Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)

Reply to Gus Hall: An Open Letter

First Published: The Call, Vol. 8, No. 8, February 26, 1979.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.

The following “open letter to Gus Hall,” the leader of the revisionist Communist Party (USA) was submitted by K.V.D., Ann Arbor. Mich.:

Mr. Gus Hall: Recently I picked up a copy of the Jan. 28 issue of the New York Times. I wanted to read about the historic visit of Deng Xiaoping, China’s Vice-Premier, to the U.S. While reading through the Times, I came across your “letter” to the Chinese Party. In my opinion, this “letter” which was excerpted was not directed at or to the Chinese but to the American people.

The advertisement, which cost you $9,000 was meant to sway public opinion against the normalization of relations between the U.S. and China. Unfortunately, neither $9,000 nor nine zillion dollars can stem the tide of history. The long-desired wish for normalization shared by the American and Chinese peoples has arrived and there will be no second thoughts, no turning back.

As to your “letter,” I will try to answer (the excerpts only) point by point:

On the situation in Angola: In the struggle against the Portuguese colonialists, the Chinese gave aid to all three liberation organizations in Angola, despite the differences between them. Your Party and the other modern revisionist parties, commanded by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), supported only one organization (and then only nominally) until after the Portuguese were defeated.

Then, you called one organization “progressive” and the other two “reactionary“ and thousands of Cuban mercenaries were sent to do the dirty work of Soviet social-imperialism and recolonized Angola.

On the China-Vietnam problem: You say this is a case of “big power policies.” Only Vietnam is not the “innocent small country“ it pretends to be. The “Cuba of Asia” is a powerful regional hegemonic power at the beck and call of its chieftains in the Soviet Union. If you really oppose aggression and want to cry out for justice, you and your party would be actively campaigning to enlighten the American people about what is happening in Indochina.

The peoples of Indochina defeated the French after protracted struggles. Then, the U.S. imperialists stepped in and they, too, were defeated. You’d think that after all this imperialist intervention, the peoples of Indochina would have some peace and be able to rebuild their countries without any further outside interference.

Instead, Vietnam, egged on and fully supported by their masters in the Kremlin, are out to establish their long cherished dream (since the 1940s) of imposing the so-called “Indochina Federation,” annexing both Laos and Kampuchea (Cambodia). From that base, they now want to dominate all of Southeast Asia for the New Czars.

Just like their Russian bosses, the Vietnamese are national chauvinists. Within Vietnam, note their treatment of Vietnamese of Chinese nationality. Externally, their Nazi-like blitzkrieg against Democratic Kampuchea will go down in history as one of the most bellicose and reactionary acts of aggression ever committed against a people.

On Chile: If not for the revisionist line of peaceful transition to socialism, which you modern revisionists espouse, the fascist coup would have failed. So don’t blame China for recognizing the reality of the Pinochet regime.

Much of your letter is devoted to accusing the Chinese of the advocacy of war, particularly nuclear war. But the fact of the matter is that the Chinese do not want war; However, they are not afraid of war and if the two superpowers dare to launch a new world war (and every indication is that they will), the Chinese will oppose counter-revolutionary war with revolutionary war.

The two superpowers are the only ones capable of launching a new world war. Thus, they are today, the main enemies of the world’s people. But the main source of a new world war, the most dangerous superpower in the world today, is your good friend and ally, the USSR.

China is using all the contradictions in the international situation to further the cause of world peace. Although a new world war can only be prevented by socialist revolutions, the Chinese believe (justifiably) that the outbreak of a new world war can be delayed. And by delaying its outbreak, the people of the world can be better prepared.

On peace and disarmament: Chairman Mao taught, “In order to get rid of the gun, it is necessary to pick up the gun.” How can the countries and peoples of the world even think of disarming themselves when the superpowers are armed to the teeth? And how can anyone expect the Chinese to relax its defensive posture with one million Soviet troops along its northern border?

Why did the Carter administration move to establish diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China? First and most importantly, because it was the common desire of the people of both countries. Secondly, of course, Carter is looking to play some sort of “China card” against the Soviet Union. Can China be blamed for that?

History has shown countless cases of the unsavory “befriending” the “good guy” so as to tip the scales against his equally unsavory adversary. Weren’t the U.S. and British imperialists “friends” with the then-socialist Soviet Union in the revolutionary war against fascist aggression? (World War II was really two wars: the counter revolutionary imperialist war to divide the world up; and the revolutionary fight against these imperialists waged by the world’s peoples and spear-headed against the German, Italian and Japanese fascists.)

On Mao Zedong Thought: You speak of the “underlying thought of Mao” as being “opportunistically using contradictions,“ etc. You distort completely Mao’s line on the international situation and its application by the Chinese Party and government since his death.

The great theory of the three worlds is what you fear because it: 1) rates the USSR with the U.S. as one of the world’s two imperialist superpowers; 2) recognizes the other lesser imperialist countries, which are not so powerful anymore, are at once oppressors and exploiters and victims of superpower bullying; and 3) that the majority of the people of the world belong to the third world, the most powerful force in the struggle against the two superpowers.