The idea that a ping-pong bat could be a deadly weapon in the battle to conquer the United States of America for communism seems funny.  A ping-pong bat has zero fire-power and megatonnage.

            It ceases to be funny if you view it in the light of communist dialectics.

            The official philosophy of communism is dialectical materialism.  The Chinese Communist leader, Mao Tse-tung, is an outstanding theoretician and tactician.  He wholeheartedly supports the thesis of Lenin, “without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.”

Contradiction

            While he was busily working for the communist conquest of China, Mao Tse-tung published a textbook entitled “On Contradiction.”  This book outlined practical programs derived from dialectical theory for the communist conquest of China.  These programs achieved their objective.  Today the message of the book “On Contradiction” is the cornerstone of “the thought of Mao Tse-tung,” and from it flow programs for the conquest of the world.

            Mao Tse-tung interprets reality as a complex of “contradictions.”  He states that “contradiction exists universally and in all processes.”  Page 13.

            He contends that there are mutually exclusive elements in every process which constantly conflict with each other.  This he calls the state of “contradiction”:

            “The contradictory aspects in every process exclude each other, struggle with each other, and are opposed to each other.  Such contradictory aspects are contained without exception in the processes of all things in the world and in human thought.”  Page 49.

            From this it is clear that a state of conflict is the normal state.  He views the world as a complex of conflicts, some of which are major while others are minor.  It is the responsibility of the communist leaders to select the major conflict at any moment so that major attention may be directed to it.

            All “contradictions” are not the same.  Some are qualitatively different.  Different “contradictions” demand different programs for their resolution.  He states:

            “Qualitatively different contradictions can only be solved by qualitatively different methods.  For example: the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is solved by the method of socialist revolution; the contradiction between the great masses of the people and the feudal system is solved by the method of democratic revolution; the contradiction between colonies and imperialism is solved by the method of national revolutionary war; . . . the contradiction within the Communist Party is solved by the method of criticism and self-criticism; the contradiction between society and nature is solved by the method of developing the productive forces.”  Pages 19 and 20.

            Surveying the world scene today, the Chinese Communists can see two major contradictions.  One is between Chinese Communism and “Imperialism” represented by the United States; the other is between Chinese Communism and “Revisionism” represented by the Soviet Union.

            There is no doubt that the major contradiction is that with “imperialism.”  However, the doctrine teaches that the situation is always fluid and one given contradiction may rise to pre-eminence at a given moment only to fade away at a later period.  It is conceivable that, at certain times, the conflict with Russia may take precedence over that with the U.S.A.

The Solution of Contradiction

            He teaches that the contradiction will not disappear until the process is completed.  Nevertheless, all sorts of changes can occur within the process.  He states:

            “The basic contradiction in the process of development of a thing, and the quality of the process determined by this basic contradiction, will not disappear until the process is completed; but the conditions of each stage is the long process of development of a thing often differ from those of another stage.  This is because, although the nature of the basic contradiction in the development of a thing or in the quality of the process has not changed, yet at the various stages in the long process of development the basic contradiction assumes an increasingly intensified form.  Besides, among the numerous big and small contradictions determined or influenced by the basic contradiction, some become intensified, some are temporarily or partially solved or mitigated, and some emerge anew; consequently the process reveals itself as consisting of different stages.  If people do not pay attention to the stages in the process of development of a thing, they cannot properly deal with its contradictions.”  Pages 26 and 27.

            It is impossible to understand the domestic and foreign policy of Communist China without understanding Mao Tse-tung’s doctrines of contradiction.  They lead to the following conclusion:

            The contradiction between Communist China and the United States will not end until communism has finally conquered.  However, the process of conquest passes through various phases.  Therefore, the official attitude of the Communist Chinese Government to the American Government can vary considerably.  The dialectical process is akin to breaking through a fortified door with a battering ram.  The pressure of the ram on the door is never constant.  Those carrying the battering ram rush forward and strike the door a shattering blow.  They then retreat to advance again.  Advance and retreat are opposites which are united in the process of the destruction of the door.  This is an example of another aspect of dialectics called the “unity of opposites.”

