AN ARMED PEOPLE OPPOSES ARMED COUNTER-REVOLUTION

A Reply To A Reader From The Editor of The PEOPLE'S DAILY. June 16, 1950.

[In this reply the editor of People's Daily discussed in great detail Com Stalin's comment (of 1926) on Chinese revolution, which was mentioned and explained in different articles of Com Mao. That the character and form of the revolution of the semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries like China of Asia, Africa and Latin America was different from the western independent capitalist countries; that the agrarian guerilla warfare or in other words protracted people's war was the principal form of national liberation; was discussed in this reply. Red Barricade]

Comrade Huang Tse-chun,
We have received your letter in which you state that, having studied Chairman Mao Tse-tung's The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party and having pondered over the nature of the Chinese revolution, you believe Staiin's statement that "the characteristic of the Chinese revolution is that an armed people opposes armed counter-revolution" conforms to historical reality in China. But, you ask:
"Perhaps the revolution of no country in the world will diverge from this pattern. Why did Stalin not say that this was the characteristic of the revolution of all countries but instead described it as purely the characteristic of the Chinese revolution?"
Very obviously, this characteristic—an armed people opposing armed counter-revolution—is something which was not present in the revolutions of any capitalist country in the past. This characteristic first appeared during the people's liberation struggle in semi-colonial and semi-feudal China. But under certain historical conditions, it can become the common characteristic of the people's liberation struggle in many colonial and semi-colonial countries.
Stalin's famous saying on China's armed struggle which we all quote was made during an address to the Chinese Commission of the Executive Committee of the Communist International on November 30, 1926. The whole passage is as follows:
"During the 18th and 19th centuries, revolutions always started in the following way. Generally the bulk of the people, either unarmed or very poorly armed, started an insurrection and clashed with the army of the old system. They tried to crush the old army or at least win a part of it over to the people's side. This was the typical form of previous revolutionary outbreaks. This was also the case in Russia during 1905.
But in China, it is different. In China, it is not the unarmed people but the armed people represented by the revolutionary army, who rise up against the army of the old government. In China, armed revolution opposes armed counter-revolution. This is one of the characteristics of China's revolution. It is one of the advantages of China's revolution. Herein also lies the special significance of the revolutionary army in China."
This charactetistic first, appeared in China because China was the largest and most important semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. The enemies of the Chinese people were imperialism and the domestic reactionaries dependent upon imperialism. They enforced the most brutal military despotism. Moreover, it was not merely one imperialist country, but many imperialist counties, that invaded and dominated Cnina. They had contradictions among themselves, which caused disunity, schisms and struggle among the domestic reactionaries. This in turn provided the people with convenient condition? for launching and resolutely sustaining an armed struggle, In the chapter of 'The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party which you are now studying, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has clearly pointed out :
"In the face of such enemies, it is a pre-determined fact that the method and major form of the Chinese revolution cannot be peaceful but must be armed. This is because our enemies do not leave the Chinese people any possibility of peaceful activity and the Chinese people have no political freedom at all. Stalin said, 'The characteristic of the Chinese revolution is that an armed people oppose armed counter-revolution.' This is an extraordinarily correct formulation."

