Comments on Two Documents
(July 1960)

In the debate on the question of modern revisionism among Party members of three schools in Hubei, the majority are correct and the minority are wrong.

[1]
Refers to the two documents submitted on July 13, 1960, by Wang Renzhong, First Secretary of the Hubei Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China, to Deng Xiaoping, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, for transmission to Mao Zedong for review. The first document concerns the reactions and opinions of some teachers and students of the Party School of the Hubei Provincial Committee of the CPC, Wuhan University, and Central China Normal College, as well as persons participating in the compilation of books on philosophy, political economy, etc., regarding the communiqué of the Bucharest Meeting and the republication of the Moscow Declaration by *Renmin Ribao*. Many hold that the communiqué of the Bucharest Meeting overemphasizes "peaceful transition" and the possibility of preventing war, puts forward the struggle for peace as the primary task of the Communist and Workers' Parties of all countries, but fails to raise opposition to imperialism and criticism of modern revisionism, and does not express support for the national independence movements of colonial and semi-colonial countries. This runs counter to the spirit of the Moscow Declaration. The republication of the Moscow Declaration by *Renmin Ribao* is of extremely great significance, demonstrating that we are holding high the revolutionary banner of Marxism-Leninism. They hold that the Moscow Declaration also has some incomplete, unclear, and even inappropriate points. The Peace Declaration, adopted simultaneously with the Moscow Declaration, has a certain pacifist flavour. The Moscow Declaration embodies somewhat more of Mao Zedong Thought, while the Peace Declaration reflects more of Khrushchev's views. This shows that there was struggle even at that time. The communiqué of the Bucharest Meeting also reflects this struggle, and because Khrushchev's revisionist thinking has developed further and further, this struggle has become increasingly acute and increasingly clear. The second document concerns the situation of the Party branch of the Philosophy Teaching and Research Section of the Philosophy Department of Wuhan University in studying the three articles commemorating the 90th anniversary of Lenin's birth. The branch has a total of 37 Party members, of whom 21 have a clear attitude and relatively strong discernment. They unanimously hold that Khrushchev has serious revisionist views, and they enumerate specific manifestations of this on issues such as his attitude toward U.S. imperialism and his understanding of war and disarmament. Regarding this, some express deep concern, believing it is detrimental to the current international communist movement, and point out that how to hold high the red banner of Mao Zedong Thought and thoroughly criticize modern revisionism is the greatest task facing our Party at present. In the discussion, 10 persons did not express a clear attitude, while 6 held that Khrushchev's views are correct. It can be seen that modern revisionist views are not without a market within our Party.