| |
[Single Spark]Mao’s Evaluations of StalinA Collection and Summary(Sept. 6, 2006)
IntroductionThe Single Spark web site is sponsoring a collective investigation and reappraisal of Stalin, and the Soviet Union in his times, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. As such, it seems appropriate to start by first reviewing the various evaluations and criticisms of Stalin that Mao himself made over the years. We are not assuming that these comments are what our own final appraisal of Stalin should be exclusively based on. The passage of time and the opening up of Soviet archives, and a large amount of additional critical commentary from a variety of perspectives has given us the resources on which to base a more objective evaluation than was possible in Mao’s day. But Mao’s comments nevertheless form a good initial orientation for us as we begin our investigations. The excerpts below do not include every single reference to Stalin by Mao, but they do include all of them we have located which could be deemed to explicitly or implicitly evaluate Stalin in some significant way. (If you know of others, please email us!) Most of these comments, however, were not meant to be all-sided evaluations of Stalin, and all of them are the products of their times. In most cases these comments below are excerpts from larger documents, but an attempt has been made to include enough of the context so that the remarks are clear. The unattributed words in brackets are clarifying remarks that were inserted by the editors of the different editions of Mao’s writings. Our own editorial clarifications are also in brackets and are signed “Ed.” The English source editions used are listed at the end of this document. Many of these quotations come originally from various Red Guard editions of Mao’s writings which were published during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-69). These editions sometimes contain only portions of a particular work and therefore it is necessary to consult more than one edition. Moreover, some of Mao’s speeches are only known to us through notes that were prepared by listeners. Although these notes are generally pretty carefully done, there are in some cases different versions of the notes which do show considerable differences between them. As might be expected, there are also sometimes different translations of Mao’s writings into English which show some differences. And, finally, some of Mao’s writings as officially published by the Chinese government—especially volume V of the Selected Works which was published after Mao’s death—have been expurgated or changed to reflect the political line of the CPC at the time they were published. For all these reasons there are sometimes different “versions” available of particular works by Mao, as will be seen below. In part II below we attempt a summary of Mao’s criticisms of Stalin by specific topic. Part I: Mao’s Evaluations of Stalin(In Order by Date) “Generally speaking, all Communist Party members who have a certain
capacity for study should study the theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, study the history of
our nation, and study the circumstances and trends of current movements; moreover, they should serve
to educate members with a lower cultural level…. [Edgar Snow writing:] “On another occasion I asked Mao whether, in
his opinion, Russia’s occupation of Poland was primarily justified by strategic-military necessity
or political necessity. “December 21 of this year is Comrade Stalin’s sixtieth birthday. It can
be anticipated that this birthday will call forth warm and affectionate congratulations in the hearts of
all those people in the world who are aware of this event and who know suffering. “Today we are holding a meeting to congratulate Stalin on his sixtieth
birthday. ‘From ancient times, few men have reached the age of seventy,’ and living to the age of sixty is
also rare. But why do we celebrate only Stalin’s birthday? And why, moreover, are such celebrations taking
place not only in Yan’an but in the whole country and in the whole world? Provided only that they know who
the man is who was born this day, provided that they know what manner of man he is, then all those who suffer
oppression will congratulate him. The reason is that Stalin is the savior of all the oppressed. What kind
of people are opposed to congratulating him and do not like to congratulate him? Only those who do not suffer
oppression but, on the contrary, oppress other people, first of all, the imperialists. Comrades! A foreigner,
who is separated from us by thousands of miles, and whose birthday is celebrated by everyone—is this not an
unprecedented event? [In “On New Democracy”, Mao quotes approvingly two long passages from
Stalin on the national question and with respect to the significance of the October Revolution for revolution
in China and the East. Mao prefaced these passages with the following:] “As for education for cadres whether at work or in schools for cadres, a
policy should be established of focusing such education on the study of the practical problems of the Chinese
revolution and using the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism as the guide, and the method of studying
Marxism-Leninism statically and in isolation should be discarded. Moreover, in studying Marxism-Leninism,
we should use the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course as
the principle material. It is the best synthesis and summing-up of the world communist movement of the past
hundred years, a model of the integration of theory and practice, and so far the only comprehensive model
in the whole world. When we see how Lenin and Stalin integrated the universal truth of Marxism with the
concrete practice of the Soviet revolution and thereby developed Marxism, we shall know how we should work
in China.” “I believe we should do things honestly, for without an honest attitude
it is absolutely impossible to accomplish anything in this world. Which are the honest people? Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin are honest, men of science are honest. Which are the dishonest people? Trotsky, Bukharin,
Chen Tu-hsiu and Chang Kuo-tao are extremely dishonest…” [Excerpt from Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War
quoting Mao’s private reaction to the first of two telegrams Stalin sent him urging him to personally go to
Chongqing (Chungking) for negotiations with Chiang Kai-shek.] [Mao quotes a passage from Stalin written in 1918 which includes the remark
that the Great October Socialist Revolution “has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and the
enslaved East, having created a new front of revolutions against world imperialism, extending from the
proletarians of the West, through the Russian revolution, to the oppressed peoples of the East.” Mao then
continues:] [The authors of UP writing:] “In the late 1940s and well into the 1950s, Mao
and other Chinese Party leaders repeatedly contended that Mikoyan [in his secret visit on Stalin’s behalf to
Mao in early 1949] had recommended that the PLA not cross the Yangtze. That advice they charged up primarily
to three reasons. First of all, the Soviets had simply erred in their estimate of the PLA and believed it
could not defeat the Nationalists. Marshal Nie Rong-zhen comments that Stalin, lacking confidence in the
military power of the Chinese Communists, ‘was somewhat like the ancient man of Qi who was worried that the
sky might fall anytime.’ Fear that the crossing would raise the danger of U.S. armed intervention was the
second reason, and, third, Stalin wanted to split China in half, creating conflicting ‘Northern and Southern
Dynasties,’ the better to control the Communist half. [UP, p. 42. The UP authors go on to suggest that they
have doubts about the truth of this story, but provide the following references in support of it:] “As everyone knows, our Party passed through these twenty-eight years not
in peace but amid hardships, for we had to fight enemies, both foreign and domestic, both inside and outside
the Party. We thank Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin for giving us a weapon. This weapon is not a machine-gun,
but Marxism-Leninism.” “World War I shook the whole globe. The Russians made the October Revolution
and created the world’s first socialist state. Under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, the revolutionary
energy of the great proletariat and laboring people of Russia, hitherto latent and unseen by foreigners,
suddenly erupted like a volcano, and the Chinese and all mankind began to see the Russians in a new light.
