(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment