Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:51:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #45en: 3/12 4-gang history '76, pal '97 UNITE! Info #45en: 3/12 4-gang history '76, pal '97 [Posted: 26.07.97] JAY MILES' DEBATE POSTING 2, 17.12.1996 From: detcom-AT-sprynet.com Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:30:20 -0800 Subject: M-G: Debate on China - PEKING REVIEW AND "GANG OF FOUR" To: marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Cc: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se, grabuge-AT-odyssee.net PEKING REVIEW AND "GANG OF FOUR" The four most important leaders who were arrested in the purge of the Chinese Communist Party that was carried out in October, 1976, were: Chiang Ching, wife of Chairman Mao for over 40 years until his death, member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, and Director of Literature and Art for the Central Commit- tee, Chang Chun-chiao, Senior Vice Premier of the State Coun- cil, First Secretary of the Shanghai Party Committee, Director of the General Political Department of the People's Liberation Army, and member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, the leading body of China, Wang Hung-wen, Senior Vice Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Party Central Committee, Third Secretary of the Shanghai Party Committee, and director of the people's militias, and Yao Wen-yuan, Director of Propaganda for the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Second Secre- tary of the Shanghai Party Committee, and member of the Political Bureau of the Party Central Committee. 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. However, hundreds or perhaps thousands of other leading cadre 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. There was an all-round "rectification" and reorganiza- tion of the CCP and the popular organizations in China by the capitalist roaders in the CCP who directed this purge. The purge was not directed only at the "gang of four" but at a definite political line. Because of the importance of the four in the CCP, and because the criticisms brought forward by the capitalist roaders center on them, focus is often centered on the "gang of four". But it is clear that the events that took place in China show the differences of TWO POLITICAL LINES at conflict in the struggle. The key to understanding the essence of the two-line struggle in China is the question of the campaign launched by Chairman Mao in late 1975 to criticize Teng Hsaio-ping and "beat back the Right deviationist wind to reverse the correct verdicts of the Cultural Revolution." Rolf Martens has emphasized the study of articles in the PEKING REVIEW for a correct understanding of the events in China, which is a very good suggestion and I will be quoting from Peking Re- view issues printed during 1975 to 1978 during this discussion of China and the "gang of four" . It seems that the editorship of Peking Review changed with the 42nd issue of 1976 (the second week of October). With that is- sue the "principles laid down" phrase associated with the "gang of four" line disappears; two issues later the campaign against the four begins. On the second day of the purge, the head of Hsinhua News Agency, a main source of information about China, was removed. (NY Times, Oct.17, 1976) Most of the named authors who contributed to the Peking Review during the two years before the 42nd issue of 1976, including several who appeared regular- ly, have not written a single article since then. Most of the named authors after this issue, had not written articles before that issue. The other two Chinese magazines published in Eng- lish, CHINA PICTORIAL and CHINA RECONSTRUCTS, did not appear in November and December, due to "various reasons", according to an apology in the Peking Review. Yao Wen-yuan, one of the "gang of four", as Director of Propaganda for the Central Committee of the Party, was responsible for the national news media. The Edi- tor of RENMIN RIBAO (Peoples Daily, the official organ of the Central Committee of the CCP) was removed during the purge, as were the editors of HONGQI (Red Flag, the theoretical journal of the CCP) and HSUSHSHI YU PIPAN (Study and Criticism, theoretical journal of Shanghai). (NY Times, Jan 10, 1977; Washington Post, March 6, 1977) I think it would be safe to assume the same kind of change occurred in all the other national magazines and news- papers that provided material for the Peking Review. The capitalist roaders that seized control of the Chinese go- vernment then began attacking the political line put forward by the Chinese Communist Party in its official press (Red Flag, People's Daily, Liberation Army Daily, Peking Review, etc.) for several years before the purge as "revisionist fallacies" pro- moted by the "gang of four" to "usurp power": "The gang, who had long controlled the mass media, tampered with Marxism-Lenin- ism-Mao Tse-tung Thought and spread revisionist fallacies to confuse peoples' thinking in order to shape counter-revolutiona- ry opinion for their usurpation of Party and state power." The line put forward by the Chinese Communist Party and the Pe- king Review before the purge and that put forward by the CCP and the Peking Review after the purge are completely different and opposite lines. A most important and obvious difference in the line of Peking Review was a complete reversal in attitude towards the struggle to beat back the Right deviationist attempt. Throughout 1976 until the death of Chairman Mao in September, the central em- phasis of the Chinese press was the campaign to beat back the Right deviationist attempt and deepen the criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping. The struggle was characterized like this in China Reconstructs #10, 1976: "The victory of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolu- tion has not been easy. Intense struggle is equally in- evitable in consolidating and developing its results. History proves that every great revolution is bound to be followed by a struggle between those who are for it and those who are against it. The same is true of the Cultural Revolution. Toward the end of summer last year, Teng Hsiao-ping, the arch unrepentant capitalist- roader in power in the Party, led a Right deviationist attempt to reverse the correct appraisal of the Cultural Revolution and settle accounts with it. This was a concentrated expression, under new circum- stances, of the struggle between two classes, the prole- tariat and the bourgeoisie, and between two lines, Marx- ism and revisionism. The Party and the people have thrown themselves into a struggle to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping and counter-attack this Right deviationist attempt. The struggle was initiated and is being led by Chairman Mao himself. It is a continuing and deepening of the Cultural Revolution." (pp. 7-8) On April 7th, 1976, the Political Bureau of the Central Commit- tee of the Chinese Communist Party, led by Chairman Mao, agreed unanimously to remove Teng Hsiao-ping from all his posts both inside and outside the Party (including that of Senior Vice Pre- mier, Chief of Staff of the People's Liberation Army, and member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau) and declared that: "Having discussed the counter-revolutionary incident that took place at Tien An Men Square (on April 5th, 1976) and Teng Hsiao-ping's latest behavior, the Politi- cal Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China holds that the nature of the Teng Hsiao- ping problem has turned into one of antagonistic contra- diction." (PR #15, 1976) This resolution determined that the anti-revisionist struggle of 1975-76 was one between the people and the enemy, one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, an antagonistic contradic- tion. Hundreds of millions of Chinese workers and peasants be- came involved in the struggle in agricultural communes, facto- ries, and schools across the country. All work in China, the relief and reconstruction after the earthquakes, the scientific advances, industrial and agricultural production, and the con- tinuing revolution in education, was linked up to the deepening of the criticism of the chief unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party and of the Right deviationist wind to reverse the cor- rect verdicts of the Cultural Revolution. "We must continue to advance in the midst of victories already won and bring about a new upsurge in the criti- cism of Teng Hsiao-ping by further repudiating his coun- ter-revolutionary revisionist line ideologically and po- litically. We must be clear that the collapse of Teng Hsiao-ping does not mean the end of the struggle. Cri- ticism of his revisionist line and eradication of its pernicious influence are of cardinal importance to the future and the destiny of our Party and state and are a great militant task in combating and preventing revisio- nism and consolidating the dictatorship of the proleta- riat. Much remains to be done in this respect and we must never slacken our fighting will." (PR #35, August 1976, p.5) In the first issues of Peking Review after the purge, the struggle to beat back the Right deviationist attempt and criti- cize Teng Hsiao-ping was mentioned but was not elaborated on or deepened, the emphasis being, rather, on the criticism of the "gang of four." 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 "twis- ting and overemphasizing" the criticism of Teng. Before the purge, Lui Shao-chi, Lin Piao and Teng Hsiao-ping were constant- ly referred to together in criticizing the capitalist road line. Then Teng Hsiao-ping's name was dropped and the "gang of four" added in his place. The emphasis of the Peking Review became to ridicule the anti-right campaign of 1976, making Teng Hsaio-ping appear to be a victim of the "gang of four", and label the struggle an attempt by the "gang of four" to "seize power." The Rightists in power now, not only dramatically ended Mao's campaign to beat back the Right deviationist trend and deepen the criticism of Teng, but they made the main point of criticism of the "gang of four" their role in the campaign. They not only attacked its manifestations and the way it was handled; they at- tacked its very essence, its general orientation. By defending Teng and by reinstituting his policies, they said that the en- tire anti-Right campaign was wrong, that the Cultural Revolution was wrong, that Mao's line was wrong. The campaign to beat back the Right deviationist trend and re- move capitalist-roaders like Teng Hsiao-ping from power was not an attempt by individuals to seize power, it was not an attempt to split the Party, it was not an intrigue or conspiracy. It was an OPEN AND ABOVEBOARD mass movement LED BY MAO TSE-TUNG to rectify the Party, strengthen the dictatorship of the prole- tariat and continue on the socialist road. Hua Kuo-feng and the other capitalist roaders in the Party set themselves against the line of Mao Tse-tung and the other revo- lutionaries in the Party. They were intriguers of the most despicable sort. When two days after the incident in Tien An Men Square, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee met and declared that "the