THE arch unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party Teng Hsiao-ping trotted out the revisionist program of “taking the three directives as the key link” and pushed a counter-revolutionary revisionist line. His reactionary program and line were opposed to Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line and, politically, represented the interests and aspirations of. the bourgeoisie both inside and outside the Party, and his vain attempt was to subvert the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism; ideologically or theoretically, they revised in toto the three component parts of Marxism, that is, philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism. The current great struggle to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping’s revisionist line and repulse the Right deviationist wind to reverse correct verdicts is developing victoriously. In order to thoroughly settle accounts with Teng Hsiao-ping’s crimes, it is extremely necessary to expose and criticize in a deep-going way, ideologically or theoretically, his reactionary nature in betraying Marxism.
The theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the quintessence of Marxism and the most important content of scientific socialism.. To uphold or to oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat has always been, the focus of the struggle between Marxism and revisionism. Teng Hsiao-ping is a renegade to the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied class struggle in socialist society, opposed the proletariat exercising all-round’ dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, and vainly attempted to subvert the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism. Thus he completely betrayed the Marxist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Referring to the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin pointed out: “The dictatorship ; of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless .war waged by.the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even i f only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. Fox all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential..” (“Left-Wing” Communism, An Infantile Disorder.)
Chairman Mao has comprehensively summed up the historical experience both positive and negative of the dictatorship of the proletariat since the October Revolution, and has inherited, defended and developed the Marxist-Leninist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat,. He has profoundly expounded, the law governing class struggle in socialist society, and solved, both in theory and in practice, the question .of whether or not to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the targets of the revolution and the way to make revolution and the question of how to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, prevent capitalist restoration and build socialism.
As far back as 1949, Chairman Mao pointed out that after the seizure of political power throughout the country the principal contradiction at home was one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. After the socialist transformation of the ownership of the. means of production was in the main completed, Chairman Mao has, in a series of works and instructions, repeatedly set forth the views:. Throughout the historical period, of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, and the principal contradiction is that between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
He has also formulated the basic line for our Party to persist in the dictatorship of the proletariat and prevent the restoration of capitalism. Chairman Mao has specially analyzed the question of the struggle against/the bourgeoisie inside the Party. In a document concerning the socialist education movement in January 1965,, he pointed out: “The main target of the present movement is those Party persons in power taking the capitalist road.”
Recently, he further pointed out: “You are making the socialist revolution, and yet don’t know where the bourgeoisie is It is right in the Communist Party those in power taking the capitalist road. The capitalist-roaders are still on the capitalist read.” Chairman Mao has not only solved in theory the question of how to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, but has also, on the basis of this theory, personally initiated and led a series of political movements the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the criticism of Lin Piao and Confucius, the study of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the criticism of Water Margin, and the current struggle to beat back the Right deviationist wind to reverse correct verdicts.
All these movements are class struggle waged by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and are aimed at consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and preventing the restoration of capitalism. Betraying our Party’s basic theory and practice over the last two decades, Teng Hsiao-ping did his utmost to deny class struggle in socialist society. When the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was basically completed, he followed Liu Shao-chi in trumpeting the theory of the dying out of class struggle, alleging that “class contradictions ‘ have now been solved in the main,” that “since classes have been eliminated basically, we should not stress class struggle.”
His revisionist stand remained unchanged even after the Great Cultural Revolution. Shortly after he resumed work, he dished up the revisionist program of “taking the three directives as the key link,” denying class struggle as the key link and tampering with the basic line of the Party; He even babbled: “How can we talk about class struggle every day?” He thus openly betrayed Marxism.
The essence of the theory of the dying out of class struggle advocated by Teng Hsiao-ping is betrayal of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin pointed out: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of class struggle but its continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the-proletariat is class straggle waged by a proletariat that is victorious and has taken political power into its handy against a bourgeoisie that has been defeated but not destroyed, a bourgeoisie that has not vanished, not ceased to offer resistance, hut, that has intensified its resistance.” (Forward to the Published Speech “Deception of the People With Slogans-of Freedom and Equality.”)
To deny and oppose the class struggle waged by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is bound to deny and oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat. In betraying the dictatorship of the proletariat, the revisionists, besides openly abandoning and, opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat, usually resort to the means of mouthing phrases about “the dictatorship of the proletariat” but actually distorting,emasculating and tampering with the revolutionary content of the dictatorship of the proletariat; that is to say, they advocate the theory of the dying out of class struggle, deny the class struggle waged by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship exercised by the former over the latter and talk only about state leadership over economic construction.
By this fraudulent tactic they try to make the dictatorship of the proletariat “evolve” into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It was under the cover of the theory of the dying out of class struggle that the Soviet revisionist renegade clique toppled the dictatorship of the proletariat established personally by Lenin in the Soviet Union and has since been exercising the dictatorship of the bureaucrat-monopoly bourgeoisie. Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao also resorted to this tactic when they plotted to turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What Teng Hsiao-ping had taken over was precisely this mantle of theirs. In criticizing the Right deviationist wind to reverse correct verdicts, Chairman Mao said:
“In 1949 i t was pointed out that the principal contradiction within the country was one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Thirteen years later the question of class struggle was reiterated, and mention was also made of the fact that the situation began to turn for the better. What is the Great Cultural Revolution for? To wage class struggle. Liu Shao-chi advocated the theory of the dying out of class struggle, but he himself never ceased to wage class struggle. He wanted to protect his bunch of renegades and sworn followers. Lin Piao. wanted to overthrow the proletariat and attempted a coup. Did class struggle die out?”
This instruction of Chairman Mao’s hit the nail on the head in exposing the reactionary nature of the theory of the dying out of class struggle peddled by Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao and Teng Hsiao-ping. Teng Hsiao-ping did not in the least extinguish the class struggle waged by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. He took the lead in whipping up the Right deviationist wind to reverse correct verdicts, pushed a revisionist line, tried to reverse the correct appraisal of the Great Cultural Revolution and settle accounts with it, and he represented the bourgeoisie in launching a. wanton attack against the. proletariat.
It is clear from Teng Hsiao ping’s words and deeds that, from the superstructure to the economic base, he attacked and opposed whatever was conducive to consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and preventing the restoration of capitalism; and he gleefully hailed and tried by a thousand and one ways to push forward whatever was beneficial, to restoring the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Chairman Mao has said: “The proletariat must exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie i n the superstructure, including all spheres of culture.”
After the seizure of political power by the proletariat; the bourgeoisie is still quite strong in the superstructure, including all spheres of culture. Unless this situation is completely changed, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be consolidated. Whether or not to carry out socialist revolution i n all spheres of the superstructure and to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie is an important hallmark of upholding or .opposing, the dictatorship. of the proletariat.
Teng Hsiao-ping and his followers openly declared that it was impermissible to mention the dictatorship of the proletariat in the fields of science and technology; they energetically opposed turning, the schools into an instrument of the dictatorship of the.proletariat opposed the revolution, in education, in. literature and art and in health work and tried, to reverse the correct verdicts on the revisionist line, followed in the 17 years before the Great Cultural Revolution.
All these were aimed at restoring the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie i n those spheres. At the end of 1974, Chairman Mao called upon the people of the whole country to make clear “why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie” and raised the question of restricting.bourgeois right. This is a fundamental, measure for combating preventing revisionism and.consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat. Since bourgeois right, which still exists.in socialist society, provides the;soil and conditions for continuously engendering. capitalism and the.bourgeoisie, ”therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system.”
Whether or not to restrict bourgeois right is in the final analysis, a question of whether or not to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this respect Teng Hsiao-ping also revealed his reactionary features of betraying the dictatorship of the proletariat. That he feverishly opposed restricting bourgeois right and had deep hatred for socialist new things which restrict bourgeois right from various aspects was determined by his reactionary stand of opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Chairman Mao has pointed put: “Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the government, the army and various spheres of culture are a bunch of counter-revolutionary revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will seize political power .and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Teng Hsiao-ping’s reactionary crimes, and the counter-revolutionary political incident that took place early in April at Tien An Men Square have once again proved that this thesis of Chairman Mao’s is very wise and’ perfectly correct.
After Teng. Hsiao-ping’s plot to turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by pushing a revisionist program and line was exposed and frustrated, the bourgeoisie inside and outside the Party and the unreformed landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists he represented, hurriedly launched a frantic counterattack against the proletariat. They viciously assailed our country’s dictatorship of the proletariat and tried to make Teng Hsiao-ping China’s Nagy, stage a counter-revolutionary coup and establish the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
This has further exposed Teng Hsiao-ping as the general representative of the various reactionary forces which are hostile to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The- dictatorship of the proletariat in China was established after long years of revolutionary struggles led.by Chairman Mao and has taken deep root among the masses of the people. It has become more consolidated and more powerful than ever after the Great Cultural Revolution. In putting up a desperate struggle, Teng Hsiao-ping. and the handful of class, enemies were lifting a rock only to drop it on their own feet, and they ended up in utter defeat.
Marxist political economy is an important theoretical basis for proletarian political parties to formulate their political lines and policies. The theory of the.dictatorship of the proletariat is the inevitable conclusion arrived at by Marx after analyzing the law of the development of the capitalist relations of production. Teng Hsiao-ping betrayed not only the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat but the basic principles of Marxist political economy as well.
Using-the law of the unity of opposites the fundamental law of the universe Marx and Lenin made profound analyses of socialist society. They pointed out in explicit terms that i t is still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society and bourgeois right still exists in regard to the distribution of articles of consumption. Lenin further pointed out: “There remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie!” (The State and Revolution.).
Summing up the practical experience after. Lenin Chairman Mao has made a penetrating analysis of the relations of production in socialist society and the movement of their contradictions with the productive forces, thereby developing Marxist political economy. Chairman Mao has pointed out: “Socialist relations of production have been established and are in harmony with the growth of the productive forces, but they are still far from perfect, and this imperfection stands in contradiction to the growth of the productive forces.” (On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.) He has further pointed out in his important instruction, on the question of the theory: “In a word, China is a socialist country. Before liberation, she was much the same as a capitalist country. Even now she practices an eight-grade wage system, distribution according to work and exchange through money, and in all this differs, very little from the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has been changed.” “Our county at present practices a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade, wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted.”
These scientific theses tell us clearly that in socialist society there is still the contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces which finds concentrated expression in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and between the socialist road and the capitalist road. The soil and conditions engendering new bourgeois elements not only include certain remnants of private ownership but also bourgeois right which exists in distribution according to work, in the exchange of equal values and in the relations between people.
To wipe out the social basis of revisionism and create conditions in which it will be’impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist or for a new bourgeoisie to arise, bourgeois right must be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat. These theses of Chairman Mao’s have smashed the metaphysical viewpoints which have long existed in the field of political economy and dealt heavy blows to revisionist viewpoints of all descriptions. Revisionists invariably allege that after the basic completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership, of the means of production, the revolution in the relations of production and in the superstructure is also accomplished and that, after this transformation, the primary or even the only task is to develop the productive forces.
Teng Hsiao-ping is a stubborn trumpeter of this theory of productive forces. As early as in 1956, he and Liu Shao-chi advocated that the principal contradiction at home was “the contradiction between the advanced socialist system and the backward social productive forces,” that “the future’ task is construction as the task of revolution has in the main been completed.” Last year, Teng Hsiao-ping once again trotted out the theory of productive forces to serve as the’ theoretical basis of his revisionist line.
He preached “taking the three directives as the key link,” negated taking class struggle as’the key link and, putting the label of the four modernizations (modernization of agriculture, industry, national defense and science and technology) on the theory of productive forces, he called for stirring up an “economic hurricane” and a “hurricane for vocational work.” His real aim was to sweep away the movement for the study of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to protect bourgeois right and safeguard the economic base on which the bourgeoisie and especially the bourgeoisie within the Party rely for existence.
The theory of productive forces denies in a fundamental.way that in socialist society there are still contradictions between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base, that among the various factors of productive forces, it is people, not things, that are decisive. Therefore, it denies that the only, way to develop the productive forces is to take class struggle as the key link, persist in putting proletarian politics in command, deepen the socialist revolution and persevere in mobilizing, and relying.on the masses.
It turns, a blind eye to the. fact that there.are still birthmarks of,capitalism in the socialist relations of production, that there are two possibilities for the development of the socialist relations of production, namely, if the proletariat does not persevere in continuing the revolution and does not restrict bourgeois right nor struggle against the bourgeoisie within the Party, then not only will socialism be unable to move.onto communism but will degenerate into capitalism.
It is therefore clear that if Terig Hsiao- ping’s theory of productive forces were followed, the already established socialist relations of production would surely be wrecked and those things in the relations of production which differ very little from those: of the old society would be retained for ever and continuously expanded. In this way, capitalism and new: bourgeois elements .would emerge at a more rapid pace from the soil of bourgeois right, laying the social basis for capitalist restoration..
