File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9707, message 232


Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:52:18 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #45en: 6/12 4-gang history '76, pal '97


UNITE! Info #45en: 6/12 4-gang history '76, pal '97
[Posted: 26.07.97]

[Continued from part 5/12]


MY DEBATE POSTING 6, 29.12.1996

Debate on China, 6: 3/4 Actual 1976 events & fake
[Posted: 29.12.96]

[Continued from posting 5]


=A47. 07.04.1976: THE MEETING OF THE PB OF THE CC OF
THE CPC AND ITS *TWO* VERY IMPORTANT AND CORRECT
DECISIONS. ALSO, AN IMPORTANT ERROR BY THE PB.

In your posting 2, Jay, you once more reproduce, *only*, one of
the *two* crucial resolutions of that meeting of the Political
Bureau. You did the same in you posting, arguing against my pre-
sentation of things, on 05.08. But at that earlier time, you
might perhaps be excused for excluding the other, since its at
least equally great importance hadn't then yet repeatedly been
pointed out (by me).

*Now*, however, when you're *still* pretending it "just isn't
there", that's one more instance of the obvious dishonesty in
your recent postings. In PR #15/76, where both resolutions were
published, the one you're deleting was even the one that was
presented first, in red print, on the front page. It reads (cf
Info #22en part 5/12):

	"On the proposal of our great leader Chairman Mao, the
	Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Commu-
	nist Party of China unanimously agrees to appoint Com-
	rade Hua Kuo-feng First Vice-Chairman of the Central
	Committee of the Communist Party of China and Premier of
	the State Council of the People's Republic of China." 

You in your posting 2 only repeated part of the other, which
reads:=09

	"Having discussed the counter-revolutionary incident
	which took place at Tien An Men Square and Teng Hsiao-
	ping's latest behaviour, the Political 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 contradiction. On the
	proposal of our great leader Chairman Mao, the Political
	Bureau unanimously agrees to dismiss Teng Hsiao-ping
	from all posts both inside and outside the Party while
	allowing him to keep his Party membership so as to see
	how he will behave in the future." 

Those two resolutions must be viewed together, if you're to get
the correct picture. By the first, Hua - and again, no "4-Gang
member", for instance - was appointed First Vice-Chairman, a
post that had not existed before but which (according to PR
#2/77) Mao Zedong suggested be instituted. Mao himself, Clare
Hollingworth writes, was too ill to attend that meeting. The two
decisions proposed by him however were quite correct, the facts
show: Appointment of Hua (a continuation of the February deci-
sion i.a. *against* the 4-Gang) and dismissal of Deng on account
of his Rightist wind. 

*But* that direct reason for this dismissal which was at least
implied in that second resolution, there having been a so-called
"counter-revolutionary incident", was a *false* characterization
of the recent events. So Deng in part was "hung" for a "crime"
which he had *not* committed. This, as I already have pointed
out, could not but in fact *help support* his (openly-)Rightist
deviation, make the people less eager to oppose it. Not only
this; the PB had now called an essentially quite just action by
the people "unjust".

Clearly, this must have made many among the masses worried, and
wondering what was going on, in the following months. This (al-
though subordinate) part of the second resolution obviously was
a result of the 4-Gangs's having managed to sway the PB on this
point. The people in Beijing must have felt a great hatred for
those - whoever they were - who had caused the suppression and
also the vilification of their just demonstration in April.
There had also been similar demonstrations in other cities (la-
ter PR:s).

Another thing that was not correctly done by that PB meeting was
its taking upon itself to appoint Hua and dismiss Deng to/from
*governmental* posts as well. This, as pointed out by a Swedish
embassy employee in a book (quoted in my Info #22en part 5/12),
was really, according to China's constitution, the business of
the National People's Congress. My guess concerning this irregu-
larity is that it was done behind Mao Zedong's back. As in the
case of the other and more important error, the 4-Gang may have
been to blame in part. But the other PB members present did con-
cur, so they carried responsibilty for it too.

The comment you made, Jay, on that important Politbureau meet-
ing, may show how you're still at heart thinking, only it's ob-
vious, isn't it, how wrong and contradictory that is. You wrote,
on the resolution dismissing Deng, "your *only* one" of the two:

>it was an unanimous decision.  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 Politi-
>cal Bureau meeting in April 1976, who did not consider that
>they were in antagonistic contradiction with Teng Hsiao-ping,
>or that he should be removed.  But did they raise their voices
>in dissent?  No, they voted unanimously 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. 

