(Continued from previous page)
an editorial in the Chinese paper
“Renmin Ribao” on Nov. 15, the
second anniversary of the 81-
Party Statement.

On the contrary, we believe
that averting war and preserving
peace, and peaceful competition
between the two systems, pro-
vide the best possible conditions
for the struggle for socialism.
Victory for peace would be a
massive victory for socialism and
a massive defeat for imperialism,
which breeds war. as clouds breed
rain.

Averting war is
no ‘backdown'

Neither do we agree that com-
ing to agreements with imperial-
ists in the interests of averting
world thermonuclear war means
to “back down, knuckle under
or even beg for peace at the ex-
pensé of the revolutionary peo
ple”, as the same editorial says.
We deny that socialist diplomacy
contradicts peoples’ mass strug-
gles, and therefore we reject the
argument put forward in the
editorial that “whether . world
peace is secured by relying chief-
ly on mass struggle of the people
or by relying on the ‘kind-heart-
edness’ of certain representatives
of the imperialist bloc — is an
important question of principle”.

We deny that principles were
sacrificed, or are sacrificed, or
that agreements are ever imposed
on the imperialists without mass
struggles, or that averting ther-
monuclear war (as in the case
of Cuba) involves any sacrifice
of Marxist-Leninist principles.

The two — struggle and diplo-
macy — go together. For ex-
ample, how could the Cuban
people have achieved. their pre-
sent “breathing space” to build
a socialist economy without a
combination of their own heroic
struggle and the direct assistance
given to them by the socialist
states — and especially by the
Soviet Union?

Such dogmatic reasoning,
which places things in water-
tight and separate compartments
instead of seeing them as inter-
connected and inter-related, is
also present in the way the
Chinese Communist Party separ-
ates the colonial struggle and the
struggle for world peace. Instead
of seeing how one complements
and reinforces the other, the
Chinese Communists charge the
socialist countries with submit-
ting to imperialist “nuclear
blackmail” and giving up their

“internationalist duty” of as-
sisting the national - liberation
movements.

They fail to see that no great-
er protection could be given to
the national-liberation movement
than the prevention of thermo-
nuclear war and victory for the
cause of disarmament. :

It is in the very struggle
for peace, and in the very
defeats administered to the

war plans of the imperialist ag-
gressors that the peoples of the
colonies and former colonies
find the best conditions for the
solution of their own problems,
in their own independent way
and without outside interference.
Moreover, as recent events show,
the socialist states: have given
ample proof of their support to
the national liberation move-
ment.

Clearly, what is back of the
thinking of the Chinese Commu-
nists is the conviction that the
primary duty of all Communists
is not a flexible, all-sided and
complex

peaceful coexistence, but a pol-

struggle for peace and .

icy of “blow for blow” regardless
of the consequences, even if one
of those consequences should be
thermonuclear war. We rarely if
ever see any reference to the
danger of thermonuclear war in
the speeches or writings of
the Chinese comrades, but there
are frequent references to “nu-
clear blackmail.”

This is not the policy of the
Communist Party of Canada as
decided by its conventions. It is
our opinion that in the present
world situation the severest blow
that could be given to imperial-
ism, and U.S. imperialism in par-
ticular, is to prevent world war,
to arouse the people of all coun-
tries on this single supreme is-
sue, to compel general and com-
plete disarmament, the abolition
of nuclear weapons, the stopping
of nuclear tests, the develop-
ment of world trade and peace-
ful coexistence. This is a mili-
tant, not a passive “revisionist,”
“opportunist” policy, as the Chi-
nese Communists declare.

Neither do we think that one
can separate the world so easily
into the — “national-liberation,”
“capitalist” and “socialist” sec-
tors as far as the struggle for
peace is concerned, as the Chi-
nese Communists tend to do.
While the peoples of each of
these areas of the world have
their own specific problems —
in the socialist countries the
building of socialism and com-
munism, in the newly indepen-
dent countries the creation of a
new democratic society, and in
the capitalist countries the fight
against state-monopoly capitalist
rule — all of them are united in
the struggle and find therein the
best conditions for the solution
of their own special problems.

We also believe the Chinese
Communists err in underesti-
mating the differences and con-
flicts in the imperialist camp —
and within imperialist countries.
It is not Marxism-Leninism, but
sheer dogmatism, to over-simpli-
fy the imperialist camp and to
fail to take advantage of these
differences in the interest of
world peace. Not only the social-
ist camp — but the imperialist
as well — are compelled to con-
cede and compromise in given
situations, each for its own in-
terests.

Neutrality is in
Canada's interest

We note that the Chinese Com-
munists take a negative attitude
to “neutrality” and “non-align-
ment,” which are anti-war and
peace policies raised in some
countries and adopted in others
in order to disentangle these
countries from involvement in
the imperialist aggressive blocs.

As far as Canada is concerned,
it is the policy of our party, and
of many Canadians who are not
Communists, to disengage .our
country from NATO and NORAD,
to refuse to accept nuclear weap-
ons, to dismantle the U.S. bases
on our territory. We look on‘ this
as a policy of “neutrality” and
“non-alignment” for Canada and

believe that it would be a con-

tribution to world peace.

Such a policy is in the na-
tional interests of our country.
For the Communist Party of
Canada it constitutes a democra-
tic, patriotic program in harmo-
ny with the aim of Canadian in-
dependence and the ending of
U.S. dominatidn. It is a Marxist-
Leninist mass policy. To adopt
the thinking of the Chinese Com-
munists to the Canadian situa-
tion would be to go contrary to
the interests of our country and
of the working class.

Chinese wrong
on Cuba crisis

From its dogmatic and rigid
point of view on the world situ-
ation and the fight against im-,
perialism and for peace, the’
Chinese Communist Party deve-
lops a criticism of the outcome
of the Cuban crisis of October
last.

Our Canadian party made its
position clear in a number of
public statements — first, that
the main issue in the fateful Oc-
tober days was “no war”; and,
second, that by withdrawing the
missiles sent to Cuba to give it
the modern means of self-de-
fense in the face of impending
U.S. invasion, the Soviet. Union
created the conditions which
blocked that invasion and saved
the world from thermo-nuclear
war as well as upholding the
independence of Cuba and com-
pelling the lifting of the naval
blockade.

The Communist Party of China
does the world Communist move-
ment, and the cause of peace, a
disservice by, in effect, advocat-
ing a “no compromise,” “leftist”
policy in the Cuban crisis.

In the thousands of words
published by the Chinese
Communist Party about Cuba,
not a single word is said about
the peace-saving action of the
Soviet Union; on the other hand,
many words are written to as-
sure the Cuban and all other
peoples that “principles have
been bartered away” an
opinion which flows from the
basic position of the Chinese
comrades that the Soviet Union
and other socialist countries
“submit to nuclear blackmail”
and surrender their “interna-
tionalist duty” to peoples fight-
ing for national liberation.

Under the guise of condemn-
ing the “Tito group” (and the
Chinese Communists know full
well that the majority of Com-
munist parties, while welcoming
the improvement in state rela-
tions between Yugoslavia and
the USSR and other socialist
states, sharply criticize the re-
visionist program of the Yugo-
slav League of Communists)
the Chinese Communists call
those who seek peace through
negotiation and compromise, as
in Cuba, “modern revisionists.”
Thus, “Renmin Ribao” writes
(Nov. 15):

“The modern revisionists rep-
resented by the Tito group, in-
stead of waging a resolute blow-
for blow struggle against im-
perialism, are spreading illusions
about imperialism, alleging that
the nature of imperialism has
changed and wanting people to
believe in the ‘assurances,’ ‘pro-
mises,’ ‘reason’ and ‘good will’
of such imperialists as Ken-
nedy.”

Why imperialists
must compromise

This is a falsification of the
position of the world Communist
movement, including our party.
In none of the documents of the
world Communist movement
has there been any suggestion
that the “nature” of imperialism
has changed, or of a naive be-
lief in the “good will” of the
Kennedy government. It is a
matter of realizing that the U.S.
imperialists are not now able to
impose their will but are
forced to compromise. This is
what made it possible to pre-
vent thermonuclear war and to

compel the. U.S. to call off its
impending and_ well-organized
invasion of Cuba.

Cuba has been given a breath-
ing space. Far from folding one’s
arms and resting secure in the
confidence that Cuba will never
be invaded, it is the duty of
Communists everywhere to be
vigilant and to be on guard
against imperialist perfidy. The
Cuban compromise opens an-
other ‘stage in the struggle to
keep U.S. imperialism out of
Cuba.

We believe that the Commu-
nist Party of China does not
grasp the real nature of US.
imperialist policy; that they do
not believe that the U.S. govern-
ment actually intended to in-
vade Cuba, or that the world:
really did stand on the brink of
thermonuclear war on Sunday,
Oct 28, when the action of the
Soviet Union saved the peace.

