Shibdas Ghosh

Cultural
Revolution of
China
Source: Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI) (used with kind
permission)
Date: October 27, 1967
First published : January 1968
HTML Markup: Salil Sen with Mike B. for MIA, July 2007
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may
freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well
as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit
"Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.

Alarmed at its revolutionary significance, the capitalist-

imperialists of different countries unleashed a spate of slander
campaign against the Cultural Revolution in China, and this
created much confusion among people in general and
communist circles in particular. This exhaustive analysis
provides the Marxist-Leninist approach to evaluating the
significance of this great event, termed here as magnificent.

Comrades,

I shall place before you my reactions about the Cultural

Revolution of China. The Central Committee of our party
has not yet met to discuss and make an evaluation of it.
Naturally, whatever I would place here should be
considered only as my personal observation and, till it is
accepted by the Central Committee, it will remain as the
basis for further discussion — and nothing more. Because,
it is quite likely that some changes may have to be
incorporated here and there. The Central Committee may
decide and I myself may think it necessary to make certain
additions and alterations later on.1 However, from all the
materials we have at our disposal and the knowledge that
we could have about the Cultural Revolution of China — I
place my reactions about it as also my viewpoint regarding
what should be the angularity and outlook of our
comrades while approaching this issue and also how they
should take it.

Confusion about Cultural Revolution

We find that wild speculations are going on in the

bourgeois press all over the world about the Cultural
Revolution of China and they are dishing out motivated
and deliberately distorted news on it. But what is most
agonizing is that confusions prevail about this Cultural
Revolution even among the communists of different
countries, who are imbued with the noble ideology of
Marxism-Leninism. Instead of purging through inner-
party struggle those who are engaged, according to the
leadership of the Communist Party of China, in anti-party
activities, the CPC has adopted the method of involving
openly the whole people in such a gigantic polemical
struggle which some communist parties, including the
CPSU, consider to be alien to the fundamental principles
of Marxism-Leninism.

Not only that; the revisionist leadership of the CPSU

and some of their supporters have even tried to insinuate
that this Proletarian Cultural Revolution is a movement
engineered by Mao Zedong with the sole design of
establishing his absolute leadership and autocratic control
over the party, destroying the CPC itself. Moreover, both
the Soviet revisionist and the bourgeois press are carrying
on malicious propaganda about the ‘excesses’, etc.,
committed by the Red Guards. As a result, a lot of
confusion over these questions has cropped up among
many of the communist workers. Besides, many
communists are getting misled by the bourgeois
propaganda that the present difference between Mao
Zedong and Liu Shaoqi is nothing but a power conflict and
that what is being practised in China in the name of Mao
is sheer cult of the individual. Whatever be the
propaganda in the bourgeois press, communist workers
will have to bear in mind that it is impossible to grasp the
real significance of the Cultural Revolution of China with
such a superficial and oversimplified approach. I hold that
this Cultural Revolution has a sound scientific basis,
judged by the yardstick of Marxism-Leninism, and the way
the CPC is conducting this Cultural Revolution is really
magnificent and full of great significance. Communists all
over the world who have really dedicated themselves to the
revolutionary movement, have a great deal to learn from
it. There are some defects, shortcomings or even
weaknesses in it — and it is not at all unnatural for these
to crop up in such a gigantic affair — but these are not what
the bourgeois and the revisionist press circles are trying to
make out. We shall have to judge these considering the
entire background of the Cultural Revolution.

Cultural Revolution — a culmination of cultural

movement

The present Cultural Revolution is the culmination of

those very movements which the Communist Party of
China had to conduct after the revolution embracing all
spheres of cultural life of the society. The CPC had to
conduct such movements in the ideological-cultural field
even before the revolution — for revolutionary parties in
all countries this is an indispensable task before the
revolution. No revolutionary party can accomplish
revolution by ignoring this most urgent task. At the Tenth
Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the CPC,
Comrade Mao Zedong said: “To overthrow political power
it is always necessary, first of all, to create public opinion
to do work in the ideological sphere”. By this he had
precisely underlined the indispensable necessity of
cultural revolution. This holds good for the revolutionary
parties as well as for the counter-revolutionaries. Those
who aspire to overthrow the opponents from state power
through mass upsurge would have to work in the
ideological-cultural spheres to organize the masses on the
basis of ideology, politics and culture of their own class.

And this struggle in the cultural sphere is to be

conducted not only before revolution for its
accomplishment but has got to be continued even after the
revolution in order to protect, consolidate and advance the
same. Because, “The fundamental question of every
revolution is not only to capture power, but to consolidate
it.” This consolidation does not mean political and
economic consolidation only but of culture as well. When
Marx said, “Cultural revolution will continue”, he meant
precisely this. In China, too, this cultural revolution
continued uninterruptedly even after the revolution — at a
pace at times slow, at times intense.

Even after the victory of revolution, series of writings on

character-building of the cadres, on style of propaganda
and infiltration of the bourgeois and all sorts of counter-
revolutionary ideas and culture among the party members
and the people, have been published in China. Are not all
these part of Cultural Revolution? The present Cultural
Revolution in China indicates a particular stage in its
development, manifesting itself in this way at this
particular juncture. Cultural revolution does not always
take this form. In its course, cultural revolution at times
takes such turns centring round certain events and
developments. But it should be borne in mind that cultural
revolution is a continuous process. By analysing the facts
of the Cultural Revolution of China and from the available
information about it, I feel that the present intense phase
of the Cultural Revolution would soon come to an end and
a relatively stable phase would follow. The present intense
wave of the Cultural Revolution would not be there. But
what would that mean? It would mean that certain
changes would have been brought about through this
present phase of Cultural Revolution. I think that when
this present phase would be over, the CPC would convene
a party Congress where there would be many changes,
including changes in the leadership. This is what they are
going to do. But the instruments of the cultural revolution
would be remaining even then and would continue to
operate. The cultural movement would continue, only the
present form would not be there.

Why they started it now

Now, before we examine the questions which have

cropped up centring round this Cultural Revolution, we
shall have to understand one thing first. That is, why at
this particular phase of international and national
situation, China has dragged the whole nation into the
vortex of this Cultural Revolution? It may seem as if they
have invited, quite consciously, such a great risk, not an
ordinary risk but one of far-reaching consequences, which
may bring in its wake serious crises. And at what time have
they undertaken this? To tell the truth, they are doing this
at a time when in the face of continuous threat of attack
and aggression by the US warmongers they stand virtually
alone. And the possibility cannot be ruled out altogether
that if such an eventuality does really arise, she will get no
help from the socialist camp. Moreover, the problem of her
own economic growth and promotion of production is
quite pressing today. In such a critical international and
national situation, the Chinese leaders could easily have
taken to the old traditional way, as many people suggest,
that is, they could have settled the question inside the
party bodies first through inner-party struggle and then
convinced the masses on that very line of the party. But
instead of doing that they have involved all sections of the
people, even the army, in a struggle by which they have
created an environment open for criticism and counter-
criticism, which they knew, would inevitably cause lots of
troubles and difficulties. This they did knowing it well that
it might create serious convulsions in the country. Before
coming to the point whether the process adopted is right
or wrong, I would like to place before you, as I feel and
understand, the reasons which compelled them to take
such a grave risk in such a situation.

To fight reactionary ideologies

First of all, China has accomplished anti-imperialist,

anti-feudal people’s democratic revolution. The people’s
democratic revolution had to be accomplished by fulfilling
those very tasks in the ideological, political and cultural
spheres which were indispensable for preparing the mass
mind and making the people free, ideologically and
culturally, from the vile influence of feudal and bourgeois
culture without which it was impossible to seize power,
make revolution successful and consolidate its gains. But
this, however, could not free the people, or even the party
members, from all the vices of bourgeois culture and
forces of habit, nor totally remove from their mental
make-up all the ingredients of culture, ethics and morality
which they inherited and carried along as hangover from
the old feudal society. Moreover, the class which had been
overthrown from power, did not, as a class, lose all its
power of resistance, particularly in the socio-cultural life,
as soon as it was overthrown. As a result, the cultural
ingredients of the old society remained — in whatever
subtle form it might be — in all spheres of the social,
economic, cultural and political life in the new condition
of the society. And after the attainment of stability in the
relative sense, following the seizure of power, the old
culture was gaining ground with passage of time due to the
low level of ideological-political consciousness of the party
workers and even some of the leading members. Moreover,
the transition to socialism in the Chinese society is taking
place relatively peacefully, despite the turmoil you feel
from outside; the internal condition is, no doubt, relatively
peaceful and with the party controlling the state power, a
tendency of individualism and various shades of
opportunism are growing among the party members and
the people. And centring round all these, different types of
bourgeois, petty bourgeois and even feudal ideas and
norms of behaviour are infiltrating the party life. And all
these are happening and working inside the party in the
name of socialism and under cover of revolutionary
verbiage and Marxist-Leninist scholasticism. That the
Chinese leadership should have worries over all this is
quite likely and there is no earthly reason, other than bias,
to doubt their sincerity. This is quite natural and can
happen in any party. Of course, there may be some
exaggeration or underestimation in stating facts, but there
is nothing unnatural about it. Only those who are
absolutely ignorant of the most complicated process of
‘unity-struggle-unity’ and the magnitude of the
complexities of revolution can talk the nonsense that since
revolution has been accomplished such things can never
happen and the party as well as the cadres are bound to be
automatically free from the vile influence of the bourgeois
ideology and culture. Nowhere in the world can revolution
ensure all this at a stroke. Even after the capture of power,
these trends and tendencies are bound to persist for some
time in all countries inside the party as in different spheres
of social life. China is no exception to this.

To elevate cultural standard

Secondly, the Russian experience has clearly shown that

if along with the tremendous growth and development of
the economy, military science and technology of a socialist
country, the ideological-cultural-ethical standard of the
society as a whole — starting from the philosophical
understanding and cultural-ethical standard of the
collective to the minutest detail of the individual
behaviour, habit and practices — cannot be elevated to
keep pace with the need for all-round development of
socialist economy, then the gap that will be created is
bound to lead to a lowering of standard in the ideological
sphere. And if the level of consciousness and the cultural
standard remain low, then it may give birth to
revisionism-reformism at any moment, in a critical hour,
under favourable conditions and may lead to counter-
revolutionary upsurge, peaceful or violent, and thus
endanger socialism by bringing about counter-
revolutionary changes in the socio-political setup. If
backwardness continues to persist in the fields of
epistemology and culture, then the entire party and the
working class may, being misled, tread the revisionist-
reformist path and bring about restoration of capitalism
while waving the banner of Marxism-Leninism and
chanting socialist slogans.

To practise proletarian culture

Thirdly, the present leadership of China has been highly

perturbed over another point. In the post-War period, an
excellent revolutionary situation developed
internationally, when the whole world was in ferment with
revolutionary movements — tides of revolutionary
upsurge were sweeping across and imperialism was
pushed, so to say, back to the wall. But today the whole
current has been reversed — there has been a great setback
in the world communist movement, the imperialists are
taking the most aggressive steps and forces of counter-
revolution and subversion are on the offensive everywhere.
And for all this, the main responsibility should squarely lie
with Soviet revisionism, the revisionist outlook and
practices of the present Soviet leadership. Immeasurable
damage to the world revolution has been wrought by such
a party which has the tradition and heritage of the
leadership of Lenin and Stalin, a party which for the first
time in the world made socialist revolution victorious,
founded a socialist state, consolidated and developed
socialist economy on a firm basis, and after accomplishing
all these tasks, was considering and contemplating under
the leadership of Comrade Stalin how quickly and in what
way it could, after achieving the final victory of socialism,
step on to the ‘first stage of communism’. There are
references to all this in the Report to the 19th Congress of
the CPSU which was held just before Stalin’s death. How
could such change be possible in the party of Lenin and
Stalin — how could the revisionists all of a sudden usurp
the leadership of the party and the state without any
effective resistance from within? Certainly all this could
not happen overnight. The Chinese leadership has been
greatly perturbed over the gravity of such a situation.

