File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9707, message 229


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005