            Mao Tse-tung’s devotion to the dialectic was revealed when he announced that Chinese Communist artillery would shell the offshore Islands of Quemoy and Matsu, controlled by the Republic of China, every second day.  Pressure should never be constant.

            Does the dialectic throw any light on the mellowing of the Chinese Communists as exemplified by their invitation to the American table tennis team to visit Communist China to play against the Chinese team?

            This invitation is symptomatic of a general change in their attitude towards the outside world.  They also invited a British table tennis team, and they have rebuilt the British consulate in Peiping which was destroyed by fire during the Great Cultural Revolution.  They are establishing diplomatic relations with many countries and increasing trade with the outside world.  Many consider this a most favorable development and regard the future with greater hope.  However, these changes must be viewed in the light of the dialectics of contradiction.

            A change of emphasis within a contradiction does not mean a resolution of that contradiction.  A more friendly attitude towards the people and even the government of the United States does not imply any renunciation of the communist plan to conquer the United States.  It is one phase of that plan.

Chinese Communist Plan of Conquest

            The method chosen by the Chinese Communists for the conquest of the United States has been clearly stated by Mao Tse-tung’s heir apparent, Lin Piao, in his famous article “Long live people’s revolutionary warfare.”  His precise words are:

            “Comrade Mao Tse-tung is a great statesman and military scientist, proficient at directing war in accordance with its laws.  By the line and policies, the strategy and tactics he formulated for the people’s war, he led the Chinese people in steering the ship of the people’s war past all hidden reefs to the shores of victory in most complicated and difficult conditions.

            “It must be emphasized that Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory of the establishment of rural revolutionary base areas and the encirclement of the cities from the countryside is of outstanding and universal practical importance for the present revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed nations and peoples, and particularly for the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America against imperialism and its lackeys.

            “Taking the entire globe, if North American and Western Europe can be called ‘the cities of the world,’ then Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute ‘the rural areas of the world.’  Since World War II, the proletarian revolutionary movement has for various reasons been temporarily held back in the North American and West European capitalist countries, while the people’s revolutionary movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America has been growing vigorously.  In a sense, the contemporary world revolution also presents a picture of the encirclement of cities by the rural areas.  In the final analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, Africa and Latin American peoples who make up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.  The socialist countries should regard it as their internationalist duty to support the people’s revolutionary struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America.”  Peking Review, September 3, 1965, Page 24.

            The changes in the Chinese Communist attitude are taking place in the framework of this general strategy.

Who Initiated the Change?

            There is considerable discussion in the press as to who is responsible for this change.  Some contend that the initiative was taken by President Nixon and that the Chinese Communists are reacting to it.  The communists see things otherwise.  They are sure that the initiative is theirs and that external circumstances are the secondary and not the primary cause of their change.  The theory behind this is clearly stated by Mao Tse-tung:

            “The materialist-dialectical world outlook advocates the study of the development of things from the inside, from the relationship of a thing to other things, namely, that the development of things should be regarded as their internal and necessary self-movement, that a thing in its movement and the things round it should be regarded as interconnected and interacting upon each other.  The basic cause of development of things does not lie outside but inside them, in their internal contradictions.  The movement and development of things arise because of the presence of such contradictions inside all of them.  This contradiction within a thing is the basic cause of its development, while the relationship of a thing with other things—their interconnection and interaction—is a secondary cause.”  Page 5.

Communist Objectives

            Since the communists have initiated this change, what do they hope to gain.  Possible advantages are:

1. Creation of an American public opinion more favorable to the Chinese Communist dictatorship.
2. The admission of Red China to the United Nations.
3. American diplomatic recognition of the communist government of China.
4. The expulsion of the Republic of China from the United Nations.
5. The imposition of communist authority over the people of Formosa.
6. Greater authority over the overseas Chinese who dominate much of the economy of Southeast Asia.
7. An advantage in their conflict with the Soviet Union for leadership of the world communist movement.
8. Easier acquisition of strategic materials to build missiles and thermonuclear weapons.
9. A weakening of the American will to resist communist actions which advance world conquest.

