Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Jacques Grippa

“Theory” and Practice of the Modern Revisionists

A speech delivered at the Higher Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, June 10, 1964


What is the attitude of the revisionists towards, the contradictions among the imperialists?

At times, they regard imperialism as a monolithic bloc, and denounce as a crime the efforts of Marxist-Leninists to utilize these contradictions and seek for the broadest possible alliances. At other times, they denounce French imperialism as the principal danger, and go so far as to consider France’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China as an act that is to the advantage of a war policy.

At still other times, the revisionists rant that the dangers of West German revanchist militarism and of the so-called Bonn-Paris axis are the greatest dangers. Actually, however, they are opposing these dangers to the policies of U.S. imperialism – which they present as being “wise and reasonable, and full of concern to preserve peace”. For the revisionists, subjection to U.S. imperialism, its control and its presence itself (including military occupation) are all a kind of “guarantee” against the danger of West German revanchist militarism.

In every case, the revisionists’ position has one and only one meaning: that they accept, desire, and even demand the leadership, the hegemony of the United States.

Under these circumstances, how can one not expose their attitude which has led them to set themselves against the national independence of their own country, and made them the collaborators and accomplices of U.S. imperialism?

Is it not significant that in the draft of the theses of the last congress of the Belgian revisionists, U.S. imperialism was not even once denounced?

And in the draft resolution of the 17th Congress of the French Communist Party (May 1964), did they not achieve a tour de force by not once using the expression “U.S. imperialism” in talking about either Cuba or south Viet Nam?

During his latest visit to France, Khrushchov spared no effort in heaping compliments and expressions of regard on de Gaulle. But today when de Gaulle – and he most certainly represents French finance capital – opposes U.S. imperialism to a certain degree, the revisionists are embarrassed about it.

As for the West German revanchists, who was it that put them back on their feet, who was it that armed them? It was precisely U.S. imperialism. Without its alliance and support they would not have been able to give themselves the arrogant airs they are assuming today.

How was it that German imperialism was able to set up bases in Holland, Belgium and France? That was the result of its joining the aggressive pact of NATO, an instrument of U.S. imperialism.

Atomic weapons are stored in West Germany because U.S. imperialism has decided that they should be. German generals find themselves in the highest posts of command in NATO. At this moment, West German militarism is comporting itself as the loyal ally of U.S. imperialism. It is its principal bridgehead in Europe, and an important instrument in its world policy.

We say that, at present, there actually exists a Washington-Bonn axis, a condominium of the United States and the German Federal Republic, under the former’s direction, over NATO.

Of course, internal contradictions also exist in such an alliance, and one cannot predict the future development of such contradictions. But the fact is: U.S. imperialism is now supporting West German militarism, and, the latter, on its part, is leaning on U.S. imperialism in preparing its revanchist plans, To pretend to oppose West German revanchist militarism while approving of U.S. imperialism, as the revisionists are doing, is nothing but a hoax.