In any case, Mao died September 9th, 1976 and Hua arrested the Gang of Four the next month. Civil war ensued, but it was not all-out civil war, because Shanghai decided not to fight all-out.

Hua Guofeng supporters have become much fewer as time goes on, relative to supporters of the "Gang of Four." When Mao named Hua Guofeng to power, Hua was a supporter of the Cultural Revolution and swore never to drop the campaign against Deng Xiaoping. Two years later Hua Guofeng dropped the campaign against Deng and handed power to him voluntarily without a battle. Hence, those believing that Deng restored capitalism in China have little room to support Hua.

Nonetheless, occasionally we do find various fools supporting Hua--even though within China the people regard him as inept and weak. When someone says that 1978 was the year capitalism came to China instead of 1976, he or s/he is giving credit to Hua Guofeng.

One of the other reasons that some people continue mistakenly to support Hua despite his support for Deng is that Mao launched some small criticisms of the "Gang of Four." Some people use these criticisms as a reason to support Hua Guofeng's arrest of the "Gang of Four"; although the arrest led directly to the return of Deng Xiaoping to power.

An example of the confusion in the Hua Guofeng camp is the Swedish individual Rolf Martens who does not even claim to uphold Hua Guofeng while still supporting his arrest of the "Gang of Four" and still claiming to oppose Deng Xiaoping. When asked who concretely he supported if not Hua Guofeng, Rolf Martens has no one to mention, only Mao, who was already dead. Since MIM does not tolerate irresponsible idealism, MIM includes Rolf Martens and his ex-comrades in Germany in the Hua camp. Whether these idealists know it or not, political action always supports one group of leaders or another. There is no neutral camp to float to in space.

Revolutionary Communist Party of Argentina

See the statement of Otto Vargas on recent events of the communist movement, claiming to uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

Comments: The PCR-A claims to uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and speaks well of many conducting armed struggle who really are Maoists. The PCR-A takes a more classically Huaist position while speaking well of the other parties that support the "Gang of Four."

Communist Party of India(M-L)(Liberation)

The Communist Party of India (Liberation) refers to Deng Xiaoping as a "great leader," the last of the 20th century. They argue that his legacy is incomplete because whether China is going socialist or capitalist is still unknown. See their document vacillating on Deng here. If there is a problem, look here.

Liberation does not mention Hua Guofeng on its web page, but it definitely opposes the "Gang of Four" while leaving open the door to Deng--either consciously or unconsciously. That is the essence of Hua Guofeng's politics.

Comments: There are two links as of November 15th, 2002 in its webring other than itself. One is to a Taiwanese group with several reprints from the U.$.-based "Workers World." The other is the "RCP-USA"'s "Revolutionary Worker."

Fortunately there are a number of organizations in South Asia that maintain no illusions about Hua or Deng.

New Unity Group

More descriptions of the Rolf Martens problem and the late 1970s

Comment: This is a homophobic group with the worst sort of labor aristocracy line, going so far as to back nuclear power as a matter of helping the oh so impoverished German workers. The worst sort of imperialist economists, New Unity Group supported the "theory of the productive forces" much criticized by the Chinese during the Cultural Revolution by saying the Greens were wrong because they were destroying the "productive forces." Ugh.

Reading their material, we see little of substance on China. They appear to regret Yao Wenyuan's "interference" in Germany in the most sectarian way without attacking his specific line: New Unity Group on May Day 1972 and mentioning Yao Wenyuan If there is a problem, check here for the document

MIM is of the opinion that we cannot "regret" the interference of Third World revolutionaries in imperialist country movements. Quite the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the imperialist countries are incapable of generating the necessary leadership to bring about the downfall of imperialism and subsequent joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations over ex-imperialism. Of course, we must also watch out for aspiring comprador lackeys that may be calling themselves communists. In any case, there is little of any cardinal importance to what New Unity talks about.