File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9711, message 177


From: mim3-AT-mim.org
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:50:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-G: More psy-war for imperialism from Rolf Martens




UNITE! Info #57en: 1/3 "MIM:s" instructive 4-gangism
[Posted: 16.11.97]

[snip]
[MIM comments: Rolf Martens is going to try to lose readers in his
petty, quibbling, intellectual Christianity and divert proletarians into
psychological self-doubts about things far removed from class struggle.

Hence, MIM will point out here that the struggle of the "Four"  against
Hua and Deng is really about this:  1) Stopping Deng from instituting
private family farming in place of collectives.  2) Opposing the use of
profit indices in industry.  3) Restricting the appearance of open-air
markets in the countryside and the use of large sums of money.  4)
Utilizing a style of mass mobilization toward political objectives. 
Trying to find a way to enthuse the masses in self-administration of the
government and economy.  5) Understanding that there is a bourgeoisie in
the party itself trying to stop the proletarian camp from the points
above. This bourgeoisie has a material basis in a socialist society,
explained at greatest length in articles suggested by Mao and written by
the "Four."]

[Rolf Martens says:]
There has been a massive campaign, on the part of the reactiona-
ries and some muppets of theirs, going on for almost 20 years
now, to falsify that history. It seems that I've been more or
less the only one who've combated that misinformation campaign,
at least on the Net.

The "MIM", which is of the same basic character as that gang and
which propagandizes some reactionary views similar to those
which the 4-gang disseminated too, is very angry about this ex-
posure and recently attacked me because of it, calling me by all
sorts of names.

[MIM3 replies: This is the gist of the matter for petty-bourgeois Rolf
Martens.  His feelings have been hurt, and he can only respond to
scientific argument with "I've been name-called." It's typical Liberal
avoidance of line struggle. It's useless talking with this sort until
AFTER they have sorted out their priorities.  Once again, this whole
dispute is ONLY worthwhile to the lurkers. 

We are not surprised by Rolf Martens's pre-political whining considering
that his last post amounted to attacking industrial worker Wang Hungwen
for liking cars. (Oh yes Rolf Martens, statistics show that it is
industrial workers who disproportionately make up the spectators of car
races and Monster truck spectacles. People who work with machines become
interested in them for their own sake more than other people do.) You see
Rolf Martens would like to talk about ANYTHING but the realities of class,
nation and gender struggle.]


=A42. NO REPLIES BY "MIM" ON THE EVIDENCE FROM
    TWO IMPORTANT ASPECTS AGAINST THE 4-GANG

In my postings on 09.11, I had (again) demonstrated three
things: 1) The big blow against the 4-gang in October 1976 was
overwhelmingly and joyfully supported by the Chinese people.

[MIM3 replies: We addressed this fully by saying the same people
you refer to put up the "Statue of Liberty" a few years later. It's the
masses taken in by the CIA propaganda you and others spread
on subjects that are far-removed from the class struggle under socialism.]

2) The international Marxist-Leninist movement of that time
overwhelmingly supported it too.

[MIM3 replies: So what. Most parties went for Khruschev too. China went
capitalist. Are you denying that? Oh, I forgot, according to you,
something is wrong, BECAUSE Mao-Jesus criticizes or does not
criticize you. Likewise, if ENOUGH people criticize you, you must
be wrong that 2+2=4 says Rolf Martens--ever focused on persynal
self-esteem and not science.]

 3) Even at a much earlier
stage, before the 4-gang attempted their coup to seize party
and state power, the gang members had been very sharply criti-
cized by Mao Zedong, who warned about their intentions.

[MIM3 replies: He repeats the same old idealism about the people in the
highest-ranking positions other than Hua Guofeng's. As an idealist, Rolf
Martens is simply unable to distinguish between words and action. In fact,
his religion has reached the point where he can't even distinguish between
less and more severe words. Some have written to MIM to say that this sort
like Rolf Martens is a problem of someone biologically unable to
distinguish words and action or any reality at all. They in essence have
something broken in their sensory systems.]

In its two replies, the "MIM" has nothing to say at all on the
first two of these facts.

[MIM3 replies: This is a lie as already demonstrated in previous posts and
here again.]
________________________________

=A43. WERE THE 4-GANG MEMBERS CRITICIZED BY MAO
    ZEDONG "JUST" FOR "BEING TOO CLIQUISH"?
    AND DID I WRITE THAT?

In the first of the two 09.11. replies I'm referring too, the
"MIM" wrote:

>Now see if in any of the quotes below there is any alleged
>evidence that Mao considered the "Gang of Four" bourgeois or
>counterrevolutionary. He says don't behave as a gang and he
>does not support his wife's ambitions. That is pretty much
>all [!]...  

and

>For me-first, petty-bourgeois scum like Rolf Martens it's a
>matter of being criticized by Mao and all criticisms are equal
>since they all affect the ego which the petty-bourgeoisie cen-
>ters existence on. There is no sense anywhere in Rolf Martens's
>writings that being criticized for being too cliquish is not
>the same thing as being criticized as the number one capita-
>list-roader in the party!

[Rolf Martens continues:]
>From which you can see too how uncomfortable these real reac-
tionary scum feel on this matter. And then they proceed to
quote from my posting "What did Mao Zedong say on the 4-gang?",
only they leave the very sharpest criticisms I reported out!

That's both fanatical and also stupid. Anyone can see what I
did write. (I shall not repeat this 09.11 posting of mine in
full, but quote some parts from it which the "MIM" left out.)

The "MIM" quotes just six paragraphs, ending with one about
Mao's warning at a CPC Politbureau meeting on May 3, 1975,
which was already a rather sharp one too:

'*"Practice Marxism-Leninism, and not revisionism; unite, and
don't split; be open and aboveboard, and don't intrigue and con-
spire. Don't function as a gang of four, don't do it any more,
why do you keep doing it?"*'

Was (even) this "pretty much all"? No. I also had quoted, from
some Peking Review issues in late 1976 / early 1977 which on
this point, I argued, must be considered fairly reliable:

'... On March 20, 1974, Chairman Mao, in great anger, criticized
Chiang Ching, saying:''*"It's better if we don't see each other.
You haven't done many of the things I talked to you about over
the years. What's the use of seeing each other more often? The
works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin are there, my works are
there, but you simply refuse to study."*'

[MIM3 replies: First he says Hua was good for a month--October, 1976.
Now he is quoting the Peking regime from early 1977. Which time
were you lying Rolf Martens? The time you said  the Hua regime was
good for one month and revisionist later or the time you say that
Hua's regime was good enough to quote into 1977?

And if Mao said this in March, 1974, why didn't he release it before he
died?  Either the above was made up by the revisionists when Mao died or
Mao said it and did not mean anything so important as to split the
proletarian camp--AS EVIDENCED by his leaving the "Four" in power until
his death!]

Rolf Martens continues:
Jiang Qing (Chiang Ching) was Mao Zedong's wife since many
years. She most unfortunately, for him and for the Chinese
people, turned into a bourgeois careerist and led the reactiona-
ry phony"left" clique of four. What Mao said here, as early as
in March 1974, meant of course that he had then come to see his
attempts "over the years" to educate and convince her into being
a genuine proletarian revolutionary as having failed and as
being unlikely to succeed in the future too. It must have been
with a heavy heart that he publicly more or less gave his own
wife up as a hopeless case in this manner.

[MIM3 replies: Rolf Martens once criticized MIM's gender line,
only to have to be forced to admit that he never wrote a single bulletin
on gender oppression; hence, he was criticizing those who took a
stance from the opportunist position of having nothing to defend himself.

In actuality, his defense of Hua Guofeng's arrest of the "Four" speaks
volumes on his line on gender. The whole Hua criticism amounted to lack of
patriarchal filialness by the wimmin supporting the "Four." This stupid,
patriarchal Hua publicly criticized the true Maoists as "witches,"
"devils" and whoaaaa-- "unable to find a boyfriend" in one case! This is
what Rolf Martens is defending and spreading--pure psychological warfare
of the imperialist intelligence agencies! 

Oh, and Mao didn't sleep with her anymore, so the message is: she must be
no good!  Once again we see Rolf Martens spreading imperialist
psychological warfare against the "Four." I should add it does not speak
much for the organizations Rolf Martens point to that they did not attack
Hua for his "witches," "devils" and "unable to find a boyfriend" crap. Any
organization that saw it should have known there was no progressive class
content to the struggle of Hua against the "Four." This guy waited for Mao
to die, and then he let all his shit fly or hand loose as they say. 

Not surprisingly, most of those organizations Rolf refers to haven't
amounted to anything. Others that do amount to something have changed
their minds as the truth leaked out despite being suppressed by a phony
who WORMED his way into power and revealed his true colors once Mao died.]

The "MIM" simply pretends that this criticism "isn't there",
that I had "not" reported it (again) earlier the same day.

I further quoted from the 1976-77 Peking Review issues:

'In the presence of Chairman Mao, they said they "will go ac-
cording to Chairman Mao's instructions" while behind his back
they continued to function as a gang. Without the slightest in-
tention of repenting, they went from bad to worse and slipped
farther along the erroneous road.'

'Chairman Mao was thus determined to settle the problem of the
"gang of four". In 1975, he exposed Chiang Ching further: *"Af-
ter I die, she will make trouble."*...'

[MIM3 replies: Again, so why wasn't this made public
while Mao was alive? Because Chiang Ching was in the in proletarian camp.]

[R.M. says:]
A quite sharp and clear warning, then, to the other CPC leaders,
by Mao Zedong aganist Jiang Qing, to whom he was still married.

The "MIM" pretends that this warning "wasn't there" either,
and that I had "not" reported it (again) earlier the same day.
The same thing about the fact that Mao spoke about the necessity
of "solving the problem" of the 4-gang. The above quote from the
PR in my posting continued:

'On May 3, [1975], Chairman Mao gave an instruction on the prob-
lem of the gang, saying that *"If this is not settled in the
first half of this year, it should be settled in the second
half; if not this year, then next year, if not next year, then
the year after."*'

[MIM3 replies: Again, Rolf Martens let's us know Mao's alleged
attitude toward the "Four," but Rolf Martens gives us no concrete
reasons. What did the "Four" stand for that was "trouble"? Not a word
is said, only that Mao had some attitude toward it. That is the whole
point of these swindlers with what they try to make into class neutral
lines.]

=A44. TWO DEVIATIONS IN THE CPC IN THE MID-70S;
    "MIM" PRETENDS TO KNOW ABOUT ONLY ONE

The above statement by Mao was some months before the start of
the public criticism, initiated also by Mao Zedong, against that
*other* deviation which there again arose in the CPC at that
time, the openly-rightist one of Deng Xiaoping. 

[MIM3 replies: This above paragraph completely exposes Rolf Martens for
equating stripping Deng of all state posts and criticizing the "Four" 
while leaving them in the highest state posts. How can Rolf Martens equate
these things about the real world? Only from an idealist position where
what matters is one thing: being criticized or not criticized by
Mao-Jesus. From this Christian angle, Jiang Qing and Deng Xiaoping ARE
exactly identical--because they had both been criticized by Mao. 

It is true that Hua Guofeng tried to immediately equate criticizing Deng
and the "Four."  For that matter Hua tried to equate Mao and Zhou Enlai by
putting up posters of Zhou equally with Mao everywhere. With "everything
being equal"ism being spread, it's not wonder that idealists like Rolf
Martens get taken in. They were never paying any attention to the
differences between capitalist-roaders and socialists in the first place.]

[Rolf Martens says:]
Deng had been criticized earlier during the Cultural Revolution, had made
a
self-criticism which was accepted and had returned to important
posts from March 1973 on, doing then a quite good job for two
years, at least as things seemed then. From the autumn of 1975
on, he obviously reverted to his old bad ways.

So - as I've written in several postings already - there in the
CPC at that time was the necessity of combating two deviations
at the same time, two bad tendencies which also in a way com-
peted with each other and which, very typically, "covered" each
other. Zhou Enlai had pointed out in his report to the CPC 10th
Congress in 1973, as I've already quoted many times too:

        "It is imperative to note that one tendency covers
        another. The opposition to Chen Tu-Hsiu's Right oppor-
        tunism which advocated 'all alliance, no struggle'
        covered Wang Ming's 'Left' opportunism which advocated
        'all struggle, no alliance'. The rectification of Wang
        Ming's 'Left' deviation covered Wang Ming's Right de-
        viation. The struggle against Liu Shao-chi's revisionism
        covered Lin Piao's revisionism." (CPC's 10th Congress,
        Zhou Enlai's report, Peking Review 35-36/1973, p. 21)
        [Quoted by me e.g. in Info #3en, 01.01.96]

[MIM3 replies: Rolf Martens would like "everything to be equal,"
and not surprisingly without science, he knows nothing of
"principal enemies" or "principal contradictions." Like it or not
the "Four" did not want to restore capitalism and they also
had a theory on how to stop it. The same cannot be said of Deng.

Rolf minimizes the role of the "Four" in upholding Mao, but once they are 
arrested we learn the real deal. You never know what you had till
you've lost it. In this case, once the "Four" were gone, Deng Xiaoping
and capitalism were back. We correctly induce who was forestalling
capitalism in China.]

[snip]

In the first part of their posting, the "MIM" enlarges at length
on this theme, my purportedly "elevating", or rather denigra-
ting, Mao Zedong to "Jesus" status. I'm cutting out the personal
abuse which accompanies their "argument", which is:

("MIM":)
>Merely being CRITICIZED by Mao was evidence to say the "Gang
>of Four" was not proletarian according to Rolf Martens!

Yes, of course it was, an important part of that whole evidence
which I brought. It wasn't just any criticism on Mao's part
either, as can be seen above, but some very sharp warnings.

[MIM3 replies: In other words, Rolf Martens admits what I said.
For him, being criticized is evidence that the Four should be 
arrested for being counterrevolutionary. No where does he
refer you to Mao's actual work that says criticism and self-criticism
is a DUTY! That's because Rolf Martens is substituting his
petty-bourgeois self-esteem-centered line for Mao's line.]

As one part of the evidence, I *was* referring to Mao Zedong as
an authority on the matter. The "MIM:s" saying that this meant
my saying "Mao-Jesus", my employing a "Christian method",
"thinking ONLY in religious terms", "having no sense of mate-
rialist proportion", playing up to "the petty-bourgeois ego-
driven crowd", "encouraging us [the "MIM" crowd, they must mean]
to live in a verbal fantasy world", etc, etc (see part 3/3) -
this in fact implies their saying that Mao was *not* much worth
listening to on this question at all.

[MIM3 replies: No, we did listen and we WATCHED as well.
Mao did not ARREST the "Four." Quite the opposite: he made sure
they had the highest posts other than Hua's. It is you who mislead the
readers by implying Mao was asking for the "Four" to be arrested.
No such thing ever happened and you should admit it instead of trying
to pass this crap off.]

If you add this, too, to what the "MIM" earlier tried to make
people believe, as I pointed out in Info #55en (part 2/2, my
point 13), that it was *"not"* Mao Zedong but "two members of
the 4-gang"[!] who was/were "well-known for analyzing the
basis of the bourgeoisie, right in the communist party", then
you have to ask yourself:

Why  doesn't the "MIM" now come out into the open completely
and start calling itself, instead of something with "Mao" in it,
the "Gang-of-Four-ist Internationalist Movement"?

[MIM3 replies: This is a lie. Where did MIM say it was NOT
Mao analyzing the basis of the bourgeoisie in the party? What we said is
that petty-bourgeois Martens is more interested
in the property ownership of an idea than its substance. That is still
the case, because he hasn't dealt with the fact that Hua's press spent
considerable ink and tons of paper attempting to rebut those
two articles by the "Four" APPROVED by Mao while he was alive
(and not by some posthumous slight of hand that you keep trying to
pull off a la Hua). This is the SUBSTANCE of the class struggle
in the Cultural Revolution, and Rolf Martens only mentions it at the
end. Why? Because he is mostly conducting psychological warfare
on behalf of the CIA. He is not interested in the science of class
struggle. That's why he doesn't deal with it.]

UNITE! Info #57en: 2/3 "MIM:s" instructive 4-gangism
[Posted: 16.11.97]

[Continued from part 1/3]


=A46. HOW "MIM" FALSIFIES SOME OBVIOUS HISTORICAL
    FACTS, IN ORDER TO HIDE ITS OWN REACTIONARY
    CHARACTER AND WORM ITS WAY INTO THE
    INTERNATIONAL MARXIST-LENINIST MOVEMENT

The answer to my (categorical) question above of course is, that
the "MIM" wants to hide its real character and worm its way into
a position of being considered, in the USA itself and interna-
tionally, as a genuinely leftist organization.

It isn't genuinely leftist at all. By this I don't mean to say

[MIM3 replies: MIM is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. We don't need the "Left."]


The "MIM" itself points out, purportedly "against" me:

>10 years of Cultural Revolution Mao spent teaching people that
>the revisionists HIDE and they WORM their way into positions of
>power and you can only judge them by their ACTIONS and how they
>fit into a class struggle!

That's precisely it. And here comes some more action, some more
lying, by the "MIM":

>[RM] does not want us to understand that if Mao thought the
>"Gang of Four" were reactionary like Rolf Martens claims, he
>would have had them arrested or removed from the Politburo....

>The "Gang of Four" were all steadily promoted and in the
>highest committees when Mao died. ACTION SPEAKS MUCH LOUDER
>THAN YOUR PETTY-BOURGEOIS SCRIBBLING ROLF MARTENS!

Action does speak loud; the 4-gang precisely were *prevented* by
Mao Zedong (and others) from getting top posts, possibly as
early as in 1975 and quite certainly in the first months of
1976. That's what I've pointed out repeatedly; the "MIM" keeps
lying about it.

[MIM3 replies: No, MIM has never denied that Mao appointed Hua the highest
post. The above is yet another lie from you. You Rolf Martens have a long
history of lying about MIM, lying about MIM on the INTERNET before you
even met MIM. You were there--and it is on written record--repeating the
lies of Quispe about MIM. You were repeating the lies of a cop about MIM,
things easily refuted by looking them up in written documents and now you
are spreading the crap about Wang liking cars and Mao not sleeping with
Jiang Qing. It's all one and the same thing--imperialist psy-war. The
imperialists know they have no chance of winning a straight-up fight over
class, nation and gender. Desperate, they must change the subject.]


In its other 09.11 posting (see part 3/3), for instance, "MIM"
rather ludicrously says:

>Let's recall it was Jiang [Q]ing's JOB to lead Chinese culture.

This was many persons' "job", if you want to put it that way.
By no means could it be said to be that of Jiang Qing in parti-
cular. At the National People's Conference meeting in January,
1975, for instance, she was *not* appointed Minister of Culture
or anything like that, though she did hold a post as Director of
Literature and Art for the Central Committee of the CPC. The
"MIM" at least exaggerates considerably on this point.

[MIM3 replies: This is a quibble. Notice yet again that Rolf Martens does
not deny that such people in such "jobs," should study the enemy's
culture. What difference does this quibble make? One is that it is a lie
about Jiang Qing, who was depicted as China's cultural leader before Mao
died. That is a simple matter of historical record that can be seen right
in Peking Review. Two and more importantly, it shows that Rolf Martens
quibbles to no practical end. What difference does it make if other people
had the same job as Jiang Qing? How does that affect the argument I made
about such people viewing foreign films? It does not affect the argument
one bit. The point of the argument by Rolf Martens was in fact to divert
attention from the argument--not to engage it. The last thing the
bourgeoisie wants is to have its arguments dealt with straight-up.  What
it wants is to encourage people to quibble and hold their self-esteem
higher than any systematic approach to truth.

As I also pointed out in the earlier post, the bourgeoisie also needs a
hook into China's culture, and Rolf Martens once again PASSED on a chance
to take a CLASS STAND on culture on that point. It is again very revealing
with regard to his fraudulent claims to be Maoist.  Instead, among other
things, he left it open that maybe the Chinese masses SHOULD watch
decadent, imperialist Hollywood movies.]

Concerning what took place in early 1976 as far as promotion or
not of 4-gang members is concerned, I quote from Info #45en:

[From "UNITE! Info #45en", part 5/12, 26.07.97:]

'On 03.02.1976, Hua Guofeng was appointed Acting Premier and was
also put in charge of the work of the Political Bureau (PB) of
the CC of the CPC. This came as a surprise to many "observers".
Hua was not as well-known as, for instance, Deng Xiaoping or
the four persons whom Mao had already been referring to, within
the CPC, as "si ren bang", a "four-persons-gang". (I know no
other Chinese words than these and "Da dai /Down with/ Deng
Xiaoping!"). Hua Guofeng's appointment, on the proposal of Mao
Zedong, was very significant.

[MIM3 replies: No one denies Mao appointed Hua. Mao also taught us to
judge revisionists. Hua claimed to uphold the Cultural Revolution and he
swore never to drop the campaign against Hua Guofeng. He did neither once
Mao died. Some claim that the "Four" had Mao's approval
just before Mao died.]

[So far the quote from my Info #45en.]

Mao Zedong's proposing precisely Hua Guofeng for the highest
posts, and for instance no member of the 4-gang, that's what
the "MIM" is silent on, giving people by its mendacious "repor-
ting" on the events of 1976 precisely a misleading impression.

[MIM3 replies: You wish Rolf Martens. That's the only kind of argument you
ever had. We already pointed out that Mao spent 10 years saying you can't
trust people in the highest ranks of the party just because they are the
highest ranks. It is you who by raising the above argument GUT the
Cultural Revolution. You imply that if Mao appointed him, he must have
been good and not a WORM.]

Later, on 07.04.1976, Hua Guofeng was appointed to a new post,
that of First Vice-Chairman of the CPC, while at the same time,
Deng Xiaoping was dismissed. Those two important decisions by
the CC of the CPC on the proposal of Mao Zedong (who because of
his illness at the time was not present at that CPC CC PB
meeting), meant, as I've pointed out, that important blows were
delivered both against the openly-rightist deviation of Deng
Xiaoping and also against the phony"left" one of the 4-gang.

[MIM3 replies: Hua Guofeng posed as someone friendly with 
Zhou Enlai circles and a defender of the Cultural Revolution, unlike
Deng. Hence, to axe Deng and put in Hua instead would seem to
tip things to the socialist side from Mao's point of view. Such was
an accurate view while Mao was alive, because Hua did not act
anything other than a centrist between the "Four" on the one hand and 
those doubting the Cultural Revolution on the other hand.

Another reason for putting in Hua was Mao's theory that the enemy should
be in the open. If you take out Deng who is there to be enemy?  Zhou Enlai
is dead. Liu Shaoqi is dead. Lin Biao is dead. There must be enemy. The
question is whether it will stage secret military coups or open class
warfare.  Especially after the Lin Biao thing happened, from Mao's point
of view, it was better to have the enemy in the open. So for Mao, if Hua
turned out to be no good having risen from obscurity, that was OK. Mao had
confidence in the masses and the outcome of struggle over decades. In
fact, Mao certainly knew that Hua had worked with Deng on Hua's
publications that year. Oh, and what a contrast. The "Four" were working
with Mao to publish articles in Peking Review and Hua was working with
Deng, yes, BEFORE Hua came to power upon Mao's death. So YES, we did not
say it, but we COULD know it that Hua had these leanings all along. It's
another reason that the international communist movement should have
known. If it hadn't been for Mao's teachings, very few people would have
figured out Khruschev or Hua. 

This is the same reason Mao brought back Deng in the first place. Deng at
least agreed with Mao to be open enemy. He could hardly be otherwise
having been exposed in mass mobilization during the Cultural Revolution.
Deng agreed (and till Deng's death you saw this) that military coups for a
country like China would be a real disaster.]

How about the "argument" by "MIM" I quoted above that:

>... if Mao thought the "Gang of Four" were reactionary like
>Rolf Martens claims, he would have had them arrested or removed
>from the Politburo...?

It's false of course. The 4-gang hadn't at that time gone as far
in a reactionary direction as they did later, after Mao Zedong
died. Then they even attempted a coup. The other person then
criticized by Mao Zedong, for instance, Deng Xiaoping, wasn't
arrested either. He was allowed to keep his membership in the
CPC, though he was removed from its Politbureau in April 1976. 

[MIM3 replies: This is factually untrue--a CIA fabrication for the benefit
of capitalist-roader Deng Xiaoping. Deng was placed under house arrest and
forced to do labor and was also isolated.  In his favor was only the fact
that the military leaders of his region would protect him from being
hurt.]

=A47. "MIM:S" PRETENDING TO "KNOW" HUA GUOFENG
    "WAS INSINCERE" FROM THE BEGINNING, AND
    LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE ON THIS POINT=09

As I've pointed out repeatedly, the big blow against the 4-gang
in October 1976, which was carried out by Hua Guofeng's group,
who then also still promised that the criticism against Deng
Xiaoping's deviation would continue, *was* a good thing, for the
Chinese people and the international proletariat. It was hailed
at the time as a big victory for Mao's all-sidely correct line.

[MIM3 replies: Once again you GUT the teachings of Mao. He told us how
many times that the enemy wins by "waving the red flag to attack the red
flag"? So being hailed as red MEANS NOTHING and only phonies like you
assert otherwise.]

[Rolf Martens says:]
What were the real intentions of Hua Guofeng at that time? Soon
afterwards, in November of that year, he himself started to em-
bark on a revisionist line, eventually - as the "MIM" puts this
- in fact handing over power to Deng Xiaoping.

The "MIM", after writing that "you can only judge [people] by
their ACTIONS", says:

>Hua Guofeng's actions also speak much louder than his words of
>support for Mao's line: when Mao died he arrested the "Gang of
>Four" and handed over the reigns to Deng Xiaoping!

They're mixing the two things together, the correct blow against
the 4-gang and Hua's later revisionist actions. And they pre-
tend to "know" that Hua Guofeng in reality had had reactionary
intentions even much earlier, in early or mid-1976 at least.

[MIM3 replies: No we did not say that, but we could have said 
it based on the known fact that Hua was co-writing articles
with Deng Xiaoping before Mao died.]

>Rolf Martens fell on his face IMMEDIATELY. He did not see that
>Hua Guofeng was waiting for Mao to die to launch his bourgeois
>attack.

Again a falsification of the facts, since Hua's October 1976 ac-
tion was correct, hitting at "MIM:s" reactionary idols. "MIM" in
fact is attacking Mao Zedong for having proposed Hua for a posi-
tin from which he could strike at the 4-gang.

[MIM3 replies: No, it does not matter what position a revisionist
has IF we are all good Cultural Revolutionaries. The revisionist dog
will be exposed.]
 They're not even
considering the possibility of what obviously did take place:
A bourgeois degeneration, at some point or other, on the part
of Hua Guofeng.

I on my part, did I ever write that I *knew* that Hua Guofeng
delivered the October blow against the 4-gang with the sincere
intention of furthering the interests of the proletariat? That
is, not with the intention, even then, of furthering the other
deviation, that of Deng Xiaoping? Did I say, as the "MIM" "re-
ports" I did:

>Oh, Hua was "sincere" for a whole month, says Rolf Martens,
>not plotting for Deng's return a month in advance.

No, I never did say that. The real *intentions* of Hua Guofeng
and his group when they hit the 4-gang in October I cannot know,
just as little as can the "MIM". I've only pointed out that this
action *favoured* the proletariat, whatever the motives of the
various people involved in it at that time. The "MIM" has always
misled people about it, calling it "a coup" - which it of course
was *not*, since the persons in (decisive) power after it were
the same as those in power before.

[MIM3 replies: This is a quibble. It's again a sad reflection on Rolf
Martens that this has to be pointed out. The difference between a month
"sincere" before degenerating and a month of plotting to install Deng
Xiaoping-- how much difference is it? MIM treated Rolf Martens's position
sarcastically, because it is not worth treatment otherwise. It goes beyond
naivete to Christian idealism.]

[snip]

=A48. "MIM:S" "LIFESTYLE" AS SHOWN BY THEIR 2ND
    09.11 POSTING TOO: 1) LYING WITH EVERY SECOND
    BREATH THEY TAKE, 2) AVOIDING THE MAIN ISSUES

[snip]

'"The four" did away with freedom of speech and democracy by
putting a stamp on everyone who contradicted them as a "capita-
list-roader" or even "counter-revolutionary". They encouraged
their groups to use fascist methods and beat people.'

[MIM3 replies: Rolf Martens is right about one thing. I should have 
dealt with more of the crap in his posts. Many readers could have
missed that it was an attack on the dictatorship of the proletariat
under Mao!  

We have to remember the Four could not
have been very unpopular yet after one month of Mao being dead
and with Hua in charge. How could the public know what the 
"Four" had in mind--unless they were going based on what the
Four had implemented for the party under long years while Mao
was still alive. In other words, when Rolf Martens uses Myrdal and
others to attack the "Four" he is really attacking life under Mao. He
is spreading bourgeois Liberalism on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is a typical sleazy trick. We saw it in World War I too. Those
wishing to attack Bolshevism only had to attack Zinoviev, because he was
doing much of the work to take a staunch stand against the imperialist
war. 

Later those wishing to attack Bolshevism perceived Stalin as the weak link
and they attacked Stalin. When it became impossible to assail Mao in China
without being smashed by the masses, the bourgeoisie aimed its attack
against the "Four." 

Most of the value of refuting Rolf Martens comes from showing lurkers that
Marxism is not idealism and it is not something concerned with
psychological motivations of individuals. However, going into the den of
the enemy also teaches one more thing. Rolf Martens carries out precisely
the kind of attack on Mao that revisionists carried out in China. Those
who don't keep a firm grip on history might miss it completely. Out of
nowhere it seems that the "Four" were running the country according to
Rolf Martens. Yet Rolf Martens has spent most of his post denying that the
"Four" were important. It wasn't even a coup against them he said. So, Mao
was in charge and then Hua was in charge.  And since Hua was correct for
arresting the "Four," according to Rolf Martens, the "Four" carried out
rampant evils while Mao was in charge. Learning about this style of attack
by the enemy is one more valuable thing about this Rolf Martens post. It's
a concrete negative example.]


[Rolf Martens says:]
They even are trying to deny those facts concerning the matter
of how the hypocritical 4-gangers, who themselves lived like
bourgeois bosses, attacked ordinary people for having potted
plants or goldfish or what-not - as reported too in several
articles of the Peking Review of that time whose veracity
there seems to be no particular reason to doubt:

[MIM3 replies: As if made to order, the above is an 
attack on the dictatorship of the proletariat under Mao.
It is bourgeois Liberalism.]




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005