From: Rubyg580-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:07:41 -0400
Subject: Re: (the question of China and Maoism)


In a message dated 96-07-15 09:25:05 EDT, you write:

>malecki wrote;
>>>Actually what was not lost in the bureaucratic clique fights between the 
>>>various factions were the collectivised property forms. Despite the 
>>>developments of the capitalist roaders. Although the present course 
>>>does not look very good to say the least. 
>
>Gina wrote;
>>No, collectivised property forms were definitely lost.  The People's 
>>Communes were dismantled by the late 70s.  Those were the main 
>>form collectivised property took in the vast majority of the land area 
>>of China, since that country is (or at least was then) overwhelming 
>>rural.
Malecki:
>It is interesting that you see the collectivisation and building of a 
>personal stove for every person during the cultural revolution as the key to

>transforming china. It goes against the grain of the Dictatorship of the 
>Proletariat and leans towards peasant reforms by one wing of the 
>bureaucracy.
Gina:
What's this "personal stove for every person" business???  People's 
communes were the main form of collective property in China since 
the late 50s.  They were huge agricultural collectives, often 
incorporating some light manufacturing and/or processing of 
agricultural products, thus creating workers within the peasant 
communities.  They included usually several villages, and calculated 
compensation for labor on the basis of "work points" which were 
exchanged at harvest time for shares of grain or money from sale of 
agricultural products.

They weren't a product of bureaucracy at all, but a creation of the 
masses in China; and they were a major step on the road to 
proletarianizing agricultural work.  
Gina (previously);
>>If you mean government "collectivised" ownership of large industrial 
>>enterprises, my question is essentially, "so what?" Collective 
>>ownership by the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is not exactly anything 
>>for the proletariat to celebrate.  That form of "colleticvised" property 
>>form exists in ANY capitalist country to some extent.
Malecki:
>The above is both anti worker and anti-marxist. In fact communist should 
>fight for the full expropriation of industries by the state. This under 
>worker and worker council control. With the armed proletariat to 
>back up the authority of the Soviets. 
Gina:
Sorry if I wasn't clear here.  What I meant is that even though major 
industries are still owned by the Chinese government, today that 
government is capitalist, NOT socialist, not at all under worker and
worker council control (the revolutionary committees were dismantled 
in the late 70s), and the proletariat has been disarmed.  So today, 
state ownership is merely the collective ownership of industry by the 
bourgeoisie of China.  That's what I'm saying "so what" to.
M:
>And as far as state run operations in any other 
>capitalist country this is both unserious and ridiculous to compare the two 
>forms. One is based on Capitalists property relations. In the Soviet Union 
>in 1917 it was based on expropriation of the capitalists. In China it was 
>based on the power of the peasant based red army.. These are quite different

>from one another.
G:
But once the bourgeoisie came back into power in the USSR in the 
mid 50s,and in China in the late 70s, there ceases to be much 
difference between state ownership in those two countries and 
state ownership in Britain or Sweden.  That's my point.
G:
>>>These lessons learned in China through "blood and fire" are right now 
>>>being applied in Peru, or being prepared for.  The world has changed 
M:
>I doubt that these things are being practiced in Peru. Because in Peru we 
>have not yet seen the state overthrown by anyone including the PCP. 
G:
This is true in the sense that the PCP has not overthrown the 
central regime YET.  But in major parts of the countryside, the 
old regime has been overthrown, and the New Power is actually 
in control of the political and economic life of the region. To the 
extent that it is possible, the lessons of the previous revolutions 
are being applied there.
G:
>>"Workers state" is one of those terms that Trotskyists use that I have 
>>never quite understood the definition of.  Maybe each sect has their 
>>own definition.  What Mao did lead was the dictatorship of the 
>>proletariat, following the completion of the New Democratic revolution 
>>which seized power in 1949.  The Revolutionary Committees developed 
>>during the Cultural Revolution as organs of political and economic power 
>>in the hands of the proletariat.  They were quickly dismantled by the 
>>regime that followed Mao's death.
M:
>This might be what you believe. However I tend to agree with Neils letters 
>recently on the track record of Mao which you have not answered by the way.
G:
You should check into it.  It's important for those who really want to see
the dictatorship of the proletariat come into being to know what it looks
like in the places it has existed. I don't know what Neil has been saying
about this, since my time is limited and I can't follow every thread on this
list.
M:
>>>>For proletarian Independence.
G:
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by this.  The Maoist united front is 
>>>definitely based on the independence of the proletariat from the 
>>>other class forces within the front, and on the leadership by the 
>>>proletariat of the united front
M:
>It certainly is not and your arguements with Aldolfo about this question 
>prove that. 
G:
???What do you mean by this?  Whether the proletariat maintains 
its independence in leading a united front of different class forces in 
Peru, or in China, is not affected one way or another by my 
arguements with Adolfo.  You need to study the practice of Maoist 
revolutionary parties in the real world, not rely on cyberspace 
arguements for your understanding of Maoism.
G:
>>And how is a multi-class united front incompatible with proletarian 
>>leadership and independence?  You yourself call for a "workers and 
>>peasants government". This is a dual-class unity.  It is a cornerstone 
>>of communism (in fact, the origin of the hammer--representing workers, 
>>and sickle--representing peasants).  But the proletariat must lead the 
>>peasantry, not vice-versa, or it is NOT representative of communism.
M:
>Because proletarian independence is just that. And the call for a workers 
>and peasants government is based on a program of mobilising the peasants to 
>expropriate the lands. This does not mean making deals with the bougeois 
>parties but a struggle for power. It also does not mean that the proletariat