WAR AND STRATEGY

In Problems of War and Strategy, a part of his summation at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (on Nov. 6, 1938), Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out still more precisely :
"During periods when there is neither Fascism nor war, the conditions in all capitalist countries are as follows: internally, the country does not have a feudal system, but a bourgeois-democratic system; externally, it oppresses other nations and does not experience national oppression. On the basis of these characteristics, the task of proletarian parties in all capitalist countries lies in passing through a long period of legal struggle, of educating the workers, of building strength and of preparing for the final overthrow of capitalism.
"In those places, a long period of legal struggle means making use of parliamentary rostrums; it means economic and political strikes; it moans organizing trade unions and educating the workers. There the form of organization is legal and the form of struggle is bloodless (non-warlike). To the Communist Party of those places, war means opposing the imperialist wars of one's own country. If such wars occur, the Party's policy will be one of ensuring the defeat of its own country.
"The only war the Party itself wants is the internal war which is being prepared. But such a war should not be undertaken until th3 bourgeoisie is actually powerless, until the majority of the proletariat are firmly determined to have and armed insurrection and wage war, and until the peasant masses are already willing to help the proletariat. When the time comes for an insurrection and war, cities should first be occupied and afterwards the country-side should be attacked. This absolutely cannot be reversed. All of these things have been practised by the Communist parties of capitalist countries and were confirmed during the October Revolution in Russia.
"But China is not the same. The characteristic of China is that she is not an independent, democratic country, but is semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. Internally, there is no democratic system, but the oppression of the feudal system; externally, there is no national independence, but the oppression of imperialism. Therefore, there are no parliaments to utilize, and no legal right to organize workers r carrying out strikes.
"Here the task of the Communist Party is not basically one of undergoing a long period of legal struggle in order to carry out insurrection and war, nor is it to occupy the cities first and then the countryside. Our path is just the opposite."
This was Comrade Mao Tse-tung's penetrating summation of the problems of war and strategy, based upon the theories of Lenin and Stalin and the experiences of the Chinese revolution.
The victory of the Chinese people's revolution has entirely proven the correctness of Mao Tse-tung's reasoning. During the past 20-odd years, most of those who committed errors in the Chinese revolution did so because they did not understand the laws of China's society and revolution, and violated Mao Tse-tung's theories. This was the case both politically and militarily.
One of the reasons for the failure of the first domestic revolutionary war in China from 1925 to 1927 was the opportunistic leadership of Chen Tu-hsiu, who overlooked -the great significance of armed struggle. After the failure of this revolution, Chen Tu-hsiu still advocated carrying on legal activities under Chiang Kai-shek's reign of White terror, taking the so-called 'National Congress' as the central slogan. Moreover, he slandered peasant guerilla warfare, led by the Chinese Communist Party, by calling it the behaviour of 'bandits'. Thus, Chen Tu-hsiu and his small clique of collaborators sank to becoming counter-revolutionaries.

CHINA'S EXPERIENCE

Those who committed 'leftist' errors in the second Evolutionary civil war from 1927 to 1937 also underestimated the military struggle, especially the importance of peasant guerilla warfare and of rural revolutionary bases. They wrongly imagined that the Chinese revolution might attain victory by relying upon the development, under the high pressure of counter-revolution, of mass struggles in the cities, such as the strikes staged by workers and students. They did not rely on the development of the armed peasant struggle in the countryside, where the counter-revolutionary forces were comparatively weak. Consequently, they did not subordinate the secret revolutionary work and the mass struggle of the cities to the armed struggle of the countryside. On the contrary, they demanded that the work of the rural armed struggle be subordinated to the underground work and mass struggles of the cities. The result was that not only the urban work suffered a serious setback but the rural work was harmed as well. Had it not been for the correct leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung and comrades-in-arms, which overcame the mistakes of the opportunist deviations that occurred at various times, the present victory of the Chinese revolution would be unimaginable.
This experience of China's revolutionary victory is very important for the people of the countries which are still under the rule of imperialism and their domestic reactionaries. That is to say, this characteristic of armed struggle which appeared in the course of China's revolution can under certain historical conditions become the common characteristic of all revolutions of other colonial and semi-colonial countries. This has been explained in the Outline of the Colonial and Semi-Colonial Revolutionary Movement issued by the Sixth Congress of the in August 1928.
In this outline, the following subjects were analysed: "Imperialism still continues to intensify its war preparations," "World capitalism develops post-war crisis" and "The socialist construction of the Soviet Union has a revolutionizing Influence; the Communist movements in all capitalist countries grow steadily more consolidated and proceed to support the struggles of colonial peoples,"
Continuing, the outline points out: "All these conditions have immeasurably accelerated the political awakening of the broad masses in colonial and semi-colonial countries and have given rise to many large-scale revolutionary armed insurrections on the part of the masses. Moreover, in the majority of cases, these revolutionary armed insurrections have been closely coordinated with the development of the anti-imperialist liberation struggle and with the development of the intensity of the class struggle within the Country."

