Speech at the Aliarcham Academy of Social Sciences in Indonesia

Marxist-Leninists Must Be Good at Grasping the Essence Behind the Appearance

More than six months have elapsed since the new leaders of the CPSU came to power. We had hoped that they would correct their mistakes and return to the path of Marxism-Leninism, or at least prove a little better than Khrushchov. But all their actions have turned out contrary to our hopes. Khrushchov’s successors understood that Khrushchov had become too unpopular and that if they were to put on exactly the same appearance as Khrushchov, they would: be unable to explain why they should have taken his place. That is why they have to redecorate themselves as best they may and try by all means to appear different from Khrushchov. They have made “revolutionary” gestures, used a lot of “anti-imperialist” phrases, and uttered a great many fine words about “unity". They have also carried out a number of minor manoeuvres and played some political sleight of hand. They think that in so doing they will be able to delude people by their false appearance and prevent them from grasping their essence.

What are the things that express their essence?

They are still stubbornly clinging to the whole of Khrushchov’s revisionist line as laid down at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU and embodied in the Programme of the CPSU and opposing the revolutionary struggles of the people of all countries.

They are still stubbornly clinging to the line of “Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the domination of the world", declaring that there are “sufficiently broad areas for cooperation” between the Soviet Union and the United States, and moreover they are quickening their pace in pursuit of “cm operation” with U.S. imperialism.

They are still stubbornly clinging to the divisive line. They openly and faithfully carried out Khrushchov’s orders by convening the schismatic Moscow meeting last March.

So long as they cling to these fundamental lines, all their gestures of “revolution", “opposition to imperialism” and “unity” are mere subterfuge and camouflage and can in no way change the essence of the matter.

If they had really changed Khrushchov’s revisionist line, why should they continue to collaborate with U.S. imperialism as international gendarmes suppressing the oppressed people and nations? Why should have they retabled at the United Nations the proposal which Khrushchov put forward last July for the organization of a U.N. armed force? Why should have they joined the United States in voting in the U.N. Security Council for a resolution calling for “ceasefire” and “national reconciliation” in the Congo (Leopoldville) and supported U.S. imperialism in its attempt to put down the patriotic armed struggle of the Congolese people?

If they had really changed Khrushchov’s revisionist line, why should they continue to pursue Khrushchov’s policy of selling out the German Democratic Republic? When the West German militarists shamelessly convened their Bundestag in West Berlin and thus made a wild provocation against the German Democratic Republic and the whole socialist camp, why did they lack the courage to take any action to rebuff it? Why have they pigeonholed the proposals for a speedy German peace treaty and the settlement of the West Berlin problem, without so much as daring to mention them again?

If they had really changed Khrushchov’s revisionist line, why should they brutally suppress the anti-U.S. demonstrations by students of Viet Nam and other Asian and African countries studying in the Soviet Union? Again, why did they and the U.S. imperialists install hot lines and cold lines, exchange information, hold secret talks and give each other open support? Why did they set their minds on abetting the U.S. imperialist plot of “peace negotiations", and try to subordinate the Viet Nam question to their general line of “peaceful coexistence” and “Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the settlement of world problems” and to extinguish the Vietnamese people’s revolutionary struggle?

From a host of facts we cannot but draw the conclusion that Khrushchov’s successors are still carrying out Khrushchov revisionism, the only difference being that in their tactics they are more crafty than Khrushchov. Khrushchov was rather naive. In order to curry favour with the chieftains of the U.S. gangsters, he was often too outspoken because he could not refrain from airing what was on his mind. His successors have drawn the lesson. They know that their stuff cannot stand scrutiny and can be refuted at any time by Marxist-Leninists and all revolutionary people. That is why they must disguise themselves. At the same time, they know that they are in a much weaker position than Khrushchov. They think that acting stealthily may be better for them. They resort to flat denials and brazenly say: I am not what I am, a horse is not a horse, a horse-driver is not a horse-driver, and a revisionist is not a revisionist, as if there were no difference at all between revisionism and Marxism-Leninism.

Precisely because the Khrushchov revisionists are putting on more subtle camouflage and are more deceptive, it is all the more incumbent on the Marxist-Leninists to expose the essence behind their false appearance and the deeds of betrayal concealed by their fine words. Otherwise, to allow them to deceive people would bring more serious harm to the revolutionary cause of the people of the world. As Lenin said about Kautsky’s tricks, “We would cease to be Marxists, we would cease to be Socialists generally, if we. . . refrained from exposing their real political significance.” 10

In the past, all kinds of opportunists and revisionists invariably used dual tactics to deceive the revolutionary people, and they invariably put on some false appearance to conceal the essence of their betrayal of the revolution. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin always firmly grasped the essence of the opportunists and revisionists by penetrating the complicated appearance and clearing away the fog they spread, and thoroughly exposed the true features of these renegades to the revolutionary people. It was through such struggles that the opportunist and revisionist factions were defeated one after another, the revolutionary theories of Marxism-Leninism constantly developed and great victories constantly won for the cause of the proletarian revolution.

Today, the Marxist-Leninists not only have the lessons of dealing with Bakunin, with Bernstein and Kautsky, with Trotsky and with Tito, but, what is more important, they have the experience of dealing with Khrushchov. Thus we can more easily see through the various disguises of the Khrushchov revisionists, more easily grasp the essence behind the appearance. Marxism-Leninism is a mirror to show up monsters. Facts are also such mirrors. However numerous the metamorphoses of the Khrushchov revisionists, they will eventually reveal their true features as monsters.

10. V. I. Lenin, “Bourgeois Pacifism and Socialist Pacifism", Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. XIX, p. 410.

Next: On What Basis Can We Achieve Real Unity Against the Enemy?