and the Presidium of the Execu-
ommittee of the Comintern (May
which approved this struggle in
‘ decisions and to declare the line
he 4th Plenary Meeting of the CPC
tral Committee a “Left opportunist
bof Wang Ming”;
} to deny the services rendered by
ig Ming in putting forward the pol-
‘of the anti-Japanese national united
and the services of the 7th Com-
Congress which approved this
in its decisions and to declare
olicy of the anti-Japanese national
front, a “Right-wing capitulatory
Wang Ming.”
ording to Mao Tse-tung’s state-
if the services of other persons in
‘history of the CPC and the Chinese
lution were recognised then “there
ald be no Maoism,” “the history of
/CPC as the history of Mao Tse-tung
ie would be impossible” and there
ld be no “especially high and un-
ble place of Mao Tse-tung in the
g.” In keeping with his conspirator-
, Mao Tse-tung first of all struck
in blow at Wang Ming—not only
ally, politically, organisationally
“morally, but also physically (at the
Mning of this campaign Wang Ming
"already been gravely poisoned by
¢ preparations).

Tse-tung also struck blows of dif-
it severity at the absolute majority
he leaders, cadres and Party mem-
; Employing diverse methods of
tption, slander, threats and coercion
npelled all of them to admit that
either dogmatists or empir-
s, that is, “captives and assistants
he dogmatists” and that, of course,
vithout exception carried out the
© mentioned so-called “Left” or
ht” line of Wang Ming. Moreover,
similar methods and cruel torture
ompelled a considerable part of the
munists and YCL members to con-
t they were “traitors,” “counter-
lutionaries” and “spies of the Kuo-
lang, the imperialists and the Soviet
bn.” Many of those who did confess
ting such criminals were arrested
illed or committed suicide. This con-
id for more than three years.

$a result of this campaign, the 7th
Meeting of the CPC Central
imittee, 6th convocation (April 1945),
ler the pressure of Mao Tse-tung
jpted a “Resolution on Some Histor-
| Questions of the CPC.” This was
first official document falsifying the
Ory of the CPC in accordance with
| Tse-tung’s concepts. Following this
“Rules, adopted by the 7th Congress
the CPC (April-May, 1945), forcibly
ided recognition of Mao Tse-tung’s
ght as the only guiding ideas of the
e. Moreover, Mao Tse-tung succeeded
Capturing the top leading post (at
Ist Plenary Meeting of the CPC
al Committee, 7th convocation, he
‘the first time was “elected” Chair-
in of the Central Committee) and all
ver in the Party, in creating a cult of
rsonality, and establishing his per-
dictatorship in the CPC which
mainly on the support of army

er the 7th Congress and until the
alled cultural revolution, for more
20 years, Mao Tse-tung constantly
ted campaigns under different
. But their chief content, chief
chief methods and chief objects of
in the main were the same as in
t “campaign to rectify style” of

first “campaign to rectify style”
S$ a rehearsal of the so-called cultural
blution. The various campaigns which
d it, were to one or another
direct preparatory measures for
cultural revolution.” During this
in view of the many fundamental
Ss and repeated failures and de-
of Mao Tse-tung’s home and for-
icy and especially in view of the
ly reactionary and_ counter-
tionary nature of these campaigns
he “cultural revolution,” even men
re closest and most loyal to
e-tung as, for example, Liu Shao-
Chiao-mu, Tan Chen, Tao Chu,
hing, Ho Chang-kung, Peng
Lu Ting-i, Chou Yang and others,
another became his enemies

and victims. These facts graphically
show that Mao Tse-tung, notwithstand-
ing his frenzied terror and perfidy, is
today even more isolated and is in a
really unprecedented desperate position.

Similarly Mao Tse-tung has slyly
branded Peng Teh-huai, Ho Lung, Lo Jui-
ching and others as “army persons in
authority taking the capitalist road,”
not only to utilise this as the pretext
for persecuting them but also in order
to be able arbitrarily to brand as “sup-
porters of Peng, Ho and Lo” any military
leaders and army cadres whom he
intended to persecute.

Similarly, as early as 1962 Mao Tse-
tung ordered Chi Pen-yu to write an
article slandering as “traitor” the na-
tional hero of the T’ai P'in revolution
Li Hsiu-cheng who heroically perished
at the hand of the national traitor Tseng
Kuo-fan; thereby Mao Tse-tung initiated
the so-called “campaign of struggle
against traitors.” Following this, Chu
Chiu-po, well-known leader of the
Chinese Communist Party who heroic-
ally perished singing the “Internation-
ale" at the hand of butcher Chiang
Kai-shek, was classed among the
“traitors.” Next a list of “traitors” was
compiled which included more than
2,700. leaders and important cadres of
Party, administrative, military educa-
tional and mass organizations whom he
had long ago planned to destroy.

In reality, all of these persons are the
flower of the Chinese people, the finest
sons and daughters of the Communist
Party of China, worthy fighters of the
great army of world communism who

in the entire Party and the entire coun-
try, aroused by his counter-revolution-
ary military coup, he also deliberately
pictures as a struggle for “seizure of
power” between the so-called “support-
ers of Liu and Teng” and “supporters
of Mao and Lin,” thereby trying to mis-
lead the people of his country and
world progressive opinion, to prevent
them from divining the essence of Mao
Tse-tung’s counter-revolutionary mili-
tary coup.

Fifth, one of the artifices frequently
employed by Mao Tse-tung is that he
not only abuses in the vilest terms the
various abominable crimes actually
committed by himself, but even shifts
the blame for them onto the victims of
his attacks and persecution in order to
distort the truth and to mix black with
white.

In other words, it is because Mao Tse-
tung himself and his group are really
the notorious handful of persons in
authority taking the capitalist road, the
carriers of the bourgeois reactionary
line, it is because they themselves are
the counter-revolutionary revisionists
and traitors that they, like a thief who
shouts “stop thief!", fraudulently _re-
paste the labels of these crimes onto the
backs of others in order to conceal
their own real visage of anticommunist,
anti-popular, anti-Marxist and anti-
socialist counter-revolutionaries.

It is because the slogan of struggle
against the so-called “handful of Party
persons in authority taking the capital-
ist road,” put forward by Mao Tse-tung
for plotting purposes, has such an in-

CHINESE PROTESTORS IN PEKING

have been reared in the spirit of the
great doctrine of Marxism-Leninism,
who have for decades been tried and
tested and schooled in revolutionary
battles against international imperial-
ism and internal reaction. Such criminal
actions, falsification of the “corpus delic-
ti,” slander of upright people with the
object of elevating himself and tramp-
ling upon others—these are Mao Tse-
tung’s favourite foul ways and perfidious
methods.

Fourth, Mao Tse-tung deliberately and
with great pomp pictures the counter-
revolutionary military coup, effected by
himself and directed within the country
against the Communist Party and the
people and also against the Soviet Union
and the international communist move-
ment, as a struggle for “seizure of pow
er” between his group and the so-called
“supporters of Liu and Teng.” Similar-
ly, the general movement of resistance,

tricate and perfidiously treacherous
content that he and his group tirelessly
repeat that this slogan indicates “the
main direction of the struggle” in the
vaunted “cultural revolution.” They
openly extol this slogan as the “great
strategic plan” of the so-called “cultural
revolution” elaborated by Mao Tse-tung
well in advance.

In the course of the “cultural revolu-
tion” Mao Tse-tung issued so-called
“latest instructions” such as “we must
fight egoism and criticise revisionism,”
“combat clannishness” and so forth as
the main trend in continuing the “cul-
tural revolution” in an attempt to reduce
the steadily mounting discord and split
within the Maoist group and, in particu-
lar, among the hungweipings and tsao-
fans; to charge cadres of Party, adminis-
tration, military and mass organizations
of all levels who oppose Mao Tse-tung
with “revisionism” and also “egoism” in

order to have an additional pretext for
slighting or persecuting them; to use
the bugbear “egoism” against non-
Party workers, peasants and _ intellec-
tuals inasmuch as in their case it was
more convenient than the bugbear
“revisionism.” But the main thing was
that he aimed to use these slogans to
mask what for the entire nation were
the increasingly evident ugly features of
the counter-revolutionary military coup,
which he was accomplishing for the sake
of his own extremely egoistic, careerist
interests and those of his wife and other
members of his group.

Developments upset his expectations.
They showed that the louder Mao Tse-
tung called for a_ struggle against
“egoism” and “clannishness” the clearer
he revealed the substance of these slo-
gans and the more obvious it became
that none other than Mao Tse-tung was
the egoist No. 1 and that his group
personified premier clannishness found-
ed, besides, on an abuse of state power.

What, according to his explanations,
does the “struggle against egoism”
mean? That “unselfishness” should
triumph. What does “unselfishness”
mean? “The loftiest unselfishness means
boundless devotion to Chairman Mao,”
And what does “devotion” mean? It
means “vowing to defend to the last
breath Chairman Mao's status as the
supreme leader.”

Therefore, despite the fanfare sur-
rounding the publication of these slo-
gans, he failed to stimulate the lauded
“great unity of the whole country” or
the notorious “unity of the three sides”
and he failed to reduce the split and
conflicts among the hungweipings and
tsaofans. All he did was to increase the
split and the bickering among the
forces forming his immediate mainstay;
moreover, all -he achieved was that
those in whom political consciousness,
Party conscience and a sense of justice
still live are rising against Mao Tse-tung
and his group, who are committing any
crime for the sake of their egoistic
interests.

The so-called “Group for Cultural
Revolution Affairs of the CC CPC” con-
sisted of 17 persons handpicked by Mao
Tse-tung. Twelve of them have been
subjected to repression, and only five
are left. Even people like Wang Li, Kuan
Feng, Chi Pen-yu, Mu Hsin and Ling
Chieh, who had displayed exceptional
zeal in the “cultural revolution,” found
themselves in disfavour, and today one
after another they are declared to be
“counter-revolutionary black bandits”
who have opposed the “thought” of Mao
Tse-tung, the “Group for Cultural Revo-
lution Affairs” and Chiang Ching.

Yang Chen-wu, Acting Chief of the
PLA General Staff and commander of
the Peking Military District, Yu Li-chin,
who was recently appointed Political
Commissar of the Air Force, and Fu
Chun-pi, commander of the Peking
Garrison, have likewise been declared
“double-dealing counter-revolutionaries”
who had opposed Mao Tse-tung, the
“Group for Cultural Revolution Affairs”
and Chiang Ching.

These facts best of all bear out the
aforesaid.

No matter what cunning Mao Tse-tung
and his group resort to in their dema-
gogy and no matter what masks they
put on, whether it be the “cultural revo-
lution,” Marxist-Leninist “Leftist” verb-
iage, the slogan “struggle for power of
two groups” or any other new screen
which they may yet conjure up, they
cannot hide the truth about their anti-
Communist, anti-popular counter-revolu-
tionary military coup. The ten crimes
committed by their hands are ten
indictments which they themselves
have inscribed. P

FIVE MAJOR CRIMES COMMITTED
BY MAO TSE-TUNG
IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Foreign policy is a continuation of
domestic policy. Let us now see what
crimes Mao Tse-tung has committed in
the sphere of international policy.

l.. He frenziedly attacks. the Soviet

., Union and other: socialist countries,

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 21, 1969—Page 15