Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 07:12:53 +0100 (MET) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: Debate on China, 7: 4/4 Actual 1976 events & fake Debate on China, 7: 4/4 Actual 1976 events & fake [Posted: 29.12.96] [Continued from posting 6] =A411. (CTD.) - YOUR ARGUMENT 1: "LINE CHANGED" (CTD.) Quite correctly did the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) in its message of congratulations to Hua Guofeng - the message that, because of its quite particular insight, was very important, among all those sent from foreign parties, but which precisely was *suppressed* in China - say, on the October blow, i.a.: (Info #22en part 8/12): >With it, the most dangerous grouping at the present time has >been hit. In general, of course the emphasis of struggle *must* be changed according to what enemy or what deviation at the time is presenting the greatest danger to the proletariat. During the Cultural Revolution, there first was emphasis on the struggle against the revisionism of Lui Shaoqi, which appeared in an openly-Rightist form. Later, after the 1971 coup attempt by Lin Biao, whose revisionism had appeared in a phoney"Left" guise, emphasis of course shifted towards combating *that*. And as was pointed out by Zhou Enlai at the CPC:s 10th Congress in 1973, which I've quoted above and many other times already: *"It is imperative to note that one tendency covers another."* - referring to openly-Right and phoney"Left" deviations. The shifting of emphasis, *in October*, was correct. The line then was still a proletarian one. You continued that argument of yours, Jay, by saying that: >Within two months, all mention of the struggle to beat back the >Right deviationist attempt was dropped and Teng Hsiao-ping >was only mentioned in criticizing the "gang of four" or, more >exactly, the "gang of four" were criticized for "twisting and >overemphasizing" the criticism of Teng. That in itself is quite correct. In my postings, I also have pointed that out. Only, that was *another* and *later* development, that was the later treason by the Hua Guofeng group, which must not be confused with the October action, as you are doing. As for the 4-Gang's twisting the criticism of Deng Xiaoping, *that* was an actual fact too. It's necessary to see that there took place a *triangular* battle, with the correct, proletarian line in one of the corners and the two bourgeois deviations in the other two. You constantly, and in part obviously dishonestly, are "eliminating" one of those corners, trying to make people believe that the "corner", the line, of the 4-Gang was that of Mao. =A412. YOUR ARGUMENT 2: " THE 4-GANG WERE VERY IMPORTANT LEADERS" AND "THERE WAS A BIG PURGE". In your posting 2, Jay, you started out by presenting the "4-Gang members" and those posts they were holding, in great detail, (not that bad as information) and then wrote that >At the time of the purge, these leaders, now called the "gang >of four," were among the ten most important leaders in the >Chinese Communist Party. The post-purge criticism was >directed at them. and further: >However, hundreds or perhaps thousands of other leading >cadres were also removed, arrested, or purged, including >many of the ministers of the State Council, members of the >Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, and >local Party committee members around the country. What are you trying to argue with this? Probably, that "the capitalist-roaders" did "seize control", in October. But firstly, Hua Guofeng, *not* yet a capitalist-roader, already *was* the man in top charge, respectively, his supporters were. I've already pointed out your dishonesty in being silent on this fact. Secondly, your description of the importance of the 4-Gang and of the scope of the purge - at least as far as October is concerned - is not correct. On both counts, you're exaggerating - not necessarily intentionally. Were the 4-Gang "among the ten most important leaders of the CPC"? If this is judged by the criteria that you yourself set up, that of what posts they were holding (which indeed is *one* of the criteria that its reasonable to go by), then it's a simple question of numbers. According your version, those four people constituted 40% of the top leadership, so to speak. In reality, numerically speaking, they only constituted some 25% of it. They were all members of the Political Bureau (PB) of the CC of the CPC. That PB, as elected by the 10th Congress in 1973, had 21 members and 4 alternate members. In the mean- time, Deng Xiaoping had also been elected to it (Jan '75) but was later dismissed (April '76), and 5 members had died: Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Kang Sheng and (his name here in the old transcription:) Tung Pi-wu. Thus the 4-Gang were only a fifth of the total number of 20 PB members and alternate members. Two of the 4-Gang members were on the PB:s Standing Committee too, which as elected in 1973 had 9 members, some of which in October 1976 were deceased. All in all, it would be fair to say that, numerically, the Gang made up one-fourth of the highest CPC leadership. This doesn't take into account the fact of course that it was Hua Guofeng who held the top post, and not the fact either of the actual influence of various people including Jiang Qing, who of course since a long time back had been Mao's wife, as you pointed out too, Jay - though you gave her, probably by mistake, an extra half-decade in that capacity. All in all, you did blow up the 4-Gang's standing in the CPC quite a bit. As for governmental posts, which were important too, among the 12 Vice-Premiers elected at the 1st Session of the 4th National People's Congress in January, 1975, there was only one "4-Gang member", Zhang Chunqiao. At that time, Hua Guofeng got one of the 29 ministerial posts, as Minister of Public Security. (In Oct '76 of course he was Premier.) None of the 4-Gang got to head a ministry. Jiang Qing, for instance, whom Mao had already been criticizing most severely, in January 1975 was *not* appointed, e.g., Minister of Culture. As for a "purge" of other top CPC leaders than the 4-Gang, *in *October '76*, it did *not* take place. Out of the those 12 PB members and 4 alternate members who remained after the passing away of some of those elected in 1973 and after the arrest of the 4-Gang, everybody except one, Liu Po-cheng (rather unknown, probably deceased too in the meantime), was on Tianamen during the rally of 1 million people on 24.10.76 to celebrate the victory over the 4-Gang (acc. to PR #44/76). And at that rally, out of the 12 Vice-Premiers elected in 1975, only those two were missing whom you'd expect to be: Deng Xiaoping and Zhang Chunqiao. Of ministers purged in October, I know of no case except for perhaps one, indeed very murky - see below. As for leaders on somewhat lower levels (next to the top ones), of which there were certainly tens of thousands, it's not strange if some hundreds or even thousands of them were relieved of their posts at that time, as (actual) 4-Gang supporters. It's also the case of course that *after* the correct striking down of the 4-Gang, in connection with the Hua group's actually committing treason and coalescing with the Deng clique, *other*, and now *unjust* purges took place, hitting adherents of Mao Zedong's proletarian line under the pretext that they were "4-Gang supporters". *This* was the really nasty thing. It may be that some of these actions started even in October. Despite this, it remains necessary to *distinguish* between the *correct blow* against the Gang, on the one hand, and the *revisionist treason* of the same people who had led it, on the other. In time, the former took place in October '76, the latter (in the main) from November 1976 on. =A413. THE NECESSITY OF DISTINGUISHING EVENTS IN OCTOBER 1976 FROM THOSE THAT (IN THE MAIN) BEGAN IN NOVEMBER. This is what you are *not* doing, Jay, when you're pointing, in itself quite rightly, at the revisionist decisions eventually made in the summer of 1977 of "rehabilitating", in an unpermissible manner, Deng Xiaoping, *then* pretending that the criticism of his Right wind had been "only a product of the 4-Gang". On that rehabilitation and the lie accompanying it, and on the whole 1976-77 struggle in the CPC, the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) in Germany in that same summer wrote a correct and quite important analysis, making it clear that revisionists were now in power in China. I have not yet translated and posted that article, but I intend to do so later. In my postings, I've been basing myself of that correct analysis by the NE, which as far as I know was the *only* revolutionary party in the world that understood the events in China at that time. On this, see also my Info #12en (08.07.96). In an important statement in October 1978 (reproduced in Info #1en, 23.12.95), the NE wrote i.a.: >Both the big blow against the "Gang of Four" and the discharge >of the hate and fury against the machinations of this grouping >and also the actions of the present Chinese leadership show >how very right Mao Zedong was. >We absolutely repudiate both the line "KPD" / Deng Xiaoping / >Hua Guofeng and also the line "Roter Morgen" / "Gang of Four". >They constitute two deviations which wish once more to act, to >the detriment of the correct line, as opportunist underminers >and pacifiers. They have however already in the main failed, >since Mao Zedong in his last years through his decision against >Deng Xiaoping and also against the "Gang of Four" achieved >that they can only more or less openly today take a stand >against him and no longer can directly refer to him and must >work towards his being "surmounted". We combat this. =A414. YOUR ARGUMENT(?) 3: THE REVEALING MATTER OF THE 4-GANG'S "PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN" PHRASE, A TYPICAL MUMBO JUMBO AND A FORGERY WHICH POINTS TO USURPATION PLANS OF THEIRS I'm not certain whether in fact you intended to put forward this point as an argument for the false story that "capitalist-roaders seized power in China in Oct '76", Jay, but in connection with your mentioning the change of editorship of the PR from issue #/42/76 (15.10.1976) on, you also wrote, in your posting 2: >With that issue the "principles laid down" phrase associated >with the "gang of four" line disappears; This in itself is a quite correct observation. And whatever you wanted to say with it, that particular point would be an above-the- board argument too. Only, it so happens that this matter, as you probably don't know, contains one piece of rather clear evidence, which can be checked on even today, that the 4-Gang *were* after seizing state and Party power for themselves. I mean the *appearance*, in the first place, of that phrase. In PR #52/76, there's a very detailed article on this matter. Now at this point in time, the PR has already started becoming less reliable. But what it has to say on this question in part can even be confirmed, by means of a look at some earlier PR issues, and so in this case, it's most likely that it's telling the truth. What obviuosly took place was: On 30.04, Mao Zedong wrote down those 3 lines of advice for Hua Guofeng which I've mentioned above under point =A47, including the line, regarding the concrete situation then: "Act in line with past principles". Hua showed the paper in Mao's handwiting to the PB including the 4-Gang, who later, in September after Mao Zedong's death, altered the line mentioned to "Act according to the principles laid down" and propagandized it, in an editorial in the three most important papers on 16.09 first of all, as "Mao's last words" and "a masterly generalization and incisive summing-up of the Party's experience". As a such, the phrase is rather empty of course, and, as pointed out in PR #52/76, really a piece of metaphysics. But it did appear, quite suddenly, in PR #39/76, where that editorial was reproduced. And in PR #40/76, it's reported as having been used in memorial speeches all over the country - 24 of them all contain that almost empty thing as something important. Other articles featuring it as "last words" were being prepared by the 4-Gang too but were stopped after Hua on 02.10 had pointed out that it was a distortion of that piece of advice in April. What was the point of that action by the 4-Gang? PR #52/76 says, to discredit Hua Guofeng, who in his memorial speech soon after 16.09 did not include it. The Gang planned to make people believe this was a "witholding of Mao's last words", whose real protagonists *they * then would appear to be. And in fact, the manner in which the phrase appears in those PR issues, which is that of a veritable propaganda campaign with some particular motive or other behind it, does support precisely such a theory. So this is a certain piece of evidence, pointing at usurpation plans and foul dealings on the part of the 4-Gang, which everyone can check out today, 20 years later. =A415. ONE MURKY CASE, AS EARLY AS OCT-NOV 1976: THE DISAPPEARANCE OF FOREIGN MINISTER QIAO GUANHUA. I've repeated that the October blow against the 4-Gang was a correct action, by forces then still following Mao's line, and in Info #22en have pointed out that the people in China massively supported it too, as did the Marxist-Leninist parties in other countries. I was only from November on that a line of treason on the part of the Hua group started, I've added. And these are the main facts too. But one case on which I have very little information points to there having been some sinister intentions at an early stage: Qiao Guanhua, who on 05.10.76 had delivered an excellent "line speech" at the UN on China's behalf, as he had in 1974 and 1975 too, shortly afterwards suddenly just disappeared. He was not present at an occasion on 12.10 (perhaps not home yet?), nor on one on 16.11, and on 17.12, there's a new Foreign Minister, Huang Hua, PR issues show. Nothing was said about Qiao's (purportedly) having been a 4-Gang follower. This and other things point to his not having been one. In her 1985 book, foreign correspondent Clare Hollingworth wrote he had died (when?, how?). A very murky case. However, the main conclusions it does not alter. I'm taking the chance, Jay, of your once more completely ignoring what I've written. And of course I'm hoping that others may have some use for it. Rolf M. =09 --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005