And IN the WPB, I would give a concrete example of a revisionist: cadre with perhaps revolutionary conceptions in the past, but who can now be seen as a to bourgeois degenerated element: Boudewijn Deckers (you can read here more about Boudewijn and his conceptions)
The struggle against revisionism INSIDE the communist movement is in fact a form of class struggle. It is the essence of what is called « the struggle between two lines »: the proletarian revolutionary line against the bourgeois reactionary line (of protecting as much as possible the further existence of capitalism)
Before I go further with my analysis of the development of revisionism in the perhaps rather unknown (and most of all of his INTERN contradictions) little communist party of a little country; I will analyze the development of revisionism in the CCP with the concrete example of Deng Xiaoping.
So every-one can better judge if my analysis is correct or not, because everyone can find al information and historical facts about the CCP and Deng Xiaoping
I want now first of all sum up several similarities (I will not use here "the proof with analogies"):
It concerns in both case old respected cadres of the highest level. Both « recognized » that they had their « mistakes » and « deviations ». But both are generally recognized as well-known experts in the case of Marxist analysis and all the books of Marx, Engels and Lenin and also Stalin and Mao Zedong.
Their level of cadre of highest rank and their generally accepted authority make that in the party there is no doubt about the Marxist content of their analyses.
There are a lot of other cadres (most are younger and not so long member and know not so much of the history of the party) that have no defence against that; and integrated the opportunist and revisionist conceptions in their thinking and way of analyzing.
By those « old and experienced » cadres every correct historical collective knowledge is erased. Instead they created their own conceptions into « historical generally known facts ». And with these own created historical facts they « prove » their revisionist theory.
Militant activism becomes the most important property of the communist militants and cadres. For own study and own analysis, there is no enough time. So creates this militant activism political suivism.
Certain « ideas », but in fact bourgeois conceptions ABOUT historical facts, are accepted AS historical facts. This because they are often repeated and « proved » on the base of idealistic-metaphysical analysis, DISGUISED as « Marxist » or « dialectical-materialist » analysis.
The IDEALIST historical analysis of those « old experienced » cadres is the base of the pseudo-Marxism of the revisionists.
In fact you can say that the revisionist line is based on LIES and MISLEADING. These are essential properties of the bourgeois ideology!
Because these « old and experienced » cadres must know that they are lying and misleading, you can say that the development of revisionism by them is a CONSCIENT CHOICE for the bourgeois class.
And that is the difference between opportunism and revisionism. But the development of revisionism « uses » existing forma of opportunism (as dogmatism, empirism, economism etc.)hat are not beaten or countered.
Therefore I will precede the further analysis of development of revisionism by Boudewijn Deckers with a analysis of the evolution by Deng Xiaoping. So you can better understand my theory of CONSCIENT choice of the revisionist road and the CONSCIENT manoeuvre to made the revisionist line the political line of the whole communist party.
To understand the importance of the struggle against all forms of opportunism and the connection with it with the struggle against revisionism it is good to read Lenin’s book « the proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky » In this book I think Lenin analyses the self chosen evolution of the opportunist Kautsky to the revisionist (« renegade ») Kautsky.
For Deng Xiaoping it was important that all collective historical knowledge that the CCP and her cadres and militants had about the struggle against revisionism of the years 60 and 70 was erased.
So would slacken the vigilance against the danger of step by step growing of the same revisionism in the CCP, that had taken place in the CP-USSR.
For example you can read in one of the texts of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT »:
« At times, Khrushchov also talks about struggle between the two different social systems. But how does he see this struggle?
He has said, “The inevitable struggle between the two systems must be made to take the form exclusively of a struggle of ideas. . . .”[1]
Here the political struggle has disappeared!
He has also said:
The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states with differing socio-economic and political systems does not mean just an absence of war, a temporary state of unstable ceasefire. It presupposes the maintenance between these states of friendly economic and political relations, it envisages the establishment and development of various forms of peaceful international co-operation.[2]
Here, struggle has disappeared altogether!
Like a conjurer, Khrushchov plays one trick after another, first reducing major issues to minor ones, and then minor issues to naught. He denies the basic antagonism between the socialist and capitalist systems, he denies the fundamental contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist camps, and he denies the existence of international class struggle. And so he transforms peaceful coexistence between the two systems and the two camps into “all-round co-operation”.[3]
Well, in 1980 Deng Xiaoping said:
« Revolution means carrying out class struggle, but it does not merely mean that. The development of the productive forces is also a kind of revolution -- a very important one. It is the most fundamental revolution from the viewpoint of historical development. [4] »
And a lot of sympathisers with socialism in China who were just about to learn what Marxism is, (as myself !) believed that Deng Xiaoping meant by « productive forces » in the FIRST place the most IMPORTANT and DECESIVE productive force: the proletariat. And we thought that he was speaking over the importance of class struggle (economical ,political and ideological) to build socialism.
And for me, and I thought that Deng meant also that, « developing the productive force: the working class » is developing its political and ideological knowledge and conscience to be able to run socialist plan economy and to be able to implement the proletarian dictatorship in alliance with the peasants.
Than in 1987 Deng Xiaoping said:
« The primary task for socialism is to develop the productive forces. Our seizure of state power in 1949 liberated those forces as a whole, and the agrarian reform liberated the productive forces of the peasants, who constitute 80 per cent of China's population. So far so good. But we did a poor job of expanding the productive forces. That was chiefly because we were in too much of a hurry and adopted ``Left'' policies that hindered their development instead of accelerating it. We began making ``Left'' mistakes in the political domain in 1957; in the economic domain those mistakes led to the Great Leap Forward of 1958, which resulted in enormous damage to production and much hardship for the people..[5] »
It sounds correct. But here Deng profited from all the bourgeois « historical » studies of the revolution in China that « proved » that the Great Leap Forward was a terrible mistake creating chaos, hunger and misery. But of course that is just the point of the bourgeoisie: all real experience in socialism creates chaos, hunger and misery….. where capitalism is perhaps not the perfect but at least a better alternative.
When you study on the history of the Chinese revolution of that period you will see that this is not correct. In 1987 I didn’t know the all the texts and analyses of Deng. But in 1991 after the « Tien Anmen happenings » and all the contra revolutionary and anticommunist « analyses » I began for myself to study on the history of the Chinese revolution…. And also of the Great Leap Forward.
The Great Leap Forward was just the continuing of the ongoing socialisation of the society. And it was just what the building of socialism needed in China. And in fact Deng Xiaoping had the possibility to implement his « reform and opening » on the ACHIEVEMENTS of the period before (inclusive the Great Leap Forward)
The socialising of the society in China was just the reason that it was possible to overcome the two difficult years 1960-61. The results were much better than in INDIA were they had the « Green revolution » aided by capitalist forces…. But no cooperative movement and without altering the ownership of the land. The hunger and misery was bigger in India in the years 1960-61 but also BEFORE and AFTER those years!
Out of my report that I made in preparation of the 4th Congress of the WPB (you can read it here, but in Dutch and with all the references):
Out of bourgeois « historical analyse »:
"...The debacle of the Great Leap Forward led to the biggest hunger of human history. The number of deaths was outnumbered by 20 million and probably was nearly 30 million..."
First: in the next table are the population numbers, the mortality (0/00) and the calculated numbers of deaths.
year ........................population..................... mortality.................... number of
..............................IN MILLION. ....................IN 0/00 ..............deaths (MILLIONS)
1952 .........................574.82............................. 18................................10.34
1953......................... 582.6.............................. 17..................................9.9
1957......................... 649.5.............................. 11.................................7.14
1960......................... 675.69............................. 25.6............................17.29
1979.......................... 970................................... 7.................................6.79
So in 1960 died about 17 million people. Half of that number you can put on the account of result of the indeed serious hunger, so about 8 à 9 million. That are NOT 30 million.
Secondly, you have to look at China in the context of the development in ALL the countries of the Third World that same period.
For example India: « Also the age-structure changes in rather bad direction curiously by circumstances that are by them self favourable. Because the mortality decreased in 1900 to 1960 from 48,6 0/00 to 23,4 0/00. » [6]
So in a country left totally on her own (China) the mortality increased TEMPORARLY to the level that exists in a similar Third World country that try to develop itself wi
th the help of imperialism (India) On the figure you see the comparison between kilo grain per capita in China and in India.
By mistakes and objective problems the production of grain per capita decreased and there is hunger. But in India the production per capita is, in despite of the Green Revolution is lower. And India survives only because of big imports. By the way: China has to feed en third of people MORE than India with (in percentage) less arable surface than India. But China realises a bigger production.
...................................................................................INDIA.............. CHINA
Surface (approx.)IN MILLION KM2.................................. 3.26................... 9.5
IN %:
agriculture and tree-culture :...........................................56.1.....................12.2
of which -irrigated : .........................................................8.4
-fallow: ..........................................................................6.9
useful land .....................................................................5.2
pasture ..........................................................................4.3...................... 6.5
wood and forest .............................................................19....................... 12.7
other use .......................................................................4.7....................... 4.9
not productive ...............................................................10.1..................... 12.5
Not classified .................................................................0.6
Deng Xiaoping in 1988:
« Marx said that science and technology are part of the productive forces. Facts show that he was right. In my opinion, science and technology are a primary productive force. For us, the basic task is to maintain socialist convictions and principles, expand the productive forces and raise the people's living standards. To accomplish this task, we must open our country to the outside world. Otherwise, we shall not be able to stick to socialism. …
When I met with Husak recently, I mentioned that Marx was quite right to say that science and technology are part of the productive forces, but now it seems his statement was incomplete. The complete statement should be that science and technology constitute a primary productive force.”[7]
The proletariat as most important productive force has disappeared for Deng Xiaoping, the bourgeoisie exist no longer « as class », in socialist China as Deng Xiaoping says elsewhere…. So under socialism there is no longer class struggle?….
In a next article I will come back on conceptions that Khrushchov defended, and where judged as revisionism in the analyses of the CCP, texts that were edited by Deng Xiaoping who had the responsibility from the CCP to lead de discussions with the CP-USSR. Because the conceptions of Deng in 1978 were similar with those of Khrushchov, he has to erase a whole historical period in de development of the political line in the CCP. For me this is an example of historical idealism of a conscious revisionist.
[1] N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet ofthe USSR, January 1960.
[2] N. S. Khrushchov, “Answers to the Questions of the Austrian ProfessorHans Thirring”, Pravda, January 3, 1962.
[3] Out « PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE — TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED POLICIES Sixth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU » (December 12, 1963), In « THE GENERAL LINE OF “PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE” OF THE CPSU LEADERS« , in « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT« ,From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006
[4] Out « Selected works of Deng Xiaoping »: « TO BUILD SOCIALISM WE MUST FIRST DEVELOP THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES April-May 1980 »Talk with some leading comrades of the Central Committee, April 1, 1980
[5] Out « Selected works of Deng Xiaoping »: « TO BUILD SOCIALISM WE MUST FIRST DEVELOP THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES April-May 1980 »Excerpt from a talk with Alfonso Guerra, Deputy General Secretary of the Spanish Workers' Socialist Party and Vice-Premier of Spain.
[6] Out DE WERELD WAARIN WIJ WONEN EN WERKEN, DEEL VI "ZUID- EN OOST-AZIE, BRAZILIE", ZIEST,1963,UITGEVERSMAATSCHAPPIJ W. DE HAAN N.V.,N.V. STANDAARD UITGEVERIJ.
[7] Out « Selected works of Deng Xiaoping »:SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONSTITUTE A PRIMARY PRODUCTIVE FORCE September 5 and September 12, 1988,Excerpt from a talk with President Gustav Husak of Czechoslovakia and excerpt from remarks made after hearing a report on a tentative programme for the reform of prices and wages.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten