|
| MIM Home Page |
Introduction
Today one of the most important issues of the International Communist Movement (ICM) is the restoration of capitalism. These restorations have pushed many communist parties (CP) to the camp of the bourgeoisie and have caused distrust of socialism among the masses. Having not been explained in details theoretically, these restorations have created deep doubts in the minds of communist cadres. Due to the fact that they have not been looked into comprehensively and the existence of an intense chorus of revisionists-- bourgeois ideological campaign of "socialism won't live," the verdict that socialism will have an absolute defeat is intensifying every day.
By continuing class struggle under the leadership of the proletariat, can the proletariat achieve a victory over the bourgeoisie? Can socialism win a victory over capitalism? Can the proletariat protect its dictatorship against the restorations? These questions are the theoretical problems that the ICM has to overcome after overcoming the bourgeoisie in socialist countries like USSR, China, Albania and many countries where democratic people's rule in power.
It can be said that all these and similar lies in emerging and existence of Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). In this context we can easily say that GPCR has a great importance for ICM and has very important lessons that the revolutionary proletariat can derive from. Socialist society under the leadership of the proletariat will cover a long historic period, and class struggle under socialism will continue continuously. This struggle will continue until the system of division of labour "according to human labour" and "according to human needs" will be established.
Classes and class struggle do not end by removing private ownership of the means of production and replaced by collective ownership. This will solve only part of the problem, and establishes the first step towards a classless society. The class struggle that goes on openly between proletariat and bourgeoisie in a capitalist society becomes more hidden and more complex in socialist society. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat the bourgeoisie does not expose itself openly, but struggles against the proletariat in the name of the proletariat.
That's the importance of GPCR which was raised under the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung. It should be investigated thoroughly; it's rich experience should be added to proletariat's theoretical wealth. This truth is even more valid today; it is compulsory for those who accept Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) as the science of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie revisionist mud thrown at the science of MLM may cause difficulties for a while, but the international proletariat and communists will carry this red flag always high and keep it as a guide on their path toward a classless society. The masters of private ownership and sworn revisionists will never stop this. This is the irrevocable flow of history. The people who want to stop this flow will find themselves in the garbagecan of history like their ancestors.
THE INHERITANCE DERIVED FROM CAPITALISM AND PRE-CAPITALIST SYSTEMS TO SOCIALISM
Transition from socialism to communism will not be fast but will progress slowly. Every society will carry the remnants of the old system that it was born from. It is not possible to abolish remnants of the old societies, habits, moral or juridical influences with a touch of sword.
Capitalism means division of labour. With this reality, the alienation of man from man will be intensified. Capitalist production, with the aid of division of labour has monopolised everything under its control, has separated science, scientists, and with the development of technology the technicians from work itself and made them into alienated productive forces. With the development of technology, the gap between mental and physical labour has deepened; physical labour was looked down upon, the intensification of qualified labour has caused divisions amongst workers thus creating a rank that is called aristocracy of workers, and in the end it became harder for the workers to act collectively.
The creation of a gap between science and labour, alienating them from each other and making them work independently from each other will not be abolished immediately after transition to socialism. This separation and alienation and the contradictions created by these will exist for a long time after transition.
In capitalist and pre-capitalist societies, culture, art and their production is in the hands of ruling classes and the exploited masses can not reach them. Intellectuals, artists and other people involved with art have a privileged position compared with the exploited masses. The workers who try to maintain their life by their physical labour have relations with intellectuals and other cultured people just like the relations between bourgeoisie and proletariat.
A product of the division of labour, and maybe the most serious one, the separation and contradiction between the rulers and ruled ones will maintain it's existence under socialism as well. Overcoming this contradiction will also mean abolishing classes. This contradiction is the basis for restorations of capitalism. If the contradiction between the rulers and ruled ones can not be overcome or at least minimized, the rulers will use the authorities, just like in the capitalist system for their own benefit. The degeneration of Communist Parties and their becoming capitalist roaders are because of these elements. Until these contradictions are resolved under the dictatorship of the proletariat the danger of restoration from socialism will always exist.
This is because the proletariat in power will always have the ideology, which will abolish all classes and also the proletariat itself. [Section cut by MIM as not making sense.]
The contradictions that we quoted above come from the main contradictions that Mao points out. To overcome this, the slogan "from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs" must be practised. But this period will cover a long and historic period. As long as socialist economy preserves its principle of "from everyone according to his labour" this contradiction will exist. If the principle of division of products according to labour is practised very firmly, the privileges in a socialist society will either vanish or come down to a minimum, but this time inequalities of needs and division of labour will stay, but this, on the other hand will decrease to social differences in the society.
Marx, in his book "Criticism of Gotha and Erfurt Program" identifies socialism as the first stage of communism. Because basically the common ownership of means of production has been established, therefore "from everyone according to his ability" rule has been put in practice at this stage. But "to everyone according to his needs" rule can only be applied in communism, not in socialism. Because labour, which is the principal element of the productive forces is not organised as fully as to produce according to his ability and to consume according to needs. One of the main reasons for this is separation of mental and physical labour. The conditions that every worker engaged in production engages in work as a mental labourer and at the same time a ruler, are not reached yet. That means the division of labour has not ended yet.
Of course, the proletariat that will abolish itself as a class would never want the existence of the state. However this problem can not be solved right away and the demolishing of the state not only depends on the close interest of the socialist state, but also in the development or existence of socialism in other countries.
The proletariat will need the state until all classes are abolished. On the other hand until the bourgeoisie stops existing in this world, or has been pressed down considerably the thought of demolishing the state will be just a dream, and not only a dream but it will be the reason to give up proletarian rule and to open a gateway to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The bad inheritance that was carried over from capitalism and other pre-capitalist societies will not vanish when the proletariat takes over power. On the contrary it will take a long historic period until this inheritance is cleared.
NECESSITY OF CULTURAL REVOLUTIONS UNDER SOCIALISM
Socialism is a society with classes, and just like other social systems the classes maintain their existence; however the class struggle, in essence, shows differences from the social systems based on exploitation. As long as there are class contradictions the dangers of reversal will always exist. Mao, after saying that it is uncertain whether the bourgeoisie or socialism will win the battle explains his thoughts about this subject; "In the battle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism it is still uncertain that who will win and who will lose."
Under socialism to look for an external bourgeoisie or to look at the bourgeoisie that has been deposed and lost its privileges is an important mistake. In socialism the bourgeoisie is within the party, in its board of management. In socialist society the new bourgeoisie is disguised as "socialist." It won't defend capitalism openly; it won't act as an enemy of socialism. They would say whatever they are doing they are doing in the name of socialism. Bourgeoisie will get inside the CP and will pursue its counter-revolutionary thoughts in the name of socialism. It will spend a lot of effort to revise socialism and especially will address the reactionary thoughts among the masses. On the other hand, the cadres in CPs who have struggled against bourgeoisie for years change once they are in power.
While the revisionist Enver Hodja and similar revisionists were looking for the real enemies and those wishing to destroy socialism "outside," Mao insisted that the enemies of the party were inside and criticized the people who were giving false targets to the proletariat. Mao, after the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] lost it's socialist qualities and became a bourgeois party, drew attention to the class struggle in socialism by saying "sugar coated bullets are more dangerous than real bullets."
Therefore in socialism he saw the arming of the masses against the bourgeoisie within the party, the struggle waged by the masses led by the party as the main issue. Mao even insisted that if the party lost it's qualities as a whole then the masses should revolt against the party itself. Mao saw that if the masses are not ideologically armed with the science of MLM, the rightists could easily come to power again, and that the end of Communist Party of China (CPC) would be no better than the CPSU.
Stalin --contrary to Mao-- when saying that in socialist society --even in 1936-- "the differences" were vanishing, was an important mistake. This misunderstanding while causing the bourgeoisie in the party to become invisible on the one hand, on the other hand was stopping the masses being alert to the bourgeoisie in the party and struggling against them. The Marxist-Leninist of one time, Enver Hodja systematized this misunderstanding of comrade Stalin and fell in the swamps of revisionism.
Stalin's mistake in approaching "classes and class struggle in socialism" has formed the theoretical foundations coming to power of Kruschev's revisionism. In the ICM no struggle was waged--except by the CPC [Communist Party of China] and LPA [Labor Party of Albania]--against Kruschev's revisionism, and the International Communist Movement (ICM) surrendered immediately to modern revisionism. The Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) becoming a modern revisionist party, and at the time USSR's turning to social imperialism, and the other CPs not seeing this fact and the roots of defending that no reversal will be possible from socialism--all lies in that thesis of Stalin that we have recited above.
Today the ICM has many things to learn from Mao Tse-tung's GPCR. Mao showed that through the GPCR, in a socialist country, how the masses can be aroused against the bourgeoisie, how the masses can gain their consciousness in this struggle, how the bourgeoisie in the party can change from one face to another, how suddenly they become MLM, to disguise themselves, and that socialism can not be maintained if the masses are not mobilized.
The GPCR also showed the international proletariat, how sharp the class struggle under socialism can be, that the bourgeoisie in the party would not give up easily, and the best effective weapon against it, is the vigilance and the struggle of the masses. The most important teaching of the GPCR is, this, that if the CP loses it's quality the proletariat should rise against its own party, and that one cultural revolution is not enough to carry socialism forward, that there is a necessity for tens of cultural revolutions until a country reaches communism.
Trotsky and some revisionist trends along with "farewell proletariat" defenders of recent years in order to make proletarian revolution impossible, to stop revolution in the most weakest links of the imperialist chain, resort to all kinds of disguise and try to confront the proletariat with words which are bourgeois theories in essence.
From the mid 1970s to the end of 1980s the "Euro communist trend" which is also called " farewell proletariat," a revisionist trend emerged specifically in the imperialist states of Europe and started to claim that ... "bourgeoisie does not need the proletariat anymore with the development of technology, bourgeoisie started to work with robots, the working class started to vanish, therefore the contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat also vanished."
These anti-scientific claims are created by idiots that know nothing about capitalist economy. They are so stupid that they can claim that the bourgeoisie can still exist without surplus value, and without exploitation. The aim of this theory which is created by just another bourgeois front is to surrender the proletariat fully to the bourgeoisie, to create an easygoing proletariat threatened by: "be quiet or else they will employ robots instead of you." The bourgeoisie in its struggle with the proletariat will go on creating revisionist theories under the name of "communist theories." They will never give up throwing their poisonous arrows to misguide the proletariat from their targets and to preserve their own bourgeois power.
THE SITUATION IN CHINA BEFORE THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION
Mao, instead of ordering the suppression of his opponents, said that it is necessary for everyone --except counter revolutionaries-- to express their thoughts and the conditions for this should be created. Mao when saying as early as in 1957 "let one hundred flowers bloom, let one hundred ideas compete with each other" he wanted the revisionist to express themselves fully, and on the other hand the masses should be involved in these discussions. As we have said before Mao always defended his principle of "revolution is made by the masses and it is the masses who will defend it." Mao is a master of dialectics who has endless trust in the masses. Therefore he was always against silencing the massesm negotiations behind closed doors, and discussions that do not involve the masses. No one can deny that this is a correct tactic and real Marxist approach.
Why "bombard the headquarters of the bourgeoisie"? Mao was starting the first Cultural Revolution of the international proletariat. Until today no leader in a socialist country demanded from the masses to "bomb" themselves, on the contrary they always wanted support from the masses. Here lies the essence of the revolution, and the effort to change the world. The revolution was not made by a handful of leaders, but it was made by the masses. The people who made the revolution should adopt the revolution, defend it and develop it. If the masses don't adopt the revolution it is inevitable that revolution would turn into counter- revolution.
Great revolutionaries always trusted the masses and wanted the masses to take charge of defending everything. The ones who are afraid of the masses have adopted the principle of negotiations behind closed doors. The ones that exploit the masses, the ones that appropriate the things created by the masses would be afraid of masses: they do not want masses to awaken; they would like masses to be like a herd of sheep.
After 1963 the rightist wind in the CPC started to strengthen. It was a common truth that the rightists have got part of their strength from the growing revisionism on the international scale. Of course the economic and political foundations of the rightist wind was basically domestic, but it is certain that they were also influenced by CPSU's fall into revisionism after 1956, and this affected the CPC, too.
CPSU's falling victim to revisionism was not a simple matter. The CPSU had a great influence on the ICM. This influence wasn't easy to destroy. Until Stalin's death and even later almost all CPs of the world were taking the CPSU as their example and were acting under it's leadership.
The CPSU's decisions were assumed as the decisions of their own CPs. Mao has criticised this approach and said international relation should not follow this pattern, but this condition was the reality of these times. Right after Stalin's death the prestige that it rightly deserved continued. Despite Kruschevīs revisionist attack on Stalin, putting some of his mistakes forward and attacking ML, the prestige of the CPSU was not damaged: on the contrary it maintained to preserve it's weight on the ICM.
