturalfields alike, is to strengthen the socialist cause of theproletariat and all the working people, to give scope totheir energy in the building of socialism and in the fightagainst all anti-socialist forces. If there is a kind of de-mocracy that can be used for anti-socialist purposes andfor weakening the cause of socialism, it certainly cannotbe called socialist democracy.

50

Some people, however, do not see things that way.Their reaction to events in Hungary has revealed thismost clearly. In the past the democratic rights andrevolutionary enthusiasm of the Hungarian working peo-ple were impaired, while the counter-revolutionaries werenot dealt the blow they deserved, with the result that itwas fairly easy for the counter-revolutionaries, in October1956, to take advantage of the discontent of the massesto organize an armed revolt. This shows that Hungaryhad not yet made a serious enough effort to build upits dictatorship of the proletariat. Nevertheless, whenHungary was facing its crisis, when it lay between revolu-tion and counter-revolution, between socialism and fas-cism, between peace and war, how did communist intel-lectuals in some countries see the problem? They notonly did not raise the question of realizing a dictatorshipof the proletariat but came out against the righteousaction taken by the Soviet Union in aiding the socialistforces in Hungary. They came out with declarationsthat the counter-revolution in Hungary was a revolutionand with demands that the Worker-Peasant RevolutionaryGovernment extend democracy to the counter-revolu-tionaries! In certain socialist countries some newspapers,even to this day, are wantonly discrediting the revolu-tionary measures taken by the Hungarian Communistswho are fighting heroically under difficult conditions,while they have said hardly a word about the campaignlaunched by reactionaries all over the world againstcommunism, against the people and against peace. Whatis the meaning of these strange facts? They mean thatthose Socialists who depart from the dictatorship ofthe proletariat to prate about democracy actually standwith the bourgeoisie in opposition to the proletariat; that

51

they are, in effect, asking for capitalism and opposingsocialism, though many among them may themselves beunaware of that fact. Lenin pointed out time and againthat the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat isthe most essential part of Marxism; that acceptance orrejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat is whatconstitutes the most profound difference between theMarxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois.1

Lenin asked the Hungarian proletarian regime of 1919 touse mercilessly rigorous, swift and resolute force tosuppress the counter-revolutionaries. Whoever doesnot understand this, he said, is not a revolutionary, andmust be removed from the post of leader or adviser of theproletariat.2 So if people reject the fundamental Marx-ist-Leninist principles regarding the dictatorship of theproletariat, if they slanderously dub these principlesStalinism and doctrinairism simply because they haveperceived the mistakes committed by Stalin in the latterpart of his life and those made by the former Hungarianleaders, they will be taking the path that leads to betrayalof Marxism-Leninism and away from the cause of prole-tarian revolution.

Those who reject the dictatorship of the proletariat alsodeny the need for centralism in socialist democracy andthe leading role played by the proletarian party in socialistcountries. To Marxist-Leninists, of course, such ideas arenothing new. Engels pointed out long ago, when strug-gling against the anarchists, that as long as there is con-certed action in any social organization there must be acertain degree of authority and subordination. The rela-

1 V. I. Lenin, op. cit . , Vo