China's Leadership Is Drifting in the Right Deviationist Wind!
Edited by the Central Leadership of Kommunistischer Arbeiterbund Deutschlands (KABD) (Communist Workers' League of Germany). August 1977. Published and Distributed by Verlag Neuer Weg GmbH. English Edition 2019.
Contents
1. Mao Zedong's Five Requirements for Successors
2. Ideological struggle as Most Important Part of the Class Struggle in Socialist Society
3. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution Initiates a Broad Ideological Struggle
4. Continuation of the Criticism of the Liu Shaoqi Faction during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
5. The Ideological-Political Debate in the Struggle against the Right Deviationist Wind
6. Intensification of the Criticism of Deng Xiaoping's Rightist Opportunism
7. The Touchstone for Assessing the Ideological-Political Line of China's Leadership
8. Preparation and Realization of the Rehabilitation of Deng Xiaoping and Drifting in the Right Deviationist Wind
1. Mao Zedong's Five Requirements for Successors
When Mao Zedong passed away on September 9, 1976, every communist asked himself what would happen now. Will the leading cadres carry on his work, act in accordance with his ideas, form a strong ideological-political collective, and mobilize the masses in the further construction of socialism? Or will they degenerate into revisionists, follow in the footsteps of the Soviet revisionists, and restore capitalism? Will the leadership of the Communist Party of China act in accordance with the five requirements for revolutionary successors put forward by Mao Zedong, which were discussed in an excellent lead article in Renmin Ribao of August 3, 1964, published in English in Peking Review, No. 32 of August 7, 1964? Below we print important excerpts from this article because the principles discussed there are important for assessing the new leadership of the Chinese Communist Party:
Training Millions of Successors to Proletarian Revolution
The cause of socialism and communism is the greatest and most arduous cause in human history. Achieving the complete victory of socialism is a matter not for one or two generations, but for five or ten generations, or even longer. Throughout this historical period, there will be storms of class struggle manifested in various forms. The bourgeoisie and all other overthrown exploiting classes always attempt to stage a comeback. The class enemies both at home and abroad understand that to make a socialist country degenerate into a capitalist country, it is necessary first to make the Communist Party degenerate into a revisionist party, and that to do this, it is necessary first to make the nucleus of the Party leadership at all levels degenerate. The grave danger of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union several decades after the October Revolution is, first of all, the result of the degeneration of the leading Khrushchov clique. Just before his death, the reactionary U.S. ringleader John Foster Dulles was still thinking of a capitalist restoration in China, but when he saw there was no hope among the nucleus of the leadership in the present and the next generation of our revolutionary ranks, he pinned his hopes on our third and fourth generations.
The imperialists' wishes, the lessons to be drawn from the modern revisionists' damage to the Soviet Union and the facts of the class struggle in our country today all have given us the warning: in long, complicated class struggle, we must constantly increase the strength of the nucleus of Party leadership at all levels to resist the corrosion by the class enemy. We must pay greater attention to the choosing, cultivating and training of the successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat, especially the successors to the nucleus of the leadership at all levels.…
What are the standards for choosing the successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat? The experiences and lessons of the communist movement and the dictatorship of the proletariat show that the successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat must meet the following five requirements.
1. They must be genuine Marxist-Leninists.
Members of the nucleus of leadership at every level of the revolutionary ranks must have a better understanding of Marxism-Leninism, especially a true understanding of the essence of Marxism-Leninism. In philosophy, the essence of Marxism-Leninism is dialectical materialism, the law of the unity of opposites in particular, and in politics, it is the thesis on class struggle, particularly the thesis of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship by the proletariat. Genuine Marxist-Leninists must apply the law of the unity of opposites to handling matters and persist in the proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship.…
2. They must be revolutionaries who wholeheartedly serve the overwhelming majority of the people of China and the whole world.
Essentially, the question of serving the overwhelming majority of the people is a matter of class stand and world outlook.…
The successor to the proletarian revolution must be selfless for the sake of the common good, and unremittingly oppose individualism. He must under all circumstances place the interests of the whole above all others and resolutely oppose departmentalism; he must persist in proletarian internationalism and oppose national-egoism. Individualism, departmentalism and national-egoism are as incompatible with the utterly unselfish revolutionary cause of the proletariat as water is with fire. Both departmentalism and national-egoism have their roots in bourgeois individualism. To be a successor of the proletarian revolution, one must not be prey to the temptations of bourgeois individualism and under all circumstances put the interests of the overwhelming majority in first place. When the situation demands, he should be ready to sacrifice his personal interests, even his blood and life in order to defend the interests of the greatest majority of the people.
3. They must be proletarian political leaders capable of rallying and working with the overwhelming majority. Not only must they unite with those who agree with them, but they must also be good at uniting with those who disagree and even with those who formerly opposed them and have since been proved wrong.
In any leading group or any unit, there may be different views on a question. This is a good thing and not a bad thing. Members of the nucleus of leadership must make the best use of collective wisdom and be good at listening to all useful opinions and working with people with different views, be good at creating an atmosphere of earnestly discussing and studying problems so that comrades with differing views can freely express their opinions, undertake debates and make right and wrong clear, and through such discussions to raise comrades' ideological level of Marxism-Leninism, raise their ability to discover errors and strengthen unity among them on Marxist-Leninist principles. There may be some intractable elements, but they can only be a very small minority. When the majority is united, the few incorrigible die-hards will be isolated. Vigilance must be maintained at all times against careerists and conspirators so as to prevent such bad elements from seizing the leadership.
4. They must set an example in applying the Party's democratic centralism, must master the method of leadership based on the principle of "from the masses, to the masses," and must cultivate a democratic style of work and be good at listening to the masses.
The mass line "from the masses, to the masses" is a fundamental line of our Party in all kinds of work. We must be good at summing up the experience and opinions of the masses systematically and bring them back to the masses so that the masses stand up for them and act on them. Commandism and the attitude of keeping everything in one's own hands, which are detrimental to the initiative of the masses, should never be allowed. We must be good at using the form of revolutionary struggle, i.e., full and frank expression of views and great debates, which have been created by the people of our country, and relying on the masses to resolve contradictions among the people and contradictions between ourselves and the enemy.…
It is necessary resolutely to oppose the arbitrary style of "do as I say," resolutely oppose the rude style of not treating others as equals, and resolutely oppose the style of those who welcome flattery and turn like a wounded tiger on those who raise criticism. All these are the rotten style of bureaucracy, remnants of long rule by the exploiting classes. Such a style is the greatest enemy that hampers the Party's ties with the broad masses.
5. They must be modest and prudent and guard against arrogance and impetuosity; they must be imbued with the spirit of self-criticism and have the courage to correct mistakes and shortcomings in their work.…
All successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat who measure up to these five requirements will be able to meet the tests of all class struggles and carry the socialist revolution resolutely to the end. They will be able to create and maintain an animated and lively political situation in which there are both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of mind, so that the socialist revolution and construction will advance vigorously along a correct road.…
A few persons of good class origin who are subject to corruption by the ideology of the exploiting classes will not be able to carry the socialist revolution through to the end. On the other hand, some persons who do not come from families of labouring people through education by the Party can forsake their original class and can be tempered through revolutionary struggles into proletarian revolutionaries. But attention must be paid to ensuring that people of good class and family origin who have been tempered for a long period through class struggles account for the greatest majority of the nucleus of the leadership of the revolutionary ranks of the proletariat. This is the class basis for guaranteeing that the revolutionary ranks and the nucleus of leadership will never change colour.…
In choosing successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat in accordance with the five requirements, attention must also be paid to testing and examining them for long periods in fierce and complex class struggles. Whether a person is a genuine proletarian revolutionary cannot be judged according to whether he uses a profusion of revolutionary phraseology, or by his daily routine work, but in the storm and stress of class struggle.…
The five requirements put forth by Comrade Mao Tse-tung designate the necessary qualifications for the successors to the revolutionary cause for the nucleus of leadership at all levels.… (Peking Review, No. 32, 1964, pp. 13–15)
So much for this Peking Review article. We will now investigate the extent to which the "successors to the revolutionary cause" have measured up to the five requirements of Mao Zedong.
2. Ideological Struggle as Most Important Part of the Class Struggle in Socialist Society
Before investigating the occurrences in the Communist Party of China, we present a further fundamental commentary that deals with the ideological struggle in socialist society. This is an abridged reproduction of an excellent article in the magazine Hongqi, No. 5, 1964, published in English in Peking Review, No. 17, 1964. This fundamental article on ideological work is very important also for the ideological-political work of the communists in the capitalist countries. It makes it easier to assess the situation in China, which we must deal with in a serious and objective way:
Ideological Work: Its Decisive Role
(originally entitled "Giving first place to ideological work")
Marxist-Leninists always maintain that ideology and theory play an important part in historical development. Work is done by man, and man's activities are governed by his ideology. There are many different kinds of social ideologies. Advanced, revolutionary ideas help promote social development and accomplish the new tasks which arise, while old, backward or reactionary ideas hinder social development or even pull it back. New social ideologies and theories are born out of new social tasks set forth by the development of society's material life. Once they come into being, they become a strong force, or, under certain circumstances, even a decisive force. The creation and propaganda of revolutionary ideologies and theories is decisive and of prime importance when the masses have not yet come to understand the new tasks brought on by social development, when, as Lenin said, "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." The deeper and wider the spread of revolutionary ideology, the faster and more powerful will be the revolutionary movement.…
For Marxist-Leninists it is precisely because of this that the initiation of any cause must begin with ideological construction. That is to say, whether the work can be done well or whether the task can be successfully fulfilled depends to a decisive degree on the state of mind of the people, on what ideologies they follow in their actions, on whether their ideology conforms with the objective world. Revolutionary work can only be done by people with revolutionary ideas. And revolutionary ideas are propagated by revolutionary parties and advanced revolutionary elements.
Ideological Work Vital in Socialist Society
In the past, to seize state power, the proletariat first had to spread revolutionary ideas and arouse the consciousness of the masses, and then organize them to struggle conscientiously for the victory of the revolution.…
Historical experience has proved that in order to carry out socialist revolution and socialist construction, the proletarian party, after seizing power, should still give first place to spreading revolutionary ideas, i.e., ideological work.
Firstly, socialist revolution and socialist construction are the people's own cause. In this respect, only if we continue to educate the masses in revolutionary ideas and raise their class consciousness can they work conscientiously, wholeheartedly and energetically and can there be a genuine socialist movement.
Complicated Class Struggle
Secondly, under socialist conditions, class struggle continues to exist; especially on the political and ideological fronts it is very complicated and sharp. The establishment of a totally new socialist system requires clearing people's minds of all survivals of old ideas and traditions, and making a clean break with them. Without victory in the socialist revolution on the ideological and political fronts, the proletariat will be unable to ensure victory and avoid a bourgeois comeback.
The aim of spreading revolutionary ideas among the masses and giving them a socialist and communist education is to help them become increasingly revolutionized [in thinking and action].
Is it possible then for people of a socialist society to raise their political awareness and heighten their socialist and communist ideology spontaneously without the party and the state power of the proletariat instilling in them revolutionary ideas? Can they rely solely on their own efforts in a continuous process of revolutionizing themselves? Reality has proved that this cannot be done.…
Bourgeois ideology, apart from remaining in people's minds, also is carefully and attractively preserved in a variety of forms (certain cultural heritages, for instance). It will continue to exert influence over a long historical period.…
Whenever there is a chance, old ideas, capitalist as well as feudal, can creep back into the minds of some people. Sometimes, it is more in keeping with habit and more natural for such people to go to see a performance of an old play with harmful ideas and refresh their memories of these ideas than to accept a new idea or view. Thus, in an environment of complicated class struggle, so far as the ordinary people – especially those were formerly small producers – are concerned, they may accept socialist and communist ideas under certain circumstances, i.e., when education in proletarian ideas is being vigorously carried out. They may accept bourgeois ideology under other circumstances, i.e., when education in proletarian ideas is slackened or entirely given up. …
Even those brought up in a socialist society are not born with a socialist ideology. It is a far from easy task to bring them up as a young generation with socialist and communist consciousness. Born into a new society, they have the advantage of receiving from the very beginning the education of the new society. But then, precisely because they were brought up in the new society, they have no idea of the old one and do not really understand what is meant by oppression and exploitation of man by man; they do not really know the meaning of classes and class struggle. Thus, they are unable to get a quick understanding of how the new society came into being, and how it should be built; nor can they understand the new society by comparison with the old. This is their weakness, and it is a big one.
These people are comparatively lacking in immunity to an environment of complicated class struggle. For this reason, if not enough attention is paid to their education, they can be contaminated by the corpse of the old society and will be affected by the harmful ideas embodied in all sorts of leftovers from it, or even mistakenly treat these things as worthwhile. Thus, under certain circumstances, i.e., when education in proletarian ideas is being vigorously carried out, some of them can be brought up to become worthy heirs of communism while under other circumstances, i.e., when education in proletarian ideas is being slackened or given up, they can be captured by capitalism.
Therefore, what is important and decisive under socialist conditions remains the ideological leadership of the party and the state power of the proletariat, and the ideological education they provide. Marxism-Leninism, that omnipotent weapon of the spirit, must be relied on. In a certain sense, such ideological education is now more important than at any time in the past.…
To deny that antagonism between the ideologies of the bourgeoisie and proletariat continue[s] to exist in a socialist society and to spread the nonsense about what is called the ideology of "the whole people," i.e., non-class or above-class ideology, is nothing but deliberate subterfuge. It is an attempt to repudiate stealthily the dominant position and guidance of Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of the proletariat, and to return to bourgeois ideological domination, thus creating the conditions for the restoration of capitalism.…
The key to good ideological work lies in revolutionizing the thinking of the cadres, in other words, raising the level of their understanding of Marxism-Leninism. This is because the work of spreading revolutionary ideas among the masses and strengthening ideological leadership must be done through the cadres. The continuous revolutionization of the cadres' thinking and the consequent improvement in the style of work of the leadership and strengthening it are a prerequisite for the masses becoming increasingly revolutionized.
The situation both inside and outside our country continues to develop. We are confronted by many new tasks and new problems. Today's class struggle and struggle for production is different from the past. Both are more complicated, involving many more problems. It is after going through the struggle in the last few years that many comrades among us gradually deepened their understanding of the class struggle in socialist societies. The struggle with modern revisionism has particularly enabled people to see the seriousness of this question and realize that there still exist in socialist societies classes and class struggle, and therefore there still exists the social foundation that can give rise to opportunism and revisionism.…
On many great issues of our times, we should clearly understand what contemporary revolutionary Marxist-Leninists have done for the defence of Marxist-Leninist principles, and how the modern revisionists have made use of the absurd theories of the old-line revisionists in opposing Marxism-Leninism. We should do this in order to increase our discerning power ideologically and politically, and to strengthen our immunity.…
Without man, all land and machinery are worthless: there would be no use for them. It is clear therefore the task of leading organs is primarily to lead man, to do good work on man. The leading economic bodies should correctly handle relationships between man on the one hand, and, on the other hand, land, machinery, and all the rest of the means of production as well as all objects of labour. They also should correctly handle relationships between man and man. Without correct handling of these, it is impossible to do a really good job in economic work. Leading organs at various levels therefore should orientate their work to the masses and reality, and to be closely linked with the masses and reality, and really do their work speedily, concretely and timely in the midst of the masses, down at the basic levels and in the frontlines of production. They must do away with routinism and bureaucracy in all forms and overcome the defects of finding satisfaction in issuing administrative orders only, neglecting ideological work, and sloppiness in their style of work.…
Doing ideological work well is, in short, bringing into play the power of man in a socialist society. The strength of the socialist system, in the final analysis, is built on this basis and on the enthusiasm of the masses for socialism. If we are capable of giving full play to the power of man and to the enthusiasm of the masses for socialism, our revolution and construction will always stand on an invincible position. (Peking Review, No. 17, 1964, pp. 13–17)
3. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution Initiates a Broad Ideological Struggle
After the seizure of power by the workers and peasants in China under the leadership of the Communist Party, the class struggle was by no means over, but continued under new conditions, in new forms. A particularly intense class struggle flared up on the cultural front, where bourgeois elements and bourgeois culture were still firmly entrenched.
There was, for instance, the criticism of the film The Life of Wu Hsun in 1951; the criticism of Studies on the "Dream of the Red Chamber" in 1954 and later the criticism of the reactionary ideas of Hu Shih; the criticism of Hu Feng and the struggle against the Hu Feng counter-revolutionary clique in 1955; the counterattack against the frenzied onslaught by the bourgeois Rightist forces on the cultural front in 1957; the mushrooming of bourgeois and revisionist poisonous weeds in cinema and drama and in literature since 1959 and our struggle against them; the criticism of Yang Hsien-chen's concept of "two combining into one" in 1964 and the current great polemic which, begun with the criticism of Wu Han's Hai Jui Dismissed From Office, is now being carried to a greater depth, etc. One struggle follows another, each more profound than the previous. After this black line is uprooted, another may appear in the future and a new struggle will have to be waged.
This shows that class struggle is inevitable; it is independent of man's will. The bourgeois nature of the anti-Party, anti-socialist elements is bound to show itself in a hundred and one ways and it is impossible for them to prevent it showing. These people give verbal support to socialism, but in reality they are wedded to capitalism and cling to the corpse of the bourgeoisie. They harbour a hostility towards the dictatorship of the proletariat and have a deep-seated hatred and resentment for the Party and socialism. Whenever it is opportune they will give vent to such feelings and whenever some wind stirs the grass, they will let them loose. After being exposed again and again, criticized and dealt blows by the broad masses, they have turned to more covert, insidious, roundabout and zigzag tactics to continue their attack against the Party and socialism. …
In a hundred and one ways, they are spreading reactionary political and ideological viruses and the bourgeois way of life in an attempt to corrupt and demoralize the Communists, the proletariat and the other revolutionary people, hoping that some weak-minded persons in our ranks degenerate into bourgeois elements and that socialism gradually regresses to capitalism. (Jiefangjun Bao editorial of May 4, 1966, in: Peking Review, No. 20, 1966, pp. 40 and 41)
Based on the experience of class struggle in socialism, in May 1963 Mao Zedong drew the fundamental lesson:
Class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment are the three great revolutionary movements for building a mighty socialist country. These movements are a sure guarantee that Communists will be free from bureaucracy and immune against revisionism and dogmatism, and will forever remain invincible. They are a reliable guarantee that the proletariat will be able to unite with the broad working masses and realize a democratic dictatorship. If, in the absence of these movements, the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and ogres of all kinds were allowed to crawl out, while our cadres were to shut their eyes to all this and in many cases fail even to differentiate between the enemy and ourselves but were to collaborate with the enemy and become corrupted and demoralized, if our cadres were thus dragged into the enemy camp or the enemy were able to sneak into our ranks, and if many of our workers, peasants, and intellectuals were left defenceless against both the soft and the hard tactics of the enemy, then it would not take long, perhaps only several years or a decade, or several decades at most, before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a national scale inevitably occurred, the Marxist-Leninist party would undoubtedly become a revisionist party or a fascist party, and the whole of China would change its colour. (Quoted from: "On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World," in: The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement, Peking 1965, pp. 476 f.)
Mao Zedong developed the magnificent idea of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which represents a further development of Marxism-Leninism. On August 8, 1966, on the proposal of Chairman Mao Zedong, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party adopted the Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Here some important excerpts:
The great proletarian cultural revolution now unfolding is a great revolution that touches people to their very souls and constitutes a new stage in the development of the socialist revolution in our country, a stage which is both broader and deeper.…
Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds and endeavour to stage a come-back. The proletariat must do the exact opposite: it must meet head-on every challenge of the bourgeoisie in the ideological field and use the new ideas, culture, customs and habits of the proletariat to change the mental outlook of the whole of society.…
Since the cultural revolution is a revolution, it inevitably meets with resistance. This resistance comes chiefly from those in authority who have wormed their way into the Party and are taking the capitalist road. It also comes from the force of habits from the old society.…
The outcome of this great cultural revolution will be determined by whether or not the Party leadership dares boldly to arouse the masses.…
Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution and it is likewise a question of the first importance for the great cultural revolution.
Party leadership should be good at discovering the Left and developing and strengthening the ranks of the Left; it should firmly rely on the revolutionary Left. During the movement this is the only way to isolate the most reactionary Rightists thoroughly, win over the middle and unite with the great majority so that by the end of the movement we shall achieve the unity of more than 95 per cent of the cadres and more than 95 per cent of the masses.…
The main target of the present movement is those within the Party who are in authority and are taking the capitalist road.…
A strict distinction must be made between the two different types of contradictions: those among the people and those between ourselves and the enemy. Contradictions among the people must not be made into contradictions between ourselves and the enemy; nor must contradictions between ourselves and the enemy be regarded as contradictions among the people.…
The method to be used in debates is to present the facts, reason things out, and persuade through reasoning. Any method of forcing a minority holding different views to submit is impermissible. The minority should be protected, because sometimes the truth is with the minority. Even if the minority is wrong, they should still be allowed to argue their case and reserve their views.
When there is a debate, it should be conducted by reasoning, not by coercion or force.…
A number of persons who suffer from serious ideological errors, and particularly some of the anti-Party and anti-socialist Rightists, are taking advantage of certain shortcomings and mistakes in the mass movement to spread rumours and gossip, and engage in agitation, deliberately branding some of the masses as "counter-revolutionaries." It is necessary to beware of such "pick-pockets" and expose their tricks in good time.…
The anti-Party, anti-socialist Rightists must be fully exposed, refuted, overthrown and completely discredited and their influence eliminated. At the same time, they should be given a chance to turn over a new leaf.…
Criticism should be organized of typical bourgeois representatives who have wormed their way into the Party and typical reactionary bourgeois academic "authorities", and this should include criticism of various kinds of reactionary views in philosophy, history, political economy and education, in works and theories of literature and art, in theories of natural science, and in other fields.…
The aim of the great proletarian cultural revolution is to revolutionize people's ideology and as a consequence to achieve greater, faster, better and more economical results in all fields of work. If the masses are fully aroused and proper arrangements are made, it is possible to carry on both the cultural revolution and production without one hampering the other, while guaranteeing high quality in all our work.
The great proletarian cultural revolution is a powerful motive force for the development of the social productive forces in our country. Any idea of counterposing the great cultural revolution to the development of production is incorrect. (Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Peking, 1966, pp. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12; emphasis added)
Class struggle intensified in the course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution due to the dismissal of numerous officials. Peking Review of April 7, 1967, published an article from Hongqi, No. 5, 1967, which says among other things:
At the present time, the handful of Party people in authority taking the capitalist road are attempting to put the blame for "indiscriminately overthrowing" the cadres on the young revolutionary fighters, on the proletarian revolutionaries, and on the headquarters of the proletariat.…
Many of the cadres who were persecuted and attacked by the bourgeois reactionary line are good cadres or comparatively good. These comrades must bravely step forward to firmly support the revolutionary masses, thoroughly criticize and repudiate the bourgeois reactionary line, concentrate on exposing and striking at the handful of Party people in authority taking the capitalist road and plunge without reservation into this fiery struggle. Only in this way can they become one with the revolutionary masses and contribute their share to the struggle to seize power, and at the same time remould themselves in the struggle. You must never be fooled again by a certain book on the self-cultivation of Communists. This book is deceitful talk, divorced from the living class struggle, from the revolution and from the political struggle…. (Peking Review, No. 15, 1967, p. 17)
Who was meant here as author of the book was indicated in so many words in another article in the same issue of Peking Review:
With soaring militant spirit, the proletarian revolutionaries and revolutionary masses expressed the determination to follow Chairman Mao's teachings to organize a mighty cultural revolutionary army, resolutely overthrow the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road and dig out the main roots of revisionism in our country.…
"Down with the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road!" and "Completely repudiate and discredit that evil book on self-cultivation!" (ibid., p. 21; emphasis added)
The ideological struggle directed the main thrust at Liu Shaoqi, without mentioning his name at first:
The bourgeois reactionary line is today's main obstacle to the formation of an alliance of proletarian revolutionaries. In order to criticize and repudiate this line, the spearhead must be directed at the No. 1 Party person in authority taking the capitalist road…. (Peking Review, No. 17, 1967, p. 6)
However, the No. 1 Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, donning the cloak of Marxism-Leninism, openly strikes up a tune that runs counter to this basic principle of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung's thought.
In his book on the self-cultivation of Communists, he does not say one word about the realization of communism through revolution by violence, the smashing of the old state machine and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Yet he says such things as "in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world." This spreads, in fact, the idea of peaceful transition. He asks Communists to "diligently" undertake "self-cultivation" in order to bring about this peaceful transition. (ibid., p. 17)
4. Continuation of the Criticism of the Liu Shaoqi Faction during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
The ideological dispute with Liu Shaoqi, who was called China's Khrushchev, was continued during the further course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. In Peking Review, No. 35, 1967, we read:
The first despicable trick played by this top capitalist-roader to achieve his ends was a desperate attempt to belittle the great significance of Mao Tse-tung's thought. He talked such nonsense as that "every major issue of principle in the world has been solved" by Marx, Engels, Lenin or Stalin. By this device he attempted to deny the fact that Mao Tse-tung's thought represents a new stage in the development of Marxism-Leninism and a great new milestone in the development of Marxism.
Using the trick of waving "red flags" to oppose the red flag, the Chinese Khrushchov opposed the study of Chairman Mao's works under the pretext of encouraging the study of the Marxist-Leninist classics. He also opposed study of the experience of the Chinese revolution under the pretext of learning from foreign experience, from the experience of the Soviet Union, and opposed the call to "be Chairman Mao's good pupils" under the pretext of saying that we should "be good pupils of Marx and Lenin."
In actual fact he does not want people to be good pupils of Marx and Lenin. For in our time, to be a really good pupil of Marx and Lenin, one must be a good pupil of Chairman Mao. Any betrayal of Mao Tse-tung's thought is out-and-out betrayal of Marxism-Leninism.
China's Khrushchov has also attacked Mao Tse-tung's thought by describing it as "dogma" and by babbling that this or that in Chairman Mao's works is "out of date." Meanwhile, he energetically urges that one should "learn from anyone in or outside the Party who possesses the truth."…
What China's Khrushchov opposes is not only the method of study, but the mass movement for the study of Chairman Mao's works itself. Mao Tse-tung's thought can be grasped only in struggle, and if his way had been followed, there would have been no such mass movement and the masses would never succeed in mastering Mao Tse-tung's thought.
The top capitalist roader in the Party abused his powers: he took administrative measures to persecute those who were active in studying Chairman Mao's works and even restricted publication of these works. (Peking Review, No. 35, 1967, pp. 9 f.)
Then the revisionist views of Liu Shaoqi in the field of economic policy were exposed:
Let us now analyse what China's Khrushchov calls "using economic methods to run the economy" and see what sort of stuff it really is.
It is in fact putting profits in command. Everything for profit, and profit is everything. China's Khrushchov openly declared: "A factory must make money. Otherwise, it must close down and stop paying wages to the workers." In other words, in order to make money, one is allowed to ignore the unified state plan and the over-all interests and engage in all sorts of selfish, speculative activities detrimental to the socialist economy.
This is simply that notorious "material incentive." In capitalist fashion, China's Khrushchov said: "Give him a good reward if he works honestly"; "if you don't give him more money, there'll be no incentive and he'll not do a good job for you." He attempted to corrupt the masses by instilling bourgeois egoism, divert people's attention from politics, widen the income gap and create a privileged stratum. This is a crying insult to the revolutionary workers and staff; this is a knife which kills without spilling blood!
This also means shamelessly glorifying capitalism. China's Khrushchov said bare-facedly: "Capitalist economy is flexible and varied," "we should learn from the experience of capitalism in running enterprises, and especially from the experience of monopoly enterprises." He told our cadres to "learn seriously" from the capitalists, saying that the latter's "ability in management surpasses that of our Party members." In his eyes, money-grabbing capitalists are a hundred times wiser than Communists. (Peking Review, No. 37, 1967, p. 13)
At the Twentieth Party Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev had promulgated the revisionist line of the peaceful road to socialism. As model he could already point to Liu Shaoqi, as follows from the criticism in Peking Review, No. 52, 1967:
Whether the proletariat is to seize power by taking the road of violent revolution or the road of "parliamentary struggle" has always been an important question on which a fierce struggle has been waged between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, between proletarian revolutionaries and all renegades to the proletariat.
Violent revolution is the only correct road to be taken by the proletariat in seizing political power; this is a universal law governing the proletarian revolution. Basing himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory of violent revolution, Chairman Mao has summed up the experience of the international proletarian revolution and of the people's democratic revolution led by the proletariat of China and put forward the famous thesis that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," thus creatively developing the Marxist-Leninist theory of violent revolution.
In his concluding speech at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in 1938, Chairman Mao pointed out: "Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed." (Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, VoI. II, p. 225)
In 1939, in his article lntroducing "The Communist," Chairman Mao again admonished the whole Party: "... without armed struggle neither the proletariat, nor the people, nor the Communist Party would have any standing at all in China and ... it would be impossible for the revolution to triumph. In these years [the 18 years since the founding of the Party] the development, consolidation and bolshevization of our Party have proceeded in the midst of revolutionary wars; without armed struggle the Communist Party would assuredly not be what it is today. Comrades throughout the Party must never forget this experience for which we have paid in blood." (Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, VoI. II, p. 292)
On the question of armed struggle, China's Khrushchov frenziedly opposed Mao Tse-tung's thought. In "Problems of Strategy and Tactics ln the Chinese Revolution," he said: "There are also a small number of comrades within our ranks who pride themselves on having a few guns with which they think they can 'conquer power."' …
China's Khrushchov opposed using the gun to "conquer power." In the 1940s, he picked up the "parliamentary road" from the old revisionists of the Second International who had been thoroughly condemned by Lenin, using it as a "talisman" for "conquering power."
After the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan, Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang made active preparations for civil war, with the support of U.S. imperialism. However, in early 1946, just on the eve of the outbreak of the civil war, China's Khrushchov put forward a whole set of fallacies about "a new stage of peace and democracy."
He said: "It is possible to succeed in the democratic revolution without resorting again to civil war. And basic success lies in the approval of a constitution and the establishment of a parliament." "The main form of struggle in the Chinese revolution has now become peaceful and parliamentary; this is a legal mass struggle and parliamentary struggle." "The whole work of the Party should undergo a change and all our organizations have to change, making non-armed struggle our primary task so as to meet the needs of the new situation." "All political questions must be solved peacefully. From now on, the development of the Party must rely on the ability of our Party to carry out legal mass struggle." "We did not fight our way into Peiping and Tientsin by the gun. We can get in by votes if we handle things well in parliamentary struggle."
The road to "conquer power" by the gun is diametrically opposed to the one by votes. The former is the Marxist-Leninist road, the revolutionary road, the road to victory. This is what our great leader Chairman Mao has advocated and upheld. The latter is the revisionist road, the capitulationist road, the road to failure. This is what Chen Tu-hsiu, Wang Ming and China's Khrushchov and their like stood for and persisted in.
In repudiating the revisionists of the Second International who opposed violent revolution and stood for the parliamentary road, Lenin pointed out: "Only scoundrels or simpletons can think that the proletariat must first win a majority in elections carried out under the yoke of the bourgeoisie, under the yoke of wage slavery, and must then win power. This is the height of stupidity or hypocrisy; it is substituting elections, under the old system and with the old power, for class struggle and revolution." (Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 58) (Peking Review, No. 52, 1967, pp. 36 f.)
Liu Shaoqi was regarded as the top Party person in authority, as influential personality, and Deng Xiaoping as "the second personality who, though Party member, is taking the capitalist road." Deng Xiaoping was the Party's Secretary General and, together with Liu Shaoqi, formed a faction. On February 27, 1957, Mao Zedong held a speech entitled, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, which was of great importance for the next ten years and later for the conduct of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, as the following quotes show:
And since the liberation of the whole country, we have employed this same method of "unity — criticism — unity" in our relations with the democratic parties and with industrial and commercial circles. Our task now is to continue to extend and make still better use of this method throughout the ranks of the people; we want all our factories, co-operatives, shops, schools, offices and people's organizations, in a word, all our 600 million people, to use it in resolving contradictions among themselves.
In ordinary circumstances, contradictions among the people are not antagonistic. But if they are not handled properly, or if we relax our vigilance and lower our guard, antagonism may arise.…
Many people seem to think that the use of the democratic method to resolve contradictions among the people is something new. Actually it is not. Marxists have always held that the cause of the proletariat must depend on the masses of the people and that Communists must use the democratic method of persuasion and education when working among the labouring people and must on no account resort to commandism or coercion.…
Many do not admit that contradictions still exist in socialist society, with the result that they become irresolute and passive when confronted with social contradictions; they do not understand that socialist society grows more united and consolidated through the ceaseless process of correctly handling and resolving contradictions. For this reason, we need to explain things to our people, and to our cadres in the first place, in order to help them understand the contradictions in socialist society and learn to use correct methods for handling them.
Contradictions in socialist society are fundamentally different from those in the old societies, such as capitalist society. In capitalist society contradictions find expression in acute antagonisms and conflicts, in sharp class struggle; they cannot be resolved by the capitalist system itself and can only be resolved by socialist revolution. The case is quite different with contradictions in socialist society; on the contrary, they are not antagonistic and can be ceaselessly resolved by the socialist system itself.
In socialist society the basic contradictions are still those between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base. However, they are fundamentally different in character and have different features from the contradictions between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base in the old societies. The present social system of our country is far superior to that of the old days. If it were not so, the old system would not have been overthrown and the new system could not have been established.…
The elimination of counter-revolutionaries is a struggle of opposites as between ourselves and the enemy. Among the people, there are some who see this question in a somewhat different light. Two kinds of people hold views differing from ours. Those with a Right deviation in their thinking make no distinction between ourselves and the enemy and take the enemy for our own people. They regard as friends the very persons whom the masses regard as enemies. Those with a "Left" deviation in their thinking magnify contradictions between ourselves and the enemy to such an extent that they take certain contradictions among the people for contradictions with the enemy and regard as counter-revolutionaries persons who are actually not. Both these views are wrong.…
It must be understood that the hidden counter-revolutionaries still at large will not take things lying down, but will certainly seize every opportunity to make trouble. The U.S. imperialists and the Chiang Kai-shek clique are constantly sending in secret agents to carry on disruptive activities. Even after all the existing counter-revolutionaries have been combed out, new ones are likely to emerge. If we drop our guard, we shall be badly fooled and shall suffer severely. (Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. V, pp. 390 f., 391, 393, 396 and 398 f.)
At the Enlarged 12th Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Liu Shaoqi was expelled from the Party, and on October 31, 1968, a Communique was adopted which states among other things:
The Plenary Session ratified the "Report on the Examination of the Crimes of the Renegade, Traitor and Scab Liu Shao-chi" submitted by the special group under the Central Committee of the Party for the examination of his case.…
The Plenary Session holds that the exposure of the counter-revolutionary features of Liu Shao-chi by the Party and the revolutionary masses in the great proletarian cultural revolution is a tremendous victory for Mao Tse-tung's thought and for the great proletarian cultural revolution. The Plenary Session expressed its deepest revolutionary indignation at Liu Shao-chi's counter-revolutionary crimes and unanimously adopted a resolution to expel Liu Shao-chi from the Party once and for all, to dismiss him from all posts both inside and outside the Party and to continue to settle accounts with him and his accomplices for their crimes in betraying the Party and the country. (Peking Review, No. 44, 1968, Supplement, p. vi)
5. The Ideological-Political Debate in the Struggle against the Right Deviationist Wind
After Liu Shaoqi was purged from the Party and removed from public offices, Deng Xiaoping, too, was relieved of his functions, but not expelled from the Communist Party. Subsequently he promised "never to reverse correct verdicts." The Party believed him and later reinstated him in his former functions. He did not respect this trust.
In the meantime the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution had run its course. The enemies of socialism and the revisionists had suffered a defeat. However, they did not simply accept defeat, but whipped up a "Right deviationist wind" to reverse the results of the Cultural Revolution. The masses and the revolutionary cadres had to defend and extend the achievement of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Class struggle still had to be the key link to grasp in socialist China. A new ideological struggle broke out over this issue: the dispute with Deng Xiaoping.
After the death of Zhou Enlai in January 1976, the struggle against the Right deviationist wind commenced. Peking Review, No. 12, 1976 reports about it:
Facts show that the capitalist-roaders are still taking the capitalist road, and capitulationists are indeed around. Where is the source of the Right deviationist wind? The source lies exactly in that Party person in power taking the capitalist road who has clung to the revisionist line of Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao and has to this day refused to mend his ways….
With a firm hold on the essence of the Right deviationist wind of reversing correct verdicts, which aims at negating the taking of class struggle as the key link, changing the Party's basic line and restoring capitalism, the cadres and masses have made a systematic and penetrating criticism of the revisionist fallacies in educational circles as well as in other fields in society.…
What is the key link? The revolutionary teachers of the proletariat made it clear long ago in their brilliant expositions. Marx and Engels pointed out: "For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving power of history, and in particular the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is, therefore, impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement." (Marx and Engels to A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and Others ["Circular Letter"].)
Lenin pointed out: "Politics cannot but have precedence over economics. To argue differently means forgetting the A B C of Marxism." (Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin.) "Opportunism does not extend the recognition of class struggle to what is the cardinal point, to the period of transition from capitalism to Communism, to the period of the overthrow and the complete abolition of the bourgeoisie." (The State and Revolution.)
Chairman Mao pointed out: "Never forget classes and class struggle." "Stability and unity do not mean writing off class struggle; class struggle is the key link and everything else hinges on it."
After studying the teachings of the revolutionary teachers and analysing the Right deviationist absurdities which tried to reverse correct verdicts, the teachers, students, staff members and workers of Tsinghua University came to see clearly that the political programme of those persons fanning up the Right deviationist wind was to try to change the Party's basic line so as to attain their criminal aim of restoring capitalism. (pp. 9 and 10)
Although the name was not mentioned at first – one spoke rather of the "unrepentant person in power" – the criticisms were leveled at Deng Xiaoping. We bring some excerpts from articles of Peking Review which characterize the Right-opportunist views:
It is precisely the capitalist-roader refusing to mend his ways who opposed agricultural co-operation and the people's commune and supported "the fixing of farm output quotas for individual households with each on its own." Later, he set himself up against the Great Cultural Revolution and suppressed the revolutionary mass movement, and now made every effort to reverse correct verdicts and restore capitalism.…
In terms of ideology and class origin, the bourgeois class stand and world outlook are in accord with revisionism. Opportunism, or revisionism, is a faction and school of thought in the workers' movement which represents the interests of the bourgeoisie. Its special feature is betrayal of the fundamental interests of the proletariat and capitulation to the bourgeoisie. Revisionists invariably preach class conciliation, the dying out of class struggle and the theory of productive forces from a bourgeois class stand.…
This is true also of the capitalist-roader who has refused to mend his ways. He put forward the revisionist programme of "taking the three directives as the key link" and advocated the theories of the dying out of class struggle and of productive forces to counter the theories of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought on class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.…
Why does the capitalist-roader in the Party who refuses to mend his ways so resent the Great Cultural Revolution? Why does he regard the socialist new things which have emerged in the Great Cultural Revolution as a thorn in his flesh and something to be got rid of at all costs? Why is he so reluctant to part with the capitalist and revisionist trash which was repudiated in the Great Cultural Revolution, and is so eager to reinstate it? This is because, as Chairman Mao has said, "the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is in essence a great political revolution carried out under the conditions of socialism by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes."…
…many bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democrats joined the revolutionary ranks and the vanguard of the proletariat. Many who were educated in Marxism-Leninism and were tempered in protracted revolutionary struggles gradually abandoned their bourgeois world outlook and accepted or fostered the proletarian stand and world outlook. But there are still a few who have been profoundly influenced by bourgeois ideology but have not accepted the Party's education and remoulding, and their stand and world outlook remain unchanged. In socialist society, the bourgeoisie still exists and its ideology will inevitably influence certain people in the vanguard of the proletariat and turn them into bourgeois democrats and revisionists.…
In putting forward the slogan of taking the three directives as "the key link for work in all fields," that unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party aimed at negating class struggle as the key link, but this is precisely the core of the Party's basic line.
Why did he want to negate class struggle as the key link? Facts show that he wanted to restore capitalism. When he negated class struggle as the key link, he did not mean writing off class struggle altogether, his real aim was to blunt the revolutionary vigilance of the proletariat and the masses. What he wanted was to negate the class struggle waged by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie; as for the bourgeoisie's attack against the proletariat, he had no intention of giving it up, but was actually intensifying it.
(Peking Review, No. 13, 1976, pp. 7, 8, 20 and 10)
Initiated and led by our great leader Chairman Mao, the struggle to beat back the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts has become a powerful motive force promoting industrial production, communications and transport, capital construction, trade and financial work. The working class, taking its stance as the main force in the revolution, has in the past few months actively plunged into this great struggle. They have conscientiously studied Chairman Mao's important instructions and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat and, with the righteous indignation of the proletariat, have risen to criticize that unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party, thus further heightening their consciousness of class struggle and the two-line struggle and of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.…
On the basis of studying Chairman Mao's important instructions, it is necessary to penetratingly expose and criticize the revisionist line of the capitalist-roader in the Party who has refused to mend his ways. While centring our criticism on "taking the three directives as the key link," we should criticize the theory of the dying out of class struggle and the theory of productive forces which form the theoretical basis of that revisionist line, and criticize eclectic sophistry. In the light of the actual conditions on the industrial front, some enterprises are criticizing the revisionist wares of that capitalist-roader such as: opposition to maintaining independence and keeping the initiative in our own hands and relying on our own efforts and advocating servility to things foreign and the doctrine of trailing behind at a snail's pace; opposition to bringing into play the initiative of both the central and local authorities while re-imposing the practice of "direct and exclusive control of enterprises by the ministry concerned"; opposing the policy of "walking on two legs" and laying one-sided stress on things big and foreign; and opposing the "Charter of the Anshan Iron and Steel Company" and advocating the rules and regulations of the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Combine of the Soviet Union. Through the criticism, people have come to see more clearly the reactionary nature of that unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party in opposing Chairman Mao's revolutionary line and betraying Marxism.…
The unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party placed the national economy on the position of key link, as if he was the only person who cared about production and was most dedicated to the realization of the four modernizations (of agriculture, industry, national defence, science and technology). This is a sheer fraud. Our difference with him on this question is not whether production should be pushed forward and the four modernizations realized, but what line should be carried out and what road should be followed to achieve these purposes. Chairman Mao pointed out recently: "This person does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred to this key link. Still his theme of 'white, cat, black cat,' making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism." This tells us that both production and modernization will go astray if we abandon the key link of class struggle, and if we reject the correct, Marxist line and the socialist road. If we follow his revisionist line, we can never develop production but will only sabotage it; we can never achieve socialist modernization but will only degenerate into capitalism!…
"What 'taking the three directives as the key link'! Stability and unity do not mean writing off class struggle; class struggle is the key link and everything else hinges on it." This important directive of Chairman Mao's has penetratingly exposed the programme of "taking the three directives as the key link" as an out-and-out revisionist programme negating the taking of class struggle as the key link. The essence of this programme is to restore capitalism.…
The Party capitalist-roader who engineered this revisionist programme has always opposed taking class struggle as the key link. In 1957, shortly after the basic completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of means of production, he proclaimed that "classes have in the main been eliminated and we should not stress class struggle." He took part in formulating and pushing Liu Shao-chi's revisionist line before the Great Cultural Revolution. During the Great Cultural Revolution, the Party and the revolutionary masses exposed and criticized him and gave him a chance to mend his ways. Though he said that he would "never reverse the verdict," he relapsed into error after he took up work again. The new revisionist programme he hatched is a continuation of his consistent revisionist stand against taking class struggle as the key link. (Peking Review, No. 14, 1976, pp. 4 f., 6 and 7)
Then, in early April, the "counter-revolutionary political incident at Tien An Men Square" occurred and abruptly exacerbated the situation. What had happened? Here a report from worker-peasant-soldier reporters and staff correspondents:
Early April, a handful of class enemies, under the guise of commemorating the late Premier Chou during the Ching Ming Festival, engineered an organized, premeditated and planned counter-revolutionary political incident at Tien An Men Square in the capital. They flagrantly made reactionary speeches, posted reactionary poems and slogans, distributed reactionary leaflets and agitated for the setting up of counter-revolutionary organizations. By means of insinuation and overt counter-revolutionary language, they brazenly clamoured that "the era of Chin Shih Huang is gone." Openly hoisting the ensign of supporting Teng Hsiao-ping, they frenziedly directed their spearhead at our great leader Chairman Mao, attempted to split the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, tried to change the general orientation of the current struggle to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping and counterattack [with] the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts, and engaged in counter-revolutionary activities.…
Around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, this gang of bad elements again broke into that barracks, abducted and beat up the sentries, smashed the windows and doors on the ground floor and looted everything in the rooms. Radios, quilts, bed sheets, clothing and books were all thrown into the fire by this gang of counter-revolutionaries. They also burnt and smashed dozens of bicycles of the Peking worker-militiamen. Black smoke rose to the sky amid a hubbub of counter-revolutionary clamours. Nearly all the window panes in the barracks were smashed. Then they set the barracks on fire.…
See how these counter-revolutionaries use extremely decadent and reactionary language and the trick of insinuation to viciously attack and slander our great leader Chairman Mao and other leading comrades on the Party Central Committee:
"Devils howl as we pour out our grief, we weep but the wolves laugh. We spill our blood in memory of the hero; raising our brows, we unsheathe our swords. China is no longer the China of yore, and the people are no longer wrapped in sheer ignorance; gone for good is Chin Shih Huang's feudal society. We believe in Marxism-Leninism, to hell with those scholars who emasculate Marxism-Leninism! What we want is genuine Marxism-Leninism. For the sake of genuine Marxism-Leninism, we fear not shedding our blood and laying down our lives; the day modernization in four fields is realized, we will come back to offer libations and sacrifices."
The clamours of these counter-revolutionaries about combating "Chin Shih Huang" and demanding "genuine Marxism-Leninism" were out-and-out counter-revolutionary agitation in the same vein as the language used in Lin Piao's plan for a counter-revolutionary coup d'etat, Outline of Project "571." By directing their spearhead at our great leader Chairman Mao and the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, and lauding Teng Hsiao-ping's counter-revolutionary revisionist line, these counter-revolutionaries further laid bare their criminal aim to practise revisionism and restore capitalism in China.…
They lauded Teng Hsiao-ping and attempted to nominate him to play the role of Nagy, the chieftain of the counter-revolutionary incident in Hungary. They raved that "with Teng Hsiao-ping in charge of the work of the Central Committee, the struggle has won decisive victory" "to the great satisfaction of the people throughout the country." (Peking Review, No. 15, 1976, pp. 4 and 5)
After that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China unanimously adopted the following resolution on April 7, 1976:
Having discussed the counter-revolutionary incident which took place at Tien An Men Square and Teng Hsiao-ping's latest behaviour, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China holds that the nature of the Teng Hsiao-ping problem has turned into one of antagonistic contradiction. On the proposal of our great leader Chairman Mao, the Political Bureau unanimously agrees to dismiss Teng Hsiao-ping from all posts both inside and outside the Party while allowing him to keep his Party membership so as to see how he will behave in the future. (Peking Review, No. 15, 1976, p. 3; emphasis added)
6. Intensification of the Criticism of Deng Xiaoping's Rightist Opportunism
Up until the death of Mao Zedong, a broad ideological discussion of Deng Xiaoping and his revisionist line was conducted. We quote important passages from various issues of Peking Review:
Grand rallies have been held in various parts of the country and messages sent to Chairman Mao and the Party Central Committee, warmly acclaiming and resolutely supporting the two wise decisions. A revolutionary scene of unity in struggle prevails throughout China, with the whole nation determined to carry through to the end the great struggle to beat back the Right deviationist attempt.
Teng Hsiao-ping has been the arch unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party. Over a long period of time, he has opposed Chairman Mao, opposed Mao Tsetung Thought and Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line. Before the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, he worked in collaboration with Liu Shao-chi in pushing a counter-revolutionary revisionist line; during the early stage of the Great Cultural Revolution, he, together with Liu Shao-chi, suppressed the masses and pushed a bourgeois reactionary line. Through criticism by the masses, he expressed his willingness to mend his ways and declared that he would "never reverse the verdict." Chairman Mao saved him and gave him the chance to resume work. But he did not live up to Chairman Mao's education and help. Once back in a position to wield that portion of power in his hands, he relapsed into error and tried to reverse the correct appraisal of the Great Cultural Revolution and settle accounts with it. He dished up the revisionist programme of "taking the three directives as the key link," continued to pursue the counter-revolutionary revisionist line and took the lead in stirring up the Right deviationist wind.
With farsightedness, Chairman Mao saw through Teng Hsiao-ping's activities to reverse correct verdicts, and has since last October made a series of important instructions and led the whole Party, whole army and the people of the whole country in waging a great struggle to counterattack the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts. Chairman Mao points out: "This person does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred to this key link." "He knows nothing of Marxism-Leninism; he represents the bourgeoisie. He said, he would 'never reverse the verdict.' It can't be counted on." Chairman Mao's instructions hit Teng Hsiao-ping squarely in the vulnerable spot and exposed his reactionary class nature.
At a time when the broad masses of cadres and people throughout the country were criticizing Teng Hsiao-ping's counter-revolutionary revisionist line in accordance with Chairman Mao's instructions, a counter-revolutionary political incident was perpetrated at Tien An Men Square by a handful of class enemies who openly hoisted the ensign of supporting Teng Hsiao-ping and carried out counter-revolutionary activities. This was by no means accidental.
(Peking Review, No. 16, 1976, p. 3)
Why did these counter-revolutionary elements try to cast Teng Hsiao-ping in the role of Nagy, the ringleader of the counter-revolutionary coup in Hungary? This is because Teng Hsiao-ping is the arch unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party and the general behind-the-scenes promoter of the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts. The counter-revolutionary revisionist line he pushed represented in a concentrated form the interests of the old and new bourgeoisie both inside and outside the Party as well as the interests of unreformed landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists. Therefore, the bourgeoisie and all class enemies pinned their hopes of restoration on him.…
Some went about establishing extensive contacts and surreptitiously plotted to write letters to the Party Central Committee demanding that Teng Hsiao-ping "be the premier"; some abetted Teng Hsiao-ping by extolling his counter-revolutionary revisionist line; others conspired on the sly in an effort to back up the hooligans in creating disturbances; and still others carried out activities in public, putting up reactionary poems and slogans and making reactionary speeches, wildly spouting counter-revolutionary venom. They viciously attacked our great leader Chairman Mao and leading comrades on the Party Central Committee in a vain attempt to subvert the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism. They are a band of counter-revolutionaries hostile to the Communist Party, the people and socialism. The target of their attack and their criminal aim were entirely at one with Teng Hsiao-ping's. The general representative of these counter-revolutionaries is Teng Hsiao-ping.…
With a view to ensuring the advance of our Party and state along the Marxist-Leninist line, Chairman Mao published in early 1975 important instructions on the question of theory. He said: "Why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? It is essential to get this question clear. Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism." He also pointed out: "Our country at present practices a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system." These instructions point out in a more incisive way the principal contradiction and the main danger that will long exist in the historical period of socialism and elucidate the extreme importance of the proletariat exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Acting in accordance with Chairman Mao's instructions, the people throughout the country have studied the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat in a deep-going way and raised their consciousness of class struggle and the two line struggle to a higher level….
(Peking Review, No. 17, 1976, pp. 12, 13 and 16 f.)
Are there still classes, class contradictions and class struggle in socialist society? Is it still necessary to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat? On this question, there is a constant struggle between the Marxist and the revisionist lines in our Party. Chairman Mao has scientifically analysed the class relations in socialist society and laid down the Party's basic line for the entire historical period of socialism. He has pointed out the necessity to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, reminded us that we should never forget classes and class struggle and repeatedly criticized the theory of the dying out of class struggle advocated by the revisionist line of Liu Schao-chi, Lin Piao and Teng Hsiao-ping.…
Since Teng Hsiao-ping's revisionist line represented the interests of this handful of counter-revolutionaries and abetted and protected them, they naturally raised this sinister ensign and sang his praises. The incident which took place at Tien An Men Square had its origin in the unrepentant capitalist-roaders in the Party, and Teng Hsiao-ping was the behind-the-scenes boss that provoked it. This is the close political link between Teng Hsiao-ping and the handful of class enemies who perpetrated the incident.