problem of Teng Hsiao-ping has become one of antagonistic contradiction", dismissing him from all his posts within and outside the Party, it was an unanimous deci- sion. The decision was not the result of splitting, intriguing and conspiring by the "gang of four." It was the result of Chairman Mao uniting the many to defeat the few. Obviously, however, there were present at that Political Bureau meeting in April 1976, who did not consider that they were in antagonistic con- tradiction with Teng Hsiao-ping, or that he should be removed. But did they raise their voices in dissent? No, they voted un- animously along with the entire Political Bureau. Hua Kuo-feng said nothing. Neither did Li Hsien-nien nor Yeh Chien-ying, nor any of the others who were so free and loud after Mao's death in criticizing the 1976 struggle to beat back the Right deviationist wind. Until Chairman Mao had died, and they had succeeded in arresting the "gang of four" and the rest of the important leaders of the struggle to beat back the Rights, Hua and the other SCUMS OF THE EARTH kept up a pretense of supporting Mao and the struggle. Peking Review #31, July 29, 1977 announced that Teng Hsiao-ping was being restored to all his posts without being required to engage in any sort of self-criticism. A "Resolution on the An- ti-party Clique of Wang Hung-wen, Chang Chun-chiao, Chiang Ching, and Yao Wen-yuan was also adopted, ratifying the measures taken against the Four by Hua Kuo-feng. The new leaders had totally reversed that decision of April 1976, placing Teng in a position of tremendous authority and showing their total opposi- tion to the proletarian revolutionary line of Chairman Mao. Was the struggle to beat back the Right deviationist trend "fabricated" or wrong in general orientation? Wasn't Teng an arch unrepentant capitalist-roader who intended to restore ca- pitalism or was he a responsible communist comrade who was vic- timized by the "gang of four"? Who in fact was following the proletarian revolutionary line of Mao Tse-tung and had to be ar- rested so the capitalist roaders could continue on down the ca- pitalist road? TO BE CONTINUED JAY MILES' DEBATE POSTING 3, 17.12.1996 From: detcom-AT-sprynet.com Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:35:58 -0800 Subject: M-G: Peking Review Reading List To: marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Cc: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se, grabuge-AT-odyssee.net PEKING REVIEW READING LIST Rolf Martens of Sweden has suggested the articles in the Chinese periodical PEKING REVIEW (PR) as a resource for study regarding the debate on the "gang of four". This is a fine suggestion, but please note that the editorship of Peking Review changed in October 1976. PR #42, 1976 and China Reconstructs of November- December, 1976 were the first issues which represented the line of the capitalist roaders. I recommend the following articles from PEKING REVIEW for special study: "Marx, Engels and Lenin on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Questions and Answers" 12 parts, PR #40-51, 1975 "Constitution of the People's Republic of China; Speeches to the Second Plenary Session of the 10th Central Committee, by Chang Chun-chiao and Chou En-lai, PR #4, 1975 "Speeches by Chou En-lai and Wang Hung-wen to the 10th Party Congress" PR #35-36, 1973 [Note, July 1997: See my "UNITE! Infos" #13en (parts 1/4-4/4), of 10.07.96, and #44en (parts 3/5-5/5), of 21.07.97. - RM] "Advance Victoriously Along Chairman Mao's Line in Army Buil- ding", PR #5, 1975 "On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique," Yao Wen-yuan, PR #10,1975 "Small and Medium Sized Industries Play Big Role," PR #45, 1975 "Between Cadres and Peasants" and "Socialist New Peasants", PR # 40, 41, 1975 "Fundamental Differences between the Two Lines in Education," PR #10, 1976 "Criticizing the Program for Capitalist Restoration," PR #13, 1976 "An Endless Flow of Sucdessors to the Cause of Proletarian Re- volution" and "A Dynamic County Party Committee," PR #26, 27, 1976 "Inner-Party Struggle and Party Development," PR 34, 1976 "Comments on Teng Hsiao-ping's Economic Ideas of the Comprador Bourgeoisie," PR #35, 1976 "Working Class Occupying and Transforming the Superstructure," PR #37, 1976 The following articles contain the major attacks against the "gang of four": [Note, July 1997: For the *really* *most* major one, the joint editorial of the three leading Chinese papers on 25.10.1976, see my "UNITE! Info #22en" (part 7/12), 03.11.96. - RM] "The 'Gang of Four': A Scourge of the Nation" PR #48, 1976 "Speech by Chairman Hua," PR #1, 1977 "Premier Chou in the Great Cultural Revolution," PR #4, 1977 "A Component Part of the 'Gang of Four's' Plot to Usurp the Par- ty and State Power: What was their aim in calling for 'creating literary works on the struggle against capitalist-roaders?" PR #5, 1977 "How the 'Gang of Four' Used Shanghai as a Base," and "Exposing Wang Hung-wen's Scheme to Throw China into Disorder" PR #6, 1977 "Study Documents Well and Grasp Key Link" PR #8, 1977 "Chang Chun-chiao Tampers with Chairman Mao's Educational Policy" PR #8, 1977 "Mechanization: Fundamental Way Out for Agriculture" PR #9, 1977 "Foreign Trade: Why the 'Gang of Four' Created Confusion" PR #9, 1977 "Ferreting Out 'the Bourgeoisie in the Army' - Another 'Gang of Four' Scheme" PR #10, 1977 "Vice Premier Yu Chiu-li's Report" PR #22, 1977 "A Serious Struggle in Scientific and Technical Circles" PR #16, 1977 "Grasp the Key Link in Running the Country Well." PR #18, 1977 [Continued in part 4/12] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005