Mao on the COMINTERN

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at blythe.org
Thu May 9 23:57:50 MDT 1996


The following is an article that appeared in the
April issue of the Maoist Sojourner.

Mao on the COMINTERN

The existence of the (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) RIM
and now its way of looking at the People's War in Peru raises the
question of what Mao thought about how to organize international
solidarity amongst communist parties. Mao did not lead an
international party organization like the COMINTERN (Communist
International), which Stalin disbanded in 1943. Hence, in practice,
Mao is quite clear in opposition to such an international party.
Likewise, he published some line statements on the question of
having an international party.


"The Comintern Has Long Ceased to Meddle in Our
Internal Affairs" excerpt from speech in
Chief-fang Jih-pao, May 28, 1943

Comrade Mao Tse-tung first pointed out that the
dissolution of the Communist International was, exactly
as the American press agency had reported, "a great
event marking the dividing line between two epochs."

Comrade Mao Tse-tung asked: "Why should the Communist
International be disbanded? Did it not devote all its
efforts to the emancipation of the working class of the
whole world and to the war against fascism?"

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: "It is true that the
Communist International was created by Lenin himself.
During its entire existence it has rendered the
greatest services in helping each country to organize a
truly revolutionary workers' party, and it has also
contributed enormously to the great cause of organizing
the anti-fascist war." Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed
particularly to the great services of the Communist
International in aiding the cause of the Chinese
revolution...

Comrade Mao Tse-tung further pointed out:
"Revolutionary movements can be neither exported nor
imported. Despite the fact that aid was accorded by the
Communist International, the birth and development of
the Chinese Communist Party resulted from the fact that
China herself had a conscious working class. The
Chinese working class created its own party--the
Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party,
although it has a history of only twenty-two years, has
already undertaken three great revolutionary
movements...

Since the Communist International has rendered such
great services to China and to various other countries,
why should it be necessary to proclaim its dissolution?
To this question Comrade Mao Tse-tung replied: "It is a
principle of Marxism-Leninism that the forms of
revolutionary organizations must be adapted to the
necessities of the revolutionary struggle. If a form of
organization is no longer adapted to the necessities of
the struggle, then this form of organization must be
abolished." Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that at
present the form of revolutionary organization known as
the Communist International is no longer adapted to the
necessities of the struggle. To continue this
organizational form would, on the contrary, hinder the
development of the revolutionary struggle in each
country. What is needed now is the strengthening of the
national Communist Party [min-tsu Kung-ch'an-tang] of
each country, and we no longer need this international
leading center. There are three main reasons for this:
(1) The internal situation in each country and the
relations between the different countries are more
complicated than they have been in the past and are
changing more rapidly. It is no longer possible for a
unified international organization to adapt itself to
these extremely complicated and rapidly changing
circumstances. Correct leadership must grow out of a
detailed analysis of these conditions, and this makes
it even more necessary for the Communist Party of each
country to undertake this itself. The Communist
International, which is far removed from the concrete
struggle in each country, was adapted to the relatively
simple conditions of the past, when changes took place
rather slowly, but now it is no longer a suitable
instrument. . . . (Stuart Schram, ed. The Political
Thought of Mao Tse-tung (NY: Frederick Praeger, 1963),
pp. 288-89.)

"We Are Not Going to Turn the Country Over to Moscow!"
Question [from Edgar Snow]: In actual practice, if the
Chinese revolution were victorious, would the economic
and political relationship between Soviet China and
Soviet Russia be maintained within the Third
International or a similar organization, or would there
probably be some kind of actual merger of governments?
Would the Chinese Soviet Government be comparable in
its relation to Moscow to the present government of
Outer Mongolia?

Answer [from Mao]:I assume this is a purely
hypothetical question. As I have told you, the Red Army
is not now seeking the hegemony of power, but a united
China against Japanese imperialism.

The Third International is an organization in which the
vanguard of the world proletariat brings together its
collective experience for the benefit of all
revolutionary peoples through the world. It is not an
administrative organization nor has it any political
power beyond that of an advisory capacity. Structurally
it is not very different from the Second International,
though in content it is vastly different. But just as
no one would say that in a country where the Cabinet is
organized by the social-democrats the Second
International is dictator, so it is ridiculous to say
that the Third International is dictator in countries
where there are Communist parties.

In the U.S.S.R., the Communist Party is in power, yet
even there the Third International does not rule nor
does it have any direct political power over the people
at all. Similarly, it can be said that although the
Communist Party of china is a member of the Comintern,
still this in no sense means that Soviet china is ruled
by Moscow or by the Comintern. We are certainly not
fighting for an emancipated China in order to turn the
country over to Moscow!

The Chinese Communist Party is only one party in China,
and in its victory it will have to speak for the whole
nation. It cannot speak for the Russian people or rule
for the Third International, but only in the interests
of the Chinese masses. Only where the Chinese masses
coincide with the interests of the Russian masses can
it be said to be 'obeying the will' of Moscow. But of
course this basis of common benefit will be
tremendously broadened, once the masses of China are in
democratic power and socially and economically
emancipated, like their brothers in Russia.

When Soviet governments have been established in many
countries, the problem of an international union of
soviets may arise, and it will be interesting to see
how it will be solved. But today I cannot suggest the
formula; it is a problem which has not been and cannot
be solved in advance. In the world of today, with
increasingly close economic and cultural intimacies
between different states and peoples, such a union
would seem to be highly desirable, if achieved on a
voluntary basis.

Clearly, however, the last point is of utmost
importance; such a world union could be successful only
if every nation had the right to enter or leave the
union according to the will of the people, and with its
sovereignty intact, and certainly never at the
'command' of Moscow. No Communist ever thought
otherwise, and the myth of 'world domination from
Moscow' is an invention of the Fascists and
counterrevolutionaries.

(Stuart Schram, ed. The Political Thought of Mao Tse-
tung (NY: Frederick Praeger, 1963), pp. 286-7.)






     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list