socialist’ state, it was spearheaded
against the Communist Party and social-
ism. The entire course of subsequent
events has increasingly demonstrated
the absolute, correctness of such an
appraisal.

’

Comrade L. I. Brezhnev, General Sec-
retary of the Central Committee of the
CPSU, in his speech at a meeting with
electors on March 11, 1967, already con-
cretely pointed out: “The legend about
the ‘proletarian cultural revolution’ is
merely clumsy camouflage of a policy
alien to Marxism-Leninism.” “This looks
more like a reactionary coup.” In his
speech on September 8 of the same year
at a brotherhood meeting in Budapest he
once again noted: “What has been named
the ‘cultural revolution’ by the Mao
Tse-tung group would be more correct
to call counter-revolution.” Subsequent
events in China have fully corroborated
the* exceptional “correctness of this
Marxist-Leninist evaluation.

These 10 crimes also demonstrate
very clearly that the aim of the so-called
“cultural revolution” effected by Mao
Tse-tung and his group is not “to safe-
guard the dictatorship of the proletar-
iat,” but, on the contrary, to abolish
people’s rule in China; not “to safeguard
the socialist system,” but, on the con-

, trary, to undermine the foundation for

building socialism in China. These 10
crimes show with exceptional clarity and
precision that the object against which
the “cultural revolution” is spearheaded
is not “a handful of Party persons in
authority taking the capitalist road” and
not “carriers of the bourgeois reaction-
ary line,” not “counter-revolu

revisionists” and not “traitors,” but, on
the contrary, it is the Marxist-Leninist
Chinese Communist Party which unites
in its ranks about 25 million members;
it is the Young Communist League of
China which unites in its ranks about
30 million members; it is the All-

China Federation of Trade Unions which

unites in its ranks over 20 million mem-
bers; it is the millions of leaders,
cadres and activists of Party, adminis-
trative, military and various other insti-
tutions and organisations, including
schools, higher educational establish-
ments, industrial, agricultural and tran-
Sport enterprises; it is the majority
of the workers, peasants and intelligent-
sia of the entire country. According to
incomplete data, the number of people
persecuted, arrested and physically an-
nihilated by Mao Tse-tung and his
group in the course of the “cultural
revolution” exceeded five million long
ago.
t

And, lastly, these 10 crimes prove
with exceptional clarity and precision
that indeed the so-called “handful of
Persons in authority taking the capital-
ist road” and “carriers of the bourgeois
reactionary line” are no one else but
Mao Tse-tung himself and his group!
The facts show, and all recognise, that
the anticommunist and anti-popular
Mao Tse-tung group consists only of a
few people. And among them the per-
son closest and most trusted by Mao
Tse-tung is his wife Chiang Ching. That
is why Mao Tse-tung is forced himself
openly to praise her as the only person
who really understands well, propagates
and applies Mao Tse-tung’s thought in
general and his thought in the sphere
of literature and art in particular. That
is why he has appointed her formally
the deputy, and actuaily, the chief of the
so-called “group for cultural revolution
affairs” and commander-in-chief of
hungweipings. That is why he artificially
put her in the third place, so far after
Lin Piao, in the Mao heirarchy. And that
is why public Opinion in China and for-

eign observers unanimously agree that

Chiang Ching remains the only person
Mao Tse-tung could really trust in
everything,

Here indeed is a handful of persons!
The persons who comitted 10 such
crimes, the persons who are breaking
up the Communist Party, the people's
government, the trade unions,: Young
Communist League, and so on and who

a 8F€ Protecting, .the national bourgeoisie

PACIFIC TRIBUNES MARTH, 2OS9LEBASL 1.4

CL egode MO@l IS HOAAM—2AnUGIAT DIVIDAG

politically and economically —are not
these the persons who really take the
capitalist road and carry the bourgeois
reactionary line! To this day they abuse,
and take cover behind, the name of the
Central Committee of the CPC, the
Council of State, the Military Commit-
tee of the Central Committee of the
CPC, are sending troops to suppress and
annihilate workers, peasants and intel-
lectuals, to attack leading Party, admin-
istrative and military bodies and crush
their cadres; they are administering the
“Group for Cultural Revolution Affairs
of the Central Committee of the CPC,”
under whose command the hungwei-
pings and tsaofans daily and everywhere
insulted, beat up, arrested and killed
people. Are not these really the “per-
sons in authority”? Are the men who
committed 10 such crimes not real
counter-revolutionary revisionists and
traitors to the revolution?

