Comments and Revisions on the Manuscript of “Further Discussion on Comrade Togliatti’s Differences with Us” [1] [2] (February 1963)

I. Further Discussion on Comrade Togliatti’s Differences with Us—On Several Major Questions of Leninism in the Contemporary Era [3] Printed according to Mao Zedong’s revised text.

II. It is necessary to mention our article of January 31 [4], explaining why we are writing this one as well. Printed according to Mao Zedong’s handwritten draft.

III. To Comrade Chen Boda: The Cuban viewpoint [5] is correct and worth reading. Mao Zedong, February 6th. Printed according to the manuscript.

IV. This document [6] is also worth reading. Printed according to Mao Zedong’s handwritten draft.

V. Comrade Boda: Please have another clean copy typed up and send it to me for review. Mao, printed according to the manuscript.

VI. Since they have now directly provoked a public debate with us, what choice do we have? Can we remain silent as we did in the past? Is it acceptable that “only officials are allowed to set fires, while the common people are not even permitted to light a lamp”? No, no, no. We must respond. They have left us with no other option but to answer them publicly. Printed according to Mao Zedong’s revised text.


VII. Comrade Boda: Please type up another clean copy and send it to me. Mao Zedong, February 15th. Printed according to the manuscript.

VIII. This article now intends to conduct a more detailed analysis and critique of the erroneous statements made over many years by Comrade Togliatti and others, as a response to their renewed attacks against us. After Comrades Togliatti and others have read our reply, let us see what attitude they will adopt—are they still going to accuse us of “often lacking clear definiteness”? Will they continue to claim that we are “highly abstract and conceptual,” “lacking practical sense”? Will they insist that we have “no accurate understanding” of the situation in Italy and the work of the Italian Communist Party, and that our stance toward the PCI is “an obvious fabrication”? Or will they assert that we are “dogmatists and sectarianists masking their opportunism behind radical revolutionary rhetoric”? Once we have observed their reaction, we can then take appropriate action. In short, it is unacceptable that only the masters may speak while the subordinates are forbidden to utter a word; it is equally untenable that only officials are allowed to set fires while the common people are not even permitted to light a lamp. Such an unjust law has never been recognized by the public throughout history. Moreover, differences among communists can only be resolved through presenting facts and reasoning, and
under no circumstances should we adopt the attitude of a slave owner toward slaves. Proletarians and communists worldwide must unite, but such unity can only be achieved on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, on the foundation of presenting facts and engaging in reasoned discussion, on the principle of equal consultation and mutual exchange, and solely upon the principles of Marxism-Leninism. If slave owners merely wave their whips at the slaves, muttering “unity, unity,” what they are really saying is “division, division.” Slaves everywhere cannot accept this kind of divisive policy. What we seek is genuine unity, and we will absolutely not allow a small clique to sow discord. Printed according to Mao Zedong’s revised text.

IX. What is the nature of this major debate among communist parties of various countries? Printed according to Mao Zedong’s handwritten draft.

X. Comrade Chen Boda: There have been some revisions. The title of Chapter Two has been changed. What do you think? Please type up another clean copy and send it to me. How about the changes in the following chapters? Kindly prepare clean copies and forward them to me immediately. Mao Zedong, 7:00 a.m. on February 16th.


XI. Please review this, make your considerations, and then have another clean copy typed up for my inspection. Mao Zedong, 7:00 a.m. on the 18th. Printed according to the manuscript.

XII. An interesting phenomenon has become widespread within the international communist movement. What is it? Those so-called heroes who claim to possess the entire truth of Marxism-Leninism are extremely afraid of the very “dogmatists,” “sectarians,” “splitterists,” “nationalists,” and “Trotskyists” whom they vehemently denounce, fearing the articles these individuals write in response to their attacks. They dare not publish such articles in their own newspapers or journals. They are as timid as mice, gripped by mortal fear, refusing to allow their own people to come into contact with our rebuttals; instead, they seal everything off completely, blocking all access. Some even resort to powerful radio jamming to prevent the populace from hearing our broadcasts. Dear gentlemen, friends, comrades—who confidently assert that we are wrong—why not simply publish all of our alleged errors and then refute them point by point, thereby arousing deep indignation among your own people against those whom you label dogmatic, sectarian, and anti-Marxist heretics? Why are you so unwilling to do this? Why maintain such an ironclad blockade? You are afraid of ghosts. A great specter—the specter of true Marxism-Leninism—is roaming the world, threatening you. You lack trust in the people, the people lack trust in you; you have become detached from the masses, which is why your fear of truth has reached such absurd proportions. Gentlemen, friends, comrades, if you are truly courageous, step forward and engage in open debate before the people of your country and the entire world, mutually publishing each other’s criticisms. We hope you will follow our example; that is exactly what we have done. We boldly publish everything you say in its entirety. After printing all your vitriolic “great” works, we proceed to refute them either in detail or succinctly as our response. Sometimes we merely publish your erroneous writings without offering any commentary, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. Isn’t this fair and reasonable? Modern revisionist leaders, do you dare act in this manner? Only the truly bold will. If you are inwardly weak yet outwardly aggressive, feigning strength while being secretly cowardly, then you will not dare. We conclude that you do not dare. Is that not so? Please answer.

XIII. Proletarians of all countries, unite! Printed according to Mao Zedong’s handwritten draft.

--- Notes



XIV. Comrade Boda: The revisions are excellent and complete; there is nothing further to regret. I have made a minor adjustment in Chapter Eight—please consider it. Mao Zedong, printed according to the manuscript, on the morning of the 20th of February. Notes [1] Togliatti, then General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party. [2] The article “Further Discussion on Comrade Togliatti’s Differences with Us—On Several Major Questions of Leninism in the Contemporary Era” originally appeared in Issues 3 and 4 of Hongqi magazine in 1963 and was subsequently published in the People’s Daily from March 1 to March 4, 1963. [ ] This section (I) and (II) consist of Mao Zedong’s comments and revisions on the draft of an article titled “Several Questions Regarding Leninism in the Contemporary Era—A Critique of the Arguments Put Forward by Comrades Togliatti et al.,” submitted for review on February 3, 1963, by Chen Boda, Alternate Member of the CPC Central Committee Political Bureau and Editor-in-Chief of Hongqi magazine. Section (I) contains the title Mao Zedong proposed for the article, while section (II) comprises his comments written on the “Introduction” portion of the submitted draft. Section (III) consists of Mao Zedong’s remarks on an article published in Issue 431 of Neibu Cankao on January 31, 1963, which reported that a Polish journal had discussed the Cuban perspective on the Soviet-Cuban differences, attributing them to divergent views between the two sides regarding the essence of the fundamental contradiction in the contemporary world. Section (IV) contains Mao Zedong’s comments on another article in the same issue of Neibu Cankao, which stated that a British newspaper had reported that de Gaulle had proposed to Khrushchev a “comprehensive reorganization of Europe,” and that Khrushchev had reportedly expressed either welcome or at least non-rejection of the proposal. These two articles from Neibu Cankao served as references for Mao Zedong to suggest revisions to Chen Boda. Sections (V) and (VI) are Mao Zedong’s comments and modifications on a clean proof copy of the first part of the article, the “Introduction,” which Chen Boda had submitted for review after February 3. On February 16, Mao Zedong made additional textual adjustments in section (V). Sections (VII), (VIII), and (IX) comprise Mao Zedong’s comments and revisions on a clean proof copy of the article that Chen Boda submitted for review on February 14. Among these, section (IX) concerns a new title for the second part of the article; the original title was “The Second Great Debate Between Marxists-Leninists and Revisionists and Opportunists.” Section (X) contains Mao Zedong’s comments on a clean proof copy of the article that Chen Boda submitted for review on February 15. Section (XI) consists of Mao Zedong’s comments on the eighth section of the article, entitled “Unity Based on Marxism-Leninism,” which Chen Boda submitted for review on February 17. Section (XII) includes a passage that Mao Zedong added to and subsequently revised in the same section, “Unity Based on Marxism-Leninism,” which Chen Boda had submitted for review on February 17. Finally, section (XIII) presents a new title Mao Zedong devised for the eighth section of the article that Chen Boda submitted for review on February 18; the original title was “Unity Based on Marxism-Leninism.” Section (XIV) contains Mao Zedong’s comments on a clean proof copy of the article that Chen Boda submitted for review on February 19. The text typeset in Songti font represents words that Mao Zedong added or revised; he also made several other minor textual corrections. [ ] Upon publication, the article’s title was changed to “Further Discussion on Comrade Togliatti’s Differences with Us.” [ ] Refers to the editorial “Comrade Togliatti’s Differences with Us” published in the People’s Daily on December 31, 1962. [ ] Refers to a Havana dispatch published in the Polish United Workers’ Party central organ, the weekly Politika, in its fifty-second issue of 1962. Based on information received in Cuba, the dispatch outlined the Soviet-Cuban differences as follows: (1) The disagreement does not concern one strategic solution or another to the Cuban missile crisis, but rather stems from differing views on the essence of the fundamental contradiction in the contemporary world. (2) Cuba believes that the principal contradiction in the world today is between imperialism and colonial revolutions, rather than between socialism and capitalism. (3) From Cuba’s perspective, the primary arena of conflict and target of imperialist aggression is not countries that have already embarked on building socialism, but rather nations currently striving for liberation. (4) The Soviet Union emphasizes overcoming imperialism through peaceful economic competition, whereas Cuba maintains that the liberation and revolution of colonized peoples will ultimately lead to the demise of