Naturally, they have been seriously thinking that if they

are to safeguard the Chinese Revolution, if they are to
ensure its uninterrupted growth and advancement, if they
are to achieve victories of socialism, one after another,
both in the national and international spheres, they would
have to, while holding aloft the banner of proletarian
internationalism, carry on the struggle for continuously
uplifting the standard of proletarian politics and culture
without which they cannot fulfil their obligation to
revolution. This most urgent and indispensable task of
cultural revolution was neglected in the Soviet Union.
Even a giant communist leader like Stalin committed
some mistakes in this particular field for his somewhat
complacent attitude. Stalin once said : “The more the
socialist system and the socialist economy will be
strengthened and consolidated, the more sharpened will
be the class struggles.” But at the Eighteenth Congress
Stalin himself had analysed the Soviet society in a way
from which it might appear that there was no more class
division in the Soviet society — it was a classless society.
He observed : “The Soviet citizens are a new type of
citizens — they are socialist citizens. The Soviet society is
free from internal class contradiction, that is, the
antagonistic character of the internal class contradiction is
no more there”. Surely it was wrong to put it this way.
Because, antagonistic character of class contradiction still
prevailed in the Soviet society, otherwise what was the
state for? To answer this question Stalin only referred to
the external contradiction, that is, the existence of
imperialism and its influence over the Soviet society. But,
in my opinion, it should be borne in mind that here, too,
the external contradiction can influence the internal
contradiction of society only when a material condition
favourable for such an influence to work is already existing
within the society.

Naturally, when after the socialist revolution it was

necessary to further intensify class struggle, when the
practice of proletarian culture ought to have been further
heightened, when it was indispensable to keep
uninterrupted this practice and the process of struggle in
order to uplift the standard of proletarian revolutionary
character against the infiltration of the influence of
bourgeois ideology and culture into the party and the
social life, when it was necessary to hold aloft the banner
of cultural revolution in order to raise the cultural and
political standard of the people to conform to the needs of
each and every change of the character of the socialist
productive system, the fact that this struggle got slackened
due to the self-complacent attitude of the Soviet
leadership after attainment of some stability in the social
system following revolution, actually led to this inevitable
fall of political and cultural standard and provided the
breeding ground for revisionism. Whether the CPC
explained all these points so elaborately and lucidly in
support of their programme of the Cultural Revolution, is
not the point. But from whatever they have said or
indicated, I understand it like this. Not that they have said
it in this manner, but observing what had happened in the
Soviet state, this apprehension worked in them.

To cement unity of party and people

Fourthly, China apprehends that she may have to face a

war any day although the forces of peace throughout the
world and their power of resistance have gained such
strength today that it is very difficult for the US
imperialists to unleash a world war. It is true that the
imperialists may not be able to wage a world war — their
war efforts will have to remain limited to local and partial
wars only, and they will continue to blackmail the weaker
nations posing before them the threat of a nuclear war —
but so long as imperialism exists as a world force, the
danger and possibility of war will also be there. Naturally,
no revolutionary party can afford to underestimate or rule
out this danger. Taking advantage of the internal conflict,
disunity and lapses in the socialist camp, imperialist
attack on China may come any day, particularly when the
out-and-out revisionist leadership of the CPSU is
persistently carrying on a malicious propaganda against
China and frantically striving to curb her growing
influence on the anti-imperialist struggles of different
countries as well as the newly independent resurgent
nationalist countries of Asia and Africa. In such an
eventuality, if the party and the people of China continue
to suffer from the ideological shortcomings and defects
which I have mentioned earlier, then they would not be
able to stand as ‘one man’ and face the attack. Moreover,
it is difficult to visualize the situation that would follow in
the event of an imperialist attack on China. In such a
situation, China might be encircled from all sides and the
whole world might go against her. What dangerous turn of
events awaits China is anybody’s guess when even many of
the newly independent resurgent nationalist countries are
virtually reduced to agents of imperialism. From the trend
of events taking place one after another in the newly
independent resurgent nationalist countries, this
apprehension gets further confirmed. India, who was a
friend of China a few years back, is no longer so. Burma,
who was China’s friend even the other day, has now turned
towards the USA. Indonesia is thoroughly changed. She is
now in the grip of the reactionaries, the agents of the
imperialists. As there are bright prospects of the ultimate
victory of revolutionary movement in some countries of
South-East Asia, it does not mean that they are free from
these dangers. Under the circumstances, when the policy
of containment of China is an open and naked declaration
of the US imperialists and when the US warmongers may
any moment mount a pre-emptive attack on China at the
slightest opportunity, the possibility of which is very much
there, everyone of the Chinese society, if necessary, would
have to fight till the last drop of blood under the leadership
of the party to thwart the imperialist attack and save
revolution. In that case, the firm political and ideological
unity between the party and the people would provide the
lifeblood for this war. And herein lies the invincible
strength of revolutionary China. On this firm
understanding, she challenges : ‘No power on earth can
destroy China. Whoever comes to destroy her, will
ultimately be destroyed’. This strength of theirs, which
makes possible such a bold declaration, lies precisely in
the firm political and ideological unity of the people and
the party. So the remnants of reactionary ideas that still
persist in the Chinese society and are growing anew and
infiltrating it in new forms – if all these cannot be
completely eradicated as fast as possible, then the evils
which are almost imperceptible at present and apparently
quite insignificant, causing only, if at all, some
disturbances in the economic, administrative and
organizational fields might, at a critical hour, rear their
ugly heads through internal sabotage and bring in its wake
a civil war and create a great hurdle to uniting the whole
nation as ‘one man’ by organizing a counter-revolution. So
this is also another important aspect that warrants this
Cultural Revolution right at this moment.

To build permanent cultural organizations

Fifthly, in order to keep the Chinese Revolution and

Chinese society free from the pernicious influence of
different varieties of revisionism, it is necessary to build
up a permanent organization for conducting
uninterrupted cultural movement within the country. It is
necessary to build up a united movement of the party and
the people to guard against infiltration of vile bourgeois
ideology and culture from which the party workers at
different levels, the people and different activities in the
society are not free. Besides, it should be remembered that
even after all these years of revolution, in Russia as well as
in China, the number of people adapted to Marxist-
Leninist way of thinking are very few in comparison to the
vast population. Those who have some idea about
Marxism-Leninism have just a superficial impact of this
ideology on them. Again, the party workers who work and
think in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist
methodology and outlook have been found to suffer from
bourgeois ideological confusions and are influenced by
modern revisionism. Moreover, the Chinese leaders do
also find that with the relatively growing economic
stability and advancement of the society as well as with the
increasing material well-being, individualism of a new
variety is growing in the mental make-up of the
individuals in the society. This new trend of individualism
manifested itself in a socialist society. Whether they have
been able to correctly ascertain its real character or not is
an altogether different question. But there is no denying
the fact that they have been able to understand at least this
much that such a trend of individualism is completely
alien to class consciousness, class emotion and dedication
of the proletariat. So to fight it out is a must.

To fight casual attitude

Sixthly, those who are the living soul and forces of the
Chinese Revolution today, i.e., the communist cadres and
others who are engaged in different spheres of activities —
military, cultural, and different branches of production,
are guided by the Central Committee and Mao Zedong,
the concretized expression of their collective leadership.
Most of the old and experienced members of the Central
Committee, including Mao Zedong are already above
seventy. They cannot shut their eyes to the stark reality,
which is causing a great anxiety, too, in them, that this
most experienced batch of the leaders, all growing old,
would pass away at close intervals of time. Because, so
long as Mao Zedong and all these old, experienced and
powerful leaders are there, the party may not face any
acute crisis or serious danger. But the apprehension of a
grave danger cropping up within the party in their absence
should not be ruled out. We should remember that people
very often work relying on their belief, reposing their faith
and confidence in a leader. Just take the example of Russia
— what happened there did surely not take place overnight.
As the ideological and cultural standard of the party and
the people could not be continuously uplifted to keep pace
with the growing progress of socialist economy, the
ideological-cultural standard remained low and
inadequate, thus gradually providing, in the main, the
breeding ground for revisionism within the society. But
you see, the harmful effect of such a low level of
consciousness of the party and the people of the Soviet
Union could not make its presence felt because of the
impact of the powerful personality, ideological guidance,
iron discipline and firm handling of a man like Stalin. As a
result, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union could
remain essentially the ‘proletarian vanguard’ despite some
mistakes and blunders here and there so long as Stalin was
living. But today, only in absence of a great personality,
how easily the whole party and the people have fallen
victim to all sorts of rotten thinking and ideas.
Naturally, if proper precaution is not taken in time, such
eventualities may very well arise. The Chinese leadership
did not fail to take lessons from all this. What is agitating
their minds is that if the ideological-cultural standard
along with the political consciousness of the new members,
who are joining in growing numbers after revolution and
many of whom are already occupying responsible posts
and positions in the party and the state, are not adequately
uplifted and if a new wave of proletarian cultural
movement is not created among the people, then, in
absence of Mao Zedong and the present leadership,
revisionism may grow in the CPC and society in the very
same way it grew in the Soviet Union.

Beside all this, China is confronted today with serious

and complex problems. As her various problems require
immediate solution, so also she has to face the problem
created by the activities of the external forces, and she has
the problem to educate the whole nation to stand as ‘one
man’ against the containment of China policy of the
imperialists. Besides, in carrying out systematically the
task of socialist reconstruction, China, let alone being
helped by Russia, rather has to fight against various
obstacles and economic blockades created by the Soviet
revisionists. Hence, if she has to make speedy
development of her economy by consolidating and
strengthening it on a strong foundation then she would
have to build up a firm unity between the party and the
people on the basis of correct political line and ideology
and develop a sense of revolutionary dedication among the
people. Otherwise, because of the relative stability that
appears in the society in the post-revolutionary period, a
kind of casual attitude might develop among the workers
and different sections of the people, in which case the
speedy development of the Chinese economy would not be
possible.

To attain economic and military power

Seventhly, China is trying to prepare herself to be the

citadel of international proletarian revolution. Naturally,
as her standing up as ‘one man’ on a stronger military,
political, economic, social and cultural footing and her
continuous gaining in strength is a guarantee in favour of
peace and against the threat of nuclear war, it is urgently
necessary as well for extending active help and co-
operation to the revolutionary movements all over the
world. Naturally, such a gigantic Cultural Revolution has
not been prompted simply by her internal and economic
necessities guided by national point of view. It is
something more. Even in the interest of fulfilling her
international obligation to effectively help the anti-
imperialist liberation struggles, it is necessary for her to
strengthen the economic foundation and acquire military
power very speedily. And in these fields of activities, she
should come nearer to the position of the Soviet Union as
fast as possible. Because, even if it sounds somewhat queer,
the fact however remains that because of the revisionist
role of the Soviet leadership, her supremacy in the
economic and military field is posing a great danger today.
If China can speedily cover the economic and military gap
that exists between her and the Soviet Union, then it would
be easier for her to overcome the present crisis in the
international communist movement and she would be
able to unite all the countries, more particularly the anti-
imperialist forces and the leading countries of the socialist
camp, in the anti-imperialist movement throughout the
world. Because, China is not in a position on account of
her relative economic backwardness, to offer economic aid
to the non-aligned countries and effectively draw them in
the anti-imperialist struggle under her leadership, which
is in a way obstructed by all sorts of economic help from
the Soviet Union. Since those underdeveloped countries
are to a very great extent dependent on Soviet economic
aid, the influence of the revisionist Soviet leadership still
persists. If China can very rapidly acquire almost equal
economic and military strength and position then only she
can influence those countries which still have got a
genuine anti-imperialist role to play and thus can
straightaway draw them to the side of anti-imperialist
struggle by freeing them from the influence of revisionist
leadership of the Soviet Union.

