UNITE! Info #313en: Reply to Charles, on how we *can* ascertain some
things in
far-away China
[Posted: 29.03.2008]
Note: The "UNITE! (etc) Info" posting series (1995-) advocates the
political
line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. For all items, see
www.rolf-martens.com.
Hello Charles F. Moreira <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
And please brace yourself now for another one of some pretty *long*
replies
from me! Long, this time too, because I want to show you and others some
"tricks", so to speak, which I think it's quite important, for Marx
adherents,
to know about, in the first place, and not all that difficult to
"perform", or
learn to "perform", either, in the second.
I'm making this reply, as you see, an item in my "UNITE! Info" series,
because
of that general interest which I think that the question which you raised
has.
Here goes:
You wrote, to the mailing list MLL (at
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list),
on
Thu., 28
March 2008 at 07:54 GMT, subject "Re: At present, much more fun over at
the
list MLL!" (compared to the MM list created by me, at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/modern_marxism/,
I meant by that subject
line
which I had introduced), among other things something which I shall soon
quote.
I just want to mention first that by that "much more fun" I was referring
to a
certain small but quite instructive "dogfight" which was then, from 24.03
on,
taking place also at that mailing list, MLL, which I too later have joined
in a
little and concerning which I've promised to make a more detailed comment.
But
this I'm deferring somewhat now, in favour of first writing this reply to
you -
who wrote,
[QUOTE:]
However, what I actually meant by that is, strategies and tactics have to
be
decided by communists on location and based on local conditions and not
just
from a remote view based on reports.
For example, in this
http://www.rolf-martens.com/UNITE%21%20Infos/webstyle1/unite_info_288en.html
article, "Conflict among desperate Chinese revisionists," Rolf writes:-
"This "Open Letter" is a clear sign of how very hard pressed are all those
traitors to socialism in China, the new exploiters and really fascist-type
oppressors there, by the vast majority of people in China, and by the vast
majority of people on the whole globe too. It's a sign of how desperate
their
situation already is, despite their regime's being massively supported and
held
under its arms by all the forces of international imperialism."
OK! The people writing this are members of the Communist Party of China
but how
can Rolf, me, you or most people on this list be absolutely sure that they
are
not honest communists trying to reverse this pro-capitalist policy from
within
the party. Only they will know whether it's still possible to do so or
whether
there's no[t] alternative but to split from the party and begin from
scratch
with a new proletarian party, which could most likely be crushed by the
Chinese
state.
That's what I mean by ground-level understanding.
[END OF QUOTE]
In fact, both you, I and the others on the list MLL, for instance, too
*can* be
absolutely sure that those persons in question in China by no means were
communists, that is, persons really trying to represent the common
interests of
the vast majority of people both in China itself and on this planet as a
whole.
For this, we (to begin with) only need to have some knowledge of Marxism,
at a
sufficiently high level.
A very high, advanced level would that have to be, perhaps, or just a
relatively modest one?
A relatively modest one, I on my part think. Though of course, what may be
called a such, that's a question that could be debated too. Unfortunately
today, there seem to be relatively few people around (among those whose
writings you can see on the Internet, at least) who do have even what I'd
call
"a modest-level knowledge of Marxism". By which statement of mine you can
infer
of course that I think that I on my part do have (at least) a such.
Was I right or was I wrong, then, in my claiming to be able really to
*ascertain*, from afar (from here in Malmö, Sweden), that those persons
whom
we're discussing were/are no communists at all, but certainly were/are
revisionists, bourgeois adversaries of the vast majority of people?
The persons we're discussing were/are some relatively high-ranking members
of
the present-day "Communist Party of China" who (reportedly) on 12.07.2007
wrote
a certain "Open Letter", according to a message to this list, MLL, on
09.08.2007, in which that "Open Letter" was reproduced in full (which was
one
of several things that have been good about this mailing list - you know
I've
criticized some other and later appearing qualities of it), and more
vaguely
reported on in some of the big reactionary mass media too.
That "Open Letter" I reproduced in full too, copying it from MLL, in that
Info
#288en of mine, likewise of 09.08.2007, which you referred to.
"Communists", were those persons? Never on your life. And how can you
others
too, on this list MLL, for instance, see that? Well, that's really
elementary,
my dear Watsons and Watdaughters.
OK, a little "chestbeating" of mine is implied here. I really do think
it's
fun sometimes at least to pretend I'm "Sherlock"! But the serious side of
this
is, that "Sherlock", on such matters, this really everyone of you others
can be
too, or at least develop into, with not all that much effort - in case you
want
to be a such, that is!
SIMPLE TRICK 1: READING A DOCUMENT SOMEWHAT CAREFULLY
In this case there really *was* enough of information "on the ground",
from
over there in China, for an assessment of mine, from here on the other
side of
the globe, to be pretty much 100% certain. This in combination with that
which
since long is well-known, at the hand of the writings of the "classical"
Marxists, concerning the correct strategy and tactics for the proletariat
*globally*, applying to *all* countries in the world.