That the Communist Party of
China, which during the Chinese
revolution showed itself such a
master of tactics, including com-
promises and retreats when ne-
cessary in order to make ad-
vances later, should now advo-
cate a dogmatic and inflexible
policy in the long and complex
struggle for peace — infinitely
more prolonged and complex
than the Chinese revolution — is
a source of great disappointment
to us. We hope that the Chinese
party, respecting the opinions of
other parties, will reconsider its
opinions.

Chinese policy
in border dispute

The Nehru government has
been guilty of great provoca-
tions against China and reacticn-
ary “capitalist elements in and
around the government of India
welcomed the opportunity to
take India into the western im-
perialist camp.

While we fully respect the ar-
guments’ of the Chinese party
that they cannot accept the im-
perialist McMahon Line, and
uphold their right to protect the
sovereignty of China, we can see
no reason why the Chinese Com-
munists-permitted the matter to
come to its present critical
stage except that their attitude
to the “non-alignment” policy of
the Nehru government is un-
sympathetic and their estima-
tion of India is little different
from their estimation of an im-
perialist country.

What we are concerned with
is the harm that the border war
has caused to the fight for peace,
the confusion it has brought in
its wake, and the effects it has
had among the Indian masses.
These are not “private” matters
for India and China; they affect
the cause of world peace and
make it more difficult to present
a united. front against imperial-
ism — not to speak of the grist
the border conflict has brought
to the mills of the U.S. and Brit-
ish imperialists.

We suggest the Chinese Com-
munists-could have had a longer
perspective for the settlement of
their border dispute with India,
and could have viewed this mat-
ter in the light of the general
task for all Communists — the
prevention of thermonuclear war
and the maximum unity of the
peoples of the socialist, capital”
ist and “neutral” “and “non-
aligned” countries in the cause
of world peace.

We have publicly advocated the
peaceful settlement of the bor-
der dispute as being in the in-
terests of world peace, and we
have welcomed the Chinese

January 4, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page !

‘labor press.

“ceasefire” and negotiations pro
posal of Nov. 22, and urged the
Nehru government to accept it

Split would be
disastrous

Our party is dedicated to th
unity of policy and action.of the
world Communist movement if
the cause of peace, democra¢
and socialism. We hope that the
Chinese Communist Party will
re-establish its unity of vieW
point with the world Communist
movement. A split in the worl?
Communist movement would bt -
disastrous for the working pe?
ple and the cause of peace. Tht
re-establishment of the unity 0
the world Communist movemet]
would accelerate the victory
peace and the establishment df
the conditions of peaceful c0
existence. |

t
It is true that the anti-Com
munists ‘will make capital ou!
of the difficulties our worl
movement is now encountering
But it is not the first time, net
ther will it be the last, that :
|

do this. In the end, it is the
who are confounded by the Com!
munists and by the march
history.

|
As the 1957 Moscow Declaratio!,
of the Communist and Workers
parties said: “Like any progrey
sive movement in human _ his
tory, the Communist movemel!
is bound to encounter difficu!
ties and its road will not be #
straight one. However, as in tht
past, no difficulties or obstacle
can change now, nor will thé
be able to change in the furl
the objective laws  governi
historical progress, or shake t
determination of. the worki
class to transform the 0
world and create a new one.”

We conclude this letter by aS)
ing our party members and suf .
porters to increase their polil!
cal understanding of the struf
gle for peace, to carefully stu@
the documents of the 1957 a
1960 meetings of the Communi?
parties of the world, to examil
the point of view of the Chine*
and other Communist _partié
and to stand firmer than evé
on the program and policies
our Communist Party of Cana’
which place the struggle fo
peace as our supreme duty.

mee

In harmony with
Canada's needs —

a

The struggle for peace a!
Canadian neutrality is fully ’
harmony with the economic #!
social needs of the . Cana
workers and farmers. Our pal
seeks to convince the Canadié
people that war is not inevitab!
that peace can be won, oy
peaceful coexistence is the
possible way to avert world
We see in the conditions of
and democracy the best road
socialism in Canada. :
* * * :
We ask every member of ®
party to carefully read this *
ter, to discuss it in meetings
the party, to make it known
supporters of the party and.
the general public. Such a
and frank discussion of the pr
lems involved in the struggle f
peace will strengthen our pi
ty’s standing in the eyes of
people. With this in mind
are publishing this letter in

——

With comradely greetings,

National Executive Committ!
Communist Party of 4

Toronto, Ont., Dec. 17, 1962.
. oe 28)