That Mao Tse-tung and his group have
tacked on to Liu Shaochi, Teng Hsia-
ping and others the labels they fabricat-
ed, such as “a handful of Party persons

Me CS a eT Ne ae eS

for persecuting and destroying Party
cadres in all institutions and organisa-
tions throughout the country.

By decision of the unlawful so-called
“12th Plenary Meeting of the Central
Committee of the CPC,” Liu Shao-chi
was removed from all the Party and state
posts he held and “expelled from the
Party for ever” on the basis of absolu-
tely false accusations entirely fabricated
by Mao Tse-tung himself. Mao Tse-tung
followed this up by another, wider, still
more slanderous campaign in the press,
radio and at meetings and rallies all
over the country under the slogan of
“launching a struggle of unusual scale
and depth against the top traitor, top
scab and top spy of the Kuomingtang,
imperialism and Soviet revisionism, Liu
Shao-chi, and his supporters in all the
localities.” This once again most clearly
reveals “the tiger’s aspect and snake's
soul” of Mao Tse-tung as an unprece.,
dentedly bestial and absolutely brazen
plotter.

Communists and other upright people

throughout the world are raising their

SOVIET PROTESTORS IN MOSCOW

in authority taking the capitalist road”
and “carriers of the bourgeois reaction-
ary line,” is a political trick with con-

-cealed aims.

These aims are, first, to blame Liu and
Teng for the various mistakes and
crimes committed by Mao Tse-tung over
a number of years in home and foreign

policy and thereby make Liu and Teng.

the scapegoats.

Second, Liu and Teng were for many
years colleagues of Mao Tse-tung and
know of the many crimes and unseemly
secrets of Mao Tse-tung in internal and
international affairs; that is why Mao is
trying to liquidate Liu and Teng as
living witnesses.

Third, another still more important
aim is to tack on to Liu Shao-chi, Teng
Hsia-ping and Tao Chu labels of “Party
persons in authority taking the capital-
ist road” and on this pretext to liqui-
date Liu, Teng and Tao themselves and
then arbitrarily tack on a label of “sup-
porters of Liu, Teng and Tao” to all per-
sons whom Mao Tse-tung and his group
intend to persecute,

The real objective of their call—nec-
essarily to link together “big criticism”
of the “top Party person in authority
taking the capitalist road” with the cam-
paign of “struggle, criticism and trans-
formation” in all the country’s institu-
tions and organisations, is to utilise the
slogan of “struggle against the handful
of Party persons in authority taking the
capitalist road” as a screen and pretext

wrathful and just voice in protest
against such foul persecution by Mao
Tse-tung of the Vice-Chairman of the
Central Committee of the CPC and Chair-
man of the Chinese People’s Republic
Comrade Liu Shao-chi.

Mao Tse-tung acted in a similar way
during the so-called “campaign to rectify
style,” started in February 1942. Making
use of the military power he usurped in
the Party and the difficult international
Situation during the early period of the
Hitlerite attack on the Soviet Union,
Mao Tse-tung began this campaign which
formally was called the “campaign to
rectify three styles” (that is, the Party
style, style of education and literary
style); actually it was a campaign of
“four antis” (that is, anti-Leninist, anti-
Comintern, anti-Soviet and anti-Party).

For what purpose did Mao Tse-tung
need that campaign? In preparing it and
in the course of conducting it, Mao Tse-
tung himself repeatedly said that by car-
rying out the campaign he wanted to
achieve three aims: 1) to replace Lenin-
ism by Maoism; 2) to write the history
of the Chinese Communist Party as the
history of Mao Tse-tung alone; 3) to
elevate the personality of Mao Tse-tung
above the Central Committee and the
entire Party. Why did he have to do it?
He himself replied: this would give him
two opportunities: first, to capture the
chief leading place in the Party leader-
ship and all power in the Party in his
own hands; second, if he already has

taken the first place in the Party leade
ship, no one should ever be able
oust him.