(Peking Review, No. 19, 1976, pp. 16 and 17)
In the past decade we have waged struggles against Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao and Teng Hsiao-ping. All these struggles have proved that the bourgeoisie is indeed inside the Communist Party. The capitalist-roaders in the Party are the bourgeoisie's main force in its trial of strength with the proletariat and in its efforts to restore capitalism. The crux of the matter here lies in the fact that these capitalist-roaders are persons in power who have sneaked into the very structure of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chieftains of the revisionist line, like Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao and Teng Hsiao-ping, hold a very large proportion of the Party and state power. They are thus in a position to turn instruments of the dictatorship of the proletariat into instruments for exercising dictatorship over the proletariat, and they are therefore even more ruthless in their efforts to restore capitalism than the bourgeoisie outside the Party. They could use the power in their hands to recruit deserters and renegades, form cliques to pursue their own selfish interests, rig up a bourgeois headquarters, work out a revisionist line and push it from top to bottom. They could consolidate and extend bourgeois right, protect their own interests, namely, the interests of the "high officials" who practise revisionism, embezzle and squander huge amounts of social wealth, energetically engage in capitalist activities, undermine and disrupt the socialist relations of production. Donning the cloak of Marxism-Leninism and flaunting all sorts of ensigns, they are able to mislead for a time a number of people who lack an understanding of the real situation and do not have a high level of consciousness, deceiving them into following their revisionist line. In short, they are political representatives of the bourgeoisie….
(Peking Review, No. 21, 1976, p. 7; emphasis added)
Chairman Mao has comprehensively summed up the historical experience, both positive and negative, of the dictatorship of the proletariat since the October Revolution, and has inherited, defended, and developed the Marxist-Leninist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He has profoundly expounded, the law governing class struggle in socialist society, and solved, both in theory and in practice, the question of whether or not to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the target of the revolution and the way to make revolution and the question of how to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, prevent capitalist restoration and build socialism. As far back as 1949, Chairman Mao pointed out that after the seizure of political power throughout the country, the principal contradiction at home was one between the proletariat and the .bourgeoisie. After the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was in the main completed, Chairman Mao has, in a series of works and instructions, repeatedly set forth the views: Throughout the historical, period, of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, and the principal contradiction is that between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. He has also formulated the basic line for our Party to persist in the dictatorship of the proletariat and prevent the restoration of capitalism.…
Betraying our Party's basic theory and practice over the last two decades, Teng Hsiao-ping did his utmost to deny class struggle in socialist society. When the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was basically completed, he followed Liu Shao-chi in trumpeting the theory of the dying out of class struggle, alleging that "class contradictions have now been solved in the main," that "since classes have been eliminated basically, we should not stress class struggle." His revisionist stand remained unchanged even after the Great Cultural Revolution. Shortly after he resumed work, he dished up the revisionist programme of "taking the three directives as the key link," denying class struggle as the key link and tampering with the basic line of the Party; He even babbled: "How can we talk about class struggle every day?" He thus openly betrayed Marxism.…
The theory of productive forces denies in a fundamental way that in socialist society there are still contradictions between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base, that among the various factors of productive forces, it is people, not things, that are decisive. Therefore, it denies that the only way to develop the productive forces is to take class struggle as the key link, persist in putting proletarian politics in command, deepen the socialist revolution and persevere in mobilizing and relying on the masses. It turns a blind eye to the fact that there are still birthmarks of capitalism in the socialist relations of production, that there are two possibilities for the development of the socialist relations of production, namely, if the proletariat does not persevere in continuing the revolution and does not restrict bourgeois right nor struggle against the bourgeoisie within the Party, then not only will socialism be unable to move on to communism but will degenerate into capitalism. It is therefore clear that if Teng Hsiao-ping's theory of productive forces were followed, the already established socialist relations of production would surely be wrecked and those things in the relations of production which differ very little from those of the old society would be retained for ever and continuously expanded. In this way, capitalism and new bourgeois elements would emerge at a more rapid pace from the soil of bourgeois right, laying the social basis for capitalist restoration.
One of Teng Hsiao-ping's favourite remarks was: "It doesn't matter whether it is a white cat or a black cat, any cat that catches mice is a good cat." This serves better than many long articles to reveal more clearly the revisionist nature of the theory of productive forces. In criticizing Teng Hsiao-ping, Chairman Mao has pointed out: "This person does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred to this key link. Still his theme of 'white cat, black cat', making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism." Teng Hsiao-ping regarded revisionist and imperialist trash as treasures. In his eyes, material incentives, putting profits in command, servility to things foreign, the doctrine of trailing behind others at a snail's pace were things which he could not part with for a moment. If his revisionist line were followed, it would be impossible to develop socialist production. Only socialism and only Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought can save China. This has been proved by history and reality. Therefore, Teng Hsiao-ping's clamour for the development of the productive forces and the four modernizations was a fraud; his real aim was to restore capitalism. The differences between us and him lie not in whether the four modernizations should be realized or whether the productive forces should be developed, but are fundamental differences between taking the socialist road and taking the capitalist road.
(Peking Review, No. 23, 1976, pp. 13, 14 and 16)
We must continue to advance in the midst of victories already won and bring about a new upsurge in the criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping by further repudiating his counter-revolutionary revisionist line ideologically and politically. We must be clear that the collapse of Teng Hsiao-ping does not mean the end of the struggle.…
"On the General Programme for All Work of the Party and the Country," "Some Problems Concerning the Work of Science and Technology" ("An, Outline Report" for short) and "Some Problems in Accelerating Industrial Development" (that is, "Regulations for Industry") — documents that were worked out on instructions from the arch unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party Teng Hsiao-ping — are a concentrated demonstration of the ultra-Rightist essence of his counter-revolutionary revisionist line and a systematic expression of his revisionist viewpoints. These three big anti-Party and anti-Marxist poisonous weeds are rare materials for learning by negative example….
"On the General Programme" was Teng Hsiao-ping's political proclamation for capitalist restoration. Embodying a series of statements made by Teng Hsiao-ping in 1975, this anti-Party article brazenly negates taking class struggle as the key link, opposes the Party's basic programme, tampers with the Party's basic line, blatantly peddles the revisionist programme of "taking the three directives as the key link" and preaches the theory of the dying out of class struggle and the theory of productive forces, amounting to an all-round attack on Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line. "The Outline Report" is a revisionist model of Teng Hsiao-ping's attempt to "make a wide breach" in the positions of science and technology so as to oppose the all-round dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie in the superstructure as a whole. The "Regulations for Industry" is an agglomeration of Teng-Hsiao-ping's slavish comprador economic concepts and his all-embracing revisionist line in running enterprises. In the name of "accelerating industrial development," it in fact aims at speeding up capitalist restoration. All three documents are products of the programme of "taking the three directives as the key link" and are evidence of Teng Hsiao-ping's criminal attempt to reverse correct verdicts and restore capitalism. They are all sinister examples of waving "red flags" to oppose the red flag and waving the banner of "Marxism-Leninism" to tamper with and emasculate Marxism-Leninism.…
Which political line is followed and which class wields the power of leadership in an enterprise are factors determining which class actually owns it. If Teng Hsiao-ping had been allowed to carry on with his revisionist line, the leadership of the enterprises would inevitably be seized by the capitalist-roaders, the bourgeoisie in the Party, who would use the power in their hands to embezzle and squander huge amounts of wealth created by the working class and ride roughshod on the backs of the workers. In that case, the socialist enterprises would exist only in name and would be turned into bureaucrat-monopoly capitalist enterprises.
What Teng Hsiao-ping pushed was merely a carbon copy of the so-called "economic reforms" introduced by Khrushchov and Brezhnev. To develop bureaucrat-monopoly capitalism, the Soviet revisionists energetically pushed what they called a "new economic system" with material incentives and putting profits in command as the core. They gave top priority to expertise and relied on specialists to run the enterprises, and the bureaucrat-monopoly capitalist class completely controlled the leadership over the national economy. The rules and regulations of their enterprises stipulate explicitly that the managers are vested with the power to sell, transfer or lease any part of the enterprises' means of production, to recruit and fire workers at will…. (Peking Review, No. 35, 1976, pp. 5 and 8)
What position did Deng Xiaoping's successor, Party Vice-Chairman and Premier Hua Guofeng, take during this period, up until the death of Mao Zedong? In a speech on May 11, 1976, he declared:
The struggle initiated and led by Chairman Mao personally to repulse the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts has already won great victories. Marching victoriously along Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and in high spirits, the Chinese people are launching a new upsurge of in-depth criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping to repulse the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts and are persisting in grasping revolution and promoting production and other work and preparedness against war. (Peking Review, No. 20, 1976, pp. 7 f.)
And at a banquet on July 26, 1976, he gave the assurance:
At present, the situation in China is excellent, too. The struggle initiated and led personally by Chairman Mao to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping's counter-revolutionary revisionist line and repulse the Right deviationist attempt at reversing correct verdicts is victoriously developing in depth in connection with the concrete class struggle and two-line struggle on all fronts. (Peking Review, No. 31, 1976, p. 5)
On September 9, 1976, the great revolutionary theoretician and man of practice, Mao Zedong, passed away. He was the greatest Marxist-Leninist of our day. Will the leadership of the Communist Party of China let itself be guided by Mao Zedong Thought, carry on his work, or embark on a different course?
7. The Touchstone for Assessing the Ideological-Political Line of China's Leadership
It appeared as though the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China would continue the work of Mao Zedong and follow his instructions. The lead article of Renmin Ribao of October 1, 1976, emphasizes:
To carry out Chairman Mao's behests means to inherit his brilliant thought and his proletarian revolutionary line and policies, "practise Marxism, and not revisionism; unite, and don't split; be open and aboveboard, and don't intrigue and conspire" and, under the leadership of the Party Central Committee, carry through to the end the proletarian revolutionary cause in China which Chairman Mao pioneered. Only when one conscientiously studies and grasps Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought can one raise one's consciousness of class struggle and the two-line struggle and of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, "act according to the principles laid down," and always advance triumphantly along Chairman Mao's revolutionary line.…
Mao Tsetung Thought is marked by its clear class nature and practicality. In studying Chairman Mao's works, it is necessary to strive to act upon and apply them, fight against the bourgeoisie in the Party, fight against revisionism, and fight against erroneous lines and trends which run counter to Mao Tsetung Thought. At present, it is imperative to grasp the crux of revisionism, that is, its ideological and political line, in connection with the realities on various fronts, deepen the criticism of the three poisonous weeds "On the General Programme for All Work of the Party and the Country," "Some Problems Concerning the Work of Science and Technology" and "Some Problems in Accelerating Industrial Development" cooked up on Teng Hsiao-ping's instructions, carry the struggle to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping and repulse the Right deviationist attempt at reversing correct verdicts through to the end, consolidate and develop the victories of the Great Cultural Revolution and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat.…
China is the native land of Mao Tsetung Thought. "Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world.'' We should pass on Mao Tsetung Thought from generation to generation so that our country never changes its political colour, and should strive to make a greater contribution to humanity.
(Peking Review, No. 41, 1976, p. 13)
The people of all nationalities have declared their firm determination to carry out Chairman Mao's behests, uphold Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, adhere to Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and "practise Marxism, and not revisionism; unite, and don't split; be open and aboveboard, and don't intrigue and conspire." They have pledged to rally most closely round the Party Central Committee headed by Comrade Hua Kuo-feng, take class struggle as the key link, adhere to the Party's basic line, deepen the struggle to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping and repulse the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts, grasp revolution and promote production and other work and preparedness against war, consolidate and develop the achievements of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and carry through to the end the cause of the proletarian revolution in China which Chairman Mao pioneered.
(Peking Review, No. 42, 1976, p. 7)
On October 7, 1976, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China elected (according to Peking Review, No. 44, 1976) Hua Guofeng as Party chairman and Chairman of the Military Commission of the C.P.C. Central Committee. He had "taken measures," "smashing the plot of the anti-Party clique of Wang Hun-wen, Chang Chun-chiao, Chiang Ching and Yao Wen-yuan to usurp Party and state power." A new campaign began targeting the so-called gang of four. Will the criticism of Deng Xiaoping now be dropped and his Right-opportunist line adopted? It did not look like it at all. CC member Wu Teh made a speech on October 24, 1976, in which, in addition to attacking the "gang of four", he still urged:
We must … continue to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping and repulse the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts, consolidate and develop the achievements of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and consolidate and develop the great unity of the people of all nationalities under the leadership of the working class and based on the worker-peasant alliance. We must take class struggle as the key link, grasp revolution, promote production and other work and preparedness against war, and continue to develop the excellent situation. (Peking Review, No. 44, 1976, pp. 13 f.)
Did he honestly mean that? At the time, perhaps! The ideological-political struggle against the Rightist opportunism of Deng Xiaoping was personally led by Mao Zedong, and Deng's dismissal was unanimously approved on the proposal of Mao. Cessation of the ideological struggle against revisionism and the "Right deviationist wind" would in practice be tantamount to following this line. At that time, in the form of an inner-organizational statement of the Central Leadership in April 1977, we declared the position towards Deng Xiaoping and his revisionist line to be the touchstone for judging the leadership of the Chinese Party and state. That is:
|
Rehabilitation of Deng Xiaoping means that the leadership of China |
The KABD deliberately refrained from criticizing the Chinese Party leadership at the end of 1976 because we hoped that the leadership would not embark on a Right-opportunist course. We certainly could have said a few words about the following tirade in a joint editorial of the three most important organs, Renmin Ribao, Hongqi, and Jiefangjun Bao:
The "gang of four," a bane to the country and the people, committed heinous crimes. They completely betrayed the basic principles of "three do's and three don'ts" that Chairman Mao had earnestly taught, wantonly tampered with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, tampered with Chairman Mao's directives, opposed Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line on a whole series of domestic and international questions, and practised revisionism under the signboard of Marxism. They carried out criminal activities to split the Party, forming a factional group, going their own way, establishing their own system inside the Party, doing as they wished, lording it over others, and placing themselves above Chairman Mao and the Party Central Committee. They were busy intriguing and conspiring and stuck their noses into everything to stir up trouble everywhere, interfere with Chairman Mao's revolutionary line and strategic plans and undermine the socialist revolution and socialist construction. They confounded right and wrong, made rumours, worked in a big way to create counter-revolutionary opinion, fabricated accusations against others and labelled people at will, and attempted to overthrow a large number of leading Party, government and army comrades in the central organs and various localities and seize Party and state leadership. They worshipped things foreign and fawned on foreigners, maintained illicit foreign relations, betrayed important Party and state secrets, and unscrupulously practised capitulationism and national betrayal. (ibid., p. 15; emphasis added)
No communist can buy that from the three editorial boards. According to them, the "gang of four" had to consist of superhumans as can be found only in American monster movies. But even they pale beside the fantastic accusations leveled at the "gang of four": forgers, criminals, splitters, factionalists, despots, conspirators, intriguers, troublemakers, rumor spreaders, counterrevolutionaries, fabricators of accusations, dictators who highhandedly overthrow leading comrades, worshippers of things foreign, capitulationists, and traitors to Party, state and country, who "did as they wished" and "placed themselves above Chairman Mao and the Central Committee."
This editorial was published with the approval of the Central Committee led by Hua Guofeng. The CC apparently did not notice that it was making a sad commentary on itself if what this editorial claimed was true. Above all, however, it is an outrageous insult to Mao Zedong as Chairman of the biggest communist party, which though capable of carrying out a social revolution, supposedly was unable to get a handle on four people who are said to have committed such crimes, who are said to have been able to do as they pleased with the entire CC?
Anyone who argues the way this editorial does is not credible. With such arguments, the leadership had already lost face. This is not the way to conduct an ideological-political debate. No communist can stoop to such a low level. At the time we still believed this was a one-time slip. However, we were wrong unfortunately.
Remarks about Deng Xiaoping in the Chinese press organs became increasingly rare and meaningless; not a trace anymore of the earlier ideological-political debates. A few of these references follow:
Teng Hsiao-ping was entirely wrong when he preached "taking the three directives as the key link" and said that "whether they are white or black cats, so long as they can catch mice, they are good cats." We are opposed to the theory of productive forces at all times, past, present and future. But this must not be construed to mean that we are opposed to promoting production.
(Peking Review, No. 48, 1976, p. 12)
It is necessary to … continue to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping and repulse the Right-deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts.
(Peking Review, No. 50, 1976, p. 11)
However, soon any criticism of Deng Xiaoping ceased. The "gang of four," on the other hand, was accused of "calling its own tune" in criticizing Deng Xiaoping:
Calling its own tune in criticizing Teng Hsiao-ping was one of "the principles laid down" by the "gang of four." At a national conference discussing planning work in July 1976, they viciously instigated a few persons to make frenzied attacks in a planned and premeditated way on Comrade Hua Kuo-feng and other leading comrades in the central organs on the pretext of criticizing Teng Hsiao-ping; their attempt was to usurp Party and state power. (Peking Review, No. 52, 1976, p. 11
Again and again, reports appeared in the bourgeois press that it was planned to rehabilitate Deng Xiaoping. For us communists they were not authoritative, and we constantly examined the official material from China. If Deng Xiaoping is rehabilitated, this means that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is abandoning the line laid down by Mao Zedong; it means that it is shifting to the Rightist course of Deng Xiaoping.
8. Preparation and Realization of the Rehabilitation of Deng Xiaoping and Drifting in the Right Deviationist Wind
Is the struggle against the "gang of four" an ideological-political struggle or a power struggle for leadership? One might conclude the latter from the article entitled, "The Crux of 'Gang of Four's' Crimes Is to Usurp Party and State Power," which states among other things:
Last May the "gang of four" told its trusted followers to make anti-Party speeches openly in which they clamoured for "liquidating" "other people in command." At a conference discussing planning work called by the Party Central Committee last July they instructed their henchmen to launch an attack, howling that the State Council was the "source of' the Right deviationist wind" and assailing Comrade Hua Kuo-feng as a "capitalist-roader still on the capitalist road." In opposing Comrade Hua Kuo-feng so blatantly, the "gang of four" was actually trying to annul Chairman Mao's arrangement concerning his successor and seize supreme Party and state leadership.…
…they tried to sever communications between the Party Central Committee headed by Comrade Hua Kuo-feng and the various provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions so that they themselves could issue orders and command the whole nation. They went around making speeches and creating counter-revolutionary opinion. They had standard portraits taken of a member of the "gang of four" and instigated units under their control to write "oaths of fealty" in preparing for their coming to power. The "gang of four" attacked Comrade Hua Kuo-feng from all sides and pressed him to hand over power.…
At the crucial moment when the gang came out to create disturbances, the Party Central Committee headed by Comrade Hua Kuo-feng, carrying out Chairman Mao's behests and representing the aspirations of the people in their hundreds of millions, made a prompt decision and at one stroke smashed the plot of the "gang of four" to usurp Party and state power, thus saving the revolution and the Party.…
Just what's this "gang of four"? It is a bunch of counter-revolutionaries who sneaked into our revolutionary ranks. They are active counter-revolutionaries and some are even old- line counter-revolutionaries. (Peking Review, No. 2, 1977, pp. 30–32)
This is a description that may or may not be true. To make it very clear from the start: We certainly take the view that the "gang of four" made mistakes, ideological and political mistakes, which did not have an antagonistic character, however. They would have had to be uncovered and fought in the course of an ideological-political debate, in the way it was done when Mao Zedong was still alive. What now was undertaken, however, no longer had anything to do with an ideological-political dispute. Instead of ideological-political arguments, assertions now were presented which may or may not be correct. In any case, no proof of them was provided. Below we print excerpts from various issues of Peking Review which are characteristic of this method:
Masquerading as "Left-wingers" for some years, the anti-Party clique of Wang-Chang-Chiang-Yao usurped a portion of the power of the Party Central Committee and, through the mass media under their control, cut a wide swath in making publicity for themselves. They crowned themselves with laurels such as "the 'standard-bearer' of the Great Cultural Revolution" and "proletarian revolutionary" to deceive the revolutionary people in China and the rest of the world.
The Party Central Committee headed by Comrade Hua Kuo-feng smashed the "gang of four" and tore off their masks. They were in fact a gang of bourgeois careerists and conspirators of the Khrushchov type, typical representatives of the bourgeoisie inside the Party and unrepentant capitalist-roaders still on the capitalist road.…
Early last year, they openly opposed Chairman Mao's instructions and did things their own way in criticizing Teng Hsiao-ping. They used the news media they controlled to sow confusion, undermine the revolution and disrupt production. They talked about pulling out what they called "Teng Hsiao-ping's agents" at all levels in an attempt to overthrow a large number of responsible comrades in the central organs and various localities.
