By LESLIE MORRIS
he Chinese Communists are
Painting a picture ofthe world
today which is not a realistic
One, but filled with political fant-
asy,

Just as an abstract painter
distorts reality and substitutes
his own fantasies for it, so do
the Chinese distort the realities

_ Of the present-day world and

Succumb to their own distortions.
' They do this above all on the
issue of peace and war-

O ne cannot
escape the
conclusion that
their fantasies
a nd vituper-
ations, which
‘latter have
now passed the
ordinary boun-
daries of dis-
Cussion, are motivated by their
anger that the Soviet Union in
1959 rejected their demand to be
Siven atomic weapons.

They said this only recently.
They should have said it in the
Meetings of the Communist par-
ties in 1960, in which case the
Matter could have been threshed
Out, and much time and many
Words saved,

It is our opinion that the Soviet
Union was perfectly right to re-
fuse to “share the bomb”? with
China,

When it undertook the socialist
duty to strain its economy and
Catch up to and perhaps surpass
the U.S. atomic bomb establish-
Ment, it did so not only to de-
fend itself but the whole system
of socialist states, Mutual assis-
tance pacts put this principle of
Working - class internationalism
into writing, including a pact
With People’s China.

RES SR
This mighty achievement,
Which made world peace pos-
Sible, was an enormously costly
burden for the Soviet people. Had
€Y not had to do this, their liv-
hg standards today would be far
higher than they are.

The Soviet Union’s nuclear
arms system is not only for the

Protection of its own borders but
© protect all working people,
4nd all socialist governments, in-
Cluding China.

Indeed, one could say-that had
it not been for Soviet socialist
armed strength, China would have
long Since been attacked, per-
8Ps been invaded at the time
Of the Korean war. The same
80es for Cuba—more recently.

Why should a socialist country
4ve to duplicate an atomic arms

_ System and perhaps ruin its eco-
Romy in so doing? Why should

China do it, when its economic,

Problems are understandably so
great?

a fe
And if China is given the bomb
Why not Hungary, Poland, Cze-
Choslovakia and Bulgaria? The
Chinese frequently emphasize the
Principle of the equality of na-
ions, great and small,
To extend the possession of
phclear arms to China and other
Scialist states would mean to
€xtend the world arms race and
Ting on war,

Be iese fantasy on this point
= €S on a national form. For
sae of national prestige, of

Onal pride, of nationalism,
i ®y demand their own nuclear
TMs system,

They dismiss the Soviet
meuh's offer to stand by China
help defend her as ‘big
Wer chauvinism?’!
ees is not socialism, not
~€tnationalism, but plain ord-
Tary Nationalism.
€cause they do not have their
Wn nuclear arms system the
_ytinese oppose the partial test
an, and denounce it as a swindle

the world.

and a crime.

In other words, the interests of
the worl’s people are set aside
in favomet Chinese national in-
terests. \ "™

Of course, this fantasy does
not work. To date, 77 countries
have signed the partial test ban
and the Chinese arguments have
been rejected on a world scale.

How could Canadian Commun-
ists in one breath oppose U.S.
nuclear bombs on Canadian soil
and support Soviet H-bombs on
Chinese territory?

If it is said ‘‘Well, China is
socialist and Canada is capital-
ist??, them we must reply that the
H-bomb is neither capitalist nor
socialist, but as universal as
smallpox, and, like smallpox, has
to be quarantined and eliminated.

And ‘if neither Canada nor
China have the bomb then the
cause of socialism and progress
will be advanced, not retarded,
because we can best make pro-
gress without the arms race, by
ultimately prohibiting nuclear
arms, and getting disarmament.

Peace and disarmament are the
best allies of socialism.

There is another field in which
the Chinese indulge in dangerous
fantasy.

They say that the main struggle
in the world today is not between
capitalism and socialism, but be-
between imperialism andthe col-
onies; not between the socialist
states and the capitalist states,
but between the imperialist states
and the people of Asia, Africa and
Latin America; that the whole
cause of socialism ‘hinges’ on
the outcome of the struggle inthe
‘¢main zone of struggle’’ in Asia,
Africa and Latin America.

This is a fantastic picture of

ee

To divide the world into such
‘¢gones’??means to separate the
socialist revolution from the na-
tional - liberation revolution,
when actually it is one SINGLE
process of revolution against im-
perialism. ;

Could the peoples of the col-
onies have won their freedom
without imperialism having been
weakened by the Soviet Union
and the new socialist world sys-
tem, without the defeat of the
Rome-Hitler-Tokyo axis in the
second world war and without
the support given them by the
socialist world? Of course not.
This goes for the Chinese Rev-
olution, too, which the Chinese
Communists themselves cor-
rectly say was a continuation of
the Russian Revolution.

It is true that the weakest link
of the imperialist system is now
in the colonies and former col-
onies. But that is not to say that,
the national liberation movement,
which is not a movement for
socialism, is ‘‘inthe leadership”?
of social change. It is part of
it, but not the ‘hinge’? on which
everything, including the social-
ist revolution, turns.

To suggest this is to invite na-

tionalism and even racism, in

view of western imperialism’s
exploitation of the peoples of
other continents.

For example, the Chinese say
that the Communists must lead
the colonial revolution and that
armed struggle isthe main means
for solving the colonial question.

But the world has changed and
the old colonial system is almost
shattered. .

In 1917, 77 percent of the
world’s territorial and 69 percent
of its people were under the
colonial yoke; today, only 7.6
percent of the world’s territory
and 1.5 percent of its people are

under imperialist rule.
Since the end of the war, 50

countries have won political in-

dependence,
Many of these countries have

no Communist parties, and noin-
dustrial working class. They vary
from tribal economies as in
Equatorial Africa to countries
with industries and a modern
working class.

The main questions they face
are: will they go through a capi-
talist development, or skip it and
go to socialism? Will they be-

t

tional communist movemet.

country.

come national democracies in
which the economic and social.
needs of the people are satisfied,
or will they become new victims
of a neo-colonialism which the
imperialist powers are trying to
fasten on them under the guise
of ‘‘help’’?

Will they continue to pour $20,
billion yearly into the coffers of
the imperialists, or will theyna-
tionalize imperialistic enter-
prises, carry through great land
reforms, introduce state enter-
prise and move to socialism in
their own way?

Within these countries thereis
political conflict between the
classes, It centres around whe-
ther or not they will take the
socialist or capitalist road of in-
dustrialization.

These and many others, are the

INSTEAD of GININGYOU MORE MoNey
I'VE ARRANGED FoR. You To SEE
MY PSYCHIATRIST /”

LESLIE MORRIS, leader of Canada's party of Marxist-
Leninists, discusses the continuing debate in the interna-

He aswers the question:

Starting next week, the ‘PT’ will begin publishing a :
series of articles by TIM BUCK on ‘‘Themistakes of theCentral :
Committee of the Communist Party of China. :

REAL problems of the peoples of
the countries whose economic de--
velopment has been thwarted by
years of imperialist rule.

They want not only national-
liberation but SOCIAL freedom
as well,

They can become industrial-
ized and advance socially withthe
fraternal aid of the Soviet Un-

“Should the USSR have given =:
People’s China the A-bomb?”’ and relates it to the struggle 3:
of the Canadian people to keep nuclear weapons out of our =:

ion and the socialist states; they
will only stagnate if they depend
on the ‘‘help’? of the USA, Brit-
ain and France, who want to re-
tain their economic hold of the
new political independent states.

These are the real problems,
In the end they will be solved by
the peoples of these countries not
alone and in isolation but in
close friendship with the socialist
countries and the workers of
capitalist countries whose duty it
is to compel changes in the
policies of their governments and
the extension of real help to
them, Canada, for example, can
and must give such aid, in the
form of industrial equipment and
long-term credits,

But the Chinese Communists,
living in a world of fantasy, re-
duce all of this to a *‘simple’’

‘matter of ‘‘Communist leader-

ship’? in these countries, which
would break the democratic unity

.of their peoples,

They reject the possibility of
peaceful advances in these coun-
tries through a form of national
democracy which will avoid the
evils of capitalist development,
and advocate ‘‘leftist’’ policies,

The economic problems of
these countries are not going to
be solved by bayonets and parti-
san warfare.

In some countries where the
imperialists are in occupation,
like South Korea and Vietnam,
the situation is different and arm-

.ed struggle for freedom is the

only way. But to ‘‘universalize’’

Fact vs. fantasy - there is a difference

this is fantasy. There are coun-
tries and countries.

