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

It is true that, both before and during the meeting, theleadership of the CPSU engineered converging assaults onthe Chinese Communist Party by a number of representativesof fraternal Parties, and relying on a so-called majority endeavouredto bring the delegations of the Chinese and otherMarxist-Leninist Parties to their knees and compel them toaccept its revisionist line and views. However, the attemptsby the leaders of the CPSU to impose things on others metwith failure, both in the Drafting Committee of the 26 fraternalParties and in the meeting of the representatives of the 81fraternal Parties.The fact remains that many of the wrong theses they putforward in their draft statement were rejected. Here aresome examples:The wrong thesis of the leadership of the CPSU that peacefulcoexistence and economic competition form the generalline of the foreign policy of the socialist countries was rejected.Its wrong thesis that the emergence of a new stage in thegeneral crisis of capitalism is the result of peaceful coexistenceand peaceful competition was rejected.Its wrong thesis that there is a growing possibility of peacefultransition was rejected.It’s wrong thesis about opposing the policy of “going italone” on the part of socialist countries, which in effectmeant opposing the policy of their relying mainly on themselvesin construction, was rejected.Its wrong thesis concerning opposition to so-called “cliquishactivities” and “factional activities” in the international communistmovement was rejected. In effect this thesis meantdemanding that fraternal Parties should obey its baton,liquidating the principles of independence and equality inrelations among fraternal Parties, and replacing the principleof reaching unanimity through consultation by the practiceof subduing the minority by the majority.Its wrong thesis of underestimating the serious danger ofmodern revisionism was rejected.86