Sino-Soviet Split Document Archive
Source: Let Us Unite on the Basis of the Moscow
Declaration and the Moscow Statement. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1963; pp.
1-20. The article originally
appeared in Renmin Ribao on January 27, 1963.
Transcription and HTML Markup: Juan Fajardo, for marxists.org, April 2010.
The Sixth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany was held from January 15 to January 21.
In their attempts to stop the successful development of the people’s struggles for world peace, national liberation, democracy and socialism, the imperialists, the reactionaries of various countries and the Yugoslav revisionists are at the present time using every means to disrupt the unity of the peoples of the world, and especially the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement. The Communists of all countries and all progressive mankind are deeply worried and disturbed over the ever-increasing harm that is being done to the unity of the international communist ranks, and they are eagerly demanding the ironing out of differences and the strengthening of unity in the common struggle against the enemy on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement.
It was our hope that, meeting in these circumstances, the Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany would contribute to the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement by adhering to the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement. The German Democratic Republic stands on the western front of the socialist camp, and is facing the menace of the West German militarism backed by U.S. imperialism. The spearhead of the struggle should naturally have been directed against our common enemies; there was not the slightest reason for this Congress to repeat practices which grieve those near and dear to us all and gladden the enemy.
Unfortunately, events at the Congress ran counter to our hope.
The outstanding features of the Congress were that while much was said about stopping attacks and strengthening unity among the fraternal Parties, extremely crude attacks were continued against the Chinese Communist Party and other fraternal Parties, attacks which further widen differences and damage unity, and that while much was said about supporting the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, brazen attempts, which were in open violation of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, were made to reverse the verdict passed on the Tito clique of renegades to Marxism-Leninism.
When in the course of his speech the head of the Chinese Communist Party Delegation, which attended the Congress by invitation, quoted and discussed the criticisms of Yugoslav revisionism made in the Moscow Statement, the executive chairman of the Congress repeatedly stopped him. Prompted by this cue, there was an uproar of booing, whistling and foot-stamping in the congress hall. It is indeed strange and almost incredible for such a phenomenon to occur in the international communist movement. When the delegate of the Chinese Communist Party ended his speech, the executive chairman of the Congress went so far as to protest. He stated that he “most decidedly rejected” the criticism of Yugoslav revisionism made by the delegate of the Communist Party of China and described it as “contradicting all the norms prevailing among Communist and revolutionary Workers’ Parties”. Following this, the Soviet newspaper Izvestia attacked the delegate of the Communist Party of China for his criticism of Yugoslav revisionism, stating that it was “utterly impermissible”.
This Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany has posed the following vitally important questions to the Communists of the whole world: Are the ranks of the international communist movement to be united or not? Is there to be genuine unity or sham unity? On what basis is there to be unity — is there to be unity on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, or “unity” on the basis of the Yugoslav revisionist programme or on some other basis? In other words, are differences to be ironed out and unity strengthened, or are differences to be widened and a split created?
The Chinese Communists, all Marxist-Leninists and all progressive mankind unanimously desire to uphold unity and oppose a split, to secure genuine unity and oppose a sham unity, to defend the common foundation of the unity of the international communist movement and oppose the undermining of this foundation, and to uphold and strengthen the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement.
The Chinese Communist Party has always held that the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement is the reliable guarantee of victory for the revolution of the people in all countries, for the struggle against imperialism and its running dogs, for the cause of world peace, national liberation, democracy and socialism, and for the communist cause throughout the world. The basis for such unity is Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, the Moscow Declaration of 1957 and the Moscow Statement of 1960. These two documents of vital and historic importance were unanimously agreed upon by the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries and constitute the common programme of the international communist movement. Only by strict adherence to them is it possible to strengthen unity and is it possible to have genuine unity. Violation of these two documents can only result in the undermining of unity or in a sham unity. It is the sacred duty of Communists in all countries resolutely to uphold both the revolutionary principles and the common principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries laid down in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement and to wage an uncompromising struggle against all words and deeds violating the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement.
The Communist Party of China has consistently worked to uphold and strengthen the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement. In 1956, the imperialists, the reactionaries of various countries and the Yugoslav revisionists organized a world-wide anti- Soviet and anti-Communist onslaught and engineered a counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary. Together with other fraternal Parties the Communist Party of China waged a resolute struggle, thus safeguarding Marxism- Leninism and defending the socialist camp. Through their joint efforts and full consultations at the 1957 and 1960 Moscow meetings, the other fraternal Parties and the Chinese Communist Party formulated a common line for the international communist movement and established common principles guiding the mutual relations of fraternal Parties and countries. At these two meetings, we conducted a necessary struggle against certain wrong tendencies detrimental to unity and also made necessary compromises on certain matters, thus contributing to the unanimous agreement reached at the meetings.
