By Harsh Thakor
CHARLES
BETTELHEIM
In
my view Charles Bettelheim created outstanding research which most vividly
portrayed the essence of the goals’ and practice of the Cultural Revolution. Of
great relevance was his describing the General knit wear factory, Transforming
the Social division of Labour, and revolutionising the means of production.
Most methodically he summarises how revolutionary democracy was virtually
elevated to a new height .No writer at factory level portrayed how democracy in
functioning was virtually elevated to a new dimension and the magnitude with
which workers democracy was established. His writing portrayed the clear
demarcation of CPC from the Stalinist path or that of the USSR. At the economic
level no writer was more penetrative on analysing the dynamism of the Cultural
Revolution.
“At each stage of the Cultural Revolution, the adherents of Mao Tse-tung's
revolutionary line had to accomplish an enormous labour of discussion. At the
outset, for instance, it took several months for the workers to rebel against
the prevailing methods of management and the division of labour and against the
diehard supporters of the existing relations in the factories. It was only
gradually, through the give and take of prolonged discussion, that they began
to realize that the old relations were obstructing progress along the road to
socialism. When I visited China in 1967 the members of various revolutionary
factory committees told me that during its initial stages they believed the
Cultural Revolution to be concerned only with literature and the arts, and that
they had distrusted the critics of the situation in their own factories.
Eventually they came to understand that the prevailing conditions in the
factories had to be changed before further advances along the road to socialism
could be made. “
“Later, when confronted with the task of elaborating new relations, the workers
were often at odds about how to interpret the slogans of the revolutionary
line. Months and even years of discussion and struggle were required to achieve
the unity indispensable to the success of the Cultural Revolution.[3] Through discussions
and struggles involving millions of workers and vast sections of the
population, a new road was opened up in the struggle for socialism. There is no
precedent for such an attempt to transform social relations. It constitutes a decisive
and permanent achievement, as decisive and permanent as any scientific or
social experiment which discovers new processes or new objective laws. “
“In brief, this book argues that the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution represents a turning point of the greatest political importance; it
"discovered" (in the sense in which Marx used the expression in
connection with the Paris Commune) an essential form of the class struggle for
the construction of socialism. It will be recalled that Marx stressed the
significance of the Paris Commune in these words: "The struggle of the
working class . . . has entered upon a new phase with the struggle in Paris.
Whatever the immediate results may be, a new point of departure of world
historic importance has been gained.”
‘
‘’Substantial progress was made toward the realization of these
objectives when the masses began to appropriate revolutionary ideas. This
involves a study of the basic writings of Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-tung while
relating this study to practice. It also requires collective discussion and
study, both inside and outside the factory (in the family, for instance). These
collective discussions take many forms. Their primary focus is the effort to
understand Marxism and to struggle against revisionism and its ideological
consequences’’
“One aspect of this activity was the mass movement of criticism directed
against the errors of the factory cadres. Its aim was not to eliminate these
cadres, except when they had made serious errors, but to help them learn from
their mistakes and assimilate revolutionary ideas and the revolutionary line. Wherever
the old cadres were reinstated, this was done by the masses. Many of them,
after having been criticized, would have preferred not to resume their
functions—largely because, under the influence of the "ultra-leftist"
line, criticism was extended to cadres who had committed only slight errors,
and sometimes assumed brutal forms (including physical assault). Such methods,
instead of helping the cadres correct their practice in keeping with the
directives of the party Central Committee, tended to demoralize them and induce
them to limit themselves to work involving little political responsibility. It
was emphasized that this criticism was meant not to punish, but to educate as
many people as possible. This movement of criticism brought about
profound changes both in ideas and in the everyday relationships between
workers and cadres, and was made possible by the unifying role of the Chinese
Communist Party. Party intervention was of a general character; it influenced
the workers even in cases when—as happened in this factory—the local party
organizations were temporarily shaken up.”
“"The
Cultural Revolution sets in motion the inexhaustible participation of the
masses, which accelerates and puts into concrete form the appearance of proletarian
democracy of which the Chinese speak. How else are we to define the
politicization of the masses, which I saw during the trip? The moment the
masses no longer fear coercion from the state apparatus, proletarian democracy
begins to establish itself. It is here on the level of consensus, that the mass
line conceived by Mao more than 40 years ago undergoes it's broadest
development This unprecedented reliance on the masses might merely conceal a
pedagogical and academic character were it not based on social practice, did
not explode within the heart of the ideological apparatus."; "The
constant reliance on the masses, seems to be the most valid contribution of the
Chinese Revolution. MaoTse Tung's dictatorship of the proletariat in actual
fact is the 'broadest democracy for the masses of the people.’ The Chinese
Revolution reminds us that the dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing other
than proletarian democracy, democracy for the broadest masses of the
people."