So you're thinking that Hua Guofeng was *already* a capitalist-
roader in *April 1976*, and that some of the others present
were too? You said this directly too in another comment directly
above these lines, likewise referring to the situation in April:

>Hua Kuo-feng and the other capitalist roaders in the Party set
>themselves against the line of Mao Tse-tung and the other
>revolutionaries in the Party.  They were intriguers of the most
>despicable sort. 

But Hua was precisely the leader that Mao at that time had the
greatest confidence in, a fact on which you're silent. The one
you're calling "intriguer" had been suggested by Mao Zedong in
February for the most responsible posts and was now, again on
Mao's proposal, confirmed even more in this, by the PB. You're
arguing then, firstly (and genuinely believing?) that Hua Guo-
feng managed to fool Mao, who was now old and ailing? But that
doesn't fit with what you're saying about Mao's role in connec-
tion with the *other* PB resolution, the only one you admit
there was:

>It was the result of Chairman Mao uniting the many to defeat
>the few.

So here, when (rightly) repudiating Deng, Mao *wasn't* that
ailing, in your judgement. Your thinking doesn't fit together.
Secondly, you're arguing that Hua in Feb-April etc, 1976, fooled
not only Mao but also the other genuine Marxists. In other
words, that there, in the main, only *were* fools and/or revi-
sionists in the PB of the CC of the CPC at that time. But that
too absolutely doesn't hold water.

This is again the (open) Avakianists' fairytale that China at
that time "to a large extent" was under the influence of revi-
sionism, and this, the facts show, precisely is a big lie. Above
all, people in other countries too could, and still today can,
see that China precisely was following Mao Zedong's brilliantly
correct and successful line in foreign policy, based on his all-
sidedly correct analysis of the situation in the world.

Hua Guofeng later *did* become a crook. So most definitely did
Li Hsien-nien. When judging what they were aiming at in April
'76, one must go by such reasoning as I've done above. Your
ideas on it, Jay, absolutely don't fit. They are, perhaps,
caused by such prejudices as you've "inherited" from the "RCP"
etc, who since decades have had Hua down as "always a crook",
the 4-Gang as "always heroes". It's a CIA story actually, refu-
ted by the facts.

>From foreign M-L (with or without quotes) parties, there were a
few messages after that PB meeting, congratulating Hua on his
appointment and supporting the CPC on its two decisions. (Some
were reproduced in PR #16/76 etc.) It may be noted that the
KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) in Germany, a party which I was in close
contact with in 1974-1990 and which, as I've pointed out, during
a long time, also after the overthrow of socialism in China,
really represented Mao Zedong's correct proletarian revolutiona-
ry line, in its message (not published in PR) which correctly
supported the two resolutions, did *not* see through the CPC
PB:s error on there having been "a counter-revolutionary inci-
dent" but mistakenly concurred in that judgement too. A rare
mistake by the NE, showing how complicated things then were.

I on my part didn't understand the April '76 events in China un-
til a couple of years ago. But I think it's not difficult for
others to do so today, as soon as certain vital facts become
known to them.


=A48. LATE APRIL - AUGUST 1976: UNCLEAR SITUATION.
THREE POINTS OF ADVICE BY MAO TO HUA ON 30.04.

In May-August 1976, the unclear situation that had arisen after
the April events continued to exist. Hua Guofeng, the leader
whom Mao Zedong had proposed for the top posts, continued to be
in charge. At the same time, the partial success of the 4-Gang,
indirectly favouring Deng too (see =A47. above), was causing dis-
quiet among the masses.

Mao on 30.04. (according e.g. to PR #52/76) had written down
for Hua Guofeng the advice, concerning how to handle the con-
crete situation then: *"Take your time, don't be anxious."*,
*"Act in line with past principles"* (a line that the 4-Gang
were later massively to publicize a "slightly" distorted ver-
sion of, to discredit Hua and as part of their attempt to usurp
Party and state power), and *"With you in charge, I'm at ease"*.

That last line (whose set of Chinese charcters, I've read some-
where, could more literally be rendered as "You run business, my
heart rest") was later much publicized in China as showing Mao's
confidence in Hua. Such obviously he had.


=A49. 09.09.1976: MAO ZEDONG DIES

The passing away of Mao Zedong on 9 September 1976 of course was
a tragic event which had a great impact in China and even inter-
nationally, because of this Marxist leader's historical role,
which he had continued to fulfill even in his last months when
he in part had been incapacitated by illness. People in many
countries paid him their last respects. In the PR issues fol-
lowing his decease, a great number of messages of condolence,
from heads of state and from foreign parties, were published.


=A410. OCTOBER 1976 (06.10.76): THE BIG BLOW AGAINST
THE REACTIONARY PHONEY"LEFT" 4-GANG

This is the event whose character the Avakianists above all have
concentrated their lies on. Suppressing all information that was
available internationally at the time, they from 1978 on have
been concocting the upside-down story that this was *not* essen-
tially an important victory for the proletariat against one of
the reactionary cliques but was "a counter-revolutionary coup
d'état", supposedly by pro-Deng Xiaoping forces.

I've already massively refuted that falsification of history, by
my Internet series "'The Four' & events in China 1976" in May-
August of this year, posted again on 03.11.96 as "UNITE! Info
#22en", in 12 parts. I refer to those postings once more.

Again, you, Jay, in your posting 2 in our present debate, are
pretending that all those things I pointed out in them, all
those documents I reproduced to show their veracity, simply
"aren't there".

You do point out something that I didn't touch on: The fact
that, from issue #42 on of the PR (i.e. from 15.10.76 on), its
editorship had changed, and you give a number of details showing
that from that same time on, important changes took place in the
editorships of several main publishing media in China.

That's certainly quite true, and wasn't a bad thing either but,
in the main, undoubtedly a good one. The 4-Gang had had a com-
paratively great influence precisely over the media. Now on
06.10 the whole Gang had been arrested for trying to usurp Party
and state power. It was logical that their (rather few) follow-
ers were weeded out.

It's necessary above all to see: Under which line was the 4-Gang
dealt that blow? And that - in the first and crucial phase, Oct
'76, - *was* the all-sidedly correct line of Mao Zedong, the do-
cuments show. The criticism against the other deviation, that of
Deng Xiaoping, was being continued too, then, during this phase.


=A411. OCTOBER 1976 (CTD.): YOUR 2-3 ARGUMENTS,
JAY, FOR "CAPITALIST-ROADERS' HAVING TAKEN
CONTROL" AT *THIS* POINT, DON'T HOLD WATER.

-  YOUR ARGUMENT 1: "LINE CHANGED"

In your posting 2 you advanced three arguments for the Avakian-
ists' fairytale's in fact being true, that the big blow against
the 4-Gang was a "counter-revolutionary" event:

Firstly, you wrote that that blow was a "purge" - well, one may
call it that; in this case in the main absolutely a just one,
although there was at least one murky point even as early as in
October; I'll come to that - and you argued:

>The line put forward by the Chinese Communist Party and the
>Peking Review before the purge and that put forward by the
>CCP and the Peking Review after the purge are completely
>different and opposite lines.

No, that's *not* true. The general line, including Mao Zedong's
genuinely internationalist proletarian revolutionary line in
foreign policy, which is the part of the general line that
could,  and still can, be checked on most easily from afar, was
*still* being upheld, in October '76. The contents of the
foreign-policy line can be seen in the UN speech by Foreign Mi-
nister Qiao Guanhua on 05.10.76, i.e. immediately before the big
blow. I reproduced it as "UNITE! Info #18en" (in 3 parts), on
05.10.96. PR articles show that this line was continued after
the blow too.

Only later did the foreign-policy line gradually change and
shift colour, so that towards the end of 1978, for instance, So-
viet social-imperialism was not called by that scientifically
correct term any more, and more than ten years later again, the
now ruling revisionist Deng Xiaoping clique in China was actual-
ly calling the Soviet Union a "socialist"(!!) country, as if
that clique had "effected another October revolution" in the So-
viet Union!

But in October the line was *not* changed. As the only "diffe-
rence in line" to "point at", you brought forward what you cal-
led "a complete reversal in attitude" on one matter:

>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. 
.................

>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." 

So you're saying there was a "shift of emphasis". You admit that
the criticism of Deng Xiaoping was (still, at that time) being
continued. That's one important fact.

But such a shift of emphasis, which there in fact was, too, *un-
der the changed circumstances*, does *not* mean that the correct
line has been changed. During the preceding months, since April,
the emphasis in the PR (for instance) had indeed still been on
criticizing Deng Xiaoping, *despite* the fact that, by the *un-
just* suppression of the people's demonstrations, for instance,
*the 4-Gang*, who were the main movers behind this, had started
to become at least as great a danger as Deng's clique. And with
their (obviously real) attempt, in September-October, at seizing
power in the state and the Party, they did become the greatest
danger to the proletariat at that time.

[Continued in posting 7 - now in part 7/12]



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005