The revisionist essence of Kruschev theory that "Marxism has changed its shape" was not recognised for a long time. After the CPSU turned to revisionism most of the CPs--except CPC and Labour Party of Albania (LPA)--adopted the same revisionist thesis and changed their path towards Kruschev revisionism. No one can expect the mistakes of the party that has created the first motherland of the proletariat to be seen in a short time. Kruschev revisionism created a great chaos in the GPCR with it's revisionist thesis and managed to take most of the CPs under it's hegemony.
It was natural that the CPC and LPA's prestige against CPSU and it's influence over the other parties was comparatively low in those days. Therefore they could not extend as much pressure as required. Of course the starting point of these developments went back to the time of Comintern. The collapse of CPSU, the party of Lenin and Stalin, the party that established the first proletarian state, and during the Second World War, the party that destroyed the fascism of Hitler, the collapse of such a party of course can not be contained within itself. One shouldn't be surprised given the conditions of those days of many CPs and revolutions. Mao's compromises in 1956-1960 declarations must be understood within those limits.
Mao's struggle against Kruschev revisionism, was being hindered in the CPC, and there were also inclinations that China's Socialist State should follow Russia. Chinese revisionists were afraid of every step that would take socialism forward. They identified the masses as unconscious, and their revolt as "chaos" and "anarchism." The imperialist bourgeoisie were supporting Kruschev revisionism and were expecting the victory of Liu Shao-chi against Mao who they called "red communist."
While the imperialists were working, Kruschev was also working, evaluating Mao as "dogmatic" and "crazy" and using the CPSU's "big party" "mother party" image supported the revisionists of China openly. The best way to keep masses alert is to carry out ideological discussions in the open, and make sure that the masses join these discussions actively. Mao was definitely against discussions behind closed doors, and palace coups. He knew that limiting ideological discussions to a handful of party members, and to keep masses away from the ideological discussions would be for the benefit of capitalist roaders, and this kind of thinking was a bourgeois way of thinking and he was constantly warning the party on these matters. The ones who are not afraid of the masses encourage the masses to the struggle. But the bourgeoisie and their collaborators have always been afraid of outbursts of the masses. Mao was right when saying,
"... capitalist roaders with socialist masks... we should be able to keep them in a warm climate, in an air of spring, instead of leaving them out in the cold."
So long as the existence of two lines struggle in the party is denied, so long as the existence of the bourgeoisie in the party is denied, the real reasons of restorations can not be seen. And the proletariat can not be armed ideologically and theoretically to prevent such restorations. That's why both in our country and in the world in general some of the followers of revisionist Enver Hodja while joining the bourgeois ranks with the slogan of "let's get rid of the Maoist influences" the rest are theorising the reasons to gather under the flag of Trotskyism.
By explaining the class struggle in Albania only by the "pressure of imperialists" proves only how far away they are from socialism and class struggle in socialism and how ignorant they are theoretically and how they disarm the proletariat ideologically against the bourgeoisie. Mao knowing that dialectics means the struggle and unity of opposites, and that unity is temporary and struggle is permanent, solved the dialectics of struggle in the party and the dialectics of class struggle and thus deepened Marxism - Leninism even further.
The "Let one hundred flowers bloom" campaign was aiming to transform the intellectuals, to make them revolutionaries, and to demolish the bourgeois understanding that they have. Mao started great campaigns in order to establish socialist norms and demolish bourgeois understandings in economics, politics, culture and art, and in education. This is a peculiarity, which arose out of China. Of course this arises from Mao's mastership of ML and from his far-sightedness. Although the "Let one hundred flowers bloom" campaign did not have as much effect as the GPCR it succeeded to break the influence of rightist winds blown on the intellectuals in China after the emergence of Kruschev revisionism in 1956, to expose the bourgeois approaches on culture and it was a further step to establish revolutionary art.
Liu Shao-chi, head of state then, using this campaign to his benefit, discovered Confucius again. He visited the birthplace of Confucius in 1962 and held conferences to discuss how Confucius can be made alive again. ? Yang [name lost] who was known by being a close person to Liu Shao-chi, started to criticise Mao's views on art and literature openly, and to call Great Leap Forward as "a great tragedy", the development of the communes as a "hurried operation" and mass production campaigns as "a rotten peasant style."
They were attacking Mao and socialism --of course not socialism openly--under the banner of defending socialism, but in fact they were attacking the roots of socialism. They were as Mao said "sugar coated bullets" when they were attacking Mao they never forgot to wish "a long life for Chairman Mao." In fact that was exactly what Mao wanted. Mao, as we said earlier, would give the enemy a chance to express his views, and make sure that they disclosed all their anti-MLM views and express all the hatred that they had, and afterwards he would attack them with the ideology of ML science.
