STAKING THE FUTURE ON WAR

B.M Leizbon,

Gambling on war, which they expect to resolve all revolutionary tasks, has long since been a feature typical of petty-bourgeois pseudo- revolutionaries. Mistrust of the internal forces of the revolution has made them resort to conspiration, incitement to mutinies, and also the search for external impulsions to hasten the course of history.

Back in the days of the Communist League Marx and Engels had to fight sectarian groups who thought that all questions of the revolution could be solved by military force. The fantasies such adventurists indulged in led them to hope that the conflict between Austria and Prussia in 1850 would develop into a war which would become a prologue for a new revolution in Germany. A year later, these sectarians (there were about 200 of them) stated in all seriousness that a " European revolutionary army" should be raised to put an end by force of arms "to decaying capitalism, which was on the very verge of collapse".

The 19th century, during which the development of capitalism was relatively peaceful, provided no special conditions for the spread of such military-revolutionary illusions. But the epoch of imperialism, and especially the First World War, nourished the petty-bourgeois revolutionists’ adventuristic hopes that the war would help them to carry out the world revolution.

When the Great October Socialist Revolution triumphed, the petty-bourgeois revolutionists attempted to impose upon the first socialist state 95 in the world a policy of revolutionary war, declaring that the policy of peaceful co- existence between countries with different social systems was a surrender to imperialism, and the struggle for peace a hopeless aim, one which excluded the victory of socialism on a world scale.

One of the chapters in Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution is entitled "From Marxism to Pacifism”. In it Marxism is described as denying any possibility of struggle for peace. For this reason, the Soviet Union’s peace policy and all its efforts to foil imperialist attempts to unleash a new war were alleged to be a deviation from Marxism and a transition to pacifist positions.

“Frightened pacifists”, "They have made the struggle against war a self-contained task"— such are some of the phrases Trotsky used in the attempt to make the struggle of the Communist Party for peace look like a rejection of the world revolution, a refusal to carry out its internationalist duty. When the Soviet Union strove to enter into collective security agreements with Britain, France and other capitalist countries to avert the growing danger of fascist aggression, the Trotskyists immediately began to clamour that this was an attempt to stop the proletariat from carrying out a socialist revolution.

According to Trotsky the whole question is what ways and means should be used to avert war. He categorically declares: "The struggle against war can be decided only through the revolutionary struggle for power.” In other words, peace cannot be secured before the triumph of the world revolution.

Since the Trotskyists linked all their hopes for revolution with war, they naturally stood for un- 96 leashing military conflicts. In this respect they have not changed much in later years.

Between the two world wars, the international forces of peace were not yet strong enough to thwart the policies of the imperialists who hoped to destroy the Soviet Union by war. The Soviet Union’s efforts for peace, the active struggle of the Communist International and all peaceful forces against the war danger, did not succeed in averting the war. But they did play a great part in postponing the conflict and providing more favourable conditions for victory over the warmongers.

This victory, and the ensuing formation of the socialist world system, disintegration of colonialism and emergence of numerous national states interested in preserving peace, together with the enhanced influence of the democratic forces, wrought major changes in the international situation.

The alliance of the socialist countries and all anti-imperialist forces became a decisive factor in international politics. Imperialism ceased to dominate in the world. The peoples are now powerful enough to avert a new world war by their energetic and concerted action. The foreign policy of the socialist countries plays a major role in the struggle for peace, against imperialist aggression. This policy is aimed at consolidating all anti-imperialist peace-loving forces in the struggle against the forces of reaction and war. Its integral component is the line of peaceful co-existence between states with different social systems. This line is directed against the unleashing of a new world war by the imperialists, against international provocations and the export of counter-revolution, and at the provision of the conditions enabling the peoples to assert their sacred right to determine independently the path along which their countries are to develop, to establish mutually advantageous economic, scientific and technological co- operation and cultural exchange between countries.

Although the relation of forces in the world has radically changed, the Trotskyist maniacs of the "Fourth International" repeat their teacher’s hocus-pocus that there can be no struggle for peace except by the seizure of power, and if it is impossible to seize power, then let there better be wars.

The Maoist adventurists repeat with a few minor changes what Trotsky said about war and peace 30 to 40 years ago and what is asserted by the modern Trotskyists today.

