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

gling and striving for the success of the moment withoutconsideration for the later consequences, the sacrifice of thefuture of the movement for its present was opportunism, anddangerous opportunism at that.It was precisely on this ground that Lenin criticized Kautskyfor “praising reformism and submission to the imperialistbourgeoisie, and blaming and renouncing revolution”. 1 Hesaid that “the proletariat fights for the revolutionary overthrowof the imperialist bourgeoisie”, while Kautsky “fightsfor the reformist ‘improvement’ of imperialism, for adaptationto it, while submitting to it”. 2Lenin’s criticism of Kautsky is an apt portrayal of thepresent leaders of the CPSU.We have always held that in order to lead the working classand the masses of the people in revolution, the party of theproletariat must master all forms of struggle and be able tocombine different forms, swiftly substituting one form foranother as the conditions of struggle change. It will be invinciblein all circumstances only if it masters all forms ofstruggle, such as peaceful and armed, open and secret, legaland illegal, parliamentary and mass struggle, as well as bothdomestic and international struggle.The victory of the Chinese revolution was precisely theresult of the skilful and thorough mastery of all forms ofstruggle — in keeping with the specific characteristics of theChinese revolution — by the Communists of China who learnedfrom the historical experience of international proletarianstruggle. Armed struggle was the chief form in the Chineserevolution, but the revolution could not have been victoriouswithout the use of other forms of struggle.In the course of the Chinese revolution the Chinese CommunistParty fought on two fronts. It fought both the Right,1V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revolution and the RenegadeKautsky”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II,Part 2, p. 95.2Ibid.396