The political line of the CPC, after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976, was more and more based on revisionism. This revisionist politic line, perhaps in the beginning combated by people like for example Hua Guofeng (and who became more isolated in the party) is in fact since 1978, the leading political line of the CPC. He is developed by Deng Xiaoping since 1978.
I will prove this in the coming articles using texts of Deng Xiaoping himself.
People or organisations, who now defend socialism in China (against the political and ideological attacks out of the imperialist world) but who are not making an analysis from and who are not fighting (political and ideological) against the revisionism in the CPC, are, as I see it, no Marxists, communists or revolutionaries (nor as individual nor as organisation).
Individuals or organisation like that, are by THEMSELVES contaminated by revisionism.
This MUST have repercussions on their OWN political, ideological and organisational work in their OWN region, where someday they will have to mobilise and lead the working masses to revolution.
In a series of articles on this web log (mostly in Dutch- but once I will translate all this) I already have illustrated this analysing the evolutions in the Workers Party of Belgium, with an analysis of conceptions by different cadres of the WPB as example.
Sympathisers with the socialist peoples republic of China can perhaps give positive facts that prove that China is STILL socialist, which is the reason that China deserves solidarity but also lie under the attack of pro-capitalist forces in the world. They try to give OTHER information. This is a good and necessary thing to do.
But I am fighting those who defend the authentically Marxist character of the economical policy actual in China and are claiming that socialism has been strengthened since 1978. Particularly when they are cadre in a, or representing a communist organisation. They are, I think; from the same calibre as Kautsky opposed by Lenin and named by him as « renegade ».
I will prove all this, being in fact the main goal of my analysis of the actual revisionism.
I want to prove now (being the next step in my analysis from the ACTUAL revisionism in the international communist movement) that the line of the CPC since 1978 is the OPPOSITE of the line of that same CPC before the dead of Mao Zedong.
All what the CPC was fighting against (with indeed a big contribution of Mao Zedong but ALSO what concerned the conceptions of Deng Xiaoping which he defended AT THAT TIME) is after 1978 becoming a part of the political line of the CPC!
Summarizing (and that is indeed simplifying) I think that you can say that de line of the CPC since 1978 is going back to the revisionist line that Liu Chaochi (in the years ‘50s) defended, in OPPOSITION with the line of Mao Zedong. The official line of the CPC you can see it as the result of the struggle between two lines (the revolutionary line and the bourgeois/revisionist line), and therefore reflects a temporary outcome of that struggle.
Deng Xiaoping:
« A question which now confronts you is how the Anshan Iron and Steel Company should be updated. Whenever foreign technology is introduced, we should first master it and then upgrade or renovate it. You have many tasks ahead of you at this point, such as the training of workers and cadres. If you fail to do so, then they will not be capable of acquiring advanced foreign technology. We had a serious lesson along these lines. It is important for us to seize the hour, because our country is going to introduce about 1,000 projects from other countries. All our technologies and equipment as well as supporting facilities should be modern and up to the highest standards of the 1970s. The world is advancing. If we do not develop our technology, we cannot catch up with the developed countries, let alone surpass them, and we shall be trailing behind at a snail's pace. We should take the world's advanced scientific and technological achievements as starting points for our country's development. Such a lofty aspiration should be ours.
It is a good idea for the Anshan Iron and Steel Company to cut down the number of its staff members and departments. As for those units to be dissociated from the company, it is important that it should not have too many administrators or staff personnel. Large numbers of people in a modern and automated enterprise lead only to poor management. A steel enterprise with an annual output of six million tons in Japan has only 600 administrators, whereas the Anshan Iron and Steel Company with the same annual output has 23,000 managerial personnel. This is surely unreasonable. When advanced technology and equipment are imported, we must run enterprises with advanced management and operation techniques and set attainable quotas. In other words, we should manage the economy in accordance with the laws governing economic development. In a word, we need a revolution instead of just reforming the economy.
If we want to update enterprises so that their technology and management can reach the required level, we must have qualified managerial staff and workers. After technological upgrading, large numbers of workers with relatively high educational and technological levels should appear, otherwise new technologies and equipment cannot be used. All cadres and workers should be evaluated. Those who are unqualified should be designated as supernumerary personnel. Their livelihood should be guaranteed, but they cannot enjoy the same treatment as assigned personnel. They should be organized to study and receive training so as to become qualified for new jobs. We should resolve to accomplish this task.
Qualified managerial staff and workers should enjoy better treatment, so that the principle of distribution according to work can be truly carried out.[1] »
« We should take the world's advanced scientific and technological achievements as starting points for our country's development. »
« When advanced technology and equipment are imported, we must run enterprises with advanced management and operation techniques and set attainable quotas. In other words, we should manage the economy in accordance with the laws governing economic development. »
« Large numbers of workers with relatively high educational and technological levels should appear…Those who are unqualified should be designated as supernumerary personnel. Their livelihood should be guaranteed, but they cannot enjoy the same treatment as assigned personnel. They should be organized to study and receive training so as to become qualified for new jobs. … Qualified managerial staff and workers should enjoy better treatment, so that the principle of distribution according to work can be truly carried out. »
Here Deng Xiaoping is very clear in what he means by « development of productive forces ». Sometimes Marx spoke very general about « productive forces » (and of course Deng Xiaoping, and other revisionists will use in an eclecticist way these quotes) But MOSTLY Marx talked about the most important productive force, « the working class » and about her « development » and « ripening ». He was talking about development of political and ideological consciousness and development of her organisational strength in function of that consciousness. And THAT is developing with the gaining of understanding the functioning and development of capitalism, by experiences in class struggle, by the discussion (or political and ideological struggle) In the working class itself, and gaining knowledge about scientific socialism (often through intellectuals who, mostly coming out of the bourgeoisie, definitively chose to become part of the working class and want to be a part of her revolutionary mission)
Deng speaks about technology and its implementation as if it has no class character as if they are « neutral ». In his eyes the « avant-garde » of the working class are those who have knowledge about « modern technology » and about « modern management techniques ». Here we are far away from one of the achievements of the Cultural Revolution: being RED and EXPERT.
It will be easier for people, once part of the bourgeoisie and having the possibilities to study, having foreign contacts, to fulfil at Deng’s criteria, than a peasant, being part over generations of the poor peasantry but enthusiast vanguard of the collectivisation movement in agriculture and now deciding becoming steel-worker
The most important reason for Deng Xiaoping of introducing the most advanced technologies is « to prove the superiority of socialism by passing the developed countries »: so being capable to COMPETE (and this means capitalist competition) with the bigger IMPERIALIST countries.
Deng Xiaoping:
«For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". We have come to understand how stupid this argument is. Therefore, we have sent many people abroad to familiarize themselves with the outside world. China cannot develop by closing its door, sticking to the beaten track and being self-complacent.
Due to the interference of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four, China's development was held up for ten years. In the early 1960s, we were behind the developed countries in science and technology, but the gap was not so wide. However, over the past dozen years, the gap has widened because the world has been developing with tremendous speed. Compared with developed countries, China's economy has fallen behind at least ten years, perhaps 20, 30, or even 50 years in some areas. What will the world be like in 22 years at the end of the century? What will those developed countries, including your country, be like after 22 years of further development based on the development of the 1970s? It will be quite difficult for us to realize the four modernizations[2] so that we can reach your current level of development by the end of this century, let alone catch up with your country at that time. Therefore, to achieve the four modernizations, we must be adept at learning from other countries and we must obtain a great deal of foreign assistance. As a starting point in our development, we should introduce advanced technology and equipment from the rest of the world.
You ask us whether it runs counter to our past traditions to implement the policy of opening to the outside world. Our approach is to define new policies according to new circumstances, while retaining our best traditions. We must stick to that which has proven to be effective, and in particular, to our basic systems, that is, the socialist system and socialist public ownership, and we must never waver in doing so. We shall not allow a new bourgeoisie to come into being. We will introduce advanced technology for the purpose of expanding our productive forces and improving the people's living standards. This will benefit our socialist country and our socialist system. It is even closer to following our socialist system to find ways to achieve greater, better, faster, and more economical results in development than not to do so. [3]»
Here Deng Xiaoping creates his own « history » were he can base on his revisionist analyse and can make the conclusions he WANT to make: development of COMMODITY-production (that finds its highest possible form in …. capitalism), winning the competition (and that can be no other than CAPITALIST competition) with the bigger IMPERIALIST countries, therefore generate surplus value through capitalist exploitation, and through a very high « economic growth » (so growth of Gross Domestic Product being the produced products at their sell-value so the pile of COMMODITIES) allow higher incomes, creating so a domestic market and a « harmonious » and « quiet » political climate. You can compare this with creation of the post war « welfare-states » like Germany or France until about 1980. Of course China has not the neo-colonial exploitation relation that the western imperialist countries have. But with his big surface and big population China creates his own « exploitation relation »; namely the domestic migrants
Deng Xiaoping creates a formulation of « a bad situation » or a « bad development»:
« For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". …China's development was held up for ten years. In the early 1960s, we were behind the developed countries in science and technology, … China's economy has fallen behind at least ten years, perhaps 20, 30, or even 50 years in some areas. »
And the responsibility of that « bad situation » or « bad development » lies by « Lin Biao and the Gang of Four »
The Chinese revolution, the struggle not to let stagnate him on the level of the National Democratic Revolution by mobilising the workers in alliance with the peasants, to raise their consciousness (by political formation and discussion and by experiences based on the practice of class struggle), to go to socialism and to fight against revisionism….. It is all erased by Deng Xiaoping.
What is left only? « For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". We have come to understand how stupid this argument is. Therefore, we have sent many people abroad to familiarize themselves with the outside world. China cannot develop by closing its door, sticking to the beaten track and being self-complacent. »
For Deng Xiaoping it was important to pull a line under EVERYTHING of the past that could stop his policy of « reform and opening ». At this moment Deng Xiaoping could only lay the blame on « Lin Biao and the Gang of Four ». Those five former cadres in the CPC are NOT judged by Deng Xiaoping on their possible mistakes in strengthening socialism, powerful attitude against imperialism, struggle against revisionism, raising a higher political and ideological consciousness by the working masses and their better and more correct way of developing class struggle and therefore a stronger proletarian dictatorship and the transformation of capitalist commodity- production and commodity economy in production in function of needs in a socialist plan economy.
The group round Lin Biao wanted, based on « left » sounding slogans (to use the revolutionary energy present by the working people), to bring an elite to power. Being not a strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship it could only be finally (in spite of all « left » phraseology)…. The bourgeois dictatorship (in the form of a militaristic fascist-like regime)
What is concerning the so-called « Gang of Four », it is more complicated. But one can say that Deng Xiaoping ties all his negative judgements on all that ever opposed the « consolidation of the national democratic revolution » and on all what was mobilising to go from the national democratic revolution further into the socialist revolution.
At THAT moment (in 1978, only two years after the dead of Mao Zedong) he could not attack all essential achievements of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, because he has to erase first the collective historic memory of the party members and « replace » it by his idealist and metaphysical conceptions. Therefore he is here just « attacking » the indeed opportunist and revisionist deviations that came forward in the Cultural Revolution.
When Deng Xiaoping is here comparing China’s « backwardness » with the situation in the « developed » (so BIG IMPERIALIST) countries, he is fixed on a strong economic growth that make it possible to create a reasonable middleclass that will be the « patriotic » supporter of a policy that can only end in ….. a bourgeois dictatorship. That middleclass must support a policy that deteriorate the proletarian dictatorship, that means the (re)- introducing of « the workforce of the workers as a commodity », the strengthening of COMMODITY-production (where of the capitalist way of production is the HIGHEST form) working against the forming of socialist plan economy based on a production in function of needs.
Later we will see that Deng Xiaoping classifies China being a part of the Third World. Here he is comparing China with developed imperialist countries, putting the goal that China, by means of CAPITALIST competition, comes on the level of the biggest imperialist countries.
« Compared with developed countries, China's economy has fallen behind » With this IDEA (= idealism, NOT materialism) Deng Xiaoping want to prove that socialist plan economy and a socialisation movement is NOT superior to COMMODITY-production-economy (of which capitalism is the highest possible form).
Otherwise Deng Xiaoping had compared China with THIRD WORLD countries that are (still) capitalist. (Like for example India or Brazil - Is it not Deng Xiaoping himself that classifies China in the third world countries??) Because than would be obvious that China during the Great Leap Forward, was SUPERIOR to for example India during the « Green Revolution » at that same moment, or was SUPERIOR to the by the USA supported neo colonial policy in Brazil in THE SAME PERIOD meaning for the biggest part of the Brazilian people hunger, poverty, death squadrons and repression.
Do you think this a little extreme (you can always react - I will answer) that I get all this out of a quote out of a speech that Deng Xiaoping gave in 1978 to western journalists?
Well, in a next article I will analyse bigger parts out of a speech that Deng Xiaoping hold in 1978 on a national congress of Chinese unions. (I interupted the analyse of the texts of Deng Xiaoping to continue analysing revisionism out of another aspect of it, read this next article +explanation about this interuption)
[1] UPDATE ENTERPRISES WITH ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGERIAL EXPERTISE September 18, 1978, Excerpt from remarks made when hearing a report from the leading comrades of the Anshan Municipal Party Committee.
[2] These refer to the modernization of China's industry, agriculture, national defence and science and technology.
[3] CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF OPENING TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND LEARN ADVANCED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES October 10, 1978, Excerpt from a talk with a press delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten