¹ Tucker, Robert C., “Towards a Comparative Politics of Movement-Regimes,” American Political Science Review, Vol. LV (06 1961), pp. 281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in The Soviet Political Mind (New York: Praeger, 1963), as Chapter I.Google Scholar

² Skilling, H. Gordon, “Interest Groups and Communist Politics,” World Politics, Vol. XVIII (04 1966), pp. 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar His thesis contrasts with that of Friedrich, Carl J. (ed.), Totalitarianism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), p. 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Friedrich, op. cit. p. 53.Google Scholar

⁴ Friedrich, Carl J. and Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 10.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. p. 5. See also Ibid. pp. 27–39 on “The Nature and Role of the Party.”

⁶ Tucker, op. cit. pp. 284, 288–289. (Italics in original.)Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. p. 389.

⁸ Yakovlev, Se Ya. A. (ed.), Vtoroi vseross$$$(MS PAGE NO 41)iisky syezd sovetov rabochikh i soldatskikh deputatov (Leningrad, 1928), p. 107.Google Scholar

⁹ See the Central Committee Minute of November 1917, reprinted in Proletarskaia Revoliutsüa (Proletarian Revolution), No. 10 (1922), pp. 465–470. The discussion on coalition then in progress, according to Lenin, “should have been treated merely as diplomatic cover for military action.”Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Leonard Schapiro, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy; Political Opposition in the Soviet State First Phase: 1917–1922 (London: Bell for the London School of Economics and Political Science [University of London], 1955), Chapter VII.Google Scholar

¹¹ Text in Edoardoe, Duilio Susmel (ed.), Opera omnia di Benito Mussolini (Florence: La Fenice, 1951–1963), Vol. XXI, pp. 357–364. The term was already in use before that date in the general sense “dictatorial.” We are indebted for this information on the first use of “totalitario” by Mussolini to Dr. Meir Michaelis.Google Scholar

¹² See Leonard, Schapiro, “The Political Thought of the First Provisional Government,” in Richard, Pipes (ed.), Revolutionary Russia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 105–112.Google Scholar

¹³ For a more detailed discussion of this problem see The Origin of the Communist Autocracy (cited in note 10), Chapters XIV–XVIII, and Leonard, Schapiro, “Lenin after Fifty Years,” in Leonard, Schapiro and Peter, Reddaway (eds.), Lenin: The Man, the Theorist, the Leader; A Reappraisal (London: Pall Mall Press, 1967), pp. 3–22.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See the text of the Statute of the party of 1926, reprinted in Alberto, Aquarone, L'Organizzazione dello Stato Totalitario (Torino: G. Einaudi, 1965), pp. 386–392.Google Scholar

¹⁵ “Dramma della diarchia,” as Mussolini described it after his fall. See “Storia di un anno,” in Opera omnia (cited in note 11), Vol. XXXIV, pp. 406–416.Google Scholar And cf. Mussolini writing to Himmler on 11 October 1942: “There are three of us in Rome: myself, the King and the Pope,” quoted in Deakin, F. W., The Brutal Friendship: Mussolini, Hitler and the Fall of Italian Fascism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), p. 55.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See The Brutal Friendship, p. 329.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Franz, Neumann, Behemoth; the Structure and Practice of National Socialism 1933–1944 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 62–65.Google Scholar

¹⁸ There is no mention of the totalitarian state in Mein Kampf.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Behemoth (cited in note 17), pp. 468–469 and 530.Google Scholar

²⁰ Armstrong, John A., The Soviet Bureaucratic Elite; A Case Study of the Ukrainian Apparatus (New York: Praeger, 1959), p. 149.Google Scholar

²¹ Armstrong, John A., The Politics of Totalitarianism; The Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1934 to the Present (New York: Random House, 1961), pp. 134–135.Google Scholar

²² Merle, Fainsod, How Russia is Ruled (rev. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 323–327.Google Scholar

²³ Merle, Fainsod, Smolensk Under Soviet Rule (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 93. The reports of the union-republican Party conferences can be studied in the Russian language newspapers published in the capital of each union republic, beginning in the third week of September.Google Scholar

²⁴ This section is based on Lewis, “Leader, Commissar and Bureaucrat,” in Ping-ti, Ho and Tang, Tsou (eds.), China in Crisis; China's Heritage and the Communist Political System (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), Vol. I, pp. 449–481.Google Scholar

²⁵ For a discussion of the important December 9th Group associated with Liu, see Klein, Donald W., “The State Council and the Cultural Revolution,” The China Quarterly, No. 35 (07–09 1968), pp. 89–91.Google Scholar

²⁶ Mao, , for example, mentions Liu in 13 places in his Selected Works. The earliest reference is in 11 1938.Google ScholarSee Index to Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung (Hong Kong: Union Research Institute, 1968), p. 93.Google Scholar

²⁷ For major statements on the Maoist view of Liu Shao-ch'i's “Party-building line,” see, for example, Wen-hui pao (Cultural Exchange News), 26 11 and 28 Dec 1967 and 8 and 16 Jan 1968Google Scholar; Jen-min jih-pao (People's Daily), 18 11 1967Google Scholar; Chieh-fang jih-pao (Liberation Daily), 22 11 and 6 Dec 1967 and 25 Feb 1968Google Scholar; Chieh-fang-chün pao (Liberation Army Daily), article in New China News Agency (hereafter NCNA), 25 10 1967; NCNA, 18, 21 and 30 January 1968; and Shanghai Radio, 17 November 1967.Google Scholar

²⁸ Liu, , How to be a Good Communist (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, n.d.).Google Scholar For the English translation of the 1962 revised edition, see Liu, , How to be a Good Communist (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1964).Google ScholarFor typical articles on this work, see Current Background (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate General), No. 827.Google Scholar

²⁹ Liu, , On Inner-Party Struggle (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, n.d.).Google ScholarFor typical recent criticism of this book, see Kuang-ming jih-pao (Bright Daily), 7 04, 1967 in Survey of China Mainland Press (hereafter SCMP) (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate General), No. 3923, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Mao's comments on Liu's “model” work in the white areas in “Appendix: Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of our Party,” Selected Works, Vol. III, pp. 198, 202, 203.Google Scholar

³¹ Hung chan pao (Red Combat Bulletin), No. 15 (29 11 1967), pp. 1, 4Google Scholar, in Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS), No. 44, 574 (4 03 1968), p. 28.Google Scholar

³² Quoted on Hofei, Radio, 18 01 1968. For text of Jen-min jih-pao, 1 January 1968 editorial, see Peking Review, No. 1 (3 January 1968), pp. 10–13.Google Scholar The campaign against factionalism may well have allowed supporters of Liu Shao-ch'i to return to power in Hopei province. Also on factionalism, see Tientsin Radio, 3 and 4 February 1968; Jen-min jih-pao, 25 and 26 01 and 5 and 26 February 1968Google Scholar; and NCNA, 4 February 1968. On factionalism in general, see as a sample of the many articles and broadcasts in this period Wen-hui pao, 12 and 16 01 1968 (as found in Shanghai Radio, 11, 16 and 28 January 1968) and 17 February 1968 (Shanghai Radio, 16 February 1968); Hupeh Radio, 31 January 1968Google Scholar; Hei-lung-chiang jih-pao (Heilungkiang Daily), 23 01 1968 (in Harbin Radio, 31 January 1968); Hofei Radio, 1 February 1968; and Huhehot Radio, 4 February 1968.Google Scholar

³³ There has been a consistent emphasis on “trusting and relying on the majority of cadres.” See, for example, NCNA, 23 10 1967, in SCMP, No. 4052, pp. 9–12; and footnote 34 below.Google Scholar

³⁴ For a statement on Liu's building a personal machine in the Party, see the pamphlet “Down with Liu Shao-ch'i—Life of Counter-revolutionary Liu Shao-ch'i,” by Ching-kang-shan Fighting Corps of the Fourth Hospital, Peking, dated 05 1967, in Current Background, No. 834, p. 4Google Scholar; the pamphlet by the Peking Railway Institute of April 1967 in Selections from China Mainland Magazines (hereafter SCMM) (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate General), No. 591, p. 17Google Scholar; and Hung ch'i (Red Flag), No. 13 (1967), p. 25.Google Scholar

³⁵ For a rigorous review of these guidelines in parts of the Communist system, see A. Doak, Barnett, Cadres, Bureaucracy, and Political Power in Communist China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967).Google Scholar

³⁶ The “50 days” ran from early June through the third week of July 1966. In his first attack on Liu, Mao said: “… in the last 50 days or so some leading comrades from the central down to the local levels have acted in a diametrically opposite way. Adopting the reactionary stand of the bourgeoisie, they have enforced a bourgeois dictatorship and struck down the surging movement of the great Cultural Revolution of the proletariat.”Google ScholarMao, Tse-tung, “Bombard the Head-quarters” (5 08 1966), in Peking Review, No. 33 (11 08 1967), p. 5.Google Scholar

³⁷ Mainichi, 28 01 1968.Google Scholar

³⁸ For a representative collection of articles on “economism,” see Current Background, No. 818.Google Scholar

³⁹ On professionalism (“regularization and modernization”) in the army, see Chieh-fang-chün pao, 30 08 1967, in Peking Radio, 30 August 1967.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On the question of “impure” class elements in the Party see, for example, the pamphlet of the Peking Railway Institute, 04 1967, in SCMM, No. 591, p. 10Google Scholar; and the article on the proletarian dictatorship and China's Khrushchev in Jen-min jih-pao, 26 08 1967.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Text of Red Guard leaflet in SCMM, No. 591, p. 10.Google Scholar See also Wen-hua ko-ming t'ung-hsün (Cultural Revolution Bulletin), No. 11 (1967), in SCMM, No. 599, p. 21.Google ScholarTeng, Hsiao-p'ing made this statement at the Eighth Party Congress: “Nowadays … it is easy to find people who have joined the Party for the sake of prestige and position” (“Report on the Revision of the Constitution,” Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1956), Vol. I, p. 209). Similar statements by Liu hardly suggest approval of such motives for joining the Party.Google Scholar

⁴² For the standard Maoist treatment of this subject, see The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965), pp. 453–459.Google Scholar

⁴³ On Branch Life, see reference to it in SCMM, No. 603, p. 28, and No. 604, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See, for example, NCNA, 16 10 1968; Wen-hui pao, 7 November 1968Google Scholar; and Jen-min jih-pao, 11 11 1968.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See above, footnotes 26 and 32. It is important to keep in mind that many of these accusations against Liu may be false or highly exaggerated.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Wen-hua ko-ming t'ung-hsün, No. 11 (1967), in SCMM, No. 599, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For a chronicle of Liu's history as seen by the Red Guards, see Current Background, No. 834.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Peking, Radio, 17 11 1967; and Hung ch'i, No. 13 (1967), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Conversely Liu is said to have attacked the “majority” (or “suspected all”) in an attempt to preserve his own standing. See, for example, P'i T'ao chan-pao (Criticize T'ao Combat Bulletin), No. 7 (10 04 1967), in SCMP, No. 3962, pp. 1–5; and Jen-min jih-pao, 2 and 4 04 1967.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Huan ch'iu chih (The Whole World is Red), No. 2 (27 06 1967), pp. 1–3Google Scholar, in Joint Publications Research Service, No. 41, 514, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar For another example, see Hsüan chiao chan-pao (Combat Bulletin of the Communications System of Hsüan wu ch'ü Party Committee), 26 05 1967Google Scholar, in SCMP, No. 4051, pp. 8–11.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ch'un lei (Spring Thunder), No. 4 (13 04 1967)Google Scholar, in SCMP, No. 3940, pp. 6–15.Google Scholar

⁵² T'ien an men (Gate of Heavenly Peace), No. 2 (03 1967)Google Scholar, in SCMM, No. 576, pp. 4–7.Google Scholar

⁵³ For a typical discussion of egoism, see Hung ch'i, No. 15 (1967), p. 16.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See above, footnote 32. Jen-min jih-pao, 18 11 1967, stated that Liu “shamelessly advocated: ‘the idea of gaining a little to lose a lot and of losing a little to gain a lot’ conforms with the ‘proletarian world outlook of Marxism-Leninism.’ He also wantonly clamoured: ‘It is not all public interest without self-interest; there should be room for self-interest in complete devotion to public interest; equal consideration should be given to both public and self-interest, placing public interest before self-interest.’”Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Kweiyang Radio, 17 and 23 June and 7 July 1967.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See, for example, the story of the mental hospital in which various political attitudes were treated as mental disorders in the pamphlet “‘Maniacs’ of the New Era,” compiled by the Editorial Department of the Revolutionary Rebels of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in SCMM, Nos. 602, 603 and 604.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ On the Party constitution, see Pa erh-wu chan pao (25 August Battle News), 14 02 1967, in SCMM, No. 574, p. 15Google Scholar; Ching-kang shan (Ching-kang Mountains), 15 02 1967Google Scholar, in SCMP, No. 3908, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ See Ko ti t'ung-hsün (Correspondence from All Parts of the Country), No. 4 (13 09 1967)Google Scholar, in SCMP, No. 4081, p. 7Google Scholar; and Pei-ching jih-pao (Peking Daily), 7 08 1967, as given in Tanyug (Belgrade), 6 08 1967.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Jen-min jih-pao, 18 11 1967.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mainichi, 3 08 1967.Google ScholarSee also Sankei, 2 08 1967.Google Scholar

⁶² For the text of the revised constitution, see The China Quarterly, No. 39 (07–09 1969), pp. 164–8.Google Scholar

⁶³ Jen-min jih-pao, 22 12 1967.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid.The present is said to be the “era of Mao's thought” and is considered to be the third great “era” of Communism, the first being associated with Marx and the second with Lenin: Chieh-fang-chün pao, article on China's Khrushchev, in NCNA, 23 09 1967.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Harbin Radio, 10 June 1967.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Jen-min jih-pao, 31 01 1967.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For an article linking anarchism to factionalism, see Wen-hui pao, 17 02 1968, in Shanghai Radio, 16 February 1968.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Jen-min jih-pao, 18 11 1967.Google ScholarOn democratic centralism as defined by Mao, see Chieh-fang-chün pao, 16 02 1968.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ For details on the movement to seize power, see Peking Review, Nos. 3–8 (1967).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Chu ying tung-fang-hung (Pearl River East is Red), 13 09 1967, in SCMP, No. 4036, p. 6; and also citations in note 76. The most obvious indication of the importance of the army is the position of Liu, who is referred to as Mao's “most ideal successor” (tsui li-hsiang ti chieh-pan-jen). NCNA, 25 February 1968.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Chieh-fang jih-pao, 26 10 1967.Google Scholar

⁷² Harbin Radio, 10 June 1967.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Asahi, 19 10 1967.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See the definition of Mao's injunction in Peking Review, No. 1 (3 01 1968), p. 11.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ He said: “At present we should consider whether or not they [the cadres] support Chairman Mao, his proletarian revolutionary line and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whether or not they stand on the side of Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionaries” (Jen-min jih-pao, 31 08 1967).Google Scholar Later statements have described loyalty to Mao as the “first requirement of the times.” See Jen-min jih-pao, 4 03 1968Google Scholar; and Wen-hui pao, 30 03 1968.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ On the “revolutionary three-way alliance,” see Hung ch'i, No. 5 (1967), pp. 5–8Google Scholar; and Jen-min jih-pao, 17 February, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 23 and 25 March and 20 10 1967.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ A convenient and fairly representative collection of articles on the question of cadres is in Current Background, No. 849.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Jen-min jih-pao, 18 11 1967, quotes Mao as saying: “We Communists do not want to be officials; what we want is revolution.” The whole tone of this article was to belittle officialdom with the statement that cadres should follow Mao whether or not his thought “is of a ‘majority’ and no matter at what ‘superior level’ it may be.”Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See, for example, NCNA, 15 December 1967.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ For a suggestive article on the pathology peculiar to totalitarian systems, see Karl W. Deutsch, “Cracks in the Monolith: Possibilities and Patterns of Disintegration in the Totalitarian Systems,” in Friedrich, op. cit., pp. 308–333.Google Scholar