SIMPLE TRICKS 2 AND 3: STUDYING SOME MARXIST LITERATURE, AND LEARNING SOME
HISTORY (IF AVAILABLE - IF NOT, AT LEAST TRYING TO DIG SOME UP)
That information consisted of some things in that "Open Letter" which
everybody
of course could see. For processing it, you only need (needed) one of
those
"telescopes" which Mao Zedong has written that the Marxist method provide,
concerning some matters which perhaps are not "clearly visible to the
naked
eye" (meaning, that instrument that you already are equipped with before
you've
begun to learn some Marxism).
Well, plus some background information about the more recent history of
China
and of the CPC in that country (since some 30+ years back, say). And yes,
it
must be admitted that this commodity too - like many other vital ones, for
Marx
adherents - today is in pretty short supply, globally. But digging up some
such
stuff, that doesn't really require all that much of "blood, sweat and
tears"
either.
"Now will you finally come to the point?", I already hear you saying.
Yes, the "most direct" such comes here - my introductory stuff having been
included for certain purposes of "trick showing" too, anyway.
THREE THINGS IN THAT "OPEN LETTER" IN CHINA OF 13.07.2007 WHICH CLEARLY
*PROVE*
THAT ITS AUTHORS WERE/ARE *NOT* COMMUNISTS
As I already wrote about in my Info #288en,
[QUOTE, from that Info:]
The persons who signed that "Open Letter" even pretended, in it, to be
"adherents of Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought". They of course are not
that, as can clearly be seen in that document of theirs. If they were,
they
would be calling for the overthrow of the revisionist, fascist regime in
China
[That's proof point A, I want to add now, Charles] - and such a just and
necessary call in the conditions now reigning there of course can only be
disseminated "underground" and at the risk of most severe persecution.
Most
probably such calls have already been put forward in China too, perhaps in
many
places there, but the imperialists, to whom support of the present
arch-reactionary regime in China is vital, of course are doing everything
they
can to prevent any such from becoming known to the masses of people in
other
countries.
[END OF QUOTE]
You in your criticism of that Info discussed this question too, Charles -
that
of creating or trying to create a new, actually proletarian revolutionary,
party in China. This by your saying (see above),
"Only they [those rather high-ranking members of the present-day "CPC",
you
clearly meant, about whom I had written that they could certainly not be
communists - RM] will know whether it's still possible to do so or whether
there's no[t] alternative but to split from the party and begin from
scratch
with a new proletarian party, which could most likely be crushed by the
Chinese
state."
Here you made *two errors* of assessment which I think it's rather easy to
see
were errors:
*Firstly*, that "only" those persons - some rather highly-placed ones in
that
"CPC" of today - would know whether or not it was necessary to create, try
to
create, a new and really Marxist-Leninist party in China.
Of course it must have been seen, since many years back in fact and much
more
clearly too than by some "bighshots" in the "CPC" in 2007, by quite many
people
in China (and even not so few in other countries too), that this *was/is*
absolutely necessary.
Here comes in one point concerning those persons mentioned in your posting
which I didn't, all that expressly at least, state in that Info #288en of
mine:
At the time of their writing that "Open Letter", in July 2007, the CPC had
already been a revisionist, bourgeois, very reactionary party, even much
of a
*fascist-type* one, since *close to 30 (thirty) years back* - since
December
1978 at the very latest. Obviously, *no* actual communists who perhaps had
been
members of the CPC since before that time could possibly have remained in
that
party in 2007 - if possible, even less, in high-ranking positions in it.
Had
any such remained in/after late 1978, they would very quickly have been
purged
already around that time, of course. In case they *had* wanted to stay in
it,
in the first place.
And *secondly*, your saying that a new (and actually) proletarian party
"most
likely would be crushed" by the Chinese state - as if there was/is "no"
hope
for any such at all - that clearly is wrong too. Of course the
difficulties for
a such, and even for some smaller single party group(s) in one or several
locations in the enormous China, were and are horrendous. And for people
outside of it, it's practically impossible to know anything about such
things.
Any Internet emission about such a thing coming from somewhere inside
China of
course would immediately have alerted a police/military "SWAT team" which
would
soon be on its way to arrest or kill everybody as much as close to the
computer
from which it was coming. But actually "impossible" is not such party
organization anyway. It's known, for instance, that each year, there are
over
300 more or less spontaneous peasant (etc) uprisings in China. Some
initial
party (group) construction might get protection from some mass forces
among the
people in connection with such movements.
At any rate: Any person in China who was as much as "half communist", so
to
speak, already around the end of 1978, if not even a year or more earlier,
*must* have seen the obvious fact that the CPC was then a *bourgeois*
party. He
or she could not have avoided being perfectly aware of Mao Zedong's - in
China
even more than here in Sweden, say - well-known saying: "The coming to
power of
revisionism means the coming to power of the bourgeoisie".
He or she could not have been unaware of the massive purges of actual
communists in the CPC from November1976 on - under the pretext then of
"combating" the (true enough, very reactionary and harmful phony"left")
4-gang,
the defeat of which, in October 1976, had indeed been a very good thing -
only
that important victory for the people had later gotten to be misused and
turned
around by that other and bigger group of enemies of theirs which was led
by
Deng Xiaoping, so that already from November 1976 on, actual communists in
China were being purged from the CPC, under the pretext of "weeding out
4-gang
supporters".
He or she could hardly have been unaware either of that longtime
experience, in
the Marxist-Leninist movement in the whole world, that when a formerly
Marxist-Leninist party, such as that in China, gets taken over by
revisionists
(somethings which of course gets the massive support of all the ruling
reactionary bourgeois cliques in other countries too), that taking-over,
as a
general rule at least, is irreversible - such a party then cannot made to
become a Marxist-Leninist party once more.
He or she must have known very well that which Deng Xiaoping himself, that
big
traitor and, in that time - November 1976 to late 1978 - emerging
revisionist
dictator (more or less) of China, had said back in 1974, when he was still
a
representative of socialist, revolutionary China, as its representative at
the
UN General Assembly then, in a rightly also internationally famous speech
on
10.04.1974 (see my Info #011en, part 2/2),
[QUOTE:]
If capitalism is restored in a big socialist country, it will inevitably
become
a superpower. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which has been
carried
out in China in recent years, and the campaign of criticizing Lin Piao and
Confucius now under way throughout China, are both aimed at preventing
capitalist restauration and ensuring that socialist China will never
change her
colour but will always stand by the oppressed peoples and oppressed
nations.
If one day China should change her colour and turn into a superpower, if
she
too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to
her
bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should
identify
her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the
Chinese people to overthrow it.
[END OF QUOTE]
Please note, Charles, that the - then - representative of socialist China
(and
later traitor, of course, but that's less relevant here) expressly turned
to
"the people of the world", to people also *outside of* China, with a
suggestion
of what *they* (too) should do, in case things "went wrong" in that
country.
(I'm guessing that this was included in that speech at the initiative of
Mao
Zedong, above all.)
Compare this to something which *you* wrote, in your "criticism of" my
Info
#288en (see above)
"However, what I actually meant by that is, strategies and tactics have to
be
decided by communists on location and based on local conditions and not
just
from a remote view based on reports."
This contains the idea that the bloody strategies "have to" be decided by
some
goddamn communists "on location", and "based on" the goddamn "local"
conditions. Concerning strategy, you suggested, the communists in each
country
- or in each city?, each town?, each village, perhaps? - "have to" figure
out
things quite on their own, and based on "local conditions"; they "should"
think
and act, in fact, much like some kind of "local yokels".
Of course his is a very wrong idea, Charles. Contrary to this, the Marx
adherents instead need to use:
SIMPLE TRICK 4: HAVING HEARD EITHER ONE OF THE CALLS "PROLETARIANS IN ALL
COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (MARX AND ENGELS) AND "PROLETARIANS IN ALL COUNTRIES
AND
OPPRESSED PEOPLES, UNITE!" (LENIN), OR PERHAPS BOTH, AND UNDERSTANDING AT
LEAST
APPROXIMATELY WHAT THEY MEAN
This "unite!"stuff which is common to both of those calls means, among
other
things, that the *strategies* of the proletariat need to be *global*,
preferably discussed and agreed on globally, or at least as widely,
geographically, as only possible. Precisely that was the point of those
earlier
existing proletarian, or workers', *Internationals* too, of course -
irrespective of that unfortunate fact that all three of them, the 1st, the
2nd
and the 3rd, afters some years vanished, respectively turned rather bad.
*Tactics*, yes, in the main do have to be decided on by the communists on
location, and to be based on local conditions. But the strategies need to
be,
as far as possible, precisely global.
And there was an added "criticism point" of yours here to, to the effect
that
neither the strategies nor the tactics should be decided on "*just*" from
a
remote view based on reports. As if I would have suggested, for instance,
that
the tactics of proletarian class struggle in China should decided on
"just" by
some people here in Sweden, or vice versa. This of course I've never done.
Further, concerning the possibility of there perhaps there being some
communists, perhaps even in some high-ranking positions, in the CPC in
2007:
Could any such have wanted to join that then completely revisionist,
actually
fascist-type, party, after 1978. And if so, would they have been allowed
in?
No, on both counts. Of this we can be certain too.
Or don't you agree on this, Charles? Now I don't want to accuse you of
having
such an utterly primitive idea, since I don't know how this is with you,
but in
my experience some people, even some who are not quite unfamiliar with
Marxism,
have seemed to be thinking, that if a party still carries that proud name
of
"Communist", still goes under the red flag, then it "*cannot possibly*" be
led
and controlled by some *utterly fascist scum*. This is very wrong, of
course.
The thing with which to avoid such thinking is:
SIMPLE TRICK NUMBER 5: KNOWING THAT OLD FAIRYTALE "LITTLE RED RIDING
HOOD", AND
UNDERSTANDING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE MAIN PRINCIPLE WHICH IT CONTAINS
At the Internet, you can find that fairytale for instance, I've seen, at
http://www.longlongtimeago.com/llta_fairytales_redridinghood.html,
from
which
website I've also learned that it's from as far back as 1597, and then was
told
in French. As many know, the "heroine" of that fairytale is making some
observations in what may be called a materialistic, even a
Marxist-Leninist,
way. Seeing that the creature lying there on the bed, true enough, is
dressed
in Grandma's clothes, she notes, initially, that "Grandma's" general
appearance
this day is rather different from her usual, and first thinks and says,
"You
must be really ill!" Further she goes on to note some clear discrepancies:
"What big ears you have!", "What big nose!" and "What big ears you have,
Grandma!"
As is known to many too, she at that point however, before having gone on
to
the observation "What big teeth you have, Grandma!", when it's already too
late, makes the mistake of deviating from the actually materialistic, or
Marxist-Leninist, line. Already her quite correct first four observations
should have convinced Little Red Riding Hood, that, in the concrete
tactical
situation of her, rather naturally, not having taken with her for instance
a
sharp knife with which, otherwise, she could have slit the throat of that
obviously non-Grandma and probably quite dangerous creature - it was in
fact
the Wolf! - lying there on the same bed as did formerly Grandma, or a
baseball
bat which which to bash in that creature's skull, she should of course
have
made a temporary retreat in order, above all, to call for some backup. Now
luckily enough, sufficient such happened to arrive a little later anyway,
in
the form of a woodcutter, who had experience with this type of creatures
and
who cut up the Wolf's tummy, liberating both Grandma and Little Red Riding
Hood
herself, who had both been gobbled up by that camouflaged, (to speak in
present-day or yesterday terms: social-imperialist), Wolf, from their
totally-oppressed predicament.
The fairytale ends, quite materialistically too, with both of those
earlier
gobbled-up making some contributions too to the continued anti-Wolf
struggle,
by helping the woodcutter place some big stones into its tummy and then
sewing
that tummy up, so that the Wolf finally understands that "humans don't
agree
with him" and runs away, never to be heard of again - in short, there at
last
is complete victory for the (actual) humans.
In real and more contemporary life, the already then longtime CPC chairman
Mao
Zedong in 1964 handled a similar problem in an of course much more
experienced
and perspicacious way than that which could reasonably be expected of a
quite
young girl in a fairytale of hundreds of years ago, and said (as noted in
"Some
Interjections At A Briefing In The State Planning Commission Leading
Group, May
11, 1964):
"The Soviet Union today is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a
dictatorship of
the grand bourgeoisie, a fascist German dictatorship, and a Hitlerite
dictatorship. They are a bunch of rascals worse than De Gaulle."
DIFFICULT FOR AT LEAST VERY MANY, OUTSIDE OF CHINA, TO SEE WHAT ACTUALLY
"WENT
DOWN" THERE, IN 1976-1978
What could have made you write such bullshit (sorry!) as that "question"
of
yours (see above):
"OK! The people writing this are members of the Communist Party of China
but
how can Rolf, me, you or most people on this list be absolutely sure that
they
are not honest communists trying to reverse this pro-capitalist policy
from
within the party." - ?
Perhaps in part it was due to an ignorance of the principle demonstrated,
for
instance, by that old fairytale which I mentioned. But to a larger or more
important part, I'm guessing, it was because you, Charles (as I must
assume),
are *totally ignorant* of the recent history of China (since some 30+
years
back), and of that of the CPC in particular - your knowing *absolutely
nothing*, *zero*, *zilch* about this - that you today, now quite recently,
could dream of the possibility of there remaining some *communists*, for
chrissake, in the "CPC", *in 2007* - even in rather high-ranking positions
then
in that party.
Pretty sharp words of mine are these, do you think? But they are, quite in
the
main, not intended as criticism of you. Even since the time, back in
1976-1978,
of the overthrow - of socialism in China - and since even longer back, in
fact
- the ruling really bigtime imperialists in the world (including, earlier,
the
social-imperialists, of course) have done their "very best" to blanket out
*all* correct information, to people in other countries, about such things
in
China, and have most massively disseminated misinformation about them -
this
also together with quite a number of totally corrupt *phony*"Marxist"
parties
of various kinds which, in actual fact, are and have been nothing but
utter
puppets of theirs.
It therefore all the time has been quite difficult, for many people in a
large
number of countries, to be anything but ignorant of these matters. So I'm
not
blaming you very much, if you - still - are that.
MORE ON HOW THE "OPEN LETTER" AUTHORS IN 2007 SHOWED THAT THEY WERE NOT
COMMUNISTS
In the above, I interrupted a quote from my Info #288en, in which I made a
couple of other points on this. It continues,
[QUOTE:]
The authors of the recent "Open Letter" in China are adherents and
representatives of that regime too, for instance openly lauding that
infamous
traitor to socialism in that country, even the main perpetrator of the
overthrow of it, in 1976-78, Deng Xiaoping, calling for his - likewise
arch-reactionary - policies to be followed [That was a point B of mine,
Charles] and openly vilifying [That was my point C in that Info, proving
again
that those persons certainly were no communists] that massive resistance
against them by the people which was expressed in the countrywide
demonstrations in May-June 1989.
[END OF QUOTE]
SOME EXAMPLES, WHICH I HOPE ARE SOMEWHAT INSTRUCTIVE TOO, OF WHAT I,
RESPECTIVELY SOME OTHERS, COULD SEE, RESPECTIVELY COULD NOT SEE,
CONCERNING THE
THEN SOCIALIST CHINA, FROM OUR VANTAGE POINT(S) HERE IN EUROPE
But first a little on the necessity, for Marx adherents, no matter how
"lowly"
or how few, always to *try* to ascertain for themselves how some important
matters stand
In those, concerning vital Marxist-Leninist principles so excellent,
documents,
precisely from China too, namely, those of the 10th Congress of the CPC in
August 1973 (now in their entirety at MIA, at
http://marx.org/subject/china/documents/10_Cong.htm),
it among other
things was
said, in the report by Wang Hongwen (later one of the infamous 4-gang
persons,
but that's another matter) on the revision of the Constitution of the CPC,
some
things about how also quite "ordinary", "lowly" members of the CPC should
always act, concerning the question of that party's political line,
[QUOTE:]
"... In Point (1) under Article 3 concerning the requirements for Party
members
and in Point (1) under Article 12 concerning the tasks of the primary
Party
organisations, the words "criticise revisionism" have been added in
accordance
with the views expressed by the worker, peasant and soldier comrades at
the
forum held by the Peking Municipal Party Committee on the revision of the
Party
Constitution as well as suggestions from some provinces and
municipalities.
Revisionism remains the main danger today. To study Marxism and criticise
revisionism is our long-term task for strengthening the building of our
Party
ideologically.
Three. We must have the revolutionary spirit of daring to go against the
tide.
Chairman Mao pointed out: Going against the tide is a Marxist-Leninist
principle. During the discussions on the revision of the Party
Constitution,
many comrades, reviewing the Party's history and their own experiences,
held
that this was most important in the two-line struggle within the Party. In
the
early period of the democratic revolution, there were several occasions
when
wrong lines held sway in our Party. In the later period of the democratic
revolution and in the period of socialist revolution, when the correct
line
represented by Chairman Mao has been predominant, there have also been
lessons
in that certain wrong lines or wrong views were taken as correct for a
time by
many people and supported as such. The correct line represented by
Chairman Mao
has waged resolute struggles against those errors and won out. When
confronted
with issues that concern the line and the overall situation, a true
Communist
must act without any selfish considerations and dare to go against the
tide,
fearing neither removal from his post, expulsion from the Party,
imprisonment,
divorce nor guillotine.
Of course, in the face of an erroneous trend there is not only the
question of
whether one dares go against it but also that of whether one is able to
distinguish it. Class struggle and the two-line struggle in the historical
period of socialism are extremely complex. When one tendency is covered by
another, many comrades often fall to note it. Moreover, those who intrigue
and
conspire deliberately put up false fronts, which makes it all the more
difficult to discern. Through discussion, many comrades have come to
realise
that according to the dialectic materialist point of view, all objective
things
are knowable. "The naked eye is not enough, we must have the aid of the
telescope and the microscope. The Marxist method is our telescope and
microscope in political and military matters." So long as one diligently
studies the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and those of Chairman
Mao,
takes an active part in the actual struggle and works hard to remould
one's
world outlook, one can constantly raise the ability to distinguish genuine
from
sham Marxism and differentiate between correct and wrong lines and views.
[END OF QUOTE]
And this of course must be viewed and done not only within that already in
itself vast country, China, but also internationally. It had to be done,
by the
Marx adherents in other countries than China too, back in that time when
China
was still socialist and was such an enormously important force in, and a
big
beacon for, the proletarian revolution in the whole world.
*COULD* THINGS POSSIBLY "GO WRONG" IN CHINA?
On New Year's Eve/Day 1975-1976, some of my German then comrades in exile
here
in Malmö, Sweden, and I, living in that two-story house (from 1910 or) so
at
Bokgatan 12 which I already have mentioned in a recent other long reply to
you,
Charles (see a posting to both the MM and the MLL lists), went out into
the
street for a while to watch the fireworks. Klaus (that is, the chairman of
that
then so advanced M-L party the "NE", Klaus Sender, as was his pseudonym;
it's
under his real name, Hartmut Dicke, that he has been writing in recent
years -
then since long, unfortunately, as a miserable traitor who really has
outdone
both Trotsky and Lin Biao in this respect, because he was once so very
much
more of an actual, important Marxist than was ever any of those other two,
both
of them so infamous internationally) said:
"Let's hope that the year 1976 won't be the one in which the big war
breaks
out." And concerning this, he had already once said "If China turns
revisionist, the war danger will increase very much". Something which, in
itself, turned out actually to be wrong. But the very thought of China's
perhaps going revisionist was one that I on my part, still rather
inexperienced
politically, had not had in my head and really was quite reluctant - I
remember
clearly - even to consider. Such a reluctance probably was and is not
untypical
for rather many others too, I believe. The very possibility of your losing
an
important ally - in this case, it was such an enormous and excellent one
too -
is something that you may not want to think about at all. This, I've later
guessed, perhaps was/is also one reason, at least, why some otherwise
rather
sensible people would stubbornly refuse to realize the of course obvious
fact
of the earlier overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union. It was one
small
sign and expression of the genuinely Marxist standpoint of the Klaus
Sender of
those days that he did not shy away from reflecting also on that very
unpleasant possibility concerning China.
SOMETHING CORRECT - IT ABSOLUTELY SEEMED TO ME, AND ALSO TO MY THEN "NE"
COMRADES - IN APRIL 1976. AND *IN THE MAIN*, IT WAS CORRECT TOO.
In the issue No. 16/1976 (16.04.1976) of the Peking Review - then still
something of a "Bible" to me, in the sense that it had indeed so far been
right
on more or less all the important things in the world, but I was reading
it too
uncritically - there was a big headline on its front page, "A Great
Victory",
and information in several articles in it about two resolutions by the
Political Bureau of the CC of the CPC, on 07.04.1976, firstly to appoint
Hua
Guofeng First Vice Chairman of the CPC (thus in reality the prospective
successor to Mao Zedong as Chairman, and it had been Mao himself who had
made
that proposal, back in February 1976; so far the PR was telling the truth
too),
and secondly to dismiss Deng Xiaoping, already since several months back
under
massive public criticism as, once more, a capitalist-roader of the
Rightist
type, from all posts inside and outside the CPC.
This seemed to me - in so far as I could make any judgment at all on this
- to
be two good decisions. My then "NE" comrades, earlier in exile here in
Malmö,
at that time had gone back to Germany, and I learned over the telephone
and
from publications of theirs that they had found both of those decisions by
the
PB of the CC of the CPC to be good, and had sent a congratulatory message
to
the CPC to that effect.
SO EVERTYHING WAS "HUNKY-DORY", THEN? NO!
The Politbureau of the CC of the CPC in this connection had also made one
quite
serious error, and the Peking Review was now lying and fooling us on the
same
point in question, something which neither I nor even the "NE" saw until a
rather long time afterwards.
This had to do with a certain very big gathering and (in part a little
violent)
demonstration by the people on Tiananmen Square in Beijing on 05.04.1976.
The PB of the CC of the CPC and also the Peking Review etc wrongly said
that
this had been "a counter-revolutionary incident". In reality, it was the
very
opposite, namely, quite in the main a revolutionary demonstration against
the
phony"leftist" 4-gang and in particular against its leader, Mao Zedong's
own
wife Jiang Qing (Chiang Ching), against which group there during several
months
to come too was no criticism in the Chinese media at all and concerning
which
only some very few, within the CPC leadership, knew about the already
quite
sharp criticism directed against it by Mao Zedong at internal CPC meetings
from
(at least) 17.07.1974 on. (On this, see Info #310en, "Peking Review and
others
on the victory against the 4-gang in 1976", of 19.02.2008.)
I much later wrote about the actually wrongful (though, as far as I know,
bloodless) suppression of that demonstration at the Tienanmen on
05.04.1976, in
my Info #036en, "Remember Tiananmen '89 and '76", sent out on each 04 June
from
1997 on.
Back in 1976, neither I nor that then quite advanced M-L party in Germany,
the
"NE", had gotten anything close to correct information "on the ground" in
China, about the very important events of 05.04.1976. I on my part finally
got
sufficient such (which I then could realize must have been correct, since
I
already had read a crucial analysis of some later events by the "NE", from
1977
and the all the pieces of the puzzle then fitted together), from a book in
1985
by (the of course bourgeois-thinking) Clare Hollingworth, who in 1976 had
been
the correspondent in Beijing of the Conservative UK newspaper The Daily
Telegraph.
MUCH TOO LITTLE INFORMATION "ON THE GROUND", THEN, BOTH FOR ME AND FOR THE
"NE", IN APRIL 1976. BUT THIS AT LEAST COULD BE REPAIRED IN RETROSPECT,
LATER.
Neither of our respective, Europe-stationed, "telescopes" directed at
China had
been sufficient in April 1976, not even the, at that time, excellent one
of
Klaus Sender (Hartmut Dicke). That's of course an important lesson too, in
that
context which we're discussing, Charles. Of course you're right in saying
that
without some approximately correct information "on the ground", one risks
going
astray - wholly or in part.
Now, as it later turned out, when basically correct information about the
entire earlier reactionary dealings of the 4-gang finally did get out from
China, in late October 1976, and clearly seen by the "NE" too (and also by
many
other CPC-friendly parties all around the world) to be correct (I on my
part
could do little else, at that point, than just listen to those who,
apparently,
did understand what was going on, and hope/presume that they were right),
it
luckily didn't matter all that much that we had been fooled on that
particular
and really important point from April 1976 on.
Concerning in what way - as it could be seen in retrospect - the PB of the
CC
of the CPC had been wrong on 07.04.1976, and what this really meant, I
shall
quote a few lines from my (quite long) Info #270en, "H. Dicke on the
Cultural
Revolution - in 2006 vs in 1976-78" (of 05.02.2007),
[QUOTE:]
Both of these [the 07.04.1976 PB ones] were good decisions, it can be
judged in
retrospect. They were supported and welcomed as such at the time too by
practically all of those political parties and groups outside of China
which
(genuinely or hypocritically) were supporting the CPC. The first of them,
as
mentioned, meant a certain defeat also for the 4-gang. The second
decision,
while likewise a good one, was motivated in part wrongly by the PB
however, by
its introducing it, in its communiqué (reproduced in Info #022en, part
05/12),
with:
"Having discussed the counter-revolutionary incident which took place at
Tien
An Men Square and Teng Hsiao-ping's latest behaviour, the Political Bureau
of
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China holds that the
nature of
the Teng Hsiao-ping problem has turned into one of antagonistic
contradiction."
By the Political Bureau's thus hinting, incorrectly, that Deng Xiaoping
had
"organized" the main part of the recent demonstration and its saying,
wrongly,
that it had been "a counter-revolutionary incident", the 4-gang at that
time
had achieved a certain partial success too. Socialism in China thus was
under
quite serious attack from two competing reactionary groups, it can be seen
in
retrospect.
[END OF QUOTE]
ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHICH I THINK MAY BE OF GENERAL INTEREST:
From November 1976 on, certain observations concerning China made me a
little
uneasy, but I still could not think, did not want to think, that perhaps
capitalism was being re-established in that country. In Germany however,
Klaus
Sender and his "NE" were investigating that question, coming up with an
internationally unique correct analysis of it in July-August 1977, which
they
showed me too in April 1978, when it was made public on a larger scale.
Then I
could see for myself too: Yes, certainly, they were right.
That analysis was based, above all, on those documents which were made
public
in China concerning the so-called "rehabilitation" of Deng Xiaoping then,
effected in such a (wrong) way, these documents showed, that it was clear
to
the advanced Marxist-Leninist Klaus Sender, who could *prove* this to us
others
too, that capitalism then in fact was being restored in China.
Thus, the abovementioned "simple trick", of reading some documents
somewhat
carefully.
I was invited then, in April 1978, to my "NE" comrades in Berlin(West) and
given that article by Klaus Sender (later called by me in my Info #270en,
where
it's reproduced in translation, "Marxist-Leninist publication 2" [from
1976-1978]), to read in peace and quiet, and then asked, what did I think
of
it. "This is very good", I said - actually an certain understatement, as I
later came to see. At the hand of that "information on the ground" (above
all),
Klaus did demonstrate most conclusively and indubitably that which he was
maintaining, concerning China at that time.
By which I want to tell you one more time, Charles, that such a thing,
such an
assessment which demonstrably in correct, under certain circumstances at
least,
*can* be made from the other side of the globe too. Incidentally, also
another
party quite far away from China, namely the PCP in Peru (led by Abimael
Guzmán
- Chairman Gonzalo), at an almost equally early stage, in September 1977,
published a similar criticism of the then line of the CPC and of then
recent
events in China, only this was a criticism not nearly as good as the "NE"
one,
since it was in error concerning that in reality reactionary role, very
much
contributing to making the overthrow in China possible, that the
phony"left"
4-gang had played, as very correctly pointed out and repeated by the "NE"
as
led by Klaus Sender (whose vile treason took place much later, from one
point
or other in the 1980s on).
(Concerning the PCP, by the way, and also concerning that "trick" of
reading
some documents somewhat carefully, which I had learned some more about
during
some 20+ years of experience of mine as a political activist, see my
article,
originally of 12.08.1994, and on the Internet from 01.01.1996 on, in my
Info
#003en, "Why Does the RIM Help U.S. Imperialism Encircle the PCP?".)
Please take a look yourself, Charles, at some crucial lines in that "NE"
article from July-August 1977 - in case you haven't "fallen asleep", or
have
tried to do so, when reading all that stuff of mine above; but you should
realize, (still) ignorant person, that, when you, "on the the basis of"
that
utter ignorance of yours, have taken it upon yourself to write, publicly,
such
a "criticism of" my Info #288en as you have done (see above), then you do
deserve even some more of such "Chinese water torture" against you as you
may
think(?) my above lines lines make up. - But, I'm hoping in fact that you,
or
at least some others, instead may learn a little from this which I'm
writing -
really intended as "a glass of water in the desert" or something like
that, to
those (others) who want to further the interests of the proletariat, and
if it
might function as "water torture" too, then, hopefully, only to such
people who
don't want to know that - yes, rather long and complicated - story about
how
socialism was overthrown in China and might prefer trying to stick their
head
down into some sand instead and in reality not combat, or even help, the
bourgeoisie's of course massive lying on this bit of history.
How about those lines, for instance, by Klaus Sender, from mid-1977,
[QUOTE:]
Why must we reject this decision?
This decision passes over and violates - at least, according to what we so
far
know and what has so far been made known about it by reports - in a
flagrant
manner one of those decisions that, when all is said and done, were
reached by
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on 7 April 1976 on
the
proposal of Chairman Mao.
....
In fact Chairman Mao combated both the revisionist deviation of Teng
Hsiao-ping
and also the arch-reactionary ultra-rightist 'Gang of Four'. That is why,
under
his leadership, two decisions were reached. The first one, that of
appointing
Hua Kuo-feng First Vice Chairman and President of the State Council, and
the
second one, that of dismissing Teng Hsiao-ping from all posts, in that
well-known clear decision. That is a very easily understandable and very
clear
fact, which one must not permit to be done away with. The present
statements in
China however all are passing over in silence the relation between these
two
tendencies and are dealing only with one of the sides.
....
What takes place in China is the following: In the first phase, in a
correct
manner, following the call: Smashing of the "Gang of Four', continuation
of
class struggle, continuation of the criticism against Teng Hsiao-ping and
against the right-deviationist wind for reversing correct verdicts, the
'Gang
of Four' is smashed and class struggle is being continued.
But a relatively short time later, certain phenomena become noticeable in
which
this line is being abandoned and the criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping very
quickly
is being discontinued completely, without any points concerning the
reasons for
it being made clear to people on the outside, a number of documents
silently,
with no accompanying notifications, are all being altered (thus in reality
subjected to forgery) and further the 'KPD' is being received, in fact the
policy as to the phony"Marxists" is continued, as well as those practices
to
create confusion concerning the struggle in our country.
While thus, in the first moment, the political line is being carried out
correctly, even only a very short time afterwards one could observe how
the
political line is being lifted away from the correct basis, the criticism
of
Teng Hsiao-ping is discontinued completely and, basically, that historical
fact
that the 'Gang of Four' was beaten under the conditions of a simultaneous
continuing of the criticism against Teng Hsiao-ping, is being twisted.
....
It is the responsibility of the international proletariat, on a certain
point
to counteract all this and to develop a public criticism of a socialist
country
which has developed in reciprocal support together with the international
proletariat and the peoples of all countries. We do not intend to accept
that
Chairman Mao here in a stealthy manner in practice is being written off
and
stricken away and one day will be openly attacked. We must defend Chairman
Mao.
[END OF QUOTE]
Pretty good, I on by part think. In fact there was nothing showing even an
approximately deep insight in these matters, at that time, anywhere else
in the
world. And that later somewhat more developed analysis of this which I on
my
part have made, has rested precisely on that one as its basis.
But on principle, what would really prevent you, for instance, Charles, or
anybody else on the list MLL who would take an interest in such things,
from
coming up with some equally good analysis, of a similar matter, say, on
the
other side of the globe today?
(Since you live in Malaysia, that might be one here in Europe, then. Such
as
one small question, are the present-day writings of that grain of sand in
the
desert, Rolf M. in Malmö, Sweden, perhaps pretty good and at least
potentially
somewhat helpful to some Marx adherents internationally, or are they just
pretty bad and worthless, not really having any foundation in facts?
Trying, on
my part, to be as objective also about such things as I possibly can, I
must
say that you could improve on your recent assessment of that quite
considerably.)
On such matters in general, just one more (repeated) and final quote, from
those documents from the CPC's 10th congress which I also quoted above.
[QUOTE:]
Through discussion, many comrades have come to realise that according to
the
dialectic materialist point of view, all objective things are knowable.
"The
naked eye is not enough, we must have the aid of the telescope and the
microscope. The Marxist method is our telescope and microscope in
political and
military matters." So long as one diligently studies the works of Marx,
Engels,
Lenin and Stalin and those of Chairman Mao, takes an active part in the
actual
struggle and works hard to remould one's world outlook, one can constantly
raise the ability to distinguish genuine from sham Marxism and
differentiate
between correct and wrong lines and views.
[END OF QUOTE]
Isn't that precisely so, what?
Rolf M.
_____________________
Message posted by:
Rolf Martens
Malmö, Sweden
Phone and fax:
+46 - 40 - 124832;
rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
