Polemic on General Line of International ... - From Marx to Mao

ecause they accepted the revisionist line imposed on themby the leaders of the CPSU or because their own revisionistline was encouraged by the leaders of the CPSU. By followingthe leaders of the CPSU and banging the drum for themin the struggle between the two lines in the international communistmovement, they adversely affect the unity of themovement. Inevitably this arouses widespread dissatisfactioninside their own Parties and resistance and opposition fromthe Marxist-Leninists in them.Aping the leaders of the CPSU, their followers practise adivisive policy inside their own Parties. Violating the principleof democratic centralism, they forbid normal inner-Party discussion of differences concerning the Party line andof major problems confronting the international communistmovement. Moreover, they illegitimately ostracize, attackand even expel Communists who adhere to principle. As aresult the struggle between the two lines within the Partiesinevitably takes on a particularly acute form.In essence, the struggle within these Communist Partiesturns on whether to follow the Marxist-Leninist line or therevisionist line, and whether to make the Communist Partya genuine vanguard of the proletariat and a genuine revolutionaryproletarian party or to convert it into a servant of thebourgeoisie and a variant of the Social-Democratic Party.In the Open Letter, the leaders of the CPSU present adistorted picture of the struggles within the CommunistParties of the United States of America, Brazil, Italy, Belgium,Australia and India. They vilify in the most maliciouslanguage those Marxist-Leninists who have been attackedand ostracized by the revisionist groups in their own Parties.Is it possible for the leaders of the CPSU to conceal or alterthe truth about the struggles within these Communist Partiesby calling white black and black white? No. They certainlycannot!Take for example the inner-Party struggle in the BelgianCommunist Party.342