RAYMOND
LOTTA
Raymond Lotta
of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA with vivid clarity narrated in a
series of articles how revolutionary democracy flourished at the base with a
series of path breaking experiments. In his 6 part serial on the Cultural
Revolution he most dialectically projects how mass revolutionary power reached
unparalleled heights.
Quoting
Raymond Lotta “The Cultural Revolution saw great debate and
questioning. There were political demonstrations, protest rallies, marches, and
mass political meetings. Small newspapers were published. In Beijing alone,
there were over 900 newspapers. Countless mimeographed broadsheets were handed
out. Materials and facilities for these activities were made available free,
including paper, ink, brushes, posters, printing presses, halls for meetings,
and public address and sound systems.’’
“The
Red Guards helped spread the movement to the proletariat. And as the Cultural
Revolution took hold among the workers, it took a new turn. In 1967-68, 40
million workers engaged in intense and complicated mass struggles and upheavals
to seize power from entrenched municipal party and city administrations that
were hotbeds of conservatism. Through experimentation, debate, and summation,
and with Maoist leadership, the masses forged new organs of proletarian
political power.”
“In
its scope and intensity, the Cultural Revolution has no parallel in human
history. The routine of daily life was blown wide open. People from every
social milieu engaged in broad debate.”
‘’Peasants
were discussing the ways ancient and reactionary Confucian values still
influenced their lives. Workers in factories in Shanghai were experimenting
with new forms of participatory management.’’
‘’Nothing
and nobody was above criticism. Political, administrative and educational
authorities who had become divorced from the people were called to account. No
longer could officials be tucked away in offices just barking out instructions.
They had to go down and be part of the situation of the workers and peasants.’’
Edgar
Snow was the most illustrative writer ever on Red China who shimmered the
democratic spirit of CPC more than any person outside China in his lifetime. No
writer with such a magnitude of intensity narrated the day to day lives of the
CCP and Red Army or gave such a vivid character portrayal. Displaying no bias
he described why the CCP was the epitome of People’s Liberation and the almost
miraculous transformation it made to the lives of the Chinese people, breaking
the shackles of slavery.
Quoting Journalist Edgar Snow” Most Red Army soldiers were peasants and workers who joined to
"help the poor and save China". Officers and soldiers were equal, and
the casualty rate was high among commanders as they fought side by side with
soldiers. The ruddy-faced young soldiers were, as Snow observed,
"cheerful, gay, and energetic". In the Soviet Area, schools were
opened to provide free education to poor kids. Theatres were free of charge
with no exclusive seating or luxury boxes, with officials usually sitting among
the audiences. Children called the Red Army "our army". Peasants
referred to the government of the Soviet Area as "our government".
There were no opium, corruption, slavery or begging. The freedom of marriage
was respected and protected. In every Muslim neighbourhood they stayed, the Red
Army helped guard and clean the mosques. People were impressed by "their
careful policy of respecting Islamic institutions", even the most
suspicious ones among peasants and imams, according to Snow.”
After over 100 days in Shaanbei, Snow found the answer he had
been looking for. He was fascinated by this unique charm of the East, something
he believed representing the light of rejuvenation for the ancient nation of
China. For him, the Communists were the most outstanding men and women he had
met in China in the past decade with the "military discipline, political
morale, and the will to victory", and "for sheer dogged endurance,
and ability to stand hardship without complaint", they were
"unbeatable". He recalled his four-month time with the Red Army as a
most inspiring experience, during which he had met with the most free and happy
Chinese he'd ever known. In these people who devoted themselves to what they
believed was the right and just cause, Snow felt a vibrant hope, passion and
the unbeatable strength of mankind, something he had never felt again ever
since.
When asked by Snow, "What do you think of the Red
Army", a bare-footed farmer boy said, "The Red Army is the army for
poor people, and they fight for our rights". And when asked "How do
you know they liked the Reds", the soldiers answered, "They made us a
thousand, ten thousands, of shoes, with their own hands. Every home sent sons
to our Red Army." "We, the Red Army, are the people."