LESSONS FOR COLONIAL LANDS

On the basis of China's revolutionary experience and a correct analysis of the World's political situation after World War II, Comrade Liu Shao-chi further pointed out last December in his opening address; at the Trade Union Conference of Asian and Australasian Countries ;
"The imperialists and their lackeys do not give the people under colonial and semi-colonial domination any democratic rights whatsoever. For instance, this was formerly the case in China. We revolutionaries, hunted down by the imperialists and their henchmen, could not maintain a foothold in the cities under the White Terror. Consequently, we could only flee to the countryside or to mountain-tops and defend our lives with arms......
"In a colony or a semi-colony, if the people have no arms to defend themselves, they have nothing. The existence and development of proletarian organizations and the existence and development of a national united front is intimately linked to the existence and development of such an armed struggle. This is the sole path for many colonial peoples in their struggle for independence and liberation.
Hence, it becomes absolutely clear that the characteristic of an armed people opposing armed counter-revolution not pertain to China's revolution alone. Under the present conditions, it can and should become the common characteristic of the liberation struggles waged by many colonial and semi-colonial peoples.
In an editorial published on January 27 this year. For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy organ of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties, commented that the path taken by the Chinese people, at Comrada Liu Shao-chi noted, "Should be the path taken by the people of many colonial and dependent countries in their struggle for national independence and people's democracy." The editorial further pointed out:
''As the example of China, Viet-Nam, Malaya and other countries shows, armed struggle is now becoming the main form of the national liberation movement In many colonial and dependent countries,"
It went on to stress the significance of China's revolutionary experience for India. After the publication of this editorial, Ranadive, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India, issued a statement expressing "full acceptance of the conclusions drawn by this editorial." He added:
"Under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese Communist Party has successfully applied the teachings of Lenin and Stalin in the course of the victorious liberation struggle of the Chinese people. The lessons of this victorious liberation struggle of the Chinese people will serve as an infallible compass for the Indian Communist Party and working class, which are responsible, for the task of leading the national liberation struggle".

Armed struggle against imperialist aggression is essential for the liberation of many colonies and semi-colonies. But the time and place for conducting this kind of revolutionary armed struggle must be decided according to concrete conditions. It can by no means be conducted in any colony or semi-colony at any time without the necessary conditions and preparations. In those countries where the objective conditions allow this armed struggle, whether or not this armed struggle attains victory is determined by the objective conditions of whether or not the people of these countries have a working class party to lead them and whether its leadership is correct or not. It is only because of the correct political and military line of the Chinese Communist Party, headed by Chairman Mao Tse-tung, that the Chinese people could win their great victory.
Today, the people of Viet-Nam have already scored tremendous successes in their armed struggle. In Burma, Malaya, the Philippine Islands etc., the people's armed struggle is just in the process of wide expansion. All these struggles are being conducted in each country under the leadership of the revolutionary working class.
The people in other colonial and dependent countries who are experiencing strong oppression and attack from imperialism and its lackeys—the domestic reactionaries— have no "democratic rights", and all illusions about "legal struggles" are fast vanishing. They will also take the path of armed struggle when conditions permit. One may be certain that if only they have the correct leadership of a working class party and gain experience from their struggles, the national liberation movements of these countries can march on to victory.

THE THEORY OF "COMBINE TWO INTO ONE"

[The following is the selected sections of an article that was published in 1976 from Peking (Beijing) in the booklet named "Three Major Struggles on China's Philosophical Front (1949-64)". Since 1949, after the establishment of new China during the period of socialist construction, philosophical front experienced the reflection of fierce two line struggle that had been on the question of continuation of class struggle, which in essence propagation of revolution under the dictatorship of proletariat. In the backdrop of this struggle a number of articles were published in "People's Daily", "Red Flag" etc. which were written by the Revolutionary Mass Criticism Writing Group of the Party School of the Central Committee of CPC under Comrade Mao. This article is one of them.
Like 'unity', there exists 'struggle' between the two sides of a contradiction. 'Unity' is conditional and relative. 'Struggle' is unconditional and absolute. With complex struggle the emerging and progressive side of a contradiction develops, the decaying and reactionary side degenerates, the emerging side "eats up" the decaying side. As a result, old contradiction ceases bringing the qualitative change and new contradiction starts to exist. This is the dialectical materialist law of the development of matter that operates universally, whether in the natural world, in human society, or in man's thinking. That is why Lenin, Stalin and Mao stressed more on the 'struggle' rather than 'unity' between two sides of a contradiction. Strengthening of the dictatorship of proletariat, continuation of class struggle or revolution under the dictatorship of proletariat – one divides into two – is the indispensable condition to resist the danger of the restoration of capitalism in the socialist society. Regarding philosophy, the major allegation of the proponents of 'Maoism', especially RIM against Stalin is that Stalin only considered the struggle of opposites and failed to see the unity of opposites. Interestingly, in China the followers of capitalist rode alleged of talking "only about the struggle between the opposites, but not their unity" against comrade Mao and the CPC. In essence, that unity of opposite means class collaboration, the reactionary theory of "combine two into one". In different version it is the theory of Bukharin that in thirties of last century argues "capitalism will peaceably grow into socialism" against which Stalin fought fiercely to establish socialism in Soviet Union. Keeping aside the class struggle or revolutionary change of the production relation and superstructure, Bukharin stressed over the "technique of social organization". In its continuation Yaroshenko in early fifties of the last century said that in socialism the productive force "eats up" the production relation, the key to establish socialism is the "rational organization of the productive forces". Exposing its political character Stalin described Yaroshenko's idea as "un-Marxist" and "profoundly erroneous". In socialism productive force does not "eat up" the production relation. Under the leadership of proletariat with the continuation of class struggle revolutionary transformation of production relation takes place, new and emerging production relation "eats up" the old and decaying production relation. During the Great proletarian cultural revolution that is why Comrade Mao called "Grasp revolution, promote production". Essentially the RIM and its followers with left grandiloquence market the theory of "combine two into one" while accusing Stalin for not seeing the "unity of opposites".]

THE THEORY OF "COMBINE TWO INTO ONE"IS A REACTIONARY PHILOSOPHY FORRESTORING CAPITALISM

Our great leader Chairman Mao points out: "Everything divides into two." "The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics" (On Contradiction ). This scientific thesis of Chairman Mao's profoundly expresses the objective law of things and penetratingly expounds the core of materialist dialectics. It is a sharp weapon for the Chinese people in carrying out the three great revolutionary movements -- class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment, a sharp weapon for consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and steadfastly continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The wide dissemination of the brilliant concept one divides into two among the people met with the extreme fear and hatred of a handful of class enemies at home and abroad. In 1964, Liu Shao-chi instigated Yang Hsien-chen, his agent in philosophical circles, to set off a heated debate centring around the question of one divides into two or "combine two into one." The proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao directly led this struggle on China's philosophical front, a struggle involving a matter of cardinal principle. With Mao Tsetung Thought as their weapon, workers, peasants and soldiers, cadres and intellectuals criticized the reactionary theory of "combine two into one" and demolished it by the revolutionary dialectics of one divides into two.
As the "theoretical basis" of Liu Shao-chi's counter-revolutionary revisionist line, the theory of "combine two into one" once permeated the political, economic, ideological, cultural, art and other fields. To eliminate the remaining poisonous influence of Liu Shao-chi's counter-revolutionary revisionist line in all spheres, we must further criticize the bourgeois idealism and metaphysics of Liu Shao-chi, Yang Hsien-chen and other such swindlers, as well as the reactionary theory of "combine two into one."

A REACTION TO CONTINUING REVOLUTIONUNDER

PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP

On the orders of Liu Shao-chi, the renegade Yang Hsien-chen, who long ago had prostrated himself before the Kuomintang reactionaries, came out at every crucial juncture in the socialist revolution to launch attacks on the Party in the field of philosophy. He frenziedly opposed Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and tried to use the reactionary world outlook of "combine two into one" to remould our Party and country.
In 1958, Yang Hsien-chen, with ulterior motives, advocated "using identity of contradiction" and by insinuation attacked our Party because it "talked only about the struggle between the opposites, but not their unity." His aim was to provide philosophical ground for Liu Shao-chi's theory of "the dying out of class struggle" in direct opposition to Chairman Mao's great work On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.
In 1961-62, Liu Shao-chi's counter-revolutionary clique, in close co-ordination with the anti-China adverse current abroad, plotted counter-revolutionary restoration all along the line from the top down. At that time Yang Hsien-chen ran hither and thither to spread his reactionary philosophy, opposing more frantically than ever Chairman Mao's philosophical thinking. He babbled that the unity of opposites meant "common points," that we had "common points" with U.S. imperialism and that we and modern revisionism had "common points with some differences." Here he was openly calling for "combining" the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, socialism and imperialism, Marxism and revisionism, into one.
Chairman Mao was the first to perceive the danger of the counter-revolutionary plots of Liu Shao-chi and his gang, and time and again warned the whole Party and the people of the whole country to guard against revisionism. At the Tenth Plenary Session of the Party's Eighth Central Committee held in 1962, Chairman Mao put forward more comprehensively the basic line of the Chinese Communist Party for the entire historical period of socialism and issued the great call: "Never forget class struggle." Under Chairman Mao's wise leadership, the Party intensified propaganda and education in the revolutionary dialectics of one divides into two, launched the socialist education movement on a broad scale, conducted open polemics against modern revisionism and dealt the class enemies at home and abroad hard blows. However, all these warnings and struggles did not and could not change the counter-revolutionary nature of Liu Shao-chi, Yang Hsien-chen and company, who were impatient to restore capitalism. Yang Hsien-chen first openly peddled the theory of "combine two into one" in the former Higher Party School under the C.P.C. Central Committee. After careful planning, this reactionary philosophy was launched for the public in 1964.
Lenin has said that the struggle in philosophy "in the last analysis reflects the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society" (Materialism and Empirio-Criticism ). The concocting of the theory of "combine two into one" was intended externally to meet the needs of imperialism and social-imperialism in subverting great socialist China, and internally to meet the needs of the counter-revolutionary restoration by the bourgeoisie. It was a hack philosophy serving Liu Shao-chi's efforts to restore capitalism, and ran counter to continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

OUT-AND-OUT BOURGEOIS IDEALISMAND METAPHYSICS

To oppose Marxist philosophy, all opportunists and revisionists do their best to negate the boundary between materialism and idealism as well as between dialectics and metaphysics. In peddling the reactionary theory of "combine two into one," Yang Hsien-chen, too, resorted to this kind of base counter-revolutionary tactics. He dressed this reactionary theory up as dialectics and prated that "combine two into one" and "one divides into two" had "the same meaning," deliberately trying to negate the fundamental antagonism between one divides into two and "combine two into one."
Lenin pointed out: "The splitting in two of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts. . . is the essence . . . of dialectics" (On the Question of Dialectics ). "In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This grasps the kernel of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development" (Conspectus of Hegel's Book The Science of Logic).
Chairman Mao developed this great idea of Lenin's further in his On Contradiction, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People and other important philosophical works. Chairman Mao says: "The law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally, whether in the natural world, in human society, or in man's thinking. Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change" (On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People ). The concept one divides into two that Chairman Mao put forward profoundly and concisely summarizes the law of the unity of opposites and grasps the heart of materialist dialectics.
According to the concept one divides into two, there are contradictions in everything. The two aspects of a contradiction depend on and struggle with each other, and this determines the life of all things. The natural world, society and man's thinking, far from "combining two into one," are full of contradictions and struggles. Without contradiction, there would not be the natural world, society, and man's thinking; nothing would exist. Contradictions are present in all processes of things and permeate all processes from beginning to end, and it is this that promotes the development of things. The constant emerging and resolving of contradictions -- this is the universal law of the development of things.
Applying the concept one divides into two in examining socialist society, we have to recognize that throughout the entire historical period of socialism there are classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the two roads of socialism and capitalism, there is the danger of capitalist restoration, and there is the threat of subversion and aggression by imperialism and social-imperialism. To resolve these contradictions, we must strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat and steadfastly continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even in a communist society, there will be contradictions and struggles between the new and the old, the advanced and the backward, and right and wrong. Just as Chairman Mao has pointed out, "Wherever there are groups of people -- that is, everywhere apart from uninhabited deserts -- they are invariably divided into left, centre and right. Ten thousand years from now this will still be so." Only by adhering to this concept and applying it to guide revolutionary practice can we be thorough-going dialectical materialists. To deny the concept one divides into two means to deny the universality of contradiction and to betray materialist dialectics and, politically, this inevitably leads to betrayal of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The core of the theory "combine two into one" lies in merging contradictions, liquidating struggle, opposing revolution, "combining" the proletariat with the bourgeoisie, "combining" Marxism with revisionism, "combining" socialism with imperialism and social-imperialism. This out-and-out reactionary bourgeois idealist and metaphysical world outlook is diametrically opposed to the world outlook of one divides into two.

THEORY OF "SYNTHESIS MEANS'COMBINE TWO INTO ONE'" REFUTED

Hsien-chen and company also alleged that "analysis means 'one divides into two' while synthesis means 'combine two into one.' This is not merely a question of their ignorance of Marxist philosophy; their real purpose was to cut asunder the dialectical relation between analysis and synthesis and to substitute reactionary metaphysics for materialist dialectics.
Marxist philosophy tells us that analysis and synthesis are an objective law of things and at the same time a method for people to understand things. Analysis shows how an entity divides into two different parts and how they are locked in struggle; synthesis shows how, through the struggle between the two opposite aspects, one prevails, defeats and eliminates the other, how an old contradiction is resolved and a new one emerges, and how an old thing is eliminated and a new thing triumphs. In plain words, synthesis means one "eats up" the other. The course of historical development is: What is revolutionary always "eats up" what is reactionary, and what is correct always "eats up" what is wrong. But this has to go through many complex and tortuous struggles. As Chairman Mao points out: "Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history, such is the history of civilization for thousands of years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism; standing in opposition to this viewpoint is historical idealism" (Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle ). The history of mankind's civilization is one of class struggle, one in which the revolutionary classes defeat and "eat up" the reactionary classes. Imperialism headed by the United States, social-imperialism and all other systems of exploitation will eventually be "eaten up" by socialism and communism. This is an objective law independent of man's will. When reflected in men's minds, such objective analysis and synthesis require that we make a concrete analysis of the movement of opposites in all things and, on the basis of such analysis, synthesize and point out the nature of the questions involved and determine the methods to resolve them. Different types of contradictions are resolved by different methods. It is quite clear that objective or subjective analysis and synthesis can only be one divides into two and not "combine two into one."
Analysis and synthesis are closely connected. There is synthesis in analysis and analysis in synthesis. As Engels said in reference to the science of chemistry: "Chemistry, in which analysis is the predominant form of investigation, is nothing without its opposite pole -- synthesis" (Dialectics of Nature ). Yang Hsien-chen and company denied the connection between analysis and synthesis and said that "analysis means 'one divides into two' while synthesis means 'combine two into one.'" This was the same stuff as the bourgeois dualism preached by Trotsky: "Politics -- Marxist, art -- bourgeois."
Chairman Mao points out in On Contradiction: "It was not until Marx and Engels, the great protagonists of the proletarian movement, had synthesized the positive achievements in the history of human knowledge and, in particular, critically absorbed the rational elements of Hegelian dialectics and created the great theory of dialectical and historical materialism that an unprecedented revolution occurred in the history of human knowledge." Chairman Mao has most profoundly explained how the founders of Marxism analyzed and synthesized the achievements in the history of human knowledge. Marx and Engels neither affirmed nor negated Hegelian dialectics in its entirety, but, dividing one into two, criticized its idealist shell and absorbed its rational kernel. Such analysis and synthesis fully demonstrated the thorough-going proletarian revolutionary spirit and scientific attitude which they consistently advocated. This is a brilliant example for us to follow.
The process of summing up our experience is also one of analysis and synthesis. By undertaking various kinds of struggles in social practice, men have accumulated rich experiences, some successful and some not. In summing up experience, it is necessary to distinguish the right from the wrong, affirm what is correct and negate what is wrong. This means, under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, reconstructing the rich data of perception obtained from practice, "discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside," raising perceptual knowledge to the level of rational knowledge and grasping the inherent laws of a thing. The movement of opposites -- one divides into two -- runs throughout this process. With the experience summed up in this way, we are able to uphold the truth and correct our mistakes, "popularize our successful experience and draw the lessons from our mistakes."

