Revisionism, the bourgoisie inside the communist movement.(4)

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".^[1] 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. ” ^[2] 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. ”^[3] 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. ”^[4] 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. ”^[5]
And naturally, just as nowadays, the critics howled: “ The Bolsheviks have reverted to capitalism! ”^[6]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. ”^[7]

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.

---

^[1] 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".

^[2] Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58

^[3] Lenin, The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments, , Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.63.

^[4] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28

^[5] Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.

^[6] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, pp.21 and 24.

^[7] Ibidem, p.27

Revisionism, the bourgoisie inside the communist movement.(3)

When "Peter Franssen, journalist with the Belgian weekly Solidaire and researcher at the Institute for Marxist Studies, wrote a contribution, 'Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China[1], (Peter Franssen is also member of the leading organs of the Workers Party of Belgium) at "an international symposium was held in the Chinese city of Wuhan, organised by 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"[2], he has to make the following -although formal - statement:

The mode of production and the structure of the economy have in the last 25 years taken big steps towards the level where social ownership of all important means of production will once again become necessary.

But who will lead this proces of renewed expropriation? And how will it be done? By a communist party who said: "enrich yourselves"? A communist party whose official point of view is that the moments of class-struggle and socialisation ( The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution) were "moments of anarchy, voluntarism and chaos never to be repeated"? By a communist party were more and more capitalists become member ( and so, as member will contribute to the political line of the party)? A communist party who led the privatisation of state-enterprises that ar now "quasi-owned" by cadres of the communist party? Will the capitalists expropriate themselves? Peter Franssen says that there are now, more industrial workers compared with the numbers in 1949. But with a deterioration of the "dictature of the proletariat", more and more the installlation of the "dictature of the bourgeoisie" become reality. Than "social ownership of all important means of production" means the construction of ….state-capitalism in a state ruled by the bourgoisie.
Peter Franssen:

When the revolution took place in 1949 agriculture and individual craft industry made up 90 % of the economy. There were scarcely 3 million industrial workers, 0.6 % of the population. Agriculture has since dropped to less than 20 % and will according to plan make up only 10 % in 2010. The proportion for industry will then be 50 % and for the tertiary sector 40 %.[3]

Now he wil show clearly his revisionist method of analyse under "marxist fraseology", here in the form of eclecticistic dogmatism", where he continues:

We have seen how Engels and Marx sketch the dialectical relationship between mode of production and production relations and how the Utopians set themselves outside this reality and daydream about a perfect society. …
Friedrich Engels …wrote: “The utopians, we saw, were utopians because they could be nothing else at a time when capitalist production was as yet so little developed. They necessarily had to construct the elements of a new society out of their own heads, because within the old society the elements of the new were not as yet generally apparent; for the basic plan of the new edifice they could only appeal to reason, just because they could not as yet appeal to contemporary history. ”[4]

Here, Peter Franssen shows how he want to "prove" with al lot of eclecticism and dogmatism via historical analogies, that Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley make thet identical "utopic-socialist mistakes" as "the Utopians" who lived at the beginning of the capitalist development. Yes they lived BEFORE Engels and Marx made their analysises. They lived BEFORE Engels and Marx COULD make them because capitalism had a certain development whereby the economic laws of capitalist development only then could show themselves. Read what Peter Franssen says:

However, the Utopians who lived in Engels’ day and those of today, Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley no longer have that excuse. They can read what Engels says: “Since the historical appearance of the capitalist mode of production, the appropriation by society of all the means of production has often been dreamed of, more or less vaguely, by individuals, as well as by sects, as the ideal of the future. But it could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only when the actual conditions for its realisation were there. Like every other social advance, it becomes practicable, not by men understanding that the existence of classes is in contradiction to justice, equality, etc., not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions. ”[5]

With these general statements of Engels, bound to specific concrete historical situations, Peter Franssen let Engels (out of his grave?) make an anlalysis of the situation in China in 1949.
So "by the utopists of today… the appropriation by society of all the means of production has …been dreamed of… as the ideal of the future…. But it could become possible, … only when the actual conditions for its realisation are there. …it becomes practicable, … by virtue of certain new economic conditions". And Mao is not an utopist for Peter Franssen and Deng Xiaoping when he says….:

After the revolution of 1949, Mao Zedong invoked these same economic conditions to plead for good relations and a united front with the national bourgeoisie. He declared: “The view held by certain people that it is possible to eliminate capitalism and realise socialism at an early date is wrong, it does not tally with our national conditions. ”[6]

…But when Mao said otherwise he became an utopist for Peter Franssen and for Deng Xiaoping. (I will prove this later with other texts of Peter Franssen and texts of Deng Xiaoping himself)

You can here read my further analysis of the text of Peter Franssen.

---

[1] The text itself you can read here, I started an analyse of this text here in this article.

[2] Read here in the introduction of the text of Peter Franssen.

[3] Li Jingwen and Zhang Xiao, China's Environmental Policies in the 21st Century, Chinese Academy of Social Science, Beijing, 1999.

[4] Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Marx & Engels, Collected Works, Volume 25 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch23.htm

[5] Ibidem, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm.

[6] Mao Zedong, Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in the Nation’s Financial and Economic Situation, Selected Works, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1977, Volume V, p.30.

Revisionism, the bourgoisie inside the communist movement.(2)

In the first article (you can read it here) I tried to prove how actual revisionism uses excisting forms of opportunism as: eclecticism, dogmatism, idealism (ideas are seen as facts) and metafysica (history repeats itself in the form of analogies). I will go on with an example of revisionism"Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China", by Peter Franssen, a leading cadre of the Workers Party of Belgium. (you can read this text here)
In an eclecticistic way and with the conception as if there are analogies in history, as if history repeats itself or as if it is a cycle-movement instead of an spiralic movement, Peter Frannssen "creates"his own reality:

All that teaches us that socialism is a transition system containing characteristics of the feudal and capitalist past and of the communist future. Socialism is no static situation but a movement from low to high, from primary to developed. Socialism will itself come to an end and pass into communism, as soon as all the economic, political, social, religious, moral and cultural vestiges of feudal and capitalist production relations in social structures are a thing of the past, and as soon as the members of society have left these vestiges in their behaviour and thought behind. Socialist transition society will necessarily last for a very long historical period and will, like all previous societies, constantly change its structure.

Here he denies the existing of the continuing of class-struggle under socialism. That class-struggle is reflected in the communist party, for example, in the struggle between revolutionairy line and revisionism. Under socialism the struggle against imperialism is reflected in the struggle against the remains of capitalism that have alliances with the still existing imperialist worldsystem. That is one of the reasons that the "dictature of the proletariat" is necessary under socialism. As we will see, is the idea of Peter Franssen ( an also that of Deng Xiaoping, as I will prove later) that the commodity-production, and with it the law of value has to be allowed to develop unhindered under socialism. They also claim that there has to be a long "primary stade of socialism". They mean in fact (as I will prove also) with this, that the situation of democratic national revolution has to be maintained "to develop to its ultimate the production-forces" BEFORE that the "productionrelations can be changed". So the socialist planeconomy, the expropriating of the capitalists, the installation of state-enterprises under control of the "dictature of the proletariat" has to wait until then. That is the reason of the demanteling of the communes, the privatisation of state-enterprises, the replacment of planeconomy by marketeconomy: a RETURN to the situation of (bourgeois) national democratic revolution.
Everybody who said otherwise (so ALSO Mao Zedong in the fifties and sixties in the eyes of Deng Xiaoping) is an "utopist"… "because Engels says so in 1844", claimed Peter Franssen:

Some observers, Marxists or not, have not understood this basic idea of Engels and Marx and get very upset when they hear the words « socialist construction in China ».
One of the texts circulating in Western Europe and the United States is the book « China and Socialism » by two American professors, Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett. There one can read the following: « Beginning in 1978, the Chinese Communist Party embarked on a market-based reform process that, while allegedly designed to reinvigorate the effort to build socialism, has actually led in the opposite direction and at great cost to the Chinese people. »[1] A few pages further is this: « Despite the hopes of many on the left, it is our argument that China's market reform process has led the country not toward a new form of socialism, but rather an increasingly hierarchical and brutal form of capitalism. »[2] The objective reader will be flummoxed by this bold conclusion: what we’re talking about is “a brutal form of capitalism” with a ”great cost to the Chinese people”. Professor Minqi Li from York University comments as follows: “Hart-Landsberg and Burkett present an insightful analysis of the internal and external contradictions of Chinese capitalism. They convincingly argue that the Chinese experiment of market socialism has led to nothing less than full-fledged capitalism. China and Socialism will prove to be one of the most important contributions to the Marxist literature on contemporary China”.
We can point to another piece of writing that is being diligently studied: From Situational Dialectics to Pseudo-Dialectics: Mao, Jiang and Capitalist Transition by the American professor Barbara Foley. Ms Foley writes: “There are a number of indications that the People's Republic of China has become for all practical purposes a capitalist country, and that even the residual features of the socialist iron bowl are rapidly being eroded. ”[3]

The reasons and arguments for the concusions of Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley are quoted by Peter Franssen but nowhere denied by him… so he agrees with the following facts:

Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley give identical reasons to prove that the Chinese Communist Party has exchanged socialism for capitalism. These reasons are: income disparities have widened at one of the most rapid paces in the world; the official unemployment rate is nearly 5 percent but many investigators in the West think that unemployment is at a much higher rate; corruption is the rule of the day; the economic transformation with its option of everything through the market, of privatisation and increasing foreign domination has created an economy that has little to do with socialism; forced overtime, illegal working hours, unpaid wages, and dreadful health and safety conditions are commonplace.

So Peter Franssen agrees with the facts, that led Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley to a certain conclusion. But he fulminate against that specific conclusion. He is nowhere analysing the eventual mistakes in reasonnement that Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley could have made.

What is their conclusion? Barbara Foley formulates it as follows: “Supporters of Chinese socialism who believe that the die has not yet been cast - that leftist forces within the CCP can eventually win out, and that workers and peasants can once again travel the road to communist egalitarianism - are, I believe, fooling themselves if they think that these things will happen without another revolution. ”[4]
A revolution is necessary to overthrow this monstrous regime, according to these “left-wing” critics of the Chinese Communist Party.

When Peter Franssen will now give a "marxist" answe, he "creates" in fact his own "reality" out wich he "deduct" the proof of correctness of HIS analyse. But he nowhere proves the "non-marxist" mistakes that Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley could have made. Read the "answer" that Peter Franssen gives:

So it is time to take a look at the horrors the Chinese Communist Party has brought about throughout the country.
In the first phase of the construction of socialism, from 1950 to 1978, the growth rate of the Chinese economy was 6,2 % a year. This first phase was characterised by the organisation of the state and the building of industry, both as good as non-existent. China was a backward agricultural country. In such circumstances, there is no better method than centralised planning. Primitive accumulation of capital has still to begin and industry must go from its embryonic stage to a fully-fledged apparatus. The capital gained must be reinvested straightaway in order to realise this objective. In spite of which the consumption of the average Chinese rose by 2,2 % a year.[5] Between 1950 and 1978 the Chinese population doubled, but the number of poor people nonetheless dropped from 300 to 250 millions.[6]

What does he says: Primitive accumulation of capital has still to begin and industry must go from its embryonic stage to a fully-fledged apparatus.? Has there to be "primitive accumulation" in a backward country where the socialist revolution has taken place? So slavery, colonialisation, the robbing and taking in private property of the capital-goods (for example agricultural land)? And has there to be a free development of enterprises in private ownership to monopolies in private ownership (by big private stakeholders, for example), under socialism?

In the sixties, the industrial infrastructure had outgrown its infant clothes. However, the state subsidies received by firms went on rising, year after year. The bank credits of many firms reached record heights. In the middle of the sixties 60 % of firms were running at a loss. State subsidies to industry accounted for a third of total government spending.[7] Industrial reform was the key to the following phase in the construction of socialism in China.

As you can see in the note, Peter Franssen is speaking of State subsidies to private ("nongovernmental")enterprises. Private enterprises create surplus-value with exploitiation of the workers. That surplus-value is the base of profit. When a private enterprise make "a loss" than:
Or the surplus-value is realised by the more modern competitor
Or there is a sort of construction of no registration of "profit" because than no taxes must be paid and de state-subsidies are continuing.
Or there are state-regulations that a part of the realised surplus-value has to be given back to the workers in the form of social security, housing, health-service, education… And when te base of "profit" for a private enterprises is "undermined" by such "regulations"it is possible that the owners has not the possibillity to accumulate capital (private owned) out of "profits".
In fact in the elimmination of al kinds of exploitation of workers by the socialist state, the private ownership becomes an anomaly. In stead of forced expropriation the capitalist will be given up "freely" the ownership of his enterprise.
The "reform" of Deng Xiaoping has to counter a further socialisation of the economy. By changing the sistem of remuneration of the workers (argued with quotes of Marx in his "Critics of the Gotha program", as you can read here) the workforce become again a commodity, and the possibility to created surplus-value (and private-owned "profits") out of exploitation of workers. By the "reform" of Deng Xiaoping commodity-production developed quasi- unhindered… And capitalism is the ultimate form of commodity-production…..!
The Gross National Product raises enormously. So it was possible of slightly raise the part of that GNP that goes to the workers (to cool down possible unrest among the workers) and and at the same time have each year a bigger part of GNP that goes to the capitalists (like as it happened in Western Europe in the sixties):

In this phase, which began in 1978, the economy grew on average by 9.5 % a year. That is eight times the figure for Germany and three times more than in the United States. Consumption and thus the standard of living of the average Chinese rose by 7.5 % a year.
Chinese society as a whole at present enjoys moderate welfare. Between 1978 and 2004, the number of people living in dire poverty dropped from 250 million to 26 million. In 1949 a Chinese could hope to live on average until he was 40. Today, life expectancy is 71 years and in Beijing even 80. In 1949 90 % of the population could neither read nor write. The figure is now less that 10 %.

So where "the utopians" are claiming that the socialism in China has weakened under the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, Peter Franssen is fulminating against those "utopists". But nowhere he gives a "scientific-socialist" proof of the contrary.I will continue in a next article to show how a revisionist, while claiming he is a communist and a marxist and a cadre in a communist party, can mislead people that begins to be interested in marxism and socialism.

---

[1] Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett, China & Socialism, Market Reforms and Class Struggle, Monthly Review, New York, July-August 2004, p. 8.

[2] Ibidem, blz. 26.

[3] Barbara Foley, From Situational Dialectics to Pseudo-Dialectics: Mao, Jiang and Capitalist Transition, Cultural Logic, Volume 5, 2002. Foley’s text can be found on: http://eserver.org/clogic/2002/foley.html.

[4] Ibidem, point 5.

[5] Justin Yifu Lin, Fang Cai and Zhou Li, The Miracle: Development Strategy and Economic Reform, University Press, Hong Kong, 1995.

[6] Liu Wenpu, Poverty and the Poverty Policy in China, Chinese Academy of Social Science, Beijing, 1999.

[7] Zhu Huayou and Liu Changhui, The Development of China's Nongovernmentally and Privately Operated Economy, in: Gao Shangquan and Chi Fulin, Studies on the Chinese Market Economy, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1996, pp. 1-38.

Revisionism, the bourgoisie inside the communist movement.(1)

"After socialism is been destroyed in the Sovietunion en the explosion of the country of Lenin, all communists has to understand that revisionism is the most dangerous ideological enemy of marxism-leninism. Its beyond any doubt that revisionism represents the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement[1]"

One has to be carefull by concluding that the line of one or another communist party in the world is revisionist or even concluding that the line of one or another communist party is contaminated with a lot of opportunist conceptions.However, it is my opinion that I can prove that ther is a development of revisionism in the international communist movement. That development of revisionism is based on and is using certain existing opportunist conceptions ( in different communist partys). In some partys the revionist line has become the main line in that party. At this moment this is the case of the once revolutionary Workers Party of Belgium. This was possible because the leading cadres succeeded (through different mechanisms, I will discus in later articles) in putting in the mind of the majority of the members, a conception of "marxism" or "scientific socialism" wich is in fact metafysica and idealism formulated in "marxistic fraseology". That kind of leading cadres, perhaps once entered the party on revolutionary conceptions, on a certain moment positioned themselves on bourgeois classpoint of view. Those cadres could mask their conceptions with marxist fraseology easily, because they had often an encyclopedic knowledge of publications, articles and books of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong.
While I made allready a lot of analising in dutch on my weblog, I like to begin now in English to make an analys of the text that is been put on the website of the Workers Party of Belgium, http://www.wpb.be/, on thursday, 17 November 2005, 12h40, "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 find this article by clicking under READERS’ VIEW-POINT on "Is the evolution of China favorable to the Third World? (4 reactions)" and than scrolling above the reactions. It is possible that it is taken of the website. Therefor I putted it myself on the internet ( you can read it here)

Why do I begin my analyse of the international wave of revisionism with this article?
1. This article, this speech of Peter Franssen, is ment to be an "marxistic"analyse of the analyse that the CCP made, to defend the marxist character of the economic politcs of "Reform and opening" that began in 1978. Read the introduction of this article :

"It is 110 years since Friedrich Engels, the man who along with his companion Karl Marx laid the foundations of scientific socialism, passed away. To commemorate his death, 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. At the request of the organisers, Peter Franssen, journalist with the Belgian weekly Solidaire and researcher at the Institute for Marxist Studies, wrote a contribution, which you can read in full below." (Peter Franssen is also member of the leading organs of the Workers Party of Belgium, "Nico" -Paul Vermeer)

A example of a "marxist apology" of cadres of the CCP of the economic policy of "Reform and opening" started by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 you can find in the book "China's socialist economy"[2] The last chapter of that book forms a summary of the whole book. I put this last chapter on internet, where you can read it here. I will analyse this later.

2. It is an article in English (wich exist of course also in Dutch - and in French) So it is perfect to begin with the making of the analys of revisionism in English ( wich is not my mothertoungue)

3. It contains several importants elements of revionism

4. The debate on the socialism in China is an example of an debate on the necessity of the socialistic revolution, the concrete task of a communistic party, of the leninist partyconcept, the evolution of socialism under the dictatorship of het proletariat

5. It put a light, for me to prove of course, on the existing dominating revisionist line in the CCP, wich is for me the most important danger for the socialism in China. This, I will prove by an analyse of the book China's socialist economy I mentioned above.

6. It is an example of existing revisionism in the Workers Party of Belgium. I wil answer in other articles the question you certainly have: "How is it possible that revisionism has developed on such a scale in a party of wich the (former) president, Ludo Martens has produced so much and important contributions to the fight AGAINST revisionism? "

I will give some parts of the analyse of Peter Franssen, after wich I make my remarks. At the end I wil made more concreet his revisionism by analysing his use of quotes of Lenin (as example)
Peter Franssen:

"What the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people have achieved since the revolution of 1949 … proved that the general line of the Chinese Communist Party is correct. The achievements of the Chinese Communist Party have only been possible because the Party took as its guide scientific socialism, the dictatorship of people’s democracy, the leadership of the Communist Party and Marxism-Leninism. Friedrich Engels is, along with Karl Marx, the man who laid the fundamental basis of Chinese Communist Party thought."

Peter Fransen begin his analyse with two axiomas on wich no one may doubt and on wich he won't accept no discussion:
1. " the general line of the Chinese Communist Party is correct"
2. " The achievements of the Chinese Communist Party have only been possible because the Party took as its guide scientific socialism, the dictatorship of people’s democracy, the leadership of the Communist Party and Marxism-Leninism."
He denies the intern struggle WITHIN the Communistic Party of China between the real marxistic revolutionary line and opportunistic deviations and after some time with an elaborated revisionist line. It is the correct handling of that struggle between intern party contradictions, and NOT with a forced compromise ( and so a rather formal "unity") on one "general line", that resulted in the indeed important "achievements of the Communist Party of China and the Chines people".
The struggle INSIDE the CCP, and the attempt to ISOLATE Mao Zedong in the CCP in several occasions, was just a consequence of the fact that a lot of leading cadres in the CCP took NOT "as its guide scientific socialism, the dictatorship of people’s democracy, the leadership of the Communist Party and Marxism-Leninism".
In fact Peter Franssen makes here mistakes against historical materialism AND he is idealist: he claims that his IDEAS are historical facts.
Peter Franssen:

Engels was … the first to apply the method of dialectical and historical materialism to the analysis of economic relations in bourgeois society. He researched economic phenomena in their entirety, their interaction and their development. (He)…showed that private ownership of the means of production under capitalist relations is characterised by a number of laws which bear within them the death of private property. …
(Engels)…draws a sharp dividing line between the petty bourgeois, who reject capitalism on moral grounds, and scientific socialism, which shows the necessity and the historical limitations of private property and concludes that a socialist revolution is necessary to destroy the private ownership of the means of production and to allow society to move up to a higher stage, where the liberation of the productive forces is the main object.

Here lies the origin of later dogmatic conceptions ( as we will see): " Scientific socialism, which shows the necessity and the historical limitations of private property and concludes that a socialist revolution is necessary to destroy the private ownership of the means of production and to allow society to move up to a higher stage, where the liberation of the productive forces is the main object."
In fact he agrees with the revisionist theory of leading cadres in the CCP of "a long historical period of the primary stade of socialism in China", where a revolution take place in a backward economic coutry, with a majority of agricultural workers and peasants. In that stade, so they claimed, there must first be a capitalist development because the backwartnes of the production forces. For Peter Franssen ( and Deng Xiaoping) the development of capitalist production relations must make possible, the development of the production forces at a point that they could manage socialist production relations. This is NOT scientific socialism, this is a colonialist conception or even a conception of the slave-holders. In defence against anti-colonism and abolitionist movements they claimed thad slavery and colonialism, so slavery productions-relations, couldn't be changed because of the backwardness of the primitive slaves or primitive colonialised populations. Slavery and colonialism must be maintained so they claimed, to develop the production-forces (the slaves) until the point that they could handle the 'freedom" of capitalist production-relations, until the moment that the ex-slaves could handle the "freedom"of choice of the capitalist to whome they could sell their workforce and until the moment that the ex-slaves could organise their lives with the salary they got.
Peter Franssen use GENERAL conclusions of a GENERAL analyse (of Engels) as concrete and specific laws of building socialism in a specific region in the world in a specific historical situation. And further he choose a quote of Engels out of his context, were Engels made a general conclusion, so Engels "prooves"( out of his grave) the correctness of Peter Franssen ( and Dengs) analyse. That is eclecticism and dogmatism.
To know what I mean with this "accusation" of "dogmatism" it is good to read "On Practice"and "On Contradiction" of Mao Zedong. As ILLUSTRATION ( not as eclecticistic PROOF) I wil give some quotes out of "On Contradiction":

"… The particularity of contradiction is still not clearly understood by many comrades, and especially by the dogmatists. They do not understand that it is precisely in the particularity of contradiction that the universality of contradiction resides. Nor do they understand how important is the study of the particularity of contradiction in the concrete things confronting us for guiding the course of revolutionary practice…..
Where our dogmatists err on this question is that, on the one hand, they do not understand that we have to study the particularity of contradiction and know the particular essence of individual things before we can adequately know the universality of contradiction and the common essence of things, and that, on the other hand, they do not understand that after knowing the common essence of things, we must go further and study the concrete things that have not yet been thoroughly studied or have only just emerged. Our dogmatists are lazy-bones. They refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which man comes to know truth. Nor do they understand the interconnection of the two processes in cognition — from the particular to the general and then from the general to the particular. They understand nothing of the Marxist theory of knowledge….
The principle of using different methods to resolve different contradictions is one which Marxist-Leninists must strictly observe. The dogmatists do not observe this principle; they do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds of revolution and so do not understand that different methods should be used to resolve different contradictions; on the contrary, they invariably adopt what they imagine to be an unalterable formula and arbitrarily apply it everywhere, which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what was originally well done…."

And special on the question "development of productionforces" and "change of productionrelations":

" It can thus be seen that the nature of a thing is mainly determined by the principal aspect of the contradiction, the aspect which has gained predominance. When the principal aspect which has gained predominance changes, the nature of a thing changes accordingly….
Instances of such reciprocal transformation are found in our past experience….
Some people think that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect; in the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the principal aspect; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect; and there is no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception, not the dialectical materialist conception.
True, the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role. When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role…."

What Engels analised in general and concrete on the contradictions in the world at the historical moment when he,Engels, lived, is transposed on the world of today by Peter Franssen while he put his IDEA of analogy as a fact:

"The dividing line traced by Engels in 1844 today still forms the boundary between Marxism and « left-wing » petty bourgeois currents in China and elsewhere in the world. On the one hand there is scientific socialism. On the other there is a hotchpotch of moral, ethic and religious considerations, in other words idealism……
Engels tales aim at Karl Heinzen, a representative of the Utopians, and writes: “Mr Heinzen imagines that property relations and heritage rights can change at will. He cannot understand that 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. ”[3]
That same year 1844 Engels wrote with Marx The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism. It was their first work in common. It is a devastating criticism of Utopianism and contains the fundamental ideas of the materialist conception of history, which proclaims that material production plays a decisive role in the development of society.
In 1844-1845 Engels and Marx wrote The German Ideology in which they show the dialectical relation between productive forces and relations of production. The historical role of capitalism and of its bearer, the bourgeoisie, was to concentrate the means of production and thereby to revolutionise society at every level. However, to the extent that the bourgeoisie accomplishes this feat, it approaches its limit, determined by the economic and social contradictions it itself has created. …
Engels and Marx had worked out the foundations of dialectical and historical materialism. Lenin later wrote : « Historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking.. »[4] "

Peter Franssen speaks not of the excisting struggle between bourgeois(revisionist) line and the revolutionaiy line. This struggle is the result of the main contradictions in de actual society between capitalists and proletariat, between communism and capitalism One can say that in fact socialism is the form under wich this contradiction will be solved in the favor of the proletariat, in favor of communism.
My conclusion is (as I will elaborate further in a next article) is that Peter Franssen, although a leading cadre of a communist party, don`t aply scientific socialism but eclecticism and dogmatism. Peter Franssen aplies historical analogies instead of historical materialism.

---

[1] "About certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism", Ludo Martens in Marxistische Studies no 29, march 1996, (see www.marx.be), a discussion report on the International Seminar in Janashakti, India organised by the PCI(ML)

[2] "China's socialist economy", First Edition 1981 Revised Edition 1986 ISBN-083SI-1592.5 (Hard Cover) ISBN-098351.1703.0 (Paperback)
Copyright 1986 by Foreign Languages Press Published by the Foreign Languages Press, 24 Baiwanzhuang Road, Bering, China
Printed by the L. Rex Offset Printing Co. Ltd. Man Hing Industrial Godown Bldg., 14/F. No.4, Yip Fat St., Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong
Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation (Guoji Shudian), P. 0. Box 399. Beijing, China

[3] Friedrich Engels, Die Kommunisten und Karl Heinzen, Marx-Engels, Werke, Dietz-Verlag, Berlin, 1980, Band 4, p. 314.

[4] Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism , Collected Works, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1963, vol.19, p. 25