From owner-marxism Wed Sep 13 16:15:15 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 12:15:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement
Subject: Re: Lin Biao
On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Chris Burford wrote:
> To "Pat" of MIM
>
> Thank you for the more human pseudonym.
>
> I understand you consider that Jiang Qing, Zhang Chunqiao, Wao Wenyuan, and
> Wang Hongwen (the "Gang of Four") were the most authentic successors of
> Mao's political line.
>
> What is your opinion of the dramatic split between Mao and Lin Biao,
> five years earlier, and what implications does that have for the
> correctness or otherwise of the Cultural Revolution?
>
> Chris B, London.
>
MIM replies: There was an organization in California called the Committee for a Proletarian Party. They used to hold that the split with Lin Biao was the central downfall of the Cultural Revolution.
We distributed their literature as reference material.
There is no doubt that the split with Lin Biao did cause massive damage to the Cultural Revolution. We now distribute another book on this same question that touches on the strategy issues of the Cultural Revolution. (Anyone who wants MIM lit. might try writing to mim@mim.org [address edited for 1998 accuracy--ed.] for info.)
We wish we could speak with the living members of Mao's central leadership to see if they would have handled any of this differently a second time. There is a good case for saying no.
Military coups are a constant danger in any society with a military which is going to be any society until we reach the upper stages of communism with no state.
Last we heard there was no group upholding the Cultural Revolution in England, correct? A number went defunct and another group claiming Mao upholds Hua Guofeng, but not the Gang of Four.
What do you think of the Stalin Society? Have you heard of it?
Pat for MIM
--- from list marxism@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
From owner-marxism Fri Sep 15 01:11:31 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 21:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement
Subject: Re: Lin Biao/Cultural Revolution
On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Chris Burford wrote:
> Thank you for your post attached below.
>
> I do not have any knowledge of the groups you mention.
>
> I assume that the contradiction with Lin Biao was one that in Mao's
> theory was a contradiction among the people, that turned antagonistic.
> It is not clear to me how much he was planning a military coup himself
> and how much he became alarmed at the preventative measures Mao was
> putting in place against a military coup, and decided he was himself
> in danger.
>
> I understand that conflict arose over a proposal that Mao should
> become Head of State, which he saw as an attempt to promote himself
> into an honorific position. But behind this there were presumably
> differences about what had happened in the Cultural Revolution.
>
> Do you accept as probably authentic the statement attributed to
> Mao that the Cultural Revolution was 70% good and 30% bad?
> I am sorry that I cannot afford the time to access your archive. In
> any case on an important theoretical question like this affecting
> 1/5 of the world's population, I would appreciate your own view here
> about what was positive about it and what was negative. I would say
> this is not just a serious academic question but a serious
> theoretical question of marxism. I look forward to your reply.
>
> Chris B, London.
>
MIM replies: I have sent Chris B. our literature list. Anyone else who wants it can just e-mail me.
I will make a few more comments on this question. What Chris is thinking about with the dispute over the state chair job is that Lin Biao was asking Mao to take it over in addition to his post as chair of the party. Mao said no.
This appears to have been aimed at Zhou Enlai and his faction of the party, because presumably, if Mao died, Lin Biao would have been chair of the party and Zhou would have had the top state post as designated in the succession plans. It was thought that Lin wanted this post for himself and so he wanted to inherit it from Mao when Mao died. (Woops, just kidding; Mao and Lin were unrelated.) Lin already had the official designation of being Mao's successor, so any posts that Mao had would go to Lin.
Given that it was Zhou Enlai who protected Deng Xiaoping and groomed him for power, some look back and say Lin Biao would have been better.
If that is true, then maybe Mao should have let him have the post.
We don't have a stand on that.
What is known is that Mao was never entirely comfortable with Lin and Lin seemed rather to be a better alternative to Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and the other people basically in power today. (Liu is dead but spiritual guide now.) Lin likewise allied with Mao in his own way. One thing that Mao did publicly after Lin died in the flight from the coup attempt was denounce Lin's attempt to build a personality cult around Mao himself. Mao linked this with Lin's attempt to prepare shallow adulation for Lin himself in the event Mao died.
Even the shortness of the quotes in Quotations of Chairman Mao (The Red Book) are in Lin Biao's style. He wanted things shallow it appears, so that there were not difficult philosophical disputes after Mao died, just clear accession.
Hence the blows that Lin Biao and his friends landed against Deng Xiaoping and other dogs we see in power today in state-capitalist China came at a price. Lin built up Mao to be a god and he himself built himself up as god's choice for next leader.
When Lin had a conflict with Mao, he undercut his own following amongst the people. Lin-believers had a difficult time after the coup. It also reflected badly on Mao; although Mao simply made a point of polemicizing against personality cults and idealism after the coup attempt.
Ironically, the Lin coup attempt punctured maybe the biggest bubble of the Cultural Revolution. This was both good and bad.
In the short run, it was very bad, because it assured Zhou Enlai and his capitalist-road followers ascendancy. In the long run, it will be a good thing, because a generation of people who had been inadequately politicized now thinks for itself. Whereas such independent thought leads in no great direction in imperialist countries, in countries where productive labor is more predominant,independent thought has more potential for communism.
Pat for MIM
--- from list marxism@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
From owner-marxism Sat Sep 16 03:24:27 1995
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 23:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement
Subject: Re: 3rd World, MIM, etc.
On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Jamal Hannah wrote:
[tons deleted]
> within the USA)... of course if MIM says something like "The black
> panthers were Maoists" (because they aggreed with some of what Mao said),
> this does not neccesarily make the Black Panthers Maoists, or, for that
> matter, totaly wrong/bad/etc. Do people hate Marx because the
> Maoists like Marx? That would be foolish.
>
> My point is that it's wrong to reject subjects such as the 3rd world,
> radical democracy (where the poorest people have political power),
> revolution, etc. simply because MIM likes these things, and other
> stuff is thrown in which we disagree with.
>
MIM replies: First for Chris Burford, the Black Panthers seemed to be on the inside track as early as October 26, 1968:
"Apology to Chairman Mao
"The BLACK PANTHER Newspaper apologizes to Chairman Mao
and The People's Republic of China for publishing a dated
photograph in our last issue picturing the recently purged Lin Piao."
What is incredible about this is the date it came out, years before the coup attempt, and perhaps again proving there was always some strain somewhere between Mao and Lin, and somehow the Black Panthers knew what the rest of the world would find out much later.
The Black Panthers quoted Mao and upheld Mao as clearly as could be done in the English language. Not only did they run articles from Mao's press in China, they quoted the CCP on Maoism's role verbatim. On Jan. 4th, 1969, they quoted some Mexican comrades favorably: "Without Marxism-Leninism, Mao tse-Tung's Thought, there is no and will never be socialism in any country."
Or try March 16, 1969 of the Black Panther newspaper:
"REVOLUTION DEPENDS ON MAO TSE-TUNG'S THOUGHT"
quoted from African communists by the Black Panthers.
We have a whole packet of articles by the Panthers, reprinted by the Panthers and excerpted by the Panthers talking about Mao. It's poor quality xerox, but definitely readable. Send $20 to MIM, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-3576
Tell them we sent you from the INTERNET.
Anyone who gets this packet will see that what a bunch of racism or national chauvinism it is that all these "leftists" say the Black Panthers were not internationalists and muddy-minded.
Given all the Hollywood and lecture-circuit historical revisionism, I think most people will be surprised how radical the Black Panthers were 1966-1969 before getting smashed by the state.
We also have our own articles and study pack on the question.
You can write to me.
Pat for MIM