From: mim3-AT-mim.org
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:13:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-G: The trivial idealist lackeys of the CIA on China in 1976


The trivial fate of idealist lackeys of the CIA

Note the below statements of Rolf Martens

[MIM:]
>You see it's very simple Rolf Martens: you piss on all the
>available[!] leaders in 1976 in China after Mao died; yet, you
>claim to uphold Mao and Marxism-Leninism without spitting
>on the Chinese masses. You LIE the way all idealists do when
>they deal with consistent materialists. This sort of lie told
>while speaking in the name of Marxism-Leninism and Mao is
>called revisionism.

[Rolf Martens:]
It's the "MIM" of course who's lying on this, not I. They're
talking of "available leaders". Whom do they mean? This becomes
clear in the next paragraph.

("MIM":)
>If Deng, Hua and the "Gang of Four" were all bourgeois, YOU are
>saying there were no leaders around Mao at his death that were
>not bourgeois.

[Rolf Martens:]
No, that's *not* what I'm saying, and you know it. You're lying.

[Rolf Martens in same post:]
In practice, yes, all important leaders in China at the time
eventually did follow the capitalist road in one way or another,
as far as I can tell. This by no means implies that the main
theory of the Cultural Revolution would be wrong, as you ridicu-
lously are saying, "MIM".

[MIM3 replies:]
WHICH ROLF MARTENS SHOULD WE BELIEVE FROM ABOVE?
_____________________________________________________

[Rolf Martens:]
You, "MIM", ridiculously continue, still pretending I had said
that "all Chinese leaders were bourgeois at the time Mao died":

("MIM":)
>That leaves only two possibilities:  a) Mao fronted for and
>chose bourgeois leaders before his death, and merely oversaw
>intra-bourgeois fighting like the ultraleft crypto-Trotskyist
>Progressive Labor Party says. That means Mao was either a
>bourgeois himself or certainly not someone worth following.

[Rolf Martens:]
Which of course has nothing to do with anything I've written.

[Rolf Martens in the same post:]
Even if, as in late 1976 etc, all the top leaders - either ha-
ving bad intentions or being fooled and/or overwhelmed - came to
follow the capitalist road, this group still constituted a
*handful* of people, compared to total number of party members
and compared to the masses in China.

[MIM replies:] In other words, just as we accused you, you believe Mao did
not pick any top leaders worthwhile (unless you are counting Hua's being
worthwhile for a month in October 1976 according to YOU as something Mao
would have wanted or would have been proud of in his own struggles to do
the most scientific thing possible for the proletariat).  But surpassing
yourself in what seems to be stupidity to the reader (but which is likely
an intentional effort to discredit Maoists by making them look that
stupid), you also admit that there were so many party members and masses
in China, who did not produce leaders able (whether through recognition
from "above" or struggle from "below")  to reach the high ranks and carry
out Mao's line. You LIE. There were good Maoist leaders and they did
FIGHT--Jiang Qing and Zhang Chunqiao in particular of the "Gang of Four."
Unlike Hua, who even you claim was good for only one month after Mao died,
Jiang Qing continued the fight against Deng Xiaoping revisionism and for
Mao's line till her death. 

________________________________________________________________
[Rolf Martens:]

*I* can "offer" to the Chinese masses *no* name of any leader in
China who stood firm in the whole of 1976 and the next two
years. So I'm "to blame" for this, you say. *You* can "offer"
them four (former) "top leaders" which "the Chinese massed had
produced", namely, the totally degenerated, ultra-reactionary
4-gang - whom the Chinese people rightly hated like the plague!

[MIM3:] That's right Rolf Martens. Your view of China in 1976 reflects
more on your hateful, misanthropic attitude towards the masses' efforts at
revolution than anything that actually happened in China. For you, if the
"Gang of Four" wasn't as good or better than Mao, then they were not good
enough. That's idealism. 

In contrast, MIM teaches people not to make up EXCUSES for fence-sitting. 
We teach them to get into the class struggle AS IT EXISTS in material
reality and not wait for Jesus to deliver the right moment. Mao was dead
in September, 1976. For you to uphold him against all the leaders that
follows is Christian idealism. 

You instigate would-be Maoists to ABANDON the struggle in the CONCRETE to
join you in a FAIRYTALE existence where all revolutionaries are perfect if
they just say so by saying the right things, like 95% of Trotskyists
believe. (E.g.  "We defended the Soviet Union"--proof? Because we held up
some signs SAYING so in a rally or two, after vilifying the Soviet Union,
calling for its split and a civil war for Hitler to take advantage of.
These Trotskyists are pre-cursors to post-Modernism, whereby language
alone is deemed to have power. From MIM's perspective, "defending" the
Soviet Union would have entailed overthrowing the governments opposed to
the Soviet Union or giving material aid to the Soviet Union, something
the Trotskyists did not DO anywhere; although
they jabbered about it.) 

It should now be clear that those who hated the "Gang of Four" were the
same CIA-instigated elements who also made big shows of public opinion in
Beijing with the "Statue of Liberty." Anyone who talked to the Chinese
masses about government policy would know that the Maoist line was still
POPULAR.  It still is. 

But instead of clarifying which leaders stood for what, you Rolf Martens
are ASSISTING the Western intelligence services in conducting purely
psychological warfare against the "Gang of Four" and its supporters. You
attack them persynally, and you know and demonstrate it in your articles
that it was ONLY the "Gang of Four" out of the LIVING leaders after Mao
who continued to uphold Mao's CENTRAL theoretical contributions of the
Cultural Revolution. No where in your posts do you give the readers
legitimate or any REASONS why the Chinese masses should hate the "Gang of
Four."  You thereby cover for Deng Xiaoping and Yeltsin.
___________________________________________
______________________________________________

("MIM":)
>CIA protege Yeltsin also thanks you for undercutting the "Gang
>of Four," because they wrote and published the articles explai-
>ning the basis for the new bourgeoisie right in the party. None
>of these other leaders you equate with them as bourgeois were
>able to do that.

[Rolf Martens:]
So you're saying that it wasn't Mao Zedong but a couple of mem-
bers of the 4-gang - who at that time were already under sharp
criticism from Mao for their factional activities - who ex-
plained the basis for the bourgeoisie right in the party! That's
really a "sensational novelty"!

You obviously are referring to two articles by Yao Wenyuan and
Zhang Chunqiao which were published in the spring of 1975.

[snipping explanation that Rolf Martens basically admits
he opposed the "Gang of Four" only because they endorsed a 
different German organization than his--so much for defending the
truth wherever it may lie!]

[Rolf Martens continues:]
These articles simply repeated what Mao Zedong had already cor-
rectly analyzed and obviously - I've understood this later - had
as a main object to beat the drum for their authors. Your ascri-
bing Mao's theory on this matter to the 4-gang[!], "MIM", that's
really going rather far in your history falsification attempts.

MIM3 replies:  This is exactly what a lot of bourgeois critics said about
Stalin too-- that he had no originality, and was just a follower of Lenin.
SO WHAT?  The petty-bourgeois intellectuals and anti-party individualists
value their "originality" while we at MIM value the scientific truth.
Applying what Lenin said after he died was plenty good enough for MIM. 

See what really matters to Rolf Martens is to appeal to the
petty-bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries with what, class stand?
Yes, the question of who OWNS the theory behind an article. How ludicrous
on just the face of it in a socialist society. 

Oh, the petty-bourgeoisie loves Rolf Martens for that when the real issue
for proletarians is WHICH set of leaders would continue the struggle
against the bourgeoisie in the party! Rolf Martens is here ADMITTING that
the "Gang of Four" continued that struggle! But it's not important to him!
(Maybe that's why he speaks of "Marxism-Leninism"  and not Maoism.  His
affinity with Soviet revisionism is there right below the surface.) 

What's important to enemies like Rolf Martens is that this theory not be
APPLIED once Mao died. So in this way he pits a DEAD man against his
living followers on behalf of the CIA, Deng Xiaoping and Yeltsin. It is so
obviously CHRISTIAN. A man died for your sins and those who followed were
IMPERFECT says Rolf Martens and Jimmy Swaggert. 

Like the Trotskyist idealists, he will SAY he is against the CIA, Deng
Xiaoping and Yeltsin, but we MATERIALISTS can see EASILY and CLEARLY
without squirming, self-contradiction and petty-bourgeois haughtines that
what happens in social practice is principal-- not ALLEGED good
intentions. In practice, Rolf Martens is siding with the CIA, Deng and
Yeltsin.







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