File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9707, message 121


Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 19:04:35 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #40en: 2/4 NE (Germany) on China, '76-'78


UNITE! Info #40en: 2/4 NE (Germany) on China, '76-'78
[Posted: 13.07.97]


DOCUMENT 2) [Continues in part 3/4; Notes, see part 1/4]


SOME COMMENTS BY OUR PARTY ON THE DECISION BY 
THE THIRD PLENARY MEETING OF THE TENTH CENTRAL 
COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA
CONCERNING TENG HSIAO-PING IN JULY '77

(Summary of Comments from 27.7 - 19-20.8.1977 - Excerpts)

[Tr. Note: "Comment" is not a perfect translation of the German
word "Stellungnahme" but has been preferred here to the more 
literal but somewhat awkward "taking of position". - RM]


                              I.

Must we reject this decision?

Yes. We must reject it. The decision stands in striking contra-
diction to one of the decisions of 7 April 1976, which when all
is said and done was reached on the proposal of Chairman Mao, a
fact which simply is being passed over in this present decision.
That is, to begin with, the formal aspect of it, which however
by no means is unimportant, considering the significance that 
that decision had.

And, furthermore, this decision stands in an obvious, unmistake-
able connection also with certain transformations and actions
which became visible a certain time after the striking down of
the 'Gang of Four', which we of course greeted in the very most
decided manner within our country. *We, in contradiction to the
'KPD', have never supported the 'Gang of Four'.*

[Note: On the 'KPD', see Info #12en. - RM]

We held and still today hold that line to be correct, to smash 
the 'Gang of Four' and, at the same time, continue the criticism
of Teng Hsiao-ping. Although this at first quite unequivocally
was stated in this manner too *and the mass movement for smash-
ing the 'Gang of Four' took place on such a note, the last-men-
tioned point in practice was secretly deleted and this now later
also complemented by this present decision.*

Those changes which have occurred since then we can by no means
accept. Of this decision we can, in this form by which it only 
deals with the one half of the matters and leaves the other half
out, by no means approve. It is the mark of a development which
we must criticize.

                 
                              II.

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, was reached by the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of China on 7 April 1976 on the proposal 
of Chairman Mao. 

That is, to begin with, a very essential formal point, which
by no means can be considered to be solely a matter concerning 
personell on the part of the Communist Party of China either,
since such a public decision, such a public settlement of mat-
ters on the proposal of Chairman Mao, which was reported public-
ly on in this manner and which has constituted a basis for the
assessment of the situation by dozens of communist parties all
over the world and which, when all is said and done, was prece-
ded by a considerable struggle in China, can by no means be con-
sidered as solely a Communist Party of China personell matter,
on the contrary, the treatment of such a question that is con-
nected with such a decision inevitably is one of political prin-
ciple. *But this decision is being passed over completely by all
those documents from this CC Plenary Meeting that have so far
become known.*

Our Party was always in favour of the striking down and the ex- 
clusion of the 'Gang of Four' together with, at the same time, 
the continuing of the criticism against Teng Hsiao-ping.

In the first moment of the striking down of the 'Gang of Four',
thus in the decisive moment, this line was followed too, the
'Gang of Four' was smashed and the criticism of Teng Hsiao-
ping's rightist-deviation was continued, and only this filled 
the masses with enthusiasm and created in them that enormous
force to smash the 'Gang of Four'. 

Only a short time afterwards, however, this line was abandoned,
this was lifted out of this struggle, the criticism of Teng 
Hsiao-ping was deleted completely and thus the correct principle
of continuing class struggle in the socialist period in fact was 
no longer being upheld completely, nor the line of taking class 
struggle as key link; the line of class struggle in the socia-
list period was being abandoned at least in part.   

The 'Gang of Four' tried to take Teng Hsiao-ping's errors and
revisionist deviations as a pretext for their own crimes; this
however absolutely does not mean that this capitalist-revision-
ist deviation was a sheer invention by the 'Gang of Four'. The 
criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping was a public one, and everybody in 
China knew about it. The masses took to the streets in condem-
nation of revisionism, and there occurred the considerable de-
monstrations of April 1976.

Our Party in connection with the sending off of the telegram to
Chairman Hua Huo-feng of 30 October 1976 established the follow-
ing facts:

	"In the criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping, this clique always
	tried to confound correct things with false and so 
	create a counter-revolutionary public opinion, to start
	a fascist regime in China, to deliver China into the
	hands of imperialism and revisionism and to favour hege-
	monism in the world. Filled with suspicion, our Party
	observed the dealings of this clique and prepared itself
	if need should be to counteract them during a long pe-
	riod of time."

[Note: Concerning such observations of and preparations against
the dealings of the 4-gang, on the part of the then KPD/ML(NEUE 
EINHEIT) from early 1975 on, see Info #12en. - RM]

	"This clique represents, on an international scale, ca-
	pitulation to Soviet revisionism and to all imperialism 
	and hegemonism and represents actual or direct support
	for the aggressive plans of social-imperialism. And 
	likewise is the viewpoint of their kind of 'criticism'
	one of capitulationists and lackeys to fascism and hege-
	monism. Their 'criticism' is really similar to that of
	the novel character Sung Chiang. It is a 'criticism' by
	ultra-rightist elements.

	They are enemies of the self-dependent struggle by the
	proletariat and the masses of people. They are represen-
	tatives of those rightist elements and labour aristocra-
	cy that have been bribed by imperialism and social-impe-
	rialism. Under a cloak of always taking the words 'dic-
	tatorship of the proletariat' in their mouths, they in
	reality are against the continuing of the class struggle
	under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proleta-
	riat and against the proletarian control, and thereby
	are turning the words 'dictatorship of the proletariat'
        into a coat of paint over their fascist dictatorship.

	Chairman Mao's revolutionary foreign policy earned re-
	cognition by all peoples and by the overwhelming majori-
	ty of all people. It was penetrated by a truly Marxist
	spirit, which correctly takes into consideration the
	peoples and nations and the unity of the third world and
	rejects revisionism, including its sources. Because of 
	of his rejection of revisionism and because of his Marx-
	ist views, Chairman Mao arrived at correct assessments 
	both concerning the situation in China itself and also
	concerning the international situation, assessments
	which made it possible for him to carry out a policy of
	the broadest possible joining together of all forces
	that could be united, and the furthest possible isola-
	tion of the enemies of the social revolution of the pro-
	letariat.

	This political line has united as large a number of
	people as possible and has brought the reactionaries
	(hegemonists), despite all their desperate breaking-out 
	attempts, into great isolation. Chairman Mao's correct
	political line of taking class struggle as key link and
	his revolutionary foreign policy together make up a uni-
	ty, and also is the class struggle an international
	struggle in its essence and is a two-line struggle, a
	struggle against revisionism and phony'Marxism'.

	If you apply the thesis that it is a basic characteris-
	tic of every really Marxist-Leninist policy to advance
	ever deeper, always to new masses, then it follows that 
	the proletarian, revolutionary foreign policy of Chair-
	man Mao, which developed and gained in strength so enor-
	mously in the seventies, is a great policy of continua-
	tion of the revolution.

	*The anti-party clique of four of all its heart is an
	enemy of this political line.*'    


We however also held that it despite this was necessary to view
the differentiation in that way that Chairman Mao had proposed 
and in which it had unequivocally been laid down by the deci-
sion. For, can you take for granted that such a bourgeois de-
viation as that exhibited by Teng Hsiao-ping is not, in the fi-
nalinstance, of an antagonistic character? You cannot, since it 
in a certain way likewise represents the bourgeoisie, even if 
perhaps a third world bourgeoisie.

Despite this, it is necessary, if the revolution internationally
is to advance with the necessary speed, precisely also here to
continue the criticism and wherever correct also to acknowledge
that you can give missions in the constructions to such persons
too who can contribute with certain things for a country and who
is prepared to engage in self-criticism. A condition for this
however is that you have clarity about the matters and that you
are continuing the struggle against the erroneous things. But
this criticism is being crossed out in China.


                              III.    

As an example of such a one-sided treatment we can cite the fol-
lowing: Concerning the question of Teng Hsiao-ping it in the
decision of the Plenary Meeting of the CC is stated only:

	"With their raging attacks, vilifications and false
	charges against comrade Teng Hsiao-ping they ((the 'Gang
	of Four')) went their own way, against the directives
	of Chairman Mao."

Nothing more is being said concerning this point.

This quote completely cuts off one part of the truth, which is
obvious to anyone who have followed the matters even if only in
an approximate way. It cuts off that part of the truth that it
was Chairman Mao himself who proposed that Teng Hsiao-ping
should be relieved of all posts inside and outside the Party
and that it was the entire Political Bureau of the Central Com-
mittee, including comrade Hua Kuo-feng and all the other mem-
bers of the Political Bureau, who established as a fact that it 
had come to the conclusion that in essence, the question of 
Teng Hsiao-ping had already transformed itself into an antago-
nistic contradiction.

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 under-
standable 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 tenden-
cies and are dealing only with one of the sides.

[Continued in part 3/4]   



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005