Then, and only then, did the Chinese enter an entirely new era in their thinking and their life. They found
Marxism-Leninism, the universally applicable truth, and the face of China began to change. “We must not put on bureaucratic airs. If we dig into a subject for several
months, for a year or two, for three or five years, we shall eventually master it. At first some of the
Soviet Communists also were not very good at handling economic matters and the imperialists awaited their
failure too. But the Communist Party of the Soviet Union emerged victorious and, under the leadership of Lenin
and Stalin, it learned not only how to make the revolution but also how to carry on construction. It has built
a great and splendid socialist state. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is our best teacher and we must
learn from it.” “After the October Socialist Revolution, the Soviet government, following
the policies of Lenin and Stalin, took the lead in abrogating the unequal treaties [concluded] with China
under Imperial Russia. Over a period of almost thirty years, the Soviet people and the Soviet government
have, on several occasions, assisted the Chinese people in their cause of liberation. The Chinese people
will never forget that in the midst of their ordeals they received such fraternal friendship of the Soviet
people and the Soviet government. “Dear comrades and friends: “Comrade Stalin and many foreign comrades all feel that the victory of
the Chinese revolution is an extremely great one.” “Comrade Shvernik: “Generalissimo Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, Chairman of the Council of
Ministers of our great ally the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Secretary of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, unfortunately passed away at 9:50 p.m. (Moscow time), March 5,
1953. In order to express the Chinese people’s immensely profound mourning [at the demise] of our great
Comrade Stalin, the great leader of the world’s laboring people and the most respected and beloved friend
and mentor of the Chinese people, and in order to express the Chinese people’s reverence for the leader of
our great ally, it is hereby decreed that: “Comrade Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, the greatest genius of the present
age, the great teacher of the world Communist movement, and the comrade-in-arms of the immortal Lenin, has
departed from the world. “[Stalin’s] merits outweigh his faults; [we must] make a concrete analysis
[of Stalin’s case], and overall assessment [taking all aspects into account].” [The authors of UP writing, and referring to a secret “Additional
Agreement” to the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance of February 1950,
in which Stalin forced China to agree not to allow the citizens of third countries to settle or to carry
out any industrial, financial, trade, or other related activities in Manchuria and Xinjiang:] “The
agreement reminded the Chinese of the unequal treaties of the past… But we have since learned that as
early as April 1956, Mao told Mikoyan the secret deals on Xinjiang and Manchuria were ‘two bitter pills’
that Stalin forced him to swallow, and the next year he complained to Gromyko that ‘only imperialists’
would think of imposing such a deal on China. Indeed, in his contempt for the agreement, Mao came close
to giving the game away in [March] 1958, when he spoke of ‘two “colonies” [in China], the Northeast and
Xinjiang, where the people of third countries were not permitted to settle down.’” “The problem of transmitting [communications]. There are certain things
that can be talked about everywhere. The bad things about Stalin and the Third International can be
transmitted to the [special] district [Party] committee secretaries as well as to the xian [Party]
committee secretaries. These [bad things] were not written into the article out of consideration for the
situation as a whole. (In this article there was but one line written: Some bad suggestions were made),
and we are not prepared to discuss them in newspapers or among the masses.” “When we talk about committing errors we mean committing errors in
subjective [perception] and mistakes in thinking. The many articles that we have seen criticizing Stalin’s
errors either don’t mention this issue at all, or mention this issue only very infrequently. Why did
Stalin commit errors? It’s because on some questions his subjective [perception] did not correspond to
objective reality. At present, things like this still [occur] frequently in our work. To be subjective
is to proceed not from objective reality or from realistic possibility but rather from subjective
desires….” “The first thing is to unite with the several dozen Communist parties
and with the Soviet Union. Since some mistakes have occurred in the Soviet Union and those things have
been much talked about, they have been exaggerated, and now there is the impression that mistakes of
that kind are really terrible. There is something wrong with such an outlook. It is impossible for any
nation not to commit any mistakes at all, and [since] the Soviet Union was the first socialist country
in the world, and has had such a long experience, it is impossible for it not to have made some mistakes.
Where are the mistakes of the Soviet Union, such as Stalin’s mistakes, located [in the scheme of things]?
They are partial and temporary. Although we hear that some [of these] things have been around for twenty
years already, they are nevertheless still temporary and partial and can be corrected. The main current
in the Soviet Union, its principal aspect, the majority [of its people], was correct. Russia gave birth
to Leninism, and after the October Revolution, it became the first socialist country. It built socialism,
defeated fascism, and became a great industrial state. It has many things from which we can learn. Of
course, we should study the advanced experiences, and not the backward experiences. We have always proposed
the slogan of studying the advanced experience of the Soviet Union. Who asked you to learn the backward
experiences? Some people say that no matter what, even the farts of the Russians smell good; that too is
subjectivism. Even the Russians themselves would admit that they stink! Therefore, things must be analyzed.
We’ve said before that with regard to Stalin, we should [see him as having been] three parts [bad] and
seven parts [good].” “Stalin should be criticized, but we have differing opinions as to the
form the criticism ought to take. There are some other questions, too, on which we disagree.” “I’d like to say something about the Twentieth Congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union. As I see it, there are two ‘knives’: one is Lenin and the other is Stalin. The
Russians have now relinquished the knife represented by Stalin. Gomulka and some people in Hungary have
picked up this knife to kill the Soviet Union, [by] opposing the so-called Stalinism. The Communist parties
of many European countries are also criticizing the Soviet Union; the leader [of these parties] is Togliatti.
The imperialists are also using this knife to kill people; Dulles, for one, picked it up and played around
with it for some time. This knife was not loaned out; it was thrown out. We, the Chinese, did not discard
it. Our first [principle] is to defend Stalin; the second is also to criticize Stalin’s mistakes; [so] we
wrote the essay ‘On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’ “From the very beginning our Party has emulated the Soviet Union. The mass
line, our political work, and [the theory of] the dictatorship of the proletariat have all been learned from
the October Revolution. At that time, Lenin had focused on the mobilization of the masses, and on organizing
the worker-peasant-soldier soviet, and so on. He did not rely on [doing things by] administrative decree.
Rather, Lenin sent Party representatives to carry out political work. The problem lies with the latter phase
of Stalin’s leadership [which came] after the October Revolution. Although [Stalin] was still promoting
socialism and communism, he nonetheless abandoned some of Lenin’s things, deviated from the orbit of Leninism,
and became alienated from the masses, and so on. Therefore, we did suffer some disadvantages when we emulated
the things of the later stages of Stalin’s leadership and transplanted them for application in China in a
doctrinaire way. Today, the Soviet Union still has some advanced experiences that deserve to be emulated,
but there are some other [aspects] in which we simply cannot be like the Soviet Union. For example, the
socialist transformation of the capitalist industries and commerce, the cooperativization of agriculture,
and the Ten Major Relationships in economic construction; these are all ways of doing things in China. From
now on, in our socialist economic construction, we should primarily start with China’s circumstances, and
with the special characteristics of the circumstances and the times in which we are situated. Therefore, we
must still propose the slogan of learning from the Soviet Union; just that we cannot forcibly and crudely
transplant and employ things blindly and in a doctrinaire fashion. Similarly, we can also learn some of the
things that are good in bourgeois countries; this is because every country must have its strengths and
weaknesses, and we intend chiefly to learn other people’s strengths. “The fundamental policy and line during the period of Stalin’s administration
were correct; methods employed against the enemy mustn’t be used against our own comrade.” “Last year several great storms raged in the international sphere. The
Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union kicked up a row against Stalin. Following that,
the imperialists cooked up two major anti-Communist storms, and in the international Communist movement also
there were two big storms of debate. Some of the [Communist] parties in Europe and America felt the impact
of these upheavals and suffered considerable damage, but the damage sustained and the degree to which the
[Communist] parties in the countries in the East were affected was relatively small. With the convocation
of the ‘Twentieth Congress’ of the CPSU, some people who had supported Stalin enthusiastically in the past
have now become very vigorous in their opposition [to him]. I don’t think these people are practicing
Marxism-Leninism; they do not analyze problems, and they are also lacking in revolutionary ethics.
Marxism-Leninism also includes [the code of] revolutionary ethics of the proletariat. You supported [Stalin]
so very enthusiastically in the past; before making such a big switch now, you must at least give some
reason [for doing so]. [Instead,] you offered no reason at all, but made such a sudden 180-degree turn and
acted as if you had never supported Stalin, although actually you supported him very strongly in the past.
The Stalin problem involves the entire international Communist movement, and the parties in all countries
have become involved. “After the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
the great majority of the people in our Party [remained] normal and secure, [but] there was a tremor among
a small number of people. Before it rains, there are bound to be ants leaving their holes. In China, too,
a small number of ants wanted to leave their holes to engage in some activity. Now Khrushchev has changed,
and the ants have withdrawn, gone back [into the holes]. After the Twentieth Congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, two big storms came up. The [Communist] parties in many countries suffered
damage: The British Party lost one-fourth [of its membership], the Swiss [Party] half; and the United
States made chaos throughout the world. The Eastern parties and the Party in China were not quite so
severely affected. The problem of Stalin has involved the entire Communist movement. Some people criticize
Stalin without making any analysis. The people who were most staunchly supportive of Stalin in the past
are precisely the most vehemently opposed to Stalin now. They have suddenly turned around 180 degrees;
they no longer talk of Marxism-Leninism, or of ethics. In the Party, some people begin to teeter as soon
as there is any rustling in the wind. Some sway once or twice and then stop swaying; some will go on
swaying forever. Saplings, the stalks of rice, barley, corn, and the grass on the wall always sway when
they see the wind coming; only the big tree will not sway. There are typhoons every year, but there is
not necessarily a political typhoon every year. This phenomenon is a natural phenomenon in society and
politics. “My advice to the comrades here today is that if you [already] understand
materialism and dialectics, then you still need to supplement it by learning a bit about their opposites,
idealism and metaphysics. Those things on the opposing side, Kant’s and Hegel’s writings, Confucius, and
Chiang Kai-shek’s books, ought to be read. If you don’t understand idealism and metaphysics and have not
undergone a struggle against these things of the opposing side, your materialism and dialectics would not
be solid. The shortcoming of some of our Communist Party members and Communist intellectuals is precisely
that they know too little about the things on the opposite side. They read a few books written by Marx
and proceed to talk about them accordingly; this is relatively monotonous. Their speeches and writings
[therefore] lack persuasiveness. If you don’t study things on the opposite side you cannot refute them.
