Open Letter of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile to the Communist Party of China

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,