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

Hsiao-ping completely affirmed the “struggle against the personalitycult” conducted at the 20th Congress. But it was inthis very report that Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping discussed atsome length democratic centralism in the Party and the interrelationshipbetween leaders and masses, explained theconsistent and correct style of work of our Party, and thus ineffect criticized the error of the 20th Congress concerningthe “struggle against the personality cult”.Is there anything wrong in the way we acted? Have we notdone exactly what a Marxist-Leninist Party ought to do bypersevering in principle and upholding unity?How can this consistently correct attitude of the ChineseCommunist Party towards the 20th Congress be described asfull of “vacillation and wavering”, as “false” and as representing“a 180-degree turn”?In making these charges against us in the Open Letter,perhaps the Central Committee of the CPSU thought it coulddeny the criticisms we made because they were known onlyto a few leaders of the CPSU, and that it could use falsehoodsto deceive the broad masses of the CPSU membership andthe Soviet people. But does this not prove its own falseness?THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSUThe Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSUloudly proclaims the “splendid” and “majestic results” of the20th Congress of the CPSU.But history cannot be altered. People not suffering fromtoo short a memory will recall that by its errors the 20thCongress produced not “splendid” or “majestic results” buta discrediting of the Soviet Union, of the dictatorship of theproletariat and of socialism and communism, and gave anopportunity to the imperialists, the reactionaries and all the67