Sunday, December 31, 2023

The ineffectiveness of anti-corruption struggles in China

Corruption re-emerged in China in a big way after the restoration of capitalism and remains source of social dissatisfaction today. Here, the November 2023 edition of Struggle Monthly critiques the phenomenon and the Party’s hypocritical and self-serving “anti-corruption” campaigns – Trans.

 

Anti-corruption film in a fairy tale


Above: The fist of anti-corruption smashes the wall of 腐败 (means ‘rotten, corrupt’) while the vertical comment in red reads: 你说这个我都觉得好笑(‘I think it’s funny, a joke, when you say that’

Since the restoration of capitalism after 1976, the ideology of capitalism has also been restored.

It dares not give up Marxism-Leninism-Socialism directly, but can only distort vulgar Marxism-Leninism through various means. As a bureaucratic capitalist, it cannot go for the bourgeois form of democracy in the West, and Chairman Mao said that once revisionism came to power, it would be the worst kind of capitalism, and that if it engaged in the bourgeois liberalisation, the 89 Incident[1] would occur, so it had to bring back the feudal elements at the same time to serve as an ideological cohesion. The two together have carried out a counter-attack on the former socialist culture, which has continued to this day, and it is most obvious and reactionary in the cultural field. Popular literary works and film and television productions are nothing but the most shameless and naked deception of bureaucratic capitalism against the working people.

The Zhongxiu[2] authorities have a very clever way of disguising themselves. Take anti-corruption works as an example, how does Zhongxiu tell such stories? The villains and contradictions in such works are usually the corruption of a high-powered official at the local level, and the impact on the people is manifested in the emergence of triad-type bullies or unscrupulous businessmen who do harm to one side, for example, Zhao Lichun, Gao Yuliang, and Qi Tongwei in the name of the people are the former, and the latter are unscrupulous businessmen such as Zhao Ruilong and Gao Xiaoqin.

The positive characters are Sha Ruijin, a minister of the imperial police, and Hou Liangping, who has a background as a royal relative. The logic of this kind of story is to let the audience focus on how the positive side defeats the negative side step by step, and how the positive side highlights the righteousness of the spirit of anti-corruption. One of the key characters, and the one with the most sinister intentions, is Chen Yan, a veteran cadre with genuine communist consciousness, who is used to show that there is still hope within the party and that it is not completely corrupt. In the film and TV drama, Chen Yan sits up all night with the workers of the Dafeng factory in order to stop the demolition of the factory and prevent conflicts from intensifying, and the image of the communist as being deeply involved in the people's lives is built up, and the authorities are using this kind of rare example to prove that this Party, which has already deteriorated, is still good.

The vast majority of anti-corruption films and TV programmes follow this narrative logic, which is the most deceptive to the people, making them believe that the Party is really carrying out a self-revolution, but in fact it is just internal strife. In connection with the recently released film "I Am Originally a High Mountain", which is based on the story of Zhang Guimei, we can clearly see the sinister intention of Zhongxiu's cultural works under his reactionary ideology, which is to make the people be touched by those who really do something, so that they can spontaneously defend this capitalist, exploitative and cannibalistic social system. The "Zero Tolerance" and "Moving China" productions made by Zhongxiu are just window-dressing. Those who have really made a contribution to the people become idols under the propaganda of Zhongxiu, which ultimately serves to strengthen its rule.

Above: the anti-corruption politician has a sack on his back with the characters for ‘keeping a mistress’

The same applies to this kind of TV drama, which will try to portray a clean official who serves the people and is sent by the Central Authorities to rectify the local situation. Sha Ruijin and Hou Liangping in the Name of the People are such characters, but in essence, the appearance of these officials is just a manifestation of the state machinery to maintain its own functioning, with the aim of removing local corrupt officials who threaten the overall interests of the general public, and the general public will often be confused by the illusion of this kind of drama: the Central Committee of the Party is wise and mighty, and sends inspection teams to solve problems at the local level. Essentially, these problems are caused by the reform and opening up of capital. For example, a masked person breaks your leg. You don’t know who it is. Later, the person who broke your leg heals your leg. , you don’t know who is the person who broke your leg, but instead you are grateful to him, whether it is anti-corruption or poverty alleviation. This kind of vicious method is very deceptive to the people, but the lies will eventually be seen through.

For the bureaucratic bourgeoisie who truly hold power, the Discipline Inspection Commission is nothing more than a tool for political struggle. The real Zhao family will always be at large. Small fish and shrimps like Arctic Catfish[3] are no match for thieves like Deng Pufang. As part of the state apparatus, the Discipline Inspection Commission will also play a certain role in self-purification, but its role is very limited. This is not self-revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is useless to arrest and kill a group of corrupt officials. Under the dictatorship of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, Capitalism and private ownership will continue to produce corrupt officials. China's revision has long entered the law of historical cycles. Chairman Xi does not even have the courage to kill corruption, and talking about self-revolution is just a lie to deceive the people.

This kind of cultural work has given us a lot of food for thought today. When the class struggle and revolution stop on the road to socialist development, there will be a regression, and capitalism will gradually spread from the ideological to the political and economic spheres, as history after the Cultural Revolution has proved. The experience left to us by the Cultural Revolution is that after the establishment of a socialist regime, an ideological revolution must be carried out. After the temporary death of capitalism, the stench and filth it emits will still affect us. It will wait for an opportunity to dominate people's ideologies again, and in reality China completed its own restoration. The chaos and regression in China's ideological field today strongly prove this.

Above: both cartoons illustrate anti-corruption campaigners accepting bribes and accumulating wealth.