imperialism. (5) Certain Latin American figures express skepticism about the notion of détente, negotiations, and the triumph of coexistence policies, and Cuba does not recognize Kennedy’s “guarantees.” (6) For Cuba, the most important conclusion is that no policy of concession should be pursued toward imperialism. [ ] Refers to an article published in Neibu Cankao on January 31, 1963, reporting that a British newspaper had stated de Gaulle had proposed to Khrushchev a plan for a “comprehensive reorganization of Europe,” under which the Soviet Union would directly ally itself with Europe, Eastern Europe would be demilitarized, and U.S. forces would be withdrawn from France. According to the report, Khrushchev had either welcomed the French proposal or, at the very least, refrained from rejecting it outright.
Comments on the Hunan Provincial Party Committee’s Report on the Socialist Education Campaign [1] [2] (February 15, 1963) The Hunan report is very good; please circulate it for study by the comrades attending the meeting. The experience of Hebei Province [3] is also worthy of being shared. I request that the comrades of the Hebei Provincial Party Committee consider drafting a brief report to be distributed to the meeting participants. Mao Zedong, February 15th. Printed according to the manuscript. Notes [1] Refers to the report submitted by the CPC Hunan Provincial Committee on February 8, 1963, to the Central-South Bureau, the Central Committee, and Mao Zedong, detailing the progress of the Socialist Education Campaign in the province. The report states that the previous phase of the campaign yielded significant results. However, conditions on all fronts indicate that the current class struggle remains extremely intense. Whether in rural or urban areas, the sabotage activities of class enemies are rampant, and a powerful anti-socialist “black wind” is sweeping across the region. Consequently, in late December of last year, we implemented further measures to intensify the provincial socialist education campaign, prioritizing class education and emphasizing the need to fully expose the ongoing class struggle, engage in resolute countermeasures, educate cadres, mobilize the masses, vigorously promote the “east wind,” strike at the enemy, and suppress the “black wind.” Throughout the campaign, we adhered to the principle of proceeding from top to bottom and from inside out: first educating cadres, then the general public; addressing internal issues before external ones. Our approach to educating cadres involved a hierarchical, step-by-step process of training, releasing burdens, and delving deeply into matters. Leadership took the lead, systematically advancing layer by layer—this constitutes our most fundamental experience. Generally, county committees organized three rounds of training for cadres at various levels: the first round focused on key personnel at the county, district, and commune levels; the second round concentrated on team leaders; and the third round provided targeted training for production team leaders based on specific regions. The typical procedure consisted of three steps: first, thoroughly exposing the class struggle and its manifestations within the Party; second, encouraging everyone to openly discuss their problems; and third, properly resolving these issues. When carrying out the campaign among the masses, we emphasized a gradual, methodical approach, expanding from individual cases to broader groups. Specifically, we convened symposiums with poor peasants, during which we extensively discussed the class struggle and exposed enemy activities and the “black wind,” while simultaneously having cadres acknowledge their own shortcomings and listen to criticism from the peasantry. By highlighting the advantages of the poor peasants and generating strong public opinion, we succeeded in discrediting the “black wind.” Furthermore, in addressing problems, we stressed the importance of clearly distinguishing between two boundaries: the line separating friend from foe, and the boundary between serious and minor issues. Over the course of more than a month, this socialist education campaign remarkably boosted the enthusiasm of both cadres and the general public, effectively curbed the arrogance of the enemy, suppressed the “black wind,” further consolidated the collective economy, and promoted current production. [2] These comments were written on a letter dated February 14, 1963, from Zhang Pinghua, First Secretary of the CPC Hunan Provincial Committee, to Mao Zedong, accompanying the aforementioned report on the Socialist Education Campaign. [3] Refers to the CPC Central Committee working conference then being held in Beijing. [4] Refers to the practices described in the report submitted by the CPC Hebei Provincial Committee concerning the implementation of the resolutions of the Eighth Plenary Session of the Tenth CPC Central Committee in rural areas and the conduct of the rectification and commune consolidation campaign. See Note [1] on page 57-2 of this volume.