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

If comrades now make the criticism that we were wrongin giving this consideration to the leaders of the CPSU, weare quite ready to accept this criticism.As the formulation of the question of peaceful transitionin the Declaration and the Statement was based on the draftsof the CPSU and in some places retained the formulation byits 20th Congress, there are serious weaknesses and errors inthe overall presentation, even though a certain amount ofpatching up was done. While indicating that the rulingclasses never relinquish power voluntarily, the formulationin the two documents also asserts that state power can bewon in a number of capitalist countries without civil war;while stating that extra-parliamentary mass struggle shouldbe waged to smash the resistance of the reactionary forces,it also asserts that a stable majority can be secured in parliamentand that parliament can thus be transformed into aninstrument serving the working people; and while referringto non-peaceful transition, it fails to stress violent revolutionas a universal law. The leadership of the CPSU hastaken advantage of these weaknesses and errors in the Declarationand the Statement and used them as an excuse forpeddling Khrushchov’s revisionism.It must be solemnly declared that the Chinese CommunistParty has all along maintained its differing views on theformulation of the question of the transition from capitalismto socialism in the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of1960. We have never concealed our views. We hold that inthe interest of the revolutionary cause of the internationalproletariat and in order to prevent the revisionists frommisusing these programmatic documents of the fraternalParties, it is necessary to amend the formulation of the questionin the Declaration and the Statement through joint consultationof Communist and Workers’ Parties so as to conformto the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.In order to help readers acquaint themselves with the fullviews of the Chinese Communist Party on this question, we374