American Public Opinion

            To use Mao Tse-tung’s terminology, one contradiction is with American public opinion.  In this country, public opinion is a powerful force.  It elects the President and the Congress.  In the final analysis, it is responsible for American domestic, economic, military and foreign policies.

            During the past 20 years public opinion, with justification, has been hostile to the Chinese Communist regime.  This hostility has been sustained by acts of communist aggression such as intervention in the Korean War and the invasions of Tibet and India, and by the attempted subversion through “people’s war” of scores of governments throughout the world.  In addition there have been the paroxysms of rage and insanity that have periodically swept China as illustrated by the Great Leap Forward, the Great Cultural Revolution, and the deification of Mao Tse-tung.

            American public opinion is flexible and can be influenced by forces distant from the United States. The communists have three major methods for influencing American public opinion.  These are:

1. The words and deeds of their agents within the United States.
2. The literature and radio programs which they distribute throughout the United States.
3. The statements and actions of communists in the empires which they control.

The influence communist deeds can exercise in American elections is illustrated by the boast of Nikita Khrushchev that he secured the election of President Kennedy instead of Richard Nixon as president in 1960.  He said he was aware that the contest for president between Nixon and Kennedy would be close.  Of the two candidates, he much preferred Kennedy.  He was considering a deal with the Eisenhower government to release the U-2 pilot, Gary Powers, from imprisonment in Russia.  If he did this during the final days of the Eisenhower administration, the American public would be pleased and credit for it would be given to the Eisenhower-Nixon administration.  This would result in more votes for Nixon.

            To avoid this, he delayed the agreement to release Powers until after the presidential election and John Kennedy became president of the United States.  Khrushchev stated that if he had agreed to release Powers earlier, the votes Vice President Nixon would have received as a result would have been sufficient to elect him president.

            Under the pressure of external events, American public opinion is liable to swing from hostility to uncritical friendship.  This is well illustrated by the history of the American attitude towards the Soviet Union.

            During the 1930’s, the era referred to by Eugene Lyons as “The Red Decade,” the prestige of the Soviet Union, particularly among the liberal intelligensia, was very high.  They were greatly impressed by the alleged Soviet dedication to peace which was expressed so eloquently by their representative, Litvinov, in the League of nations.

            Towards the end of the decade, the Soviet Union invaded Finland and many who had accepted the Soviet devotion to peace at face value became doubtful.  These doubts were confirmed by the notorious Hitler-Stalin pact which ignited the Second World War and led to the joint Nazi-Communist invasion of Poland.  Blind eyes were opened and many saw communism in realistic terms.  The alleged devotion to peace was simply a veneer to conceal brutal tyranny within and imperialist aggression without.

            The Nazi-Soviet honeymoon was ended when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.  Suddenly, in the eyes of many, the Soviet Union became a benigh, peace-loving democracy with whom it was natural to be united to defeat the fascist enemy and with whom a partnership for enduring peace was possible.  They did not limit themselves to the rational premise that, seeing the Nazis constituted the immediate supreme danger, a partnership with the Soviet Union was possible until that danger was averted, and that this cooperation in was did not imply approval of the dictatorial tyranny which the Communist Party exercised within Russia and should not blind people to the irreconcilable conflict between communism and freedom.  Such an attitude would not have hindered the war against Hitler but it would not have produced the tragic consequences of that war such as the Soviet occupation of Berlin and most of the countries of Eastern Europe and the forcible return of hundred of thousands of Russian prisoners to torture and death at the hands of the communist dictatorship.

            Instead of this rational approach, a great wave of pro-Soviet enthusiasm swept the United States.  Membership in the American Soviet Friendship Association became almost a social obligation.  Criticism of communism approached treason and that blood-thirsty megalomaniac murderer, Joseph Stalin, became “good old uncle Joe.”

            History may be on the verge of repeated itself.  The Chinese Communists have chosen a dramatic way to begin the resolution of the “contradiction” with American public opinion.  Ping pong is such a friendly game.  It symbolizes the possibility of friendship between the two “peoples.”  The communists did not invite the ping pong team only; they also invited a team of newspaper, radio, and television reporters so that the event would obtain maximum publicity in the United States.  The impression of friendly moderation was reinforced by the statements of the returning players and officials when interviewed by the press, radio, and television.  Already there has been an almost miraculous change in attitude towards Chinese communism.

