WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE
Publisher’s Note
This Open Letter of the Revolutionary Communist
Party of Chile to the Communist Party of China was
initially published in Spanish in Issue No. 93,
December 1977 of El Pueblo, Official Organ of the
Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist
Party of Chile, and was subsequently published in
French by Ediciones marxista-leninistas. The present
English text has been translated from the French and
Spanish editions.
This digital edition by
© Digital Reprints
2004
Published by:
THE NORMAN BETHUNE INSTITUTE
Printed by:
PEOPLE’S CANADA PUBLISHING HOUSE
Distributed by:
NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS CENTRE
Distributors of Progressive Books & Periodicals
Box 727, Adelaide Station, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
NBI-62
3
Open Letter of the Revolutionary
Communist Party of Chile to
the Communist Party of China
The Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile (RCP) established
political relations with the Communist Party of China (CPC) thirteen
years ago, when it was still only a Marxist-Leninist group named
“Spartacus”. The first meeting between this political group and the
CPC took place in 1964 between the leaders of “Spartacus” and
Comrade Mao Tsetung himself, who encouraged and supported
their plans to build a genuine communist party, and towards this
end gave them valuable advice. Among this advice: “Do not
mechanically copy the experience of China or of another country;
struggle against any tailist tendency and use your own heads,
applying Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of your
country.” We have always striven to remain loyal to these teachings
of Comrade Mao, and this Open Letter is an expression of this. At
the beginning of 1966, at a Constituent Congress attended by all the
existing Marxist-Leninist parties in Latin America — a Congress
whose organizing core was the “Spartacus” group — the,
Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile was established. The RCP
continued to maintain and develop political relations with the CPC,
with the Party of Labour of Albania and with the rest of the Marxist-
Leninist movement, insofar as we had the chance of meeting with
the representatives of each country.
Those who made up the “Spartacus” group in 1963, and later the
RCP in 1966, had already, several years before the beginning of the
public polemic between the CPC and the Soviet leaders and their
disciples, taken up the struggle against the revisionist line imposed
by Khrushchov at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, within the old
“Communist” Party of Chile. The “Spartacus” group, for its part,
established political relations with the CPC about one year after it
4 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
came into being as a group independent of the old “C”P of Chile.
The political relations between first “Spartacus” and then the RCP,
and the Communist Party of China, were born of an identical
understanding of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and in their
common defence against present-day revisionism. In response to
Khrushchov’s revisionist line, under the personal guidance and
direction of Comrade Mao, the Communist Party of China
elaborated its Proposal Concerning the General Line of the
International Communist Movement (better known by the name of
the 25-Point Letter) as well as the nine comments replying to the
Open Letter that the CC of the CPSU sent to the CPC, on whose
basic points we were in complete agreement. This coincidence of
points of view was the basis of our party-to-party relations.
Otherwise, in the 1960’s, the years in which we established
our political relations — at the very height of the
ideological struggle against modern revisionism, and afterwards,
during the Proletarian Cultural Revolution — China consistently
practiced a revolutionary international policy against the
revisionists. This was the era in China during which one could
attend large mass meetings of support for the anti-imperialist
struggles of the world’s peoples or numerous artistic performances
which reflected these struggles, and during which one found
propaganda for these struggles on your radio and in your magazines
and periodicals. This was the era when Chinese publications
reproduced material from the Marxist-Leninist parties regarding
their own countries, in which the marionettes of imperialism, the
fascists, the racists and the reactionaries like Ne Win, Mobutu and
others, were denounced as such, and the traitors to Marxism such as
Tito were exposed.
Subsequently, during the 1970’s, coinciding with the
“rehabilitation” of people like Teng Hsiao-ping and others who
were condemned by the Cultural Revolution, a profound change
took place in the international policy of China, which led to many
disagreements and contradictions between our parties. Then, in
April 1974, Teng Hsiao-ping made his famous speech to the United
Nations in which he set out an international line absolutely opposed
to the Marxist-Leninist line which the CPC and Comrade Mao had
upheld in opposition to Khrushchov and his disciples, and identical,
in essence, with that of the latter. At our first meeting with the CPC
following the speech of Teng Hsiao-ping, in August 1974, we made a
severe criticism of his opportunist international line. Without
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 5
a reply to our arguments, the only response we were given was to
be told, with the greatest cynicism, that “this is the international line
of Chairman Mao”. At the beginning of 1975, and after having
informed the leadership of our Party of the refusal of the CPC to
discuss the change in its international line, we firmly renewed our
criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping’s international line; in particular, we
showed that this line leads to a reactionary policy, beginning from
the attitude of official Chinese circles towards the fascist Chilean
Junta. This was the last contact between our two parties.
On this occasion, we did not mention (as several fraternal parties
have falsely been told) the diplomatic relations between China and
the fascists that govern Chile. On the other hand, we did manifest
our deep disagreement with the callousness and lack of solidarity of
those responsible for leading China’s international policy, in accord
with the international line of Teng Hsiao-ping, in face of the tragedy
that our people have undergone from the time of the fascist coup
d’etat, a tragedy which has moved and angered the broadest
sections of the progressive and democratic people of the entire
world. In fact, the only statement where a position is taken, if one
can call it that, on what took place in Chile, is contained in the
condolences sent by former Prime Minister Chou En-lai to the
widow of ex-President Allende, in which he expresses his “sorrow
and indignation” at his death, without passing any judgement on his
murderers and without mentioning the tens of thousands of
workers who were massacred, tortured and imprisoned by the
fascist military. News items on various aspects of the repression in
Chile appeared only during the month of the coup d’etat and were
reported without any commentary or opinion. Moreover, as if to
underscore the decision not to take a stand on the atrocities
perpetrated by the fascist Junta, several condemnations of it were
reproduced, but always condemnations made by others. Later,
even news regarding acts of repression was passed over in silence
and the Chinese publications restricted themselves to noting, with
increasing tardiness, some of the effects of the economic crisis
affecting Chile. We are pointing out all of this to show the contrast
with what appeared throughout the world press regarding the
denunciation of the atrocities of fascism in Chile. And we pointed
out, moreover, that the representatives of China at the United
Nations and in other international bodies left the sessions without
voting when the resolutions condemning Pinochet and his
henchmen were presented. We showed how this attitude of the
6 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
official Chinese circles was warmly hailed by the functionaries of
the Chilean fascist regime, such as the Under-Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, who in January 1975, maintained that “People’s China
supports Chile in international meetings”, without being
contradicted either by word or by deed.
At the present time, we can bring even more serious accusations
concerning your relations with the bloody Chilean fascist regime:
you have granted credits to the Junta; none other than the Chinese
ambassador had himself photographed in the process of handing
over gifts to the dictator Pinochet in August of this year, and made
statements to the effect that “the relations between the two
countries have always been at a high level” and that China intended
to strengthen and broaden them. Finally, this same ambassador
topped off his pro-fascist activities on his departure from Chile in
mid-October, declaring that he was leaving with “a very good
impression of Chile and of the Chief of State”. Is it not an insult to
the Chilean people to eulogize the butcher who has subjected
them to massacres, tortures, and to superexploitation? Is this not
open sabotage of the revolutionary role which China has played for
the world’s peoples?
During our last meeting, at the beginning of 1975, when the
collaboration with the fascist Junta was not as scandalous as it later
became, we had already pointed out the profound harm that the
policy of those in China who were implementing Teng Hsiao-ping’s
line was causing to the anti-fascist and anti-imperialist struggle of
our people. We pointed out the harm that this policy was causing to
the revolutionary brotherhood between the Chilean people and
the Chinese people, as well as to the prestige of the Chinese
revolution in Latin America and in the rest of the world. Finally, we
pointed out the difficulties that this opportunist policy was leading
to for our own Party in its struggle to mobilize the masses of the
people against the dictatorship and to denounce the treacherous
policy of revisionism and of social-imperialism, which opened the
road to fascism and which, today, contribute to maintaining it in
power. Naturally, the masses of the Chilean people, knowing of our
former political relations with the CPC, ask us for an explanation of
your attitude of friendship and cooperation with its hangmen and
torturers, an attitude which we cannot explain from a revolutionary
point of view and which we are not inclined to justify, because it is
profoundly opposed to our resolutely anti-fascist policy and to the
very principles of Marxist-Leninist international policy.
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 7
As an example of the support which we would have liked to
receive from China, we pointed out that which we had received
from the majority of Marxist-Leninist parties and from Socialist
Albania, through publications, meetings or other forms of solidarity
in support of the anti-fascist resistance, condemning the crimes of
the dictatorship and exposing the revisionist theses such as the
“peaceful road” and others, which made possible the
establishment of fascism in Chile and which today hinder its
overthrow.
Finally, we requested a genuine discussion of our differences
concerning the international line of Teng Hsiao-ping, for during the
previous visit, none of our criticisms had been replied to. We were
given only the right to a speech in which this opportunist line was
reaffirmed, and we were deprived of the right to ask questions on
what we had just heard, being told that “you will be able to do so at
our next meeting”.
Already at that time our Party found itself confronted with the
alternative of publicly and openly denouncing the international
line and policy of Teng Hsiao-ping and his followers which is
profoundly opposed to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tsetung
Thought and which is particularly harmful for the anti-fascist and
anti-imperialist struggle of our people. The militants of our Party,
our allies and broad sections of the masses were demanding more
and more insistently that we take a position on this question. The
reason we did not do so then, at the beginning of 1975, following
our last meeting with the CPC, was that precisely beginning with
that year we could see encouraging signs in China regarding the
development of the class struggle, which made us entertain serious
hopes that rectification would be made. At the beginning of 1975
was published Chairman Mao’s call to “strengthen the dictatorship
of the proletariat” and to struggle against the survivals in China of
bourgeois right, as well as his warning of the fact that as long as this
continued to exist, “if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be
quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system.” From the time of
these directives of Chairman Mao and under his leadership — from
the end of 1975 to September 1976, the date of his death — a broad
and sustained mobilization of the masses was developed to criticize
and struggle against what was called “the right-deviationist wind”
whipped up by Teng Hsiao-ping to liquidate the gains of the
Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Moreover, in April 1976, at the
demand of Chairman Mao and the masses of the people, the CC of
8 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
the CPC unanimously removed Teng Hsiao-ping from all his
positions inside and outside the Party, as a result of his role as the
instigator of the counter-revolutionary incidents at Tien an Men
Square. This resolution, as your publications explained, was
approved by meetings in which “several hundreds of millions of
persons” participated. Thus it was completely justifiable to be
optimistic and to nourish the hope that the international line of
Comrade Mao would be re-established, a line that was in effect at
the height of the ideological struggle against revisionism and during
the Cultural Revolution. These favourable conditions for the
struggle in China, as well as the necessity to redouble efforts to
clarify this problem to the whole of the Marxist-Leninist movement,
where some agents of Teng Hsiao-ping were attempting to sow
confusion, led us to develop the struggle against this new revisionist
trend gradually, prior to arriving at the point of making a public
criticism of it and a rupture with it. This is what we did through
various documents of the RCP, through positions contained in joint
statements made with fraternal parties, through our speeches in
international meetings and bilateral discussions.
Finally, the tragic events following the death of Comrade Mao—
the imprisonment of those who distinguished themselves in the
Cultural Revolution and fought at his side against the chieftains of
revisionism in China; the shameful “rehabilitation” of individuals
condemned by the Cultural Revolution and of some, such as Teng
Hsiao-ping, condemned as a repeat offender; the brutal repression
against the sections of the masses and the cadres who were
determined to defend the victories of the Cultural Revolution and
other gains — left no doubt that a counter-revolutionary coup
d’etat had been perpetrated in China. In these conditions, we
consider it our duty to denounce and publicly combat those who
have usurped power. In this way, we are responding to the appeal
made by Comrade Mao in 1965, when he declared: “If China’s
leadership is usurped by revisionists in the future, the Marxist-
Leninists of all countries should resolutely expose and fight them
and help the working class and the masses of China to combat such
revisionism.”
In particular, as far as the international policy and line of the
Marxist-Leninist movement is concerned, we have the right to have
our say. No party, no matter what its importance for the
revolutionary movement, can claim the right to impose its
international line on the other parties, or even less to change a
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 9
Marxist-Leninist line into a revisionist line and demand that all
should follow it in this opportunist turn. Problems such as defining
the main enemy of the world’s peoples, characterizing the united
front with which it must be opposed, establishing the course to
follow in face of the danger of war, or the norms for the unity of the
Marxist-Leninists and the role of the vanguard, concern the whole
of the international communist movement. In the 25-Point Letter
written under the guidance of Comrade Mao, we can read: “If it is
accepted that there are no ‘superiors’ and ‘subordinates’ in
relations among fraternal parties, then it is impermissible to impose
the programme, resolutions and line of one’s own party on other
fraternal parties as the ‘common programme’ of the international
communist movement” (p. 47) As far as our Party is concerned, the
pressure exerted by the opportunist group that temporarily
controls the CPC, such as: Refusal to have discussion with or even
to receive parties that do not share its point of view; slanders against
them; efforts to split them and supplant them by promoting
opportunist groups, etc. . . . , will not make us give up our positions
and will not prevent us from denouncing an international line
which we consider reactionary. Neither will it prevent us — when
we consider that the moment is ripe, and no matter what the
consequences — from exposing the reactionary and anti-Marxist
nature of those who are attempting to impose this line and to use it
as a guide in their activity.
What is the substance of the revisionist international line of Teng
Hsiao-ping and his accomplices, who fraudulently tried to pass it off
as the “international line of Chairman Mao”? It is nothing other
than a rehash — almost point for point — of the revisionist
international line of Khrushchov and his successors, a line launched
by them to prevent the peoples from rising against colonialism and
neo-colonialism and to thus create the conditions to replace
traditional imperialism as the exploiters and oppressors of these
peoples. It is the line which the USSR has implemented with the aim
of helping it become a social-imperialist superpower and to
contend for hegemony with U.S. imperialism. This line was
forcefully combatted by Comrade Mao, Comrade Enver, and other
Marxist-Leninists of China, Albania and other countries, especially
during the struggle against modern revisionism. As far as China is
concerned, the documents that we mentioned at the beginning of
this Open Letter — the 25-Point Letter and the nine comments on
the Open Letter of the CC of the CPSU to the CPC prepared under
10 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
the leadership of Mao Tsetung—were written to denounce this
reactionary international policy of Khrushchov and his successors.
These documents represent the “international line of Mao
Tsetung”, as do the concepts contained in his well-known works
and not the falsifications with which Teng Hsiao-ping and his clique
would like to supplant them.
As we have pointed out, Teng Hsiao-ping, on the other hand, put
together his anti-Marxist positions in his speech to the United
Nations in April 1974 and in several other writings. In them he
begins by denying colonial and neo-colonial political oppression,
as Khrushchov had done before him, in identical terms. He states:
“The numerous developing countries have long suffered from
colonialist and imperialist oppression and exploitation. They have
won political independence, yet all of them still face the historic
task of clearing out the remnant forces of colonialism, developing
the national economy and consolidating national independence.”
In another point he says: “We maintain that the safeguarding of
polictical independence is the first prerequisite for a Third World
country to develop its economy. In achieving political
independence, the people of a country have only taken the first
step, and they must proceed to consolidate this independence, for
there still exist remnant forces of colonialism at home and there is
still the danger of subversion and aggression by imperialism and
hegemonism. The consolidation of political independence is
necessarily a process of repeated struggles. In the final analysis,
political independence and economic independence are
inseparable. Without political independence, it is impossible to
achieve economic independence; without economic
independence, a country’s independence is incomplete and
insecure.” For this faithful disciple of Liu Shao-chi and Khrushchov,
therefore, the countries that are referred to as “developing”
(masking the political dependence which prevents or distorts their
development), “have been” victims of oppression in the past.
Today, they “have won political independence” and it is only
necessary for them to eliminate the “remnant” forms of
colonialism. For him, it is simply a question of “safeguarding” and of
“consolidating” this independence, which he takes as having been
won, against the “remnant” forces of colonialism or against the
“danger” of imperialist aggression or subversion. For its part,
economic independence must be attained so that the political
independence already won can be “complete” and “secure”.
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 11
What, on the other hand, are we told by Comrade Mao and those
who together with him drafted the comment criticizing the Open
Letter of the CC of the CPSU entitled Apologists of Neo-
Colonialism? In this document it is stated: “There is a whole group
of countries which have declared their independence. But many of
these countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and
colonial control and enslavement and remain objects of imperialist
plunder and aggression as well as arenas of contention between the
old and new colonialists. In some, the old colonialists have changed
into neo-colonialists and retain their colonial rule through their
trained agents.” (pp. 3-4) And further on: “The facts are clear. After
World War II the imperialists have certainly not given up
colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neo-colonialism.
An important characteristic of such neo-colonialism is that the
imperialists have been forced to change their old style of direct
colonial rule in some areas and to adopt a new style of colonial rule
and exploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and
trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave or
control the colonial countries and countries which have already
declared their independence. . . When they are unable to
continue their rule over these countries by “peaceful” means, they
engineer military coups d’etat, carry out subversion or even resort
to direct armed intervention and aggression.” “This neocolonialism,”
it concludes, “is a more pernicious and sinister form
of colonialism”. (pp. 4-5) This is a reply which is in accordance with
the real ideas of Mao Tsetung on the so-called “political
independence” which, according to the revisionist theses of Teng
Hsiao-ping, the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have
attained.
In another part of his speech to the United Nations, Teng Hsiaoping
states: “Since numerous Third World countries and people
were able to achieve political independence through protracted
struggle, certainly they will also be able, on this basis, to bring about
through sustained struggle a thorough change in the international
economic relations which are based on inequality, control and
exploitation and thus create essential conditions for the
independent development of their national economy by
strengthening their unity and allying themselves with other
countries subjected to superpower bullying as well as with the
people of the whole world, including the people of the United
States and the Soviet Union.” For this loyal disciple of Khrushchov,
12 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
therefore, the question is not one of fighting to win genuine
political independence by breaking the chains of colonialism and of
neo-colonialism. It consists merely of improving “the international
economic relations based on inequality” and, in this way, to be able
to achieve the “independent development of their national
economy”. An affirmation of this kind amounts to saying to the
workers and the masses under the yoke of capitalism, “you are ‘free’
in the capitalist society, and to solve your problems, it is sufficient to
demand better wages from your bosses”. Clearly, the statement of
Teng Hsiao-ping quoted above is not addressed to peoples of the
world who are politically and economically oppressed by
colonialism and neo-colonialism, but aims instead at sharpening
some contradictions between the lackeys of the superpowers and
their masters, in order to gain some allies among them and build his
own hegemony. What is said about this “original” method of Teng
Hsiao-ping’s to “confront” imperialism, by the authors of the
above-cited comment Apologists of Neo-Colonialism? It states:
“The leaders of the CPSU have also created the theory that the
national liberation movement has entered upon a ‘new stage’
having economic tasks as its core. Their argument is that, whereas
‘formerly, the struggle was carried on mainly in the political sphere’,
today the economic question has become the ‘central task’ and ‘the
basic link in the further development of the revolution’.” (p. 6) As
we can see, on this front also Teng Hsiao-ping has drawn his
inspiration not from Mao Tsetung but, as is generally the case for
him, from his Soviet masters in opportunism and revisionism. The
comment carries on to criticize these conceptions: “The national
liberation movement has entered a new stage. But this is by no
means the kind of ‘new stage’ described by the leadership of the
CPSU. In the new stage, the level of political consciousness of the
Asian, African and Latin American peoples has risen higher than
ever and the revolutionary movement is surging forward with
unprecedented intensity. They urgently demand the thorough
elimination of the forces of imperialism and its lackeys in their own
countries and strive for complete political and economic
independence. The primary and most urgent task facing these
countries is still the further development of the struggle against
imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys. This
struggle is still being waged fiercely in the political, economic,
military, cultural, ideological and other spheres. And the struggles
in all these spheres still find their most concentrated expression in
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 13
political struggle, which often unavoidably develops into armed
struggle when the imperialists resort to direct or indirect armed
suppression. It is important for the newly independent countries to
develop their independent economy. But this task must never be
separated from the struggle against imperialism, old and new
colonialism, and their lackeys.” (pp. 6-7) And the comment,
Apologists of Neo-Colonialism? concludes: “According to this
theory of theirs” (and of their disciple Teng Hsiao-ping, we might
add) “the fight against imperialism, old and new colonialism and
their lackeys is, of course, no longer necessary, for colonialism is
disappearing and economic development has become the central
task of the national liberation movement. Does it not follow that the
national liberation movement can be done away with altogether?”
(p. 7) Teng Hsiao-ping — faithful parrot of the anti-Marxist theories
of Khrushchov and his successors — should answer this question.
The efforts of Teng Hsiao-ping to abolish the task of the national
liberation movement do not restrict themselves, however, to the
economism which he proposes as a method for confronting
imperialism and neo-colonialism. These economist affirmations,
which he made use of in China as a pretext to oppose the
dictatorship of the proletariat arise from the same, equally
economist, concept which he uses to present the nature of neocolonialism.
Does Teng Hsiao-ping see neo-colonialism as “a more
pernicious and sinister form of colonialism”, as a form of political
domination by imperialism, “relying on the agents they have
selected and trained”, such as Pinochet in Chile? In no way. In his
speech to the UN, he stated: “The imperialists, and particularly the
superpowers, have adopted neo-colonialist methods to continue
and intensify their exploitation and plunder of the developing
countries. They export capital to the developing countries and
build there a ‘state within a state’ by means of such international
monopoly organizations as ‘transnational corporations’ to carry out
economic plunder and political interference.” Thus for Teng Hsiaoping,
neo-colonialism is not a “pernicious and sinister” form of
colonialism, of the political and economic domination of
imperialism, but rather just a “method” of exploitation and plunder
as well as just a system of political “interference”. For him it is not a
form of state domination exercised by imperialism and its agents
(for example, the fascist military throughout almost all of Latin
America and the pseudo-socialist bureaucracy in Eastern Europe)
but rather a kind of “state within a state”, a result of the export of
14 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
the capital of the “transnational corporations”. Consequently, the
true politically independent (according to Teng Hsiao-ping) state
can liberate itself from such neo-colonialist “methods” by taking
economic measures against the “transnationals” and thus
eliminate their “political interference” and their “economic
plunder”.
The essence of Teng Hsiao-ping’s reasoning, in opposition to the
national liberation movement, derives from his desire to detach the
bourgeois sectors which are lackeys of the superpowers from their
imperialist masters, to ally himself with them and develop his own
zone of influence. All of this by opposing that the people should
throw out the imperialists and overthrow their lackeys on the basis
of a genuine revolutionary-national liberation movement with a
socialist perspective. We must not forget what Comrade Mao
pointed out as early as the Eighth Plenary Session of the Eighth
Central Committee in 1959, in reference to opportunists like Teng
Hsiao-ping, that they never were proletarian revolutionaries, but
simply bourgeois or petty-bourgeois democrats who came into the
ranks of the proletarian revolutionaries. They never were Marxist-
Leninists, but fellow-travellers of the Party. Later on, referring to the
same question, during the struggle against the “right-deviationist
wind” whipped up by Teng Hsiao-ping against the Cultural
Revolution, Comrade Mao pointed out before his death: “After the
democratic revolution, the workers and the poor and lower-middle
peasants did not stand still; they want revolution. On the other
hand, a number of Party members do not want to go forward; some
have even moved backward and opposed the revolution. Why?
Because they have become high officials. They want to protect the
interests of their caste.” If their plans for China are to make the
revolution go back to its bourgeois stage and to oppose socialism, is
it any wonder that they want to reach agreements with the
bourgeois forces of what they call the “third world” or the “second
world” and that they oppose genuine national liberation under
proletarian leadership and with a socialist perspective? Their
international policy is nothing but a projection of “the interests of
their caste”, which Comrade Mao Tsetung denounced and fought,
on the international level.
One of the greatest mystifications concocted by Teng Hsiao-ping
in order to oppose the revolutionary national liberation movement
and to unite with the bourgeoisie of the countries subjected to
colonialism and neo-colonialism (including the sections of the
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 15
bourgeoisie that are lackeys of one of the superpowers), is his
attempt to present the “third world countries” as the motive force
of history. The Marxists, Comrade Mao among them, have often
spoken of oppressed “nations”. This term refers to the inhabitants
of a country united by a common origin, with common
language and traditions, that is, basically the people of a country.
The concept of country, on the other hand, only refers to the
geographical and territorial limits within which, in general, a nation
is situated. For the bourgeoisie, the representatives of those who
live in a country are the ruling sectors which control the state
apparatus and in particular the government of a country. For the
Marxist-Leninists, the genuine representatives of those who inhabit
a country are the people, whose genuine expression is the
proletariat and its vanguard party, the Marxist-Leninist party. The
Marxists have always spoken of the people as the motive force of
history, both in the era of slavery as well as in the era of feudalism,
and in the era of capitalism, considering that in this, the last mode of
production based on the exploitation of man by man, the
proletariat is the authentic representative of the people’s interests.
Teng Hsiao-ping, on the other hand, treats us to the following
innovation: the countries of the “third world” are the motive force
of history. And this is not some translation error caused by the
complexity of the Chinese language. He and those who support him
or those who provided the inspiration for his opportunist thinking
chose this designation of “countries” with care. By speaking of
“countries” they left themselves a margin of ambiguity necessary to
have it believed that they were interested in the fate of the peoples
of these countries while in fact coming to an understanding with
their governments, with the ruling bourgeois sectors. It was in this
way that Teng Hsiao-ping stated in his speech to the United Nations
that the “developing” countries constitute: “a revolutionary motive
force propelling the wheel of world history and are the main
force combatting colonialism, imperialism, and particularly the
superpowers.” At the United Nations, the location chosen by Teng
Hsiao-ping for his revisionist speech, the countries are
“represented” by their governments, which in general are opposed
to their peoples and in the service, with a few rare exceptions, of
one or the other superpower. Without any doubt, it is to these
governments that Teng Hsiao-ping is referring when he speaks of
“countries” and in no way to their peoples. What we are saying, that
for Teng, “countries” mean their governments, follows from the
16 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
entire context of his speech at the UN, from numerous subsequent
speeches that we are aware of, as well as the propaganda of the
Chinese publications which is inspired by his ideas. For example, in
his speech to the UN, he cites as proof of the anti-imperialist
struggle of the countries of the “third world”: “the 10th Assembly
of the Heads of State and Government of the Organization of
African Unity, the 4th Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned
Countries, the Arab Summit Conference and the Islamic Summit
Conference.” Clearly, those who participate in all these “summit”
conferences are the governments, the bourgeois, and often semifeudal
ruling sectors in these countries, and not their peoples.
Further on in his speech, Teng Hsiao-ping himself makes a
distinction with struggles that genuinely represent a struggle of the
peoples when he says: “The armed struggles and mass movements
carried out by the peoples of Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe,
Namibia, and Azania against Portuguese colonial rule and white
racism in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia are surging ahead
vigorously.” In another passage of the speech, he says: “We hold
that in both political and economic relations countries should base
themselves on the Five Principles of mutual respect for sovereignty
and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference
in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and
peaceful coexistence.” And to illustrate what he said earlier and to
show how, for him, “country” is synonymous with “state”, he
immediately adds: “We are opposed to the establishment of
hegemony and spheres of influence by any country in any part of
the world in violation of these principles.”* On another occasion,
receiving Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West Germany, Teng
Hsiao-ping expressed himself in the following manner:
“Chancellor Schmidt has come to China on the third anniversary of
the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two
countries.” Without any doubt, such relations “between countries”
are relations with the reactionary government of West Germany
and not with its people.
The articles in Chinese publications written to support Teng
Hsiao-ping’s line do not leave any doubt that “country” is
* Translator’s note: The English translation of Teng Hsiao-ping’s
speech uses the word country in both of the last two passages quoted,
whereas the French (and presumably the Spanish) translation employs the
word state (Etat) in the previous quote, referring to political and economic
relations between states (entre Etats).
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 17
considered as synonymous with “state”. Thus for example, in
Peking Review No. 44 in November 1974, we can read: “The
situation in which the superpowers controlled the United Nations
has been changed. Third world countries now form the
overwhelming majority of the UN member states, thus changing the
composition of this world organization.” Thus, for Teng Hsiao-ping
and his clique, “countries” means: Pinochet, Banzer, Videla and
other members of the fascist military in Latin America who send
representatives of their governments to the United Nations. In
Peking Review No. 43, 0ctober 1974, we read: “In effect, the results
of the general debate have turned out to be the exposure and
repudiation of the two superpowers by the Third World countries.”
In another article, it is stated: “China has established economic and
technical relations with more than 50 countries providing them with
aid to the best of her ability.” We can be certain that the portion of
the “aid” and cooperation provided to the Pinochet government
has nothing in common with the interests of the Chilean people.
But there is more. Not only does Teng Hsiao-ping consider that
the “countries” of what he calls the “third world”, i.e. their
governments, constitute “a revolutionary motive force propelling
the wheel of world history”, but he also considers that the vanguard
of the peoples in the struggle for their liberation is these
governments established by the ruling classes which exploit the
people—which often are fascist and act as lackeys of one or the
other superpower, and not the proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist
parties. In the same speech given at the reception for Helmut
Schmidt, he states: “The unity and struggle of the third world
countries have ushered in a new stage in the struggle of the people
of the world against colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism.”
Khrushchov himself did not dare to formulate such a gross anti-
Marxist outrage! In this sentence which will go down in history—
the history of revisionism — he makes a clear distinction between
“countries” and “people” — in order to place the latter under the
hegemony of their governments, and he presents this as a “new
stage” in the struggle against “colonialism, imperialism and
hegemonism”. Indeed Comrade Mao was correct when he said,
concerning Teng Hsiao-ping: “He makes no distinction between
imperialism and Marxism.” Comrade Mao, on the other hand,
formulated the exact opposite thesis to that of Teng Hsiao-ping
when he stated: “A weak nation can defeat a strong, a small nation
can defeat a big. The people of a small country can certainly defeat
18 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
aggression by a big country, if only they dare to rise in struggle, take
up arms and grasp in their hands the destiny of their country.”
In his calls, Mao Tsetung always addressed himself to the world’s
people, whom he considered as the motive force of history. In 1958,
he pointed out: “If the monopoly capitalist groups of the USA
persist in their policy of aggression and war, the day will inevitably
arrive when they will be hanged by the world’s people. The
accomplices of the USA should expect the same fate.” In 1964, in a
statement in support of the people of the Congo, he stated:
“People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all
their running dogs! People of the world, be courageous, dare to
fight, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave. Then the
whole world will belong to the people. Monsters of all kinds shall be
destroyed.” Regarding the Yankee aggression in Santo Domingo,
Comrade Mao pointed out: “The U.S. armed intervention in the
Dominican Republic has aroused a new wave of opposition to U.S.
imperialism among the people of Latin America and the world. . .
The people in the socialist camp should unite, the people of the
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America should unite . . . and
form the broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist
policies of aggression and war and to defend world peace.” The
slogan for the formation of this front is: unity with all the popular
and patriotic forces to throw out imperialism following a harsh and
protracted war. He also made other statements in the same tone
against racial discrimination in the United States (1963), against the
U.S. aggression in South Viet Nam (1963), in support of the people of
Panama (1964), in support of the black Americans (1968). In 1969, he
stated: “Imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers. . . The
revisionists are also paper tigers. . . The Soviet revisionists and the
U.S. imperialists are at the crossroads and the people of the world
cannot leave them unpunished for the numerous crimes they have
committed. The people of all the countries of the world have risen
up, a new era of opposition to U.S. imperialism and to Soviet socialimperialism
has begun.”
The 25-Point Letter, for its part, states: “U.S. imperialism is
pressing its policies of aggression and war all over the world, but the
outcome is bound to be the opposite of that intended — it will only
be to hasten the awakening of the people in all countries and to
hasten their revolutions. The U.S. imperialists have thus placed
themselves in opposition to the people of the whole world and have
become encircled by them. The international proletariat must and
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 19
can unite all the forces that can be united, make use of the internal
contradictions in the enemy camp and establish the broadest united
front against the U.S. imperialists and their lackeys. The realistic and
correct course is to entrust the fate of the people and of mankind to
the unity and struggle of the world proletariat and to the unity and
struggle of the people in all countries.” (p. 12) A little further on,
passing judgement in advance on the revisionist line of Teng Hsiaoping,
the document states: “The attitude taken towards the
revolutionary struggles of the people in the Asian, African and Latin
American countries is an important criterion for differentiating
those who want revolution from those who do not.” (p. 15)
As far as the path that all the countries which are colonized or
subjected to neo-colonialism must follow to liberate themselves,
there exist numerous writings of Comrade Mao which totally
contradict the anti-Marxist affirmations of Teng Hsiao-ping.
National liberation is the fruit of a revolution in the subjugated
country, a revolution aimed at overthrowing the forces — both
feudal and bourgeois — which serve as props for the imperialist
domination and which, themselves, in their capacity as big
exploiters of the people, also constitute a target of the people’s
democratic and anti-imperialist revolution. National liberation also
implies the decision to confront through a people’s liberation war
the attempts of imperialism to maintain its domination through
force of arms. At the present time, such a liberation struggle cannot
achieve its objectives under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, even
of those sections of it which are anti-imperialist. But even less so can
it achieve them under the leadership of the sections of the
bourgeoisie which are pro-imperialist, collaborators or lackeys of
imperialism, which are what we find in the governments of a large
part of the countries said to be in the “third world”, sections which
for Teng Hsiao-ping constitute the “motive force of history”. The
People’s Democratic Revolution which makes national liberation
possible cannot lead to an independence under the domination of
the bourgeoisie, for the weakness of the bourgeoisie in these
countries which are colonized or subjugated by neo-colonialism
leads it inevitably to tie itself to imperialism and submit to it and, in
our times, to one or the other superpower.
As early as 1939-1940, in his works entitled The Chinese
Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party and On New
Democracy, Comrade Mao broadly developed his position on the
People’s Democratic Revolution. He states: “Imperialism and the
20 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
feudal landlord class being the chief enemies of the Chinese
revolution at this stage, what are the present tasks of the revolution?
Unquestionably, the main tasks are to strike at these two enemies,
to carry out a national revolution to overthrow foreign imperialist
oppression and a democratic revolution to overthrow feudal
landlord oppression, the primary and foremost task being the
national revolution to overthrow imperialism.” And he adds:
“These two great tasks are interrelated. Unless imperialist rule is
overthrown, the rule of the feudal landlord class cannot be
terminated, because imperialism is its main support. Conversely,
unless help is given to the peasants in their struggle to overthrow
the feudal landlord class, it will be impossible to build powerful
revolutionary contingents to overthrow imperialist rule, because
the feudal landlord class is the main social base of imperialist rule in
China and the peasantry is the main force in the Chinese
revolution.”
Regarding the necessity for proletarian leadership in the
revolution, at no matter what stage, Comrade Mao has said: “In this
era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed
against imperialism, i.e. against the international bourgeoisie or
international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of
the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new
category. It is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist,
world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the
proletarian-socialist world revolution. . . it is no longer a revolution
of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a
capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It
belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the
aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a
state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes.”
(pp. 7-8). And he adds: “Such a revolution attacks imperialism at its
very roots, and is therefore not tolerated but opposed by
imperialism. However, it is favoured by socialism and supported by
the land of socialism and the socialist international proletariat.” (p.
8). Elsewhere, in his work On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship,
he states: “The people’s democratic dictatorship needs the
leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is
most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary.
The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership
of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of
the working class revolution triumphs.” More recently, in 1964, in
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 21
the 25-Point Letter drafted under his guidance, he reproaches the
Soviet revisionists for claiming (as does Teng Hsiao-ping) that “the
contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism can
be resolved without revolution by the oppressed nations.” (p. 7). At
another point in the document, it is stated: “As the internal social
contradictions and the international class struggle sharpen, the
bourgeoisie, and particularly the big bourgeoisie. . . increasingly
tend to become retainers of imperialism and to pursue antipopular,
anti-Communist and counter-revolutionary policies.” (pp.
17-18). And further on: “In the revolutionary struggle it supports
progressive nationalism and opposes reactionary nationalism. It
must always draw a clear line of demarcation between itself and
bourgeois nationalism, to which it must never fall captive.” (p. 17).
Then, stressing the necessity of proletarian hegemony, he adds: “If
the proletariat becomes the tail of the landlords and bourgeoisie in
the revolution, no real or thorough victory in the national
democratic revolution is possible, and even if victory of a kind is
gained, it will be impossible to consolidate it.” (pp. 17-18). For its
part, the pamphlet Apologists of Neo-Colonialism? states: “Another
idea often propagated by the leaders of the CPSU is that a
country can build socialism under no matter what leadership,
including even that of a reactionary nationalist like Nehru. This is
still further removed from the idea of proletarian leadership.”
Teng Hsiao-ping, on the other hand, takes the political
independence of the countries he includes in his “third world” as
already won. In so doing, he denies the necessity of carrying out in
each country a revolution that leads to freeing it from colonialism
and neo-colonialism. For him, the only thing that remains is to
eliminate the “remnants” of imperialist interference, on the basis of
measures aimed at consolidating economic independence. The
“motive force” of this process, for Teng Hsiao-ping, would be the
bourgeois or semi-feudal governments of his “third world”, which
include fascists, reactionaries and lackeys of imperialism. What
Teng Hsiao-ping and his clique want in fact is to hold back the
genuine movement for revolutionary national liberation in a
socialist perspective in order to find, in the purest bourgeois
nationalist style, equally bourgeois allies (and even semi-feudal
ones) for their revisionist caste which wants to take control of
China, restore capitalism there, and transform China into a new
superpower. In their efforts to establish their sphere of influence
and hegemony in the world, they simply want, in the countries
22 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
under the baton of imperialism or social-imperialism, to detach the
bourgeois sectors obedient to one or the other superpower from
their masters, in order to offer themselves as an ally in place of the
two superpowers. In order to do this, they encourage them to put
forward a number of economic demands. The main enemy of this
strategy and the principal obstacle to it, more so than the two rival
superpowers, are the peoples of the world and their revolutionary
advance guard under Marxist-Leninist proletarian leadership, who
are aiming at liberating themselves from all oppression,
exploitation and hegemony and at advancing towards socialism,
which Teng Hsiao-ping is attempting to eradicate from his own
country. Seeking to eliminate this danger, Teng Hsiao-ping denies
the peoples who are colonized or subjugated by neo-colonialism
their role — under proletarian leadership — as the motive force of
their liberation and attempts to attribute this role to the ruling
sectors with which he is coming to an understanding through
diplomatic relations and with which he gets together at the UN and
in the other international bodies.
What can these reactionary theories spun by Teng Hsiao-ping and
his accomplices, with the aim of winning bourgeois allies in the
colonial, neo-colonial or advanced capitalist countries and to
contend with the two superpowers for hegemony, have in common
with the revolutionary international line of Comrade Mao? To try
and pass off one thing for another is to believe that the entire world
mixes up black cats and white cats.
What we have just analyzed does not exhaust the reactionary
theses which Teng Hsiao-ping and the “capitalist roaders” that he
presently represents are presenting as an international line.
Revealing in advance his sinister plans for the restoration of
capitalism in China, he persists in obliterating its character and its
role as a socialist society and the internationalist duties which flow
from it. “China”, he says “is a socialist country, and a developing
country as well. China belongs to the Third World.” And elsewhere,
speaking in the plural about China and the other countries
belonging to his “third world”, he says: “The developing countries
have great potentials for developing their economy independently.
As long as a country makes unremitting efforts in the light of its own
specific features and conditions and advances along the road of
independence and self-reliance, it is fully possible for it to attain
gradually a high level of development never reached by previous
generations in the modernization of industry.” After giving various
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 23
pieces of economic advice, he concludes by saying that in this way
they can “prepare the conditions for eliminating as quickly as
possible the state of poverty and backwardness”.
Thus we see that Teng Hsiao-ping, after affirming, as if to
exonerate himself, that China is still socialist, likens it completely to
the countries of the “third world” which are in one way or another
under the domination of the superpowers. In fact, in a later
formulation, he completely eliminates the significance of the
socialist revolution carried out by the Chinese people at the price of
their blood, as he eliminates all differences between socialist China
and the colonial and neo-colonial countries, to which he attributes
the capacity to “develop” and to end their state of “poverty” and
“backwardness”, without carrying out revolution to liberate
themselves from imperialism and without advancing towards the
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as in China.
Conclusion: for Teng Hsiao-ping, the People’s Democratic
Revolution, the Socialist Revolution, the Proletarian Cultural
Revolution in China, have no significance, for the other
“developing” countries to which he likens China, can obtain the
same results without making revolution. Besides denying the
significance of these revolutions which have taken place in China,
he also proposes as a “development” programme for the colonial
and neo-colonial countries, the theory of “bourgeois
development”, a well-known old hoax long propagated by
imperialism and its agents to convince the peoples that, without
making revolution and simply through working harder — i.e.
through letting themselves be more intensely exploited — they will
eliminate “poverty and backwardness”.
In his shameful refusal to acknowledge the clear difference which
exists between a socialist state and a state under the domination of
colonialism and neo-colonialism, in seeking some kind of similarity
based on the degree of economic development, Teng Hsiao-ping
exhibits his contempt for and opposition to socialism, for
which he was a target of struggle during the Cultural Revolution.
For this pseudo-Marxist, it is not the question of state power, the
nature of the state, the relations of production, which characterize a
society, but simply its degree of economic development. So that, if
China’s accelerated pace of development continues, according to
the economist logic of Teng Hsiao-ping, it would rapidly become
part of the “second world” and, very soon, it would become a
superpower and join the “first world”, for the measure he uses to
24 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
classify countries is their degree of economic development. For
Teng Hsiao-ping, China does not constitute a socialist model
towards which, under proletarian leadership, the oppressed
nations are converging, a model radically different from the system
of colonial and neo-colonial oppression and exploitation under
which they now exist. Being interested in allying himself not with
the proletariat or the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, but
rather with the ruling sectors which have established themselves in
government, he persists in ignoring China’s role as a socialist model,
as well as the basic differences between socialism and colonialism.
In doing so, he is simply slandering socialism, renouncing the
vanguard role and responsibility that must be borne by the
proletariat in power and belittling the role of proletarian politics
and proletarian ideology. In sum, the same thing that he persisted,
and continues to persist, in doing inside China — making use of
economist arguments to oppose the Cultural Revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
The first aspect of his betrayal of Marxism, for which the 25-Point
Letter denounces Khrushchov and his disciples, is: “blot(ting) out
the class content of the contradiction between the socialist and the
imperialist camps and fail(ing) to see this contradiction as one
between states under the dictatorship of the proletariat and states
under the dictatorship of the monopoly capitalists.” (p. 7) Teng
Hsiao-ping goes further — not only does he attempt to blot out “the
class content of the contradiction between the socialist and the
imperialist camps” but he tries to blot out the socialist camp itself. In
his speech to the UN, he states: “As a result of the emergence of
social-imperialism, the socialist camp which existed for a time after
World War ll is no longer in existence.” At a time when there only
existed one socialist country, the USSR, Lenin maintained: “There
are now two worlds; the old world of capitalism . . . and the rising
new world, which is still very weak, but which will grow, for it is
invincible”, referring to socialism.
What did Comrade Mao think about the role of a socialist regime?
In his book On New Democracy, referring to the only existing
socialist country — the USSR before the revisionist betrayal — he
stated: “the first imperialist world war and the first victorious
socialist revolution, the October Revolution, have changed the
whole course of world history and ushered in a new era. It is an era
in which the world capitalist front has collapsed in one part of the
globe (one-sixth of the world) and has fully revealed its decadence
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 25
everywhere else, in which the remaining capitalist parts cannot
survive without relying more than ever on the colonies and semicolonies,
and in which the proletariat of the capitalist countries is
steadily freeing itself from the social-imperialist influence of the
social-democratic parties and has proclaimed its support for the
liberation movement in the colonies and the semi-colonies. In this
era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed
against imperialism, i.e. against the international bourgeoisie or
international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of
the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new
category. It is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist,
world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the
proletarian-socialist revolution. Such revolutionary colonies and
semi-colonies can no longer be regarded as allies of the counterrevolutionary
front of world capitalism; they have become allies of
the revolutionary front of world socialism.” (p.7). And in 1939, in an
interview with a correspondent of the newspaper New China, he
stated: “Outside the capitalist world there is a world of light, the
socialist Soviet Union.” Can we compare this grandiose vision of
socialism of Comrade Mao — at a time when there only existed one
socialist country — with the shabby attempts of Teng Hsiao-ping to
liken China to the countries oppressed by imperialism and to cease
to recognize the existence of a socialist world? Isn’t the attitude of
Teng Hsiao-ping a foreshadowing of what he wants to accomplish in
China — to liquidate the socialist system and restore capitalism —
for which he was combatted by Mao Tsetung and the Marxist-
Leninists? Does this not mean denying the role which the national
liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies plays as an
integral part of the socialist revolution, by persisting in trying to
make it revert to the stage of the “old bourgeois revolution”?
Making a farsighted analysis of positions like those of Teng Hsiaoping,
Comrade Mao noted: “The revisionists deny the difference
between socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What they
advocate is in fact not the socialist line but the capitalist line.”
This entire revisionist strategy of Teng Hsiao-ping which we have
analyzed is synthesized in the theory of “three worlds”. This theory
is the quintessence of the opportunist and chauvinist line of Teng
Hsiao-ping. In this theory, the existence of the socialist world is
simply passed over in silence, confirming what we have
demonstrated, namely that for Teng Hsiao-ping and his supporters,
26 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
socialism is nothing more than a word, without any importance. The
theory of “three worlds” grants the existence of only a “first world”
which is equivalent to the two superpowers, a “second world”
which groups a series of developed capitalist countries, and the
“third world”, in which it includes China, whose basic characteristic
is not that they are nations oppressed and exploited by imperialism
but that they are “developing”. According to the theory of “three
worlds”, it is possible and necessary to unite all the forces of the
“second” and the “third” world against the “first”, i.e. against the
superpowers. As many Marxist-Leninist parties have already
demonstrated, this theory is absolutely one-sided, mechanical,
economist, completely lacking in class analysis and anti-Marxist. It is
nothing other than a new version decked out in modern dress of the
old bourgeois theory which speaks of “developed” and
“underdeveloped” or “developing” countries, which, by putting
forward that they are already “developing”, tries to sow the illusion
that it is possible to “develop” without needing to make revolution
to shake off the colonial or neo-colonial yoke. The only “novelty”
of the theory of “three worlds” by comparison with the bourgeois
formulations that it copies, is that it recognizes the existence of two
“superdeveloped” nations, which it classifies as the “first world”.
The theory of “three worlds” divides and groups the nations
solely on the basis of their stage of economic development, taking
no account of the character of the ruling political regime and
omitting all class analysis — the most important thing for genuine
Marxist-Leninists — which is applicable to all nations. By this
mechanical, one-sided and false classification, an attempt is made
to ignore the fact that within the colonial countries, and even more
within those dominated by neo-colonlalism, there are forces which
are in the service of the two superpowers’ domination; forces
which, as a rule, hold power and govern in these countries of the
alleged “third world”. In the developed capitalist nations, it ignores
the reactionary role of the monopoly sections of the bourgeoisie,
which are allied with and closely linked to U.S. imperialism, are
often imperialists themselves, and, in any case, are the mortal
enemies of the proletarian revolution which is on the agenda in
these countries.
In this absurd opportunist theory that Teng Hsiao-ping is
promoting as an international strategy of “struggle” against the
superpowers — in reality against one of them — these monopoly
bourgeois sectors are considered as “allies”.
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 27
Concerning the lackeys of the superpowers who govern in a large
portion of the countries said to be part of the “third world”, Teng
Hsiao-ping not only considers them as allies, but as nothing less
than the revolutionary motive force propelling the wheel of world
history.
The revisionist and anti-Marxist nature of this theory of “three
worlds”, which the falsifiers who concocted it have the audacity to
attribute to Mao Tsetung, has been so frequently demonstrated that
it is not necessary to dwell upon it. What it is interesting to clarify is
that through this opportunist theory, Teng Hsiao-ping and his
reactionary crew are coming forward to hold back the people’s
democratic and national liberation revolution in the countries of
the so-called “third world”, to hold back the socialist revolution in
the “second world” and, in exchange for certain economic and
other pledges by China, to create their own sphere of influence and
hegemony.
This is what is behind their interest in linking up with the
bourgeois forces of the capitalist countries and especially of Asia,
Africa and Latin America, in pushing them to progressively break off
their economic ties with the superpowers.
In fact, all the propaganda of Chinese publications presently and
for some time now has been geared to promote and support
economic measures adopted by these bourgeois sectors through
their governments and other institutions that they control which
have the appearance of being “independent”, especially if they are
taken in opposition to Soviet social-imperialism. The struggles of
the peoples are almost entirely passed over in silence.
What is more, by wanting to present Soviet social-imperialism as
“the most dangerous” and “the most warlike” superpower, by
arguing that it has arrived on the scene late in the division of the
world and that it is “obliged to dispute every inch of ground with
the United States”, Teng Hsiao-ping and his clique are in fact
accepting the U.S. domination and in many respects are supporting
and strengthening it. It is quite a curious “logic” that these
opportunists present. As there exists the “imminent” danger of a
world war launched by the Soviets and of the extension of their
domination, we must support, they say, the reactionary
governments and sections that oppose them even though they may
be big exploiters and instruments of the domination (not potential
but real and present) of U.S. imperialism.
Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen economic and military
28 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
pacts such as the Common Market and NATO, instruments of the
domination of Yankee imperialism and of the monopolies of each
country, on condition that they oppose the danger of expansion of
social-imperialism . In sum, let us accept and strengthen the present
domination and exploitation of our peoples by U.S. imperialism and
the reactionary forces of each country, give up thoughts of
liberation and revolution, to avoid the danger of possible
domination by Soviet social-imperialism. Let us allow the tiger to
destroy our house to prevent the wolf from coming in through the
window.
Teng Hsiao-ping and his clique felt themselves to be under
attack and were indignant at the joint declaration of the
Marxist-Leninist parties of Latin America because, in reference to
the superpowers, it says that it would be a grave mistake to ally
oneself with one of them to combat the other. If this statement is
correct, why such indignation and so much effort exerted to
prevent this declaration from being made public?
This opposition is due to the fact that the policy of Teng Hsiaoping
— to strengthen the instruments of domination of Yankee
imperialism and to discourage the liberation struggle of the
revolutionaries in the U.S. sphere of influence — objectively
amounts to that: to supporting one superpower under the pretext
of combating the other.
There have been efforts to justify this collaboration with
American imperialism by distorting the correct formula regarding
the utilization of the contradictions among the enemies. On
this subject, the 25-Point Letter states clearly the limits for the
utilization of the contradictions among the enemies: “The
proletarian party must lead the masses in waging struggles against
the enemies, and it must know how to utilize the contradictions
among those enemies. But the purpose of using these
contradictions is to make it easier to attain the goal of the people’s
revolutionary struggles and not to liquidate these struggles.” We
ask: this condescending attitude, this support which Teng Hsiaoping
and his group give to the pro-U.S. dictatorships in Latin
America, on grounds of their opposition to Soviet imperialism, does
it have as its purpose “to make it easier to attain the goal of the
people’s revolutionary struggles”? Obviously not. Perhaps the
fundamental task of the Latin American people is not precisely the
overthrowing of these fascist dictatorships imposed by U.S.
imperialism, the destruction of a very concrete and real rule by this
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 29
superpower. As far as Western Europe is concerned, some
“leaders” like Jurquet in France, Vilar in Portugal and some other
opportunists have called to strengthen the bourgeois armies, to ally
with the monopolist bourgeoisies, have held mass meetings jointly
with fascist groups because they were “anti-social-imperialists”,
and have offered their support for NATO and the European
Common Market. When the Chinese officials who are followers of
Teng Hsiao-ping meet with these European “leaders”, are they
supporting the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in Europe?
Can we think of a more grotesque distortion of the proletarian
policies than abandoning revolution and proclaiming alliances
with the monopolies and the superpowers which exploit the
people, using as pretext the eventual danger of a rule and
subjugation by the other superpower?
The most shameless and scandalous side of all this is that Teng
Hsiao-ping and his followers pretend to promote this pragmatist,
chauvinist and hegemonist atrocity they are using as foreign policy
for China, to the rank of “Marxist-Leninist strategy”, while striving
to bribe and blackmail other Marxist-Leninist organizations to
support this policy against the interests of their respective peoples.
It is easy to understand why West Germany’s Chancellor Schmidt,
representative of the big bourgeoisie, has declared, to keep Teng
happy, and of course to arrive at some business agreements: “The
Alliance of the Atlantic between North America and Europe is still
the unvariable basis for the existence of the Federal German
Republic”, and that: “We are satisfied by the fact that your
government has made a positive evaluation of these efforts of the
European Community.” It is grotesque that people who call
themselves Marxist-Leninists throw away the revolutionary aims
and tasks in their countries to become mere public relations agents
of the chauvinist and opportunist policy of a China controlled by
those who wish to restore capitalism in that country. The 25-Point
Letter defines the role of the revolutionaries in the advanced
capitalist countries: “In the capitalist countries which U.S.
imperialism controls or is trying to control, the working class and
the people should direct their attacks mainly against U.S.
imperialism, but also against their own monopoly capitalists and
other reactionary forces who are betraying the national interests”
and adds: “While actively leading immediate struggles, communists
in the capitalist countries should link them with the struggle for
long-range and general interests, educate the masses in a Marxist30
REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
Leninist revolutionary spirit, ceaselessly raise their
political consciousness and undertake the historical task of the
proletarian revolution. If they fail to do so, if they regard the
immediate movement as everything, determine their conduct from
case to case, adapt themselves to the events of the day and sacrifice
the basic interests of the proletariat, that is out-and-out social
democracy.”
They have also tried to present the anti-Marxist strategy of the
“three worlds” as an application of the conception of Comrade
Mao of a united front against the main enemies. Nevertheless, the
united front programme of Mao Tsetung, based on the real class
contradictions and conceived always under proletarian leadership,
cannot be mistaken for the absurd and reactionary caricature that
Teng Hsiao-ping is offering for sale. In Teng’s “united front” the
proletariat and the people of the “third world” must subordinate
themselves to U.S. imperialism’s running dogs; in the “second
world”, they must subordinate themselves to the capitalist
monopolies and to the economic and military organizations
controlled by U.S. imperialism, to “combat” the danger
represented by Soviet social-imperialism. How can such a “front”
develop itself while curbing the revolution of national liberation in
the countries under colonialist and neo-colonialist rule or the
proletarian revolution in the capitalist countries? In Apologists of
Neo-Colonialism? it is said: “The wrong line of the leaders of the,
CPSU completely abandons the task of fighting imperialism and
colonialism and opposes wars of national liberation; this means it
wants the proletariat and the Communist Parties of the oppressed
nations and countries to roll up their patriotic banner of opposing
imperialism and struggling for national independence and
surrender it to others. In that case, how could one even talk about
an anti-imperialist united front or of proletarian leadership?” The
same could be said for the advanced capitalist countries. The
national liberation revolution has as necessary targets the semifeudal
and the pro-imperialist bourgeois groups; the proletarian
revolution has as necessary targets the bourgeoisie, and the
monopolist bourgeoisie in particular. There cannot be a Marxistoriented
world united front that does not take as its base the class
contradictions of each country, and still less, which opposes the
basic revolutionary tasks in each country.
While following their chauvinist and hegemonist goals, Teng
Hsiao-ping and his group are also completely distorting the ideas of
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 31
Lenin and Mao Tsetung on war and peace, on peaceful coexistence,
on non-intervention and others. Under statements more
subtle and deceiving than those of the leadership of the CPSU they
hide the same purposes. The leadership of the CPSU is striving to
frighten the people with the threat of nuclear war in order to
restrain revolution in the capitalist countries and national liberation
in the colonies and semi-colonies, as a means of penetrating them
and exercising their hegemony in order to, once in power, prevent
the resistance of the proletariat and people. Since most of the world
is still under the rule of U.S. imperialism, with the internal support
of the bourgeois and reactionary forces, could we not say that
Khrushchov’s attitude of opposing revolution by invoking the
danger of a nuclear world war is the same as Teng’s policy of sabotaging
revolution and national liberation, and consolidating the
oppressive mechanisms of U.S. imperialism and the reactionaries of
each country, by screaming about the “imminence” of the Soviet
invasion? The only difference is that while the social-imperialists
found one superpower in their way to expansion and hegemonism,
and because of that they preached “peaceful co-existence” and
fear of atomic war, Teng Hsiao-ping and his group have found two
superpowers, and so, along with curbing the peoples’ struggles they
have supported the imperialist tiger against the social-imperialist
wolf.
Actually, after striving to spread panic, announcing the
“imminence” of the war, it is not to the people that Teng and his
group have appealed to prevent it, but to imperialism and its allies,
calling for the reinforcement of their armaments, of their military
blocs and other types of pacts. Nevertheless, as is well known, the
increase in military power of imperialism and its bourgeois allies is
chiefly aimed and primarily used against the peoples they suppress
and exploit. Hence, by promoting the armaments race of one
superpower and its allies and stimulating some pseudo-Marxist
groups to praise such policies, Teng and his opportunist and
chauvinist clique are in fact reinforcing the chains of oppression
and exploitation. To encourage the arming of one of the contending
imperialist blocs has never been the role of a socialist state or of
the proletariat in power; instead, they must mobilize the proletariat
and the people to tie the hands of the aggressors and to prevent
the danger of war by carrying the revolution forward. The main
concern of the Marxist-Leninists, — either in striving to prevent the
menace of war, inherent to the existence of capitalism, or in par32
REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
ticipating in it if it breaks out, turning it to the benefit of the people
— is that of carrying revolution forward. In the event of a war
between the superpowers, it is not for the Marxist-Leninists to push
the people to either side, but to transform this imperialist war, as
Lenin did, into a revolutionary civil war to conquer power. Comrade
Mao, in the article Leninism or Social-Imperialism?, published
on April 22,1970, said in this respect: “With regard to the question
of world war, there are but two possibilities: One is that the war will
give rise to revolution and the other is that revolution will prevent
the war.” And he continues: “People of the world, unite and
oppose the war of aggression launched by any imperialism or
social-imperialism, especially one in which atom bombs are used as
weapons! If such a war breaks out, the people of the world should
use revolutionary war to eliminate the war of aggression, and
preparations should be made right now!” Also reflecting Comrade
Mao’s opinion, the 25-Point Letter says: “The people of the world
universally demand the prevention of a new world war. And it is
possible to prevent a new world war. The question then is, what is
the way to secure world peace? According to the Leninist
viewpoint, world peace can be won only by the struggles of the
people in all countries and not by begging the imperialists for it.
World peace can only be effectively defended by relying on the
development of the forces of the socialist camp, on the
revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and working people of all
countries, on the liberation struggles of the oppressed nations and
on the struggles of all peace-loving people and countries. Such is
the Leninist policy. Any policy to the contrary definitely will not
lead to world peace but will only encourage the ambitions of the
imperialists and increase the danger of world war.”
As for the policy of using the danger of world war as blackmail,
calling it “inevitable” and “imminent”, Teng is not the first to do it
in China. Chiang Kai-shek used it with similar purposes. In the
Comment on the Open Letter of the CC of the CPUS,* No. 5 “Two
Different Lines on the Question of War and Peace”, it is stressed
that: “The Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries gave this (the danger of
world war) great publicity in order to intimidate the Chinese
people. Frightened by such blackmail, some comrades became
faint-hearted in the face of the armed attacks launched by the
Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries with U.S. imperialist support and
dared not firmly oppose the counter-revolutionary war with a
revolutionary war. Comrade Mao Tsetung held different views. He
* Transcriber’s note: “CPUS” is undoubtedly a misprint and should read CPSU.
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 33
pointed out that a new world war could be prevented provided
resolute and effective struggles were waged against world
reaction.”
This same “Comment”, while criticizing the bellicose blackmail
of the Soviet leadership, makes some remarks which fit perfectly
some of Teng Hsiao-ping’s statements: “They use nuclear blackmail
to intimidate the people of the socialist countries and forbid them
to support the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and
nations, thus helping U.S. imperialism to isolate the socialist camp
and suppress peoples’ revolutions. They use nuclear blackmail to
intimidate the oppressed peoples and nations and to prohibit them
from making revolution, and they collaborate with U.S. imperialism
in stamping out the ‘sparks’ of revolution, thus enabling it freely to
carry on its policies of aggression and war in the intermediate zone
lying between the United States and the socialist camp. They also
intimidate the allies of the United States and forbid them to struggle
against the control it has imposed on them, thus helping U.S.
imperialism to enslave these countries and consolidate its position.
By this line of action, the leaders of the CPSU have altogether
relinquished the struggle against the imperialist policies of
aggression and war. This line of action denies the united front
against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys and in defence of world
peace. It tries to impose the greatest isolation not on the arch
enemy of world peace but on the peace forces. It means the
liquidation of the fighting task of defending world peace. This is a
line that serves the ‘global strategy’ of U.S. imperialism. It is not the
road to world peace but the road leading to greater danger of war
and to war itself.” Is this not a faithful advance picture of the
blackmail raised by Chinese revisionists today and of the services
they render to U.S. imperialism?
Teng is as faithful a follower of Khrushchov’s policy of war
blackmail as he is of his policy of “peaceful coexistence”. In those
places where he aims to establish his hegemony and to press for the
breaking up of the links between the superpowers and the
bourgeoisie, he imposes “peaceful coexistence” and the “noninterference
in the internal affairs” of other countries as basic lines
in China’s foreign policy. If some country breaks diplomatic
relations with Taiwan in order to establish them instead with China,
then the government of that country can be sure that no matter
what crimes and atrocities it perpetrates against the people, no
criticism or denunciation will come from the mouths of those who
34 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
control China’s foreign policy; still less need they fear that these
bureaucrats will offer support to the struggles of the people they are
suppressing. To those who apply Teng’s international policy it does
not matter whether the governments with whom they maintain
relations are fascists, illegitimate, imposed on the people through
ruthless intervention, or puppets of imperialism. Through the
opening of diplomatic relations with China, those countries have
bought the right to do what they like with impunity as far as the
Chinese foreign policy officials are concerned. Dictators like
Mobutu, who in the Chinese publications previous to the rise of
Teng’s policies, was depicted as a “running dog of imperialism”,
“national traitor to the Congo”, “slaughterer of the people”,
“Lumumba’s murderer”, “U.S. imperialist lackey”, etc., became,
overnight, personalities worthy of high praise and beyond any
criticism. And this sort of diplomatic deal does not force only the
government of China to praise or be silent, but also the Communist
Party and the Chinese mass organizations. Meanwhile, the political
forces, the mass media and many groups and individuals in the
capitalist countries, whether they have or do not have relations with
China, freely state all sorts of opinions on China’s internal affairs
and make tendentious interpretations of the events of that country,
of course in order to serve their own purposes.
In brief, Teng Hsiao-ping and his group have established, at least
towards the U.S. imperialist camp, the line of “peaceful coexistence”
and “non-interference”, instead of proletarian
internationalism, as China’s foreign policy. Is this the foreign policy
advocated by Comrade Mao? Or is it the policy put forth by Lenin in
the USSR? Comrade Mao himself gives the answer, through the
“Comment on the Open Letter of the CC of the CPSU No. 6
Peaceful Coexistence, Two Diametrically Opposed Policies”:
“Lenin advanced the policy of peaceful coexistence as a policy to
be pursued by the proletariat in power towards countries with
different social systems. He never made it the sum total of a socialist
country’s foreign policy. Time and again Lenin made it clear that the
fundamental principle of this foreign policy was proletarian
internationalism. He said: ‘Soviet Russia considers it her greatest
pride to help the workers of the whole world in their difficult
struggle for the overthrow of capitalism.’”
Where did Teng and his cronies obtain their policy of liquidation
of proletarian internationalism in the name of “peaceful coexistence”
and “non-interference”? As has become usual for him,
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 35
he learned it from his schoolmaster Khrushchov. In the
“Comment” quoted above it is said: “The leaders of the CPSU
maintain that peaceful coexistence is the overriding and supreme
principle for solving contemporary social problems. They assert that
it is ‘the categorical imperative of modern times’ and ‘the imperious
demand of the epoch.’ They say that ‘peaceful coexistence alone is
the best and the sole acceptable way to solve the vitally important
problems confronting society’ and that the principle of peaceful
coexistence should be made the ‘basic law of life of the whole of
modern society’.”
Making the analysis of Khrushchov’s policy, the “Comment”
adds: “Lenin’s policy of peaceful coexistence was directed against
the imperialist policies of aggression and war, whereas
Khrushchov’s peaceful coexistence caters to imperialism and abets
the imperialist policies of aggression and war.” It is worth while to
ask: Is it not exactly what Teng and his group are doing when they
favour the reinforcement of the military pacts, economic pacts and
other tools of domination of U.S. imperialism and its big bourgeois
allies? Is this not what they are doing when they quietly accept U.S.
imperialism’s open intervention in imposing fascist military
dictatorships in Latin America and other areas without exposing and
condemning this bullying and without giving any support to the
people’s resistance against these dictatorships? Have we not seen
how it is these dictatorships, products of this intervention, which
are receiving support from Teng and Company? Is this not the false
“peaceful coexistence” of Khrushchov which “caters to
imperialism, and abets the imperialist policies of aggression and
war”?
Further, “Comment” No. 6 continues: “Lenin’s policy of peaceful
coexistence is based on the standpoint of international class
struggle, whereas Khrushchov’s peaceful coexistence strives to
replace international class struggle with international class
collaboration. Lenin’s policy of peaceful coexistence proceeds
from the historical mission of the international proletariat and
therefore requires the socialist countries to give firm support to the
revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations
while pursuing this policy, whereas Khrushchov’s peaceful
coexistence seeks to replace the proletarian world revolution with
pacifism and thus renounces proletarian internationalism.
Khrushchov has changed the policy of peaceful coexistence into
one of class capitulation.”
36 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
We ask: Is not what the Marxist-Leninists of the CPC led by
Comrade Mao exposed in Khrushchov’s foreign policy precisely
what Teng and his group are applying today? Teng, in his “Address
to the UN” speaks of “peaceful coexistence” as the unique form of
relations between states, saying that: “We are opposed to the
establishment of hegemony and spheres of influence by any
country in any part of the world in violation of these principles.”
Not only does he not mention proletarian internationalism as the
basic international policy of China, but he does not even act
according to his own rule, since he quietly accepts and often
approves the intervention of the Americans or their allies, as he
recently did on the shipping of French armaments to Zaire. He kept
complete silence on the shameless intervention of the CIA in the
military coup d’etat in Chile, a fact that was eventually
acknowledged by the CIA itself, and which became the subject of
an investigation by a Committee of the U.S. Senate — of course,
only after it had been widely denounced by democratic world
opinion.
Moreover, to attribute the quality of “motive force of history” to
the bourgeois representatives of the “third world” countries and to
favour alliances with them is nothing but to oppose the uprising of
the people against the bourgeoisie and to oppose revolutionary
leadership of the liberation struggle. Is it not similar to what they
propose for the “second world” countries when they call for the
strengthening of the armies and economic and military pacts used
by U.S. imperialism and the monopolies of the various countries
to keep their rule over their respective countries? Are they not
giving up priority to “coexistence” and diplomatic relations while
ignoring their proletarian internationalist duties, in order to gain a
sphere of influence and world hegemony of their own?
The “Comment” No. 6 which we are quoting continues: “The
imperialists push on with their plans of aggression and war not only
against the socialist countries but throughout the world. They try to
suppress the revolutionary movements of the oppressed peoples
and nations. In these circumstances, the socialist countries,
together with the people of all other countries, must resolutely
combat the imperialist policies of aggression and war and wage a titfor-
tat struggle against imperialism. This class struggle inevitably
goes on, now in an acute and now in a relaxed form.” It concludes:
“We hold that the general line of foreign policy for socialist
countries must embody the fundamental principle of their foreign
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 37
policy and comprise the fundamental content of this policy. What is
this fundamental principle? It is proletarian internationalism. Lenin
said, ‘Alliance with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries
and with all the oppressed peoples against any and all the imperialists
— such is the external policy of the proletariat.’” It seems
that Teng Hsiao-ping, who in his country insists on ignoring the
difference between white and black cats to promote the counterrevolutionaries,
in fact does make a sharp difference between the
superpowers . . . only he ends up favouring U.S. imperialism and its
lackeys, with whom he is anxious to coexist peacefully, forgetting
proletarian internationalism completely.
The aspects analyzed of Teng’s policy statements and practice
show beyond doubt that he and his group put forward an
international line completely divorced from the international line
of Mao Tsetung and the Marxist-Leninists. On the contrary, it is an
almost word for word modernized rehash of the opportunist,
chauvinist and reactionary international line of Khrushchov and his
successors. Teng and those who have “rehabilitated” him against
the last will of Comrade Mao and against the people’s will could
argue that this foreign policy was already applied during the life of
Comrade Mao and hence, that it was “his policy”. Nevertheless, this
argument cannot be accepted by anyone who knows the complexity
of Chinese political life, the power that the revisionist forces have
had there and the extreme harshness of the class struggles which
have occurred in this country. In China dwell almost one fourth of
mankind and the CPC itself has more than thirty million militants.
One of the notable aspects of the complex process of struggle
between the two lines in China, the proletarian and the bourgeois
lines, has been the existence of what has been designated by the
name of “independent kingdoms”, that is to say, strongholds in
certain domains in which the revisionist line has held sway for long
periods. They are precisely the ones referred to by the Cultural
Revolution slogan: “Regain that part of power which has been
usurped by the capitalist-roaders”. Facing these powerful enemies
fully backed by imperialism and social-imperialism, the Chinese
Marxist-Leninists led by Comrade Mao were not able to obtain
victories simultaneously on every front: culture, the Party,
production, education, the Armed Forces, foreign policy, etc. That
does not mean they did not fight the opportunists on every one of
these fronts. In Peking Review No. 45 (November 1977), in the long
article entitled “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of
38 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
the Three Worlds Is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism”
which is nothing but a desperate attempt to disguise Teng’s
revisionist claptrap with some nice clothes in order to sell it as
Comrade Mao’s work, it is admitted that there has been strong
opposition to the line of Teng Hsiao-ping (of course presented as
“Mao Tsetung’s line”). It says: “In our own country there are
persons who frantically oppose Chairman Mao’s theory of the three
worlds. They are none other than Wang Hung-wen, Chang Chunchiao,
Chiang Ching and Yao Wen-yuan, or the ‘gang of four’.
Hoisting a most ‘revolutionary’ banner, they opposed China’s effort
to unite with all forces that can be united, and opposed our dealing
blows at the most dangerous enemy. They vainly tried to sabotage
the building of an international united front against hegemonism
and disrupt China’s anti-hegemonist struggle, doing Soviet socialimperialism
a good turn.” If we keep in mind the falseness of their
point of view, we can still tell from this statement that the leaders
mentioned, among whom is Mao Tsetung’s wife — leaders who
played an important role closely united with Comrade Mao in the
ideological struggle during the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution and in the struggle against Teng’s efforts to destroy the
achievements of this revolution — also fought against the
international line of Teng and his cronies.
In addition, throughout this letter we have shown the principles
of the Marxist-Leninist international policies of Comrade Mao,
completely opposed to the revisionist conceptions promoted in this
matter (as in many others), by Teng Hsiao-ping. We have done it
through quoting either the works of Comrade Mao published
before his death or documents from the public controversy against
modern revisionism, universally accepted as written under the
personal command and supervision of Comrade Mao.
In his works and in the writings of the polemic, Comrade Mao
holds that: the imperialist colonial political rule continues under
the form of neo-colonialism through its lackeys; that national
liberation is achieved through the class struggle inside the country
subjugated by imperialism, by a revolution against this imperialism
and internal forces which support its rule; that this revolution of
national liberation can be successful only if led by the proletariat
and not by the bourgeoisie; that no liberation can be achieved
through simple measures of economic independence put forward
by the bourgeoisie; that the motive force of history is the class
struggle, expressed in our time by the people of the world led by
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 39
the proletariat and their vanguard parties; that the proletariat in the
advanced capitalist countries must defeat the local monopolist
bourgeoisie to conquer power and build socialism, as well as to
fight the superpowers; that “the view which blots out the class
content of the contradiction between the socialist and the
imperialist camps and fails to see this contradiction as one between
states under the dictatorship of the proletariat and states under the
dictatorship of the monopoly capitalists” is unacceptable; that the
existence of the socialist states has changed the character and the
perspective of the national liberation movement, which under
proletarian leadership marches towards socialism and not to
capitatist “development” under bourgeois dictatorship; that the
socialist states must practice proletarian internationalism as the core
of their foreign policy, and never submit to peaceful coexistence,
less to chauvinism or hegemonism; that it is possible to prevent a
new world war through the people’s struggle and carrying
revolution through to the end; that it is necessary to strongly fight
both the American imperialist and the Soviet social-imperialist
superpowers, opposing them with the united front of the people of
the world led by the proletariat.
On the contrary, Teng Hsiao-ping holds that colonial political
rule has basically disappeared and that there are only “remnant”
forms of colonialism; that it is possible to “safeguard” and
“consolidate” the independence through some changes in the
“international economic relations”; that national liberation will be
achieved through the actions of the countries of the “third world”,
basically accepting as such the bourgeois governments, lackeys of
imperialism and oppressors of the people; that these bourgeois
forces which control the governments of the countries of the “third
world” are not only the leading force of national liberation but also
the “motive force propelling the wheel of world history”; that the
proletariat of the capitalist advanced countries of the so-called
“second world” must ally with the monopolist bourgeoisies and
strengthen the military pacts and other tools of U.S. imperialist and
bourgeois monopolist rules, under the pretext that an attack from
social-imperialism is “imminent”; that the socialist camp does not
exist and that China, in spite of being socialist, belongs to the “third
world”, which is basically made up by countries subjected to
colonial or neo-colonial rule under the U.S. or the socialimperialists;
that the countries of the “third world”, “like” China,
can bring about economic development to end their “situation of
40 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
poverty and backwardness” without carrying out the national
liberation revolution or the socialist revolution; that China’s
foreign policy is fundamentally one of peaceful coexistence and
not a policy based on proletarian internationalism; that a Third
World War is inevitable and imminent, and that the allies of the U.S.
imperialism must improve their armaments, armies and military
pacts to confront social-imperialism, thus restraining the class
struggle. All these concepts — revisionist to the core — have been
either formulated by Teng Hsiao-ping himself and his cronies or can
be clearly drawn from the propaganda in support of their line, as
well as from the concrete development of the Chinese foreign
policy controlled by them.
Now, it is necessary to ask: those who say that Teng and his
mentors or followers are faithfully applying the international policy
of Comrade Mao, do they expect us to believe that Comrade Mao
changed the principles of his international lines, drifting 180
degrees overnight, without making any written statement and only
secretly whispering these changes in the ear of Teng and others of
his filthy kind? And what is even more serious, do they want us to
believe that Comrade Mao publicly refuted the revisionist
international line of Khrushchov and of the Chinese
“Khrushchovs” like Teng Hsiao-ping, while putting secretly into
practice a revisionist and anti-Marxist line? They will never make
our Party believe that. What we do know is that due to the
boundless prestige that the political statements of Comrade Mao
have gained and the affection and admiration felt towards him by
the Chinese people and the people of the world, his enemies have
had to “raise the red flag” of his thoughts and pretend that they are
the faithful interpreters of his ideas, when in fact they are opposing
them and trying to destroy them. Is this not what Lin Piao did in his
“independent kingdom” built inside the People’s Liberation Army,
while Comrade Mao actually had deep political and ideological
differences with him? Is this not what Liu Shao-chi, Teng Hsiao-ping
and other inveterate revisionists had done before Lin Piao in their
“independent kingdoms”, infiltrating the Party, the state apparatus,
the cultural front and other fronts, until they were overthrown by
the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution? The fact that this has
been a protracted struggle (even now when the revisionists have
taken the offensive through a coup d’etat), and that the unmasking
of these traitors and their first defeat in the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution took a long time to achieve, does not mean that
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 41
Comrade Mao agreed with them or that he did not oppose them.
Certainly not. Mao Tsetung himself exposed on many occasions the
fact that his enemies abused and misused his name, and even used
some isolated quotations from his works to oppose him and destroy
the essence of his thought. In a letter addressed to his wife, Comrade
Chiang Ching, on July 8, 1966, Comrade Mao expressed
his deep discontent for the way Lin Piao was using his writings,
saying that: “After my death, when the right will try to seize
power . . . the rightists will try to use these words of mine always in
trying to raise their black flag, but that will not bring joy to them”.
He also said to Edgar Snow: “Of those who shout ‘Long Live Mao
Tsetung!’, a third are sincere, a nother third follows the majority and
the rest finally are just hypocrites”. We are certain that Teng Hsiaoping
and his accomplices are among the last third, that of the
hypocrites.
The “rehabilitation” of Teng Hsiao-ping soon after the death of
Comrade Mao and the decisive role that he played in the international
relations of China every time he succeeded in creeping
into power, changing the course of the correct international policy
applied during the upheaval of the international polemic against
revisionism and of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,
clearly show that in spite of their struggle, Comrade Mao and the
Marxist-Leninists of the CPC did not succeed in launching a decisive
blow against the “independent kingdom” ruling Chinese foreign
policy, so as to finally crush it. What we do not doubt is that Mao
Tsetung and the Marxist-Leninists in the CPC would never have
entrusted the task of interpreting and completely revising the
foreign policy of China to a man like Teng Hsiao-ping, one of the
main targets of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, exposed
and condemned as a recidivist a short time before Comrade Mao’s
death, for his activities as a conspirator and enemy of the
achievements of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
Since we are familiar with the basically revisionist and reactionary
international policy of Teng and his group, our Party cannot accept
the widely publicized story which says that Teng Hsiao-ping and
those who follow him through complicity or fear, today represent
the ideas of Comrade Mao and the will of the Chinese people. For
us it is clear that unfortunately the forecast made by Comrade Mao
has come true, and that after his death the “rightists have seized
power”, raising their “black flag” of counter-revolution. What you
have carried out is a rightist coup d’etat, promoting a great number
42 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
of military officers who were dismissed by the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution; removing more than half of the members of
the CPC Central Committee during the last Congress; and
ruthlessly repressing the Party militants, Marxist-Leninist cadres and
masses who have opposed your usurpation of power.
When he launched the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
Comrade Mao said: “Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who
have sneaked into the Party, the government, the army and various
spheres of culture are a bunch of counter-revolutionary
revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will seize political power
and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship
of the bourgeoisie”. Well Teng Hsiao-ping was one of the most
important leaders of this “bunch of counter-revolutionary
revisionists” and because of that, he was dismissed by the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Moreover, Mao Tsetung said of
people like Teng: “They are faithful lackeys of the bourgeoisie and
the imperialists, they cling to the bourgeois ideology of the
oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and to the capitalist
system, and they oppose Marxist-Leninist ideology and the socialist
system . . . Their struggle against us is one of life and death, and
there is no question of equality. Therefore, our struggle against
them, too, can be nothing but a life-and-death struggle.”
Later, Teng Hsiao-ping simulated repentance from his revisionist
positions and during a pretended self-criticism he promised
solemnly: “never to reverse the correct verdicts”, that is to say, the
principles and achievements of the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution. Thus, he and his bunch played the “repentant ones”, in
order to gradually infiltrate and seize key positions in the Party, the
state and the armed forces. Teng Hsiao-ping was seen at a public
function for the first time after the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution in April 1973, at a banquet; some time later, he
regained his former post as Vice Premier; in August that same year,
he was re-elected to the Central Committee of the CPC; in 1974, he
infiltrated the Politburo and was given the responsibility of reorganizing
the armed forces, becoming at the same time a member
of the People’s Congress; in April 1974, he made public his
revisionist thesis on international policies at the United Nations. In
January 1975, during the Second Plenum of the Tenth Central
Committee, he became Vice Chairman of the Party. That same
month, during a Fourth National People’s Congress (NPC) session,
in which Comrade Mao was not present, he managed to get named
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 43
senior Vice-Premier of the State Council and Chief of Staff of the
People’s Liberation Army (PLA), assuming in fact all the
responsibilities of Premier, because of the illness of Premier Chou
En-lai. By that time, he felt strong enough to begin his offensive
against the achievements of the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution, in spite of his promises to accept the “correct verdicts”.
To attack these achievements he wrote the policy papers On the
General Programme for All Work of the Whole Party and the Whole
Nation; Outline Report on the Work of the Academy of Sciences;
and Certain Questions on Accelerating the Development of
Industry. All these papers and his revisionist activities deeply
opposed to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution were strongly
refuted by Comrade Mao, as well as by the Marxist-Leninists in the
CPC and the popular masses. The core of Teng’s offensive was to
oppose the development of the class struggle of the Chinese
proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the strengthening of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. To succeed, he did not hesitate to
modify Mao Tsetung’s own directives, saying that: “The directives
of Chairman Mao on the study of theory to prevent and stop
revisionism, on unity and stability, and on the development of
national economy constitute the general programme for all work of
the Party, the army and the nation. To speed up industrial
development it is necessary to thoroughly follow this programme.”
Comrade Mao immediately refuted this revisionist course by
saying: “What ‘taking the three directives as the key link’? Stability
and unity do not mean writing off class struggle; class struggle is the
key link and everything else hinges on it.” Referring directly to
Teng’s behaviour he said: “He has sworn a thousand times to
change and never reverse the correct verdicts; this cannot be
trusted.” And further he said: “With the socialist revolution, they
themselves come under fire. At the time of the cooperative
transformation of agriculture there were people in the Party who
opposed it, and when it comes to criticizing bourgeois right, they
resent it. You are making the socialist revolution, and yet you don’t
know where the bourgeoisie is. It is right in the Communist Party —
those in power taking the capitalist road. The capitalist roaders are
still on the capitalist road.” And he added: “This person”—Teng
Hsiao-ping — “does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred
to this link. Still his theme of ‘white cat, black cat’, making no
distinction between imperialism and Marxism”. “He does not
understand Marxism-Leninism, he represents the capitalist class.”
44 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
Can there be any doubt that Comrade Mao was firmly leading the
struggle against the new “right deviationist wind” raised by Teng
and his cronies?
At the beginning of 1975, Mao Tsetung, at the head of the CPC,
launched a big campaign to strengthen the dictatorship of the
proletariat and to restrain the remnants of “bourgeois right” in
China. He said then: “Why did Lenin speak of exercising
dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? It is essential to make this
question clear. Lack of clarity on this question will lead to
revisionism. This should be made known to the whole nation.”
“Our country still practices a commodity system; the wage system is
unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. These
can only be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat. So if
people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to
rig up the capitalist system.” These and other directives of Comrade
Mao led to a vast mass mobilization of study of the characteristics of
the dictatorship of the proletariat, through the analysis of the basic
Marxist writings, and of elimination of the remnants of bourgeois
right in China. In opposition to this movement of class struggle
against the bourgeoisie and against bourgeois right, Teng Hsiaoping
led a frantic campaign at the head of the most intransigent
“capitalist roaders”.
Desperate in face of the successful advance of the class struggle
they finally plotted and launched the counter-revolutionary
incident at Tien An Men Square. In the aftermath of this incident,
which occurred in April 1976, the CC of the CPC met and, on the
proposal of Comrade Mao, unanimously resolved to “dismiss Teng
Hsiao-ping from all posts both inside and outside the Party”,
because “the Political Bureau of the Central Committee holds that
the nature of the Teng Hsiao-ping problem has turned into one of
antagonistic contradiction”, as it is expressed in the public
statement. According to Chinese publications, “hundreds of
millions of soldiers and civilians” celebrated and approved this
decision. During the meeting held at Tien An Men Square, member
of the Political Bureau of the CC of the CPC, First Secretary of the
Peking Municipal Committee and Chairman of the city’s
Revolutionary Committee, Wu Teh, said: “In the past few days,
while we were studying our great leader Chairman Mao’s
instructions, counterattacking the right deviationist attempt to
reverse correct verdicts and grasping revolution and promoting
production, a handful of bad elements, out of ulterior motives,
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 45
made use of the Ching Ming Festival to deliberately create a
political incident, directing their spearhead at Chairman Mao and
the Party Central Committee in a vain attempt to change the general
orientation of the struggle to criticize the unrepentant capitalistroader
Teng Hsiao-ping’s revisionist line and beat back the right
deviationist attempt. We must see clearly the reactionary nature of
this political incident, expose the schemes and intrigues of the bad
elements, heighten our revolutionary vigilance and avoid being
taken in. Revolutionary masses and cadres of the municipality must
take class struggle as the key link, act immediately, and by concrete
action defend Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line and
the great capital of our socialist motherland, deal resolute blows at
counter-revolutionary sabotage and further strengthen and
consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and develop the
excellent situation. Let us rally around the Party Central Committee
headed by Chairman Mao and win still greater victories!”
Hua Kuo-feng, at Comrade Mao’s funeral, said: “Representing
the aspirations and interests of the working class and the poor and
lower-middle peasants to continue the revolution, Chairman Mao
himself initiated and led the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,
which smashed the schemes of Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao and Teng
Hsiao-ping for restoration, criticized their counter-revolutionary
revisionist line and enabled us to seize back the portion of leading
power in the Party and state they had usurped, thus ensuring
China’s victorious advance along the Marxist-Leninist road.”
A few months after the death of Comrade Mao, transgressing all
his decisions which they pretend to respect, during the Third
Plenary Session of the Tenth CC of the CPC, they rejected the
previous unanimous resolution of the CC ousting Teng from all
posts, and have restored him to all his former functions and high
positions. At the same time, the closest cadres of Comrade Mao in
his struggle against Teng and his bunch have been slandered,
suppressed and “expelled once and for all from the Party”.
Later on, through the Communique of the 11th Congress of the
CPC, they attempt to make people believe that the “resolutions”
imposed there, such as the repression against the closest comrades
of Mao Tsetung; the “rehabilitation” of Teng Hsiao-ping and the
decision of proclaiming the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution, were taken following the “directives and decisions” of
Comrade Mao. They even say that these repressive decisions, or as
they say “the smashing of the ‘gang of four’” marks the
46 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
“triumphant conclusion of our first Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution, which lasted eleven years.” Really, your cynicism and
cowardice know no limits! You insult Comrade Mao after his death
and mock him, his ideas and both his earlier and latest instructions
against the revisionists, particularly against Teng Hsiao-ping. You
really believe that the Marxist-Leninists who have known the latest
directives and decisions of Comrade Mao, among them the
decision to dismiss Teng, are imbeciles or so servile that we will bow
to you and accept such a monstrous fraud. It happens now that
those who were described by Comrade Mao as a “bunch of
counter-revolutionary revisionists”, “faithful lackeys of the
bourgeoisie and the imperialists”, “opponents of Marxist-Leninist
ideology and the socialist system”, and elements engaged in a “lifeor-
death struggle” against the Marxists, today are presented (like
Teng and those who follow him from reactionary convictions or
from fear), as the “successors of Chairman Mao and good students
and followers of his line”, having carried the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution through to a “triumphant conclusion” after his
death, when in fact they always frantically opposed it. You really
have a good chance to outdo Khrushchov and his successors, who
call themselves followers of Lenin! Not even the columnists of the
bourgeois mass media believe your lies, and have described your
actions as “the defeat of the thought of Mao Tsetung” and “the
smashing of the Cultural Revolution”, facts which, of course, fill
them with joy.
The struggle and victory of the Chinese people against
imperialism and feudalism, the Socialist Revolution and the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution, all led by Marxism-Leninism
applied to the concrete conditions of China and by the creative
development of this theory achieved by Comrade Mao, constitute a
heritage for all peoples of the world, and particularly, for the
Marxist-Leninists. We will not permit the revisionists who have
temporarily usurped the leadership of the glorious CPC and the
Chinese state, to sully, distort and destroy this heritage.
Particularly for the present era, in which broad sections of the
masses all over the world are disconcerted about the events which
occur in the pseudo-socialist countries, where revisionists like you
have already restored capitalism, and under the circumstances in
which the reactionary forces are profiting from this situation to
attack Marxism and genuine socialism, insisting on presenting those
states as “socialist”, we think the defence of the struggle that
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA 47
Comrade Mao and the Chinese Marxist-Leninists carried on at the
head of the masses to achieve the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution is of the highest importance. This constituted a
glorious effort to consolidate and develop an authentic socialist
system for almost one-fourth of mankind; to put the proletarian
policy effectively in command; to carry on the class struggle under
the socialist system, to break with bourgeois ideology, habits and
customs in the superstructure and with the remnants of bourgeois
right, to mobilize the broadest masses to take the state affairs in
their hands and to demolish the “independent kingdoms” where
the revisionist bureaucrats were entrenched. As the tragic events
after Comrade Mao’s death show, the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution could not accomplish all of its objectives. Nevertheless,
our Party thinks that the correctness of the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution has become confirmed today more than ever,
now that the sinister, reactionary and anti-Marxist nature of the
enemies it exposed and combated has been openly demonstrated.
And their nature will become even more evident as they expose
themselves through their actions.
Our organization, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile, is
ready to make its modest contribution to the struggle for the
defence of socialism in China, of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
of the immortal achievements of the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution and of the thought of Mao Tsetung, against the
revisionists who temporarily control power in China.
We believe that the present struggle against the Chinese
revisionists and their followers constitutes a new stage of the already
long struggle of Marxism-Leninism against the revisionists who
distort it. The Chinese Marxist-Leninists, with Comrade Mao at
their head, have taught us in the document The Leaders of the CPSU
Are the Greatest Splitters of Our Times that: “To fight for Marxism-
Leninism and proletarian internationalism is to work for the unity of
the international communist movement. Persevering in principle
and upholding unity are inextricably bound together”, and draw
three conclusions: “First, it demonstrates that like everything else,
the international working class movement tends to divide itself into
two. Secondly, the history of the international communist
movement demonstrates that in every period the struggle between
the defenders of unity and the creators of splits is in essence one
between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism and revisionism,
between the upholders of Marxism and the traitors to Marxism.
48 REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHILE
Thirdly, the history of the international communist movement
demonstrates that proletarian unity has been consolidated and has
developed through struggle against opportunism, revisionism and
splittism. The struggle for unity is inseparably connected with the
struggle for principle.” On this matter, Lenin said: “Without
struggle it is not possible to clarify and without clarifying it is not
possible to go forward with success, it is not possible to achieve a
solid unity.Those who are struggling today are in no way destroying
unity. Unity has already ceased to exist, it is broken in all its aspects
. . . Open and direct struggle is one of the necessary conditions to
restore unity.”
We hope that this struggle will really clarify matters and that it will
enable us to deeply comprehend the origins of modern
revisionism, so as to be able to attack it more effectively.
In face of this new revisionist current, our Central Committee has
unanimously resolved, expressing the opinion of all our militants, to
break the party-to-party relations with the revisionist clique which
by means of a coup d’etat has usurped power and the leadership of
the Communist Party of China after the death of Comrade Mao, and
to combat this clique publicly.
We do not break our links either with the Chinese people or with
the glorious Communist Party of China, but with those who, against
the will of the Party and of Comrade Mao, and using counterrevolutionary
violence and intrigues, have temporarily usurped
power in China.
We are certain that the joy of this clique will not last for long. We
have full confidence in the words written by Comrade Mao to his
wife,