Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:31:48 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: More lies from the reactionary 4-gangist "MIM"


More lies from the reactionary 4-gangist "MIM"
[Posted: 09.11.97]

This is part of a debate on the Marxism-General mailing list
(M-G) managed by the Spoon Collective (see http://jefferson.
village.Virginia.EDU/~spoons/), and is also sent to newsgroups.

Together with this, I'm also posting three items with some
*facts* about events in China in October 1976 and the stand-
points on them by the Chinese people and the Marxist-Leninsts
abroad:

"What did the Chinese people think of the 4-gang?",
"1/2 What did the Marxist-Leninists say on the 4-gang?" and
"2/2 What did the Marxist-Leninists say on the 4-gang?".


"MIM" posted the below to the M-G, on 09.11, under subject
line "The trivial fate of idealist lackeys of the CIA"[!]
and here some brief comments:

(Meanwhile, by the way, I've posted my Info #56en, with some
more precise information on "MIM"/RIM" history where the
#55 was a bit vague.)
 

>The trivial fate of idealist lackeys of the CIA[!!]

Not mincing your words, huh, you *real* lackeys of
that entity?

>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?

Both, if you absolutely must try to "split me up".
Mao Zedong proposed as his successor Hua Guofeng, who was
then following the proletarian revolutionary line, in early
1976. This I wrote. Hua still did the right thing in
October 1976. He and his group *later* became capitalist-
roaders.

Is this - tragic - *transformation* so difficult for you
to understand?

There *were* revolutionary leaders around Mao at the time
of his death. This I've written.

But some months later, there - as far as is known - were
none, or none that mattered. This I've written too. It
was tragic, but that's how it was. I'm not to blame for it.
>_____________________________________________________

>
>[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). 

What are *you* saying, then, "MIM"? Do you deny that Mao
proposed precisely Hua Guofeng for the top post?


>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. 

And *how*?

>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. 

For your benefit, "MIM", and for that of others, I shall
soon repost some of my earlier things about the *facts* on

1) How did the Chinese peole react to the striking down
of the 4-gang in October 1976?
2) What did the Marxist-Leninist parties abroad say about it? 


______________________________________________________________
>[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. 


How is it now - *were* the 4-gang hated like the plague by the
Chinese or were they not? It's *you* who're lying - sorry,
others, for the repetitiousness - by denying the demonstrable
facts on this.
>
>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.

This is ridiculous slander again. *I* never upheld just one
person or other, but the *line* of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.
This *against* all *phony* "leaders" such as the 4-gang and
yourselves, of course. 


>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." 

Such as the *entire population of Shanghai*, for instance?
See other postings. *You* really are lying in a most dastardly
fashion, spitting both on the Chinese people and the interna-
tional M-L movement at that time.

And *who's* supprting the Deng clique by vilifying the most
massive popular democracy movement of May-June 1989? Precisely
you, "MIM". This movement did contain some very few pro-US elements.
But by no means was this the main thing in it! It was a mass
movement against the fascism in China at the time!

>Anyone who talked to the Chinese
>masses about government policy would know that the Maoist line was still
>POPULAR.  It still is. 

Precisely. The line that the 4-gang *combated*.

>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. 

A lie.

>No where in your posts do you give the readers
>legitimate or any REASONS why the Chinese masses should hate the "Gang of
>Four." 

Once again, a lie.

 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!]

Ah yes! "Only" because these crooks supported a couple of
vilely reactionary cliques against the then in fact very
important, even brilliantly correct KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT)
in Germany!

*Where* did the truth lie in this matter? *This* I've already
shown, in several Info postings.
>
>[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. 


So it would have been for me, if the 4-gang had applied Mao's
line after he died. But they did exactly the opposite, this even
starting at least in 1974, for which he had to criticize them
rather severely. See reposting.
>
>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. 

I never talked about "owning". I refuted your saying, ridiculously,
that the 4-gang "was famous for"(!) *Mao's* correct theory on the
bourgeoisie right in the communist party.

>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!

By no means. The two articles in question by the two members of
the 4-gang, in the spring of 1975 when the 4-gang was already
under sharp criticism from Mao at party meetings, those cannot
be said to count for much in the way of "continuing" Mao's
struggle. They wrote such things, and then they did exactly
the opposite in practice. This the well-known facts show.

> 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.) 

I speak of Marxism-Leninism and never of "Maoism", just as did
the Chinese communists in Mao Zedong's time. They, as I too, most
consistently combated Soviet revisionism. It was precisely the
Soviet revisionists and nobody else (well, the old-time bourgeoisie
too) who at that time used the term "Maoism", which is unfortunate
in that it doesn't show that precisely the adherents of Mao Zedong
it was who *upheld* Marxism-Leninism while the Soviet revisionists
had *betrayed* it and *combated* it.

>What's important to enemies like Rolf Martens is that this theory not be
>APPLIED once Mao died. 

Again, a dastardly lie, trying to put things upside-down.
Precisely I have advocated the application of Mao's theory
and have alpplied it too. Precisely you are *combating* it.

>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. 

It has nothing to do with you Jesus, you ridiculous Gang-of-Fourists.
What took place was a treason similar to that in the Soviet Union
earlier. What do you say concerning some "proletarian leaders" in
*that* country in the time Khrushchev and his gang overthrew socialism?
Since there "must" have been some - who're known by name abroad -
in China, why not in the Soviet Union too? But you have *no* such
names, do you?

>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.

Ned I say, utter rubbish, nonsense and lies?

Rolf M.



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