At the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1961, when there occurred the first serious incident in which one Party at its own congress made an open attack by name on another fraternal Party, that is, on the Albanian Party of Labour, the delegation of the Chinese Communist Party voiced firm opposition and proffered sincere advice. There and then we point-ed out that a practice of this kind “does not help unity and is not helpful to resolving problems. To bring a dispute between fraternal Parties and fraternal countries into the open in the face of the enemy cannot be regarded as a serious Marxist-Leninist attitude. Such an attitude will only grieve those near and dear to us and gladden the enemy. The Communist Party of China sincerely hopes that fraternal Parties which have disputes or differences between them will unite afresh on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and on the basis of mutual respect for independence and equality.” It is regrettable that our efforts failed to prevent a further deterioration in Soviet- Albanian relations. Our good intentions were even subjected to repeated censure by certain people.
In its desire to uphold the principles guiding the mutual relations of fraternal Parties and countries and to strengthen unity, the Chinese Communist Party in April 1962 gave its active support to the proposals made by some fraternal Parties for easing relations and improving the atmosphere, and, in a letter to the fraternal Party concerned, formally expressed its opinion that a meeting of representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries should be convened to iron out differences and strengthen unity through comradely discussion and consultation. We also pointed out that, prior to such a meeting, all fraternal Parties should make extensive preparations, including the cessation of radio and press attacks on another fraternal Party, in order to create favourable conditions for the meeting and ensure its success.
To our great distress, these positive proposals of the Communist Party of China and some other fraternal Parties have not evoked a corresponding response from the fraternal Party concerned. On the contrary, the practice of violating the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries, and especially the vicious practice of openly attacking other fraternal Parties by name at a Party congress, has gone from bad to worse. At every one of the recent congresses of fraternal Parties the attacks on the Albanian Party of Labour were continued and attacks were made against the Communist Party of China, while at one congress the Korean Workers’ Party, too, was attacked.
This adverse current, which runs counter to the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement and which is disrupting the unity of the international communist movement, reached a new climax at the Sixth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. There, the Yugoslav revisionist clique was shielded in many ways, while the fraternal Party delegate who criticized Yugoslav revisionism in accordance with the Moscow Statement was treated in an utterly uncomradely and rude manner. Such behaviour is extremely vulgar as well as completely futile. In the view of certain comrades, adherence to the principles of the Moscow Statement, which had been unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties, was utterly impermissible and illegitimate while the Yugoslav revisionism condemned by the Moscow Statement was to be welcomed and was legitimate. On the one hand, they wantonly attacked comrades who adhere to Marxism-Leninism, and on the other, they talked volubly of uniting with out-and-out revisionists. On the one hand, they used every conceivable method to deprive delegates of fraternal Parties opposing Yugoslav revisionism of the opportunity to speak, and on the other, they applauded the betrayers of Marxism- Leninism. This outrageous practice was all the more serious because it was carefully planned.
Here we must state in all seriousness that the international communist movement is at a critical juncture. The Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement — the common basis of the unity of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries — are in great danger of being publicly torn up. The unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement is under a grave threat.
In the international communist movement of today, one’s attitude towards Yugoslav revisionism is not a minor but a major question; it is a question that concerns not just one detail or another but the whole. It is a question of whether to adhere to Marxism-Leninism or to wallow in the mire with the Yugoslav revisionists, whether to take the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement as the foundation of unity or to take the Yugoslav revisionist programme or something else as the foundation of “unity”, and whether genuinely to strengthen unity or merely to pay lip service to unity while in fact creating a split. In the final analysis, it is a question of whether to adhere strictly to the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement or to tear them up.
The Moscow Statement of 1960 unequivocally declares:
The Communist Parties have unanimously condemned the Yugoslav variety of international opportunism, a variety of modern revisionist “theories” in concentrated form. After betraying Marxism-Leninism, which they termed obsolete, the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia opposed their anti-Leninist revisionist programme to the Declaration of 1957; they set the L.C.Y. against the international communist movement as a whole, severed their country from the socialist camp, made it dependent on so-called “aid” from U.S. and other imperialists, and thereby exposed the Yugoslav people to the danger of losing the revolutionary gains achieved through a heroic struggle. The Yugoslav revisionists carry on subversive work against the socialist camp and the world communist movement. Under the pretext of an extra-bloc policy, they engage in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries. Further exposure of the leaders of Yugoslav revisionists and active struggle to safeguard the communist movement and the working-class movement from the anti- Leninist ideas of the Yugoslav revisionists, remains an essential task of the Marxist-Leninist Parties.
The stand taken by the Chinese Communist Party vis-à-vis Yugoslav revisionism is exactly that prescribed in the Moscow Statement, a stand which should be taken and must be taken by all Marxist-Leninist Parties. It is the exact antithesis of the stand of the Yugoslav revisionists, who are fundamentally opposed both to the Moscow Declaration and to the Moscow Statement and who set their revisionist programme against the common programme of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries. In the Programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the Tito clique deny the basic antagonism between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp and advocate what they call the “extra-bloc” stand; they deny the theory of proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship and maintain that the capitalist coun-tries can “peacefully grow into” socialism; they describe ownership by the whole people in the socialist countries as “state capitalism” and regard Marxism-Leninism as obsolete. All this is as incompatible with the Marxist- Leninist theses of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement as fire with water.
The League of Communists of Yugoslavia declared in the communique of the Ninth Plenum of its Central Committee, issued in December 1957 after the Moscow meeting of the same year:
The plenum considers that the delegation, pursuing the political line of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, acted correctly by not taking part in the meeting of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of the twelve socialist countries and by not signing the declaration of that meeting, which contains some attitudes and appraisals contrary to the attitude of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia which considers them incorrect.
As for the Moscow Statement, the Tito clique has made wilder attacks on it. The same Vlahovic, who was given a delirious ovation by some people at the recent Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany as the representative of the Tito clique, declared in February 1961 at the enlarged meeting of the Central Executive Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia:
The Moscow Conference followed the line of seeking a compromise between different standpoints and tendencies, the line based on “stereotyped, mechanical levelling, and of establishing uniform tactical rules for the struggle”. Thus within the framework of a single statement there are to be found standpoints and tendencies reflecting contemporary objective social developments in the world mixed together with bureaucratic-dogmatic conceptions, the most obvious example of which is the position taken towards socialist Yugoslavia.
The resolution on the Moscow Statement adopted at the same meeting said that “the Moscow Statement . . . can have only harmful consequences not merely for the cause of socialism but also for the efforts to consolidate peace throughout the world”.
Is it or is it not right to criticize Yugoslav revisionism? There should have been no doubt about this in the international communist ranks. The principled stand taken by the Chinese Communist Party in firmly opposing Yugoslav revisionism was approved by the other fraternal Parties. We may all recall that, at the Seventh Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party in June 1958, Comrade Khrushchov said that “the Chinese comrades and also the other fraternal Parties are rightly and profoundly criticizing the revisionist propositions of the draft programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia”.
We also remember that at the previous Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, that is, at its Fifth Congress held in July 1958, there was no difference of opinion among Communist and Workers’ Parties on whether Yugoslav revisionism should be criticized. Comrade Khrushchov then said:
The anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist views of the Yugoslav leaders were subjected to thoroughgoing principled criticism by the Communist Party of China, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany and all the other fraternal Parties. In decisions taken by their leading bodies and in articles in the Party press, all the Parties took a clear-cut position and condemned those views, paying considerable attention to a critical analysis of them. And this was correct.
He also said:
. . . When the Yugoslav leaders declare they are Marxist-Leninists and use Marxism-Leninism only as a cover to mislead gullible people and divert them from the path of revolutionary class struggle charted by Marx and Lenin, they want to wrest from the hands of the working class its sharpest class weapon. Whether they wish to or not, they are helping the class enemy of the working people, and in return for this they are given loans; in return for this the imperialists praise their “independent” policy of “no blocs”, which the reactionary forces make use of in an attempt to undermine our socialist camp.
In their speeches and official documents the Yugoslav leaders have outlined openly revisionist views that are contrary to the revolutionary essence of Marxism- Leninism. They have taken a clearly schismatic, revisionist line and by so doing are helping the enemies of the working class in the fight against communism, in the imperialists’ fight against the Communist Parties and against the unity of the international revolutionary working-class movement.
He went on to say:
In essence, the programme of the Yugoslav leadership is a worse version of a whole series of revisionist platforms held by Right-wing Social-Democrats. Consequently the Yugoslav leaders have not been drawn to the path of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist teachings; they have followed the path laid down by revisionists and opportunists of the Second International — Bernstein, Kautsky and other renegades. In actual fact they have now joined forces with Karl Kautsky’s off-spring — his son Benedict, . . .
We cannot understand why some comrades, who formerly took the correct stand of criticizing Yugoslav revisionism, should have now made an about-turn of 180 degrees.
It has been claimed that this was because “the Yugoslav leaders have removed very much of what was considered erroneous”. Unfortunately, the Tito clique themselves have never admitted to having made any mistakes, let alone removed them. It is indeed subjectivism pure and simple to assert that the Tito clique have “removed” their mistakes. We would ask the apologists for the Tito clique to listen to the Titoists’ own statements.
As early as April 1958, Tito declared at the Seventh Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,
“It would just be a waste of time for any quarters to ex-pect us to retreat from our principled position on international and internal questions.”
In 1959, Kardelj, another leader of the Tito clique, stated even more bluntly in a pamphlet, “. . . and now the critics insistently urge on us what they themselves have begun to renounce, and criticize us for what they them-selves have begun to accept.”
Only recently, in December 1962, the moment he alighted from the train on his return from the Soviet Union, Tito said in Belgrade, “Discussions . . . about how Yugoslavia will now change her policy are simply superfluous and ridiculous. We have no need to change our policy.” He added a few days later, “I said there [in the Soviet Union] that there is no possibility of Yugoslavia’s changing her foreign policy.”
These statements by Tito and Kardelj demonstrate the Tito clique’s firm denial of any change in their revisionist line and policies. In fact, they have not changed at all. What were the apologists for the Tito clique doing if not lying when they said that the Tito clique “have removed very much of what was considered erroneous”?
Certain people have lately been talking a lot about how their views on many problems are coming closer to or agreeing with those of the Tito clique. We would ask, since there has not been any change in the revisionist line and policies of the Tito clique, does it not follow that the makers of these statements are themselves moving closer to the revisionist line and policies of the Tito clique?
What is particularly astonishing is that certain people have publicly declared the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement to be a “stereotyped formula”. They do not allow any fraternal Party to expose and condemn Yugoslav revisionism. Whoever insists on condemning Yugoslav revisionism, they say, “follows the jungle laws of capitalism” and “adopts this same jungle morality”. One might ask, what is the object of describing the Moscow Statement, which was unanimously agreed upon by eighty-one fraternal Parties, as “a stereotyped formula” or “the jungle laws of capitalism”? Is it not the object to tear up the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement? If it is “jungle morality” to condemn Yugoslav revisionism in accordance with the Moscow Statement, what kind of morality is the violation of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement and the eagerness to “strangle” a fraternal Party and fraternal country?
We also note that Comrade Togliatti has gone so far as to say: “. . . This amply justifies the stand which we and others have taken towards the Yugoslav comrades, hence correcting the resolution of 1960 [the Moscow Statement unanimously agreed upon by the eighty-one fraternal Parties — “Renmin Ribao” ed.] which is wrong on this point.” We want to ask, what right has Comrade Togliatti to declare one part or another of the Moscow Statement, which was unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties, to be wrong? What right has he to “correct” or tear up a solemn international agreement at will? If one or several Parties may do as they please in “correcting” agreements unanimously reached by all the Communist and Workers’ Parties, will it be possible to speak of any principle that all must abide by?
Certain people are contemptuous of solemn documents adopted unanimously by the international communist movement; they not only refuse to abide by documents which bear their own signatures, but abuse others for abiding by them. Clearly, this is perfidy.
Here we should like to emphasize that those who are zealously engaged in reversing the verdict on the Tito clique are trying to make a breach in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement on the Yugoslav issue and then to tear them up completely. Were their scheme to succeed, it would be tantamount to declaring that the criticisms of Yugoslav revisionism made by all Communist and Workers’ Parties over these years are wrong and the traitorous Tito clique is right, that the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement are wrong and the Yugoslav revisionist programme is right, that the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism have become obsolete and modern revisionism can no longer be opposed, still less be treated as the main danger in the international communist movement, and that we should all follow at the heels of the Tito clique and “join forces with Karl Kautsky’s offspring — his son Benedict”. Were this to happen, the strategy and tactics of the international communist movement would have to be completely changed and the revolutionary line of Marxism- Leninism would have to be replaced by the capitulationist line of revisionism.
Were this to happen, what possible common basis would there be for unity among the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries? Is this not a deliberate attempt to create a split in the inter-national communist movement?
The urgent task now facing the Communist and Workers’ Parties is to defend the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement and to uphold and strengthen the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement. We resolutely uphold unity on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, and we resolutely oppose “unity” on the basis of the Yugoslav revisionist programme or on some other basis. Together with all fraternal Parties, the Chinese Communist Party will work indefatigably to this end.
The proletarian cause has always been international. To be victorious in this common cause, Communists of all countries must unite and wage a common struggle. With-out the unity and solidarity of proletarian international-ism, the revolutionary cause cannot be victorious and consolidate its victory in any country.
The only correct way to uphold and strengthen this kind of unity is to abide by the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and fraternal countries laid down in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement.
The principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries, as set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, are as follows: the principle of unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism; the principle of mutual support and mutual assistance, the principle of independence and equality; and the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation.
The primary test of a Communist’s sincerity in upholding the unity of the international communist movement is whether he conscientiously abides by the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries.
The Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, the two international documents unanimously agreed upon by the Communist and Workers’ Parties, are binding on all the fraternal Parties. These Parties have the obligation to abide by them and have absolutely no right to wreck them. No single Party or group of Parties have the right to change them or to declare them null and void. In the international communist movement, the resolutions of any one fraternal Party, whether right or wrong and however important the place and the role of that Party, can be binding on that Party alone. According to the principles laid down in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, it is impermissible to impose the programme, resolutions, line or policies of any one Party on other fraternal Parties, or to require other fraternal Par-ties to obey the irresponsible self-contradictory statements made by the leader of a Party who talks one way today and another tomorrow, as if those statements were imperial decrees; and it is more impermissible for one or more Parties wantonly to kick out one or another fraternal Party from the international communist movement or pull in renegades to Marxism-Leninism.
Since the international situation is complicated and is changing rapidly and since each fraternal Party finds it-self in different circumstances, the emergence of different views among fraternal Parties on one question or another can hardly be avoided. The important thing is that, once differences have emerged among fraternal Parties, they should iron out their differences and achieve unanimity through inter-Party consultation on the basis of equality, basing themselves on the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties as set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement. In no circumstances should they make the differences among the fraternal Parties public in the face of the enemy, nor should they make use of the press and other propaganda media for open attacks on other fraternal Parties, and still less should they make use of congresses of one Party for this purpose. Clearly, if open attacks are directed against one fraternal Party today and another tomorrow, will there be any unity of the international communist movement to speak of? We hold that continuing to make attacks while talking about one’s desire to halt them is not the attitude an honest Communist should take. As the leader of the Korean Workers’ Party delegation at the recent Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany pointed out:
At this Congress, which is not an international meeting of fraternal Parties, there has been some talk of ending open disputes over differences of view and strengthening unity, and yet differences of view among the fraternal Parties have again been brought up, and in particular there has been unilateral criticism of the Chinese Communist Party. We maintain that this cannot be regarded as a friendly and comradely attitude and that such an attitude is not conducive to the unity and unanimity which we are all calling for.
Better a single good deed contributing to unity than a thousand empty words about unity. It is time to rein in on the brink of the precipice! To do so late in the day is better than not to do it at all. We sincerely hope that the fraternal Party which launched the first attack will suit its action to its words, take the initiative, and return to the path of inter-Party consultation on the basis of equality, to the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries as set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement.
The Communist Party of China is profoundly conscious of the duty incumbent on it to uphold and strengthen the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement. As always, we shall spare no effort in making our contribution in this connection. The Communist Party of China has advocated on more than one occasion, and still advocates, the convening of a meeting of representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries at which all can sit down calmly, and, through adequate and comradely discussion, harmonize their viewpoints, iron out their differences and strengthen their unity on a new basis. Together with all other fraternal Parties, we desire to take every possible step towards easing relations and strengthening unity, in order to improve the atmosphere and create the conditions necessary for convening the meeting of fraternal Parties.
Today, the imperialists headed by the United States and all the reactionaries are frantically and vainly struggling to halt and turn back the tide of our epoch, to prevent the emancipation of the oppressed nations and oppressed peoples and to disrupt the socialist camp. In the face of our archenemy, we Communists should, more than ever, unite closely and wage the common battle unswervingly. No words or deeds detrimental to the struggles against imperialism and the reactionaries of various countries, to the revolutionary struggles of the peoples of the world, or to the unity of all Communists and the revolutionary people of the world, will be countenanced by Communists anywhere, by the proletariat and working people of all countries, by all the oppressed nations and oppressed peoples and by all those engaged in the struggle to safeguard world peace.
The unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement is the source of our strength and the hope of the oppressed nations and the oppressed peoples of the world. The more closely we are united, the more the people of the world are heartened and inspired. The more closely we are united, the greater is our ability to strengthen the revolutionary people’s confidence in victory and to deal telling blows at the imperialists and the reactionaries of all countries.
We should not disappoint the expectations of the people of the world. We must firmly uphold unity and oppose a split. We must have genuine unity and oppose sham unity. Let us unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement!
Document List | Chinese Communism Archive