In this article I will come back (read here the previous article) on conceptions that Khrushchev defended, and where judged as revisionism in the analyses of the CCP (in the sixties), 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 Khrushchev, 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.
You can read here the « The letter of the Central Committee of the CP-USSR to the Central Committee of the CPC » of 30 march 1963.
In this letter is said:
« The formation of the world socialist system is a historic achievement of the international working class and of all the working people. This achievement is the incarnation of mankind’s dreams of a new society. The growth of production and the vast achievements of science and engineering in the socialist countries have helped to provide the socialist community with an economic and military might that reliably defends the gains of socialism and also serves as a mighty mainstay of peace and security for the peoples of the world. [1]»
Anti-imperialist struggle, the need of socialist revolution, the proletarian dictatorship needed in the first stage of communism (that is in socialism), the continuing of class struggle under socialism, the need of a vanguard party of the proletariat, it is all gone by Khrushchev. We will see how it will all disappear by Deng Xiaoping. When capitalist production relations (commodity-production under capitalist exploitation to realize surplus value) are the best way to realize economic growth (formulated in piling of commodities produced and sold for their values, than class struggle and dictatorship are obstacles. The best way to mislead the working class and the members of the communist party is to develop a « Marxist » theory of disappearing classes and the existing of socialism and the socialist state « for the whole people ». And the vanguard party not of the proletariat only but of « the whole people » included the new managers that are realizing that economic growth based on capitalist production relations and who are allowed to have at least a part of de surplus value extracted of the labor of the workers.
Similar arguments are put forward by Deng Xiaoping for the arguing that China has first of all to increase production and to develop the production forces.
Further:
« The socialist system is exerting an ever-growing influence on the course of world development. The entire world revolutionary process is today developing under the direct influence of the great example provided by the new life in the countries of socialism. The more successfully the ideas of communism make their way to the minds and hearts of the general masses, the greater and more significant are our achievements in the building of socialism and communism. It is, therefore, clear that he who wants to bring closer the victory of socialism throughout the entire world should, in the first place, show concern for strengthening the great socialist community and its economic might, should seek to raise the standard of living of its peoples, develop science, engineering and culture, consolidate its unity and solidarity and the growth of its international authority. The Statement of the Moscow Meeting places the responsibility to the international working-class movement for the successful building of socialism and communism on the Marxist-Leninist Parties and the peoples of the socialist countries.
Tirelessly strengthening the world socialist system, the fraternal Parties and peoples of our countries make their contribution to the great cause of the struggle of the international working class, of all the working people, of the entire liberation movement for solving the basic problems of the day in the interests of peace, democracy and socialism. [2]»
In fact he defend here that a strong economic growth is the internationalist task of the existing socialist country that the USSR is. The development of the production forces is the most important issue. So there fore class struggle, anti imperialist struggle are subjugated at the strong economic growth. An economic strong socialist country is the best (in fact the only possible) contribution to the world revolution.
This could be a arguing of Deng Xiaoping himself…. as I will prove later.
Further:
« Availing themselves of the conditions of peaceful coexistence, the socialist countries are scoring more and more victories in the economic competition with capitalism. Our adversaries realize that it is difficult for them to count on winning the competition against us. They are unable to keep up with the rapid economic advance of the socialist countries; they are powerless in the face of the appeal that the example of the socialist countries makes to the peoples under capitalism’s yoke.
As the economy of the socialist commonwealth advances, the advantages and superiority of socialism, and the greater opportunities of the working people to obtain material and spiritual riches, as compared to capitalism, will display themselves more and more vividly. The rising standards of living the socialist countries are a great magnet for the working class of all the capitalist countries. The achievements of the socialist commonwealth will constitute a kind of catalyst, a revolutionizing factor in broadening the class struggle in the capitalist countries and enabling the working class to triumph over capitalism.
The peoples embarking on socialism inherit from the past economies and cultures at different levels. Regardless of this, however, socialism awakens mighty productive forces — as exemplified by the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies.
The Soviet Union has already outpaced the leading capitalist countries of Europe in economic development and has taken second place in the world; the time is not far off when it will take first place in the world. The other socialist countries have likewise gained great successes. The socialist system is so progressive by nature that it enables the peoples to swiftly eliminate their backwardness, to catch up with the more highly-developed countries, and, marching in one rank with them, to fight for the building of communism.
All this inspires the peoples, giving them the conviction that they can embark upon the road of socialism and score achievements, regardless of their present level of historical development. The advance of the peoples to a new life is facilitated by their opportunity to select the best from the world’s experience in building socialism, taking into account both the merits and the shortcomings in the practices of socialist construction.
The faster the productive forces of the socialist countries develop, the higher their economic potential will rise, and the stronger the influence of the socialist community will become on the rate and trend of the whole of historical development in the interests of peace and of the complete triumph of socialism.[3] »
So is said that the goal is, the only possible internationalist contribution is, the proof of the superiority of socialism is, to realize a bigger economic growth. (Formulated in terms of GDP this means in fact a bigger growth of commodity production) than equivalent imperialist powers. There fore the socialist power has to compete economically with equivalent imperialist powers. And therefore there has to be peaceful coexistence by all means.
So the most important force for the socialism becoming stronger is « the development of the productive forces ». It could be Deng Xiaoping speaking!
Deng Xiaoping was the cadre of the CPC to lead the discussion with the CPUSSR. So he had at least to defend the CPC point of view against the revisionist line of the CPUSSR.
You can read here the first answer of the CPC on the letter of de CPUSSR of 30 March 1963
As answer AGAINST the points of view of Khrushchev here above (and that are similar to that of Deng Xiaoping) the CPC (and also Deng Xiaoping at that moment) said[4]:
« Lenin’s principle of peaceful coexistence is very clear and readily comprehensible by ordinary people. Peaceful coexistence designates a relationship between countries with different social systems, and must not be interpreted as one pleases.
It should never be extended to apply to the relations between oppressed and oppressor nations, between oppressed and oppressor countries or between oppressed and oppressor classes, and never be described as the main content of the transition from capitalism to socialism, still less should it be asserted that peaceful coexistence is mankind’s road to socialism. The reason is that it is one thing to practice peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems.
It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countries practicing peaceful coexistence to touch even a hair of each other’s social system. The class struggle, the struggle for national liberation and the transition from capitalism to socialism in various countries are quite another thing. They are all bitter, life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at changing the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the people. The transition from capitalism to socialism in any country can only be brought about through the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country.
In the application of the policy of peaceful coexistence, struggles between the socialist and imperialist countries are unavoidable in the political, economic and ideological spheres, and it is absolutely impossible to have “all-round co-operation”.
It is necessary for the socialist countries to engage in negotiations of one kind or another with the imperialist countries.
It is possible to reach certain agreements through negotiation by relying on the correct policies of the socialist countries and on the pressure of the people of all countries. But necessary compromises between the socialist countries and the imperialist countries do not require the oppressed peoples and nations to follow suit and compromise with imperialism and its lackeys. No one should ever demand in the name of peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nations should give up their revolutionary struggles.
The application of the policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries is advantageous for achieving a peaceful international environment for socialist construction, for exposing the imperialist policies of aggression and war and for isolating the imperialist forces of aggression and war. But if the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries is confined to peaceful coexistence, then it is impossible to handle correctly either the relations between socialist countries or those between the socialist countries and the oppressed peoples and nations. Therefore it is wrong to make peaceful coexistence the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries.
In our view, the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries should have the following content: to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and cooperation among the countries in the socialist camp in accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism; to strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five Principles with countries having different social systems and oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war; and, to support and assist the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations.
These three aspects are interrelated and indivisible, and not a single one can be omitted.[5] »
To develop his version of « peaceful coexistence » (I will give his arguments in his texts later) Deng Xiaoping has to erase the points of view that the CPC defended in the sixties (and that Deng himself has to defend, as the responsible cadre of the CPC to lead the discussion with the CP-USSR) out of the historic collective memory of the CPC.
Because in 1963 the CPC (and Deng Xiaoping also!) said further:
« For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power, class struggle continues as an objective law independent of man’s will, differing only in form from what it was before the taking of power.
After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that:
a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the “paradise” they have been deprived of.
b. New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere.
c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the petty bourgeoisie.
d. The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist country are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists’ threat of armed intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration.
Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin’s.
For decades or even longer periods after socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization, it will be impossible to say that any socialist country will be free from those elements which Lenin repeatedly denounced, such as bourgeois hangers-on, parasites, speculators, swindlers, idlers, hooligans and embezzlers of state funds; or to say that a socialist country will no longer need to perform or be able to relinquish the task laid down by Lenin of conquering “this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism”.
In a socialist country, it takes a very long historical period gradually to settle the question of who will win — socialism or capitalism. The struggle between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism runs through this whole historical period. This struggle rises and falls in a wave-like manner, at times becoming very fierce, and the forms of the struggle are many and varied.
The 1957 Declaration rightly states that “the conquest of power by the working class is only the beginning of the revolution, not its conclusion”.
To deny the existence of class struggle in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the necessity of thoroughly completing the socialist revolution on the economic, political and ideological fronts is wrong, does not correspond to objective reality and violates Marxism-Leninism. »
To defend the Marxist base of his economic policy of « reform and opening » he has to make of the point of view here above of the CPC in answer to the revisionist line Khrushchev (and the point of view that he has defended at that time) a « left opportunist line » So he is historical idealist in stead of historical materialist..
Further the CPC(and Deng) in 1963:
« What will happen if it is announced, halfway through, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary?
Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Does this not license the development of “this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism”?
In other words, this would lead to extremely grave consequences and make any transition to communism out of the question.
Can there be a “state of the whole people”? Is it possible to replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a “state of the whole people”?
This is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular country but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class state. So long as the state remains a state, it must bear a class character; so long as the state exists, it cannot be a state of the “whole people”. As soon as society becomes classless, there will no longer be a state.
Then what sort of thing would a “state of the whole people” be?
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism can understand that the so-called “state of the whole people” is nothing new. Representative bourgeois figures have always called the bourgeois state a “state of all the people”, or a “state in which power belongs to all the people”.[6]
To defend the development of capitalism and the weakening of the proletarian dictatorship, Deng has to defend that « in fact there is no more a real capitalist CLASS" in China, because seen formally there is quasi -none existing no more private ownership of means of production. So capitalists, that accept the (actual) program and statutes of the communist party, can become member (the communist party as vanguard of the proletariat has no real meaning when the capitalist class no longer exists). So the point of view, that was that of the CPC itself (and defended by Deng himself can so be catalogued as « left opportunism ».
This counts also for the point of view of the CPC of 1963 (and that of Deng himself) that is now following:
« Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist together with the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialist countries. The party of the proletariat is indispensable for the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The reason is that the dictatorship of the proletariat has to struggle against the enemies of the proletariat and of the people, remould the peasants and other small producers, constantly consolidate the proletarian ranks, build socialism and effects the transition to communism; none of these things can be done without the leadership of the party of the proletariat.
Can there be a “party of the entire people”? Is it possible to replace the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat by a “party of the entire people”?
This, too, is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular Party, but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party. All political parties have a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated expression of class character.
The party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of the whole people. It can do so precisely because it represents the interests of the proletariat, whose ideas and will it concentrates. It can lead the whole people because the proletariat can finally emancipate itself only with the emancipation of all mankind, because the very nature of the proletariat enables its party to approach problems in terms of its present and future interests, because the party is boundlessly loyal to the people and has the spirit of self-sacrifice; hence its democratic centralism and iron discipline.
Without such a party, it is impossible to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and to represent the interests of the whole people.
What will happen if it is announced halfway before entering the higher stage of communist society that the party of the proletariat has become a “party of the entire people” and if its proletarian class character is repudiated?
Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the party of the proletariat? Does this not disarm the proletariat and all the working people, organizationally and ideologically, and is it not tantamount to helping restore capitalism? Is it not “going south by driving the chariot north” to talk about any transition to communist society in such circumstances?[7] »
In next articles (beginning here with this article) I will show how the formulation of the conceptions of Deng Xiaoping develops in time. I will use the chronology of texts out of Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping. You will see for example how « working class », « class struggle », « proletarian dictatorship » is gradually disappearing from 1978 to the eighties.
[1] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006
[2] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006
[3] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006
[4] The whole text of “The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963) you can read here.
[5] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT »,“A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT”: “The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963”(June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006.
[6] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT- The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006
[7] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT- The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten