File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9707, message 227

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:50:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #45en: 1/12 4-gang history '76, pal '97

UNITE! Info #45en: 1/12 4-gang history '76, pal '97
[Posted: 26.07.97]

Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anm=E4rkning:
=A1UNIOS! /  F=D6RENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der
letzten Seite / Verrez information =E0 la derni=E8re page / Ver
informaci=F3n en la =FAltima p=E1gina / Se information p=E5 sista sidan.



Here's another Info posting on the question of the 4-gang in
China in the mid-1970s, and likewise a very long one, in as many
as 12 parts again. I already sent one 12-part Info on the same
theme on 03.11.1996, #22en, entitled "The 4-Gang in China,
1976". Readers may wonder parhaps: Why do I hold this to be such
a relatively important question today?

This has to do with the massive subversive activities by the
main reactionaries in the world against the international Marx-
ist-Leninist movement, activities which it's absolutely neces-
sary to expose and to beat. Both of the CIA-manipulated phony
"Internationals", the "RIMitz" and the "MIMitz", are strenoulsy
making propaganda for the ultra-rightist 4-gang as the "real re-
volutionaries in China" in the mid-70s etc, as an important part
of their whole ideological setup.


The question of the character of the 4-gang was really settled
long ago, in late 1976, when that counter-revolutionary clique
was completely exposed to and condemned and beaten by the
Chinese people in October 1976, supported in this by the inter-
national Marxist-Leninist movement at that time too.

Only later was that question so to speak "reopened" again.

This was after, firstly, the group in China led by Hua Guofeng,
whom Mao Zedong had proposed and made propaganda for as his
successor as CPC chairman - thereby dealing a blow both at the
hopes of the openly-rightist Deng Xiaoping clique and also at
those of the phony"left" 4-gang - had started openly to commit
acts of revisionist treason themselves as early as in the very
next month, November 1976, and then step by step combined with
the Deng clique in to overtrow socialism in China, a restora-
tion of capitalism that was completed in late 1978.

And the question in a way was reopened by there secondly, like-
wise from 1978 on, from the CIA muppet the "RCP" in the USA,
above all, starting to emerge a complete falsification of the
then recent history of the class struggle in China, a falsifi-
cation proclaiming the - to all who knew the most basic facts -
completely exposed and refuted 4-gang as "the real revolutiona-
ries" in China.

Because of the already weak and in fact doubtful nature of many
Marxist-Leninist (with or without quotes) organizations of the
mid-70s in several parts of the world and also the big blow to
the entire international Marxist-Leninist movement in the world
that was effected by the overthow of socialism in China, know-
ledge of such basic facts as mentioned above was scant to begin
with and later in many places obviously vanished completely.

This plus the fact that there in the ideology of the PCP in
Peru, whose people's war from 1980 on earned it a considerable
and not unjustified prestige internationally, were (and still
are) certain grave weaknesses which enabled the CIA to "sell"
its 4-gang "heroes" and its entire reactionary anti-Mao 1984
"RIM Declaration" to it, has caused the present situation in
which obviously rather many sincere people in various parts of
the world believe that this falsification is the truth. 

IN 1976 ETC

With several earlier postings, not least with the abovementioned
Info #22en, I've refuted this Goebbels/Orwellian "truth". Of
great importance concerning it are also the 1976-79 articles
by the then Marxist-Leninist party in Germany, the "NE", which I
reproduced in Infos #12en, of 08.07.96, and #40en, of 13.07.97.

In the present Info is reproduced a debate on the role of the
4-gang, between me and a present-day adherent of that gang, Jay
Miles, of the Detroit Peru Support Committee, which took place
on the Marxism-General mailinglist (M-G) managed by the Spoon
Collective, in the time between December 1996 and last February
(when I on my part had to postpone its continuation).

Its main interest today, I believe, lies in that history of the
events in China of that most crucial year, 1976, which I wrote
down, with polemical comments, dealing with all the most impor-
tant events in chronological order, as part of that debate.
It's reproduced in parts 4/12 to 7/12 of this Info.

>From the likewise 12 parts of that earlier Info, #22en, which
contain all the most crucial documents, readers could already
puzzle together that history. For overwhelming proof of what I'm
maintaining, I refer you to that posting. But the sequence of
events should be easier to see below here.

Also I in that debate brought a collection of criticisms of the
4-gang by Mao Zedong, at CPC party meetings, in the years 1974-
1976. They are in part 8/12 here. So is a list of things on the
Net with information on China in the mid -70s.

Reading the last four parts, 9-12/12, is *very* "optional". They
contain a 4-part debate posting by Jay Miles (with a few com-
ments by me now) which is liable to bore you to death since it's
as good as empty of relevant facts, and which is included only
in order to demonstrate (further) his "debate methods".


The rest of this Info mainly contains other debate postings by
me as well as some quite long, and not badly-informed but *com-
pletely and callously mendacious* ones, really painstaking at-
tempts at fooling those not so familiar with the facts - and
possibly, at fooling himself, even - despite his by then al-
ready since several months back knowing the true story, by Jay
Miles, who thereby rather instructively demonstrates some of the
conning methods of such forces as were the 4-gang in China more
than 20 years ago. In part 8/12, I'm commenting on them, before
reproducing Jay's February batch of postings.

Since early 1996, I've had Net contact with the Detcom and with
Jay Miles, a contact that has been rewarding too in many ways.
I've earlier gotten some important information from Jay. And in
two political struggles at least, the one against the *leaders*
of the "RCP" and of "RIM" for their stabbing the people's war in
Peru in the back and the the April-June 1996 successful fight
against and exposure of the "Quispe" US imperialist agent crowd,
he and the Detcom he's leading - eventually - came out on the
side of the proletariat.

But otherwise, Jay very systematically has been "jumping up on a
fence and staying there" in all more important political strugg-
les, in particular, that concerning the character of the *"RIM"
as a whole*, its reactionary 1984 basic "Declaration" in parti-
cular, which he's seen exposed (by me) since early 1996.

And now quite recently, in that struggle which did not start
with, but was considerably sharpened by, my ex-comrades', the
now bourgeois "NE" in Germany, publishing on 30.06 a quite good
criticism of the founder of the PCP, J.C. Mati=E1tegui, and in
the course of which the phony "PCP ambassador" Adolfo Olaechea,
UK, exposed himself so completely as a bourgeois swindler, he
engaged in some sniping activities of a nasty and for him ob-
viously characteristic kind, in favour of ultra-reaction.

Therefore, when judging the character of that today not unimpor-
tant Net writer, Jay Miles (respectively the Detcom as a whole),
one must consider his actually taking a certain stand, last
March, *against* the imperialists' ultra-reactionary anti-nuc-
lear-energy campaign - an important part of their entire "green"
warfare against the masses and one that's supported or covered
up by *practically all* the phony"Marxists" internationally -
unfortunately to have been in the main nothing further than an-
other camouflage attempt on his part.

I had hoped, despite for instance that character of his 4-gang
debate postings which the readers of this can see for themsel-
ves, that the basic standpoint of Jay Miles might turn out to
be, or might change into, one of some genuine support for the
international proletariat anyway. But I now have to realize that
this has not been the case. It's necessary to warn the readers,
those who haven't already drawn the same conclusion themselves,
about the character of that writer, which I hereby am doing for
the first time:

He actually is a die-hard representative of the arch-reactionary
line of the 1970s 4-gang in China, respectively of *Avakianism*,
that very nasty ideology of the "RCP", USA, for which his own
Detcom in early 1996 coined that apt term in the first place.

This of course doesn't mean that it would be wrong on principle
for people perhaps to ally themselves with Jay Miles or the Det-
com on some point or other. The same thing applies concerning
all basically bourgeois forces. It just means that basically,
you shouldn't trust them an inch.

Those who really want to represent Marxism today, to help show
the way forward for the revolution, for the international prole-
tariat, cannot get around the of course quite complicated and
laborious business of basically getting to understand and be
able themselves to see through and expose how the adversaries of
that revolution, both "pro" such adversaries and also "amateur"
ones, work in order to deflect and to smother its sincere con-
scious adherents. A study of that debate which this Info posting
reproduces may be of some help in such a respect, I hope.


Part 1/12	(after this Note:) Debate starts (again, after
		an initial exchange in May '96 - see Info #22en)
		with a posting 1 by Jay, and reply 1 by me which
		begins here and continues in part 2/12

Part 2/12	End of my reply 1, and two more reply postings
		by me the same day, 14.12.1996, my 2 and 3.

Part 3/12	Jay continues on 17.12 with two postings where
		he puts forward his "arguments", his No:s 2, 3.

Parts 4-7/12	My postings 4-7, on 29.12, with now a *history
		of the class struggle in China in 1976*, its
		main events shown in chronological order, with
		comments refuting Jay's 2 and 3.

