MOVES CLOSER TO PEKING LINE
A statement in the January 23 issue of the weekly Peoples Voice, an official publication of the Communist party of New Zealand, indicates that the leadership is moving closer to Peking's position in the dispute with Moscow. Under the headline, "Fighting Monopoly in New Zealand and throughout the World," the National Secretariat states that in regard to ideological issues, "We stand firm on the fact that they cannot be solved by discussion and demonstrations at congresses of individual parties, as has happened recently. They will not be solved by an attitude of ‘We, and only we, are right all the time on everything.'"
The declaration continues, "Such an attitude, plus refusal to develop collective discussion internationally, makes appeals for unity useless and dismisses the honest opinions of other parties and their leaderships without consideration. It excludes collective discussion of all aspects in an objective manner. We stand firm on the approach agreed by all Marxist-Leninist parties in the Statement of the 31 Parties after their conference in Moscow in 1960.- There a methed was agreeé upon if disputes arose between the leader— ship of various parties. It was a totally different procedure from that being pursued by the C.P.5.U. and other parties."
After this pointed thrust at Moscow, the statement continued... "Today, we are more fully convinced than ever that our cell of February, 1962, for the holding of an international discussion on problems and differences was a correct one. Also that we were correct to emphasize, in line with the Si Parties’ statement, the need for preliminary discussion between those with differences. This hae not been Gone, but it should be atarted without delay."
The attlcle goes on, "Our party. . . considers correct the statement maie with emphesis there that revisionism is teday the main danger in our world Marxist-Leninist Movement. We are concerned thet, while all pessible dangers. .. arising from dogmatisn are reesiving full attention, the main danger oF revisionism ig. excstt in a few sweet words, to a large degree being ignored. ‘Ve cannet gee any basis at present for ideological unity with the revisionist views of Tite communists and must etroengly oppose any such development. . . "
WIDENING DIPSERENCES IN