The “open letter” asks the following questions:
“At first glance many theses contained in the letter (of the Chinese comrades) may give rise to astonishment: whom are the Chinese comrades really arguing with? Are there Communists who object, for instance, to socialist revolution, or who do not regard as their duty to fight against imperialism, and to support the national-liberation movement? Why does the C.P.C. leadership set forth such ideas so insistently?”
Yes, there are people who claim to be Communists and who are against the socialist revolution, who hinder the struggle against imperialism, who prettify it, and who betray solidarity with the national-liberation movement.
In Belgium we do not have to seek very far to find them: they are Khrushchov’s revisionist spokesmen.
Their “theories” and their practice have amply demonstrated this. They declare to be anti-Party the conception of the Communist Party as the vanguard of the working class guided in its actions by Marxism-Leninism, and having as its final aim communism achieved through socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Their theses and amendments to the Constitution for the 14th Congress constituted a completely revisionist platform. Let us take this simple fact from the many we could choose: in these texts there was not a word of condemnation for American imperialism, the principal force of aggression and war in the world.
These revisionists claim that resolute organization of the actions of the working masses to claim their rights and to defend threatened democratic liberties against the Lefevre-Spaak government is adventurism.
Calling upon the working masses to oppose foreign bases in Belgium, the introduction of atomic weapons in our country and the presence of submarines equipped with Polaris missiles in the North Sea is, for them, mere “bluster.”
They vent their spleen on those who denounce their betrayal of the national-liberation struggle of the Congolese people. The Political Bureau has the sorry distinction of having been the first body in the world to demand U.N. intervention in the Congo and it continued to support this warmly even when it had led to the liquidation of the legal government, to the assassination of Lumumba and to reinforced neo-colonialist penetration by U.S. imperialism.
At the height of the colonialist terror in the Congo on October 13, 1960, Drapeau Rouge which was in the hands of the revisionists, wrote:
“Belgium and the Congo, common interests.”
“. . . while discussion is going on elsewhere there is no fighting and this is in itself a worthwhile result. . . .”
Gaston Moulin, a revisionist deputy, flew to the aid of the worst colonialists in proposing to the Chamber, on December 12, 1961, a motion calling for the ceasefire demanded by the “extremists” of Katanga.
These neo-reformists call those comrades “provocateurs” who practise proletarian internationalism and who would not say like Jean Terfve, Member of the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party, that:
“Kennedy plays a key role in the struggle for peace.”
“Those who defend socialist Cuba and affirm solidarity with the People’s Republic of China commit acts of typical diversion.” (Burnelle at the 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Belgium, Drapeau Rouge, April 16, 1963.)
They “expel” from the Party by administrative measures of schism the comrades who apply the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and who hold firmly to the revolutionary positions of the Statement of the 81.
This is the true nature of those whom Khrushchov supports.
On the other hand, the “open letter” demonstrates that the Khrushchov group is anti-Marxist-Leninist.
The workers of our country understand best from events which are known to them the role of the revisionist spokesmen of Khrushchov and of Khrushchov himself.