File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1998/marxism-general.9805, message 243


Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 22:16:23 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: 1/2 Incomplete reply on overthrow in China


David Welch wrote, on 19.05:

>Quite possibly there was sporadic resistance by Maoists but the point made
>quite explicitly by the Swedish diplomat was that such resistance was
>crushed relatively easily, certainly the revisionists were able to
>establish their dictatorship quite quickly. 

Yes. That must be admitted. It was the same thing, under
different circumstances though, in the Soviet Union in
the mid-late 1950s.

>I think it unlikely that a protracted rebellion in China would have gone
>unreported 

...you're right there...

>and that the bourgeoisie press would been so inclined to
>champion one faction within the communist party. 

No! On the contrary.

And that Trot "faction" idea again! In reality, in a communist
party, there are forces representing the proletariat and
forces representing the bourgeoisie (which was precisely
what Mao pointed out with particular clarity). Of course,
it was *vital* for the reactionaries abroad to support the
*bourgeoisie* withing the CPC - *both* the 4-gang *and* Deng.


>After all China moved
>only slowly towards market economics

...which is *not* the main criterion..

>and continues to threaten US client
>states like Taiwan on the basis of nationalism. 

Bourgeois regimes of course also contend, compete
with each other, besides being united against the
masses!

>I also don't think membership of the Swedish-Chinese friendship society is
>the best barometer of Chinese political conditions, unless you're
>suggesting Swedes have some special immunity to bourgeoisie propogranda. 

It *is* a quite good barometer, *I* hold. And no doubt, the masses
in other countries too saw the same thing. Only, there happen
to be such wonderfully illustrative and instructive figures precisely
from where I live, Sweden.

>The critical difference between the events of 1976 and those of the
>cultural revolution was the control of the PLA. 

It seems you have a strange idea (well, one that some "western"
media did advance) about when the Cultural Revolution ended. That
was, precisely, in 1976. Those bpurgeois media sometimes have
said: "1969". Not correct.

And the PLA of course was important - but *not* "crucial".

>With Mao's ally Lin Piao
>firmly in control of the armed forces the red guards could be safely
>launch the struggle against reactionaries. 

As long as Lin Biao *was* an ally of Mao, yes!!

Only, the scumbag soon enough turned around 180 degrees,
respectively showed his true colours and tried a *coup*
in 1971! In order to get to be a satrap under Soviet
social-imperialism! 

>Deng Xiaping's faction didn't
>make the same mistake in 1976. Undoubtly the split with the ultra-lefts
>(phoney or not)

Elsewhere I've criticized that bourgeois term "ultra-left".
It fails to say whether it's a question of a *real* left or
a *phony* - as your bracketed addition makes clear you *don't*
want to judge on in this case. But such a thing - false or
genuine? - it's *vital* to know!

> and the relative political underdevelopment of the masses
>were factors but secondary ones. In any state with strong, centralized
>security apparatus and without any mechanism for the proletariat to use
>that apparatus to directly exercise its purported dictatorship, political
>struggle will inevitably revolve around its control.

Precisely in China, precisely in the Cultural Revolution,
there *were* organized *very big* such mechanism: Revolutionary
Committees etc, etc. In that Revolution, the masses, practially
ALL of them, took part as in no other evolution in history!

Youre turning things upside down!

That's not meant to say that there aren't negative experiences
from China which one should learn from today. But this does
require some closer study.

And what would *you* suggest should have been done that
was *not* at the time?  

>Now while marxists
>are firmly in control the question doesn't arise but sooner or later a 
>tendency towards revisionism will occur within the bureacracy. Mao
>recognized and fought constantly againt it, but the organisation of the
>state made socialism dependant on the struggle between factions within
>the leadership *not* the wider class struggle. 

Nonsense, David. I've already written the same in reply
to Juan. The strugle within the CPC precisely *was* a
reflection of class struggle in society, and there were
always in the CPC the principles at least advocated, of
consulting the masses, maintaining close ties with the
masses etc - much better than earlier in the Soviet Union.

Once the treachery of Mao
>successors delivered state power into the hands of the revisionists, the 
>dictatorship of the proletariat was gone in, almost instantly. The
>incipient maoist resistance was quickly crushed.

True enough. The internal and external bourgeois enemy at
the time turned out to be the stronger, despite everything.


>David Welch
>
>P.S. For the record I'm not a trotskyite through I agree with Trotsky's
>critisisms of third period Stalinist, there is also much I would disagree
>with.

OK, noted.

>Certainly the internal politics of trotskyite groups in the UK don't
>make me any more hopefully that they could implement socialism. 

I on my part hold, as you know, that Trotskyism as such *is*
a bourgeois ideology, which in reality as such combats socialism.

Rolf M.




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005