Sino-soviet Debate On The Domestic Expansion Of Class Struggle "in The Past Ten Years"

From1956to1966,the Sino-Soviet debate lasted for tenyears due to the divergences between the Communist Party ofChina (CPC) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)in ideology,inward and outward policies and the nationalinterests. The great debate was seriously exerting an influenceon how CPC judged the international situation and understoodCPSU and socialism, and then the domestic situation. Thatinternational opposition to revisionism and domesticpreventing revisionism interacted caused the Magnification ofClass Struggle (MOCS) in the ten years. This thesis consistsof four parts and the main contents are following.The first part elaborates the process of the debate. Thedebate was like a symphony, rising and falling, but total trendwas deterioration. The Sino-Soviet Alliance split. Theintroduction was from the twentieth National Congress of CPSUin1956to the Moscow Conference in1957. Thediversity-enlarging stage was from1958to the second MoscowConference in1960. The contradiction-sharpening stage wasfrom the twenty-second National Congress of CPSU in1961to early in March1963.The public debating stage was from late inMarch1963to metaphase in October1964. The ending was fromNovember1964to the twenty-third National Congress of CPSU in1966.The second part indirectly analyses what conditions thedebate provided for MOCS. The Sino-Soviet debate caused theirrelationship go from good to bad,and CPC seriously estimatedthe international situation and more and more emphasized on thethreat of war,thereby,it was the psychological condition. CPCcriticized that CPSU created and believed in the theory named"San He Liang Quan",which mainly advocated a national party,anational state,peaceful coexistence,peaceful transition,andpeaceful contest,then,it aroused the mode of thinking ofrevolutionary party for CPC, and CPC depended more and morestrongly on the mode of thinking of revolution and thephilosophy of struggle. On the evaluation of Stalin, CPCchanged from opposition to the individual worship to agreementwith it, so Mao Zedong’s Consciousness of MOCS could have adecisive influence on all the thoughts of CPC,and Excessiveconcentration of power within the party made it hard to reversethe radical trend of thought. These were chief focuses of thedebate. And secondary items made CPC’s recognition about CPSU easily deviate from objectivity and rationality.The third part directly demonstrates how the debategradually affected MOCS. Throughout the debate, CPC’s attitudetoward CPSU and Khrushchev’s revisionism developed radicallyfrom the level of the phenomenon into rising to a higher planeof principle and two-line struggle and digging up its root: fromdiscarding two weapons which were Stalin and Lenin to rightopportunism, then to contemporary revisionism, finally to therevisionist central committee of the party. One need not lookfar for a lesson as the saying goes, so MOCS was on schedulefor CPC. MOCS followed in the debate’s footsteps and was dividedinto five steps. Firstly, the Third Plenary Session of theEighth CPC Central Committee and CPC’s Eighth National Congresssecond session changed CPC’s Eighth National Congress’scorrect judgment about the main social contradiction. Secondly,Mount Lu session in1959extended class struggle to theparty.Thirdly, the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth CPCCentral Committee stressed on class struggle and made theparty’s radical perception on class struggle furthersystematized. Fourthly, CPC carried out the socialism trainingmovement and ideological criticism nationwide. Fifth, from theend of1964to the beginning of1965,there were some difference between Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi, and Mao Zedong mainlyprevented revisionism from the central committee of the party.The fourth part summarized some experience and lesson.Don’t argue about the ideological diversities. By rule and linejudge the theme of the times. Respect the diversity of thesocialist development model. Correctly solve class struggleand inner-party struggle in socialist society. Persist indemocratic centralism.