Quotabik Quotes: ,

Pravda Assails Khrushchev, Lays Down Line In an unusual half-page article on its front page,

Pravda of Oct. 17 lays down what in the headline it calls “The Firm Leninist General Line of the CPSU.” The editorial in the official organ of the Soivet Commu- nist Party came three days after Nikita S. Khrushchev was removed from power by a plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and Leonid I. Brezhnev* was named Party First Secretary and Alexei N. Kosygin Premier of the Soviet Union.

The editorial, which nowhere refers to Khrushchev by name but which was widely interpreted as being obtusely critical, reads in part as follows:

“The general line of the Party in the area of foreign policy is the struggle for peace and international secur- ity and the realization of the principle of peaceful co- existence of countries with different social systems advanced by V. I. Lenin. . . The CPSU is carrying high the great banner of international solidarity, winning through this a deep respect, confidence and authority among Communists and vast masses of working people of the whole world. . .

“Our Party, just as before, will continue to lead the active line for convocation of the international confer- ence of all Communist parties to discuss the actual prob- lems of the struggle for peace, democracy, national in- dependence and socialism, for the strengthening of the unity of Communist and workers’ movements on the stable principles of proletarian internationalism. . .

“In the period of the extensive building of commu- nism . . . the role and meaning of the Communist Party grows, both as the leading and directing force of Soviet society. The responsibility of all of its organizations for the successful fulfillment of the problems of agricul- tural and cultural construction is raised. The intensifi- cation of p&y leadership in all areas of economy and culture is the basis of success of our whoe great cause. . .

The Leninist Party is an enemy of subjectivism and haphazardness in the building of communism. Hair- brained schemes, premature conclusions and hurried decisions and actions cut off from reality, bragging and idle talk, passion for administration, reluctance to take into consideration what science and practical experience have already discovered, are alien to it. The building of communism is a live work, a creative work, and it doesn’t tolerate bureaucratic methods, personal decis- ions, and disregard for the practical experience of the masses. . .

Life and the activity of the Party is determined by those principles and norms which V. I. Lenin has worked out, which have been checked and confirmed and enriched by historic experience of many decades. Collective leadership is the most important of these

*A biography of Brezhnev, “Brezhnev: KbrushchEv’s New Heir Apparent,” was carried in Communist Affairs, Vol. 2, No. I (Jan.- Feb. 1964).

II 4 JULY-AIJGIJST,~~~~

principles; it is the tried weapon, the greatest political property of our party. . . Only by relying on this prixi- ciple can one analyse correctly the situation, sanely, objectively, and without conceit estimate the achieved successes, notice the shortcomings and eliminate them completely in time.

The ceaseless observation of the principle of collec- tive leadership is the first and the necessary condition of the implementation of the lnain demand which V. I. Lenin put forth to the workers of the Party. . . In carry- ing out its general line the Party relentlessly and con- tinually was and is against the ideology and the prac- tice of the cult of personality, which is foreign to Marx- ism-Leninism, foreign to the very nature of our socialist makeup. The Party, in all its activity, relies on Leninist principles of Party and government leadership.” (Em- phasis added.)

Chinese Denounce Khrushch6v as Phony The editorial departments of Jen-min Jih-pao and

Hung-chi (respectively, the official daily newspaper and theoretical periodical of the Chinese Communist Party) on July 13 published the ninth comment (well over 20,000 words in length) on the open letter of the CC. of C.P.S.U., under the title, “On Khrushchgv’s Phony Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World.” The article reads in part, as follows:

Khrushchev has carried out a series of revisionist policies serving the interests of the bourgeoisie and rapidly swelling the forces of capitalism in the Soviet Union. On the pretext of “combating the personality cult,” Khrushchev has defamed the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system and thus in fact paved the way for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. . .

Khrushchev has substituted “material incentive” for the socialist principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.“. . Khrushchev sabotages the socialist planned economy, applies the capitalist principle of profit, develops capitalist free competition and undermines socialist ownership by the whole people.

Khrushchev attacks the system of socialist agricul- tural planning, describing it as “bureaucratic” and “unnecessary.” Eager to learn from the big proprie- tors of American farms, he is encouraging capitalist management, fostering a kulak economy and under- mining the socialist collective economy.

Khrushch& is peddling bourgeois ideology, bour- geois liberty, equality, fraternity and humanity, in- culcating bourgeois idealism and metaphysics and the reactionary ideas of bourgeois individualism, hu-

21

ma&m and pacifism among the Soviet people, and debasing socialist morality. . .

Under the slogan of “peaceful co-existence,” KhrushchGv has been plotting with U.S. imperial- ism, wrecking the socialist camp and the interna- tional communist movement, opposing the revolu- tionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations, practicing great-power chauvinism and national ego- ism and betraying proletarian internationalism. . .

In the Soviet Union at present, not only have the new bourgeois elements increased in number as never before, but their social status has fundamentally changed. . . In short, Khrushchev’s slogan of basic- ally building a communist society within 20 years in the Soviet Union is not only false but also reactionary.

Thus it can be seen that KhrushchiZv’s “commu- nism” is indeed “goulash communism,” the “com- munism of the American way of life” and “commu- nism seeking credits from the devil”. . . There is nothing new about such “communism.” It is simply another name for capitalism. . .

Mongolians Condemn Maoist Chauvinism According to Ulan Bator radio broadcast of July 31,

1964, the M.P.R.P. (Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party) Central Committee sent a letter dated June 12, 1964 to the C.C.P. (Chinese Communist Party), which said in part:

We consider it our duty to state that the current reactionary and antisocialist course of the C.C.P. leaders, if they do not renounce this course, not only can arrest the socialist advancement of the great Chi- nese people, but under certain conditions, can also seriously imperil its revolutionary achievements. . . It is perfectly clear that an ancient nationalism bor- dering upon racism, militant great state chauvinism, and an unprincipled attitude toward Marxism-Lenin- ism are the basis of the theory and practice of the Chinese schismatics.

Chinese Throw KhrushchZv’s Words Back at Him On August II the first volume of a collection of

“Khrushch~v’s Statements” in Chinese, compiled and published by the Shih-chieh Chih-shih (World Knowl- edge) Publishing House of Peking, went on sale throughout Continental China. The fast volume covers the period lgp-41. The entire collection consists of g8 speeches, articles, reports and letters by Khrushch&v between 1932 and 1953. The purpose of this publica- tion is admittedly to expose Khrushchgv as “the biggest revisionist” of our times by comparing his current ut- terances with what he had said prior to becoming the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Ex- posing “this big conspirator, careerist and double-faced hypocrite in all his ugliness” in this compilation of Khrushch$v’s own statements, the publisher’s note ex- plains:

22

Yesterday, using the most obsequious language, he fervently extolled Stalin as ‘the father of all the peo- ples of the Soviet Union;’ today, in the language of the Trotskyites, he maliciously vilifies Stalin as a ‘murderer’ and ‘idiot.’ Yesterday by his extravagant words and actions, he enlarged the scope of suppres- sion of counter-revolutionaries and vowed that he would physically annihilate all counter-revolution- aries without exception and ‘scatter their ashes to the winds;’ today, with inveterate hatred, he is do- ing his uunost to defame the suppression of counter- revolutionaries in the Soviet Union and besmirch Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Yesterday, he condemned Tito as ‘direct agent of imperialism’ and ‘contemptible turncoat;’ today, he fraternizes with Tito, regarding Tito as his own flesh and blood . . . From this, people can see what a sycophant Khrushchev was when Stalin was alive and how many fine words Khrushchev used to dis- guise himself in order to worm his way into the con- fidence of the Soviet Party and people; and, after he usurped the leadership of the Soviet Party and State, how promptly he has, in the name of opposing Stalin, turned against Marxism-Leninism, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Is it not yet clear what role KhrushchGv has played?

Russian Writers Condemn ‘Peking Adventurers’ Literaturnuya Gazeta, official organ of the U.S.S.R.

Union of Writers, in its issue of September 8 makes it clear that Russian writers, pre-revolutionary as well as Soviet, have always supported in their literary works the CPSU position on the territorial dispute with China as stated by the Pravda editorial of September 2 (see: Background article, p. 3): “Russian writers in their books have passionately condemned Chinese mandarins, merchants and simply lovers of easy pickings, brigands and cut-throats, who for tens of years raided the lands of other people and robbed and murdered the small Far- Eastern peoples who for centuries have lived in the Amur Region. These nations and tribes have since achieved a new large destiny within the great family of peoples of the Soviet Union, and no one has the right to put their happiness in jeopardy!”

TASS Reacts to Tonkin”Gulf Incident Pravda, August 6, (p. 1) published a TASS state-

ment, excerpts from which follow:

Why have American military ships and airplanes appeared in the Bay of Tonkin, many thousands of miles away from U.S. shores? It is well known that this bay washes only the shores of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Chi- nese Peoples Republic . . . It is now becoming clear that the presence of U.S. naval forces in the Bay of Tonkin created an atmosphere pregnant with dan- gerous complications. One cannot ignore the con- sideration that the new American military actions are undertaken under circumstances when reaction- ary forces in the U.S. and the South Vietnamese

COMMUNISTAFFAIRS

militarists who carry out their will are persistently trying to achieve the extension of the sphere of Amer- ican intervention and military actions to the Demo- cratic Republic of Vietnam . . . U.S. aggressive ac- tions in the Bay of Tonkin, which lead to the dan- gerous intensification of an already tense situation in the Southeast Asia, are resolutely condemned in Soviet authoritative circles. Similar actions, further rash steps or provocations in this area may cause events that could change the incidents into a wide- spread military conflict with all the ensuing danger- ous consequences. Responsibility for such conse- quences, naturally, would fall on the United States of America.

U.S.S.R. Notes Date of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Under a two-column headline “The Moscow Treaty

Is a Good Beginning,” Zzuestiia of August 6, 1964 pub- lished the text of the Joint Declaration by the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Governments on the first anniversary of the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, August 5, 1964:

One year ago today the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water was signed by representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. This Treaty moved our planet toward a further strengthening of peace. It helps restrict the arms race. It gives all men and women confidence that they and their children will be breathing purer air and living in a healthier, a less contaminated world. The states taking part in the disarmament negotia- tions at Geneva made their contribution to this cause. The positive role played by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, in the conclusion of the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the three elements is worthy of note. Since the signing of the treaty, most of the world’s states-more than one hundred-have joined the three original signatories. Since then, also, additional-if limited-steps have been taken to reduce nuclear hazards to mankind. Such are the resolutions of the General Assembly of October 17, 1963, on the banning of weapons of mass destruction in outer space and the steps taken by the U.S.A., U.K. and the U.S.S.R. to cut back production of plutonium and enriched uranium in the early months of this year.

These have been significant and valuable steps but only first steps. Serious problems and differences re- main to be dealt with in order to achieve a downturn of the arms race, effective disarmament and secure peace. With a sincere concern for the true interests of all nations and through a constructive effort to achieve agreement consistent with those interests, we can seek to move along the road to understanding and to peace.

In marking the first anniversary of the signing of the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the at- mosphere, in outer space and under water, we declare our intention to do everything possible for the solu-

II 4 JCJLY-AUGUST, 1964

tion through negotiations of unresolved international problems in order to strengthen general peace, the benefits of which would be enjoyed by all states, big and small, and by all people.

Communist China Warns U.S. on Vietnam The official Peking Jen Min Jih Pao (Peoples Daily)

of August 6 carried an editorial which included the following:

The DRV’s territory and its territorial waters and airspace are sacred and cannot be violated . . . Being a fraternal neighbor of the DRV, the Chinese people will resolutely support all just actions of the Viet- namese people to resist U.S. aggression and defend their motherland. Should U.S. imperialism at any moment invade the DRV’s territory or its territorial waters and airspace, the Chinese people will be hon- or-bound to give resolute support to the Vietnamese people in their just war to resist U.S. aggression . . . The Chinese Government has repeatedly and solemn- ly warned the U.S. that should it dare to launch an invasion against the DRV, the Chinese people will certainly not assume the attitude of a bystander or fail to come to the DRV’s rescue . . . Do not blame us for not warning you!

In connection with the Tonkin Gulf crisis, the gov- ernment of Communist China issued the following offi- cial statement on August 6, quoted in part as broadcast by Peking Radio:

The Chinese Peoples Republic Government hereby solemnly declares: The flames of war of aggression against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam were lit by the U.S. Since the U.S. has acted this way, the DRV has gained the right of action to fight against aggression, and all the countries upholding the Geneva agreements have gamed the right to as- sist the DRV in its fight against aggression. The DRV is a member of the socialist camp, and no so- cialist country can sit idly by while it is being sub- jected to aggression. The DRV and China are neigh- bors, as closely related to each other as the lips to the teeth, and the Vietnamese people are intimate brothers of the Chinese people. Aggression by the U.S. against the DRV means aggression against China. The Chinese people will absolutely not sit idly by without lending a helping hand. The debt of blood incurred by the U.S. to the Vietnamese peo- ple must be repaid.

Peking’s Strategy in Africa Suspected “It must be said that Communist China’s calculations

show most profound strategy. In fact, Congo (Brazza- ville) has recognized Communist China, which hastened to set up an Embassy there. But one would be naive to believe that the Chinese were interested in Brazzaville. In that poor French-speaking country they have noth- ing to gain. Meanwhile, Congo (Leopoldville) is a tasty morsel for them.”

-Tarwene Kanida in Afrique Nouvelle, Dakar, Sen- egal, June 26-July 2, 1964.

23