"The Comintern Has Long Ceased to Meddle in Our Internal Affairs" excerpt from speech in Chief-fang Jih-pao, May 28, 1943
Comrade Mao Tse-tung first pointed out that the dissolution of the Communist International was, exactly as the American press agency had reported, "a great event marking the dividing line between two epochs."
Comrade Mao Tse-tung asked: "Why should the Communist International be disbanded? Did it not devote all its efforts to the emancipation of the working class of the whole world and to the war against fascism?"
Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: "It is true that the Communist International was created by Lenin himself. During its entire existence it has rendered the greatest services in helping each country to organize a truly revolutionary workers' party, and it has also contributed enormously to the great cause of organizing the anti-fascist war." Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed particularly to the great services of the Communist International in aiding the cause of the Chinese revolution...
Comrade Mao Tse-tung further pointed out: "Revolutionary movements can be neither exported nor imported. Despite the fact that aid was accorded by the Communist International, the birth and development of the Chinese Communist Party resulted from the f act that China herself had a conscious working class. The Chinese working class created its own party--the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party, although it has a history of only twenty-two years, has already undertaken three great revolut ionary movements...
Since the Communist International has rendered such great services to China and to various other countries, why should it be necessary to proclaim its dissolution? To this question Comrade Mao Tse-tung replied: "It is a principle of Marxism-Leninism th at the forms of revolutionary organizations must be adapted to the necessities of the revolutionary struggle. If a form of organization is no longer adapted to the necessities of the struggle, then this form of organization must be abolished." Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that at present the form of revolutionary organization known as the Communist International is no longer adapted to the necessities of the struggle. To continue this organizational form would, on the contrary, hinder the development of the revolutionary struggle in each country. What is needed now is the strengthening of the national Communist Party [min-tsu Kung-ch'an-tang] of each country, and we no longer need this international leading center. There are three main reasons for thi s:(1) The internal situation in each country and the relations between the different countries are more complicated than they have been in the past and are changing more rapidly. It is no longer possible for a unified international organization to adapt i tself to these extremely complicated and rapidly changing circumstances. Correct leadership must grow out of a detailed analysis of these conditions, and this makes it even more necessary for the Communist Party of each country to undertake this itself. T he Communist International, which is far removed from the concrete struggle in each country, was adapted to the relatively simple conditions of the past, when changes took place rather slowly, but now it is no longer a suitable instrument. . . . (Stuart S chram, ed. The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (NY: Frederick Praeger, 1963),pp. 288-89.)
"We Are Not Going to Turn the Country Over to Moscow!" Question [from Edgar Snow]: In actual practice, if the Chinese revolution were victorious, would the economic and political relationship between Soviet China and Soviet Russia be maintained within the Third International or a similar organization, or would there probably be some kind of actual merger of governments? Would the Chinese Soviet Government be comparable in its relation to Moscow to the present government of Outer Mongolia?
Answer [from Mao]:I assume this is a purely hypothetical question. As I have told you, the Red Army is not now seeking the hegemony of power, but a united China against Japanese imperialism.
The Third International is an organization in which the vanguard of the world proletariat brings together its collective experience for the benefit of all revolutionary peoples through the world. It is not an administrative organization nor has it any political power beyond that of an advisory capacity. Structurally it is not very different from the Second International, though in content it is vastly different. But just as no one would say that in a country where the Cabinet is organized by the social -democrats the Second International is dictator, so it is ridiculous to say that the Third International is dictator in countries where there are Communist parties.
In the U.S.S.R., the Communist Party is in power, yet even there the Third International does not rule nor does it have any direct political power over the people at all. Similarly, it can be said that although the Communist Party of china is a member of the Comintern, still this in no sense means that Soviet china is ruled by Moscow or by the Comintern. We are certainly not fighting for an emancipated China in order to turn the country over to Moscow!
The Chinese Communist Party is only one party in China, and in its victory it will have to speak for the whole nation. It cannot speak for the Russian people or rule for the Third International, but only in the interests of the Chinese masses. Only whe re the Chinese masses coincide with the interests of the Russian masses can it be said to be 'obeying the will' of Moscow. But of course this basis of common benefit will be tremendously broadened, once the masses of China are in democratic power and soci ally and economically emancipated, like their brothers in Russia.
When Soviet governments have been established in many countries, the problem of an international union of soviets may arise, and it will be interesting to see how it will be solved. But today I cannot suggest the formula; it is a problem which has not been and cannot be solved in advance. In the world of today, with increasingly close economic and cultural intimacies between different states and peoples, such a union would seem to be highly desirable, if achieved on a voluntary basis.
Clearly, however, the last point is of utmost importance; such a world union could be successful only if every nation had the right to enter or leave the union according to the will of the people, and with its sovereignty intact, and certainly never at the 'command' of Moscow. No Communist ever thought otherwise, and the myth of 'world domination from Moscow' is an invention of the Fascists and counterrevolutionaries.
(Stuart Schram, ed. The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (NY: Frederick Praeger, 1963), pp. 286-7.)