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