[1] The “89 Incident” refers to the June 4, 1989 crackdown.

[2] “Zhongxiu” is an abbreviation for “Chinese revisionism” and is used not only to indicate an ideological departure from Marxism, but the Party and the State that serve this departure.


[3] “Arctic Catfish” is the social media name of the granddaughter of Zhong Gengci, former director of the Freight Management Branch of Shenzhen Transportation Bureau. She outraged Chinese netizens by disparaging the common people ana flaunting her family’s wealth, which she claimed ran to a nine-figure sum. Some netizens found that the IP of "Arctic Catfish" shows the location as Australia. After a rather desultory examination of Zhong Genci’s situation by the Commission for Discipline Inspection, he was expelled from the Party in October 2023.

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Chairman Mao's advice to Colombian revolutionaries

 (Translator's Preface: This is taken from Vol 46 of Chairman Mao's Collected Works on the bannedthought website: Adobe Photoshop PDF (bannedthought.net) )

Some Experiences of Armed Struggle[1]

5 December 1963

1

Revolution is always about creating your own experience. In the past, none of us knew how to fight and we were not prepared to go to the mountains to fight as guerrillas. I was in the workers' and peasants' movement, and I was a primary school teacher by profession. But the enemy wanted to capture us and kill us, so we were forced to go to the mountains to fight. No matter how we fought or how we didn't, we never studied. We learned from Chiang Kai-shek and from the enemy and fought for ten years. Later, when the Japanese came in, we learned to fight with them again. I have fought in wars all my life, for 22 years in total. From not having the will to fight to having the will to fight, from not knowing how to fight to learning how to fight.

In armed struggle, we must learn to destroy the enemy. If you can't destroy a hundred of them, you have to destroy fifty of them. As long as their guns and bullets are surrendered, you will not lose money. If you just drive them away, and not destroy them, then it won't work. If we can cut off one finger, we will only have nine fingers left, and if we cut off one more finger, we will only have eight fingers left, and if we cut off one more finger, we will only have seven fingers left. In this way, the enemy will be afraid of us. It is possible to wipe out the enemy one by one and cut off the fingers one by one. This is basically the way to fight a war. To fight a war of annihilation, we have to choose the time and place.

Another point is that armed struggle requires base areas. Without a base area, you cannot even cut off a finger. First of all, we should fight the most loathsome ones, starting with the worst ones, that is, those in power. Those who do not have deep hatred for the peasants can be left untouched for the time being. We can also not distribute land immediately, but first reduce rents and interest rates. Once the base areas are established, we can establish power, peasant associations, youth and women's organisations, production co-operatives and militias. For quite some time, some comrades did not understand this issue and left after the fight, which is called rogueism. They ran around, ate all the pigs and chickens and then left.

2

Because cities are the strongholds of imperialist aggression, they are not easy to take over at once. Small towns might have been possible, but often the enemy forced us to withdraw even after we had arrived, and this was repeated many times. The main thing is to destroy the enemy's power, without which the place cannot be defended.

In addition, there must be a separate political and economic programme for the countryside, because it is impossible to be very specific in the general programme. Once a base area is established, rents and interest rates can be reduced, but land is not confiscated immediately. If the enemy was too strong to be destroyed at once, or if the guerrillas left, the enemy would kill people and the peasants would not dare to ask for the land. In Cuba, before the victory of the revolution, there was no land distribution in the base areas because they had only been fighting for three years. Our country was so big and the war was so long that we fought for 20 years, so during the war we carried out land reform. This was also after we had won some big battles and had a base of millions of people. You have to do it on a case-by-case basis, combining Marxism-Leninism with your situation.

You must mingle with the people, speak the same language and dress like them, so that they feel that you are a trusted friend. One shortcoming of urban intellectuals, and I myself am no different, is that I am not familiar with the situation in the countryside. At first the peasants did not trust us because they were oppressed by those who were rich. If we did not win the war, they did not trust us either. After we had won the war and treated them as equals, they trusted us.

3

 There is also the rule of self-reliance, supplemented by international aid. With international aid or without, we have to rely on ourselves. Like in ancient times, they had no foreign support for their armed struggle, and where did they get their weapons? They took them from the enemy. We fought the war with the enemy, we got our guns from the enemy, and we captured many of them and added them to our troops. The enemy's soldiers were trained to fight. Our soldiers were untrained, and if we took some captives, they would have fought. The base area was a school for training cadres. Many of our leaders, such as Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and many other marshals and generals, did not know how to fight at first, but learnt during the war.

In the past, there were no marshals, generals, colonels or lieutenants, but only commanders, military commanders, divisional commanders, regimental commanders, battalion commanders, company commanders, platoon commanders and squad commanders. Officers were the same as soldiers. But then there were many titles and better clothes than soldiers. I don't think that's good. It's better to be the same as a soldier. I don't live by the title of marshal or general. I am not a marshal or a general, but the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Party, and I should not live on that title. The masses do not care what kind of wealth you have, nor what clothes you wear, but only what policies you have. They don't care what party you are, whether it is the Communist Party or the Guomindang, but if the Communist Party's policies are wrong, they will still scold you. Where does knowledge come from? We are all very stupid. Knowledge comes from the masses. If we don't do research, we don't know anything. This is some of our experience.

 

 

 



[1] Sections 1 to 3 are part of Mao Zedong's conversation with a study delegation from the Colombian "Workers, Students and Peasants Movement".


Thursday, October 06, 2022

Mao Zedong: Xinjiang must do well in economic work and strengthen national unity

 

(The caption above reads: In 1963, Mao Zedong met with Baoer Khan, Chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and Vice-Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.)



(Translator's preface: Mao Zedong's policy on national minorities consistently held to two central features: [1] that there should be preferential treatment for national minorities; and [2] that in the relations between the majority Han Chinese and Chinese belonging to national minorities, the responsibility lay with the Han Chinese to overcome Han chauvinism and to treat the national minorities with respect. These two aspects can be clearly seen in these excerpts from discussions on the Xinjiang issue. From Vol 46 of the Collected Works of Mao Zedong.)

Xinjiang must do well in economic work and strengthen national unity[1]

 (28 September 1963)

Agriculture, animal husbandry and industry must develop more and more every year, the economy must prosper more and more every year, and the people's lives must improve more and more every year. The development of our economy and the improvement of people's lives must be better than not only during the period of Guomindang rule, but also than in the present Soviet Union. The development of socialist construction requires accumulation, but not too much accumulation; food must be requisitioned, but the task must not be too heavy and the requisition must not be excessive. The people's burden must be eased and their lives improved. The supply of goods to the people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, such as cloth, tea, sugar and other daily necessities, should be more adequate than in other regions. The Premier[2] should tell Xiannian[3] to inform him.

To strengthen ideological and political education, Han cadres must learn the language and script of ethnic minorities. We must educate Han cadres and people to strictly abide by the Party's ethnic policy. We must believe in the vast majority of the ministries and people of all nationalities, no matter which nationality they are, as long as they are working people. The Han Chinese working people who have entered Xinjiang must be well settled. The relationship between the working people of the Han Chinese and the working people of the ethnic minorities in Xinjiang must be resolved. Because of the differences in ethnicity, language and living habits, it is necessary to educate Han Chinese working people on ethnic policies, to teach them to respect the customs and habits of ethnic minorities, to mobilise them to learn the languages of ethnic minorities, and to improve relations and solidarity with ethnic minority working people. We need to help solve the marital and other problems of Han Chinese working people who have gone to Xinjiang.

 



[1] This is part of what Mao Zedong said in September 1963 when he summoned some of his comrades in charge of the Central Committee, including Zhou Enlai and Zhu De, and Wang Enmao, First Secretary of the CPC Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Committee, to discuss the work in Xinjiang.

[2] This refers to Zhou Enlai.

[3] This refers to Li Xiannian.


Sunday, October 02, 2022

Mao Zedong: Depend on ourselves in revolution and construction

 

(Above: Mao Zedong meets Chairman Aidit of the Indonesian Communist Party on September 3, 1963)

(Translator's preface: This comes from the Collected Works of Chairman Mao, Vol 46.  The Chinese original can be found on bannedthought.net).

Depend on ourselves in revolution and construction[1]

(September 3, 1963)

We had difficulties for only two and a half years, in 1960, 1961 and the first half of 1962, and things got better in the second half of 1962. Last year we produced more than 10 million tons of grain more than the year before. This year the situation is a little better. Although there have been floods in northern China this year, particularly in Hebei and Henan, the country is likely to produce around 10 million tonnes more grain than last year. Now we are concentrating on cotton, oilseeds, tobacco and sugar. We have found a way. We have had two kinds of experience, the wrong experience and the right experience. The right experience encouraged us, the wrong experience taught us. The Soviet Union withdrew its experts and broke the contracts, which was good for us. We had no choice but to rely on ourselves, on our own two hands. Then the Soviet Union regretted it and wanted to send experts again, to do business with us, but we refused. If they send us more experts, one day they will withdraw them and break the contract. They had lost our trust. It was at this time in 1960 that the Soviets withdrew their experts and now, three years on, we have developed a lot of our own experience in industrial construction. When you leave the master, the student learns on his own. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a teacher. You don't need a teacher. Read, write and think for yourself. This is a truth. From the founding of the Party in 1921 to 1934, we suffered the consequences of having a teacher, who drafted the programme and the resolutions of the Central Committee plenum, especially in 1934, which caused us great losses. Since then, we have learned to think for ourselves. It took us a few years to get to know China. How can Chinese people not understand the situation in China? The real understanding of independence began at the Zunyi Conference, which criticised dogmatism. The dogmatists said that everything was right in the Soviet Union and did not combine the Soviet experience with the Chinese reality. The slogan of combining the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with Chinese practice was put forward during the Yan'an Rectification. This slogan was included in the Moscow Declaration of 1957, which said that the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism should be combined with the concrete practice of each country. Foreign experience, no matter which country it is, can only be used for reference.



[1] This was part of a conversation between Mao Zedong and a delegation from the Indonesian Communist Party, led by N.D.Adit.

Tuesday, August 30, 2022

Book review: Mao Zedong: The Stormy Road of his Last Seven Years

 


A great man in his twilight years: Does a true hero have to be heartless? Surely a real man may love his young son.[1]

(Translator’s note: This book review was posted on the leftist Chinese website, Utopia, on August 30, 2022. It is an appreciation of Mao’s personal character and love for his people.)

At first glance, the title of gives you a sense of its distinctiveness. The so-called "last seven years" refers to the period from Mao Zedong: The Stormy Road of his Last Seven Years 1970 to 1976. It has an extraordinary significance for Chairman Mao personally and for the history of the People's Republic of China as a whole.

From reading the ancient book "old tears and weeping"[2], to watching movies "couldn't hold back the old tears, and the film had to be interrupted", and even "howling and crying" when he heard the great shock[3]. The broad sentiments of the common people are beyond words, and the descendants will surely mourn him even thousands of years later.