(Peking Review, No. 3, 1977, pp. 27 and 29)
The "gang of four" formed a faction, replacing the Party with it and placing it above the Party. They lorded it over the people and put Shanghai under their fascist rule.…
Second, the gang had established extensive contacts with various departments in their counter-revolutionary activities. They interfered in the affairs of various ministries under the State Council and created confusion there. They clamoured: "Only two and a half ministries under the State Council are reliable. All the bigwigs in the rest of the ministries are no good." They installed their faithful followers in important posts in some ministries, and sowed discord and created splits in others; they spread rumours to vilify some ministries and tried to make "breaches" in others so as to usurp supreme Party and state leadership.…
Wang Hung-wen brazenly said: "It's Chun-chiao and I who set up the Shanghai militia." He told his trusted associates that "to build our militia into a strong contingent is a matter of winning leadership" and that "our militia must not be commanded by others." They refused to let the P.L.A. Shanghai Garrison Headquarters exercise control over the militia and forced it to hand over arms and funds to the militia. They set up a separate militia headquarters under their direct control and independent of the P.L.A. garrison. And they even planned to set up a national general militia headquarters in opposition to the Military Commission of the Party Central Committee. More startling was the fact that when Chairman Mao was seriously ill, they wanted to "immediately distribute" weapons to the Shanghai militia and were ready to strike at any moment.
(Peking Review, No. 6, 1977, pp. 7, 8, and 9)
With the "theory of permanent revolution" as its basic tenet, Trotskyism opposed Lenin's theory that socialism could be victorious in one country alone, maintaining that victory could be won only simultaneously in the major European countries. While trying to make people believe they were striving for immediate victory in the world revolution, the Trotskyites were in effect undermining the cause of the proletarian revolution in general and the Russian socialist revolution in particular.
As though they had a strong desire to hasten the advent of communism, the "gang of four" waxed eloquent about eliminating bourgeois right, exercising "all-round dictatorship" over the bourgeoisie and sweeping away what they called the "fortified villages" of the bourgeoisie. But what they actually did far exceeded the limits of bourgeois right; in fact, they arrogated to themselves not only the prerogatives of the bourgeoisie, but those pertaining to feudal lords and slave-owners. They were hellbent on toppling the dictatorship of the proletariat, restoring capitalism, founding a new feudal dynasty with Chiang Ching as the empress and putting China under a fascist dictatorship.…
The Trotskyites … mounted a vicious attack on Lenin and maligned his successor Stalin, trying to overthrow the Party Central Committee now headed by Stalin. The "gang of four" too stopped at nothing to torment Chairman Mao and oppose Premier Chou and made false accusations against him. After the passing of Chairman Mao and the Premier, they directed the spearhead of their attack at Comrade Hua Kuo-feng, who had been selected by Chairman Mao to be his successor, and also at the Party Central Committee with Comrade Hua Kuo-feng at its head; at the same time, they stepped up their plot to usurp Party and state power. (Peking Review, No. 7, 1977, pp. 11 and 13f.)
In China im Bild, No. 2–3, 1977 (German edition of China Pictorial; our translation from the German), we read in an article entitled, "With the overthrow of the gang of four, literature and art are liberated!":
In the past years, since the Wang-Chang-Chiang-Yao gang of four dominated literature and art, the orientation that literature and art must serve the workers, peasants and soldiers was overridden; the principle that a hundred flowers should blossom and a hundred schools of thought should contend was dropped; the revolution in literature and art was robbed of its fruits; the four made artistic work serve their purpose of usurping power in the Party and state. Based on their counterrevolutionary policy, the gang of four despotically created havoc in literature and art. A wave of the hand sufficed to have a play taken out of the program; just a few words uttered by them barred entire opera genres from consideration. Many good plays reflecting the life of the workers, peasants and soldiers were rejected if they did not meet the political needs of the gang of four. Theater ensembles and artists who did not comply with the wishes of the gang of four were banned from appearing. With the overthrow of the anti-Party clique of Wang, Chang, Chiang and Yao, the stage of the capital city now manifests all its splendor, is full of the brightness of spring.
We want to compare these assertions with a speech made by Chiang Ching, the wife of Mao Zedong, in July 1964, on the occasion of the Festival of Peking Operas:
Theatres are places to educate the people, but now the stage is dominated by emperors and kings, generals and ministers, scholars and beauties – by feudal and bourgeois stuff. This state of affairs cannot serve to protect but will undermine our economic base.…
The grain we eat is grown by the peasants, the clothes we wear and the houses we live in are woven and built by the workers, and the People's Liberation Army stands guard at the fronts of national defence for us and yet we do not portray them on the stage. May I ask which class stand you artists take? And where is the artists' "conscience" you always talk about?…
It is our view that opera on revolutionary contemporary themes must reflect real life in the 15 years since the founding of our Chinese People's Republic, and that images of contemporary revolutionary heroes must be created on our operatic stage. This is our foremost task. Not that we don't want historical operas. Revolutionary historical operas have formed no small proportion of the programme of the present festival. Historical operas portraying the life and struggles of the people before our Party came into being are also needed. Moreover, we need to foster some pace-setters, to produce some historical operas which are really written from the standpoint of historical materialism and which can make the ancient serve the present. Of course, we should take up historical operas only on the condition that the carrying out of the main task (that of portraying contemporary life and creating images of workers, peasants and soldiers) is not impeded. Not that we don't want any traditional operas either. Except for those about ghosts and those extolling capitulation and betrayal, good traditional operas can all be staged.…
Theatrical items for adaptation must be carefully chosen. First, we must see whether or not they are good politically and secondly whether or not they suit the conditions of the company concerned. Serious analysis of the original must be made when adapting it, its good points must be affirmed without unnecessary changes, while its weak points must be compensated. (Peking Review, No. 20, 1967, pp. 14 and 15)
This is a correct statement from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism in relation to art. Are literature and art now "liberated" from such fundamental considerations?
Peking Review, No. 19, 1977, printed a speech by Hua Guofeng which contains several references to "agents of the bourgeoisie inside our Party" where only Liu Shaoqi, Chen Boda and Lin Biao are mentioned by name. No reference is made to Deng Xiaoping anymore, although he belonged to Liu Shaoqi's faction and was dismissed on proposal of Mao Zedong. Hua Guofeng said among other things:
Generally speaking, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has been a struggle waged by the proletariat and the revolutionary masses against the capitalist-roaders inside the Party who were represented by Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao and the Wang-Chang-Chiang-Yao "gang of four." This gang are typical representatives of the anti-communist, anti-socialist bourgeoisie inside the Party and they had a thousand and one links with Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang. Like the contradictions between our Party and Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao, the contradiction between the "gang of four" and our Party is also a contradiction between the enemy and ourselves. (Peking Review, No. 19, 1977, p. 22)
Was such talk intended to spread a smoke screen around Deng Xiaoping in order to better prepare his rehabilitation? Was the struggle against the "gang of four" not just a power struggle? Was it not also designed to serve the preparations for rehabilitating Deng Xiaoping? We must assume so, because in the excerpt from the Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the Tenth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, quoted further on, it is pointed out that at a working conference of the CC in March 1977 the proposal had already been made by the Political Bureau to rehabilitate Deng Xiaoping at the Third Plenary Session. The Party leadership must have felt very unsure of itself to keep this fact a secret up until then, even though the foreign bourgeois press had been intimating as much. Instead, in April 1977 an intensified campaign targeting the "gang of four" was launched:
Taking advantage of that portion of power they had usurped, they sat on the backs of the people like overlords, embezzled the fruits of labour of the workers and peasants in disregard of the people's well-being, and undermined socialist revolution and construction. This bunch of bloodsuckers who committed all sorts of evil were even more vicious than the capitalists. They were the scourge of the nation. They lusted after power and personal gains so much that they vainly hoped to grab the entire power of the Party and the proletariat.…
Regarding the revolutionary cadres who uphold Chairman Mao's revolutionary line as the biggest obstacle to their scheme to usurp power and restore capitalism, the Wang-Chang-Chiang-Yao anti-Party clique did all they could to topple them all and replace them with their sworn and trusted followers.…
The "gang of four's" perverse actions seriously undermined the principles concerning struggles within the Party and its fine traditions, and produced an extremely pernicious influence inside and outside the Party. (Peking Review, No. 15, 1977, pp. 13 and 15 f.)
The Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the CPC first points out that Deng Xiaoping had appeared at the session and made important speeches. His rehabilitation was announced in the following words:
The plenary session unanimously adopted the "Resolution on Restoring Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping to His Posts." The plenary session, after earnest discussions, expressed full support for the suggestion made at a central working conference in March 1977 by Chairman Hua Kuo-feng on behalf of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee that the Third Plenary Session of the Tenth Party Central Committee make an official decision so that Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping could resume work. The two letters by Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping to Chairman Hua, Vice-Chairman Yeh and the Party Central Committee, which the Central Committee on May 3,1977 decided to circulate, had the approval of comrades throughout the Party. The plenary session unanimously decided to restore Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping to his posts of Member of the C.P.C. Central Committee, Member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee and of its Standing Committee, Vice-Chairman of the C.P.C. Central Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Military Commission of the C.P.C. Central Committee, Vice-Premier of the State Council and Chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. (Peking Review, No. 31, 1977, pp. 5 f.)
The Communique then repeats the only too well-known, unproven accusations against the "gang of four," to which a new "crime" was added:
Going their own way contrary to Chairman Mao's directives, they feverishly attacked and fabricated accusations against Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping. (ibid., p. 6)
Hua Guofeng seems to have lost his memory, otherwise he would have had to recall what he said in a speech on May 26, 1976, at a banquet welcoming Pakistan's Prime Minister Bhutto:
At present, the struggle initiated and led by our great leader Chairman Mao personally to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping's counter-revolutionary revisionist line and repulse the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts has already won great victories, and the situation is excellent. Through this struggle, it is certain that Chairman Mao's revolutionary line will find its way deeper into the hearts of the people, China's socialist revolution and socialist construction will develop more vigorously, and the revolutionary line and policy in foreign affairs formulated for us by Chairman Mao will continue to be implemented, and implemented even better. We are determined to make continued efforts and carry this great struggle through to the end. (Peking Review, No. 23, 1976, p. 9)
The condemnation and removal from power of Deng Xiaoping took place on the proposal of Mao Zedong and by unanimous decision of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. No one can deny that. It took place because Deng Xiaoping advocated a Right-opportunist line, a revisionist line. Rehabilitation means acceptance of this line, means a change of course, i.e., drifting in the Right deviationist wind.
What effects will this have? Will the leaders of Party and state become modern revisionists? Does a restoration of capitalism in China threaten? Is a new Proletarian Cultural Revolution necessary to prevent it?
Document Actions