The Maoists declare that the struggle for peace and the policy of peaceful co-existence between states with different social systems amount to rejection of the world revolution, almost betrayal of the working masses’ interests. All those who stand for this policy are called revisionists, who are betraying the interests of the world revolution for the sake of their own wellbeing. The Maoists maintain that peaceful coexistence substitutes pacifism for the world proletarian revolution and rejects proletarian internationalism (sixth article in the Rcnmin ribao and Hung-chi in connection with the Open Letter of the C.C., C.P.S.U.). This is a word- forword repetition of what Trotsky said in his time.

For the sake of fairness let us note that these are statements found in Mao Tse-tung’s early works. According to him, wars can be prevented only by force of arms. "There is only one means 98 to destroy wars,” Mao wrote in 1936, "and it is to (ight war by war. . ..” Two years later he said: "War can be destroyed only by war."

Naturally, in conditions of the civil war and the national liberation war against Japan, China could achieve victory and peace only through armed struggle. The trouble is that everything Mao Tse-tung said in certain concrete conditions is immediately declared by him and his followers to be an absolute truth applicable to all times and all peoples.

Recently, Mao Tse-tung issued a new instruction: "As regards the question of world war,” he said, "there are only two possibilities—either the war will call forth a revolution, or else the revolution will avert war.” Since the Maoists consider that war is the road to revolution, the “instruction” on the two possibilities is sheer hypocrisy. Actually it implies only one “possibility”—the solution of all problems through war.

It is not only what the Chinese extremists say, but also what they do, and not only in recent times, that shows that they regard war as the exclusive means for solving all problems.

In the early thirties, Li Li-san, Mao Tse-tung and other adventurists in China did not have much chance to provoke a world war. But they did all they could. The decisions adopted by the Li Li-san leadership of the C.P.C. in June, July and August 1930 attached considerable importance to organising an "insurrection in Manchuria”. In planning this insurrection, Li Li-san expected it to result in a clash between Japan and the Soviet Union, since Japan was at that time endeavouring to secure Manchuria as a bridgehead. Li Li-san did not conceal the fact that the strategy he proposed was designed to 99 plunge the world into war, and, as he put it, "to draw the international proletariat into the decisive struggle against imperialism”. Later Li Lisan admitted that he considered it possible "to sacrifice the Soviet Union" in order to bring about a world conflagration. Thus the irresponsible Leftist extremists in China were willing to risk the future of the first socialist country.

The changes in the world after the rout of fascism did little to moderate the views of the Chinese extremists. Standing at the helm of state in China, they now have far greater opportunities for implementing their adventuristic policies.

In the fifth article written in connection with the Open Letter of the C.C., C.P.S.U., the Renmin ribao and Hung-chi quote statements Mao made in 1946, which they consider to be no less correct for all subsequent times. Calling upon the peoples to unite in the struggle against the U.S. reactionaries and their henchmen in various countries, Mao Tse-tung declares that only by victory in this struggle will it be possible to avoid a world war and that world war is otherwise inevitable.

The statement is very guarded concerning the exact meaning of "victory in this struggle”, but from Maoist propaganda it is clear that this is a variation on the old Mao formula: "War can be destroyed only by war.” This is now presented as "the struggle of blade against blade”, or in the form of the assertion that "peaceful coexistence serves the interests of imperialism and plays up to the imperialist policy of aggression and war" (sixth article on the Open Letter of the C.C., C.P.S.U.), and so on.

The article in the Renmin ribao of October 100 27, 1958 entitled "Comrade Mao Tse-tung on Imperialism and All Reactionaries Being Paper Tigers" shows the dogmatic “stability” of the formulas advanced by Mao’s followers. This article is a collection of Mao’s sayings over a period of twenty years. The editors enthuse over this material "giving the impression that it is a new and accomplished political article”. In fact, all the definitions contained in it, though made by Mao over a long period and in very different conditions, are remarkably alike.

In 1940, the "paper tiger" was the Chiang Kaishek group. In 1946, the "paper tiger" underwent a metamorphosis: "the atom bomb with which the American reactionaries endeavour to scare people is a paper tiger. It looks frightening but really it is not frightening at all."  [100•1  In 1957 Mao Tse-tung declared that U.S. imperialism was a paper tiger, and in 1958 that "taking a longterm view of the substance of imperialism and all reactionaries, they should be regarded from a strategic standpoint as what they really are— ’paper tigers’ ”. In the sixties, “revisionists” too were declared to be "paper tigers".

