By JOHN KANAPA

{A reprint from. L’Humanite)

VERYONE knows that what-
ever is done in China, at least
by the “Red Guards” and the

“Maoists,” takes place with re-
ference to a collection of quota-
tions from Mao Tse-tung. All
the wisdom of the world and all
revolutionary science would
seem to have been concentrated
in that collection.

This prompts a first comment:
the very idea of this procedure
is a striking proof that the “Mao-
ists” have broken with Marxism
and scientific socialism. Indeed,
it is unthinkable for a Marxist
and Communist that one book,
whatever its merits, could con-
stitute the bible of Marxism.
Speaking of even the Communist
Manifesto of Marx and Engels,
a real turning point in the his-
tory of the working-class move-
ment and in modern history, no
Communist would every say
that one had only to read and
memorize the Manifesto to know
Marxism in all its richness and
continuous develoment. The no-
tion that there can exist a pray-
er-book of scientific socialism is
contradictory terminologically,
and is foreign to the scientific
character of socialism. It stems
from religiousness.

It leaps to the eye that the
collection in question is a hodge-
podge of quotations dating from
vastly different periods. No his-
torical reference sheds light on
their context, the historical con-
ditions of struggle at the given
moment, the forces at work, and
go on. Thus circumstantial esti-
mations and guidelines formulat-
ad in situations as different for
China as those of the '20s and
the.’60s are all given out to be
non-temporal and hence eternal
truths. And this is most typical
of dogmatism.

CARICATURE OF MARXISM

This is all the more striking
because the quotations are very
short, being generally made up
of two or four sentences, and
sometimes of only a few words.
The purpose is evident — the
reader is invited to use them as
both prayers and recipes. And
this means representing revolu-
tionary theory as something
oversimplified to the point of
obscurantism.

Marxism is a (scientific) world
vutlook. It is not a catechism.

“

Marxism is also a
action.”
guide.

guide to
But it is not a travel

Incidentally, the level of this
Mao bible is more than elemen-
tary. :

It is hard to see what good
could come of memorizing (and

A look at the ‘Little Red Book’

MARXISM IS NOT
A CATECHISM:

reciting as an incantation), say,
the precept which is supposed
to furnish the best. method of
defeating imperialism. “Strate-
gically,” it says, “We are not
afraid of taking a meal — we
can cope with it. In practice we
eat mouthful by mouthful. We
could not swallow the whole
meal at once. This is known as
solving problems one by one.”
Is it, then, these kind of aphor-
isms that are the last word in
revolutionary theory and the
acme of Marxism? Is it this
“theoretical rigor,” this “doctri-
nal fertility,” that inspires sud-
denly and in a rather unexpected

temporary function) of the dic-
tatorship of the proletariat, nor
is it the primary function. At the
recent congress of our Party,
Waldeck Rochet stessed that the
two functions of the new politi-
cal power of the working people
are: ‘“(1) ensuring the greatest
possible democracy for all work-
ing men and women and the peo-
ple as a whole in order to enlist
their participation in socialist
construction and in managing
government affairs in variouse
forms; (2) defending the new
regime of socialist democracy
against the acts of sabotage or-
ganized by the former exploiter

It is unthinkable sa3% that one book,
whatever its merits, could _
constitute the bible of Marxism.’

manner observers who were
never before known to be so
drawn to socialism? In fact, is it
not obvious that this caricature
of socialism offered by ‘““Maoism”
plays into the hands of the op-
ponents of socialism?

SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY
DOES NOT GIVE PREFERENCE
TO REPRESSION

The collection of quotations
from Mao provides, in effect,
evidence condensed to a digest
that the very peculiar theses the
“Maoist” leaders would like to
impose on their people and
the international working-class
movement have decidedly no-
thing to do with Marxism-Lenin-
ism, with our doctrine and our
policy.

Here is, for example, how
the functions of the “people's
democratic dictatorship led by
the working class and based on
the worker-peasant alliance” are
defined: “Its first function is to
exercise repression inside the
country with regard to the reac-
tionary classes and elements, as
well as on the exploiters oppos-
ing the socialist revolution, etc.
The dictatorship has a send
function, that of defending our
country against subversive ac-
tivity and. eventual aggression
from without.” These are the
only functions the collection as-
signs to the dictatorship of the
proletariat the “people’s demo-
cratic dictatorship” being no
more than a form of the latter,
according to Mao).

This is a far cry from Lenin,
from the concept of the dictator-
ship.of the proletariat upheld by
the world Communist movement,
including our own Party. In Le-
nin’s view, and in ours, coercion
is only one of the functions (a

classes with a view to recaptur-
ing power and restoring capital-
ism.’”’ To give preference to the
repressive function of socialist
power runs counter to Leninism.
True, Stalin maintained such an
idea (and practice). But this does
not excuse Mao. On the contra-
ry, since Stalin’s mistakes in
this respect were disclosed for
the enlightenment of all the
Communists of the world, this
aggravates Mao’s responsibility.

MAO’S “THEORY
OF VIOLENCE”

To be sure, another quotation
concedes that one of the “meth-
ods” of the proletarian dictator-
ship should consist in “enabling
the people to participate in poli-
tical activity.” The very wording
is condescending and restrictive
in respect of the Leninist prin-
ciple according to which socialist
power should ensure the great-
est democracy for the people. It
will be noted, moreover, that
Mao no longer speaks here of
the “functions” of working-class
power but of its ‘“‘methods.” The
difference is appreciable. It is
no longer a question of the na-
ture of this power but merely of
its ‘‘style.”’

Let us take another example.

“Every Communist,’ Mao con-
tends, “should learn the truth
that ‘power grows out of the
barrel of a gun’.” Nothing is said
before or after this — the sen-
tence is presented as it stands,
in isolation. In other words, it is
no longer just a guideline given
in definite circumstances to the
People’s Liberation Army~ of
China in 1938 and valid in that
context. It becomes something
much more important—a non-
temporal truth valid at all times
and everywhere. Yet as such it

is in glaring conflict with one of
the central theses of Marxism.
Exactly 90 years ago Engels de-
voted a whole section of Anti-
Duehring to disproving this over-
simplifying theory which says
that violence is the origin and
basis of political domination.

It may be argued that perhaps
Mao has in mind another aspect
of the matter, the one Marx
stressed by saying that violence,
too, plays a revolutionary role
in history, the role of midwife
“of the entire old society which
bears a new one in its womb.”
But, first of all, Marx said that
about past history, the history
of the bourgeoisie to be precise.
Secondly, it was amply demon-
strated years ago that neither
Marx, Engels, nor Lenin ever
held that the proletarian revolu-

‘tion, the assumption of power

by the working people, must
necessarily take on the form of
armed violence. Yet armed strug-
gle is what Mao maintains on
every page as the only possibil-
ity. The idea that “power grows
out of the barrel of a gun” is
spelled out in the following quo-
tation: “The central task and
highest form of the revolution
is to win power through armed
struggle, to solve the problem
through war. This revolutionary
principle of Marxism-Leninism
is valid everywhere, in China as
in other countries.” No, this is
not a principle of Marxism-Le-
ninism, which stresses, on the
contrary, the need to use differ-
ent forms of struggle depending

_on time and place. The principle

advocated by Mao is a principle
prompting adventurism. The
Communists by no means con-
sider civil war indispensable in
every case to the victory of the
socialist revolution. Indeed, they
consider it highly desirable to
dispense with it if possible.

WAR AND POLITICAL
STRUGGLE

The collection under survey
suggests, in effect, that to Mao
violence and war, is the predo-
minant solution to every funda-
mental problem. He shifts poli-
tical struggle, the Communists’
main weapon, to the background.
He even regards it as above all
a curious moral and psycholo-
gical action, a rather puerile
form of education. To him, war
is the key to everything.

That is why we are presented
with the dogma: “War can be
abolished only through war. If
there are to be no more guns,
one must take up a gun.” In
other words, while assuring us
that the imperialists are “paper
tigers,” they regard them, never-
theless, as absolute masters of
war and peace who cannot be
prevented from unleashing war.

May 5, 1967—PACIFIG:

They also tell ¥8
an advantage, [of
it possible to DU

dismiss this a.
become particulal
when put plainly,

war in question

waged with rifles:
ference should

must use the ator
may “abolish” W
to abolish civil
part of the plané
will one gain U

od of “abolishing

Even more seri
that this thesis
derestimates th?!
of the popular M:
world. This might”
becoming capa
imperialists resprr i
that is, peacelll |
Provided everylll
promote, exten®
still more this ©
masses. for pe
leaders, howevé
exact opposit
to undermine”
this struggle.
necessily. _

What we, all
gard as a neces
we must make
the imperialists
existence.
war, but not
rifle. We want t
in guns into P
fighting unrelé!
sistently to!
on imperialis™

UNDER Co

examples. A” is
confirm that Ht”
ideas entirely a
genuine histol os
Most of the th

fundamen

ism, but the fr F
totally alien
ism.

propositions |
against seriou™,
China itself. 5 é;
Besides, ee,
this prim!
While it ass
ciple is thal i
the rifles an® 1
for the 1 pine’
Party,” the
radio tell us A

ing
bodies of
of China.
It is well
always do

af
of a revelatlo

Ribu