Peter Franssen "creates" a main contradiction between a - nowhere proved by him, but beyond no doubt - "correct line of the CCP based on correct applying scientific socialism" and "a line of utopian socialism". Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley are « utopians »(utopian-socialists as Fourier and Owen) when they want to build socialism in the circumstances of China " when capitalist production was as yet so little developed" So " the appropriation by society of all the means of production could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only when the actual conditions for its realisation were there". So "not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions". So for Peter Franssen (and also for Deng Xiaoping aqs I will prove later) class struggle and mobilisation of the workers and raising their conscienceness to " the appropriation by society of all the means of production" is "changing property relations at will." This is for Peter Franssen, "utopian socialism" because " the property relations of each epoch are the necessary result of the modes of production and the way trade is carried on in that period" and for Peter Franssen they could only be « capitalist » in China of 1949 where a revolution take place in a backward economic coutry, with a majority of agricultural workers and peasants. In that stade must first be a capitalistic development because the backwartnes of the production forces. That revolution in 1949 could be no more than the national democratic revolution. And China had to stay in that situation, that later was called « the primary stad of socialism » for a very long time.
And with quotes of Mao Zedong and Lenin he prove that hey agreed with this.
But where the quotes SEEM to prove the correctness of the IDEAS of Peter Franssen, a study of the full texts of Lenin and Mao Zedong (and in fact also Marx) out of wich Peter Franssen collect their quotes, shows that Peter Franssen makes not a marxist analysis. He is in fact IDEALIST (use "marxist fraseology" to prove his IDEAS) He is METAFYSIC where he claims that history repeats itself in an analogue way, so the conclusions of the past fits for the situation of today.
I will prove the developed revisionism of Peter Franssen. First, it is clear that he have studied a great deal of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao. Only than he could find the right quotes that he could use to « prove » his analysis.
So one can be sure that he is concsious of the fact that he takes quotes out of a historical context. He had to be aware of the general line of the texts. So he is concsious of the fact that he is misleading people. So one can say that he has chosen for the (revisionisst) side of the bourgeoisie.
So Peter Franssen claims that Mao said that after the revolution of 1949 the most important thing were "good relations and an united front with the national bourgoisie" and that the sitation was not ripe for elimination of capitalism.
And Mao should agree with Lenin who sais that ther has to be a NEP for a long time. And the essentials of the NEP was in fact in they eyes of Peter Franssen: allowing to develop capitalist Enterprises and factorys and the investing of foreign capital in factorys in the Soviet Union and in China.
I will prove the revisionism of Peter Franssen. I will begin to put the quotes of Lenin chosen by Peter Franssen back in the context of the texts of Lenin were I will put this quotes in Italic-fat.
Peter Franssen further:
In 1921 Lenin made a self-criticism concerning the period of the three previous years. He wrote: “We expected… to be able to organise the state production and the state distribution of products on communist lines in a small-peasant country directly as ordered by the proletarian state. Experience has proved that we were wrong. ”  This mistake had led, said Lenin, to a serious defeat: “In attempting to go over straight to communism we, in the spring of 1921, sustained a more serious defeat on the economic front than any defeat inflicted upon us by Kolchak, Denikin or Pilsudski. This defeat was much more serious, significant and dangerous. It was expressed in the isolation of the higher administrators of our economic policy from the lower and their failure to produce that development of the productive forces which the Programme of our Party regards as vital and urgent. ” Hence the New Economic Policy with among others this directive of Lenin: “ We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires. ” Lenin added that this period could last a long time: “But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the co-operatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. ”
And naturally, just as nowadays, the critics howled: “ The Bolsheviks have reverted to capitalism! ”Lenin scolded them: “They are not assisting but hindering economic development; … they are not assisting but hindering the proletarian revolution; … they are pursuing not proletarian, but petty-bourgeois aims. ”
Peter Franssen « chooses » quotes out of the following texts of Lenin:
-"New Times and Old Mistakes" (You can here read the full text with the by Peter Frannsen quote in italic-fat)
-"On Cooperation" (IDEM)
-"Fourth anniversary of the October Revolution"(IDEM)
I will now comment (in the next article) this three texts of Lenin, one by one and prove how Peter Franssen is misleading.
 Read article no 1, no 2 and no 3 about the text of Peter Franssen (member of the leading organ of the Workers Party of Belgium: "Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China". ( you can read this full text here) His text was "contribution on an international symposium was held in the Chinese city of Wuhan. The organisers were the University of Wuhan, the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the CC of the Communist Party of China and the Academy of Social Sciences of China. 32 Chinese speakers made contributions, as well as 13 foreigners".
 Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58
 Lenin, The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments, , Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.63.
 Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28
 Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.
 Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, pp.21 and 24.
 Ibidem, p.27