Artists and intellectuals want to preserve their privileges that they inherited from the bourgeois system, in the socialist system. Although they call themselves communist, they want to carry the label of "distinguished" as a privilege compared to the other sections of the society. In China writers and intellectuals did not have any privileges that would distinguish them from the rest of the people.
Knowing that until GPCR the workers could not even get inside the gates of the universities, it can be understood better how artists and intellectuals were trying to drown the revolution and then the necessity of the GPCR can be better understood. Mao delivered a speech called "Where do the great ideas come from." [Phrase cut by MIM as making no sense.] He analysed the philosophical roots of bourgeois understanding within the CPC and condemned them.
Mao started a Socialist Rectification Campaign (SRC) as early as 1963 and paved the first steps of the struggle against revisionism on a larger scale. With his words, he was "throwing stones" against revisionism. The SRC was aimed to struggle against old traditions as well as to struggle with individualism and aiming that the cadres in the party and students would go to the villages and work with peasants, and learn from them and choose a simple way of life.
When intellectuals, artists, educational cadres and students were sent to rural areas periodically in campaigns in China, the revisionists that called themselves Marxists started a criticising campaign both domestically and abroad. The aim of revisionists was, to deepen the existing privileges in the society, to sabotage the rural development, and to keep intellectuals and students away from production just like in the capitalist system, and thus to root the bourgeois understanding in the society.
BOMBARD THE BOURGEOIS HEADQUARTERS
Mao who said on 1963 "We have devoted ourselves to shaking the roots of the world" was addressing the masses at the end of 1965 saying; "Bomb the bourgeois headquarters." This invitation Mao made to the masses and millions of members of the CPC was not an empty invitation. This call was to deal with the bourgeoisie who call themselves communist and who seized the headquarters of the proletariat under the dictatorship of the proletariat for the first time in the world history. Mao, before the GPCR, on January 1965 in a meeting of Central Committee (CC) explained where revisionism was and where the danger was coming from.
"What will you do if it shows up in the Party's centre? There is this possibility and it is a very dangerous situation."
Mao explained in a CC meeting that revisionism has reached serious dimensions in the CC and it is inevitable to struggle against it. Mao did not find the struggle inside the CC sufficient, and he decided to involve the masses in this struggle also. Then he decided to start the Cultural Revolution. The GPCR was not a spontaneous action as the revisionist turncoat Enver Hodja claims. It was an action started by Mao himself, and run by a committee and this committee was directly linked to the Political Bureau. This Committee was named Group Responsible for Cultural Revolution. (GRCR).
Mao knew that the main principle of demolishing revisionism is to have the masses' full support of socialism. If the masses do not take direct part in this struggle it is impossible to defeat revisionism, and even if revisionism is defeated by chance it will come back again much stronger.
Big revolutions come out of big mass movements. Even the bourgeoisie made the masses revolt against feudalism to get to power. But all reactionaries are afraid of mass movements. There are many things the ICM will learn from Mao about mass line and approach to the masses. The GPCR, at the same time was a massive action against revisionism under the leadership of proletariat. This is the standing of the masses against revisionism.
Reactionary restorations will always be dangerous as long as classes exist; however the unique way to obstruct return is the masses to own their revolution and to reach the level of ability to see through the revisionists wearing socialist masks. This may be provided by keeping the masses in class struggle.
The tactic of Mao was very clear during the GPCR. He first measures the power of the enemy by little fights; he tries to keep and understand the power balance of secondary problems and hits the enemy after determining the weakest point. He has applied this tactic during the revolutionary struggle of China. Although Liu Shao-chi was the leader and base of revisionism in China, his target was not him at the beginning. He took their weakest points and attacked on these. The weakest point of the chain was Wu Han who was attacking Mao and his ideas continuously -- and naturally indirectly-- with the support of Liu Shao-chi and Peng Chen the Mayor of Peking.
The critic was published in the newspaper, People's Daily, published in Shanghai on 30 November 1965. Everybody knew that these were the opinions of Mao. Moreover this critic was published in Shanghai and not in Peking, the centre of revisionism. As later confessed by Mao, they could not publish such an article in Peking, which was the centre of revisionism. Thus the torch of the GPCR was lit and the smallest centre of revisionism was attacked. Since Liu Shao-chi and Peng Chen knew that the weapons would be turned on them they immediately convinced Wu Han for a self- criticism. But this self-criticism was nothing more than a maneuver of revisionism.
Mao consciously appointed Peng Chen to be responsible for this group (GRCR ) managing GPCR and charged him to investigate "Wu Han's Trial." His aim was to cause the revisionists to apply his policy and to continuously make the revisionist front narrower, and at the same he was pushing Peng Chen "into the beehive" in Mao's own words.
Mao knew from his experiences in class struggle that revisionists -- who were named demons and monsters -- could not hide their real faces within the flow of events. So, Peng Chen could not hide himself any more. His corruption was dismissed in the concluding report of the GRCR. However, the Ministry of Culture was obstructing Mao and articles supporting Mao from being published in the press more and more. Consequently Mao made a very tough speech in April 1966 :
"The Propaganda Department of the Party is the Place of the King of Hell. Down with the King of Hell ! Freedom for all slaves ! I invite all states to revolt. Let us revolt against the centre. The palace of the King of Hell has to be broken." (23) Let us reply with a quotation from Mao, to the nonsense like "GPCR started automatically" and those who pretend not to see the decisions of CPC.
It was announced officially on 16 April 1966 that Cultural Revolution (it was formerly named so, however it was named "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in August) was started, and in May of the same year Peng Chen and many revisionist writers and officers were dismissed. Thus Mao succeeded in eliminating the revisionist leaders who were pushed in to the beehive by exposing them in front of the masses during the first months of GPCR, but the real struggle was just starting. It would not be so easy to beat revisionism.
Mao succeeded in dismissing the first Group Responsible for the Cultural Revolution managed by Chen at the CPC-CC meeting in May 1966. It was decided that the former GRCR was dismissed and a new GRCR linked to the CC was formed at this meeting and the well known "16 May Circular" prepared by Mao and approved by the CC was distributed to the party organisations.
Upon publishing of this circulation the GPCR gained a new dimension and a went on a new stage. The features of the GPCR like how to proceed, what the targets are, what line is foreseen, where the revisionism is and the most important "Who are going to be the Kings of the Hell" were described and a clearly described prospect of the theoretical lines and guidance for the Communist party was shown. Finally the second stage was to bring the masses into action.
Mao who aimed to overcome the revisionism and also looked at the balances of the forces within the party, tried to widen the Party's front against hard liner revisionists. Therefore, he was not "temporarily" taking certain irregularities and negative effects into consideration. It was not clear who would succeed in this fight against the revisionism in the long term. It was also not possible to overcome such a problem. Until the proletariat got liberation completely, it would go through hundreds of wars.
Mao when saying "it is not clear who will succeed," was pointing out a long-term struggle. But he was sure that the proletariat would sooner or later achieve the victory. Despite the fact that the bourgeoisie might take over the state the socialist people would never give them a moment's of rest. The GPCR initially influenced university students. It is natural that young people supported the GPCR. After all they were the most militant section of the society. Afterwards the same ideals spread all over China. They were incidents which Mao and the CCP could not have prevented.
Mao's first dazibao was called "Bombard the headquarters of bourgeoisie" and was written on the 20th of May. Liu Shao-Chi and other revisionist leaders knew perfectly, who was the target. They reacted to it. Liu Shao-Chi answered (We can not tolerate an uprising against CCP). He did not think that Mao could survive this confrontation. Revisionists had some power within the CCP.
This attitude was creating confusion amongst the masses who were unaware of the revisionist elements of the party. Liu was the president at that time who had been in the CCP for over 30 years. Unsuspecting masses could not have guessed the counter-revolutionary characteristics of the CPC's president.
He arranged a meeting of the Central Committee in 1966; although, the revisionists in the CC tried to hinder the decisions, which are known as "16 Principles." After publicising those decisions they sent them to all the party members. After that the working class started actions.
The Red Guards whose foundations were soon in May 1966, were introduced to the masses of supporters in the first demonstration after the publication of the "16 Principles." Although Mao was at present in these demonstrations he did not make any speeches. Within a short period red guards were over 30 millions in numbers and were well known all over the country. The Red Guards were controlled by the CCP. But there were problems between the right wingers and extremists of the party. Eventually the rebels were defeated and expelled from the party.
THE ROLE OF THE WORKING CLASS IN GPCR OR "THE JANUARY STORM"
We feel obliged to necessarily emphasize that criticism of the revisionist Enver Hodja, who betrayed ML, and his followers blaming Mao for being "populist," "a representative of peasants" and "a person claiming the leadership of working class" have no scientific and realistic value. Mao was an honourable communist who had always been a defender of proletarian dictatorship and worker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat and who put his defense into action during GPCR.
It was the youth --the students-- who rose in the GPCR. Mao's directives first reached them, but the workers did not lose time as of November 1966. The workers claimed to be supporters and protectors of the GPCR and seized political power. Not long after, the struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie rose in January 1967, in Shanghai. The Shanghai workers forced the GPCR to rush into the factories and lead the working class to revolution despite all difficulties and obstacles raised by the capitalists. And from then on, the workers prohibited extremist and somewhat anarchist and undisciplined movements of the intellectuals and the youth, which delivered the strongest blow against revisionism.
The working class in Shanghai was organized and lead to revolt by Yao Wen-yuan and Chang Chun-chiao from the very beginning. These leaders who signed their name on the GPCR did not act separately from Mao but, supported the theoretical and practical leading force in order for ML ideology to win over revisionism.
The practice in Shanghai revealed another plain reality. While the leaders of the working class were making efforts to set up a "Shanghai Commune" like that of Paris, Mao strongly objected to such efforts because he thought that the Party's discipline and authority should be established and group oriented, extremist democracy ideologies were to be avoided when absolute power was obtained.
The most outstanding doctrine of the Paris Commune was the undeniable reality of being obliged to destroy the previous state apparatus and establish the proletarian state and its institutions. Mao defended "Triple Alliance" for the establishment of state power. The workers' leaders of Shanghai reconstructed the administration based on Mao's (instructions).
Participation of the Chinese working class, the core of GPCR and its political appearance brought along ideological criticisms along with personal ones. Thereby the source of GPCR shifted from Peking where there were more students and intellectuals in number to Shanghai and Manchuria where workers were concentrated In the end Shanghai became the base of the GPCR. This is why the mentioned period was called "JANUARY STORM" in China.
Mao's words in August 1968 in the "People's Daily" newspaper: "We are a seven hundred-million country and the working class is our leader. The leadership of the Cultural Revolution in all fields will be in the hands of the working class" clearly explained who had to and who did lead the GPCR. As of that moment, Workers Propaganda Teams were sent to all universities and schools which put the schools under workers' control.
Some of the university students and intellectuals did not accept the intervention of workers in the schools and raised a strong objection against this, reasoning with their bourgeois beliefs that workers would not understand science. Getting rid of this habitual understanding from the minds could only be achieved after a long struggle. Chiang Ching, one of the leaders of GPCR called to the youth as follows:
"You young revolutionists and the Red Guards have given a respectable struggle in the Cultural Revolution... You have also made mistakes but there are things you will surely learn from them... The workers will protect our Red Guard fighters, and educate them. The CPC desired the masses to be actively involved in the political struggle during the Cultural Revolution and realised it but also spent great efforts to prevent regression and interruption of studies."
MAO'S TACTICS FOR STRUGGLING AGAINST REVISIONISM IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA DURING THE GPCR
With the January Storm, workers and peasants everywhere did not lose time joining the GPCR. In the meantime, the counter-revolutionaries also pursued actions to suppress the revolutionary struggle. These attempts went as far as massacring people from time to time.. Massive movement of the workers indicated the end of Deng Xiao-ping, Liu Shao-chi and the political career of many other top party administrators. Wall newspapers contained direct criticism where Liu's name was directly mentioned. Mao objected to vulgar and personally-oriented criticisms against Liu but advised them to be made with a political character, because the problem was not Liu's personality but ideology. It was a vital issue for the masses to understand and reveal his bourgeois ideology and struggle against it.
Liu Shao-chi was named the "Chinese Kruschev" by the people. Liu was discharged from the party in the 8th National Assembly's 12th extensive meeting and was sent to a people's commune in Manchuria. While Liu was exposed completely and utterly dismissed, Deng Xiao-ping managed to get through by a "convincing" self-criticism. Here questions as to why Deng, one of the GPCR's political targets, was still kept in the party and brought into office, how Mao accepted this and even whether Mao followed a wrong policy may come forward.
Throughout the struggle for classes, Mao has always defended that people could be "transformed by being purified from their faults" and "reshaped" which he managed to realize in practice. Mao's attitude towards Li Li-san and Wang Ming was a practice of this belief. He did not support immediate and unquestioned disregarding of people stating that: "we should give a hand to heal the illness" in case the faults were admitted and attempts would be made to correct them.
Mao had this ML culture adopted by the CPC whereby Deng, another target of GPCR, was treated in this respect and judgement was made that he was "sincere" in his self-criticism, because Deng submitted a self- criticism admitting his faults to the CPC. Accepting Deng's criticism of himself and not discharging him from the party --Deng was not elected as a delegate in the 9th Assembly--Mao gave signs of the general attitude that party people who were ready to admit their faults and willing to correct them would not be discharged.
Evaluation of Mao's attitude considering the final position which Deng reached would be an anti-dialectic approach. In fact what Mao did was not wrong. However, Deng's appointment to CC is questionable. In order to make a realistic assessment of the situation, it would be necessary to know the discussions and the balance of forces within the party structure. It would be wrong to blame the whole question of the restoration of capitalism in China on Deng alone. If Deng was not a capitalist roader, there would surely be another Deng to take his place.
The struggles in the CPC during the GPCR showed a great variety which Mao was well aware of. Mao's words that, "the devils can not hide themselves any longer" came out to be true. Liu and some others came into daylight with all their sick beliefs. While uniting primarily against the most dangerous devils, enemies of socialism, plans would then be directed towards the secondary enemies following the defeat of the most dangerous ones. Mao united with Lin Piao for some time because he considered Liu Shao-chi revisionism more detrimental which under prevailing circumstances of that time arose to oppose the party in China.
Lin Piao, who was the vice-Chairman of CPC, claimed that the revisionists would come to power with a coup while praising Mao on the other side. As for Mao, he did not approve Lin Piao's approach but preferred to stay silent for some time due mainly to the fact that capitalists were the primary target. While Lin Piao was speaking of a palace coup, Mao suggested that revisionists aimed to come to power through peaceful ways. What Lin Piao claimed was, in fact, a reflection of what he himself planned.
THE EFFECTS OF THE GPCR IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA
The effects of the GPCR in the international arena were much more than expected. The poisonous seeds laid by Khrushchev revisionism in the ICM and a great number of CPs sliding into revisionism together with the CPSU could neither stop the flag of ML during the GPCR nor could they prevent new, stronger parties armed with ML ideology in the light of the GPCR to be founded. Especially in colonial or semi-colonial countries, many of these radical CPs which struggled against modern revisionism, were founded.
In 1968s almost in all countries and particularly in all imperialist countries youth movements developed being dramatically affected by the GPCR. The revolutionary wind which blew in China did not stop only in China but put all the globe under its influence. Mao's prediction about the events of these times came true.
"The East wind shall prevail the Western wind"
The Chinese proletariat and people's victory in their struggle is the greatest victory of ML against the imperialist bourgeoisie. This paved the way to enter the stage of Maoism today. Those who do not accept this, those who do not see ML developed to MLM, whether they consider themselves to be communists or not will drown in the sea of revisionism. The bombardment of the bourgeois headquarters within the proletariat's own state, is an event that had not occurred before in world history. Even this by itself is an important theoretical achievement of the world proletariat.
Those who do not understand the GPCR are the modern revisionist followers of the turncoat Enver Hodja and Trotskists. But the imperialist bourgeoisie has understood the GPCR very well and has taken measures to attack it. The GPCR will maintain the victory of the socialism and throw the imperialist bourgeoisie into the dustbin of history. The GPCR has shown that the bourgeoisie appears always in different costumes. Therefore one should be vigilant to be able to continue the struggle. Because the bourgeoisie under the dictatorship of the proletariat will attack the proletariat using Marxism.
It is well known that the 11th Congress of CPC is the first step taken for the return of revisionism. Even this example as Lenin mentioned under the proletarian dictatorship, shows how the bourgeoisie can change its appearance. Here the GPCR caused the proletariat to obtain these experiences as Mao frequently stressed: to be alert against the bourgeoisie ten times, one hundred times more than the present time.
The GPCR has created a new revolutionary storm in the world. It has thrown away old ideas, and created Maoism that is the ML of today. Of course the proletariat would not be satisfied only with one GPCR. Many many more storms will have to be raised until the golden age of humanity. The curtains for the proletariat have not closed. Its curtains have just begun to be open.
· GLORY TO NEW GREAT PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTIONS!
· GLORY TO THE PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!
· GLORY TO THE MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM!
Spring 1997
|
|
| MIM Home Page |