This vain bragging, this lumping together of the most diverse forces—from Chiang Kai-shek to U.S. imperialism and to so-called revisionists— is intended to prove that a trial of armed strength with imperialism is a trifling matter and that it is not at all difficult to "slay the paper tiger”. At the same time, this bragging is intended to defame those who really fight imperialism, who understand that in order to checkmate interna- 101 tional reaction and prevent it from plunging the world into a war, it is necessary to display vigilance, to mobilise all peace-loving forces and peoples and be prepared to rebuff aggressive imperialist action.

While shouting that only military means are effective in the class struggle, the Maoists reject all other means of struggle, regarding them as manifestations of opportunism and revisionism. But nobody in the world considers hurling invectives at the imperialists or endless "serious warnings" as effective measures. This is the same drum-beating which has always accompanied petty-bourgeois revolutionism since its inception and is meant to camouflage its lack of revolutionary activity.

Peaceful co-existence, which the representatives of petty-bourgeois revolutionism are attacking, is actually a most acute form of class struggle on an international scale; it requires considerable self-control, resolve and flexibility, daring manoeuvring, skill, and a knowledge of when to present ultimatums and when to compromise. It stands to reason that peaceful coexistence presupposes the communist movement’s high vigilance as regards imperialist intrigues, and the socialist states’ constant concern for their military potential and defence capacity.

What is the essence of the policy of peaceful co-existence between countries with different social systems which the Soviet Union and other socialist countries pursue? As stated in a resolution of the Twenty-Third Congress of the C.P.S.U., "the Communist Party of the Soviet Union proceeds in its foreign policy from the basic interests of the Soviet people and its internationalist revolutionary duty to the fraternal 102 socialist countries and the working people of all countries."  [102•1  The Soviet Union aims at ensuring favourable international conditions for the building of socialism and communism, supports the national liberation movement, resolutely rebuffs the aggressive forces of imperialism, and strives to preserve mankind from a new world war.

Peking “explains” that "the struggle for peace and the struggle for socialism are not the same thing”. But it does not at all follow from this that there is no connection between the two. The policy of peaceful co-exis’:ence between states with different social systems is designed to ensure the conditions in which socialism can and does demonstrate its superiority over capitalism. Lenin predicted that there would inevitably arise a competition between the two modes of production, two formations, two economies—the communist and the capitalist—on an international scale, and that socialism’s force of example would have a telling effect in that competition.

The struggle for peace slogan, far from contradicting the tasks of the struggle for communism, facilitates their solution. The struggle for peace helps to resolve the class tasks of the proletariat; it is a general democratic struggle, capable of uniting not only the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, but even part of the bourgeoisie which realises the danger of a thermonuclear war. Any extension of the front of peace fighters objectively strengthens the position of those who are blazing the trail to socialism. This shows the connection between the struggle for democracy and work 103 for the triumph of socialism, a connection which the Communist Parties consider as extremely important, but which Mao’s followers categorically deny.

By striving to impose upon the world communist movement an imaginary alternative— either the struggle for peace or the struggle for the socialist revolution—and calling revisionists all those who think that peace strengthens the positions of socialism throughout the world, the Chinese extremists are out to assert that no matter how great the losses in a war, they will be quickly made up by the victory of the world revolution.

This is a stale argument. In 1936, Trotsky said that if the imminent "war remains no more than a war, the Soviet Union will inevitably be defeated”. But should we be afraid of that, he asks? For "even the military defeat of the Soviet Union will be only a short episode if the proletariat wins in other countries".

History has made a laughing-stock of those monstrous predictions. It was owing to the Soviet Union that mankind was saved from fascism, that socialism asserted itself in other countries, that the disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism set in. How different our planet would have been if history had taken the course charted for it by Trotsky!