Wang Xinde, a member of Chairman Mao's medical team and a specialist in neurology and geriatrics, recalled: "The reports sent in on the earthquake were all personally looked into by the Chairman, despite his personal illness.

“The earthquake killed more than 240,000 people, and the other damage was incalculable. When the secretary reported the extremely heavy damage caused by the earthquake, the Chairman wept - the first time I had seen him bawling in person." It was a really emotional read, tossing and turning.

Does a true hero have to be heartless? Surely a real man may love his young son. Chairman Mao believed in the masses all his life, relied on the masses, emphasized organizing and educating the masses, and maintained a deep and natural affection for the masses. What is more, what about such a rare earthquake? The earth moved, the people suffered, people's livelihoods were difficult, the country's fortunes were up and down, and it was a national tragedy to cry out.



Judging from the author's records, Chairman Mao has a strong affection for Lin Biao, who betrayed the country, for Liu Shaoqi, who did not support the Cultural Revolution, and for Deng Xiaoping, who was removed from office as a capitalist-roader[4]. "Rain will fall, and women will marry. Let him go."[5] This is the helplessness and sadness towards Lin who was repeatedly given opportunities to correct his mistakes. At that time, Chairman Mao was more heartbroken than anyone else.

After reading this book, the vivid image of Chairman Mao's last seven years remains before my eyes and in my heart. Undoubtedly, Chairman Mao was a great man among great men, a man of family and country, with a heart that was endowed with ideals from his youth, and who never wavered in his determination; Chairman Mao was also a warm figure, all poetic, and in his later years he was so emotionally turbulent that a single lyric could make him lose his voice and cry.

Many people are evaluating the merits and faults of Chairman Mao. After reading the book, I feel that the Foolish Old Man[6] Chairman Mao is worthy of the people, he is a party leader who adheres to the party spirit and strictly adheres to the party discipline, at all times and in all places, he is devoted to the people's blood.

In private, from the three 28-year journeys of his life, it is clear that he never thought of himself, and his children were not given special care because of their special status. In his later years, Chairman Mao was alone, but with the building and future of a new China in his heart.

It can be said that the Lin Biao incident dealt a heavy blow to Chairman Mao's expectations of a successor and destroyed his health. The relentless contradictions of ideal and reality, time and space plagued this ageing giant.



Even in his twilight years, even though he was suffering from the loneliness of countless people who did not understand or approve of him, and even though he faced the constant pain of his illness, he was still able to look at his illness with the same determination as a mountain and carry out his heavy and tiring work.

Even with a serious eye disease and a serious decline in physical functions, he still kept on pursuing progress and made time to swim in the sea of learning. This book made me feel deeply the greatness and fearlessness of a soul with its head held high, an unreachable beacon in the history of the human spirit!

I am not so politically savvy, but I am convinced: the study and summing up of his later years will require many generations of calm and serious contemplation.

The greatest feeling one gets from this book is that the reason why Chairman Mao is worshipped by the people like a god is because he had the people in his heart and the suffering people all over the world; that Chairman Mao was loved by the people because he was clothed, fed and housed like the ordinary people, and that he was truly the people's son; that Chairman Mao is loved by the brotherly friendship of the Third World, including Asia, Africa and Latin America, because he understands that true friendship is seen in times of trouble; that Chairman Mao was held in awe by the heads of world powers because of his wisdom and foresight, having seen the world so clearly that, in the words of Nixon's memoirs, "I dared not speak much before him; his eyes seemed to have seen straight through me " and "I was like an erring student. He was like a stern gentleman who did not dare to say much".

This book was written by writer Gu Baozi, whose vision of the red years was always full of passion and dreams. In special times, the leader's attempt is only for a "better life" for the country; "dreams are essentially the predecessor of ideals. It does take a lot to realise that ideal."



This historically rich documentary work objectively portrays Chairman Mao's last seven years of his life, and truly recreates a series of major historical events and state affairs of the Republic from 1970 to 1976.

Based on available historical materials and first-hand materials, the work is written with the same rigour as the creation of historical subjects. "The book is a vivid restoration of the great and ordinary deeds of historical figures such as Chairman Mao and Zhou Enlai, and the death of the first generation of leaders and the crushing of the "Gang of Four".

The book contains nearly 200 rare historical photographs, all taken exclusively by Zhongnanhai photographer Mr Du Xiuxian. Many of these photographs are being published for the first time, and many are restored to colour for the first time. They tell the story of the fate of many political figures, reflecting their flesh-and-blood realities as well as recording the ups and downs of their political careers and journeys. Undoubtedly, "Mao Zedong: The Stormy Road of his Last Seven Years " is a rare documentary with rich illustrations, informative materials, authentic content, vivid and interesting, readable and collectible at the same time.

This is the first book to focus on the last seven years of the great man's life, recalling the stormy years of the Republic and recreating the life of Chairman Mao in his twilight years.

The twilight of a martyr is a magnificent time. The twilight of a great man is also the most glorious and magnificent of all.

Translated from: 伟人迟暮:无情未必真豪杰,怜民如何不丈夫-乌有之乡 (wyzxwk.com)



[1] These are lines from Lu Xun’s poem Riposte to a friend, reflecting his love for the younger generation.

[2] This is a line from the Tang Dynasty poet Du Fu's "Three Songs of Qiang Village". It captures Mao’s response to reading a lament from the past. In mid-1975, Chairman Mao suffered from cataracts and was nearly blind in both eyes. Later, after ophthalmic surgery, he could only see with one eye. One day, the attending physician Tang Youzhi went to visit Chairman Mao and found Chairman Mao holding a book in his hand, and the old man was weeping, but there were no tears because of his eye problems. Chairman Mao was reading the Southern Song Dynasty poet Chen Liang's "Nian Nu Jiao Dengduojing Lou" which expressed sadness at the failure to unify the north and south of China.

[3] This refers to the Tangshan Earthquake.

[4] The author disguises these references to escape detection by algorithmic searches. The three persons are only referred to by their surnames, and the pinyin words “ge” (revolution) and “zi” (capitalist) are used in place of characters: “对于叛国的林,到不支持文ge的刘,包括被作为走zi派罢免职务的邓”.

[5] This fatalistic expression was used by Mao when told of Lin Biao’s flight and attempted escape from China.

[6] If you are unsure of this reference, please see: THE FOOLISH OLD MAN WHO REMOVED THE MOUNTAINS (marxists.org)


Sunday, August 28, 2022

Zhang Jiao: The Theoretical Origins of "Continuing Revolution under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”


(Translator’s preface: Contemporary Chinese Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are generating a deeper understanding of ideological issues relating to the working class’s loss of power with the restoration of capitalism, and the challenges facing Communists who aim to restore power to the proletariat. This 2021 article is representative of their views.)

I. Stalin's transitional role in the development of theory and his contribution

In the whole history of the development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Stalin played a transitional role, which is a major issue and involves the continuity of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This article will only give a brief overview of Stalin's transitional role in the development of the theory of "continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" and his contribution to it. The failings of Stalin's theory also reveal the originality of Maoism.

Allow me to quote in full from Stalin's famous essay "On the Danger of the Right Deviation in the Communist Party of the United States":

Under capitalist conditions the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency, an inclination that has not yet taken shape, it is true, and is perhaps not yet consciously realised, but nevertheless a tendency of a section of the Communists to depart from the revolutionary line of Marxism in the direction of Social-Democracy. When certain groups of Communists deny the expediency of the slogan "Class against class" in election campaigns (France), or are opposed to the Communist Party nominating its own candidates (Britain), or are disinclined to make a sharp issue of the fight against "Left" Social-Democracy (Germany), etc., etc., it means that there are people in the Communist Parties who are striving to adapt communism to Social-Democratism.

A victory of the Right deviation in the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries would mean the ideological rout of the Communist Parties and an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism. And what does an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism mean? It means the strengthening and consolidation of capitalism, for Social-Democracy is the main support of capitalism in the working class.

Consequently, a victory of the Right deviation in the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries would lead to a development of the conditions necessary for the preservation of capitalism.

Under the conditions of Soviet development, when capitalism has already been overthrown, but its roots have not yet been torn out, the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency, an inclination that has not yet taken shape, it is true, and is perhaps not yet consciously realised, but nevertheless a tendency of a section of the Communists to depart from the general line of our Party in the direction of bourgeois ideology. When certain circles of our Communists strive to drag the Party back from the decisions of the Fifteenth Congress, by denying the need for an offensive against the capitalist elements in the countryside; or demand a contraction of our industry, in the belief that its present rapid rate of development is fatal for the country; or deny the expediency of subsidies to the collective farms and state farms, in the belief that such subsidies are money thrown to the winds; or deny the expediency of fighting against bureaucracy by methods of self-criticism, in the belief that self-criticism undermines our apparatus; or demand that the monopoly of foreign trade be relaxed, etc., etc., it means that there are people in the ranks of our Party who are striving, perhaps without themselves realising it, to adapt our socialist construction to the tastes and requirements of the "Soviet" bourgeoisie.

A victory of the Right deviation in our Party would mean an enormous strengthening of the capitalist elements in our country. And what does the strengthening of the capitalist elements in our country mean? It means weakening the proletarian dictatorship and increasing the chances of the restoration of capitalism.

Consequently, a victory of the Right deviation in our Party would mean a development of the conditions necessary for the restoration of capitalism in our country.

Have we in our Soviet country any of the conditions that would make the restoration of capitalism possible? Yes, we have. That, comrades, may appear strange, but it is a fact. We have overthrown capitalism, we have established the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are developing our socialist industry at a rapid pace and are linking peasant economy with it. But we have not yet torn out the roots of capitalism. Where are these roots imbedded? They are imbedded in commodity production, in small production in the towns and, especially, the countryside.

As Lenin says, the strength of capitalism lies "in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale" (see Vol. XXV, p. 173).

It is clear that, since small production bears a mass, and even a predominant character in our country, and since it engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously and on a mass scale, particularly under the conditions of NEP, we have in our country conditions which make the restoration of capitalism possible.

Have we in our Soviet country the necessary means and forces to abolish, to eliminate the possibility of the restoration of capitalism? Yes, we have. And it is this fact that proves the correctness of Lenin's thesis on the possibility of building a complete socialist society in the U.S.S.R. For this purpose it is necessary to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat strengthen the alliance between the working class and peasantry, develop our key positions from the standpoint of industrialising the country, develop industry at a rapid rate, electrify the country, place the whole of our national economy on a new technical basis, organise the peasantry into co-operatives on a mass scale and increase the yield of its farms, gradually unite the individual peasant farms into socially conducted, collective farms, develop state farms, restrict and overcome the capitalist elements in town and country, etc., etc. Here is what Lenin says on this subject:

"As long as we live in a small-peasant country, there is a surer economic basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism. This must be borne in mind. Anyone who has carefully observed life in the countryside, as compared with life in the towns, knows that we have not torn out the roots of capitalism and have not undermined the foundation, the basis of the internal enemy. The latter depends on small-scale production, and there is only one way of undermining it, namely, to place the economy of the country, including agriculture, on a new technical basis, the technical basis of modern large-scale production. And it is only electricity that is such a basis. Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country. Otherwise, the country will remain a small-peasant country, and we have got to understand that clearly. We are weaker than capitalism, not only on a world scale, but also within the country. Everybody knows this. We are conscious of it, and we shall see to it that our economic base is transformed from a small-peasant base into a large-scale industrial base. Only when the country has been electrified, only when our industry, our agriculture, our transport system have been placed upon the technical basis of modern large-scale industry shall we achieve final victory" (Vol. XXVI, pp. 46-47).