The Chinese make the claim
that the world Communist move-
ment rejects solidarity with the
national liberation struggle, be-
trays it. Thisis false; andits very
falsity flows from the original
fantasies which have nothing in
common with Marxism,

There ARE just wars of liber-
ation which constitute the only
path to freedom, in some coun-
tries,

This has always been the posi-
tion of the world Communist
movement, But this is not to say
that war must be the means in
every situation. It is for each
people to decide their own course
of action,

Much of this fantasy comes
from a poor grasp of Marxist
theory.

For example, the Chinese pic-
ture of the world revolutionary
process being led by the most
economically backward coun-
tries, and the delegation of the
Western working - class move-.
ment and the socialist . world
system to a minor place, has
something to do with the prim-
itive notion that revolutionary
change is brought about mainly by
“*backward’’ countries, or that
Marxism elevates ‘*backward-
ness”? to the principal source
of social change.

Which recalls a story about
Lenin, recently recounted by a
gifted writer.

Forty or so years ago Buk-
harin declared that the world
revolutionary process begins
where the economic levels are
the LOWEST, and the speed of
the onset of revolution is in
INVERSE PROPORTION to. the
ripeness of capitalism. Lenin
corrected him by saying that
the revolutionary process begins
where the economic levels are
“NOT THE HIGHEST”?, and that
the speed of the revolution is
‘NOT IN DIRECT PROPOR—
TION”? to the ripeness of cap-
italism.

A world of truth there, which
has been born out and verified by
the way the world itself has gone
and is going.

The Chinese have not yet learn-
ed how complicated this epoch of
world change really is, Straight
lines are not met with in politics.

AN AMERICAN GENERAL TELLS WHY:

U.S. didn’t A-bomb China

eles General Omar Brad-
ley (retired), former

chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, contradicted the re-

People’s government that So-

played a decisive role in pro-
tecting China.

Gen. Bradley was not argu-
ing the Chinese claim nor de-
fending the Soviet position
when he made his statement.
He was speaking over a na-

24, 1960, on the eve of the
10th anniversary of the Kor-
ean war.

Gen. Bradley in that 1960
speech explained why the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Tru-
man administration rejected
Gen. MacArthur’s request for
permission to drop atomic
bombs on China during the
Korea war.

oki Gok eae

Last August 3 the Soviet
government, in a statement
dealing with a number of dif-
ferences with the Chinese gov-
ernment, said that the posses-
sion of nuclear weapons by the

Soviet Union ‘‘did play a de-
finite, one might say a de-
sisive, role in protecting’
the Socialist countries, in-
cluding the People’s Republic
of China, from imperialist ag-
gression, and enabling them
successfully to build social-
ism.”’

The Chinese leaders den-
ied this, In their statement
of August 15 attacking Soviet
policy, the Chinese spokesmen
said, ‘‘we cannot agree with
this view,’’ and accused the
Soviet Union of ‘‘great power
chauvinism.’’

U.S. Gen. Bradley in his
1960 speech on the Korea
war said that the Soviet Un-
ion’s possession of atomic
bombs was the decisive reason
why America’s nuclear weap-
ons were not dropped on China
in 1950. Boe

Chinese volunteers were
coming to the aid of North
Korea in late 1950. Gen. Mac-
Arthur’s U.S. troops were in
flight from the northern bor-
der. He strongly advocated
pushing the war into Chinese
territory and pleaded for pe:

tetetetetetetetatetete!, eee tetetet,

mission from Washington to
drop atomic bombs on China,
in an effort to turn the tide
of battle.

But Gen. MacArthur was ve-
toed by the Joint Chiefs’ of
Staff and by then President
Truman. In his 1960 broadcast
speech, Gen. Bradley explain-
ed that Mac Arthur’s policies
were fraught with danger, be-
because Washington knew that
the Soviet Union hada military
treaty with China. Moscow had
issued a public warning to the
UN;

_ Gen. Bradley told his radio
audience in 1960 that Washing-
ton believed the Soviet Union
would drop atomic bombs be-
hind American lines if U.S.
bombs were dropped on China.
Washington believed, too, that
U.S. military staging areas in
Pusan and elsewhere would
also be destroyed.

America’s military leaders
‘‘did not think that it was to
our advantage to start a nu-
clear war’’, Gen. Bradley said
at that time.

—ART SHIELDS

October 4, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7