Sheehan: First of all, I must say that on a number of principled issues—such as the character of our era, the prevention of war, the nature of imperialism, peaceful transition, general and complete disarmament, and others—we fully support the Chinese Party’s stance and propositions. As for certain other individual questions, we are not entirely clear. The existence of principled differences within the communist movement can only benefit the class enemy; this is what perplexes us. Like our Chinese comrades, we hope that these differences, after discussion, can be resolved on the basis of Marxist–Leninist principles. The Chinese Party and the Soviet Party must remain united.

Chairman: Yes, unity is essential. As far as we are concerned, we naturally advocate unity. However, there are those who are unwilling to unite. They are genuine revisionists. No party is ever completely unanimous. Do you really believe your own party is entirely united and in complete agreement?

Sheehan: Yes.

Chairman: Do you think your party can withstand the test of storms and trials?

Sheehan: We hope it can.

Chairman: Are there any dissenting views among the lower-level cadres?

Sheehan: Perhaps. But as far as the members of our Political Committee are concerned, they are completely in accord. At the present stage, we have not yet discussed this matter at the grassroots level.

Chairman: It is good to have the support of the majority. It is also good to have the support of the majority within the Central Committee.

Sheehan: Securing an overwhelming majority in the Central Committee will be possible. Two days before Comrade Dixon and I left Australia, our Political Committee held a two-day meeting. We conducted discussions based on reports presented by Comrades Tom Riley and Manson of the New Zealand Communist Party. All eleven members of our Political Committee unanimously supported the Chinese Party’s position and proposals.

Dixon: In fact, some time ago we studied the three articles published by the Chinese Party to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of Lenin’s birth, and we decided to stand in solidarity with our Chinese comrades.

Chairman: We know that your party has previously engaged in debate with the British Party. Our party and the British Party have also debated the issue of peaceful transition.

Sheehan: That was indeed a topic of contention between our party and the British Party as well.

×　　　×　　　×

Sheehan: The CPSU is the initiator of the call for general and complete disarmament.

Chairman: I still do not understand what “general and complete disarmament” means.

Sheehan: Neither do I. It was only after the CPSU put forward this slogan that we came to realize the gravity of the issue. Even in our small country—not an imperialist power—the bourgeoisie is constantly clamoring for military buildup and war preparations. In many regions, war is actually underway. The Australian government has dispatched troops to Malaya to intervene and massacre guerrilla forces. This government is currently planning to pass a law to intensify its repression of the people. This measure is directed against our party and the entire workers’ movement. During the Korean War, our comrades were arrested for opposing the war and supporting China; they served only a few months in prison. But under the provisions of this new law… the penalty would be death.

Chairman: For what offense would the death penalty apply?

Sheehan: According to the terms of this legislation, aiding… carries the death penalty; committing “treason” entails life imprisonment; engaging in sabotage results in seven years’ imprisonment. All of this is preparation for war. These people are certainly not contemplating general and complete disarmament; on the contrary, they are gearing up for war. In the recent U.S. presidential election, both the Republican and Democratic parties touted military expansion and war preparations, competing to see who could better ramp up their armaments. Therefore, the CPSU’s proposal is purely utopian and unrealistic.

×　　　×　　　×

Sheehan: Some people harbor the illusion that the funds saved through disarmament could be used to aid underdeveloped countries, or that imperialism might voluntarily disarm. Yet the imperialists themselves know full well that if they lay down their arms, the working class will rise up in struggle and seize power.

Chairman: Exactly! If that were truly the case, wouldn’t it be a remarkable development?

Sheehan: Let us examine the situation in Australia and, more broadly, in capitalist society. Capitalists are expanding their military apparatus and preparing for war in order to make profits. For example, in a small country like Australia, a steel company earned twenty million pounds last year, while the American-owned General Motors plant here turned over fifteen million pounds. Meanwhile, education suffers from a chronic crisis; hospitals are severely lacking; the road network is in a state of disrepair. And although droughts occur frequently, there are no plans for water storage. Capitalists refuse to invest in such areas because they do not yield high returns. Monopoly capital reaps enormous profits, even as the social system regresses. Military buildup brings immense gains to the bourgeoisie, whereas sectors like education generate very little profit. The bourgeoisie pursues the former and neglects the latter—this is simply the logic of the system.

Chairman: This conforms to the laws of historical development and reflects the reality of all capitalist countries.

×　　　×　　　×

Chairman: The pledge of non-resistance to violence precisely serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. The Labor Party opposes class struggle. A genuine communist party must be one that champions class struggle.

Sheehan: The very reason for the existence of a communist party is to carry out class struggle.

Chairman: Otherwise, why wouldn’t communists simply join the Labor Party?

Dixon: Throughout the history of our party, right-wing opportunist tendencies have repeatedly surfaced, with elements seeking to undermine the communist movement. They have urged the party to merge with the Labor Party, transforming it into a wing of the Labor Party or a pressure group. At critical junctures and stages in history, right-wing opportunism invariably reappears. Our party and the British Communist Party have long been at odds—one dispute centered on peaceful transition, the other on how to approach the Labor Party. The British Communist Party advocated forming a left-wing Labor government. Naturally, they believed such a government would accommodate the communists. However, we did not expect reformists to display such magnanimity as to include the communists. In 1947 and 1948, the British Communist Party disseminated numerous materials in Australia promoting this idea, ultimately forcing our party to criticize them. Comrade Pollitt was very angry about our criticism and asked whether we dared to publicly rebuke them. We replied, “We do.” Thus began a public debate. Our polemic with the British Communist Party continued for over a decade, yet the differences remained unresolved. We hope that the disagreements between the Chinese and Soviet parties will not persist as long as those between our party and the British Communist Party. While the rift between us and the British Party had relatively limited impact, the Sino-Soviet split is bound to have far-reaching consequences. The two situations are not comparable.

×　　　×　　　×

Chairman: They can exert pressure on us, recall experts, impose economic blockades, and so forth. Cultural exchanges between China and the Soviet Union have already ceased; the journal “Sino-Soviet Friendship” has been discontinued. Whether trade between the two countries will continue remains uncertain, but the volume of trade is sure to decline, since the withdrawal of experts will create difficulties for factories that were being built according to their plans.

Sheehan: Khrushchev loudly denounces the United States for imposing economic pressure on Cuba, yet he himself is exerting economic pressure on another socialist country—far worse than anything the Americans have done.