Now Mao Tse-tung is willing to “sacrifice” the population of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, including a large portion of the Chinese population. He has slightly modernised his adventurist ideas to suit the atomic age. Speaking at the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of the Communist Parties in 1957, Mao Tse-tung said: "Who can predict how 104 large a toll of human lives the future war will take! Maybe it will be one-third of the 2,700 million populating our planet, that is, only 900 million people. I think that is not much if atom bombs are really dropped.” Mao then went on to say that he was willing to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the sake of "the victory of the world socialist revolution”. He added that there was no need to be afraid of that, for "if half of mankind is destroyed, half of it will be left, imperialism will be completely destroyed and socialism will assert itself throughout the world, and in 50 or 100 years’ time the world’s population will grow again, even by more than fifty per cent”. This statement made a very bad impression on the participants in the meeting.

Chinese bourgeois ideologists once declared that China need not fear other countries because "we Chinese are extremely numerous”. In 1903, for example, the bourgeois ideologist Chen Tienhua wrote: "Even if a few million or several dozen million Chinese should perish, that would be no calamity. When we save the country, the population will be replenished in a few decades."  [104•1 

Now this old bourgeois and essentially misanthropic idea has been adopted by a man who calls himself a Marxist. In 1957, this monstrous talk of being ready to sacrifice half of mankind might have appeared as a Chinese metaphor or legend of no practical import, but only two and a half years later the pamphlet Long Live Leninism cynically stated that such sacrifices as the destruction of fifty per cent of mankind 105 would be easily made up for. "On the ruins of destroyed imperialism, the victorious people will build a civilisation a thousand times higher than that of capitalism, will build its own, genuinely wonderful future, and build it at exceedingly high speed."

In spite of all that, many people thought that the statements made by the Maoists against the propositions of the international communist movement that war can be averted, that the struggle for peace and the struggle for socialism are interlinked, that it is precisely peaceful co- existence between countries with different social systems that creates the most favourable conditions for the development of the national liberation struggle, were strictly confined to the sphere of ideological differences and had no direct bearing on practical policies.

While the men in Peking, proclaiming such arch-revolutionary views, refrained for state reasons from dotting the i’s, the modern Trotskyists, who had no formal obligations to anybody, remained true to their ideology of intolerance and hastened to offer their Chinese counterparts a piece of “sound” advice. As early as December 16, 1962, the "Fourth International" suggested in its so-called Open Letter that Mao should " discuss the question of the inevitability of world war and that of preventive war as is posed by the C.P.C. and the Fourth International”. The Trotskyists were dissatisfied because Mao’s followers had not dotted the i’s and, noted that, unlike them, "we Trotskyists call upon the popular masses to seize power after taking steps to provide, if necessary, for military intervention in other countries from Cuban or Chinese territory".

Like the Maoists, the Trotskyists, attacking those whom they accuse of not assisting "the oppressed classes and the oppressed nations of the world in their revolutionary struggle”, declared that support of revolutions in the colonial countries "must be not passive, but active, direct, militant, and scientifically and politically consistent”. Since the authors of this adventuristic document rightly doubted whether anybody would understand what they meant by "scientifically and politically consistent”, they took pains to clarify its meaning. It appears that the socialist countries must "give all their power, all their material, military and atomic resources to support and promote revolutions in the colonial countries".

This incitement to war, including atomic war, by a handful of Trotskyist provocateurs looked like the howling of maniacs. Subsequent events showed, however, that in his policy Mao is not far from following the advice of the Trotskyists.

The attempts of the Maoists to split the international communist movement and the community of socialist countries, and their categorical refusal to take joint action with the peace-loving forces were regarded by the U.S. imperialists as a direct invitation to unleash aggression.

The disgraceful war of the United States in Vietnam, its actions against Laos and Cambodia are arousing indignation in the whole world. At the Karlovy Vary Conference held in 1967, the European Communist and Workers’ Parties expressed their staunch determination to take active steps to bring about the isolation and defeat of the aggressive policies of U.S. imperialism, the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Vietnam and the granting to the Vietnamese people of the 107 possibility to resolve their domestic affairs themselves. The Communists called upon all forces opposing war, irrespective of their political and ideological views, to intensify their joint action to stop the American war in Vietnam and thereby to promote peaceful relations between peoples, to prevent the conflict in Vietnam from developing into a new world war.

China’s attitude towards the war in Vietnam leaves no doubt that the Maoists are willing to sacrifice the fate of entire peoples for the sake of their hegemonistic aims. They refuse to participate in the united anti-imperialist front, declaring that they "will on no account agree to concerted action”, that "thus it was, thus it is and thus it will always be”. More than that, they deliberately obstruct assistance to the Vietnamese people.