It follows, firstly, that as long as we live in a small-peasant country, as long as we have not torn out the roots of capitalism, there is a surer economic basis for capitalism than for communism. It may happen that you cut down a tree but fail to tear out the roots; your strength does not suffice for this. Hence the possibility of the restoration of capitalism in our country.

Secondly, it follows that besides the possibility of the restoration of capitalism there is also the possibility of the victory of socialism in our country, because we can destroy the possibility of the restoration of capitalism, we can tear out the roots of capitalism and achieve final victory over capitalism in our country, if we intensify the work of electrifying the country, if we place our industry, agriculture and transport on the technical basis of modern, large-scale industry. Hence the possibility of the victory of socialism in our country.

Lastly, it follows that we cannot build socialism in industry alone and leave agriculture to the mercy of spontaneous development on the assumption that the countryside will "move by itself" following the lead of the towns. The existence of socialist industry in the towns is the principal factor in the socialist transformation of the countryside. But it does not mean that that factor is quite sufficient. If the socialist towns are to take the lead of the peasant countryside all the way, it is essential, as Lenin says, "to place the economy of the country, including agriculture, on a new technical basis, the technical basis of modern large-scale production."

The right deviation within the party discussed by Stalin is actually the issue of revisionism within the Communist Party. This problem has been around for a long time, starting with the Second International, even though Lenin had renamed the Social Democratic Labour Party the "Communist Party", or if the right-leaning opportunist faction within the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist adopted the guise of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the problem has always existed. It was the first problem in the development of the communist movement.

Related to this, we would also like to cite two recent achievements of contemporary Marxist-Leninist-Maoists: Chen Bin's "Two Dark Clouds" in the History of the Theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and the first section of "Mao Zedong and Stalin's Views on Class Struggle in Socialist Society" in Zhang Zheng's Some Thoughts on the Theory of Continued Revolution of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

When Stalin made his report on the new constitution of the USSR at the Supreme Soviet in 1936, after the basic establishment of socialism in the USSR, he openly declared to the world that class contradictions and class struggles no longer existed in the USSR. His main point was as follows: since a socialist social system had been established in the USSR and private ownership of the means of production had been eliminated, only workers, peasants and working intellectuals remained in the USSR, and there were no class contradictions between them. In other words, he believed that class contradictions and class struggles could not arise within a socialist society. The main task of a socialist society was therefore to develop production. This was a view he held throughout his life. But he never denied the existence of class struggles in socialist society, except that he believed that these class struggles were due to the remnants of the old exploiting class or the spies sent by imperialism to cause mischief. That is why he relied mainly on the secret dictatorship to carry out the class struggle and the "great purge".

His claim that "with the triumph of socialism the class struggle will become more and more acute" (in fact his original statement was "the remnants of the class struggle will then take on increasingly acute forms", the preceding sentence being a distortion by Khrushchev. Nor did he ever say that "in a socialist society the class struggle will become more and more violent and widen.") It is in this sense that the more desperate the remnants of the old exploiting classes and imperialism become as a result of the triumph of socialism, the more desperate their destructive actions become.

In fact, Stalin's ideas were the germ of the later "party of the whole people" and "state of the whole people". Moreover, from Hoxha to Kim Jong-il and up to the present Communist Party of China, Stalin's views were actually acknowledged (the Party constitution still says that "class struggle exists within certain limits"!)

And Chairman Mao's view was completely different from Stalin's. Chairman Mao believed that there were class contradictions and class struggles within socialist society. The bourgeoisie was within the Party. It was entirely possible for a new bourgeoisie to arise in a socialist society. The proletariat must take the class struggle as its platform, defeat the capitalists, restrict, reform and eliminate bourgeois right, and continue the revolution in the field of the superstructure and economic base; only in this way can the transition from socialism to communism be completed.

It must be pointed out that the two phenomena of "the party changing its practice" and "the state changing its colour" are different aspects of the same contradiction, and when one side of the contradiction is dominant, it determines the other side of the contradiction. There is no mechanical causality between the two, nor can they be simply classified as mechanical determinism. The broad-left in China often thinks confusedly and goes astray on this issue - in constant despair and in constant emptiness.

Stalin had already recognised the inevitable link between the rightward shift in the party and the restoration of capitalism as his contribution. This has been demonstrated many times in our quotations. But the explanation he gives is one-sided: small production is constantly, daily, spontaneously and in large numbers producing capitalism and the bourgeoisie.

Because his explanation is one-sided, all the prescriptions given are for small production. That is, to use socialist large-scale production to defeat "small production". History has proved that Stalin fell into productivity theory, into mechanical determinism and causality.

At the same time, Stalin's idea of citing "small production" to demonstrate restoration, was also inherited by the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and carried forward.

