|
Post by 1949 on Jul 7, 2004 22:50:28 GMT -5
I am an MLMist and a supporter of the RCP. I support Mao's line on Soviet revisionism completely, but, I was reading this the other day and I thought, why didn't China speak out against Khruschov immediately? Was there some reason to justify this or was it just a mistake? Tell me what you think. -1949www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samclass/class/pcnvrt02.htmSome Errors of the Chinese Communist PartyBy Sam Marcy June 2, 1976This Friday, June 4, is the twentieth anniversary of Khrushchev's report denouncing Stalin. Actually the report was delivered in late February 1956 to the 20th Congress of the Soviet CP, but it was then secret. In a move calculated to deal a blow to the USSR and to damage the international communist movement as much as possible, the CIA, which had obtained the report, released it to the world on June 4. That's how the world movement learned about it. It is hard to recall a comparable event which has caused as much confusion, as much demoralization, and as many desertions as did the Khrushchev report. More than anything else the most energetic, most devoted and most loyal Communist Party members, especially in the West, not only wanted to disbelieve the contents of the report but even that the report was ever delivered or that it had been unanimously adopted by the Central Committee of the CPSU. Khrushchev's report placed Stalin in the dock of history as a mass murderer, as one who had exterminated hundreds of thousands of loyal communists, leading cadres of the party and of the military, and had resorted, through his agents, to physical torture, mass deportations, and the destruction of inner-party democracy, among many other crimes. What was China's reaction?It is a popular misconception that the Chinese leadership immediately opened an offensive against Khrushchev's revisionism or denounced his report to the 20th Congress. It is true that at the time of the CIA release of the report, the bewilderment in the movement caused many to turn to those in the international communist movement who had attained a preeminent position and prestige as a result of their revolutionary struggle. Invariably those who felt that Khrushchev's report was not merely an effort to put Stalin's role in its proper place in history, but was in reality a far-flung and sweeping effort to shift to the right, turned towards the Chinese leadership, which more than any other would seem to have the capability to challenge Khrushchev. Of course much, in fact most, of what Khrushchev had reported on had long been known in the West and certainly in the Soviet Union. But the 20th Congress offered an opportunity to reevaluate the entire previous historic epoch in the international communist movement, and in the USSR in particular, which had been under the political domination and leadership of Stalin ever since Lenin's death. The Chinese CP leaders had three choices. They could avoid the issue entirely and say nothing about it, which in itself, of course, would be saying a lot. They could approve the 20th Congress report on Stalin. Or, they could open a truly classic, revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist polemic against Khrushchev revisionism and at the same time utilize the opportunity to reevaluate the entire Stalin era from the vantage point of Leninist principles. This would not have been an intrusion into the internal affairs of the USSR. The question of Stalin obviously was, and still is, an international question affecting all working class and Marxist-Leninist parties. The Chinese CP leadership, without opening a sudden assault, could have called for the establishment of a commission of fraternal parties to investigate, not only the validity of the report, its contents, and its factual material, but also its significance for the international movement. (Did not the Comintern set up a commission to investigate the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in the late 1920s?) What did the Chinese CP leadership in fact do at that great historical moment in 1956? It approved the 20th Congress report. This is a matter of record and cannot be denied. During the month of June, after the CIA release of the report, practically all the leading CPs in the world were in turmoil, forced in one way or another into taking a position. The French, the Italians, the U.S., others -- did so, and so did China. CCP endorsed the reportThe organ of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Jen Min Jih Pao, in an editorial "On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" said: "The CPSU, following Lenin's behest, treats seriously some of the grave errors made by Stalin in directing socialist construction and the consequences they have provoked. Because of the gravity of these consequences the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, while admitting the great services of J.V. Stalin, is faced with the necessity to reveal with all sharpness the essence of the mistakes Stalin made.... We communists of China profoundly believe that after the sharp criticism which developed at the XXth Communist Party of the Soviet Union Congress all those active factors which were strongly restrained in the past because of certain political mistakes undoubtedly will be set in motion everywhere, that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people will be united and made one as never before in the struggle for the building of a great Communist society never yet seen in history, in the struggle for a stable peace in the entire world." (Our emphasis.) As anyone can see, the CCP not only approved the report but also made a prognosis that the CPSU "will be reunited and made one as never before in the building of a great Communist society," a prognosis which proved utterly false. Rather than challenging Khrushchev, the approval of the Chinese leadership strengthened his hand and strengthened revisionism at the moment when revisionism needed it most. Printed Togliatti's assessment The impact of Khrushchev's report was to push all of the world CPs far to the right, particularly those in Western Europe and the U.S., and most of all the key Italian CP, then under the leadership of Togliatti. It is to be noted that on July 6, when the Peking newspapers carried the CPSU resolution of June 30 on the 20th Congress, which amplified the Khrushchev report, they also carried a lengthy assessment of the 20th Congress and the Stalin question by Togliatti. The Togliatti article (contained in a collection) is important because of the inferences which he drew from the 20th Congress. Togliatti's party, although long on the road of reformism, was now taking a head-long leap in that direction. Moreover, Togliatti drew the conclusion that it was not merely the mistakes of Stalin and his repressions that were involved, but the whole Soviet system. Implied in Togliatti's conclusions was that the class nature of the Soviet state itself was in doubt. The evolution of the USSR under Stalin certainly could give one grounds for questioning the class character of the USSR, but such a step would have to be bolstered by Marxist analysis and factual data. What Togliatti did, however, was to draw the inference, which Khrushchev's report clearly lent itself to, that the Soviet state was undergoing a bourgeois degeneration. Hence -- what ultimate conclusion by Togliatti? Since the Soviet Union was undergoing a bourgeois degeneration, and might in fact be a bourgeois state, an imperialist bourgeois democracy was preferable! The so-called "Italian road" to socialism began to take on a new momentum. Abandonment of class struggle and the renunciation along with it of the perspective of proletarian revolution was on the order of the day. When the Chinese leadership finally decided to open the offensive against Khrushchev revisionism the historical moment for a giant shift in a revolutionary direction, and away from Khrushchev revisionism, had in fact evaporated. Thus, the brilliant revolutionary polemics of the Chinese CP leadership, such as "The Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us," etc., only influenced a small current in the communist movement. Not only, however, did the Chinese leadership fail to grasp the historical moment during the period when Khrushchev's report was receiving worldwide attention and agitating the international communist movement. Two very important events occurred which the CCP leadership also failed to take advantage of or to raise to the level of a public polemic. continued in next post (more than 10,000 characters)
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Jul 7, 2004 22:50:44 GMT -5
The 'Anti-Party group'
The first was the expulsion of Molotov, Kaganovich, and Malenkov from the Central Committee of the Soviet CP, when they were indicted politically on such charges as "conspiring against the peaceful coexistence" theories of Khrushchev and on a whole series of other charges which, whatever their validity, certainly merited a public hearing, especially in the light of Khrushchev's ostentatious and hypocritical demagogy concerning collective leadership and a renewal of inner-party democracy.
Also, two of the three leaders of the so-called "Anti-Party group" were the last of the Old Guard in the Bolshevik party. Aside from the fact that they may have degenerated along with the other leaders, arraigning them under an indictment in which they were supposed to have conspired against the theory of peaceful coexistence in and of itself made it an international question. The CCP leadership, however, evaded the issue. Instead the Chinese press merely reprinted Pravda's indictment, which was taken to mean complete approval.
Finally, Khrushchev had embarked in 1957 on a dangerous economic course with a vast and complicated scheme of economic decentralization, which had dangerous implications for the fate of the planned, socialized economy of the USSR, one of the fundamental pillars of a workers' state. Dangerous though Khrushchev's initial adventurous thrust into the reorganization of the Soviet economy was, it by no means became fatal, as the Maoist economists, using latter-day wisdom, are now saying. For a whole lot of political as well as economic reasons, Khrushchev had to back off to a considerable degree in practice. The significance attached to Khrushchev's decentralization plan by those who are now promoting the theory that a capitalist restoration has taken place in the Soviet Union is not at all warranted, as bourgeois economists soon realized to their chagrin.
Gave no hint of bourgeois restoration
The important point, however, about the decentralization plan is that the Chinese CP leadership did not attack it. In fact, if a transition from a planned and centralized economy to bourgeois restoration had taken place in the USSR the focal point or so-called qualitative change should have been somewhere between 1956 and 1958. One of the exponents of the theory of capitalist restoration, Martin Nicolaus, places the time of the transition in that period. But the Chinese leadership certainly gave no hint of it then at all, nor did this presumed counter-revolution attract the attention of revolutionary Marxist-Leninists within the communist movement sufficiently to raise it as a political or theoretical problem. As a matter of fact, Mao Tse-tung, in a speech at the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee, on Dec. 19, 1958, said, "The seven-year plan proposed by Khrushchev is a preparation to enter communism."
By in fact first supporting the Khrushchev report, then whitewashing the expulsion of the so-called Anti-Party group headed by Malenkov, Kaganovich, and Molotov, and closing their eyes to the decentralization danger inherent in Khrushchev's adventure in the field of economics, the Chinese leadership pursued a revisionist position and strengthened revisionism on an international scale.
It resumed a revolutionary polemical struggle against the USSR leadership later on, but this was halted with the deterioration of the polemic into a state-to-state struggle which increasingly assumed the character of nationalist rivalry. How else can one explain the USSR's unqualified support for the capitalist regime in India (among others) and China's equally unqualified support for Pakistan? The support of the Gandhi regime or of Bhutto's regime by either of the two great socialist countries would be justified only if the support were directed to aid these regimes in the struggle against imperialism while helping the workers in these countries against the landlords and capitalists. Such aid would be calculated not to impede the struggle for proletarian revolution there.
Angola in light of earlier errors
The Chinese leaders' position on Angola and on the class definition of the USSR must be seen in the light of China's previous positions during the early days of Khrushchev's rise to power, which were not at all what they are now made out to be. If it can be seen that the Chinese leadership erred then, it is all the easier to understand its errors in a period when it is involved in a state-to-state struggle with the USSR, a struggle which has completely deteriorated into utterly false polemics of which Angola is only one manifestation.
Class defense and political criticism
This does not, however, mean that either the Soviet Union or China has ceased to be a workers' state. On the contrary. In a certain sense both of these two great socialist countries have made enormous progress in socialist construction and in the betterment of the lot of the workers and the mass of the people in general. It is important to recognize that while it is most necessary to carry on a clear and unambiguous struggle against the revisionism of the Soviet bureaucracy as well as the revisionism of the Chinese leadership, it is equally important to affirm the progressive class character of both China and the USSR as workers' states.
Both the struggle against revisionism and the struggle for the defense of China and the USSR are two class truths that are not in contradiction to each other but flow organically from the dual and contradictory social character of both China and the USSR -- both born in extremely hostile world environments, but both nevertheless progressive social systems infinitely superior to any capitalist country, no matter how "democratic" it may be.
The task of defending all the socialist countries as well as all oppressed people in the struggle against imperialism and particularly imperialist aggression is a paramount duty which no proletarian revolutionary organization can dare to forsake.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 8, 2004 23:23:02 GMT -5
Sam Marcy in 1976 wrote: This does not, however, mean that either the Soviet Union or China has ceased to be a workers' state. On the contrary. In a certain sense both of these two great socialist countries have made enormous progress in socialist construction and in the betterment of the lot of the workers and the mass of the people in general. It is important to recognize that while it is most necessary to carry on a clear and unambiguous struggle against the revisionism of the Soviet bureaucracy as well as the revisionism of the Chinese leadership, it is equally important to affirm the progressive class character of both China and the USSR as workers' states.
So, in 1976, the USSR (with its neo-colonial relationships with Cuba and eastern Europe) "still" retained its "progressive class character".
And in 1976, Mao was dying and Deng (presumably with support from a certain general in Canton) was preparing to seize power, China "still" retained its "progressive class character".
I have an alternative hypothesis: the Trotskyist proposition that a state can behave in a consistently reactionary fashion and yet still be "entitled" to the designation of "workers' state" is...utterly preposterous.
As Marx pointed out long ago, we communists are not particularly interested in what people or institutions "call themselves"...the real test is what they actually do in material reality. That's what really reveals their class character...not their claims.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Jul 9, 2004 16:31:36 GMT -5
I agree that the Khrushchovite-Brezhnevite USSR and Dengist China were very reactionary. As I said, I support Mao's line on Soviet revisionism completely, and I support the Maoist line on Chinese revisionism completely. I was just wondering why Mao initially approved Khrushchov's secret speech. Could it be that China was still dependent on Soviet aid?
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Jul 12, 2004 13:09:52 GMT -5
Sorry it took me a while to get around to this.
Here are some points on this:
1) When unprecendented new things happen in the world, it objectively takes a process to understand what they are. Years later, when you have developed a penetrating scientific summation of those events, it may (in hindsight) look obvious. But, in fact, it was very very far from obvious at the time.
2) It is important to understand how unprecendented the events were in the USSR (1956), and what a huge challenged they represented for the ICM of that time. And how daring, visionary, and truly scientific it was for Mao to develop a correct analysis (i.e. first to reject the revisionist theses of the CPSU, but then to sum up that the "rise to power of revisionism is the rise to power of the bourgeoisie", and then to draw all the many sweeping conclusions from that, both for the path of the world movement, for the chinese revolution and for the development of Marxist theory.)
3) In 1956, the Soviet Union was at the center of the "socialist camp" -- which at that point embraced a third of humanity! Central to that camp was the close alliance between the Soviet Union and the new, socialist China led by Mao. (The two largest countries in the world!) And there was a view (held by almost all supporters of ML) that socialism was firmly in place, could not be reversed after the means of production were (in the main transformed). And there was a long history (in most ocuntries) of simply adopting whatever the Soviet party said (the father-son party thing).
4) In 1956, Krushchev jumped out with a huge attack on Stalin and on the "cult of personality." This was shocking, and highly controversial. And there was a huge struggle over "what does this mean?" and "what stand should the rest of the communist movement take?"
between 1956 and 1963, much more unfolded. The krushchevites released counterrevolutinoaries and opened up the superstructure to their anticommunist rants. They announced the theory of peaceful transition to socialism. They announced that they no longer had a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but a "state of the whole people, and a party of the whole people."
They announced that revolution endangered humanity by threatening to trigger global nuclear war -- and that the people of the world should subordinate their revolutoinary struggle to the maneuvering of the Soviet Union on the world stage.
And they (internally) worked to put the society on a profit basis -- systematically restoring capitalism in the economic base. This was completed with the 1963 Kosigin reforms, which changed the basic way that investments were allocated within the Soviet economy (putting it on a by-profit basis.)
And they knocked down those political ofrces that opposed these things (specifically the Molotov group.)
So over a period of time, from the Krushchev seizure to the 1963 Kosigin "reforms" -- a process unfolded.
Power had been seized in 1956, but it was not immediately obvious what that power would be used for.
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Jul 12, 2004 13:18:52 GMT -5
more 5) So, in 1956, Krushchev's shocking denunciation of the Soviet Union's socialist past (and the leadership of Comrade Stalin) initiated a period where people grappled with "what does this mean?" and "where should we stand?" And it is a case where the issue of a person (a personality) concentrated major issues of line. As the Chinese party said: "Those who lay aside the sword of stalin will also lay down the sword of Lenin." (I.e. the attack on Stalin was the opening for an all-round attack on the very essense of Marxism, socialism, and communism.) How did the Chinese party investigate these things? well, they watched. They studied the emerging policies of the Soviet revisionists-in-power. They went to a number of international conferences (including the major "Moscow Conference" where there was intense struggle over line and direction.) When krushchev was overthrown, and Kosigin/Breshnev came to power -- the Chinese party met with these new leaders... to see if they too were revisionists, and whether their emergence meant a return to socialist policies. Pretty clearly, (to Mao at least) while they had differences with Krushchev, this new crew represented a social imperialist class. And they clarified their own politics -- struggling within their own party (and its leading body) over what were the essential and cardinal questions of marxism, what divided marxism from revisionism (i.e. bourgeois politics disguised as communist politics). And then they innitiated a series of polemics with the Soviet Party that started (appropriately enough) in private. ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Other/Index.html#CPCAnd then, through this process, as it became clearer what was going on, and as the Chinese party became united around a correct summation, and as the objective development of things forced the disagreements into the open -- the Chinese party initiated OPEN polemics in 1963. And shortly after the Kosigin/Breshnev rise to power -- the Chinese Party openly said that capitalism had been restored in the USSR in 1956. the following document (published in 1964) is a historic, revolutoinary contribution to the international revolution: ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Other/KPC64.htmlIt is said to have been written by Mao personally (or under his close personal guidance) and is the first, clear, public statement of the full Maoist verdict on the restoration of capitalism in the world's first socialist state. Atthe same time, the CPC started to call on genuine communists to leave revisionist parties -- to break with soviet revisionism and soviet social imperialism. It was the start of a major global break with the rot of many years of revisionism, the start of the fight for a new international unity among communists (on a correct and revolutionary basis) , and for the establishment of MLM as the leading ideology of the revolutoinary communist world movement. It is all pathbreaking achievement -- the result of years of scientific investigation, pathbreaking theoretical struggle and sharp ideological struggle (within the Chinese party). (And the developments -- both theoretically and practically -- made in these document and through this process are points that Sam Marcy and the WWP never correctly grasped -- even today thirty years later!) 6) The big leap however was understanding that the rise of revisionism (i.e. the departures of the CPSU from Marxism in basic ways) meant that there had been a class change in the soviet union. This was a breathtakingly new and even shocking thesis. And controversial. Revisiionism had never come to power before in a socialist country. Everyone had looked to the Soviet Union as the bedrock of the world socialist revolution (and international communist movement) for forty years. The Soviet party had said that Socialism was consolidated, and even that the opening stages of communism were developing. The idea that capitalism could be restored was (for many) unthinkable. So uncovering this (scientifically), and winning over his party to this understanding, and then daring to step out internationally with this verdict -- was a huge contribution by Mao. A contribution he made over those years from 1956-1963. ( a minor comment on a minor figure: Marcy's "complaint" about mao is wrong on many levels. He implies that it could and should have been known, pretty instantly, what was up in 1956. But let me just point out that Marcy NEVER got it! When he died in the 1990s, he STILL did not understand that "the rise to power of revisiionism is the rise to power of the bourgoesie." He still thought that you could have a revisionist party and a socialist country! And not only that, but he never understood how the Stalin question got tied up the basic issues of Marxism -- Marcy and his movement were trotskyites, and always opposed stalin (and certainly did so in 1956!) So the whole argument raised by Marcy (that Mao was slow to grasp and publicly discuss this complex and unprecedented development) is wrong on every level -- and is doubly wrong because Marcy himself never grasped or supported the important analysis that Mao actually WAS making at that time!)
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Jul 12, 2004 13:46:55 GMT -5
more
7) Part of the process from 1956 to 1963 was winning over the Chinese Communist Party to a correct understanding. This was difficult for many reasons:
First: there were powerful forces within the Chinese party who wanted to follow the Soviet revisionist road, and who wanted to endorse/embrace the Krushchevite summations and path.
Second: because the Chinese Communist Party had its own criticisms of Stalin -- and had not been so thrilled with the "father-son" relations that the CPSU had tried to impose on them for many decades. Mao had some sharp criticisms of Stalin, and was not opposed to the Soviet Party making some -- the question was: what was the content and meaning and implications of the criticism being made. Mao was fighting for a more developed and correct revolutoinary road. while Krushchev was negating Stalin in order to negate socialism and revolution.
Third: there were intense even dire consequences to a struggle between the CPC and the CPSU. It was obviously not something that could or should be undtertaken lightly. It would (and did) split the international communist movement, and the socialist camp (a shocking development at the time).
And it meant the disruption of the deep and important economic ties between china and the ussr. Huge dislocations and suffereing happened in china when the Soviet Union rudely withdrew its "advisers" and technicians (and even stole blueprints and sabotaged industrial sites.) Many of the pressures for the Great Leap Forward developed from the need to create a new ethos and practice of self-reliance.
So here too, these are grave matters.
It's not like you hear "krushchev denounced stalin" and the next day, you break an alliance between socialist china and a-presumably-socialist USSR. these are major events, to be treated with great care. To be investigated, struggle through.
And what is amazing is that Mao "did the right thing" -- he did not compromise the socialist road, despite the intense pressure from the USSR.
He did not pull back from intense struggle within his own party (concentrated in the Lushan Conference -- and the removal of Peng Te-Hua, one of the great military figures of the PLA)
8) On the basic summation:
The understanding that "the rise to power of revisionism is the rise to power of the bourgeoisie" is one of the central, pathbreaking insights that defines Maoism as a third, higher and new stage of marxism.
It is a profound summation -- which involves many deep and unprecendented new theoretical developments into the nature of socialism, the nature of the class struggle during the transition period, the question of where capitalist restoration comes from, the understanding of struggle within communist parties etc.
it is an insight that provided the basis for Mao's greatest contributions: the "theory of continuing the revolution udner the dictatorship of the proletariat."
And it enabled Mao (and Maoists) to understand that the Soviet Union was now a social-imperialist power (literally a capitalist ocuntry contending as an imperialist power on a world scale). This was a crucial insight for understanding the world, the motives and interests of key forces and the road to revolution.
And those who didn't understanding it (including important players like the Vietnbamese Party and its leadership, and bit playes like Sam Marcy and the WWP) made crucial errors in issues of theory and politics, often with devastating consequences for themasses of people.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Jul 12, 2004 19:28:02 GMT -5
Yes, thank you. I've been struggling with the WWP sympathisers at the Ernesto Guevara forums, and they accuse the RCP of being Trotskyist for being so anti-Khrushchov and anti-Deng, but I remind them of the similarity between Marcy's view on the Khrushchovite USSR and Trotsky's views on Stalin's USSR. Last time I said that, Sensitive said: "Then you obviously have never read much Marcy (although, I already knew this anyway). He did not support Trotsky's idea of "degenerated workers states", and he was actually quite critical of Khrushchev and Deng (considering that he supported the Gang of Four). He just did not live in a fantasy world where the Soviet Union magically became "capitalist" after one individual became general secretary of the CPSU, which, I might add, is the same fantasy world that is shared by none other than most modern day trotskyites ("state capitalism!!!")." I didn't feel like explaining anything, so I just told him to read Martin Nicolaus's book on capitalist restoration in the USSR. He never responded. But, I had never read that the WWP were actually open Trotskyites. Where in Sam Marcy's writings does it actually say he opposed Stalin? I always thought that the WWP, like the AUCPB(SU) in Russia, use Stalin to justify support for revisionism.
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Jul 13, 2004 13:03:47 GMT -5
on the issue of WWP and trotskyism: The Workers World Party has (for most of its existance) been part of the trotskyist movement. Sam Marcy was the head of the SWP branch in Buffalo New York. Socialist workers party (SWP) was the main trotskyist party in the U.S., that worked with Trotsky himself when he was alive. The "Marcyites" split during the late fifties. They were part of a current within trotskyism that held that the attempts to build a new internatinal had been a failure, and that the then-socialist camp (including the Soviet Union and China) would be around for a long time, and that it was important to support that camp, and oppose the imperialists. Part of their stand was a particular "take" on the trotskyist view of the class character of the then-socialist countries. The Marcyites held that it was possible to have a socialist base in a country (meaning economic relations of production), even if the leadership was revisionist, or politically opposed to a working class line. They saw the base being quite independent of line, ideology, politics of the vanguard party and the state. If the state was based on nationalized ownership, if the leading party called itself "communist" etc. -- that was good enough for them. This was essentially a view that (dogmaticaly and apriori) assumed that state capitalism is impossible -- so if you have nationalized economics, the society must be "socialist." (And they held to this dogma despite all the experience we have had since with the revionist Soviet bloc, the state sector in china exploited by foreign imperialists etc.) In practice this has meant: 1) that the WWP makes no real distinction between revisionism in power, or genuine MLM in power. (They have "criticisms" of both, but think both are basically socialist.) 2) Their whole line deemphasizes the importance of line, theory and even politics. Their theoretical approach basically starts with the orientation i outlined here, and then spins a crude and rather simplistic network of positions based on this (mistaken and revisionist) set of assumptions. 3) What you find historically is that they therefore "criticize" Krushchev for his revisionism, but then "criticize" Mao for saying this revisionism restored capitalism. They "criticize" Liu Shaochi for his revisionist line in china, while they also "criticize" Mao for knocking down the revisionist Lin Biao (who they especially like). They "criticize" knocking down Mao's supporters (in 1976), but then criticize Maoists for saying this led to the restoation of capitalism in China. They "criticize" Deng for his policies, but uphold deng when his forces crushed the protesters at Tienanmen. This more than a muddle -- it is a line that is profoundly on the nature of revisionism and the importance of fighting it. Basically they think that the *politics* of sociallist countries doesn't affect the class nature of those countries. And don't think there is really such a thing as state capitalism under the rule of a revisionist party. Or to put it this way: The essense of this has long been to uphold revisionism (parties, countries, policies and illusions). And to promote rather reactionary