Marx, Engels, and Lenin were not like that. They all studied energetically and learned all sorts of
contemporary and historical things; moreover, they counseled others to do the same. The three component
parts of Marxism were produced through the process of studying the things in bourgeois [society], studying
German classical philosophy, British classical economics, and French utopian socialism, and struggling
against them. Stalin was a bit less sound. For instance during his time German classical idealist philosophy
was said to be a kind of reaction on the part of the German aristocracy to the French Revolution. To draw
a conclusion like that is to totally negate German classical idealist philosophy. He [also] negated German
military science, saying that [since] the Germans had been defeated, their military science was impractical,
and Clausewitz’s book needn’t be read any more. “In our Party, there are also all sorts of opinions that are in opposition
to each other. For instance, there are two opposing views regarding the CPSU’s knocking off Stalin in one
blow at the ‘Twentieth Congress’; one supports [the CPSU’s action] and the other opposes it. Differences
of opinion in the Party are a common occurrence. If opinions happen to coincide, after a month or two, new
and differing opinions will again emerge.” “The fundamental reason for being afraid of trouble and for handling
these matters in a simple way lies in not recognizing ideologically that socialist society is a unity of
opposites and that there are contradictions, classes, and class struggle within it. “Letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend
is still correct. Truth emerges out of struggle with error. Beauty emerges out of comparison with and struggle
with ugliness. Good deeds and good people emerge out of comparison with and struggle with evil deeds and evil
people. Fragrant flowers emerge from the comparison with and struggle with poisonous weeds. Materialism emerges
out of the comparison with and struggle with idealism. Many people hate Chiang Kai-shek, but they don’t know
what a bastard Chiang Kai-shek really is. Therefore we should publish the collected works of Chiang Kai-shek.
We should also publish the collected works of Sun Yat-sen and the collected works of Kang Youwei. To prohibit
people from coming into contact with ugliness, error and fallacies, idealism, and metaphysics is a very
dangerous policy. It would cause people’s thinking to deteriorate and ossify; it would make them one-sided
and incapable of facing the world or meeting the challenge of a rival show. We Communists know too little
about the opposite side, so we are comparatively monotonous and can hardly produce any persuasive statements.
Neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin was like this. They all strenuously studied contemporary and historical
matters and also instructed other people to study in a like manner. Stalin was a bit inferior. He rejected
German philosophy (Kant and Feuerbach), and because Germany was defeated in war he also rejected German
military teachings. Germany’s classical philosophy is the forefather of Marxism. Stalin was in reality
metaphysical [in his ideas], and he did not recognize the unity of opposites. In the Dictionary of
Philosophy they employed a metaphysical way of putting things. [In it,] war does not turn into peace,
nor does peace turn into war; the two things are separate and unrelated; they are not mutually transmutable;
they only struggle [with each other], but there is no unity. Lenin said that war was an extension of
politics and a special means, and that peace was a result of war. [He said that] politics was struggle
during the time of peace, and that it is during times of war that peace is fomented. Stalin misled many
people. These people had a lot of metaphysics in their minds and became rigid in their thinking, thus they
committed political mistakes. When others disagreed [with them] occasionally, they were ostracized. [When
one was deemed a] counterrevolutionary, the only [fate one could meet was that of] death by execution, and
whoever disagreed with the Soviet Union was called anti-Soviet. But in real life Stalin could not do all
things in this way. Stalin didn’t execute or jail everybody. In 1936 and 1937 he killed many people. In
1938 he killed fewer, and in 1939 he killed even fewer. It is not possible to execute everyone who disagrees.
We, for one, had disagreements with Stalin. We wanted to sign a Sino-Soviet Treaty, but he didn’t want to
sign; we wanted the Chinese-Changchun Railway back, but he didn’t want to give it up. Even so, it is still
possible to snatch the meat out of a tiger’s mouth.” “Fifth, the development of agriculture is the primary source of
accumulation for the state. Therefore we must persuade cadres to go to the rural areas; if we want to
industrialize, then we must engage in agriculture. A ratio of accumulation must be worked out. Stalin
emphasized accumulation too much, which had a [negative] impact on industry. What ratio is actually
desirable still needs to be studied. In short, we must make the cooperatives expand reproduction so that
we can be assured of even greater accumulation. We must not drain the pond to catch the fish.” “Materialism and idealism are a unity of opposites, and dialectics and
metaphysics are also a unity of opposites. With philosophy there is always struggle; to discuss philosophy
you have to struggle. Some people, when they discuss philosophy, only talk about one side [of the issue];
[when they talk about] letting a hundred flowers bloom, they only talk about letting fragrant flowers bloom,
and not about getting rid of poisonous weeds. We acknowledge that opposites exist in socialism. Stalin had
his metaphysics, and his subjectivism. The Soviet Union does not acknowledge the existence of opposites
[within socialism], and forbids [their existence] by law; as a matter of fact, many wrong things are hidden
behind the front of socialism. Lenin believed that merely talking about materialism could not solve problems.
To solve problems, one must struggle with idealism. To struggle with it, one must study idealism. The three
component parts of Marxism are the result of struggle after having studied capitalist things.” “Dogmatism has no force. One of the reasons why it has developed is because
the Communist party has come into power. Marx and Engels criticized Dühring, and Lenin criticized Lunacharsky.
They had to exert great efforts to outargue them. Stalin was different (he was in power). So his criticism
was not balanced and was very similar to a father scolding his son. [It’s like the saying:] ‘As soon as he
has power in his hands, he rules by fiat.’ Criticism should not rely on state power; it should use truth. If
you use Marxism, if you apply effort, you can prevail. “Stalin had his Idealism and his materialism; he had a one-sided
character. “Stalin is fundamentally a materialist. He also has some [sense of] dialectics,
but not quite that much of dialectics.” “Lenin said contradictions among the people exist, but Lenin did not have
time enough to analyze this question fully. As for antagonism, is it possible for contradictions among the
people to be transformed from non-antagonistic contradictions into antagonistic ones? It must be said that it
is possible; but in Lenin’s time this had not yet happened, and perhaps he did not watch this problem carefully
since he had such a short time [as leader of the Soviet Union]. After the October Revolution, during the period
when Stalin was in charge, for a long time he confused these two types of contradictions. Problems like bad
mouthing the government, talking about the government, being dissatisfied with the government, being dissatisfied
with the Communist party, criticizing the government, criticizing the Communist party, are in origin problems
among the people. But there are two types of criticism: There is the enemy criticizing us, the enemy being
dissatisfied with the Communist party; and there are the people criticizing us, the people being dissatisfied
with us; and the two must be distinguished. Stalin for so many years did not make such distinctions, or rarely
did. A few [comrades] who have worked in the Soviet Union for many years have told me there were no distinctions;
you could only talk about good things, not bad; you could only sing praises, not make criticisms; whoever made
a criticism was suspect of being an enemy and ran the risk of imprisonment or execution.” “You could only speak favorably, and not unfavorably; you could only sing
praises to his successes and virtues, but were not allowed to criticize; if you expressed any criticisms he
suspected you of being an enemy, and you were in danger of being sent to a camp or executed… “‘Left’-ists, ‘left’ opportunists. So-called ‘leftists’ are ‘left’ in
quotation marks, not the true left. These people excessively emphasize antagonistic contradictions between
the enemy and ourselves. For example, Stalin was this kind of person; we, too, have such people who stress
[them] to excess, mistaking the second type of contradiction, contradictions originally among the people,
for the first type, mistaking them as [contradictions] between the enemy and ourselves…. “How has the work of eliminating counter-revolutionaries been carried out
after all in our country? Very badly, or very well? In my opinion, there have been shortcomings, but if we
compare ourselves with other countries, we have done relatively well. We have done better than the Soviet
Union, and better than Hungary. The Soviet Union has been too leftist, and Hungary too rightist…. “The problem of eliminating counterrevolutionaries is a problem of the
first type of contradiction [i.e., between the enemy and ourselves]. Speaking comparatively, in the last
analysis how has our country handled the work of eliminating counterrevolutionaries? Poorly or well? In my
view there have been shortcomings, but in comparison with other countries we have done relatively well.
Better than the Soviet Union, better than Hungary. The Soviet Union was too leftist, Hungary was too
rightist. We have drawn a lesson from this; it’s not that we’re especially clever. Because the Soviet Union
has been too left, we have learned something from that experience. We ourselves have committed leftist
excesses, too. During the period of the southern base areas, when we were still rather ignorant, we suffered
losses and every base area without exception used the same Soviet method. Later [we] put things right, and
only then did we gain experience. In Yan’an [we] finally enacted some rules. Not a single person was to be
killed and the bulk [of offenders] were not to be arrested. Once in Beijing [i.e., after the 1949 Communist
victory] there were some improvements, though naturally there are still shortcomings, errors. Still, by now
progress has been made. Compared with the Soviet Union, it is two lines [i.e., two different lines on this
were followed. –Ed.] (this refers to the past, not the present, namely the time when Stalin was in power;
he did things badly). There were two sides to him. One side was the elimination of true counterrevolutionaries;
that was the correct side. The other side was the incorrect killing of numerous people, important people.
For example, a high percentage of delegates to the Communist Party [National] Congress were killed. How many
in the Central Committee did he kill? He sized and killed 80 percent of the Seventeenth Party Congress
delegates, and he seized and killed 50 percent of the Central Committee members elected at the Seventeenth
Congress [in 1934].” “[We] should affirm that contradictions in socialist society exist; these
are basic kinds of contradictions, namely, contradictions between the relations of production and the forces
of production, [and] contradictions between the superstructure and the economic base. These contradictions
all appear as contradictions among the people. Because at this time socialist society does not have exploiters,
the system of ownership is that of the whole people or collective [ownership]; there are no private capitalists,
no private landowners, no private factory owners [or] enterprise owners. Therefore Stalin, we say that Stalin
was somewhat deficient in dialectics, but [not that he] was without dialectics. In the People’s Daily
editorial we said he partially but seriously turned [his] back on dialectical materialism. That’s what [we] said.
Under his influence a book was written, called A Concise Dictionary of Philosophy, written by two men. Of
the two, one is the Soviet Ambassador [Pavel] Yudin. It [was written] under Stalin’s influence, [and] in the
context of discussing identity—he had a topic called identity on which he rambled on and on—[he] refuted
formal logical identity, [but] failed completely to analyze clearly whether formal logical identity and
dialectical identity are the same thing or not. Then [he] quoted Engels to say, Engels said there is no such
identity, in reality everything exists in change, in objective reality there is no such identity. Then he
brought up some metaphysics; he says things in opposition, mutually repellent opposites, cannot be said to
have identity. For example, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, these two classes in a single society, they
have no identity, have only mutual rejection, have only struggle. War and peace have no identity; life and
death have no identity. To say these things have identity is a mistaken concept [he said]. After Stalin died,
Soviet philosophers, the Soviet Union began to change on this question. I haven’t read much, but I can see
they have changed. In philosophy Stalin had a rather metaphysical outlook. The so-called metaphysical outlook
[means that things] have no change, war is war, the bourgeoisie is the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is the
proletariat. Our theory is different: The bourgeoisie becomes the proletariat; the oppressed proletariat
transform into the proletariat which rules the nation. War turns into peace, peace turns into war, life turns
into death, death turns into life. In the midst of identity, after quoting what Engels said (what Engels said
had no metaphysics), he [Stalin, or Yudin, et al., representing Stalin] brought up a piece of metaphysics,
these two things short of change cannot have unity, cannot be transformable, but [elsewhere] Stalin in his
book on economics said socialism has contradictions, between productive forces and productive relations,
[and] moreover [that] if [the two] are not handled well, they can become antagonistic. This is well said;
nonetheless it is not thorough. I say his dialectics are bashful dialectics, are coy dialectics, or could
be called hesitant dialectics. As we look at this question now, we should recognize socialism contains
contradictions; the basic contradiction is the contradiction between relations of production and productive
forces. The ideologies of the superstructure (politics, law, religion, philosophy, these various ideologies)
should serve the economic base; [they] should match the economic base. If [they] do not match [it], then
contradictions emerge.” “Can senior cadres be criticized? [On] this problem of criticism, from Marx
onward, never once has it been said that junior and senior cadres should be distinguished, [or] said that
only junior cadres can be criticized [and] senior cadres cannot be criticized…. If while you are living you
receive no criticism, after you are dead, people will still criticize you. We have criticized the dead, [we
have] criticized Confucius: Down with the house of Confucius! Even a man who has been dead for several
thousand years, [we] still criticize! Now Confucius is a bit better. Stalin was also criticized after his
death! Living people can be criticized [and] dead people can also be criticized…. After committing an error,
one should always be criticized.” “Stalin was 70 percent a Marxist, 30 percent not a Marxist. [He] was 30
percent bourgeois, 70 percent Marxist.” “How [should we] look on the criticism of Stalin? We [humans] are also
commodities of dual character. [This is an allusion to Marx’s comments about how commodities have the dual
characteristics of use value and exchange value. –Ed.] The criticism of Stalin has a two-sided nature. One
side has real benefit; one side is not good. To expose the cult of Stalin, to tear off the lid, to liberate
people, this is a liberation movement; but his [i.e., Khrushchev’s] method of exposing [Stalin] is incorrect;
[he] hasn’t made a good analysis, clubbing [him] to death with a single blow. On the one hand, this provoked
the worldwide currents of the latter half of last year; on the other hand, it later also provoked the
Hungarian and Polish incidents. But he [Stalin] had his incorrect side; although our published articles
have not pointed at the [CPSU] Twentieth Congress, in fact [we’ve] talked about it. What have we discussed
with the Soviet comrades face to face? About how the Stalin problem has not been handled appropriately;
[we] discussed our great-nation chauvinism….” “Without the demise of the Third International, the Chinese revolution
could not have succeeded. When Lenin was alive, the Third International was well led. After Lenin’s death,
the leaders of the Third International were dogmatic leaders (for instance, leaders [like] Stalin, Bukharin
were not that good). Only the period under Dimitrov was well led. Dimitrov’s reports were well reasoned.
Of course, the Third International had [its] merits as well, for instance, helping various countries to
establish a [communist] party. Later on, [however] the dogmatists paid no attention to the special features
of various countries [and] blindly transplanted everything from Russia. China [for one] suffered great
losses.” “We have some people [Communist Party members —Ed.] in the area of
literature and art, but even there it is a thirty-seventy split. That is like Stalin’s committing errors;
[didn’t we say that] Stalin was 30 per cent wrong and 70 per cent correct? We have [in the CP —Ed.] 30 per
cent know-how, and 70 per cent ignorance. [Even] in the area of literature and art, the advantage lies
outside the Communist Party.” “To affirm everything we did, without analyzing it—this thing is wrong.
The dogmatists of the past were just like that. Rákosi was like that, and so was Stalin. Can you say
Stalin was entirely dogmatist? No, you can’t say that. This man, he did a lot of things, but he did have
[some] dogmatism. This dogmatism of his influenced China, making us fail in our revolution during a certain
period. If we were to do things as he bade us, we would not have been able to carry out the revolution in
the later stage, and we wouldn’t be holding a meeting here. Who built the building? Not us. We wouldn’t
have had the opportunity [to hold this meeting] because it would still be the government of the Kuomintang
[and the] imperialists [running things in China]. Stalin had [things on] both sides; he also had [some]
dogmatism—[wanting us to] transplant the [experience of the] Soviet Union in everything. We must learn
from the Soviet Union. The things of the Soviet Union, both the mistakes and the achievements, are very
worthy of being learned from. The slogan that we propose now is to learn from the Soviet Union’s advanced
experiences. We didn’t say that we should learn from their backward experiences. When did we ever propose
such a slogan? However, even though it was not proposed, some things like that came over with the [good
ones] all the same, [especially] in the last seven years. Nonetheless, in general, we can’t say that we
weren’t selective at all … because we have been critical of dogmatism, and the source of dogmatism comes
from Stalin.” “It is good to have criticism. It would not be good to have no criticism,
or to suppress criticism. It is this mistake that Stalin committed. Stalin did a lot of good things, but
he also did some bad things. He confused the two; he used the methods that are for dealing with the enemy
to deal with the people, with contradictions among the people. He wouldn’t let people say bad things about
the government, or about the Communist Party; if you said anything bad or if there were any rustling in
the air, any movement in the grass, he would say that you were a spy and have you arrested.” “Of course what happens abroad also affects us. The Twentieth Congress
[of the CPSU] which criticized Stalin, the incidents in Poland and Hungary, the worldwide anti-Soviet and
anti-communist agitation, the speeches of Tito and Kardelj (have the Shandong newspapers carried this
article?), all this has caused confusion in people’s thinking.” “[We] must clearly distinguish the two types of contradiction. The first
type, contradictions between ourselves and the enemy, should not be mixed up with the second type,
contradictions among the people. That there are contradictions in socialist society, that contradictions
persist in socialist society, this is something Lenin once pointed out. He recognized that there were
contradictions in socialist society. During the first years of Stalin’s leadership, the period following
the death of Lenin, domestic life in the Soviet Union was still quite lively and not very different from
ours today. There, too, were different parties, different factions, and well-known personages such as
Trotsky. Trotsky had many followers, but he was perhaps only a democratic personage within the Communist
party.” “We must distinguish clearly between the two categories of contradictions.
The first category, of contradictions between the enemy and ourselves, cannot be confused with the second
category, of contradictions among the people. On the subject of the socialist society, [we must recognize
that] it does have contradictions, and contradictions do exist [in it]. Lenin once made a directive on this
point. He recognized that there are contradictions in socialist society. In the beginning, Stalin—in the
period immediately after Lenin’s death—[allowed for] a relative liveliness and activity in the domestic
life in the Soviet Union. It was somewhat like what we have now [in our country]. They had all sorts of
[political] parties and factions, even some well-known people like Trotsky. He had many people [with him],
but he was sort of like a democratic personage within the Communist Party. Moreover, he played the role of
a cheeky troublemaker and made trouble for us. There were also quite some other people in the society who
were allowed to say all sorts of things, including criticizing the government. There was such a period.
Then later, things didn’t work. Furthermore, things became very dictatorial. [Stalin] would not allow for
criticism. He was afraid of people who wanted to criticize, of letting a hundred flowers bloom. He would
only allow for the blooming of fragrant flowers. He was afraid also of letting a hundred schools contend.
At the slightest hint of suspicion, he would say that it was a counterrevolutionary [incident] and would
have people arrested or executed. This is to confuse the two types of contradictions, to mistake the
contradictions among the people for contradictions between the enemy and ourselves. Your Comrade Xu Jiatun
of Nanjing said many students came to submit petitions to him. Their ranks, [he said,] were very orderly.
[Your] provincial governor, Peng Chong, also said that they were very well disciplined. Along the way they
have been very good. When they got to his place, as soon as they got in the door, they yelled ‘Down with
bureaucratism’ and wanted certain problems resolved. In regard to these problems, as I see it, if these
were brought in front of Stalin, I think a few people would have been arrested, and a few heads would surely
have rolled. You call for the downfall of bureaucratism; is that not counterrevolution? In fact there was
not a single counterrevolutionary; [all of them] were very good students. Moreover, that problem [indeed]
ought to be resolved; there is indeed a bit of bureaucratism. This is because without the disturbance
created by those overseas Chinese students, the problem was not well resolved.” “Are there contradictions in socialist society? Lenin once spoke on such
a problem, and his opinion was that contradictions would exist [in a socialist society]. Stalin, however,
over a long period of time, in fact did not acknowledge that there would be contradictions in a socialist
society. In Stalin’s later stages, people were not allowed to say bad things, or to criticize the Party
or the government. In fact, what Stalin did was to confuse the contradictions among the people with the
contradictions between the enemy and ourselves. He considered everyone who said bad things [about the Party]
and gossiped [about the Party] as an enemy, and therefore [he] unjustly wronged many people. In the book
‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,’ written in 1952, Stalin himself said that in socialist
society there would be contradictions between the relations of production and the forces of production.
Moreover, [he said] if [the contradictions] are not properly resolved, they can be transformed into
antagonistic [contradictions]. Even so, Stalin said very little about the contradictions internal to
socialist society, or the contradictions among the people. I believe that we should, today, openly discuss
this problem, not only inside the Party, but we should also make this problem clear in the newspapers,
and draw appropriate conclusions; that would be better.” “XXX wouldn’t sign the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance.
It was not until the Chinese scolded and the British lent a hand that it was done.” “The Resolution of the Eighth Party Congress declared that the primary
contradiction is that between the advanced social system and the backward forces of production, but we
cannot reason this way. Today there are contradictions, and in the future there will still be contradictions.
When the cooperatives have all been transformed into state farms that pay wages, there will still be
contradictions. Socialism is composed of two sectors: the system of public ownership and the system of
collective ownership. In the future, contradictions will also arise between the two. The socialist system
and the forces of production basically conform to each other, but there are still areas that do not conform
completely; there are still shortcomings; [thus] to speak of perfect conformity is incorrect. Once Stalin
mentioned complete conformity, problems emerged….”
“Incidentally, let me talk a bit here about where our opinions differ from
those of the Soviet Union. First of all, on the question of Stalin, we have contradictions with Khrushchev.
He made Stalin appear so terrible! We do not agree with that, because he was made to appear so ugly! This
is not a matter for their country alone; it is a matter that concerns all countries. We hang Stalin’s
portrait outside our Tiananmen; this is in accord with the wishes of the laboring people of the whole world,
and it demonstrates our basic differences with Khrushchev. As for Stalin himself, you should also give him
[an evaluation of] 30 per cent [bad] and 70 per cent [good]. Stalin’s achievements count for 70 per cent;
his mistakes count for 30 per cent. Even this may not be accurate; [his] mistakes may only be 20 per cent
or perhaps only 10 per cent, or perhaps a little more than [20 per cent]. In any case, Stalin’s achievements
are primary while his shortcomings and mistakes are secondary. On this point we and Khrushchev hold differing
opinions.” “I think that our declaration is good. We used a very good method to attain
our goal, and that is the method of consulting [one another and talking things over. The declaration] upholds
the sense of principle and yet has flexibility; it is a unity of principle and flexibility. Thus, an atmosphere
of consultation has now been formed, whereas in the last stages of Stalin[‘s time] that was impossible. We
have not forcibly imposed anything on anybody. It is not good to adopt a method of forcible imposition [in
matters] among the people, especially among comrades. We have now replaced the method of suppression with
the method of persuasion.” “Stalin led the [Communist] Party of the Soviet Union in accomplishing great
works. His achievements are primary, and [his] shortcomings and mistakes are secondary. However, over a long
period of time, he did develop metaphysics and damage dialectics. The personality cult was metaphysics; no
one was permitted to criticize him. As I see it, the forty years of the Soviet Union are a dialectical process
[in themselves]. There were Lenin’s dialectics, [and then with] Stalin there were many metaphysical viewpoints.
Some [of these] viewpoints were enacted, and when they reached a point of extreme, they were bound to move
toward their opposite, and bring back dialectics again. I am very happy that XXXXXX said, at the commemorative
celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the October Revolution, that contradictions do exist in socialist
society. I am very glad that the philosophical circles in the Soviet Union have produced many articles that
discuss the internal contradictions in socialist society. These articles also discussed the problem of the
contradictions between socialism and capitalism; these are problems of contradictions of two different types
altogether.” [Stuart Schram writing:] “When he [Mao] visited Moscow for the second time,
in November 1957 to attend the conference of Communist and workers’ parties, Mao remarked that he still had
a ‘belly full of pent-up anger, mainly directed against Stalin’, though he would not elaborate on the reasons,
because it was all in the past. He then proceeded, in characteristic fashion, to do precisely that: ‘During
the Stalin era, nobody dared to speak up. I have come to Moscow twice and the first time was depressing.
Despite all the talk about ‘fraternal parties’ there was really no equality.’ Now, he said, we ‘must admit
that our Soviet comrades’ style of work has changed a lot.’” “The newspapers need leadership, but the leadership has to be correct.
[It must] conform to the objective situation. Those who do not conform to the objective condition must be
criticized. Marxism-Leninism handles things according to the [appropriate] conditions, and furthermore,
it pays attention to objective effect. Why did the Chinese Revolution meet with success? It was because the
Third International was dissolved; otherwise [the Chinese Revolution] could not achieve success. Some leaders
ruin things because they do not conform to the situation. It is only because Lenin refused to recognize the
Second International that the October Revolution achieved success. The Second International was revisionist,
and the Third International was very good at the beginning, but it became dogmatist later. Among the leaders
of [the Third International,] Stalin and Bukharin were not very good. Dimitrov was a very good leader because,
first, he opposed fascism and second, he emphasized internationalism.” “The Eighth Congress spoke of the contradiction between the advanced social
system and the backward forces of production. That was [in reference to] a matter of the forces of production,
not to a matter of the relationship among human beings. The problem of the relations of production among human
beings has already been [basically] resolved, but has not been completely resolved (see page 4 of the document
of the Eighth Congress). [As for the question that is] proposed—whether or not the socialist system is
conducive to the development of the forces of production, our answer [to this question is that it] is
generally conducive. Stalin thinks that [the socialist system] is completely conducive to [the development
of the forces of production]; there are problems with that. In the future, a number of years from now, when
the forces of production have been developed, there will [still] be some contradictions between the system
of collective ownership and the development of the [forces of] production. Right now the relations of
production are conducive [to the development of the forces of production]. How do we know they are conducive?
[The basic fact is that] the cooperatives have [promoted the] development of production! When we compare our
system with India, India increased steel production by three million tons in its first five-year plan, and
we increased ours by four million tons. Can you say our system is not good? Our relations of production are
basically conducive to the development of the forces of production, but there are still some shortcomings.
Several decades from now, when the forces of production have developed, the law of value will become useless,
and there will be no need for currency.” “Even in 1949 when we were about to cross the Yangtze River, someone
[emphasis added] still wanted to prevent us. According to him we should under no circumstances cross the
Yangtze. If we did so America would send troops to China and become directly involved in China’s Civil War
and the South and North dynasties would reappear in China. “Internationally we should be on friendly terms with the Soviet Union, all
the people’s democracies and the communist parties and working classes of all nations; we should pay proper
attention to internationalism, and learn from the good points of the Soviet Union and other foreign countries.
This a principle. But there are two methods of learning: one is merely to imitate, and the other is to apply
the creative spirit. Learning should be combined with creativity. To import Soviet codes and conventions
inflexibly is to lack the creative spirit. “Having cleared away blind faith, we no longer have any spiritual burdens.
Buddhas are made several times life-size in order to frighten people. When heroes and warriors appear on
the stage they are made to look quite unlike ordinary people. Stalin was that kind of person. The Chinese
people had got so used to being slaves that they seemed to want to go on. When Chinese artists painted
pictures of me together with Stalin, they always made me a little bit shorter, thus blindly knuckling
under to the moral pressure exerted by the Soviet Union at that time. Marxism-Leninism looks at everyone
on equal terms, and all people should be treated as equals.” “Khrushchev’s complete demolition of Stalin at one blow was also a kind
of pressure, and the majority of people within the Chinese Party did not agree with it. Others wished to
submit to this pressure and do away with the cult of the individual. There are two kinds of cult of the
individual. One is correct, such as that of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the correct side of Stalin. These
we ought to revere and continue to revere for ever. It would not do not to revere them. As they held truth
in their hands, why should we not revere them? We believe in truth; truth is the reflection of objective
existence. A squad should revere its squad leader; it would be quite wrong not to. Then there is the
incorrect kind of cult of the individual in which there is no analysis, simply blind obedience. This is
not right. Opposition to the cult of the individual may also have one of two aims: one is opposition to
an incorrect cult, and the other is opposition to reverence for others and desire for reverence for
oneself. The question at issue is not whether or not there should be a cult of the individual, but rather
whether or not the individual concerned represents the truth. If he does, then he should be revered. If
truth is not present, even collective leadership will be no good. Throughout its history, our Party has
stressed the combination of the role of the individual with collective leadership. When Stalin was
demolished some people applauded for their own personal reasons, that is to say because they wanted
others to revere them.” “When Stalin was criticized in 1956, we were on the one hand happy, but
on the other hand apprehensive. It was completely necessary to remove the lid, to break down blind faith,
to release the pressure, and to emancipate thought. But we did not agree with demolishing him at one blow.
They do not hang up his picture, but we do. In 1950 I argued with Stalin in Moscow for two months. On the
questions of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, the Chinese Eastern Railway, the joint-stock companies and
the border we adopted two attitudes: one was to argue when the other side made proposals we did not agree
with, and the other was to accept their proposal if they absolutely insisted. This was out of consideration
for the interests of socialism. Then there were the two ‘colonies’, that is the North-East and Sinkiang
[Xinjiang], where people of any third country were not allowed to reside. Now this has been rescinded.
After the criticism of Stalin, the victims of blind faith had their eyes opened a bit. In order that our
comrades recognize that the old ancestor [Stalin] also had his faults, we should apply analysis to him,
and not have blind faith in him. We should accept everything good in Soviet experience, and reject what
is bad. Now we are a bit more skilful in this, and understand the Soviet Union a bit better, and understand
ourselves. “The Chinese revolution won victory by acting contrary to Stalin’s will.
The fake foreign devil [in Lu Hsun’s True Story of Ah Q] ‘did not allow people to make revolution’.
But our Seventh Congress advocated going all out to mobilize the masses and to build up all available
revolutionary forces in order to establish a new China. During the quarrel with Wang Ming from 1937 to
August 1938, we put forward ten great policies, while Wang Ming produced sixty policies. If we had followed
Wang Ming’s, or in other words Stalin’s methods the Chinese revolution couldn’t have succeeded. When our
revolution succeeded, Stalin said it was a fake. We did not argue with him, and as soon as we fought the
war to resist America and aid Korea, our revolution became a genuine one [in his eyes].” “We must respect the classics but we must not follow them blindly. Marxism
was itself created, not copied or lifted straight from books. On this point Stalin was relatively good. The
History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union says in its conclusion: ‘Particular points of
Marxist principle which are not in accord with reason may be changed, such as the principle that one country
cannot be victorious.’ [Referring to the abandonment of the previous doctrine that socialism cannot be
victorious in a single country. —Ed.] … “The Chinese revolution achieved victory against Stalin’s will. Imitation
foreign devils did not permit us to carry out the revolution [to the end].” “This Comrade Stalin of ours had something of the flavor of the mandarins
of old… In the past, the relations between us and the Soviet Union were those between father and son, cat
and mouse.” “I would like to ask that the book, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on
Communism (Stalin didn’t do very well), be printed in every province and widely distributed for everyone
to read. It’s very enlightening, although there are still some inadequacies, because of the limitations
imposed by conditions in [the authors’] times. They had little experience, so naturally their views are
vague and inexplicit. Don’t think the ancestors all fart fragrantly and fart no foul farts. [When you] talk
about the future, there must inevitably be some vague spots.” “Provincial and regional committees must study this book [Stalin’s
Economic Problems of the Socialism in the USSR]. In the past everyone read it without gaining a deep
impression. It should be studied in conjunction with China’s actual circumstances. The first three chapters
contain much that is worth paying attention to, much that is correct, although there are places where perhaps
Stalin himself did not make things clear enough. For example, in chapter 1 he says only a few things about
objective laws and how to go about planning the economy, without unfolding his ideas; or, it may be that to
his mind Soviet planning of the economy already reflected objective governing principles. On the question
of heavy industry, light industry, and agriculture, the Soviet Union did not lay enough emphasis on the
latter two and had losses as a result. In addition, they did not do a good job of combing the immediate and
the long-term interests of the people. In the main they walked on one leg. Comparing the planning, which of
us after all had the better adapted ‘planned proportionate development?’ Another point: Stalin emphasized
only technology, technical cadre. He wanted nothing but technology, nothing but cadre; no politics, no
masses. This too is walking on one leg! And in industry they walk on one leg when they pay attention to
heavy industry but not to light industry. Furthermore, they did not point out the main aspects of the
contradictions in the relationships among departments of heavy industry. They exaggerated the importance
of heavy industry, claiming that steel was the foundation, machinery the heart and soul. Our position is
that grain is the mainstay of agriculture, steel of industry, and that if steel and is taken as the
mainstay, then once we have the raw material the machine industry will follow along. Stalin raised
questions in chapter 1: he suggested the objective governing principles, but he failed to provide
satisfactory answers. “With respect to socialism and communism, what is meant by constructing
socialism? We raise two points: (1) The concentrated manifestation of constructing socialism is making
socialist, all-embracing public ownership [ownership by the whole people] a reality. (2) Constructing
socialism means turning commune collective ownership into public ownership. Some comrades disapprove of
drawing the line between these two types of ownership system, as if the communes were completely publicly
owned. In reality there are two systems. One type is public ownership, as in the Anshan Iron and Steel
Works, the other is commune-large collective ownership. If we do not raise this, what is the use of
socialist construction? Stalin drew the line when he spoke of three conditions. These three basic conditions
make sense and may be summarized as follows: increase social output; raise collective ownership to public
ownership; go from exchange of commodities to exchange of products, from exchange value to use value. “Stalin’s book [Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR] from
first to last says nothing about the superstructure. It is not concerned with people; it considers things,
not people. Does the kind of supply system for consumer goods help spur economic development or not? He
should have touched on this at the least. Is it better to have commodity production or is it better not
to? Everyone has to study this. Stalin’s point of view in his last letter [appendix to his pamphlet] is
almost altogether wrong. The basic error is mistrust of the peasants. “One has to look at the things Stalin wrote [on the economics of socialism].
His strong point is that he alone talks about a socialist economy, but his greatest shortcoming is that he
sets up a rigid framework, saying that the kolkhozy [Soviet collective farms —Ed.] are willing to
exchange commodities but won’t go for allocations [of goods and capital by planning authorities]. This was
because [he] did not want uninterrupted revolution, but wanted to consolidate the socialist order. The Russian
peasants cannot be that selfish; it cannot be that they don’t want uninterrupted revolution. Russia has built
up a socialist order, but this type of order cannot be consolidated. With us it’s the other way round. We
disrupt a part of the socialist order; the supply system [i.e., payment in kind] is what disrupts that
order.” “This transition [to the completion of socialism] seemed immensely difficult
to Stalin and he didn’t set a deadline [specifying] how many years would be needed. This is the first
transition [i.e., that from collective ownership to ownership by the whole people]. The second transition is
that from ‘To each according to his work’ to ‘To each according to his need.’… “The Soviet collective villages don’t engage in industry; they only do
agriculture, and agriculture, furthermore, that goes with planting large areas and [garnering] small harvests.
That’s why they don’t manage to make the transition. Soviet socialism has collective ownership and ownership
of the whole people. Stalin’s transition to communism was hardly possible; there was no transition to the
ownership by the whole people; he did not promote the elements of communism at all, split heavy and light
industry, and openly advocated putting but small emphasis on the production of consumer goods. Various
differences became greater. “The law of value is an instrument; it only has calculating functions, but
not the function of regulating production. Stalin’s writings contain a lot of good things.” “Shanxi province talks about three victories: in industry, agriculture,
and ideology. That is a good slogan. Going at it by leaving out one would be like Iron Crutch Li. Neglect
agriculture and you become a Stalin. Those doing agriculture must be hell-bent on doing agriculture.” “Stalin’s statement, ‘One has to study this economic law [of balanced
development of the national economy], has to master it, to learn to apply it with full understanding, and
to compile such plans as fully reflect the requirements of this law,’ is excellent. We still have not fully
mastered this economic law nor have we learned to apply it with full understanding…. “Our [sphere] of ownership by the whole people is very small; [and] only
when all means of production are [thus] owned and the social product has become abundant will we be able
to abolish commerce. It seems our economists have failed to understand this point. I use dead Stalin to
bear down on the living. Stalin still retained his reservations on the question of the abolition of
commodity production after [eventual] success of the English revolution… I’m afraid at least a part [of
commodity production] can’t be abolished; Stalin, however, does not arbitrarily decide the question; he
does not give a conclusion.” “(2) Planned and proportionate [development:] if steel goes up, everything
else goes up, too, and the sixty-four kinds of rare metals must all be in proportion. What is proportion?
At present no one among us has any idea what proportion is. I don’t know what it is; perhaps you’re a bit
brighter. What planned and proportionate is has to be gradually figured out. Engels said one has to
recognize objective law, master it, and apply it with full understanding. I think Stalin’s recognition [of
this law] was not complete either; in [his] application [of it] there was no flexibility, and as to
application with full understanding, in that [he] was even more deficient. His [handling of the relationship]
between light and heavy industry was not so correct; too much emphasis on heavy industry, is like Iron
Crutch Li, … At present we have achieved some proportionality, namely by walking on two legs, with heavy
industry, light industry and agriculture.” “At the Zhengzhou conference there were five criteria [put forward],
[but] Shanxi had objections; the essential manifestation for the completion of the building of socialism
is ownership by the whole people. That is different from what Stalin proclaimed in 1938. What does complete
achievement of ownership by the whole people mean? What does completion of the building of socialism mean?
Stalin’s two reports of 1936 and 1938 (the former being the report on the constitution, the latter the
report to the Eighteenth Party Congress) put forward two indicators: one was the extinction of classes,
and the other was that industry should occupy a 70 percent proportion [of the economy]. But [since then],
the Soviet Union has gone through [another] twenty years and XXXX [probably meaning “Khrushchev”] will
have another twelve years; that is after thirty-two years they will eventually make the transition, and
at that time collective ownership and ownership by the whole people will finally merge. On this question,
we don’t do things according to their pattern. We talk about the five criteria; and we don’t say that
when industry accounts for 70 percent, that means the building [of socialism] is completed…. For us, the
criterion for the completion of the building of socialism will be the unification of the systems of
ownership. Everything will be owned by the whole people. We take the achievement of ownership by the
whole people as the primary criterion. By this criterion, the Soviet Union has not completed the building
of socialism. They still have two systems of ownership. This has given rise to a question: people all over
the world ask, has the Soviet Union even now still not completed the building of socialism?” “In 1936, Stalin proclaimed the abolition of classes—so why in 1937
did he kill so many people, and [why were] spies so thick on the ground? I think one has to leave this
question of the abolition of classes in suspense, and that it’s best not to proclaim it hastily. In the
last analysis, at what time would the proclamation of the abolition of classes be most advantageous? If
one does proclaim the abolition, the landlords will all be peasants, and the capitalists workers: Is
that advantageous or not? The bourgeoisie are permitted to enter the people’s communes, but they must
still wear their bourgeois hats; fixed interest is not abolished. In view of Stalin’s too early
proclamation, one should not be hasty in proclaiming the abolition of classes, and I’m afraid one can
only proclaim it when there is fundamentally no more harm in doing so. Is the abolition of classes
within the Soviet intelligentsia in any way complete? In my opinion, not so.” “Of course, there are periods when [commodity production] obstructs the
development of production. So the statements in the Forty Points [the 12-year Agricultural Program] dealing
with commodities are inappropriate; they are still written according to Stalin’s [opinions]. But Stalin
did not make clear the relationship between the means of livelihood produced by state-owned [industries]
and those produced by collective farms. Would you all please discuss this; it is in the third edition of
[the Soviet textbook] Political Economy. As to the rest there is little to change. Thus one can
repudiate only a part of Stalin’s things and should not throw them out altogether. The reason being that
he is scientific, [and] to repudiate him altogether would not be good. Who was the first to write a study
of the political economy of socialism? It was none other than Stalin. Of course, there are partial
shortcomings and mistakes in this book. Such as in [his comments on] the third letter [where he says]
agricultural machinery should not be sold to the collective farms, in order to keep a hold of the peasants’
pigtails. He laid down the rule that they should have only the right to use, but not the right of ownership;
this simply [demonstrates] a lack of trust in the peasants, whereas we gave [the machinery] to the
cooperatives,…” [Stuart Schram writing:] “In 1960, discussing the Soviet Constitution,
Mao Tse-tung said that this Constitution gave the workers the right to work, to rest, and to education,
but that it gave the people no right to supervise the state, the economy, culture or education, whereas
these were the most basic rights of the people under socialism.” “On page 339 [of the Soviet textbook Political Economy] it says
that the land taken from the rich peasants and given to the poor and middle peasants was land the government
had expropriated and then parceled out. This looks at the matter as a grant by royal favor, forgetting that
class struggles and mass mobilizations had been set in motion, a right deviationist point of view. Our
approach was to rely on the poor peasants, to unite with the majority of middle peasants (lower middle
peasants) and seize the land from the landlord class. While the party did play a leading role, it was against
doing everything itself and thus substituting for the masses. Indeed, its concrete practice was to ‘pay
call on the poor to learn of their grievances,’ to identify activist elements, to strike roots and pull
things together, to consolidate nuclei, to promote the voicing of grievances, and to organize the class
ranks—all for the purpose of unfolding the class struggle.” “Priority growth in producing the means of production is an economic rule
for expanded reproduction common to all societies. If there are no priorities in producing the means of
production in capitalist society there can be no expanded reproduction. In Stalin’s time, due to special
emphasis on priority development of heavy industry, agriculture was neglected in the [economic] plans.
Eastern Europe has had similar problems in the past few years. Our approach has been to make priority
development of heavy industry the condition for putting into effect concurrent promotion of industry and
agriculture, as well as some other concurrent programs…. “In the chapter [of the Soviet textbook Political Economy] on the
collective farm system there is continual discussion of individual material interest…. The present special
emphasis on material interest is for a reason. In the time of Stalin there was excessive emphasis on
collective interest; individual gain was neglected. The public was overemphasized, the private underemphasized.
Now they have gone to the opposite extreme, overemphasizing material incentive, neglecting collective
interest.” “The text [the Soviet textbook] speaks vaguely of the road ahead, but
the moment it comes to concrete measures it loses all clarity. In many ways (mainly production) the Soviets
continue to progress, but with respect to the production relations fundamentally they have ceased to
progress.” “In Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, Stalin offered
arguments about the two world markets. The [Soviet] text here emphasizes peaceful competition between the
two systems and building up ‘peacefully developing’ economic relations. This turns the actually existing
two world markets into two economic systems within a unified world market—a step back from Stalin’s
view. “[Section] 64. Criticism of Stalin “The first edition of this [Soviet] text [Political Economy] appeared
in early 1955. But the basic framework seems to have been set even before then. And it looks as if the model
Stalin set at that time was not very enlightening.” “The Marxist philosophy of the proletarian class is even more vitally
concerned to serve contemporary political tasks. For China, Marx, Lenin, and Stalin are necessary reading.
That comes first. But communists of any country and the proletarian philosophical circles of any country
must create new theory, write new works, produce their own theoreticians to serve the political tasks
facing them.” “In 1928 the Central Committee of the CPSU passed a resolution which said:
‘We will be able to solve the task of overtaking and surpassing the capitalist countries technically and
economically only when the party and the worker and peasant masses get mobilized to the limit.’… This is
very well put. And this is exactly what we are now doing. At that time Stalin had nothing else to rely on
except the masses, so he demanded all-out mobilization of the party and the masses. Afterward, when they
had realized some gains this way, they became less reliant on the masses.” “Speaking generally, it is we Chinese who have achieved understanding of
the objective world of China, not the comrades concerned with Chinese questions in the Communist International.
These comrades in the Communist International simply did not understand, or we could say they utterly failed
to understand, Chinese society, the Chinese nation or the Chinese revolution. For a long time even we did
not have a clear understanding of the objective world of China, let alone the foreign comrades.” “In 1945 Stalin attempted to hold back the progress of the Chinese revolution.
He said that it was improper for us to fight a civil war and it was necessary for us to cooperate with Chiang
Kai-shek. He even stated that otherwise the Chinese nation would perish. [Fortunately,] at that time we did
not follow his instruction and won the revolution.” “They [the Soviets] did not permit China to make revolution: that was in
1945. Stalin wanted to prevent China from making a revolution, saying that we should not have a civil war and
should cooperate with Chiang Kai-shek, otherwise the Chinese nation would perish. But we did not do what he
said. The revolution was victorious. After the victory of the revolution he next suspected China of being a
Yugoslavia, and that I would become a second Tito. Later, when I went to Moscow to sign the Sino-Soviet Treaty
of Alliance and Mutual Assistance, we had to go through another struggle. He was not willing to sign a treaty.
After two months of negotiations he at last signed. When did Stalin begin to have confidence in us? It was the
time of the Resist America, Aid Korea campaign, from the winter of 1950. He then came to believe that we were
not Tito, not Yugoslavia.” [K’ang Sheng speaking:] “Kautsky’s economic doctrines were somewhat more
enlightened than those of Khrushchev, and Yugoslavia is also somewhat more enlightened than the Soviet Union.
After all, Djilas said a few good things about Stalin, he said that on Chinese problems Stalin made a
self-criticism.” “It used to be said that there were three great laws of dialectics, then
Stalin said that there were four. In my view there is only one basic law and that is the law of contradiction.
Quality and quantity, positive and negative, external appearance and essence, content and form, necessity and
freedom, possibility and reality, etc., are all cases of the unity of opposites.” “Why did we make this division into first and second lines? The first reason
is that my health is not very good; the second was the lesson of the Soviet Union. Malenkov was not mature
enough, and before Stalin died he had not wielded power. Every time he proposed a toast, he fawned and flattered.
I wanted to establish their prestige before I died; I never imagined that things might move in the opposite
direction.” “In 1936 Stalin talked about the elimination of class struggle, but in 1939
he carried out another purge of counter-revolutionaries. Wasn’t that class struggle too?” “For the past seventeen years there is one thing which in my opinion we
haven’t done well. Out of concern for state security and in view of the lessons of Stalin in the Soviet Union,
we set up a first and second line [of officials]. I have been in the second line, other comrades in the first
line. Now we can see that wasn’t so good; as a result our forces were dispersed. When we entered the cities
we could not centralize our efforts, and there were quite a few independent kingdoms. Hence the Eleventh
Plenum carried out changes. This is one matter. I am in the second line, I do not take charge of day-to-day
work. Many things are left to other people so that other people’s prestige is built up, and when I go to see
God there won’t be such a big upheaval in the State. Everybody was in agreement with this idea of mine. It
seems that there are some things which the comrades in the first line have not managed too well. There are
some things I should have kept a grip on which I did not. So I am responsible, we cannot just blame them.” “I spoke to Comrade Lin Biao and some of the things he said were not very
accurate. For example he said that a genius only appears in the world once in a few centuries and in China
once in a few millennia. This just doesn’t fit the facts. Marx and Engels were contemporaries, and not one
century had elapsed before we had Lenin and Stalin, so how could you say that a genius only appears once in
a few centuries?” Part II: A Summary of Mao’s Criticisms of Stalin by TopicThe task now is to sum up Mao’s criticisms of Stalin in all the above comments. It should first be recognized that there are clearly some important changes of viewpoint over time, and even some outright inconsistencies if the changes of views over time are not allowed for. Moreover, a few early statements by Mao sound almost religious in their devotion, such as that “Stalin is the savior of all the oppressed” and “Comrade Stalin is the leader of the world revolution. This is an extremely important circumstance. Among the whole human race, this man, Stalin, has appeared, and this is a very great event. Because he is there, it is easer to get things done. As you know, Marx is dead, and Engels and Lenin too are dead. If there were no Stalin, who would give the orders?” [Both quotes are from Mao’s “Speech at a Meeting of All Circles in Yan’an to Commemorate Stalin’s Sixtieth Birthday” (Dec. 21, 1939)] Was this sort of grossly excessive praise and obeisance toward Stalin necessary in the international communist movement at that time? If so, this is in itself a very strong implicit criticism of Stalin. At any rate, by 1957 Mao was saying that Stalin’s “personality cult was metaphysics; no one was permitted to criticize him.” [“Speech at the Congress of Communist Parties and Workers’ Parties in Socialist Countries” (Nov. 18, 1957)] That’s quite a different point of view! Nevertheless, despite some changes in views over the years—mostly, it seems, in a considerably more critical direction—there is still a more or less unified general critical evaluation of Stalin that Mao presents in most of these collected comments. These, we feel, are the main themes:
If Mao had all these (and more) serious criticisms of Stalin, then why did he regularly repeat his “70% good, 30% bad” overall evaluation of the man? There seems to be two reasons: First, Stalin really did have some important positive aspects and really had led the Soviet Union to a number of important advances and victories. Among these were the massive and extremely rapid industrialization of the country; the completion of the socialization of industry; the collectivization of agriculture (though this was done in a very brutal way); and the victory over the horrendous attack by Nazi Germany (despite his lack of vigilance ahead of the German attack). Secondly, Mao felt that while Stalin should in fact be criticized for his errors, that it was wrong to “knock him off in one blow”. What exactly was he getting at here? Mao evidently felt that after such a long period of undiluted praise and glorification of Stalin and the Soviet Union while he was in charge, the sudden total denunciation of him and the exposure all at once of the many major problems, mistakes and even crimes during the Stalin period, would all lead to tremendous disorientation on the part of many communists and their supporters around the world. And this is in fact what happened. Many western parties, as Mao later noted, lost huge numbers of members and much of their influence in the aftermath of Khrushchev’s not-really-so-secret total denunciation of Stalin. Mao tended to emphasize praise and support for Stalin in his public statements, though he did openly acknowledge that Stalin had made some serious errors. This may have been so that people would have time to reorient themselves about the Stalin era and not lose heart because of Khrushchev's revelations. It was probably also due in part to the growing need to reaffirm Marxist principles and traditions in opposition to Khrushchev's ever-more-evident revisionism. On the other hand, at meetings with leading Party cadres, Mao's remarks tended to focus more on a variety of specific criticisms of Stalin, in philosophy, in political economy, with regard to Stalin's political leadership and his leadership of the international communist movement, and with regard to his attitude and behavior toward the Chinese revolution. While Mao still often repeated that Stalin should be upheld in the main, in these more private meetings most of his comments about Stalin were quite critical, and seem to have become more critical as time went on, partly in light of the unfolding experience of the Chinese revolution. Sources
Note: The items above marked with an asterisk should probably be considered somewhat less certain and reliable than the other sources listed. Single Spark files on MASSLINE.ORG |
|