>marches independently under its own flag in its own interests. But it does 
>put forward a program for the peasants to take a step forward. We will turn 
>the peasants into workers with collective and socially organised production 
>of food supplies. That is our goal. 
G:
That is pretty much the strategy that was followed in China under 
Mao's leadership.  I don't understand what you are trying to 
counterpose to it.  The peasants were mobilized to expropriate 
the lands of the feudal landowners (and whatever capitalist landowners 
there might have been.  Then immediately after liberation a massive 
campaign was launched for collectivisation of agriculture, fighting 
against the capitalist roaders who said first you had to mechanize 
before you could collectivise agriculture.

The collectivisation process went through several steps before it 
came to the people's communes, which was the stage it was at when 
the capitalist roaders staged their coup after Mao's death, and turned 
the land back over to private family ownership.  In the people's 
communes, the peasants were not only agricultural workers but also 
workers in industries that were set up on the communes to 
manufacture things like agricultural supplies and equipment.
M:
>>>>For a workers and peasants goverment..
G:
>>>This we definitely agree on; Maoism is the only theory proven in 
>>>practice to lead to a workers and peasants government (called 
>>>New Democracy, the forerunner to socialism, which is the 
>>>dictatorship of the proletariat).  It is being forged in Peru in the 
>>>People's Committees led by the PCP.
M:
>Not true the first workers and peasants government happened to 
>be in Russia in 1917. 
G:
Actually, you're right about that.  Mao applied the lessons of the 
Russian revolution to a third world country, where the strategy has 
to be different than in Russia, which, although backwards in relation 
to the rest of Europe or North America, was at the stage of 
Imperialism, not mainly oppressed by outside imperialists like China, 
or like Peru today.
M:
>However i doubt that the PCP has the Leninist model which includes 
>understanding backward countries and the neccessity of proletarian 
>revolution Internationally. More along the lines of Mao and peasant 
>gurreilla warfare and a stageist theory to revolution.
G:
Resolve your doubts: go to web page http://www.blythe/peru-pcp, 
and read the PCP documents there.  They very much do have the 
understanding of the need for proletarian revolution internationally.
G:
>>You're not being very clear on what you mean here.  Mao's alliance 
>>with Chiang Kaishek was very limited and conditional, and was 
>>specifically to fight the Japanese invasion.  And he was very well 
>>aware that Chiang was more interested in fighting the Chinese 
>>Communists than he was in fighting the Japanese.  It was a necessary 
>>alliance to rally the greatest proportion of the population to defeat the 
>>Japanese invasion.
M:
>The above was much later on and wrong also. But what about the 
>blood bath in Shanghi because of the Maoist support to bougeois forces?
G:
If you're talking about the 1927 massacre, that was before Mao 
was in leadership of the CP of China.  His predecessor had the 
line of copying the Russian revolution, and concentrating on work 
in the cities, where the control of the imperialists and their local 
allied forces was strongest.  THAT erroneous line led to the 
massacre in Shanghai.

Mao's line was to go to the countryside where the vast majority 
of China's people lived, and to lead the masses of peasants (who 
were already in motion and upsurge) to expropriate the land and 
form a red army, setting up base areas in remote places.  
Chingangshan was on the border between two provinces, where 
the forces of the old state were not very strong.  That was where 
Mao started to implement his line.

Peru in the 90s is not China in the 40s.  More of the population 
is concentrated in the cities, as workers and ad street vendors.  
Therefore the PCP does more work in the cities than the Chinese 
Communists did.  But the strategy is still to surround the cities 
>from the countryside, where the new power is already being 
exercised in the base areas.  The final assault will be for the 
masses to rise up in insurrection in the cities as well as the 
revolutionary army to attack from the countryside.

Gina/Detroit
 


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