forces as if they were revolutonaries (Honecker, Ceucescu, Kim Jung Il, just to mention a few!!) And it is to train anyone influenced by them to ignore key questions of line and strategy. Just ask this queston: what is the political strategy of WWP? How have they tried to "chart the uncharted course"? After literally fifty years existance they do not have any developed strategic thinking (certainly nothing that compares to the RCP's CPOSP in its Draft Program rwor.org/margorp/a-create.htm ) Their approach is rather directionless "activism" with a little "socialist" or "marxist" wording sprinkled on top. And most of that is phrased in classic revisionist/reformist illusions ("Jobs not war"). It is a classic mix of "the movement is everything the final goal is nothing" with their own particular version of Trotsky's "transitional program" economism. 4) Part of the history of this is that when Mao led China, WWP was rather "left" and supported the Cultural Revolution. As the Soviet Union stepped out to face off with the U.S. (during the 1970s) and after the coup in china brought a revisionist line to power there, the WWP increasingly moved to the right -- supporting and adapting the politics of both Soviet and Chinese revisionism. Today, their politics are very close to the revisionist CPUSA -- except for the (not insignificant difference) that they (in line with their trotskyist roots) are unwilling to support the Democratic Party (except for Jesse Jackson whose presidential bid they supported.) Some of their newer supporters are rather unaware of the trotskyist roots (and troskyist essense) of WWP's politics. This is because the WWP has always downplayed sharp discussion of ideological and political line -- and because (internationally) they now swim in a sea of "Stalin above Mao" forces, and they have major reasons to "downplay" their trotskyism in those political currents. In the sixties, revolutionaries used to joke that WWP was like a tootsie pop -- it had Marx/Lenin/Mao on the outside, but Trotsky on the inside. They attracted people with general pro-communist discussion, but when you got into the inner core of their party, the discussion was based on trotskyist politics and line. I have known many of their core members over the years (like Andy Stapp etc.) -- and certainly THEY always considered themselves trotskyists. However (whether WWP actually still upholds the classic Trotskyist phrases about "permanent revolution" or "degenerate workers state" and whether they even bother to still uphold Trotsky -- including to their own members) -- whether any of that is actually true.... It is true that the core politics of the WWP -- i.e. their view of revisiionism, the relation of base and superstructure, the class nature of the Soviet block after 1956, the view of irreversability of socialism etc -- have deep deep roots in Troskyism's view of "deformed worker states," and the idea that the base ("the gains of october") can continue to have a revolutoinary character, even if the leadership (in their view) is non-revolutionary.
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Jul 13, 2004 13:24:19 GMT -5
one more point:
Sensitive reportedly wrote "[Sam Marcy] just did not live in a fantasy world where the Soviet Union magically became "capitalist" after one individual became general secretary of the CPSU..."
This is an issue worth digging into.
For starters: Maoist don't think there is any magic.
The struggle between revolution and restoration goes on throughout the socialist period. The revisionist forces in the Soviet Union built up their strength over the decades of Soviet socialism (with some particular advances during the extreme conditions of WW2).
And the restoration of capitalism itself doesn't happen magically, or just in one moment.
However, Maoists think there is a crucial nodal point -- a turning point -- when the capitalist roaders seize OVERALL power.
To make an analogy: Socialism doesnt appear magically just because the revolutin takes power. The construction of a full socialist society, socialist relations etc. take a period of time -- ongoing changes and movements. but there IS a turning point, when power is seized. At that moment, the fundamental direction (i.e. the nature) of society has changed in a fundamental way.
Lenin stood in front of the delagates after the October Revolutin and said "we will now proceed to construct a socialist order."
Similarly, from the other side, Krushchev's coup (including the calling out of Zhukov's tanks) and the adoption of a radical new capitalist direction for society -- that was a turning point, the pivotal turning point.
From that point, the dictatorship of the proletariat had been overthrown, and the dictatorship of the bourgoeisie was in place and being consolidated.
As I said in another post -- this then led to a series of policies (unleashing counterrevolutinaries in society, promising low level reactionaries and tyrants free reign over the masses, establish profit as the determinat indicator in the economy, etc.) Based on this change in the heights of the superstructure (i.e. the reversal of state power) the base transformed from socialist to capitalism.
So if you want to disagree with the Maoist approach and analysis, fine. but don't distort it, or act like Maoists think there was magic involved.
There are nodal points in politics -- and they have to do with who controls the heights of political power. that is what revolution is about. But it is also what counter-revolution is about.
|
|
|
Post by severian on May 22, 2005 23:05:00 GMT -5
The immediate response by the CCP was, not only to endorse but to emulate Khrushev by reducing the personality cult around Mao and his personal power. See the decisions of the 8th CCP congress in 1956.
Mao couldn't have that, of course. So he launched a campaign to regain his position...first by attacking Khrushev's denunciation of Stalin.
|
|
nineteen forty nine
Guest
|
Post by nineteen forty nine on May 22, 2005 23:21:40 GMT -5
"Which, of course, is precisely the accusation levelled by Uncle Sam against him. One of the accusations, anyway."
|
|
|
Post by severian on May 23, 2005 4:26:55 GMT -5
Yes, I did just say that about a false accusation against Castro. Very good.
Which accusation is also levelled by Uncle Sam? That Mao maintained a personality cult and sought to concentrate maximum power in his hands, personally? I won't apologize for saying water is wet just because imperialism says so too.
Or that this is the explanation for his attack on Kruschev? I don't think it's even commonly raised by bourgeois scholars of the subject; I couldn't even find anything on the net detailing the decisions of the CCP 8th Congress. The usual explanation would be conflicting Russian and Chinese nationalisms and national interests, I think, which may have some validity on other aspects of the Sino-Soviet conflict but isn't the best explanation for the attack on Khrushev as "revisionist."
They are, however, described in "The Chinese Communist Party in Power", by veteran Chinese Trotskyist Peng Shu-Tse. The Congress passed a motion proposed by Liu Shao-Chi, removing the reference to "Mao Tse-Tung Thought" from the party statutes. And it heard a report by Deng Xiao-Ping opposing the "deification of the individual," referring to the Soviet 20th Congress decisions. Mao was not able to openly oppose this, and even had to declare, "At its 20th Congress held not long ago, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union formulated many correct policies and criticized shortcomings which were found in the party."
Such were the effects of the Khruschev revelations in the CCP, weakening Mao's power. The uncontrolled response to the "Hundred Flowers Bloom" campaign, its hypocritical suppression, and the failure of the "Great Leap Forward" were further blows to Mao's prestige in the CCP, and Mao was not in a position to begin moving against his rivals, until the early 60s. At that time, he began re-promoting his personality cult, initially through Lin Piao and the army. In '63 and '64 Mao heavily criticized Khruschev as a "revisionist" who had restored capitalism, as a (initially) veiled way of going after Liu and Deng, and saying they must be stopped before they did the same. In '65 Mao launched the Cultural Revolution, with the publication of Yao Wen-yuan's attack on Wu Han's play "Hai Jui Dismissed from Office".
It was as part of the attacks on Khruschev that Mao first put forward his "theory" of class struggle under socialism and within the party, which was designed as a justification for Mao's need to rely on forces outside the party, to regain control of it. Since his factional opponents held a majority in the CCP Central Committee (and probably the CCP as a whole).
Throughout, the timing and content of Mao's attacks on Khrushev was driven by the needs of CCP factional conflict.
|
|
|
Post by debasish on Dec 14, 2005 5:45:18 GMT -5
While most communist parties had welcomed the Report as one to ‘illumine the path’, Comrade shibdas Ghosh in the spirit of fraternal criticism highlighted some serious defects of the Report and cautioned that certain observations of Khrushchev would generate the trend of reformism-revisionism in the communist movement of different countries. This was on 20th may 1956.The name of the booklet is "On the report of the 20th congress of CPSU" There com. Shibdas ghosh categorically said " 20th congress will open the floodgate of revisionism"
|
|
|
Post by debasish on Dec 14, 2005 5:46:22 GMT -5
While most communist parties had welcomed the Report as one to ‘illumine the path’, Comrade shibdas Ghosh in the spirit of fraternal criticism highlighted some serious defects of the Report and cautioned that certain observations of Khrushchev would generate the trend of reformism-revisionism in the communist movement of different countries. This was on 20th may 1956.The name of the booklet is "On the report of the 20th congress of CPSU" There com. Shibdas ghosh categorically said " 20th congress will open the floodgate of revisionism"
|
|