REACTIONARY TREND OF INTERNATIONAL

REVISIONISM

Was the reactionary philosophy "combine two into one" a creation by the renegades Liu Shao-chi, Yang Hsien-chen and their ilk? No! It was nothing but a variant, under new historical conditions, of the theory of "conciliation of contradictions" of the old-line opportunists and revisionists.
Since the emergence of Marxism, the mortal enemies of scientific socialism have openly advertised the reactionary theory of "conciliation of contradictions." Proudhon declared that he wanted to "seek the principle of accommodation" so as to conciliate the contradictions of capitalist society. Dühring uttered such nonsense as that the world was "indivisible" and "there are no contradictions in things." The reactionary chieftains of the Second International vainly attempted to replace revolutionary dialectics with vulgar evolutionism and replace the Marxist theories of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the theory of "class collaboration." Kautsky trumpeted that "there are no two classes in a society that do not have common interests. There were common interests even between the slaveowner and his slaves." "There are indeed common interests between the capitalists and the workers." One and all, they were only fleeting intruders in history. Relentless criticism and exposure by Marx, Engels and Lenin showed these types up in their true colours.
When, after the victory of the October Revolution, the Soviet people, under the leadership of Stalin, embarked upon socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization, Deborin and company jumped forth to frenziedly oppose Lenin's theory of the unity of opposites. They maintained that contradictions appeared not at the inception of a process but only when it had developed to a certain stage and that the resolution of contradictions was the "conciliation of opposites." This theory of "conciliation of contradictions" of Deborin's was a reflection in philosophy of Bukharin's theory of "the dying out of class struggle" which alleged that "capitalism will peaceably grow into socialism." This reactionary philosophy for the restoration of capitalism was sternly criticized by Stalin. Modern revisionism, however, blatantly revived and developed Deborin's reactionary philosophy. Posing as a saviour, Khrushchov clamoured: "The world is whole and indivisible in face of the threat of nuclear disaster. That is where we all are the human race." In response, his academic title-holding servants clamoured that the law of the unity of opposites was "outmoded," that unity had "become the source and motive force playing a constant role in social progress," etc. They shamelessly described this renegade revisionist philosophy as "creatively developing Marxism-Leninism."
In face of this revisionist adverse current against Marxist philosophy, Chairman Mao, with great proletarian strength of mind, repeatedly stressed the great importance of disseminating materialist dialectics. He pointed out: "We want gradually to disseminate dialectics, and to ask everyone gradually to learn the use of the scientific dialectical method" (Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work ). In his speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, Chairman Mao once again expounded in a deep-going way the revolutionary dialectics of one divides into two, giving a head-on blow to the revisionist adverse current.
The historical experience of the international communist movement has repeatedly proved that if a Marxist-Leninist political party does not observe, analyze and handle problems from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, it will commit mistakes and degenerate politically. Since modern revisionism has thoroughly betrayed dialectical materialism and historical materialism and thoroughly betrayed the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has inevitably gone further and further down the road of revisionism and degenerated into social-imperialism.
The reactionary theory of "conciliation of contradictions" has become a tool today for social-imperialism in intensifying its fascist dictatorship, pushing an aggressive policy and in collaborating with U.S. imperialism and contending with it for world hegemony. Social-imperialism vehemently clamours for the creation of a "socialist community" and "giving first place to common interests." This is a vain attempt on its part to obliterate the differences between the aggressor and the victim of aggression, the exploiter and the exploited, the controlling and the controlled. It wants the working people of the countries in the "community" to sacrifice their own interests, give up their independence and sovereignty and "merge" completely into the "entity" of colonial rule by social-imperialism. But the reactionary theory of "conciliation of contradictions" can in no way save it from its doom The inherent laws of dialectics are independent of the will of the revisionists. It has become an irresistible historical trend today for the people of the whole world, and many medium-sized and small countries, to unite and oppose hegemony by the two superpowers, U.S. imperialism and social-imperialism, and draw a clear line of demarcation between themselves and these superpowers. Revolutionary dialectics is striking firm root in the hearts of the people, is being grasped by more and more Marxist-Leninist political parties and revolutionary people. It has become their sharp weapon in making revolution. So long as they integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice in the revolutionary movement of their respective countries, the revolutionary people of all lands will overthrow the entire old world and win final victory in the proletarian world revolution.