One of Teng Hsiao-ping’s favourite remarks was: “It doesn’t matter whether it is a white cat or a black cat, any cat that catches mice is a good cat.”. This serves better than many long articles to reveal more clearly the revisionist nature of the theory of productive forces. In criticizing Teng Hsiao-ping, Chairman Mao has pointed out: “This person does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred to this key link. Still his theme of ‘white cat, black cat’ making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism.” Teng Hsiao-ping regarded revisionist and imperialist trash as treasures. In his eyes, material incentives, putting profits in command, servility to things foreign, the doctrine of trailing behind others at a snail’s pace were things which he could not part with for a moment. If his revisionist line were followed, it would be impossible to develop socialist production. Only socialism and only Marxism- Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought can save China. This has been proved by history and reality. Therefore, Teng Hsiao-ping’s clamour for the development of the productive forces and the four modernizations was a fraud; his real aim was to restore capitalism.
The differences between us and. him lie not in whether the four modernizations should be realized or whether the productive forces should be developed, but are fundamental differences between taking the socialist road and taking the capitalist road. Teng Hsiao-ping’s aim in advocating material incentives was to further strengthen and expand bourgeois right. The theory of material incentives is an important viewpoint of revisionist political economy.
The Soviet revisionist renegade clique has always used it to protect their special privileges and legalize their wanton appropriation and exploitation of the Soviet proletariat’s fruits of labor at the same time, it inculcates decadent ideas of bourgeois selfishness in the minds of. the labouring people so as to blunt their revolutionary will and make them willingly submit themselves to oppression and exploitation. Lenin once pointed out: “Opportunism and social-chauvinism stand on a common economic basis — the interests of a thin crust of privileged workers and of the petty bourgeoisie, who are defending their privileged position, their ‘right’ to some modicum of the profits that their ‘own’ national bourgeoisie obtain from robbing other nations, from the advantages of their Great-Power status, etc.” (Socialism and War.)
In socialist society, there are the class basis and economic conditions for engendering revisionism. In advocating material incentives, Teng Hsiao-ping was safeguarding and expanding the economic conditions for engendering revisionism. This is diametrically opposed to the interests of the workers, peasants, revolutionary cadres and revolutionary intellectuals. Chairman Mao has said: Politics is the commander, the soul. “Political work is the life-blood of all economic work.”
Our experience in the past two decades and more has proved that only by adhering to the principle of putting proletarian politics in command can the socialist enthusiasm of the masses be really aroused, and only in this way can they be guided to advance along the socialist road. Going in for material incentives will only lead to the expansion of bourgeois right and foster the concept of private ownership, and the result would be departing further and further from socialism and going nearer and nearer to capitalism.
The reality in the Soviet Union is a mirror. In that country, material incentives are all pervasive, resulting in the enrichment of a handful of bureaucrat-monopoly capitalists and the increasing poverty of the labouring people. Isn’t it crystal clear which class benefits and which class suffers from material incentives, and whether it is Marxism or revisionism? Teng Hsiao-ping’s clinging to material incentives shows precisely that he is a revisionist who has betrayed Marxism.
The struggle between political lines is often linked with the two-line struggle in the philosophical field. Ringleaders of the opportunist lines in our Party — from Chen Tu-hsiu and Wang Ming to Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao — all philosophically betrayed Marxist-.’dialectical materialism and historical materialism and based their opportunist-lines on idealism and metaphysics. This is also the case with Teng Hsiao-ping. In philosophy, a conspicuous manifestation of his betrayal of Marxism was his using idealism to oppose materialism and palming off eclecticism as dialectics. Marxism always holds that the people are the makers of history. Chairman Mao has said: “The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.” (On Coalition Government.)
He has also said: “The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant.” (Preface and Postscript to “Rural Surveys.”) Our cause and all our work reflect, in the final analysis, the demands of the masses. From the masses and back to the masses — this is our basic method of leadership and is also the only correct ideological line for us to know and change the world according to material dialectics. Directly opposed to this Marxist-Leninist line, all revisionists are protagonists of historical idealism.
In their eyes, history is made by a few heroes, not by slaves. They never believe in the truth that the masses are the real heroes. They fear the mass movement very much and when there is one, they always try by every means possible to suppress it. Teng Hsiao-ping acted his part fully in this respect. When the socialist transformation of agriculture was in full swing, he opposed the movement for co-operation. In the initial stage of the Great Cultural Revolution, he and Liu Shao-chi pushed a-bourgeois reactionary line to suppress the revolutionary masses.
This time he fanned up the Right deviationist wind to reverse correct verdicts, negated the Cultural Revolution and socialist new things and opposed wholehearted reliance on the working class and other labouring people thereby further laid bare his features as proponent of historical idealism. Marxist philosophy .holds that the law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe. The two aspects in a contradiction are united and at the same time struggle with each other, and it is this that propels the development of things. There are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development.of-the other contradictions.
Observing society with this fundamental law, we can see that in socialist society the principal contradiction at home is that between the proletariat and.the bourgeoisie. Once we grasp, this principal contradiction and take the. class struggle between,the proletariat and. the bourgeoisie as the key link, everything will fall into place and the other contradictions can be correctly solved. Openly revising this basic principle, Teng Hsiao-ping put stability, and unity and pushing the national economy forward all in the place of key link.
In this way, he negated the. principal contradiction .and the law of the unity of opposites, and so landed himself in the mire of eclecticism. Eclecticism is .revisionism. In-putting the three directives on a par, and placing politics and economy, politics and vocational work and technique all on an equal footing, Teng Hsiao-ping was using sophistry to negate the principal contradiction and.the main aspect in a contradiction. This was an eclectic sleight of hand. Lenin pointed out in criticizing Bukharin: “His theoretical attitude is’on the one hand, and on the other,’ ‘the one and the other.’ That is eclecticism:” (Once Again on the Trade Unions, the .Current, Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin.) We can use these very words to give an apt description of Teng Hsiao-ping. This phenomenon only shows the weak nature of the revisionists.. They want to reverse the theoretical. conclusions arrived at by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and replace them with revisionist theories.
But revisionism goes against the interests of the workers, peasants, soldiers, revolutionary cadres and revolutionary intellectuals that is the masses who comprise 95 per cent of the populationand since practicing revisionism goes against the will of the people; they dare not expose themselves too much, so they resort to eclecticism because “in falsifying Marxism i n opportunist fashion, the substitution of eclecticism for dialectics is the easiest way of deceiving the masses.” (Lenin: The State and Revolution.) However, confronted by the masses whose consciousness of class struggle, and the two-line struggle has greatly heightened these tactics of theirs are completely useless.
Lenin said: “The opportunists formal membership in workers’ parties by no means disproves their objectively being a political detachment of the bourgeoisie, conductors of its influence, and its agents in the labour movement.” (The Collapse of the Second International.) To push a political line which represents the interests of the bourgeoisie, the opportunists and revisionists invariably attack or revise the three component parts of Marxism. From Bernstein to the present-day Soviet revisionist renegade clique, they all betrayed Marxism in an all-round way on the pretext that Marxism is outdated. After Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao had played their part, Teng Hsiao-ping stepped out to serve as a teacher by negative example.
Didn’t he often say that “one mustn’t always talk with;ready terms, but should say something new”?.From.the above analysis we can see clearly that by “ready terms” he meant the basic principle of Marxism and “something new” meant the theory of the dying out of class struggle, the theory of productive forces, idealism, eclecticism and other revisionist trash. When these were used by. class enemies as weapons in their attack on proletarian dictatorship they were turned into the most reactionary and dirty political slogans such as were used during the counter-revolutionary political incident that took place at Tienanmen Square.
The handful .of counter-revolutionaries who created the incident clamored that they wanted “genuine Marxism-Leninism.”. These reactionaries who opposed communism and the people and harbored bitter hatred for our socialist system under the dictatorship of the proletariat have deep hatred for Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought, and what they want is out-and- out revisionism, and fascism. They directed the spearhead of their attack at our great leader Chairman Mao and at the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, and they openly hoisted the banner of supporting Teng Hsiao-ping.
This shows that the “ism” of these counter-revolutionaries is Teng Hsiao-ping’s revisionism. This all the more exposes the fact that Teng Hsiao-ping has completely betrayed Marxism and that his practice of revisionism represented the interests of the bourgeoisie both inside and outside the Party and of the class enemies at home and abroad. The struggle to beat back the Right deviationist wind has won great victories. On the proposal of our great leader Chairman Mao, the Party Central Committee decided to dismiss Teng Hsiao-ping from all posts both inside and outside the Party. This has greatly heightened the morale of the revolutionary people and deflated the reactionary arrogance of the class enemies.
But the struggle is by no means over. We are still confronted with the important and militant task of deepening our criticism, ideologically or theoretically of Teng Hsiao-ping’s revisionist line. Lenin said: Marxism “has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life.” (Marxism and Revisionism.) The bourgeoisie and revisionists will never be reconciled to the advance and victories of Marxism. They are sure to continue their attack on Marxism and try to revise it. However, history has proved that Marxism becomes stronger and more vigorous after each big struggle against revisionism. Marxism advances continuously i n the course of fighting against revisionism. Revisionism, like the bourgeoisie it represents, is decadent and is doomed to destruction.
(An abridged translation of an article in “Hongqi” No. 5, 1976)