Part 8/12	First my 29.12 postings 8-9, with collection of
		Mao 1974-76 criticisms against the 4-gang, res-
		pectively a list of where to find more info on
		China in the mid-70s on the Net, and then

		a comment by me written now in July 1997 on
		Jay's February '97 postings and on his whole
		method of "argumentation" on these questions

Parts 9-12/12	Four postings by Jay in early February 1997, his
		No. 4 in 4 parts, briefly further commented on
		by me now at some points, where I'm also refer-
		ring to my general comment in part 8/12

End of Intro Note


Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:10:27 -0800
Subject: M-G: The Debate On China
To: marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

Rolf, I have been thinking hard and doing a lot of study around
the issue of the "gang of four" and the restoration of capita-
lism in China of late since your suggestion of a debate around
these things was posted to the list.  Of late I have been read-
ing later issues of Peking Review (after 1976) and studying the
political lines of Hua Kuo-feng and Deng Hsaio-ping presented as
interviews in these publications.  I think I can demonstrate
from the facts that you are holding a number of erroneous ideas
concerning the events, persons, and political lines involved in
the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

I agree with you that a debate or discussion of these things
would be of importance, more so than a lot of the stuff that I
read on the Marxism lists.  The Great Proletarian Cultural Revo-
lution was the greatest mass campaign to raise the revolutionary
consciousness of the masses of people, not only in China but all
over the world, and it's effects are not over yet but is still
having an impact on the political thinking of people internatio-

Here in the Detroit area, we have been  fortunate that we have
been able to talk and struggle with a great many people from
China who come to our city and nearby to attend college. China
sends many students here, mostly to study engineering it seems.
We have talked with persons both young and old, people too
young to remember much of the Cultural Revolution and others who
were actually Red Guards and participated fully in the political
struggles of that period.  We have spoken with both peasants and
city folk, and people of all classes and current members of the
revisionist Communist Party of China.  It is very interesting
and educational to speak with these persons and get a many view-
points of what happened in China.  I should like to relate some
of what we have learned over the years from these discussions in
our debate on the "gang of four" and China.

I would also to put forward an argument that the struggle
against the Right deviationist trend (1975-1976) was not an at-
tack on the four but against the capitalist roaders, Teng Hsaio-
ping and his gang.  The four were attacked by the capitalist
roaders for "ultra-left" errors not for capitalist road tenden-
cies.  More on this to come, too.

I want also to touch upon some other things you have brought up
in many of your articles on China, such as your statements that
the masses were overjoyed with the arrests of Chiang Ching and
the others; that they were against industrialization and moder-
nization, that the line of upholding the four was a development
by Avakian and co (This is especially wrong, they said nothing
publically for two years (!) after their arrest, they did the
same thing as they did with the peace accords in Peru, they
waited it out and let others struggle out the correct line.)

I know that many others will get something from this debate and
I invite others to also participate in it.  I hope it will spark
further study of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and
in Mao Tse-tung's writings.

Jay Miles / Detroit

MY DEBATE POSTING 1, 14.12.1996

Sat Dec 14 12:04:14 1996
To: marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
From: (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: The Debate On China

Jay (Detcom, Detroit) wrote, on 14.12

(and this I think is an important debate):

>Rolf, I have been thinking hard and doing a lot of
>study around the issue of the "gang of four" and
.......[Part of quote snipped]..................
>I think I can demonstrate from the facts that you are
>holding a number of erroneous ideas concerning the
>events, persons, and political lines involved in
>the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

I'm anxious to read your arguments for that! Other
readers I refer to my "UNITE! Info #22en: The 4-Gang
in China", in 12 parts, posted to this list on 03.11.96.

>I agree with you that a debate or discussion of these
>things would be of importance, more so than a lot of
>the stuff that I read on the Marxism lists.  The
>Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the greatest
>mass campaign to raise the revolutionary consciousness of
>the masses of people, not only in China but all over the world,
>and it's effects are not over yet but is still having
>an impact on the political thinking of people internationally.

Yes, precisely.

>Here in the Detroit area, we have been  fortunate that we
>have been able to talk and struggle with a great many people
>from China who come to our city and nearby to attend college.
..........[Part of quote snipped]..........

Very good! I on my part have spoken to no Chinese at all on
these questions, but I followed the struggles at the time, in
1974-1976 and later too, through the Peking Review and also the
Hsinhua (New China) newsbulletins which were sent me free of
charge from the Stockholm office, and not least read the state-
ments by the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), the *only* party I know of
which after the overthrow of socialism in China continued Mao
Zedong's line *completely*, and dicussed the matters with the
comrades of that party at the time. (It much later, towards the
end of the 1980:s, degenerated.)

[Continued in part 2/12]

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005