To practise proletarian politics in the military

Eighthly, in a section of the top officials of the Chinese

army, a dangerous trend of putting undue emphasis on
speedy modernization of military and arms and
ammunition to be on a par with the leading imperialist
countries, was growing strongly. As a result, they almost
made secondary the urgent necessity of continuous uplift
of the political-cultural standard of the army through
continuous practice of proletarian politics. This, too, has
made the Chinese leaders very much anxious. Faced with
persistent war threat from the imperialist countries the
leaders of the Chinese Cultural Revolution are neither
ignoring nor belittling a whit the importance of speedy
modernization of arms and ammunition and the
army; on the contrary, their serious efforts in this field
and the spectacular advancement they made within such a
short time have startled the world powers. But whatever
may be the advancement in the field of modernization of
arms, if the army of a socialist country is not imbued with
the spirit of proletarian culture and revolution, then in
culture and character it remains in no way different from
the imperialist mercenary army. Because, only the urge for
proletarian revolution and the practice of proletarian
politics and culture can help the army of a socialist country
acquire decisive and invincible strength which no
bourgeois mercenary army equipped with all the modern
arms even can face or contain. Naturally, if the tendency
of putting greater emphasis on modernization of arms in
place of practising the revolutionary politics and
proletarian culture gains upper hand, then the sense of
dedication for revolution in the Chinese army might be
lost in course of time, the symptoms of which are already
there. So, to free the army from this dangerous trend and
psychology by involving them, along with the people, in
the movement, is also another vital object of the present
Cultural Revolution.

To elevate ideological standard of intellectuals

Ninthly, the scientists, the intellectuals and the

technocrats who have served the progress of the society
and made valuable contributions in different ways to the
cause of social progress have also not been excluded from
the purview of the Cultural Revolution. For, because of
their special position and also because of the influence
they have on all sections of the people through their
activities, they become heroes to the people very easily.
The influence of the scientists and other intellectuals is
really tremendous on the society. Hence their cultural and
world outlook also need to be changed. Their thoughts,
ideas and cultural standard must also conform to the
needs of socialist revolution — its progress and
development. In the Chinese society those persons in
power in the party and the state, who are discharging great
responsibilities in the economic and administrative fields,
are also not reflecting the necessary and adequate cultural
standard. These incongruities and inadequacies have,
therefore, to be wiped off and removed through struggle.
All these factors taken together, necessitated the present
Cultural Revolution in China. This Cultural Revolution is
the struggle to wipe out, both individually and collectively,
all sorts of reactionary ideas from within the party and the
society, administration, style of work, educational system
and even from the fields of science and epistemology.

Communists to learn from Cultural Revolution

Now, it was the old and traditional method to initiate

struggle first inside the party, to arrive at certain decisions
in the party bodies and then to educate and imbue the
people in accordance with those. But I should say that in
this Cultural Revolution Mao Zedong has shown a
magnificent and brilliant political-organizational courage.
Communists all over the world have got a great deal to
learn from it. Ideological struggle took place in Russia also.
But there it remained confined within the party. Such a
method of struggle, however, cannot remove the doubts
and apprehension from the mass mind and touch it; hence
the people cannot rally round the party as ‘one man’ on the
basis of a clear and correct understanding. Even if they do
so sometimes, they do it either under the overall impact of
the leadership, or under duress or from a wrong notion, or
not out of conscious but blind emotion for the party.
 But if any doubt or apprehension prevails among the
people regarding what is happening inside the party, then
at the time of crisis, the reactionaries and the anti-party
forces may create division among the people using it as a
weapon and thereby endanger the party and the revolution.
Naturally, nothing can save the revolution at a critical
hour other than the firm unity of the party and the people
in the ideological-political field, at least up to a certain
level. So, to make the people active in favour of the basic
principles of the party, to inspire them to work unitedly
under the leadership of the party, it is necessary to raise
the level of consciousness of the people to that required
standard. And to do this the people would have to be
involved continuously in the process of cultural movement
and be given the opportunity to take active part in debates
and discussions. No doubt, a great risk is involved in it.
Only a very powerful communist party, a party which is in
state power, which controls the army and the legal system,
handles the state machine and has got a network of
organizations as well in every field of activity of the people,
can afford to take such a great risk. Only such a powerful
party can shoulder the risk of such a gigantic programme,
and the Communist Party of China has undertaken it.
Despite the risk involved, they were not afraid of facing it.
The entire people have been given the right to openly
criticize even the leaders and the executives of the party
and the state. The party which can grant the people such a
right and can take such a risk is not an ordinary party.
They are doing this knowing full well that this may pose
serious problems. The people who have been given the
right for open discussion and criticism and have thus been
roused may even, crossing the limit, go against the very
leadership that gave them this right.

For that, all precautionary measures have been taken.

Moreover, the leadership is quite aware of the fact that
there may be some excesses when the entire people have
been brought into the vortex of such a gigantic Cultural
Revolution. It would not be wise in any way either to stem
the tide or discourage the people on the main object of the
Cultural Revolution lest there might be excesses. The CPC
Central Committee has pointedly declared that where
excesses will lead to criminal offences, those responsible
will be punished according to law. Law will take its own
course against those who will commit criminal offences
like arson, looting, killing and the like. But the main
programme of the Cultural Revolution cannot be stopped
or kept in abeyance on the plea of all this.

Leadership, too, to face criticism

This movement, once started, may not spare the leaders

even, not excluding those who are on the right track, from
irresponsible criticisms of the people, for which they may
feel embarrassed. But for this, they should neither feel
embarrassed nor be distracted from the main objective. It
is for this that the leaders have been urged again and again
not to fight shy of criticism in the wake of the Cultural
Revolution. It is quite likely that the people may criticize
rightly or even wrongly. By this, only those will be
perturbed or afraid who are not really imbued with the
proletarian outlook and culture. Revolutionaries are never
afraid of criticism. They have nothing to hide from the
people. It is only about the party and revolution that they
may have something to keep secret. They cannot have
anything personal which they feel necessary to keep secret
from the people. There may be certain things which the
party may decide to keep secret. But in the present case, it
is the decision of the party to encourage open criticism by
all. So, there is nothing here to take personally and no
tangible reason to be afraid of. It is known that it is Mao
Zedong at whose inspiration this Cultural Revolution was
initiated. The whole programme is the outcome of Mao
Zedong’s contemplation. But at a certain stage a hue and
cry was raised even against Mao Zedong. Some people —
maybe they belonged to the opposite camp — raised the
slogan that Mao came of a rich peasant family, and hence
was a bourgeois himself. But all this could not embarrass
or perturb Mao Zedong a bit. Rather, he himself consented
to the continuation of this type of criticism. Because, he
knew it for certain that such questions, if suppressed,
would remain unresolved. But if these came out in the
open, that would expose the wrong putting of the question,
that is, why such a question is wrong, and thus it would
provide a chance for its rectification. So, when the
question is resolved, it provides a better understanding
and clarity of thought. But if such things are suppressed or
attempted to be impressed upon the people in general or
in vague terms, then although the people may acquiesce in
because of the overall impact of the situation, they would
do it not with a clear mind, some doubts would still persist.
This way of coming to an agreement indicates that
blindness and mechanical thinking continue to persist. So,
the revolutionary workers along with the active workers of
the Cultural Revolution should remain with the masses
actively participating in the Proletarian Cultural
Revolution and help them correct their mistakes, and in
this process the people would also help in correcting the
mistakes of the party workers, if there be any. This way,
the party would conduct the movement by making the
people active and would thus be able to keep it within its
control as well. It was not at all conceived at the outset that
the army would have to be involved. But at the Eleventh
Plenary session it was decided that, if necessary, even the
army would have to take part in this Cultural Revolution.
Because, there are differences of opinion even within the
army. Moreover, if the movement takes a violent turn then
it has got to be brought under control. So, this movement
has to be conducted in the most disciplined way; if
necessary, it has got to be restrained even, but under no
circumstances can this feature of mass participation be
allowed to die. In essence, this is the main spirit of the
Cultural Revolution.

Involving wider sections of people

 Now the question is : why did the Communist Party of
China take recourse to this path of involving actively the
whole people in the Cultural Revolution? Because, by this,
right from the leaders to the party workers as well as the
people, all would get an opportunity to correct their
mistakes and shortcomings. The present Chinese
leadership is contemplating to give a permanent shape to
the existing organizations of the Cultural Revolution.
Naturally, this struggle will continue. The specific
problems against which the present Cultural Revolution is
being conducted will no longer be there in future and so
the contents of the future movement will also change with
the emergence of newer problems before it. But the
process China has adopted to build the instruments of
struggle by involving the masses actively in the movement
will not be discouraged. This approach is no doubt new.

We hold that in any movement in which people are

actively involved, chances of committing mistakes would
be less. If people do not take active part in movements,
then mistakes or not, unnecessary doubts and
apprehensions would remain in the mass mind.

The disciplinary action taken by the party leadership

against any individual may create, because of their own
way of thinking, unnecessary apprehensions and the like
in the mass mind even if the action is justified. On the
contrary, what happens when the people take active part
in it? Well, people may apprehend a conspiracy here, too;
but in this case there is scope for open discussion and
debate. People may come out to assert or denounce openly
that there had been a conspiracy — a debate would
continue, many documents would be placed by the
opponents as well as others, and thus clarity would emerge
through this conflict of ideas and reasonings.

For this the party has advised not to brand as enemies

all those who are vociferous against this Cultural
Revolution. The party has equally warned against the
danger that even the real enemies may go undetected,
taking advantage of the notion: everybody opposing is not
necessarily an enemy. So, there should be a line of
difference between the attitude towards the real enemy
and that against those who are common men but are
behaving like enemies under the influence of the
bourgeois ideology or are being confused by the
reactionary forces. This is necessary in order to distinguish
and isolate the enemies from the common people. So, as a
result of these conflicts and contradictions, when unity
would ultimately be reached, free from the influence of all
sorts of reactionary ideology, it would be, even if relatively,
a stronger unity of the majority based on a clearer
understanding — a unity of the party and the people, of the
leaders and the led. This struggle is the only guarantee for
the victory of revolution in the present situation.

Now some may think that the party will have to face
many difficulties if the whole of the masses are involved in
it. What are those difficulties? Well, widespread chaos and
disturbances. But even if it causes chaos and disturbances,
it is a necessity if China has to solve her internal and
external problems, if she has to remove all apprehensions
from the mass mind and if she has to build up a firm unity
of the party with the people on the basis of a higher
political consciousness, culture and ethics. Otherwise,
despite all propaganda and publicity, the necessary
initiative of the people would be lacking. In that case,
people would not get the chance to plunge into struggle, to
learn from this struggle and thereby grasp the truth.
Maybe, they would listen to and abide by, but they would
do so blindly. And given a chance for debates and
discussions, people would come out openly and frankly to
give vent to their feelings — they would not conceal the
doubts and apprehensions in their minds. So we see that
through this Cultural Revolution they are striving to bring
about a unity, in their own language, of the ninetyfive per
cent of the people with the party — a unity based on
ideology. They are striving to achieve this unity dragging
all points of differences and diversities into the vortex of
struggle. Naturally, as a methodology, it is more scientific.
And the only question that may arise is whether it is at all
possible to lead this Cultural Revolution to its logical
culmination. Or, whether it will end up in a catastrophe?
The CPC has courageously taken it up. The way they have
undertaken this risk to accomplish such a gigantic task is,
I would repeat, simply magnificent. Communists all over
the world have a great deal to learn from it.

Ordinary mistakes are not fundamental deviation

Questions have been raised centring round some

mistakes and shortcomings of the Cultural Revolution of
China. For example, there is a mechanical trend in their
approach, carrying with it the danger of subjectivism. If
the leadership is not sufficiently careful in time about it,
there is every possibility of slipping into subjectivism later
on. I shall deal afterwards with what this mechanical
approach means. Many people think that since there is a
mechanical trend in the approach of the Communist Party
of China, it has already deviated from Marxism-Leninism.
No, surely not. There is always a gap, a nodal point,
between what might take place in future and what has
already happened. For example, committing mistakes
does not necessarily mean that there has been a
fundamental deviation. So, it is wrong to conclude that
each and every deviation of a party makes it counter-
revolutionary at once. In course of continuously suffering
from deviations or committing continuous mistakes, it
may reach a particular point, the nodal point, when it
turns counter-revolutionary. The present mechanical
approach that you find is the outcome of the low level of
consciousness in general and the wide difference that
exists in the level of consciousness between the top
leadership and the rank and file, and between the party
and the common people in particular. So, if the CPC fails
to get rid of this mechanical approach from which it suffers
at present, then subjectivism, gaining ground, may one
day cause a serious disaster. But if you suggest that they
have already deviated fundamentally then you will have to
substantiate it with facts. I do not hold that their thought
process is wrong. But I say that correct process
notwithstanding, they are reflecting a somewhat low level
of consciousness. There is nothing unnatural about it. But
in view of this low level of ideological standard, if it is
generalized and presumed that this lowering of ideological
standard is a common feature in all fields of activity, then
it would be a gross mistake.

Although this low level of ideological standard is

sometimes leading them to some theoretical
inconsistencies, still then it cannot be denied that in place
of the old and traditional method of closed-door
discussion for criticism and self-criticism, the method they
have adopted to remove from the mass mind the various
confusions, unfounded apprehensions and unnecessary
suspicions, that is, the process of involving the people
directly in this gigantic movement for making them
collectively a politically conscious entity, is definitely a
bold and new step and in that sense it is really magnificent
and unique.

Referring to the ideological controversy in the

international communist movement and the method of
struggle that should be adopted to resolve the same, we
held as far back as 1963 in the article An Appeal to the
Leaders of the International Communist Movement that
this struggle concerning ideological questions of
fundamental nature should involve not only the leaders
but also the rank and file, the class and the masses. We are
glad that in the Cultural Revolution of China, this principle
finds its first concrete application in the history of the
international communist movement. Frankly speaking,
we did not expect that even the CPC would so promptly
apply this principle in practice on such a massive scale. It
is true that there are inadequacies in the ideological
standard in some aspects of this Cultural Revolution —
about which I shall discuss later on — but there are, at the
same time, many bright and brilliant aspects of it from
which the communists all over the world have a lot to learn.
There are many unique and creative things in it. There are
both shortcomings and magnificent aspects of this
Cultural Revolution. It is impermissible that without
seeing the brighter sides of it we should only look at the
inadequacies and denounce the whole thing as subjective.

Criticism to be just and proper

But I find that those who are criticizing the Cultural

Revolution are doing it with an attitude of self-projection
born of inflated ego. Every communist has not only the
right but also the bounden duty to express his opinion on
the Cultural Revolution. Because, it directly concerns the
all-important question regarding the future of world
communist movement. Naturally, if there is any mistake
or limitation in it or any inadequacy in their approach, one
should point that out. Similarly, if somebody can provide
a better solution to any problem or can help them with an
enriched theory, he should advance it. But if a particular
party is able to do so, it is not correct to think that it
becomes superior to the CPC in all respects or that the CPC
is simply worthless. It is true that they are great in many
respects and maybe we are insignificant compared to them.
But still then we can claim in all humility that we may be
capable of advancing some theories which are definitely
rich and which may be useful even to them. As it is wrong
to accept blindly whatever comes from the CPC because
they are great, so it is equally wrong to reject or
underestimate even those magnificent and brilliant
contributions of theirs because we could provide some
useful new theories not viewed by them. In that case like
the bourgeois intellectuals we would one day succumb to
self-complacency. We would then, in the name of Marxism,
reduce ourselves to the position of those hypocrite
bourgeois intellectuals against whom the CPC is waging a
serious battle. This is why, for us, criticism should always
be just and proper.

Revolutionary intellectualism vis-a-vis bourgeois

scholasticism

Incidentally, I want to discuss one more point, though

apparently unrelated. You should always remember that
there is a fundamental difference between bourgeois
scholasticism and revolutionary intellectualism. The
difference between revolutionary intellectualism and
bourgeois scholasticism lies precisely in the fact that
revolutionary intellectualism is purposive, creative and
beneficial to the cause of social progress and revolution.
This is why it is free from vanity or ego. A revolutionary
intellectual is never vainglorious, nor does he fear or fight
shy of asserting his worth when necessary. He is never
vociferous to establish his superiority to others. As
revolutionary intellectualism is creative, it not only acts
but is decisive too. Its aim is not to belittle but to help
others. But bourgeois scholasticism is devoid of these
objectives. So, as I was saying, while criticizing the CPC,
the revolutionaries should give them the proper respect
they deserve. What a tremendous risk they have
undertaken! Even a little modesty suffices to make one
understand that it was not just an infantile act on the part
of the CPC. In fact, the programme of Cultural Revolution
has a sound theoretical basis and is backed by rich
experience.

Historical role of individual as leader

Now, different circles, not excluding the communists,

have raised certain points of criticism and expressed some
reservations about the Cultural Revolution of China. First,
many are of the opinion that what is going on in China in
the name of Mao Zedong is nothing but the cult of
personality. That is, during this Cultural Revolution and in
the whole of the social life of China, the way in which Mao
Zedong is being eulogized as a leader provides evidence,
they say, of the cult of personality. Say, for example, when
Mao Zedong attends a meeting, the party workers
maintain some formalities to express their regard;
thunderous slogans eulogizing him continue for a long
time; the critics attribute these acts to the practice of the
cult of personality. From all these formalities it may
appear to be the cult of personality. But you would have to
keep in mind one more important point in this connection.
If you are to inspire and involve the masses of people in
social movements, then so long as the active members of
the party as well as the people do not acquire the highest
standard of communist consciousness — not the highest
standard of the past but as it should be at present — these
would remain as the general form of paying respect. These
are mechanical no doubt, but nevertheless necessary.
Today, revolution cannot be brought about anywhere
avoiding these formalities. Revolution will be free from
this limitation only when the level of consciousness of
every individual member of society will be raised to the
level of social consciousness, when individual
consciousness will become identified with social
consciousness, when the party and the individual entity
will become one and the same, that is, when society as a
whole and the party will have become identified and the
prevailing gap between the highest and the lowest levels of
consciousness will be eliminated. Only then the historical
role of individual as leader to inspire and imbue people to
discharge their social responsibilities will cease to exist.
But not before that. Although this method carries the
legacy of the old bourgeois mechanical process, still then
there is a difference between the two. You should
understand it. Where lies the difference? The difference
lies precisely in the fact that in the communist movement
constant attempt is there to maintain a necessary
minimum level of consciousness of people. That is, a
minimum level of theoretical understanding is considered
indispensable here. First of all, no individual, not even the
leader, is considered infallible; and secondly, any
phenomenon, any entity, even thoughts and ideas, are not
taken as absolute, rather they are considered changeable
— they change along with the change of the material
condition. These two are the bases on which the minimum
level of consciousness of people should rest.

Blind allegiance to a leader gives birth to

authoritarianism

Again, as this method of projecting an individual as a

leader to inspire the party workers and people is
indispensable, so also there is a danger inherent in it if it
is not based on a correct understanding. A genuine
revolutionary party feels it necessary, no doubt, but knows
the inherent danger as well. If this is not conducted
correctly, it brings mechanization within the party and
gives birth to authoritarianism. What is more, lowering of
ideological standard persists due to mechanization, which
in turn makes one incapable of comprehending the
contemporary problems. As a result, those very people
whose emancipation is the object of revolution and for
which they are being inspired, fall prey to another
preconception. They cannot be freed from it. For example,
there is no denying the fact that in Russia the gigantic
socialist construction was made projecting Stalin before
the masses — no doubt this made many spectacular
economic achievements possible. The personality of Stalin
and his leadership imbued the whole of the Russian people
greatly. But again, following this very course, came the
backwardness in the ideological standard. The
mechanization that is inherent in this method of imbuing
the people by projecting a leader before them could not be
fought out ultimately because the low level of ideological-
cultural standard among the communists and the masses
continued to persist. That is why, Stalin’s Russia today is
treading the revisionist path. Both these aspects are
equally valid. The leading role of an individual was there
in Russia and it is there in China too. It was there in China
before the revolution, it is there today also and it will be
there in the future, too, and will act as a decisive force so
long as there will be the necessity of inspiring the people
to work under the leadership of the party on the basis of
unity of will. No revolution can be viewed without this. So,
in all revolutions, this method is inseparably linked up
with the question of involving the masses in action. The
revolutionary party which does not practise this method,
which has not been able to concretize and personify the
collective leadership of the party through an individual,
has not been able to project the leader in the high esteem
and imagination of the masses, but places all the leaders
on a par, does not really mean revolution at all. No doubt,
there exists a collective leadership but, over and above it,
should emerge a leader as a symbolic expression of the
unity of struggle. The objective necessity of organizing and
leading revolution to victory in any country always calls for
the emergence of such a leader of the leaders. Otherwise,
during the course of revolutionary struggle, the unity of
the leadership and the party cannot be preserved and the
question of facing any national crisis unitedly by the whole
people becomes endangered because, in its absence, no
sense of authority works and ultra-democratic trend and
tendency grow. As a result, instead of conducting the
revolutionary battles, the entire party runs the risk of
being reduced to a debating society at the cost of all its
activities. Therefore, no revolutionary party considers the
task of projecting the leader a useless task, but while doing
it they always remain vigilant and alert.

Nature of conflict between Mao and Liu

Secondly, various sorts of speculations are going on

centring round the question of the conflict over leadership
between Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi. The communist
cadres must have a clear understanding about this too.
Leaving aside the propaganda in the bourgeois press, even
the leadership of the CPC is admitting that some persons
in power like Liu Shaoqi have been gradually stepping
towards capitalism, even if unknowingly, by opposing the
proletarian revolutionary politics of the party. Moreover,
a careful examination of the contentions of these two
contending groups reveals that a trend of bureaucratic way
of functioning, just like that of the bourgeois political
leaders, was developing as a regular practice among many
of the leaders holding top posts both in the party and the
state. Since the successful conclusion of the Chinese
Revolution, Mao Zedong has been raising the slogan time
and again : ‘Let hundred flowers blossom and hundred
schools of thought contend’. But although he stressed it
repeatedly, it was not put into practice in the party life.
When he said, let hundreds of people think and
contemplate, he knew that this would encourage open
conflict and contradiction between different thoughts and
opinions, but he, at the same time, asserted that there was
nothing to be afraid of. Such conflicts and contradictions
were not only unavoidable but necessary and beneficial as
well. He reiterated this during the present Cultural
Revolution, too. The present leadership of China
maintains that if this process of struggle continues, then
not only the leaders and the rank and file of the party but
even the entire people would unite into a single organic
whole in different spheres of activities on the basis of a
common understanding up to a certain level. Otherwise, it
would be an unprincipled unity for some opportunistic
consideration or unity under compulsion which cannot
last long.

But unity achieved through this process of open conflicts

and contradictions between different thoughts and ideas
would be a stable unity. But in spite of all this education,
the leaders fell victim to bureaucratic style of work again
and again and reflected a typical apolitical attitude in their
day-to-day behaviour and activities. In the manner of
typical bureaucratic officers, these leaders follow the
routine of attending office in office hours, clearing files,
issuing orders, notices and circulars, attending meetings
to deliver lectures — and that is all. But the revolutionary
cadres are always told : ‘Behave like political workers,
impress upon the comrades the party instructions clearly
— guide them concretely, if necessary with illustrations, on
how to put the party decisions into practice’. But even after
all these, it has been observed that here there is practically
no reflection of it in the actual behaviour and conduct of
the leaders. The political behaviour of the leaders does not
reflect that minimum standard. Do not we have more or
less the same experience in our party? I have time and
again criticized our leaders and cadres for being victim of
bureaucratic style of work and what I meant by the term
‘bureaucratic’ was precisely this style of activity. Among
the Chinese leaders, this trend of bureaucratic functioning
was also growing in their day-to-day activities. Those
communists who move like the official bureaucrats, if they
do not reveal their identity as Marxist-Leninists, if their
party cards are anyway found missing from their pockets,
then it is difficult to distinguish them from the bourgeois
bureaucrats attending duties regularly, except when they
open their mouths in characteristic verbiage. But the
question is : why were these non-revolutionary trends and
tendencies growing in China in the working style of the
party? Why was the revolutionary outlook not being
reflected in the relationship between the leaders and the
cadres and why was a mechanical and stereotyped attitude
growing within the party life? What is the root cause
behind all these? The reason is: the struggle within the
country is no more an open confrontation and direct class
struggle. Nobody is going to overthrow them from power,
no more is the police forcibly taking them to prison. In
short, the old form of class struggle is no more there today.
The class struggle has assumed a new form, and has
become more and more subtle. But so far as the concept of
struggle is concerned, the old idea still prevails in them.
The reactionary ideas and thinking of the old society have
not been thoroughly wiped out from the minds of the
leaders, cadres and the people, on the one hand; rather the
bourgeois ideas, in the new condition, are infiltrating in
newer forms and in subtler ways while, on the other, with
the growing economic and political stability of the socialist
system, the sense of individual liberty is gradually tending
to assume the character of a sense of privilege. As a result,
conducting class struggle has become all the more difficult
today. The revolution, accomplishment of which once
seemed very difficult, has assumed a still more difficult
character in the present context. Mao Zedong himself
admitted this fact in his speeches and writings and said :
It is much more difficult than the revolution Beijing has
done previously. Because, the struggle had then been
direct and straight and the enemy was in the open and
known. They were then directly involved in the struggle.
But here, the enemy infiltrates stealthily, the party falls
victim to it unconsciously — today the struggle is against
all this. It is a struggle against the tendencies that grow
from within. Where the enemy is known, it does not pose
so much danger since it is then easier to detect and
conduct struggle against the enemy directly. But where the
enemy is within and enters stealthily, the struggle
becomes much more difficult. In the CPC, too,
bureaucratic style of functioning was growing and the
sense of individual freedom was tending to develop into a
sense of privilege. That these tendencies had grown very
strong within the CPSU is amply clear today. The
organizers of the present Cultural Revolution of China
hold that different types of counter-revolutionary trends
and tendencies are growing within their party too and they
charge that even some of the top ranking leaders are not
free from the pernicious influence of all these. So, all-
round criticisms are going on in that country. Extensive
debates are going on as to what should be the behaviour,
conduct and the mode of life of the communists. There is
an urge for change in all walks of life. As a result, this
Cultural Revolution would provide to those who
committed mistakes but are honest, who support
socialism and are willing to move along the path of
revolution, a chance to rectify themselves. And if the
struggle is conducted in this way to generate a sense of
partisanship, then those who would try to hide their true
colours and pose themselves as innocent victims and
hence not the real enemy of the people, would one day
expose themselves. In this way it would be clear whether
they are pretenders and are enemies, or have committed
mistakes from genuine confusions. This process, being
correct and scientific, will help to eliminate anti-party and
counter-revolutionary forces better. This is why the
Chinese leadership did not adopt, from the very beginning,
the policy of forcibly ousting the anti-party and counter-
revolutionary forces by using the state machine. Mainly
for two reasons they prefer to isolate these forces by
involving the people in a countrywide battle and evolving
thus a uniform opinion among them. First, this is
necessary because this very method of involving the
people in the struggle would minimize the possibility of
committing mistakes and, even if mistakes are committed
by some from genuine confusion, it would give them a
chance for their rectification as well. And secondly, when
on the basis of either unanimous or majority decision,
unity would be achieved through wider participation of the
people in a struggle in which conflicts and interaction of
diverse thinking and ideas take place — it would be a far
more stable unity than before and hence there would be no
apprehension among the people despite any disciplinary
actions ultimately taken against anti-party leaders and
cadres.

And this is why, when there is no doubt about the fact —

a point which the bourgeois world is admitting — that Mao
Zedong and his followers have been able to establish their
supremacy and control over the entire party, we find Liu
Shaoqi still at the helm of the state and enjoying all his
power and position as the head of the government.2
 If it was really a power conflict between Mao Zedong and
Liu Shaoqi as the speculation goes in the bourgeois press,
then Liu Shaoqi could have been very easily removed from
power through coercion. But they have not done so. And
why? First, this is not a power-conflict and obviously there
is no doubt today that the conflict going on between Mao
and Liu is one of political line and outlook. Secondly, the
CPC is not thinking in terms of removing anybody by
coercion. This leaves the ground for Liu Shaoqi to change
his political line through persuasion by ideological
struggle and join the mainstream. And if it so happens,
then we shall find Liu Shaoqi’s name in the first rank once
more.

Cultural Revolution helps augment production

At one stage, difference of opinion between Mao Zedong

and Zhou Enlai cropped up centring round certain aspects
of the Cultural Revolution and it seemed that at the initial
stage Zhou Enlai was opposed to extension of Cultural
Revolution to the industrial field. And at that time a debate
was conducted in the ideological field against this idea also.
And in course of that ideological struggle, those who were
opposed to carrying the Cultural Revolution to the
industrial sector lest it might hamper production were
ultimately proved to be wrong. Because, in order to
augment production, there is the necessity for Cultural
Revolution. Cultural Revolution does not hamper
production. Rather, Cultural Revolution aims at
completely removing the bourgeois fads from among the
working class, freeing production totally from the
influence of economism and casual attitude and saving
those who hold high administrative posts in industries and
factories from the pernicious effects of all this confused
thinking. So, the programme of Cultural Revolution
should by no means be opposed. Zhou Enlai realized this
afterwards and corrected himself — of course if it is not
surmised, as some are doing, that he was made to change
his views under duress. Again, many are speculating that
even though Zhou Enlai is acting as the next man to Mao
Zedong during the course of the Cultural Revolution, but
after Mao, he will take a different road like Khrushchev.
Because, in their opinion, this change of Zhou Enlai is just
a shrewd manoeuvre, a deception. Even if this happens in
future, I do not consider it proper to indulge in such
thinking. Because, to adopt such a method in analysing
events means to sink into bourgeois speculation instead of
following dialectical method of analysis. And if this
method of thinking persists, there will remain the danger
of sinking into speculations, one after another. Naturally,
I consider it dangerous to think like this because it is
subjective and hypothetical and is absolutely divorced
from reality. This can never be the correct process of
analysing things. Everything must be judged by the
yardstick of objective reality. Zhou Enlai has a glorious
revolutionary record and at present he is patronizing the
Cultural Revolution. Once the name of Zhou Enlai went
down in the list of the bourgeois speculators. But again,
they have brought his name up in the list. His name is
again among the two next to Mao — one is Lin Biao, the
other Zhou Enlai. Bourgeois speculators are doing much
exercise on the question of names of the leaders coming to
the forefront, or going down to the bottom. But it is
interesting that China is least concerned about all this.
Naturally, it would not at all be surprising if Mao Zedong
and Liu Shaoqi reach complete unanimity — about the
possibility of which I have mentioned earlier. However
much mechanical approach might have adversely affected
the struggle, it cannot be denied that the conflict was real
and genuine. That is why they do not want to give up the
struggle. But neither from the government nor from the
party are they allowing criticism against Liu Shaoqi by
name, and even in the midst of the waves of Cultural
Revolution, he has been provided with all protection and
security. So, from all these, what I feel is that the root
cause of the present conflict between Mao Zedong and Liu
Shaoqi lies in some genuine confusion of Liu over the
outlook and method of implementation of the political line
of the party.

Achieving unity — when possible?

Now, this confusion may be of two types. Maybe, Liu

Shaoqi does not differ on the fundamental political line
and outlook of the party but he considers the way it is
being implemented under the leadership of Mao Zedong
to be wrong. And secondly, it may be that on the
international questions, too, Liu Shaoqi has no basic
difference on questions over which the CPC is fighting
against the Soviet revisionism but he differs with Mao on
just the style and approach. Perhaps that is why he is being
named Khrushchev, modern Khrushchev — he is being
accused of having a leaning towards revisionism. At least,
from the articles and editorials appearing in the party
journals guided by the thoughts of Mao Zedong and the
way the party leadership is approaching the whole issue, it
appears to me that in all probability here lies the real
confusion. So, a struggle is going on. If the nature of
conflict with Liu Shaoqi is this, there is nothing to be afraid
of. He is forwarding his arguments on this, so also the
party is coming out with counter-arguments under Mao’s
leadership. If mechanical approach does not stand in the
way and blur the main object and issues involved in the
struggle then, no doubt, through this struggle there will be
clarity, and unity will be achieved.

Material incentive in socialist economy

But if the confusion is of a different nature, then it

becomes very serious. That is, if the difference is on the
base political line and outlook of the party as well as on the
main political line and approach pursued by the party in
the ideological struggle going on in the international
communist movement, then it is something different and
of fundamental nature. Moreover, it seems that there is a
basic difference on another question as well. That is, on
the question of a new type of economism and the policy of
‘material incentive’ under conditions of socialism. In the
period of socialist economic reconstruction, there is a
danger that a tendency of a new type of economism, of
hankering for material incentive and benefit may grow
among the common workers. In other words, to the
general workers, socialism comes to mean nothing else
than greater benefit and amenities. As a result, behind the
urge of a worker to produce more actually works his sense
of privilege and material benefit as, otherwise, the talk of
socialism or higher production has no meaning to him. In
socialism, the workers will automatically get its benefit
more and more with the growth of production and there
will be continuous uplift of the standard of living of the
working people. But to relate the question of enhancement
of production to personal benefit is to reflect a mentality
which is absolutely incompatible with the basic aim and
object of socialism. Such a mentality breeds a typical
individualistic and opportunistic trend among the workers.
So, the outlook and attitude of workers should be moulded
in such a way that they sincerely feel the necessity to
dedicate themselves to increasing production in the very
interest of advancement of their own country as well as of
the world proletarian revolution. Because, no doubt, the
unhampered development and progress of the country is
inseparably linked with the growth and advancement of
the international proletarian revolution, and on the
question of attainment
of these two depends the spiritual and material
progress of an individual. If this be the mode of thinking
and the bent of mind of the working class, then only, while
they take part in socialist construction, a sense of complete
dedication would grow and prevail among them and then
only the workers would be able to fight out casual and
apathetic attitude towards work and responsibility. It
means that when the sense of dedication is absent, it
breeds a kind of casual or callous attitude towards work, a
casual attitude which brings in its trail an urge for
individual privilege and a tendency to get more, even
though unreasonable. The workers being the sole
determinant in a socialist society, unless they are imbued
with the revolutionary consciousness, there is every
possibility that the bourgeois sense of individual right
would again rear its ugly head. It would again take deeper
roots in society under cover of new slogans and ultimately
the sense of freedom and individual liberty would be
reduced to a sense of privilege.

Due to a superficial knowledge of socialism and also due

to the influence of modern revisionism, a group of
socialists think that the main object of socialism is to
anyhow increase production. These so-called Marxists, in
utter disregard of the inherent internal contradiction and
the fundamental economic laws of socialist system, even
advocate introduction of policy of ‘material incentive’ to
gear up production. As a result, rate of production may be
boosted temporarily but in no time it may put at stake the
socialist economy and endanger the socialist system by
generating in all branches of production a speculative
trend and by bringing about anarchy in production. As the
aim of socialism is to ultimately create abundance in
production, these so-called Marxists vulgarize it by saying
that the working class wants to increase production for
individual benefit, both material and cultural. Naturally,
according to them, socialism will have no meaning to the
working class if it cannot provide them with more material
benefits in comparison to the advanced capitalist
countries. Under cover of this queer explanation of
socialism, the old sense of bourgeois individual freedom
and right makes its debut in a socialist society. It does not
and can never bring proletarian revolutionary dedication
among the working class.

Pernicious impact of economism

This economism that grows among the workers after

revolution is different from the economism that prevailed
among them before revolution. Distracting the working
class from proletarian revolutionary politics, economism
offers, before revolution, a scope to the bourgeois and
petty bourgeois parties to create cleavage among the
working class separating the rest from the fighting
section, and thereby creates confusion among the people
about the nobility of the revolutionary ideology. Neither
does it help the revolutionary consciousness to grow
among the workers, nor does it help the revolutionary
politics come to the forefront. The economism, in the
period after revolution, obstructs the workers from being
conscious of their responsibility as cadres of international
proletarian revolution, hinders their sense of obligation to
the society and dampens the urge for complete dedication
and sacrifice which is essential for the individual’s
freedom, growth and development. If there is no serious
blunder or shortcoming on the part of the leadership,
socialist economy is still sure to advance because of the
very inherent objective law of the socialist system. But it
will not generate, in that case, the cultural and political
inspiration among the workers that is so vitally necessary
to carry forward the advancement unhindered to its logical
goal. As a result, this economism in a socialist system is a
great obstacle in the way of identification of individual
interest with social interest. This economism-
individualism in a socialist system, which I have already
termed ‘socialist individualism’, helps strengthen such
attitude among the workers. One of the main objects of the
Cultural Revolution of China is to fight against this
tendency as well. Because, in order to further consolidate
their economy they will have to step forward from the
peasants’ commune to the workers’ commune.

And for that, this new type of individualism, a new type

of opportunism, based on the individual worker families
in the industrial field, will put a great obstacle to the
formation of the workers’ commune. So, in this phase of
economic development of the Chinese society, this too, is
a very important point.

Growth of individualism in socialist system hinders

ideological struggle

Zhou Enlai’s initial hesitant attitude to the question of

extending the Cultural Revolution to the industrial sector
is a clear indication that the influence of economism
worked to some extent in him, even if indirectly. Be that as
it may, Zhou Enlai was ultimately convinced that in the
interest of ensuring uninterrupted advancement of
production, extension of Cultural Revolution in the
industrial field was an indispensable necessity. Herein lies
the advantage of criticizing the defects of a person without
mentioning his name. But so far as Liu Shaoqi is
concerned it is clear that no such ideological unity with
him has yet been achieved. It may so happen that all
attempts for unity may ultimately fail. Now, if in this
struggle the political line of Mao Zedong becomes
ultimately victorious, it will mean fall of Liu Shaoqi. But if
unity is achieved in the long run then Liu Shaoqi’s name
will again come to the forefront, putting an end to all the
speculations in the bourgeois press. Then what would
those people say, who are now painting this struggle as a
power conflict between Mao and Liu and are making wild
speculations on it? They cannot find anything other than a
power conflict in such a great historic struggle. In this
struggle the conduct of both sides may suffer from
mechanical approach, and in fact it does. So far as I feel,
due to the low level of consciousness of the general
members of the party and the people, the standard which
is required for conducting ideological struggle, free from
all sorts of influences of individualism, is not there at
present. There is no denying the fact that the seed of
individualism is there at the bottom of the struggle. As a
result, both Mao and Liu may be influenced by this to some
extent. Trends and tendencies of individualism and cult of
personality create unnecessary complications in
ideological struggles and the results of the struggle depend,
to a very great extent, on the intensity of these trends and
tendencies of individualism. If the phenomenon of
individualism is intense and acute, then not only does the
relatively early and easy attainment of unity become
delayed, it may even create a complete rupture in the much
cherished unity. If the influence of individualism and
egocentricism goes beyond limit, then nothing is
impossible. But one thing is sure that it is not a power
conflict. It is a struggle between two opposite lines, two
methodological approaches.

Perhaps the fact of Mao Zedong’s emergence as a great

hero before the whole nation might have even hurt and
stirred up the personal ego of some individuals. This is not
at all unlikely. Those who once accepted Mao as their
leader, after themselves coming into leadership and falling
victim to individualism, they might have started thinking,
in what way are they inferior to Mao? Under cover of their
fight against the ‘cult of personality’ what they actually
want is their own popularity. If the mechanical attitude to
leadership persisting among the general members of the
party and the people is even unwittingly indulged in, then
Mao Zedong himself may one day fall victim to the cult of
personality. But here these are not the main points at issue.
Remember, these factors can only help complicate matters
— what could have been solved very easily may tend to
defy solution. As a result, these may rupture relations
between many. For example, many workers at different
levels have already left the party or been relieved of their
responsibilities — a fate which Liu Shaoqi or some other
groups may be awaiting. There may be a big purge in the
party. Again, it may so happen that by persuading the
majority and through a very negligible purge, the party
would be able to solve such a great problem very easily and
most successfully. If that happens — the probability being
high — there is nothing to be astonished at. The
probability lies in the very method adopted — that is the
method of involving the whole people in the vortex of the
Cultural Revolution.

Some faulty expressions

Thirdly, some defects and shortcomings have been

noticed in the approach in articles recently published in
some Chinese papers and you have some questions
regarding these too. It is true, there are defects in many of
their writings. But here you will have to take another point
into consideration. That is, all those who write these
articles are not of the same political standard and calibre.
It is but quite natural. Because, we should not forget that
every work is done as per some specific assignment in the
party. So, what happens then? One who is assigned the job
of writing an article does it, no doubt, on the basis of the
party line and thinking and he prepares it the way he has
understood the party line. Now, it is quite possible that
somebody else may detect a serious error of expression
later on. But by that time the article has already been
published. In such a case, the outsiders may take all that is
there in the article as party thought. Does not such a thing
happen? In our party, too, such things do happen
sometimes. It happens when the comrades who write for
party journals do not possess the minimum required
standard. But here, too, we must remember another point
— even those who possess this minimum required
standard, do not have equally powerful pens. One writes
very precisely and lucidly while another may be very
clumsy and stiff in his writing. Although it may appear to
be a little out of place here, still, for further clarification I
like to give you one example. A few years back, as you
know, a polemic on some fundamental ideological
questions was going on between Yugoslavia and China. I
supported the line, the opinion and arguments of the CPC
placed against the ideological line of Tito’s party. But I
have very carefully observed that though it was thoroughly
against the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, still, how
beautifully and precisely the Communist League of
Yugoslavia had placed its viewpoints in answering the CPC!

In my opinion, Kardelj is really the father of modern

revisionism — Khrushchev is nothing but his shadow. This
perverted theoretician has vulgarized and maligned
Marxism-Leninism. But there is no denying the fact that
he is highly equipped theoretically. That is why his art of
placing his viewpoints was more powerful than that of the
Chinese writers. Because, Kardelj himself wrote from
Yugoslavian side while from the Chinese side most
probably someone from the editorial board wrote all these.
All the members of the editorial board are not as highly
theoretically equipped as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or
Mao. This is naturally not possible. The question is not
that simple. But, of course, there is a minimum standard
of the Chinese writers and we should quite modestly
accept the fact that their minimum standard is higher than
that we are having at present. But it would be futile to
expect that there would be no mistakes in such critical
articles. There may be defects in their mode of
presentation and the approach may not always be precise
and scientific. I like to place one more point in this
connection. There is the problem of falling victim to
certain temptations. As, for example, the tendency of
bantering, using unnecessary invectives and harsh words
and even odd characterization often try to creep into
writings. These tendencies very often create a particular
mood in the writers which they enjoy and relish. So, the
fact remains that the writers very often fall victim to such
temptations. Not always can they keep themselves free
from it. Naturally, these writings very often lack the
psychological treatment necessary to be effective on the
followers of the opponents against whom the fight is
directed — keeping in view their mentality and stage of
development, the overall objective of world revolution and
the problems confronting international communist
movement. As a result, it causes much harm and in fact
some harm has already been done. Only he can write such
articles who has got a thorough control over his emotional
factors and who knows when and where emphasis has to
be given, when and where emotion is to be restrained and
how to control emotions and pattern arguments in order
to become meaningful and purposive. The members of the
editorial board must all be of such a high standard or else
all will be lost — it is wrong to harbour such an illusion.
This, of course, is another aspect of the problem.

Theoretical inconsistencies and inadequacies

Some aspects of theoretical weaknesses and

inadequacies in the Cultural Revolution of China have
come to our notice. I have some submissions —
observations and criticisms — fraternal criticisms to make.

In my opinion, a cause for apprehension would still be

there if these inadequacies and weaknesses in the realm of
theory as also the influence of mechanization in the
process of thinking and organizational practice of the
party are not removed in the near future. It is known to all
the communists that constant and continuous cult and
practice of revisionism-reformism in a socialist country
may lead one day to the restoration of capitalism. An
expression that such a change can take place even through
the process of evolution is found in the writings and
literature of the CPC. The CPC holds that regression to
capitalism from socialism in Soviet Russia is possible
through evolutionary process. Such an expression, in my
opinion, is wrong. One thing is sure that coming back to
capitalism from socialism is also a kind of qualitative
change of society. That cannot take place only through the
process of evolution. When restoration of capitalism
actually takes place, it must be kept in mind that the
change involves both the processes, the evolutionary
change as also the revolutionary, i.e., abrupt change,
indicating that there is a nodal point, a break, which
signifies nothing but a qualitative change. But because the
term ‘revolution’ is always associated with the concept of
social progress and advancement and, particularly in
social science, the term ‘revolution’ always connotes
progress, the term ‘revolutionary change’ should not be
used in this particular context of change from socialism to
capitalism. To the extent it is a qualitative change it is
definitely an abrupt change in the opposite direction, that
is a counter-revolutionary change. There is definitely a
nodal point that marks this abrupt change. In case of such
changes in society, the nodal point is not always so much
vivid. But because it is not so vivid, it cannot be construed
from this that such changes involving qualitative
transformation of one form of society into another can
take place only through the process of evolution. Therefore,
in the ultimate analysis, it is always a revolutionary change,
an abrupt change, coming as the culmination of
evolutionary changes. Now, in this particular context,
since the term ‘revolutionary change’ is not at all
appropriate, as it always connotes progress and
advancement of society, they could have easily called it a
“counter-revolutionary change following the process of
evolution”. Then there would have been no scope for
confusion over the term ‘evolution’. This clearly manifests
lack of clarity in their understanding. Had not this kind of
expression found place in the documents prepared by the
highest leadership of the party, I could have taken it as a
lapse due to lack of necessary caution on the part of writers.
Another kind of confusion might have contributed to such
a faulty expression. Since revolutionary change of society
for progress and advancement takes place through conflict
and open confrontation between the two opposite classes,
it does not necessarily mean that in case of counter-
revolutionary change, this equally holds good. It may so
happen that the revisionists after usurping the leadership
of the party may corrupt the revolutionary essence of
Marxism, communist outlook, code of conduct, behaviour
and practice — slowly, surreptitiously, through subtle
devices and polluting by degrees — and thereby degrade
the society to such an extent that Marxism-Leninism will
remain only in vocabulary, slogans and speeches — its soul
having been corroded completely, leading in reality to
substitution of capitalism for socialism. The entire
working class may fail to detect and resist this danger in
time due to their very low ideological, cultural and political
standard. This cannot happen overnight. With the long
and continuous practice of revisionism-reforminism, this
is not altogether impossible. But since this change has
taken place, if it takes place at all, not through conflict and
open confrontation, it will be definitely wrong to say that
this is a sequel to evolutionary change only.

So, in this transformation of society from socialism to

capitalism, there exist both the processes — evolutionary
and revolutionary, here counter-revolutionary, indicating
both continuity and break.

Mechanical concept of leadership

The emergence of Mao Zedong as the great leader of

Chinese Revolution is no doubt a historic event. History
has witnessed the emergence of great leaders to organize
revolution in each and every country even in the period of
classical bourgeois democratic revolutions in the
international arena. In the era of proletarian revolution,
too, we are witnessing today the emergence of great
leaders in those countries where revolution has been
successful under the leadership of the working class. But
it must be clearly understood that the historic necessity of
the emergence of great leaders and their leading role are
not one and the same in bourgeois democratic revolution
and proletarian revolution; they are fundamentally and
qualitatively different in character from each other. And
you must understand this difference very clearly.

Since the aim and object of bourgeois democratic

revolution was to establish individual and private
ownership and control over the means of production and
for that matter it was a revolution for the establishment of
individual rights and development of individuals, its
character of leadership always remained individual in
spite of the model bourgeois democratic nature of the
Constitution of the then period. As a result, individual
leadership in such cases was, as if something imposed
from above, directing the collective.

But since the aim and object of socialist revolution is to

establish social ownership and control in place of private
and individual ownership and control over the means of
production
by the people under the leadership of the working cl
ass,
the concept of working class leadership being the refl
ection of social ownership over the means of production
has developed as ‘collective leadership’ for the first time in
human history.

So, collective leadership in the working class party

emerges as the collective knowledge of all the members of
the party through the process of conflict and interaction of
their thoughts and ideas, and the best personification of
this collective leadership through an individual constitutes
the distinctive feature of the role of leadership of an
individual in the present era of proletarian revolution.

So, this is not at all a case of imposing Mao Zedong as

the leader over other leaders and workers of the party and
the people. But, strangely enough, most of the communist
parties of the world, not excluding the CPC, have failed to
grasp the significance of the personified expression of the
collective leadership of the Chinese Revolution in the
person of Mao Zedong and naturally their concept of
leadership, still today, suffers from mechanization.

It is true that the common people may not clearly

understand today the theoretical aspect of this question of
concretized expression of collective leadership through an
individual. Naturally, there will remain in their activities
and behaviour an element of blind emotion and faith as
well as a trend of mechanical allegiance to individual
leadership. But the theoretical weakness of the Cultural
Revolution of China lies in the fact that even those leaders
who are accepting and propagating ‘Mao Zedong Thought’
as the gospel truth are not themselves clear as to why they
are doing so, nor have they been able to provide the
theoretical foundation of collective leadership as being the
concretized and personified expression through an
individual leader to the world at large.

Of late, whenever the Mao Zedong leadership has been

charged with practising cult of individual, they have been
heard saying : ‘‘As there can be no war without a General
so there can be no struggle without a leader — where is the
cult of individual in it?’’ But to argue like this means a
failure to provide the theoretical basis of this phenomenon
of concretized expression of collective leadership.

The revolutionary splinter group inside the Soviet Union,

opposed to the revisionist Soviet leadership, has remarked
in their main political documents, first published from
Paris, while answering this question : “Yes we accept Mao
and Hoxha as our leaders. We are organized under the
leadership of these two Generals. Because, in wars we need
Generals. We want to fight and there can be no fight
without Generals. The bogey of ‘cult of personality’ or all
that is a bourgeois propaganda”.

Concrete expression of collective leadership

The matter is not that simple; such an over-simplified

understanding about collective leadership will surely give
birth to such a situation that would weaken the collective
leadership as well as ideological-political struggle in the
party. If this be the level of understanding then the object
of the Cultural Revolution which was organized with a
view to continuously uplifting their revolutionary
consciousness and building up character of the party
workers, the rank and file and the people, will not only be
defeated but it will create newer problems and obstacles
even after completion of the immediate tasks of the
Cultural Revolution.

So, the most essential thing that the Chinese leadership

ought to have done, in this phase of Cultural Revolution,
before projecting Mao Zedong as ‘God’ to the nation and
the people, was to free at least the party from all sorts of
erroneous conceptions about authority. They should have
established on firm theoretical foundation the historic
necessity as also the dialectical process of the emergence
of collective leadership in the concretized and personified
expression through an individual in a working class party,
which is distinctly different from the conception of God in
idealist philosophy, the conception of bourgeois individual
leadership or any kind of blind authoritarianism. The CPC
has not yet been able to do it. It seems that their
understanding is confined to the recognition of the
practical necessity of projecting Mao Zedong as the leader
before the nation. As a result, they are using the name of
Mao Zedong quite mechanically. Their point of logic is like
this : ‘So long as Mao Zedong is correct, what’s the harm
in it? He is providing us with correct leadership, so we are
following him. After all, the leader is a necessity’.

But it is not proper to view this question in this way; it

has other aspects too. I do also appreciate the need of
projecting Mao Zedong as authority before the Chinese
people. The name Mao Zedong has its electrifying effect on
the Chinese masses. It is a very powerful instrument in the
hands of the CPC to rouse the people. They can ill-afford
to discard it. There may be difference in degree, but the
necessity of projecting the authority in organizing
revolution in different countries will appear in history
time and again so long as the level of consciousness of each
and every individual of society does not reach an adequate
standard. That the necessary and adequate ideological
standard may not always be maintained in a party at the
time of revolution or after it, is quite obvious. It was our
experience of the Russian Revolution, and we are
experiencing the same in the Chinese Revolution. The
available writings and literature of the CPC bear testimony
to this fact.

True, this process, being prompted by practical

considerations of projecting Mao’s name and authority,
has proved very much useful to them, for the time being,
in rousing the people.

But they have not yet succeeded in providing a scientific

formulation on the basis of the dialectical science of logic,
reasoning and historical facts on the question of
emergence of collective leadership.

It must be kept in mind that so long as the emergence of

a leader as the concretized and personified expression of
collective leadership does not take place, all tall claims of
collective leadership would, in reality, mean nothing but
formal democratic leadership. Scientifically speaking, a
party is able to give birth to collective leadership only
when the collective thinking and knowledge of all the
members of the party is concretized and personified in a
most comprehensive, developed and finest way through a
leader and this, in fact, is the true and concretized
expression of collective leadership of that party.

Only at such a stage of development of collective

leadership can a party eliminate the tendencies of ultra-
democracy arising from the hidden influence of
individualism that is very often found in a party and can
give defeat to all such trends and tendencies of
individualism appearing in the garb of tall slogans of
democracy, which are alien to all principles of proletarian
democracy. But the writings of the CPC reflect, still today,
some commonplace understanding about collective
leadership. They still cling to the idea, in tune with formal
democratic understanding, that the majority decision of
the Central Committee is the collective leadership of the
party. They have not been able to develop the concept of
collective leadership further than this. If the
understanding about collective leadership remains at this
stage in the background of historic emergence of Mao
Zedong as the great leader, then, not to speak of ordinary
workers, even the leaders would fall victim to blind and
mechanical practices. If those leaders and active workers
who are conducting the present struggle remain for long
such victims of mechanical concept of leadership, then
even after such a magnificent Cultural Revolution, all evils
of authoritarianism would rear their ugly heads, one after
another, in the Chinese society and in the party. It is
therefore high time they were alert.

Mechanical use of quotations

Recently, a craze has been discernible among the

workers of the CPC and the Chinese people of using
quotations in general, and those of Mao Zedong in
particular. It is true, sometimes it becomes necessary to
quote from authorities to make others grasp the truth.
Nobody can deny its necessity. But lots of problems will be
created and in fact have already been created if quotations
are used blindly and indiscriminately without thoroughly
realizing the significance of the quotations, that is, why,
under what circumstances, in the face of what problems
the particular observation was made. As, for example, in
the document of the Eleventh Plenary Session, those
persons in authority who are opposing Cultural
Revolution have been criticized for giving the directive —
‘‘All workers of Cultural Revolution must abide by the
decision of the party body”. Criticizing this directive, it has
been observed that : “It would add to the blindness and
servile attitude of the general workers. Because, Mao
Zedong has said that every communist should use his own
head”. This way of arguing may, of course, satisfy the
immediate object of their struggle against the leading
personalities opposing the party, but it is dangerous to
argue like this since it can one day bring about a disaster
in the inner life of the party. All quotations must be used
in their concrete context. But this quotation has been used
out of context. This quotation has sought to challenge such
a directive of the party body to follow which is a must for
any democratically centralized party in order to conduct
its day-to-day activities since it has been used without
caring a bit for the concrete context in which, or to reflect
which truth, this observation has been made. Since all
these were not elaborately discussed — that is, what was
the concrete situation created in the internal organization
of the party bodies that necessitated the defiance of such a
directive by the followers of the revolutionary line of Mao
Zedong and that, through bold defiance was reflected the
real consciousness, ethical standard and sense of
discipline of the genuine communists — use of this
quotation of Mao may encourage among the communist
workers an unethical and ultra-democratic tendency in
future. Indulgence in unprincipled and ultra-democratic
behaviour for satisfying an immediate interest, even if
under the slogan of fighting blind sense of discipline and
dogmatism, is surely alien to the principle of Marxist-
Leninist sense of discipline and organization.

If, taking advantage of their party position, persons in

the leadership use this principle of party discipline that all
workers of Cultural Revolution must abide by the decision
of the party body with the ulterior object of stifling the
Cultural Revolution, organized on the basis of
revolutionary political line of the party, then bold and
courageous struggle must be conducted against them. The
quotation of Mao Zedong has its utility only if it is used in
the context of a concrete situation with a view to
developing a correct understanding about the sense of
discipline and the question of allegiance to party bodies.
Where the struggle against the leadership is of
fundamental character, and where the struggle has been
initiated and permitted to continue by the highest
leadership of the party, then if a section of the leaders,
taking advantage of their party position, wants to stifle the
very struggle under cover of the principle ‘all must abide
by the decision of party body’ — they really aim at
developing a kind of vested interest of leadership and
sustaining blind allegiance and servility among the
workers. If the quotation of Mao Zedong had been used
making clear to the people this specific background, I
would have nothing to object. But the manner in which it
is being used surely suffers from mechanization in
approach — maybe, today it is going in their favour. But if
it is understood mechanically, the same logic may be used
by the opponents to incite the people against the
leadership. Naturally, there is danger in it. What is the real
object of this intense struggle unleashed against the
opponents through Cultural Revolution? The main object
of this struggle is to reach unity and develop uniformity of
thinking among ninetyfive per cent of the party members
and the people. This precisely means that they are aiming
at establishing centralism and strengthening it further. It
is with this object of developing a higher form of
centralism within the party and in the relationship
between the party and the people that this unique, gigantic
and complex struggle has been launched. It is, therefore,
unwise to do anything only with an eye to the immediate
interest. Let us take, for example, another observation of
Mao : “The citizens should know and the soldiers should
know and work”. It means, for the citizens it would suffice
only to know. But only they are soldiers who know and
work, who act. This point is not at all new, but what a
beautiful expression! The citizens, that is the common
people should know, even if superficially, the theory of
revolution and the revolutionary movement. All do not
take active part in revolutionary movements. But as they
come to know the theory of revolution superficially, they
become, no doubt, passive supporters of revolution. They
only know and understand superficially — they do not act.
But since an inherent process is at work in their knowledge
and superficial understanding, they become passive
supporters of revolution. But others who take active part
in the struggle — Mao Zedong has termed them as soldiers.
They should know theories in such a way that they can
really apply them in practice. Here, the term ‘to know’ has
been used in the sense of real knowledge. The whole thing
has been put so beautifully that the word ‘to know’ carries
two different connotations representing two different
levels of knowledge. One is superficial knowledge and the
other the real knowledge. But due to the bad habit of using
quotations blindly without knowing their import, many
people think that a man can grasp theory even without
taking active part in the struggle, because, Mao has said
that the ‘citizens should know and the solders should know
and work’. So, where lies the difficulty in knowing theory
even without taking active part in the struggle or putting
in any work? Naturally, many will, in that case, consider
themselves Marxist-Leninists, though not soldiers,
without actively associating themselves with any struggle.
These gentlemen, knowing Marxism-Leninism without
struggle, would assume the leadership over the real
soldiers, that is the party workers, and lord it over them.
Naturally, what kind of trouble and chaos it may cause if
such a beautiful expression is not understood properly!
That is why nothing should be understood or quoted out
of context. These expressions are quite logical and
effective in the concrete conditions and if applied correctly
and in the right place, they would yield good results. What
reflects truth in a particular context and in a given
condition does not necessarily reflect the objective reality
in another context and in a different condition. And here I
close my discussion regarding the misuse of quotations.

Failure to conduct theoretical struggle

Another serious shortcoming of Cultural Revolution in

the matter of conducting ideological-cultural struggle has
come to our notice, and this is very important. If the
leadership cannot get over these weaknesses and
shortcomings in conducting theoretical and ideological
struggles, then the apprehension of the reappearance of
the trend of revisionism in future, which they are
attempting to weed out from social life, will remain in spite
of the attainment of some immediate objectives of the
Cultural Revolution at present.

Through this Cultural Revolution they are trying to hold

aloft the victorious flag of proletarian revolutionary
politics fighting out completely the ideas and concepts of
the past, freeing the society from the pernicious influences
of bourgeois thoughts and ideas, and the sense of
bourgeois individualism in particular. They are no doubt
conducting struggles against the influences of bourgeois
and old reactionary thoughts, ideas and culture which still
prevail in the party and social life, but have not yet been
able to present a clear and comprehensive outline as to the
content and character of proletarian culture. They have
not yet been able to provide any theoretical formulation,
confirmed by history and social science, as to the
fundamental difference between the moral values of
bourgeois humanism and proletarian culture. True, they
are speaking of proletarian humanism as against
bourgeois humanism, but a careful study would reveal that
their struggle is in the main directed against bourgeois
humanist ideology and political thoughts, but not so much
against bourgeois culture. In the realm of sense of values
in life and concept of morality, they have not been able to
establish the moral and ethical values of proletarian
culture as against bourgeois humanist values. As a result,
at this stage of development of the Chinese society, the
theories and approach that they are presenting in
conducting the ideological struggle are quite inadequate to
free the society from the evil effects of individualism. The
problems with which the Chinese society is confronted
today have a new aspect. This is precisely that growing
trend aimed at reducing the sense of individual freedom
and liberty, individuality and emancipation of the
individual to individual privileges and vulgar
individualism with the attainment of more and more
stability in economic and political spheres in the socialist
society, which I have already termed as ‘socialist
individualism’, meaning a new kind of individualism in
socialist society. Naturally, mere reiterations of the old
theories, differing only in language, will not help eliminate
the influence of vile individualism from the society and the
people. With the passing of this phase, the present phase
of Cultural Revolution, stability will come. Again a wave of
struggles followed by a period of stability will appear in
succession. And during every such period of stability this
new kind of individualism will be gathering in strength
unnoticed and is sure to affect the party and the leadership.
Even today, the ideological appeals of the CPC that have
been found effective in rousing and inspiring the people
are essentially based on the spirit of self-sacrifice founded
on the bourgeois humanist values, that is to say,
surrendering self-interest to the interest of society and
revolution and fulfilling social responsibilities — and
nothing else. The principal tenor of this appeal is attuned
to bourgeois humanism. They possess no other higher and
more developed ideological weapon, higher ethical and
moral concepts of proletarian culture for rousing and
inspiring the people. They are still attempting to lead the
masses with the same old sense of moral and ethical values
and the old quotations of Mao Zedong. The writings of
Mao Zedong had proved quite adequate to face and tackle
the complexities and problems of class struggle in the
background of backwardness of the Chinese society that
existed before the revolution and even for a certain period
after the revolution.

So, the writings of Mao Zedong have been found

inspiring to those who are fighting in the jungles of
Vietnam against imperialism or even to us, considering
the present relatively backward stage of class struggle in
our country. But much of the old teachings of Mao Zedong
lose their bearing, significance and impact on those
communists of the new generation who are living today at
a relatively higher stage of economic and industrial
development in the socialist society. To them, therefore,
many of the old teachings of Mao Zedong have, in that
sense, become obsolete and exhausted to some extent. So,
in the present socialist society of China, it is incumbent on
the leadership to present anew and clearly to the
communists and the people at large what should be the
essence of proletarian moral values and culture and what
should be its content. In order to imbue the communists
and the progressive individuals of those countries which
have relative economic stability and those bourgeois
democratic countries where the sense of individual
freedom has already been reduced to individual privileges,
it is essential to show the historical limitations of the
bourgeois humanist values and wherein lies its reactionary
role as well as what should be the essence of proletarian
moral values and culture.

Old standard of communist values now inadequate

I have already pointed out that the ideal of surrendering

the individual’s interest to social interest, adjustment of
individual necessities with those of the society is nothing
different from the ideals of bourgeois humanist values. Up
till now, the highest standard of communist moral values
was considered to have been reflected in this, and only
they were considered to be the real communists who were
able to surrender unconditionally and happily the
individual interest to social interest, place the cause of
revolution and party above all and subordinate individual
interest to the cause of revolution and party. And
in Communist Education by Kalinin, this was considered
to be the highest standard of communist consciousness.
Also in the book How To Be A Good Communist written
by Liu Shaoqi — although of late this book is being severely
criticized and discarded, but once it was approved by the
Central Committee of the CPC and considered a highly
acclaimed document — this has been regarded as the
highest communist standard. But this cannot be
considered as the adequate standard for the leading
communists in the context of newer complexities of
present-day life. Because, it is found that living under the
exploitative capitalist system, the concept of freedom and
individualism is being reduced to individual privileges on
a wide scale and the individual’s indifferent attitude to
social problems is on the increase daily. After bourgeois
sense of right of equality being really established and the
individual freedom and individuality being freed from the
bourgeois and feudal repression in socialist society, an
individual is enjoying more and more freedom and
privileges. But even in a socialist society, as the state still
exists as an instrument of coercion, man’s struggle for
emancipation has entered into a new historical phase.
Consequently, unless a correct theoretical analysis and
understanding confirmed by the law of historical
development is provided as to what stands as the
stumbling block in the way of man’s emancipation today,
even the communists who are enjoying more and more
facilities and amenities in the socialist society, may reduce
the sense of individual freedom and liberty to a privilege
again. So, sufficient light must be thrown on the newer
problems confronting man’s struggle for emancipation in
the socialist society.

On withering away of state

The contradiction that exists between the individual

interest and the social interest is antagonistic in nature. So
long as antagonistic contradictions between the individual
and the state, on the one hand, and between the individual
interest and social interest, on the other, remain, the state
will not wither away, i.e., it will not disappear even after
the problems relating to production and other issues have
been resolved. The state, even though it is a socialist state,
is after all an instrument of coercion. A bourgeois state
differs from a socialist state in the sense that while the
former is a coercive instrument to curb the interest of
ninetynine per cent of the people of the country to protect
the interest of one per cent, the latter is a coercive
machinery that frustrates the counter-revolutionary
attempts and reactionary activities of the one per cent to
safeguard the interest of ninetynine per cent of the society.
And so long as the state exists as a reflection of this
antagonistic contradiction, even in socialism the
individual must have to submit to the social interest, and
the trend of revolt against the repressive character of the
socialist state would appear repeatedly in individuals and,
for this, the social objective would suffer time and again.
Time and again the individual would revolt and his
indifferent attitude towards social problems would grow
more and more. As a result, the appeal of the nobility of
communist ideology and the power of communist
dedication would lose their attraction, or it would lead to
the trend of liberalization. In other words, more and more
demands for greater individual freedom and rights would
be raised. And if this process continues, then this would
give birth to revisionism and that would only help in the
restoration of capitalism.

The problem is to be viewed in a different way. It is to be

understood that in socialism, right is not to be wrested
from anyone, i.e., the question of achieving freedom or
acquiring rights fighting against any alien ruling class no
more arises in the socialist society. Because of the
continuance of class struggle in the socialist society, the
oppression by the state still remains necessary to some
extent — mainly to curb the conspiratorial activities of the
dispossessed bourgeoisie and the vile self-centred
individualistic activities of certain individuals that stand
in the path of development of individual’s real freedom
and complete emancipation with the gradual development
of the socialist social system. The problem is not that any
alien class is oppressing the people to exploit them. The
matter is not such at all. In the socialist society of today, it
is the old bourgeois concept of individual freedom and
mental make-up that stands in the way of conducting a
new struggle for the individual’s freedom and
emancipation at this new stage. And this old mental make-
up is obstructing the individual necessity and individual
interest from merging and becoming identified with the
social necessity and social interest. At this new stage of
social development, this stands as the main obstacle in the
way of the individual’s emancipation. And if this persists,
class struggle would not cease completely even after the
disappearance of class as an economic category and
because of the evil effect of vile individualism, the state
would not wither away. As a result, the individual would
not be completely free from coercion of the state. Because,
so long as the state exists — it exists with its coercive
character in whatever form it may be.

Wherein lies emancipation of individual

So, while conducting the struggle for the complete

victory of socialism, the main object of the struggle for the
emancipation of the individual should be to transform the
antagonistic nature of contradiction existing between the
individual necessity and social necessity into a non-
antagonistic one. It is only by achieving a complete success
in this struggle through cultural revolution that a basic
and qualitative transformation in the content and outlook
of the individual’s desire and its fulfillment would take
place. After passing through successive stages of cultural
revolution, when the socialist society reaches such an
advanced stage, then and then only can the state wither
away. Then only man would be free from all sorts of social
coercion. So, it is obvious that the individual’s struggle for
emancipation has reached a new and complex height and
has assumed a new character in the socialist society
where to resolve this problem, a more intense and
arduous struggle is to be conducted for complete
identification of the self-interest with the interest of
society through unflagging dedication and constant
vigil. Hence, it is a new standard of ethics and human
values, a level that is completely and basically different
from and higher than the level of the bourgeois humanist
values which so long have been applied in practice to
inspire and attract the workers and cadres in the
communist movement. So far, the standard of morality
which worked in proletarian revolutionary politics was
that the individual interest must be subordinated to the
greater cause of social interest. But if the level of
consciousness remains the same in the present new and
completely changed situation of socialist social system,
then it is impossible to achieve complete dedication and
arrest the trend of individualism. If the standard of
communist morality is allowed to remain static at this
point, then the trend and tendency of individualism would
certainly continue to remain within the society despite
pious wishes and talks on proletarian cultural revolution
or merely recognizing the necessity of continuously lifting
proletarian politics towards its revolutionary
transformation. The influence of ego and bourgeois
individualism, in some form or other, would be at work in
the society so long as the vanity and mental complex of
self-sacrifice would be there. So, the mental complex of
self-sacrifice should be lifted and transformed, yielding
place to real recognition of social necessity.

So, from the discussions we have had so far, it would be

clear how subtly, surreptitiously and under newer garbs,
the old bourgeois thoughts and ideas are working within
the socialist society. The Chinese leadership, in my
opinion, while fighting individualism, has moved close to
grasping the root cause of the problem. But till now, they
have not succeeded in providing a clear and precise
theoretical basis of the problem I have discussed so far.

Call to remove theoretical weaknesses

 First of all, the whole problem is to be grasped
conceptually, giving it a firm theoretical basis. And
thereafter, a countrywide powerful movement has got to
be developed centring round this new concept of
communist morality. But the Cultural Revolution of China
has not yet been able to take up this problem in this light.
The object of the Cultural Revolution in China is to fight
and eradicate that very trend of bourgeois individualism,
falling victim to which some of the leaders and workers are
taking to the capitalist road, behaving bureaucratically,
reflecting in their behaviour the trend of economism,
following the revisionist outlook and path and placing the
importance of arms and weapons above unity on the basis
of proletarian revolutionary consciousness within the
army. The object of this Cultural Revolution is, therefore,
to create such a condition that the entire Chinese nation
can stand as ‘one man’ against all adversaries and cope
with all the problems confronting their society by
eradicating and freeing the people from the influence of
these evils. The immediate objective of the Cultural
Revolution will be fulfilled, for the present, with the
completion of these tasks. But the present programme of
Cultural Revolution will not be able to free the party
completely from the danger of reappearance of
revisionism in future. That the individual’s struggle for
emancipation enters a new and complex height in a
socialist society — they have not been able to correctly
grasp the nature of this particular phenomenon and give it
a theoretical basis. Because of this, they have failed to
incorporate this theoretical understanding as the focal
point of the Cultural Revolution to inspire at least the
cadres and the rank and file of the party in their struggle
to raise their level of consciousness to a higher sense of
responsibility to the society. Only if a cultural movement
throughout the length and breadth of the country can be
released on the sound basis of the above theoretical
understanding, this realization would dawn upon them
and herein lies the real emancipation of mankind. This is
one of the fundamental weaknesses of the present Cultural
Revolution.

If this weakness persists, then although the present

problems confronting the Cultural Revolution would no
doubt be resolved, and the immediate tasks ahead
achieved, but so many other issues posed by the Cultural
Revolution would remain unresolved. For example, the
mechanical concept about leadership would continue to
exist and not be fought out. Moreover, the reason as to why
the tendency of individualism is gaining in strength — they
have not yet been able to comprehend that philosophically
and theoretically, nor have they been able to place their
basic formulation about or pinpoint the character of
individualism, that is, the phenomenon of individualism
in a socialist society and, finally, they have not released, on
the basis of a correct understanding, an all-out struggle
embracing the leaders as well as the workers.

Notes

1. Afterwards, this speech was adopted in its entirety by

the Central Committee at its session held on 25 and 26
February, 1969.

2. Comrade Ghosh delivered this speech on the 27th

October, 1967. Till then Liu Shaoqi was at the helm of the
state. Later on when this speech was published as a
booklet on the 6th October, 1970, after being adopted by
the Central Committee, Liu Shaoqi had already been
removed from that post. And afterwards he was expelled
from the party.
Shibdas Ghosh Internet Archive | Marxism and
Anti-Imperialism in India