Many people realise now that the U.S.A. would never have dared to escalate the war in Vietnam had it not been for China’s stand. There is a direct connection between the escalation of the war in Vietnam and the fact that, while the Mao Tse-tung group confines itself to threats as far as U.S. imperialism is concerned, it actually opposes the Soviet Union, obstructs it and other socialist countries in their assistance to Vietnam, and endeavours in every possible way to prolong the conflict, hoping that it will grow into a world war.

Any initiative on peace talks, irrespective of its author, is immediately branded by Chinese propaganda as treachery and deceit. Every effort to bring peace to Vietnam, every attempt to extinguish the fire of war, is immediately declared "a conspiracy between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. aimed at a Munich in the east".

The Maoists make no secret of the fact that their aim is to provoke a world conflagration. They say that, if the U.S.S.R. really wants to help Vietnam, "it should undertake something in the centre of Europe to tie down the U.S. forces there and help the national liberation forces in Vietnam”. What they really want is to provoke a clash between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A., to remain aloof from it themselves and, as the old Chinese proverb says, "to watch from the top of the mountain how the two tigers fight each other".

The attitude adopted by the Maoists towards the Israeli aggression against the Arab countries also removes all doubt about the desire of the Chinese adventurists to see the crisis in the Middle East grow into a world thermonuclear war. The Soviet Union, while giving comprehensive assistance to the Arab states in their struggle against imperialism, spared no effort to bring about an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, the Maoists have been thundering not against the imperialists, but against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in an open attempt to drive a wedge between the Arab states and the socialist world system.

Having launched their regular smear campaign against the U.S.S.R., the Maoists took no pains to conceal their desire for the Soviet Union to unleash a war immediately in Europe or, still better, to use its thermonuclear arsenal in defence of the Arabs.

Whatever happens in the world, the Maoist agents in all countries raise a hue and cry about the Soviet Union’s lack of revolutionism.

The Spanish Communist Party’s Mundo Obrero recently had some witty things to say about 109 such people in an article entitled "What Is the Soviet Union Doing?" Here is an extract from it:

“If there is a fascist coup in Greece these madmen scream: ’And what is the Soviet Union doing?’ If the Americans escalate the war in Vietnam—it is the same old song. . . .

“According to this simplified logic, the Soviet Union is to blame for all the mistakes and failures of the revolutionary forces anywhere in the world. What it comes to is that the U.S.S.R. has to make revolutions for all peoples or to wage liberation wars on their behalf . . . that any party or group finding itself in an embarrassing position is entitled to draw the Soviet Union into a world thermonuclear war to help it overcome its difficulties.

“Actually, the reproach ’What is the Soviet Union doing?’ is becoming a very convenient excuse by which all ’impatient’ people and snobs try to justify their passivity, cowardice or impotence."

The newspaper justly concludes that all this is grist to the imperialist mill.

Every attempt to ease international tension is immediately proclaimed by the Maoists a crime against the world revolution. In 1959, Mao Tsetung said at the meeting with the leaders of the Latin American Communist Parties: "None of you should fear international tension. I, for one, favour international tension."  [109•1  His audience, hearing this from a person who claims to be a Marxist, thought that there must be some sort of a mistake. But Mao’s subsequent foreign policy 110 left little doubt about his desire to keep the world constantly on the brink of war.

As the Mao group’s foreign policy isolated China ever more and undermined her international prestige, while their domestic policy continually heaped up difficulties, the Peking leadership began to stake more and more openly on war. The explosions of Chinese atomic bombs v/ere the signal for military hysteria in the country. The Maoists now declare that the prospect of socialism in China depends directly on the victory of the world revolution. It appears that all China’s problems, all her internal contradictions can be solved only if and when "the banner of Mao Tse-tung’s ideas flutters over the entire planet".

For some time now, war propaganda has been assigned an important place in the Chinese press and radio. This propaganda is intensifying in connection with the grave difficulties the country is facing and has now literally become a hymn to armaments and war. "War,” said Lin Piao, the Chinese Minister of Defence, "steels people and gives an impetus to history. In this respect, war is a great school.” The Mao group does not conceal its intention to do everything in its power to make Chinese youth go through this school, irrespective of the sacrifices and consequences. "The cultural revolution,” they say, "is preparation for war.” Meanwhile the Hungweipings write in their papers: "Since our Hungweipings are soldiers, they will fight. We are a powerful reserve of the heroic People’s Liberation Army. We have to prepare for world war. The great proletarian cultural revolution is a splendid training course to prepare the young people for a people’s war."

How do the Peking adventurists picture future events? The answer to this question is contained in Lin Piao’s article, "Long Live Victory in the People’s War”, which is advertised as the best expression of Mao’s thoughts.

This document speaks of the need to repeat on a world scale the experience of the Chinese revolution. The encirclement of towns by the revolutionary countryside, which has "proved its worth" in China, Lin Piao asserts, "has now assumed general and very pressing importance for the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed nations and peoples of the world".

According to the old anarchist recipe, the Maoists have divided peoples into those able to carry out the revolution and those unable to do so. In the first category they place only the "poor peoples”, predominantly in countries populated chiefly by peasants. North America and West Europe, they say, are the "world town”, while Asia, Africa and Latin America are the "world countryside".

Instead of uniting all contemporary revolutionary forces—the world socialist system, the working-class movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation movement, Mao Tse-tung’s followers endeavour to split these forces, to oppose them to one another. They deny the revolutionary role of the European socialist countries and the hegemony of the proletariat, and assign the leading role in the struggle with imperialism to national liberation movements, which are of a peasant, petty-bourgeois and even bourgeois nature. "In a sense,” writes Lin Piao, "the present situation in the world revolution can be characterised as an encirclement of the town by the countryside. On the 112 whole, the cause of the world revolution depends in the final analysis on the revolutionary struggle of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples. .. ."

Proclaiming a campaign for the encirclement of "the world town”, into which they also include the European socialist countries, the Maoists state unambiguously against whom their main attack is spearheaded.

It is not imperialism, but the so-called revisionists that are declared to be the most dangerous enemy. Hence, the slogan: "To smash U.S. imperialism it is essential first of all to put an end to international revisionism."

Having declared that the socialist countries and the entire world communist movement are accomplices of the imperialists, the Maoists have decided that they can now reduce the fight against imperialism to vociferous threats while they concentrate their fire on the socialist countries and mount a campaign of unprecedented violence against the Soviet Union.

The armed provocations of the Maoists on the Soviet-Chinese border have the purpose of creating an atmosphere of war hysteria in China, of inciting the Chinese people against the Soviet people. The major military clashes instigated by the Mao Tse-tung group on Damansky Island on the Ussuri River were timed to coincide with the eve of the so-called Ninth Congress of the C.P.C. A suitable atmosphere had to be created for the congress, which its organisers intended to be a bellicose assembly of expansionists. The border provocations were to raise chauvinism in the country to a boiling point. But, at the same time, they pursue even more far-reaching aims.

The line followed by Mao is greeted with 113 unconcealed joy by the U.S. imperialists and aggressive forces in other countries, who hasten to utilise the anti-Sovietism of the Maoists to weaken the revolutionary forces and harm the Chinese people themselves.

In our day, when the issue of war and peace has become the most burning problem, the reliance of the Mao group on war and on struggle against the forces of world socialism can lead it only to complete bankruptcy. The Chinese people will sooner or later choose a different prospect: they will improve their relations with their genuine friends, the Soviet Union and all socialist countries and the Communist Parties, and will fight side by side with them for peace and the triumph of socialism.

The Maoist variant of the petty-bourgeois revolutionist idea that socialism can be achieved through world war is doomed to the same infamous fate that overtook its Trotskyist and other interpretations.

* * * 

  

Notes

 [100•1]   After China tested the hydrogen bomb, the Chinese press stopped calling nuclear weapons a paper tiger and began to play up its power with a view to fanning up a chauvinist psychosis.

[102•1]   Twenty-Third Congress of the C.P.S.U., Moscow, 1966, p. 287.

 [104•1]   A. M. Grigoryev. Anti-imperialist Programme of the Chinese Bourgeois Revolutionaries, 1895–1905 (in Russian), Moscow, 1966, p. 69.

[109•1]   World Marxist Review, 1964, No. 6.