File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1996/96-12-31.174, message 4


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 ---



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005