            Americans have a great faith in reports of eye witnesses.  If an individual has visited a certain country, they tend to believe that his reports on the attitude of the people towards their government and conditions in the country give significant information.  In actuality, it is practically impossible for visitors to a country, where a different way of life prevails and who cannot speak the language of the host country to provide anything but superficial and potentially deceptive information.

Visit to South Africa?

            To illustrate this, let us consider a hypothetical invitation to an American ping pong team and associated journalists to visit South Africa.  They fly to Johannesburg where they are welcomed at the airport by a delegation of politicians and sportsmen and by South Africa’s most charming diplomat.  They are driven in official cars to a hotel where they are provided excellent food and accommodation.  They play a South African team in a magnificent stadium.  After the games they are entertained in the theater and fed sumptuous feasts.  After two days in Johannesburg, they are flown to Durban and Capetown where a similar program is conducted.  After a week spent in this way, they return to the United States.

            It is conceivable that the members of the team would return from such a tour without having seen one black man in South Africa.  If their reports were based solely on their own experience, the awesome conflict at the heart of the South African nation, the conflict concerning Apartheid, would not even exist.  They could report with conviction that there is no racial problem in South Africa.

            This is the hour which demands a sober look at the doctrines and history of those who rule China.  Chinese communism is committed to the conquest of the United States.  Khrushchev reports that Mao Tse-tung offered him an army of one hundred million men with whom to wage war against the United States.  Tito reports that Mao Tse-tung expressed equanimity concerning the prospect of world-wide thermo-nuclear war.  He contended that America and Russia would be wiped out and that the Chinese Communists who survived would inherit the earth.

            We should buckle our ideological seat-belts for stormy weather ahead.

HUEY NEWTON, DISCIPLE OF MAO TSE-TUNG

            The influence of the book “On Contradiction,” written by Mao Tse-tung, on Huey Newton, Founder and Supreme leader of the Black Panther Party, is revealed by his analysis of the homicidal conflict between himself and former Black Panther leader, Eldridge Cleaver.  He states:

            “The Black Panther party bases its ideology and philosophy on a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, using dialectical materialism as our analytical method.

            “As dialectical materialists, we recognize that contradictions can lead to development. . .  We recognize that nothing in nature stands outside of dialectics, even the Black Panther party.  But we welcome these contradictions, because they clarify and advance our struggle.  We had a contradiction with our former Minister of Information, Eldridge Cleaver.  But we understood this as necessary to our growth.  Out of this contradiction has come new growth and a new return to the original vision of the party.

            “The only reason that the party is still in existence at this time. . . is because of the Ten Point Program—our survival program. . . Any action which does not mobilize the community toward the Goal is not a revolutionary action.

            “We realize at a very early point in our development, that revolution is a process.

            “Many times people say that our Ten-Point Program is reformist; but they ignore the fact that revolution is a process.

            “The people see things as moving from A to B to C; they do not see things as moving from A to Z.  In other words they have to see first some basic accomplishments, in order to realize that major successes are possible.  Much of the time the revolutionary will have to guide them into this understanding.  But he can never take them from A to Z in one jump, because it is too far ahead.  Therefore, when the revolutionary begins to indulge in Z, or final conclusions, the people do not relate to him.  Therefore he is no longer a revolutionary, if revolution is a process.  This makes any action or function which does not promote the process—non-revolutionary.

            “The gun itself is not necessarily revolutionary, because the fascists carry guns—in fact they have more guns.  A lot of so-called revolutionaries simply do not understand the statement by Chairman Mao that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”  They thought Chairman Mao said political power is the gun, but the emphasis is on ‘grows.’  The culmination of political power is the ownership and control of the land and the institutions thereon.

            “Under the influence of Eldridge Cleaver the party gave the community no alternative for dealing with us, except by picking up the gun.  This move was reactionary simply because the community was not at that point.  Instead of being a cultural cult group, we became, by that act, a revolutionary cult group.