To achieve these ends he did the fg
lowing in this campaign: 1) he declare
Leninism to be Russian Marxism yj
able only for leading the Russian rey,
lution and unsuitable for leading ¢)
world and the Chinese revolution; 2) di
clared that the leadership and assistang,
of the Communist International to ¢}
CPC was entirely wrong; 3) declare
that the all-round support given by th
Communist Party of the Soviet Unio:
(Bolsheviks) and the Soviet Union ti
the Communist Party of China and t
the Chinese Revolution was not onl
“invalid” and “ineffective” but eye,
“harmful”; 4) accused the entire Part
‘of “non-recognition of Maoism” and 9
“loyalty to Leninism and the Commun
ist International” and of “adherence te
the CPSU(B) and the Soviet Union,”

And who was to blame for all this?
Mao Tse-tung held that the blame lay
with all the leaders and important
cadres of the Party who had studied jp
the Soviet Union and spread the infly.
ence of Leninism, the Comintern, the
CPSU(B) and the Soviet Union in China,
Their main representatives were Wang
Ming, Ching Po-ku, Chang Weiien,
Wang Chia-hsiang, Kai Fang, Yang
Shang-kun, Chu Jui and others. And who
was to blame for supporting these
Comintern men? Mao Tse-tung held that
these were Chu-Teh, Chou En-lai, Hsien
Ying, Teng Fa, Peng Teh-huai, Ho Lung
and others.

And who was the “top man” to blame?
Mao Tse-tung held that this was Wang
Ming. According to his statement, Wang
Ming was the “main representative of
Russian Marxism and the line of the
Comintern in the Communist Party of
China.” Wang Ming was the. “principal
adherent and defender of the CPSU(B)
and the Soviet Union in China.” Wang
Ming was the “principal foe of Maoism
in the CPC.” But how was the struggle
against Wang Ming to be waged and
linked with the struggle against the

‘ absolute majority of the leaders, Party
cadres and members?

For this Mao Tse-tung artificially div.
ided the entire Party into two groupings
—the “dogmatic” and “empiristic” and
at the same time united them as one
target of his attack. He placed all the
Communists who had studied in the
Soviet Union or engaged in ideological
and political work and also those who
socially originated from the intelligent-
sia into the so-called “pro-Soviet and
dogmatic Wang Ming grouping. All the
Communists who engaged in practical
work or who were of working-class and
peasant social origin he placed into the
so-called “empiristic grouping.” At the
same time he declared that the empiris
tic grouping was a “captive and assist
ant” of the dogmatic grouping.

Moreover, Mao Tse-tung held that in
order to write the history of the CPC
as the history of Mao Tse-tung alone it
was necessary not only not to recognis¢
the services of Leninism, the Cominterm,
the CPSU(B) and the Soviet Union in
the history of the CPC and the Chinese
Revolution. It was necessary to deny
that any leader, any Party functionary
or member had rendered any service 10
the CPC and the Chinese revolution. Ac
cording to Mao Tse-tung’s statement, it
was particularly necessary:

1) to deny the services rendered by
Chu Chiu-po in the struggle against
Right opportunist Chentuhsuism a0
also the services of the extraordinary
August Conference of the CPC (1927)
which approved in its decisions this
struggle and the services of the Comil
tern leadership which was the direct
sponsor of this conference and to pro
claim the line of the August CPC Com
ference to be a “Chuchiupoist Left
opportunist line”;

2) to deny the services rendered bY :
Wang Ming in the struggle against the)
Left adventurist line of Li Li-san 4?
also the services of the 4th Plenaly
Meeting of the Central Committee °
the, CPC,,..sixthconyogation . (January

estrous 2d sme wilJoms iwiis 38e