Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 10:39:21 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #61en: 3/7 Reply on Cultural Revolution


UNITE! Info #61en: 3/7 Reply on Cultural Revolution
[Posted: 01.02.98; this part also to restricted (ex-)M-G then]
[Part 4/7 to be sent to (ex-)M-G on 02.02; parts 5-7/7 only to
'alt.society.revolution' and other newsgroups]

[Continued from part 2/7]

And NB: I wrote in that part 1 version that went to (ex-)M-G 
that I'd reply on the two first questions (only) in parts 1-3, 
but I shall extend that to the beginning of part 4 too.


9. PRODUCTION IN CHINA WAS *GREATLY FAVOURED*
   BY THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION, *NOT* THE OTHER
   WAY AROUND!

You wrote, Rob Lyon (to whose questions this Info is a reply,
and only a relatively brief and scetchy one except on one par-
ticular matter, as I've said; it's nothing like the "full story" 
on the Cultural Revolution):

>... but who did Rolf want to "win" this struggle.  The radical 
>stalinists who destroyed all aspects of life and production for 
>the merits of totalitarian control and the increase of the Mao 
>personality cult, or the "rightists" who have now allowed 
>various levels of capitalism into the country

On whom I wanted to "win", I'm replying further below. These
lines of yours seem to show that you think there were only two
groups or currents involved in this giant struggle, both of them
reactionary. Some people who might fit your description as "ra-
dical Stalinists" etc there were - with the reservation that 
this term, "Stalinists", is confusing in itself; see a note on 
this in part 2. They did try to "destroy all aspects of life and
production" and were one serious enemy of the proletariat and 
the whole people in China; what you're describing are the forces
whose main representative in the CPC at a late stage, from 1974 
or so on, was the 4-gang. But on the whole, these forces didn't 
succeed at all. 

The other group you mention, the openly rightist one, was there 
too, and was another adversary of the proletariat of course, but 
you plain forgot - ot didn't even know about, the *main* force 
among the leaders in China at that time, Mao Zedong and the 
other genuine communists, who combated both these groups, really
represented the interests of the overwhelming majority of people 
and during a long time were victorious, eventually losing out 
(for then) to the bourgeoisie in 1976-78.

And this group and its supporters, the majority of Chinese, what
did they achieve or not achieve concerning production during the
Cultural Revolution? 

On this there are some quite enormous lies in the bourgeois me-
dia today. They're repeating over and over again that there was
"chaos", that production "suffered" etc etc. They thus must 
"forget", "1984 away", what some of them had to admit at the 
time.

On 28.10.1976, for instance, one could read in the main interna-
tional paper of the US imperialists, the International Herald
Tribune, written by its correspondent in Hongkong Fox Butter-
field (and repeated in about the same terms on 24.12.76 too): 

	"Chinese industry has achieved a remarkable record of
     	nearly 10-per-cent growth a year over the last 15 years.
	But this year there have been indications that the pace
	may have slowed down to roughly 7 per cent..."

There was in fact trouble starting in 1976, due to the 4-gang's
activities, as well as those of the openly-rightists, among 
other things. 7 per cent a year still is much more than what 
most capitalist countries could manage even then - not to speak 
of today, with the massive campaigns going on since long in or-
der on purpose to *curb* growth - and few countries indeed could
match those constant (nearly) 10% during practically the whole 
Cultural Revolution, not to speak of the fact that in China, the
whole people benefited from it too.

In the early years of the Cultural Revolution, there apparently
was some chaos in some places, with production suffering. But 
this was soon corrected; the watchword got to be: "Grasp revolu-
tion, promote production", and that period in China precisely
shows the *superiority* of socialism over capitalism, precisely
in the field of production. Revolution is *good* for production,
by no means the other way around.

In the even more important field of agricultural production,
growth in China was not *that* big, but China did quite well 
there too, while it was still socialist: some 4% per year, with
a population growth of 2% a year, according to official figures,
which I've seen no refutation of. The system with People's Com-
munes ensured the necessary co-operation in larger units and
thus also the develoment and maintenance of irrigation systems
and other infrastructure. When the revisionists later smashed
that system and went over to a contract system of individual 
farming, a catastrophy started in Chinese agriculture which the 
bourgeois media today largely are trying to cover up but whose
consequences will be far-reaching: From 1985 on, grain produc-
tion in China is stagnating and quite insufficient to meet the 
needs.

