Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:44:22 -0800
Subject: M-G: Debate on China 4;  Right and "Left" Opportunism  - Pt. 1



=====================================================================Debate on China

Right and "Left" Opportunism:  Which is the Main Danger?

The revolutionary proletariat must battle two kinds of erroneous lines
- the Right opportunist revisionist capitalist-road line and the phony
"Left" line.  These lines have different characteristics and have different
roles at different times but they are both counter-revolutionary and are in
direct opposition to the proletarian revolutionary line.

The essence of the proletarian revolutionary line in carrying forward
revolution towards communism is embodied in the Marxist thesis of 
integrating the theory of uninterrupted revolution with the theory of the
development of revolution by stages.

	"We are advocates of the Marxist theory of uninterrupted revolution.
	We hold that things are always moving forward and that socialism and
	communism are not and definitely must not be allowed to be separated
	by a Great Wall.  We must persist in continuing the revolution under
	the dictatorship of the proletariat and never stand still.  At the
	same time, we are advocates of the Marxist theory of the development
	of revolution by stages.  We maintain that different stages of
	development reflect the qualitative change of things, and we should
	not get confused with the qualitatively different stages, nor go 
	beyond the stage of historical development to do what cannot possibly
	be accomplished at present."

	("Marx, Angeles and Lenin on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
	Questions and Answers" Peking Review #51, 1975, p.15, part 12)

The general characteristic of Right opportunism is to deny the need for 
revolutionary change at all and try to reverse it, while the general
characteristic of "Left" opportunism is to deny the development of 
revolutionary change by stages, pushing for everything at once.  This makes
the goals unattainable, channels the revolutionary energy in the wrong
direction and objectively aids Right opportunism by depleting the proletariat's
strength and demoralizing it.

"Left" opportunism is essentially petty bourgeois and is opposed to 
proletarian politics.  It must be combated, but it becomes particularly
dangerous at certain moments in the revolutionary process.  In 1930 the "Left"
dogmatist line of Li Li-san prevailed in the Red Army.  He advocated 
abandoning the base areas to attack key cities and win the revolutionary 
war with one blow.  Many of the Red Army's forces were wiped out before
the correct line gained control again.  This was one of the three "Left"
lines that caused great losses to the revolutionary forces for extended 
periods.  More recently, phony "left" tendencies emerged during the 
Cultural Revolution.  These phony "Leftists" called for (among other things):

(1) a complete readjustment and equalization of wages (an unrealizable 
objective that directed the struggle towards an equalization of wages instead
of their eventual elimination),

(2) an end to *all* rules in factories (as opposed to only those which
unreasonably perpetuated bourgeois right),

(3) ultra-democracy (which would give the bourgeoisie a complete free hand),

(4) "criticizing all and overthrowing everything",

(5) forming a new "Marxist-Leninist" party, and

(6) breaking off all foreign relations.

The phony "Left" was extremely sectarian, dividing the workers and students
into many opposing groups, and called for violent struggle in many instances
where it was not needed and played a counter-revolutionary  divisive role
instead of a revolutionary role.  It attacked people instead of ideas, thereby
robbing the struggle of its political content.  Its main fault was to call
for continued criticism and struggle without seeing the need for 
transformation and unity to consolidate the gains of the Cultural Revolution.
Phony "Leftism", because of its "radical" cover, had a large base of support
among workers and students during the Cultural Revolution.  After the 
revisionists had largely been defeated (but not vanquished) in 1967, it 
became the main danger in the struggle.  In August, 1967, many such phony
"Leftists" were purged from the Cultural Revolution Group (which was formed
to give leadership to the revolution) and a campaign was launched to 
consolidate the gains of the Cultural Revolution, re-educate the workers
and students who had been taken in by the phony "Left" line, facilitate
the transformation, and unify the Party.  This campaign was led, first and
foremost, by Chou En-law, with the help of the "gang of four", Chiang Ching,
Chang Chun-chiao, Yao Wen-yuan, Wand Hung-wen (see accounts of the 
Cultural Revolution in Shanghai in the books by Jean Daubier, Joan Robinson,
and Victor Nee), and others who had been active in mobilizing the masses of
workers and peasants to defeat the revisionist headquarters and transform
industry and education.

However, while it was absolutely necessary to wage a two-front struggle,
against both the phony "Left" and the Right, the capitalist-roaders in the
Party were only concerned with attacking the proletarian Left (labeling
it "ultraLeft") to protect themselves.  In 1966, in response to P'eng
Chen's report that protected the Right and attacked the Left, Chairman Mao
and the Central Committee released the May 16th circular which declared:

"For their own ulterior purposes, the authors of the Report demand a 
'rectification campaign' against the staunch Left in a deliberate effort
to create confusion, blur class alignments and divert people from the 
target of struggle.  Their main purpose in dishing up the Report in such
a hurry was to attack the proletarian Left.  They have gone out of their
way to build up dossiers about the Left, tried to find all sorts of 
pretexts for attacking it, and intended to launch further attacks on it
by means of a 'rectification campaign', in the vain hope of disintegrating
its ranks.  They openly resist the policy explicitly put forward by
Chairman Mao of protecting and supporting the Left and giving serious
attention to building it up and expanding its ranks..They are filled 
with hatred for the proletariat and love for the bourgeoisie.
	At a time when the new and fierce struggle of the proletariat
against the representatives of the bourgeoisie on the ideological front
has only just begun..the Report stresses again and again that the struggle
must be conducted 'under direction', 'with prudence', 'with caution', and
'with the approval of the leading bodies concerned'.  All this serves
to place restrictions on the proletarian LEFT, to impose taboos and
commandments in order tie its hands, and to place all sorts of obstacles
in the way of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution.  In a word, the authors
of the Report are rushing to apply the brakes and launch a vindictive 
counter-attack..The Report opposes carrying the socialist revolution through
to the end, opposes the line on the cultural revolution pursued by the
Central Committee of the Party headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, attacks
the proletarian Left and shields the bourgeois Right, thereby preparing
public opinion for the restoration of capitalism.  It is a reflection of
bourgeois ideology in the Party; it is out and out revisionism."


On the surface, the criticisms of the "gang of four" were for Right errors:

	"The Wang-Chang-Chiang-Yao anti-Party clique is a bunch of 
	ultra-Rightists and their counter-revolutionary revisionist line
	is an ultra-Right line..They are ultra-Rightists, out and out
	capitalist-roaders, and the most ferocious counter-revolutionaries.
	..The infamous records of Chang Chun-chiao, Chiang Ching and Yao
	Wen-yuan show that they were linked with the Chain Kai-shek 
	Kuomingtang reactionaries in a thousand and one ways.  The social
	basis of this gang is the landlords, rich peasants, counter-
	revolutionaries, bad elements and new and old bourgeoisie."

	(Hua Kuo-feng in speech to Tachai Agricultural Conference, 
	December 1976, Peking Review #1, 1977, p. 36)

There is overwhelming evidence to show that it was completely false to
characterize the "gang of four" line as ultra-Right capitalist-roader, the
most convincing of which is that those scum in their campaign against the
"gang of four", did not attack any of the tendencies of a capitalist-road line.
They did not attack the "gang of four" for putting profits or production in
command, or for pushing the "theory of productive forces," or for making
material incentives the motive force in production, or for pushing that 
experts should run the factories, or for servility to foreign technology,
or for wanting to consolidate the capitalist relations of production in
agriculture or industry, or for widening the gaps between manual and mental
labor, between worker and peasant, between town and countryside.  They were
not EVER accused of downplaying class struggle and opposing revolution.  
The attacks they make on political line are, almost without exception, against
ultra-"Left" tendencies and not capitalist-road tendencies.  For instance,
they accuse the "gang of four" of:  advocating "overthrowing all" and 
encouraging violence when necessary (the article about Chou En-law and the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution definitely portrays them in this
ultra-"Left" role, Peking Review #4, 1977), (2) unrealistically opposing 
foreign technology, (Peking Review #4, 1977), (3) opposing veteran cadre and
trying to promote too many young cadre, (Peking Review #7, 1977), 
(4) advocating continual struggle without transformation, and refusing to
let mistaken cadre mend their ways (Peking Review #4, 1977), (5) taking
contradictions among the people for contradictions between the people and the
enemy (Peking Review #5, 1977), (6) using opposition to empiricism as a 
cover for being dogmatists (the actions of the "gang of four" were likened
several times to the "Left" dogmatist line of Wang Ming and they were said
to be "jackals from the same lair") (Peking Review #50, 1976, p.14), 
(7) setting revolution against production, politics against economics, 
socialist consciousness against intellectual development, and political
education against military training (various issues of Peking Review).

All of the above errors are generally phony "Left" in nature and not Right.
The charges are thoroughly unbased, but reflect the ultra-Right nature of the
attackers, who purposefully try to characterize all the revolutionary 
elements of the proletarian line as "ultraLeft".  


Continued in part 2, Debate on China - Right and Left Opportunism
================================================================

     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---