Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T16:22:15.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Fraternity vs. National Power: A Contradiction in the Communist World

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Peter Mayer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE Sino-Soviet dispute entered its present phase at the time of the 1962–1963 Congresses of the national Communist Parties. Then the esoteric struggle among the international parties was replaced by direct confrontation, referred to by Communists as the “open polemics.” The present article will examine some of the causal factors in the changing relationships between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China, as these have found expression in the Sino-Soviet dispute.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1966 , pp. 193 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zagoria, Donald S., The Sino-Soviet Conflict, 1956–1961 (Princeton, 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Only the most eminent will be cited: Leonhard, Wolfgang, “A World in Disarray,” Problems of Communism, XIII (no. 2, 1964), 16–26Google Scholar; and Loewenthal, Richard, World Communism (New York, 1964)Google Scholar.

3 Mehnert, Klaus, Peking and Moscow (New York, 1963)Google Scholar;Schwartz, Harry, Tsars, Mandarins, and Commissars (Philadelphia, 1964)Google Scholar.

4 Floyd, David, Mao Against Khrushchev (London, 1964)Google Scholar;Griffith, William E., The Sino-Soviet Rift (Cambridge, Mass., 1964)Google Scholar; and North, Robert C., Moscow and Chinese Communists (2nd ed., Stanford, 1963)Google Scholar.

5 The documentation of the dispute is most readily accessible in the following: Hudson, G. F., Loewenthal, R., MacFarquhar, R., The Sino-Soviet Dispute (New York, 1961)Google Scholar; Floyd, op. cit.; Griffith, op. cit., and Albania and the Sino-Soviet Rift (Cambridge, 1963)Google Scholar; and Dallin, Alexander, Diversity in International Communism. A Documentary Record, 1961–1963. (New York, 1963).Google Scholar

6 Renmin Ribao and Hongqi, “The Origin and Development of the Differences Between the Leadership of the C.P.S.U. and Ourselves. Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.,” (Peking, 1963), I, 32Google Scholar. The series numbers ten, and will be referred to henceforth as “Comment,” followed by the appropriate numeral.

7 Ibid., p. 26.

8 The treaty is reproduced in the Appendixes of Mayer, Peter, Sino-Soviet Relations Since the Death of Stalin (Hong Kong, 1962)Google Scholar.

9 “The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. to Party Organizations and all Communists of the Soviet Union,” translated from Pravda, 07 14, 1963, London, Soviet Booklet no. 114, 1963, p. 7Google Scholar;Long LiveLeninism (Peking, 1960)Google Scholar.

10 Reprinted in The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism (New York, 1957).

11 For example, Khrushchev, N.S., “Speech” (at the VI Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany), Berlin, 01 16, 1963Google Scholar; “Comment “I to X,” supra.

12 Pravda, March 13, 1965, p. 3; Peking Review no. 13, 1965.

13 “Statement,” p. 30.

14 For example, “Letter of the Central Committee of the C.P.C. in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. dated June 15, 1964,” Peking, Foreign Languages Press, 1964, p. 10Google Scholar.

15 See Drachkovitch, M.M., “Yugoslavia,” in Bromke, (ed.), The Communist States at the Crossroads (New York, 1965), p. 254, n.lGoogle Scholar.

16 U.S. House of Representatitives, Committee on Un-American Activities, The Communist Conspiracy, Part I, Section C, pp. 40–44. House Report, no. 2242, 84th Congress, 2nd session (1956). See especially the second of the twenty-one “theses.”.

17 Borkenau, Franz, World Communism (Ann Arbor, 1962)Google Scholar;Fischer, Ruth, Stalin and German Communism (Cambridge, 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 I am indebted to the brilliant discussion in Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict (rev. ed., New York, 1961)Google Scholar.

19 “Statement of 81 Communist and Workers' Parties” (New York, 1961), p. 29Google Scholar.

20 Khrushchev, N. S., “Vital Questions of the Development of the Socialist World System” (Moscow, 1962), p. 22Google Scholar.

21 Such a conclusion seems inescapable; see “Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,” in The Road to Communism (Moscow, 1961), pp. 445–634Google Scholar.

22 See n. 14.

23 “Vital Questions,” p. 40.

24 Pravda, January 7, 1963, p. 1.

25 Togliatti, Palmiro, “9 Domande sullo Stalinismo,” Nuovi Argomenti, no. 20, 06 16, 1956, in The Anti-Stalin Campaign, pp. 138–39Google Scholar.

26 Ritvo, Herbert, The New Society. Final Text (with comments) of the Program of the C.P.S.U. (New York, 1962)Google Scholar.

27 “Statement of 81 Communist and Workers' Parties,” p. 29.

28 The Road to Communism, pp. 488–89.

29 “Statement of 81 Communist and Workers' Parties,” p. 29.

30 See Chou En-lai, reprinted in Floyd (Appendix), op. cit., pp. 316–17.

31 Particularly on the part of the Chinese. The first of their “Comments” consists of cogent charges against the Soviets. Subsequent “Comments,” however, are much more general, broader, inconsistent—and vituperative.

32 “Letter of the Central Committee of the C.P.C. in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. dated July 30, 1964” (Peking, 1964), pp. 4–7Google Scholar.

33 March 6, 1965, p. 1.

34 Peking Review, no. 13, 1965, pp. 7 ff., and no. 14, 1965, p. 27.