(4th July 1949)
Introduction
This CPC document which was submitted to the CPSU (b) and Stalin in relation to the visit of the CPC delegation to Moscow in July 1949 headed by Liu Shao chi is instructive on the views of the CPC just a few months prior to the success of the people’s democratic revolution.
It represents a valuable picture of the relations of the two parties under the leadership of Stalin and Mao as do other exchanges of this period.
Its significance is particularly so on the question of the character of the new Chinese revolutionary state. As noted in the article by A. Ledovsky1 the CPC and Mao had argued in November 30th 1947 that upon the victory of the Chinese revolution all parties other than the CPC would be removed from state power:
“In the period of the final victory of the Chinese revolution, following the example of the USSR and Yugoslavia, all political parties, except for the CPC, will have to leave the political arena, which will strengthen significantly the Chinese revolution.”
The CPSU (b) and Stalin had expressed their disagreement with this view. The CPSU (b) and Stalin replied to the Chinese letter on April 20th 1948:
“We do not agree with this. We think that various oppositional political parties in China who represent the middle classes and oppose the Kuomintang clique, will still exist for a long time, and that the Chinese communist party will have to involve them to cooperate against the Chinese reactionaries and the imperialist states, while keeping its hegemony, and thus the leading role. It is possible that some representatives of those parties will have to be allowed to enter the Chinese people’s democratic government, and that this government will have to be declared a coalition, in order to broaden the support for this government among the population and to isolate the imperialists and their Kuomintang agents.”
It is evident from the letter of the CPC below that the Chinese Communist Party came to accept the Soviet advice.
One more observation may be made about this letter in connection with the development of the theory of People’s Democracy. In this period it was argued that after the completion of the tasks of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks and the onset of the socialist tasks the properties of the national bourgeoisie would be nationalised:
‘Many measures, which require quite a prolonged period of time, will have to be conducted from now and until national capital is fully nationalised’.
A few days earlier on July 1st 1949 Mao had publicly spoken in On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship, similarly, that with the transition to socialism the enterprises of the national bourgeoisie would be nationalised.2
Such was the position of the Communist Party of China and Mao in the entire period from 1949 to 1954.
After 1954 the published texts of On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship deleted the section of the document which suggested the nationalisation of the enterprises of the national bourgeoisie. This facilitated the new theses of the CPC and Mao that national capital could continue to exist in a regime which had declared its socialist character, as well as the parties of the middle bourgeoisie persisting in the National People’s Congress.
It is known that the leaders of the CPC after the 20th Congress of the CPSU criticised Stalin for his alleged overbearing attitude to the Chinese party leadership. The last line of this document argued that the CPC would like to receive the directives of the CPC and Stalin on various foreign policy issues. In a fraternal way Stalin countered this view:
The Chinese delegation declares that the Communist Party of China will submit to the decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. To us, this seems odd. The party of one state submitting to a party from another state. It has never happened and is impermissible. It is true both the parties must be accountable before their respective peoples, must confer with each other on certain questions, help each other, and in difficulty unite both the parties. So today’s meeting of the Politbureau with your participation serves as one of the forms of association between our parties. And it must be so.
We are very grateful for such an honour, but some ideas are not acceptable and we want to point them out. It is like an advice from a friend. It is so not only in words but in deed too. We may give you advice, but cannot give orders as we are insufficiently informed about the situation in China, cannot even compare ourselves with you in the knowledge of all the nuances of the situation, but above all we cannot give orders because the affairs of China must be fully resolved by you. We cannot resolve them for you.
(J.V. Stalin, From the Conversation with the Delegation of the
CC CP of China in Moscow, (11th July 1949)).3
Vijay Singh
1) A. Ledovsky, The Secret Mission of A.I. Mikoyan to China (January-February 1949) at https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv22n2/mikoyan.htm and Part 11 at https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv23n2/Mao.htm
2) https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MaoPPD2.pdf
3)
https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv16n1/china.htm
Click here to return to the April
2024 index.