In the revisionist China of today, there still is growth compa-
rable to that of the Cultural Revolution in *some* fields, e.g.
steel production, which has risen from some 30 Mtons in 1976 to
more than 70 Mtons today. But firstly, most Chinese now of cour-
se largely are deprived of the benefits of that production, and 
secondly there's stagnation also in such an important field as 
energy production. And on this I shall bring some longer ex-
cerpts from my Info #28en (part 6/8), 23.02.1997; some explana-
tions by me now are in brackets { }.


10. ENERGY PRODUCTION, OIL IN PARTICULAR, IN CHINA 
    DURING AND AFTER THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION 
    (from Info #28en)

{These excerpts start out by my quoting an article by Chang 
Chien published in Peking Review No. 11/1974, "Behind the so-
called 'Energy Crisis'" (supposedly existing globally then):} 

"An advanced social system promotes the development of the so-
cial forces of production while a decadent and declining social 
system obstructs the advance of the social forces of production.
China, for example, is a big country which abounds in natural 
wealth, including sources of natural energy. But in semi-colo-
nial and semi-feudal China, imperialism not only robbed her of 
her vast valuable energy resources but also labelled China 'an 
oil-poor country'. The situation has been entirely different 
since liberation." 

[It took a social revolution, with considerable bloodshed, to 
get - among many other things of course - that oil, which had 
been there all the time, out of the ground.]

"...In a very short time they" [the Chinese people] "have re-
moved the 'oil-poor country' label stuck on China. The days when
she was completely dependent on foreign oil are gone for ever." 
...."More than self-sufficient, China today also has oil for ex-
port."....

It's really a little off topic here, now that we're discussing 
the origins of oil etc, {which was the theme of Info #28en; in
the present one, the below precisely is on topic - RM, Feb '98} 
but I'll include some paragraphs on what happened to China's oil 
production after the capitalists took over......

On 30.03.1975, a daily here in Sweden, the Sydsvenskan, reported,
under the heading "China: Oil Is to Give Industrial Power", on 
that country's then growing oil export. It said i.a.: 

"In 1957, the Chinese produced a modest 1.5 Mtons. In 1974, an-
nual production exceeded 50 million tons. This year's production 
is calculated to be 77 Mtons. It's calculated that in 1977, a 
level of 120 Mtons will be reached, and Western observers be-
lieve that annual production by 1980 will be of the order of 
400-500 million tons." (Which would have put China in this res-
pect on a par with Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.)

After the restoration of capitalism, the new Chinese bourgeoisie 
themselves pointed out, for instance, with the following IMO 
very interesting remark in the Beijing Review (spelling changed 
in 1979) No. 25/1981 (p. 3):

"It was during the 10 chaotic years" [aka: The Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution, 1966-76] "that China's oil output went up 
from 10 million to 90 million tons."

Yes, and a just terribly "chaotic" period that decade must have
been in China, too, when during that time the country's oil pro-
duction was only ninefolded! 

........ {And when that "chaos" was "overcome", how did things 
go in this respect?}...I invite you to listen to one of the 
Chinese revisionists'... deputy prime ministers, Yao Yilin, tal-
king to US weekly Newsweek in 1981 (issue of 30.03.81, p. 38):

"Oil production will fall and will keep falling until the late 
1980:s". And why? "Our oil policy is not good enough".

For "internal consumption", the same person gave a quite diffe-
rent reason for this complete and catastrophic reversal. He 
wrote, in Beijing Review No. 11/1981:

"Economize on energy consumption. In order to gain a proper ra-
tio between reserves and extraction" [!] "and ensure safe pro-
duction, the originally planned output of 106 million tons for 
1981 has been reduced to 100 million tons and the originally 
planned coal output by mines whose products are distributed by 
the state has been lowered from 359 million tons to 338 million 
tons."

I put in the "[!]" because, even in the same article, China's 
actually enormusly large proven reserves of oil and coal were 
once more pointed at. .....Whatever the exact causes, China to-
day still doesn't produce more than 140-150 Mtons of oil annual-
ly.

{So far, the excerpts from Info #28en, 23.02.97}

[Continued in part 4/7]

[For (ex-)M-G: This posting measured by me, 01.02, at 9.6 kB]



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