Dear Comrade Goonewardene,
When I heard that your party was officially invited to visit China by the government of the People's Republic of China, I, representing the Chinese Trotskyist organization, wrote you a letter on February 22 of this year. In that letter I hoped that the delegates of your party would "utilize this opportunity to express the genuine Trotskyist position to the Chinese masses in order to clarify some misunderstandings of the Chinese government toward us." I "especially hope that your delegates, while visiting in China, would propose the following demands to the Chinese Communist Party:
"Release all imprisoned Trotskyists and restore their reputation (because they were arrested and imprisoned as 'reactionaries').
"Permit the legal existence and activity of the Trotskyists' organizations."
But I and all the Chinese Trotskyists (including hundreds of comrades and sympathizers who are now in the concentration camps of the Mao regime) have not received any answer to this urgent and rightful "hope" and "demands" since then.
In spite of that, I was still expecting that perhaps your delegation to China might reply to us by their words and deeds.
At the beginning of last July, I began to learn the attitude and opinions of your delegation in China as reported in the May issues of People's Daily. These attitudes and opinions didn't even correspond to my expectations and the hopes of Chinese Trotskyists, but just the opposite. At that time I intended to write to you again to criticize the positions taken by your delegation. But a comrade said to me, "You'd better wait for a while. Perhaps some delegates will publish their views of the tour afterward, just as Comrade Colvin De Silva did after his return from the USSR." He confirmed, by his on-the-spot observation, the inevitability of political revolution in the USSR (Militant, August 5, 1957).
[p. 83]
I accepted the suggestion of this comrade and waited till the end of last September, but I still didn't see any publication by your delegation. So I started to write this letter. At that time, incidentally, another French comrade told me that you were traveling in Europe and intended to see me. Then, I again halted my writing, expecting to meet you. Although you had been traveling in Europe for nearly two months, you still didn't save a little time to realize your promise of meeting me!
Especially, I learned from English comrades lately that one of your delegates, Comrade Bernard Soysa, in answering questions about China when he was reporting his Chinese tour in a meeting held in London on September 17, 1957, said: "The Chinese Trotskyists have no official contact with the LSSP." Because of this attitude, I cannot force myself to keep silent anymore.
All the above is to explain why I delayed writing you this open letter.
Now allow me to pick on some excerpts from the People's Daily which reported the attitude and opinions of your delegation during the Chinese tour and to give some necessary criticism.
The news about the activities of your delegation appeared in the People's Daily four times (see People's Daily, May 16, 17, 19 and 31, 1957), the more important and noteworthy of which are the reports of May 19 and 31, 1957. The headline of the May 19 issue was that "Liu Shao-chi, as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the People's Council, invited the delegation of the LSSP of Ceylon to a dinner party to "exchange many opinions" with your delegates. The headline of the May 31 issue read, "Farewell banquet to the LSSP delegation" and pointed out that "Premier Chou En-lai was also present."
At the dinner party of May 19, the conversation between your delegation and Liu Shao-chi was reported as follows:
"Chairman Liu Shao-chi expressed his hearty welcome to the guests and said 'our countries should cooperate.'
"Perera said: '. . . The more important thing is that China is the stronghold of Asia to meet any aggressions.'
"Liu Shao-chi said: 'China is a big country but not a strong nation.'
"Perera said: 'But Asian countries are looking up to China.' He had the opinion that China and India ought to be the countries to protect the Asian countries from any aggressions.
"All had the same opinion that our oriental people should prevent any rebirth of imperialism. Perera said: 'The U.S. imperialists, having learned many lessons from the British and French imperialists, have been more tricky.' Liu Shao-chi said; 'The U.S. is much stronger, therefore we should unite together and concentrate our strength to carry on this struggle.'
"The guests also mentioned that economic development in most Asian countries is now turned in the same direction. As a result, we should have economic cooperation. The host expressed the same opinion. Both the guests and host had the opinion that trade between Ceyon and China is based on the principle of equality and mutual benefit. The guests expressed their thanks to China for her generosity in trade, especially about China selling rice to Ceylon. . . .
"Perera spoke on the neutral foreign policy of the Ceylonese government and said that the LSSP supports this policy.
"The guests said that since China has achieved such a huge success within a short period, they would like to study the Chinese experience and learn from it. Liu Shao-chi replied that they should observe both the good and the bad side in China. He said: 'There are many weak points and errors, and the bureaucratism is very serious.'
"Liu Shao-chi said: 'Criticisms of errors and mistakes is spreading to every corner of China, including factories, farms, schools, and other organizations. The main target is the leadership. . . .'
"Perera presented gifts to Liu Shao-chi and espressed the respect and friendship of the Ceylonese people and the LSSP for the Chinese people. Liu Shao-chi thanked them."
Reporting the farewell banquet on May 31, the People's Daily said:
"Chou En-lai was present at the banquet.
"Perera representing the LSSP expressed his thanks for the hearty entertainment and warm welcome of the Chinese people. He said: 'The delegation has had a very pleasant visit, we have learned a great deal, and feel greatly interested.'
"Perera said: 'The delegation's visit to China has increased the mutual understanding, promoted mutual good will, and consolidated the friendship between our two countries.'
"Perera said: 'Ceylon, like China, is longing for peace and, with India and China, is opposed to imperialism and war. . . .'"
From the above rather lengthy excerpts of talks between your delegation and the two leaders of the CCP, second only to Mao Tse-tung (Liu Shao-chi and Chou En-lai), we fail to learn of any inquiry being made by your delegates about the fate of the Chinese Trotskyists. Your delegates did not even appear as Trotskyists in spite of the fact that they were invited to visit China as the representatives of the Trotskyist LSSP, in order to show the Chinese masses a genuine revolutionary attitude and to reveal to them that the revolutionary will of the exploited and oppressed Ceylonese workers and peasants was represented in the delegation.
All the opinions expressed by the spokesman of your delegation as I pointed out above, are clearly based on the self-interest of your country and nation. It seems to me that your delegation just represented the present Ceylonese ruling class for diplomatic exchanges of opinion with the official Chinese government, and to praise them. This does not differ from the opinions expressed by the delegation of the Japanese Socialist Party during its Chinese tour, and does not differ essentially from the attitude and opinions expressed by the delegations of Nehru, Sukarno, and U Nu during their Chinese tours.
When Comrade Perera, spokesman of your delegation, talked about, "China and India ought to be the countries to protect the Asian countries from any aggressions," he just forgot the essential difference in character between Nehru's India and Mao Tse-tung's China, the former a country where the bourgeoisie is still the ruling class. It is a surprise to me that India would be relied on as a hope of "protecting Asian countries from any aggressions." When he said that "the economic development of many Asian countries is turned in the same direction and those countries should have economic cooperation," he entirely neglected the fact that Ceylon and India still remain in the reign of capitalism. How can capitalist-ruled India and Ceylon have economic cooperation with China which is on the way to socialist construction?
[p. 84]
Especially when Perera talks about the "positive and neutral diplomatic policy of the Ceylonese government"—which is supported by your party—he does not understand that the so-called "positive and neutral diplomatic policy" of Nehru and Bandaranaike is just the cover which the native bourgeoisies of their countries employ to paralyze the proletariat and peasantry in order to prevent them from taking the revolutionary road of emancipation.
When Perera said that "Ceylon, like China, is longing for peace, and, with India and China, is opposed to imperialism and war," he never mentioned, did not even indicate slightly, that the revolutionary will and necessity of seizing power by the workers and poor peasants in India, Ceylon, and other capitalist countries is the only way to fight against war effectively and to achieve peace. This proves that he entirely forgot Lenin's and Trotsky's fundamental concept of war and peace, that is: In the epoch of imperialism, if the working class of the advanced countries and the oppressed masses of backward countries do not unite together to destroy imperialism, the bourgeoisie in their own countries first, and destroy private property by their revolutionary action, war will never be stopped and genuine peace will never come true. Your delegation proposed to win "peace" and "to fight against war" together with Bandaranaike's Ceylon and Nehru's India. I would like to ask you what is the difference between this attitude and that of the Kremlin-controlled Stalinist parties in various countries?
Moreover, it is of satirical significance and surprising that, when your delegation flattered China's "huge achievements" and expressed the intention of "studying and learning from the Chinese experience," Liu Shao-chi taught them that "you should observe both the good side and the bad side." He even said: "China has made many errors and mistakes, and the bureaucratism is very serious." But your delegates did not utter a word on this question.
Did not your delegates understand or recognize that China is under the rule of a Stalinist bureaucracy? Even if they did not understand or recognize that before, at least Liu Shao-chi was forced to tell them that. Moreover, at the moment when your delegation was visiting China, the tide of criticism and opposition of the workers, peasants, and intellectuals toward the CCP's bureaucratism had risen to its highest stage, as admitted by Liu Shao-chi in his conversation. Had your delegates not forgotten that they were Trotskyists fighting against the bureaucracy of Stalinist parties, they would have seized this very good opportunity of showing the Chinese masses the opinions of Marx and Lenin—even though not using Trotsky's—how to save a workers' state from bureaucratism. Workers' democracy, all administrative, economic and cultural organizations managed or supervised directly by the soviets or committees elected freely by the workers and peasants, salaries of all administrative and economic organizations not to exceed that of technicians. They would have shown Liu Shao-chi and also the Chinese workers, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals that only according to Marxist-Leninist principles can we struggle "effectively" and "properly" against bureaucratism until it is destroyed. The real implication of the caution "not to overdo it" is that Liu Shao-chi, speaking from a bureaucrat's standpoint, tried to use the accusation of "overdoing" to suppress workers' democracy and to maintain their bureaucratic rule. We should expose it. Had your delegation done it this way, they would then have exerted a great influence on the stormy "contend and blossom campaign" whose main purpose was to criticize the bureaucratism of the CCP. They would have won the vast Chinese masses to a respect and desire for Trotskyism. But it is a pity your delegation gave up such a good chance!
Furthermore, the attitude and opinions expressed by your delegation in China will certainly arouse not a little doubt and confusion among the workers, peasants, and revolutionaries. First of all, they will think that there is no difference between the standpoint of Ceylonese Trotskyists and that of Chinese Stalinists. As a result, this will cause embarrassment about the program of Chinese Trotskyists. On the other hand, Mao Tse-tung, Liu Shao-chi, and Chou En-lai would utilize this opportunity to tell the Chinese masses: "Look! This is a delegation of the LSSP, the Ceylonese Trotskyists. They agree with us in every respect. They praise us and 'want to learn from our experience.' What a great difference between them and the Chinese Trotskyists who are still occupied in counterrevolutionary activities under the name of 'leftism'!"
The strangest thing is: Your delegates and Liu Shao-chi and Chou En-lai talked about many matters, even about "China selling rice to Ceylon," but did not say a word about the imprisonment and suppression of Chinese Trotskyists. Did your delegates think the imprisonment and suppression of Chinese Trotskyists too trivial to pay attention to, not worthy of your concern and putting forward your inquiries and demands to the CCP?
I think you have not forgotten the fact: When Khrushchev and Bulganin visited Britain in April 1956, even the most conservative leaders of the British Labour Party demanded of the visitors that their comrades, members of the Socialist parties in Eastern European countries, be released. Why did your delegates in China lack this kind of comradely concern which even the leaders of the British Labour Party expressed?
Had your delegates not given up or forgotten Trotskyist internationalism, they had sufficient reasons and in fact should have formally posed to the leaders of the CCP, Liu Shao-chi, Chou En-lai, and even to Mao Tse-tung (it is said that your delegation was personally received by Mao) the question of the imprisonment and suppression of Chinese Trotskyists, and should have demanded their release and permission for the legal existence and activity of the Chinese Trotskyist party. First of all, your delegates could have told them that your party, the Ceylonese Trotskyists, though under the rule of the bourgeoisie, is not suppressed and imprisoned in Ceylon, but has legal existence and activity, has participated in elections, and some of your members have been elected to parliament, and a delegation was even formally invited by the Chinese People's Government to visit China; and then could have asked them why, in China, which is on the way to socialist construction, the CCP still suppresses and imprisons the Chinese Trotskyists—your cothinkers—and would not allow their legal existence and activity. The CCP even allows the legal existence and activity of various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democratic parties and allows them to share in the regime, then why particularly suppress the Trotskyists who speak for the interests of workers and peasants?
[p. 85]
Suppose the leaders of the CCP refused the demand of your delegation and told them that "the Chinese Trotskyists committed the crime of counterrevolution," then your delegates could have grasped this chance to demand that the Chinese People's Government give the Chinese Trotskyists a public trial and let your party and workers' organizations of other countries send delegates to observe this trial in order to find out the truth. This would not only have a tremendous influence over the vast Chinese masses and public opinion and be a powerful help to the suppressed Chinese Trotskyists but would also be a bold and glorious contribution to the Trotskyist movement all over the world. Why did your delegates abandon such an honorable duty?
One of your delegates, Comrade Bernard Soysa, contended: "The Chinese Trotskyists have no official contact with the LSSP." Maybe he just used this reason to defend the standpoint of the delegation during the Chinese tour. But in fact, on February 22, that is, two months before your delegation left for China, I, representing the Chinese Trotskyists, wrote a letter to you "to have an official contact with you," and hoped your delegation while in China would demand that the CCP "release all Trotskyists" and "permit the legal existence and activity of the Trotskyist organizations." This demonstrates that your delegation intended to neglect these things. How do you explain this unconcerned and despicable attitude of your delegation toward such an important matter as the imprisonment of hundreds of Chinese Trotskyists?
A comrade here who has "formal contact" with you, defends the attitude of your delegation and says, "Ceylon's party is preparing to take power in the near future. Since her country is very small, she has to win the support of big countries such as China. Therefore she does not want to express, before the CCP, the revolutionary attitude and opinion and to argue or break with the CCP on the question of the suppression of Chinese Trotskyists." If this defense reflects your tendency, I would have to give you the following advice: Just because of the small size of your country, if your party wants to take power and especially to maintain power, you should particularly stand on the basis of revolutionary internationalism and win the support of the working class of every country of the world (including China and the USSR), especially the support of the Indian working class. To rest your hopes upon the ruling castes of the Chinese or Russian Stalinist parties will only give a negative result. This is a decisive problem which deserves your serious consideration.
As far as I am concerned, I always respect the achievement your party has gained for our movement. But when I see the wrong concept expressed by your delegation during the Chinese tour, the tendency of national conservatism which is away from internationalism, I have to give you the above criticism. If your party could review the words and actions of your delegation, even the orientation of the whole party, according to the criticism of comrades, I believe, it will be very helpful to your party and to our whole movement.
Fraternally,
S.T. Peng