            “What the revolutionary movement and the black community needs is a very strong structure.  This structure can only exist with the support of the people and it can only get its support through serving them. . .  Then when they are ready to pick up the gun, serious business will happen.  Eldridge Cleaver influenced us to isolate ourselves from the black community, so that it was war between the oppressor and the Black Panther party, not war between the oppressor and the oppressed community.

            “The Black Panther party defected from the community long before Eldridge defected from the party.  Our hook-up with white radicals did not give us access to the white community, because they do not guide the white community.  The black community does not relate to them, so we were left in a twilight zone, where we could not enter the community with any real political education programs; yet we were not doing anything to mobilize whites.  We had no influence in raising the consciousness of the black community and that is the point where we defected.

            “So the Black Panther party has reached a contradiction with Eldridge Cleaver and he has defected from the party, because we would not order everyone into the streets tomorrow to make a revolution. . .  This contradiction and conflict may seem unfortunate to some, but it is a part of the dialectical process.  The resolution of this contradiction has freed us from incorrect analyses and emphasis.

            “We are not free to move toward the building of a community structure which will become a true voice of the people, promoting their interests in many ways. . .  We can truly become a political revolutionary vehicle which will lead the people to a higher level of consciousness, so that they will know what they must really do in their quest for freedom, and they will have the courage to adopt any means necessary to seize the time and obtain that freedom.”  People’s World, May 1, 1971, Pages 6 and 7.

THE TRIUMPH OF TROTSKY

            Those who say that the “peaceful” demonstrations by the veterans against the war in Vietnam and the mass marches in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco on April 24, were productive while the “disruptive” demonstrations that followed were counterproductive, are actually paying a deserved tribute to the organizational skill of the communists.

            The mass “peaceful” demonstrations, and the disruptive demonstrations were sponsored by different organizations—the National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and the People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice (PCPJ).

            NPAC was organized and directed by the Trotskyist Communists while PCPJ was organized by radicals with a wide spectrum of views including the communists.

            The Trotskyist Communists are Marxist-Leninists who follow Trotsky rather than Stalin.

            Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were Bolshevik leaders who organized the communist conquest of Russia.  In the early Soviet Regime, Trotsky was Minister of War while Stalin was Secretary of the Communist Party.

            When Lenin died, Stalin and Trotsky fought for control of the Communist Party.  Stalin won.  Trogsky was expelled from the Communist Party and exiled from Russia.

            Their quarrel concerned the possibility of creating socialism in a non-industrialized country.  Trotsky contended that industrialization was essential to socialism and that a state of “Permanent Revolution” was necessary until major western countries were conquered.  He was considered more militant than Stalin.

            In exile, Trotsky sponsored the formation of national communist parties which were devoted to the “Permanent Revolution” and were independent of the control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

            The Trotskyist Communist Party in America chose the name “The Socialist Workers Party.”  It is affiliated with the international association of Trotskyist Parties, called the “Fourth International.”

            The Youth Group of the Socialist Workers Party chose the name “Young Socialist Alliance.”  It is the most powerful revolutionary organization active on the campuses today.

            The Trotskyists organized the American Servicemen’s Union to promote rebellion in the Armed Forces.  They have the dominant role in the Student Mobilization Committee (SMC) and the National Peace Action Coalition.  They organized their demonstrations around the single issue “Peace.”  By muting every other issue, they aimed at involving everyone who desired peace.

            Their ultimate object is the communist conquest of the U.S.A.

            Their intermediate objective is the communist conquest of Indochina.

            Their immediate objective is to persuade the American Government to withdraw all troops from Vietnam and to betray the democratically elected rulers of South Vietnam.

            The Guardian reports that half-a-million marched in Washington and 300,000 in Vietnam.  These figures are greatly exaggerated, the turnout was massive and packed political punch.  The communists moved nearer to their objectives.

            The Guardian also reports that this communist promoted and controlled march was endorsed by 50 Congressional representatives including 11 U.S. Senators.

            It was quite a triumph for Leon Trotsky.