For a more comprehensive explanation by the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, see Comrade Chunqiao's "On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie"[1] for details. On the one hand, Comrade Chunqiao also quoted Lenin's exposition on "small production", but what is more original is that he profoundly expounded some of Chairman Mao's thesis:

Comrades may recall how we turned any enterprise owned by bureaucrat capital or national capital into a socialist enterprise. Didn't we do the job by sending a military-control representative or a state representative there to transform it according to the Party's line and policies? Historically, every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement of slavery by the feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was invariably preceded by the seizure of political power, which was then used to effect large-scale change in the system of ownership and consolidate and develop the new system. Even more is this the case with socialist public ownership which cannot be born under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bureaucrat capital, which controlled 80 per cent of the industry in old China, could be transformed and placed under ownership by the whole people only after the People's Liberation Army had defeated Chiang Kai-shek. Similarly, a capitalist restoration is inevitably preceded by the seizure of leadership and a change in the line and policies of the Party. Wasn't this the way Khrushchov and Brezhnev changed the system of ownership in the Soviet Union? Wasn't this the way Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao changed the nature of a number of our factories and other enterprises to varying degrees?[2]

This is a major innovation of Maoism, which allows us to analyse "mass production" from the perspective of class. Is it socialist mass production? Or is it capitalist mass production (i.e. bureaucratic monopoly)? This is a big question of right and wrong. This is where Stalin's theory falls short.

Comrade Chunqiao's incisive analysis was equally endorsed by Chairman Mao:

After the democratic revolution, the workers and poor peasants did not stop, they wanted a revolution. A section of the Party members, on the other hand, did not want to move forward; some of them retreated and opposed the revolution. Why? Having become big officials, they wanted to protect the interests of the big officials. They have good houses, cars, high salaries and waiters, and they are even better than the capitalists. With the socialist revolution they themselves [i.e. the capitalist roaders—Ed.] come under fire. At the time of the cooperative transformation of agriculture there were people in the Party opposed, and when it came to criticizing bourgeois right, they were resentful. You are making the socialist revolution, and yet you don’t know where the bourgeoisie is. It is right inside the Communist Party -those in power taking the capitalist road. The capitalist roaders are still on the capitalist road.[3]

From the restoration process of Chinese revisionism, we can see that "small production" only gave birth to the general bourgeoisie, while the "authorities" formed the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie. ZTE is making waves[4]. And the culprits are definitely those in power who take the capitalist road.

Therefore, Stalin's use of "small production" to explain restoration and prevent restoration is completely putting the cart before the horse. The capitalist roaders can absolutely take "ruthless strikes" against "small production" and destroy "small production" without mercy. But when it comes to "breaking down bourgeois right", they are going to peel off their skins and reveal their hideousness.

II. The originality of Maoist theory

To sum up, we can get a clear insight: "It is a major innovation of Maoism to deal with the emergence of revisionism from the perspective of leadership".

In "A Brief Discussion of Political Parties" we said: "Political parties are as much a product of private ownership as the state, and tautologically, they are a product of class struggle. A study of political parties without an analysis of the class struggle is bound to lead to absurd political conclusions. Political parties, in class society, always manifest themselves as political organisations formed by a certain class or stratum in the class struggle to gain, dominate and retain power (By the Power, Of the Power, For the Power)." In "On Class Struggle, Productive Forces and Relations of Production, Technology" it is mentioned that " Class struggle directly determines history. But the class struggle itself is a product of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production."

These few points above will serve as a laying out of our account of originality.

We believe that it was Chairman Mao who, in a strict and scientific application of the materialist conception of history, drew the only correct conclusion from the experience of his predecessors, both positive and negative: that the restoration of capitalism was the result of the loss of leadership of the proletariat, which was in the hands of those in power on the capitalist road, and that these powers had to be taken back. The change of power, on the other hand, is due to the existence of bourgeois right; nevertheless, we have to keep a country without a bourgeoisie but with a great deal of bourgeois right (an insurmountable historical stage), for which the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessarily consolidated by the repeated struggle for leadership.

Is the word leadership abrupt? Is it not rooted in the general treasury of Marxism? It is not. The essence of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is about leadership. Leadership is the "acquisition, domination and retention of power", and the class struggle is the struggle of different classes for leadership, so the whole process of history is the repeated change of leadership. If we forget who has the leadership, we are forgetting the fundamentals of political struggle.

Therefore, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a one-off, and the vanguard of the proletariat will continue to lead the people in the "struggle for leadership". In the early years of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a great deal of bourgeois right was retained, so the core of the "struggle for leadership" was to limit or eliminate "bourgeois right". Restoration is not inevitable, but anti-restoration is inevitable, this is the dialectic of history.

Bourgeois right is inevitable at a certain stage in history, but it is also a product of history and will go the other way. In this sense, it is inevitable that mankind will continue its revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat until its ultimate victory. Chairman Mao has scientifically pointed out the actual path of mankind towards communism: the future is bright, the road is tortuous.

Some broad-leftists ignorantly claim that "continuing the revolution" is only something that happens after the proletariat has seized power. This is in fact very wrong. The theory of "continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" is the latest and most comprehensive exposition of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, covering the entire essence of the theory from Marx to Lenin and Stalin. The theory of "continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" can perfectly guide the proletariat to seize power and consolidate it until its final victory.

Why is this so? Because the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat from Marx to Lenin and Stalin was not complete and could not perfectly explain the phenomenon of the restoration, so in contemporary China it would be impossible to effectively mobilise the people to take up arms in their hands. When the people do not understand much about the restoration, revolutionary mobilisation is not going to convince them, and certainly other opportunist whims are even more difficult to convince. The fundamental reason for the revolutionary downturn in China today is that the people do not have a scientific understanding of the capitalist restoration. The people do not have the ideological weapons to fight against the arbitrary expropriation and mental oppression of the reactionaries for more than 40 years. Therefore, we must instil in them the theory of "continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" so that they can grasp this theory. Once this spiritual atomic bomb is in their hands, the reactionary faction will be destroyed. This process of enlightenment is also the initiation and launching of the revolution.

On the other hand, the deepest oppression felt by the people in China today is not "hunger", but a state of "powerlessness": because they have no power, they have no rights. For example, they call themselves "fart people"[5], they speak like a fart[6] and live like a fart. Compared to the terms "grass people"[7] and "grassroots", "fart people" is the biggest mockery of the River Crab empire[8]. The bourgeoisie in general, the "broad-right", explains this slightly more accurately than the "broad-left".

If we started our own companies, we'd know the importance of property rights protection. If we were journalists ourselves, we'd know how important freedom of expression is. If we were booksellers, we would know how important freedom of publication is. If we were lawyers, we would know the importance of judicial independence. If we invent, we know the importance of the privatisation of intellectual property. If we work in NGOs, we know the importance of democratic popular self-government. If we live among peasants, we know how much they want ownership of rural land and other natural resources for themselves. If we work in state-owned enterprises, we know how corrupt and inefficient they are. If we work in the import-export trade, we know how precious the right to free trade is. --Yang Peng: "The leftists themselves have to fight for their rights - a response to our friends in Utopia”.[9]

(Note: the general bourgeoisie of the "broad-right" are making superficial statements to conceal their real intention to share "power" with the monopoly bourgeoisie).

The broad-right's judgement of social contradictions is that:

After more than 30 years of market reforms and sustained economic growth, lack of food and clothing is no longer the main source of social conflict. Although the phenomenon of scarcity of private goods still exists in some regions or groups of people, we can say that the time when extreme scarcity of private goods became a major social conflict is over. The end of one major contradiction, however, has given rise to a new major contradiction. 10 years ago, the major contradiction was diluted by "picking up the bowl and eating the meat", while today's major contradiction has been highlighted by "putting down the chopsticks and scolding the mother".[10] Why do people curse when they have had enough? Maybe they hate corrupt officials, maybe they hate judicial corruption, maybe they hate land expropriation, maybe they hate not being able to find a job, maybe they hate having nowhere to complain about their grievances, maybe they hate high fees for education and health care, maybe they hate social insecurity. ...... All these complaints are about the shortage of public goods. What is a public good? Public goods are goods or services that cost taxpayers' tax money and are provided by public authorities to serve the public interest of society. Tangible goods such as national parks, state-owned roads and nature reserves are public goods; so are intangible services such as impartial law, policy and order. Efficient and fair supply of public goods is the basic condition for ensuring harmonious social development. --Yang Peng: "What is the current major contradiction in Chinese society?”

The broad-left's descriptions of the social problems are totally incoherent, always trying to make a nationalist point: China was colonised by the US, China was led down an evil path by the capitalist reformists, there was a traitorous group of compradors in China, etc. We will not go into this again.

Marxist-Leninist-Maoists believe that all the problems in China now are due to the restoration of capitalism. The most striking feature is that the people have been deprived of their "right to lead", because they have no power and therefore no rights. The only way to solve this problem is to take back the leadership. That is to say, to compete with the bourgeoisie for leadership, that is to say, to re-establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say, to achieve a total dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Two simple words: " take back the power".

There are many different kinds of "rights": the right to speak, the right to own, the right to live, and so on, but in the end, it is "power". How did the people lose these rights? How can the people regain these rights? Only the theory of "continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" can explain and answer this.

This is the most significant difference between the contemporary Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and the international and domestic broad-leftists, and is also a vivid manifestation of the originality of the theory of "continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat".



[2] Mao made these comments in early 1976.

[3] Mao also made these remarks in early 1976.

[4] ZTE Corporation is a Chinese partially state-owned but privately-run technology company that specializes in telecommunication. Founded in 1985, ZTE is listed on both the Hong Kong and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges. It operates globally.

[5] “Fart people”, is a new word on the Internet, the same as the English “shitizen”. It refers to ordinary people who have no influence and no importance. "Fart people" gradually replaced "grass people" and became synonymous with ordinary people.

[6] To “fangpi” is both to fart and to speak nonsense.

[7] A self-deprecatory term originating in Confucian times. It meant that the "little people" are like grass, and when the "wind" of the "virtue of a gentleman" blows, they will surely fall down and cannot stand up straight.

[8] The word 河蟹 (héxiè) means “river crab”, and is a homonym for 和谐 (héxié) meaning “harmony”. The capitalist-roaders have imposed a policy of the “harmonious society” on the Chinese people so as to repress any political sensitivities that challenge their rule. In some discussion forums in China, the word harmony itself has become a banned keyword. To circumvent this blockade, netizens replaced it with "river crab" or other homonyms.

[9] The Utopia website was originally established as a website supporting Mao’s policies, but after being closed down several times, it now has a broad-left orientation and survives by falling into line with Xi Jinping’s views.

[10] "Lifting the bowl to eat meat, putting down chopsticks and scolding the mother" is a special phenomenon that appeared after the reform and opening up. It is a phrase used by the right-wing to criticise people who live well but are socially dissatisfied.  They are accused of being ungrateful and of not having a conscience.