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

This wrong view later developed into the line of “Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the settlement of world problems”.Distorting Lenin’s correct principle of peaceful coexistencebetween countries with different social systems, Khrushchovdeclared that peaceful coexistence was the “general line ofthe foreign policy” of the U.S.S.R. This amounted to excludingfrom the general line of foreign policy of the socialistcountries their mutual assistance and co-operation as well asassistance by them to the revolutionary struggles of the oppressedpeoples and nations, or to subordinating all this tothe policy of so-called “peaceful coexistence”.The questions raised by the leadership of the CPSU at the20th Congress, and especially the question of Stalin and of“peaceful transition”, are by no means simply internal affairsof the CPSU; they are vital issues of common interest forall fraternal Parties. Without any prior consultation with thefraternal Parties, the leadership of the CPSU drew arbitraryconclusions; it forced the fraternal Parties to accept a faitaccompli and, on the pretext of “combating the personalitycult”, crudely interfered in the internal affairs of fraternalParties and countries and tried to subvert their leaderships,thus pushing its policy of sectarianism and splittism in the internationalcommunist movement.Subsequent developments show with increasing claritythat the revision and betrayal of Marxism-Leninism andproletarian internationalism by the leaders of the CPSU havegrown out of the above errors.The CPC has always differed in principle in its view of the20th Congress of the CPSU, and the leading comrades of theCPSU are well aware of this. Yet the Open Letter of theCentral Committee of the CPSU asserts that the CommunistParty of China previously gave the 20th Congress full support,that we “have made a 180-degree turn” in our evaluation ofthe 20th Congress, and that our position is full of “vacillationand wavering” and is “false”.63