PAO YU CHING
Pao Yu Ching ‘s book ‘Rethinking
Socialism” with most outstanding and dialectical analysis and
lucidity of words has made the distinction between the Socialist path of Mao
and the capitalist road of Deng Xiapoing. In recent times no writer made a more
classical analysis of the mass line and how CCP practiced it before 1978. She
has reviewed Chinese Communist history, penetrating it at its very core whether
the 1949 revolution, the Socialists transition period, the revolutionary war
period before 1949, the Great Leap forward or the Cultural Revolution. She
brilliantly portrays the vey continuity and symmetry of all the periods. Above
all she elaborates how Mao never fought for personal power but was a
crusader of tow line struggle and mass line.
Quoting book
‘Rethinking Socialism’, “We think that mass movements sponsored by the party in
power is unusual, because authority usually fears not only that such movements
might end up in chaos but also that mass action might target the authorities
themselves. Furthermore, we believe that mass movements in the past were the
only counter-vailing forces that challenged the concentration of power in the
State (and the Party) apparatus as well as the structural rigidity of Chinas
bureaucratic system. During mass movements, cadres were subjected to the
criticism of the masses and were forced to reform their bureaucratic style of
management. To a large extent, the abuse of power was contained. However,
before the Cultural Revolution, all mass movements were sponsored and organized
by the CCP. It was only during the Cultural Revolution that young students and
the masses began to organize themselves. Instead of having the CCP give
direction to the movement, many initiatives came from below at the grassroots
level. It was during the Cultural Revolution that “seizing power” was first
mentioned. Slogans such as “making revolution is not a crime, open revolt has a
reason” were widely publicized. This change in focus was very important because
it was an open admission, for the first time, that the masses had the right to
challenge those in power. It was true that this revolutionary ferment created a
certain amount of chaos and some people were wrongly punished. However, it was
most important that the masses learned from this experience that they could
challenge not only some corrupt officials in government as in the past but also
the decisions made by the Central Committee of the CCP. The divine image of the
CCP, which could do no wrong, was thus smashed. During the Cultural Revolution,
attempts were made to search for an alternative to the existing power
structure. One example was setting up Revolutionary Committees to manage
factories and other administrative functions. For reasons yet to be analyzed,
these attempts failed. When we assess the Cultural Revolution from the
viewpoint of the proletariat, what the Cultural Revolution accomplished
outweighed what it failed to accomplish. As Mao said, “It will take many more
cultural revolutions to finish the task. Therefore, revolution continues.’’
LEARN
FROM TACHAI
What
does this small spot on the grand map of China have to teach others, especially
in agriculture, and already for thirteen years? Dazhai is a microcosm of the
forces at play in China. The struggles of the peasants of Dazhai in coping with
the human and natural contradictions in their situation has lead them through
their own efforts to achieve solutions to the problems of social organization
and production that now put them in the forefront in China. Dazhai is also a window
on the future as to where China is going and how she will get there. The
lessons of Dazhai are the lessons of struggle, conflict, leadership,
commitment, dedication, hard work, and that change in rural China is taking
place from below at the team, brigade and commune level and not being imposed
from above and outside. The manifesto of the 1975 conference on learning from
Dazhai called for the peasants and cadres of China to confront the
contradictions in their own social situation and production, to remake
themselves and the face of nature as Dazhai has done by making Dazhai-type
counties throughout China.
QUOTING
INTELLECTUALS ON CHINA AFTER 1978
JOMA
SISON
Chairman Joma Sison who
is head of the National Democratic Front of Philippines is one of the
outstanding Marxist scholars in the world today. His most penetrative grasp of
Marxism Leninism enabled him to perceive how capitalism penetrated the very
heart of Chin after 1978.
Quoting chairman Joma
Sison “Indeed, the Dengist counterrevolution resulted in the restoration of
capitalism in China and its integration in the world capitalist system. By
Lenin’s economic definition of modern imperialism, China may qualify as
imperialist. Bureaucrat and private monopoly capital has become dominant in
Chinese society. Bank capital and industrial capital are merged. China is
exporting surplus capital to other countries. Its capitalist enterprises
combine with other foreign capitalist enterprises to exploit Chinese labor,
third world countries and the global market.”
“China colludes and
competes with other imperialist countries in expanding economic territory, such
as sources of cheap labour and raw materials, fields of investments, markets,
strategic vantage points and spheres of influence. However, China has not yet
engaged in a war of aggression to acquire a colony, a semicolony, protectorate
or dependent country. It is not yet very violent in the struggle for a
redivision of the world among the big capitalist powers, like the US, Japan,
Germany and Italy behaved in joining the ranks of imperialist powers.
It is with respect to China’s contention with more aggressive and plunderous imperialist powers that may be somehow helpful to revolutionary movements in an objective and indirect way. China is playing an outstanding role in the economic bloc BRICS[1] and in the security organization Shanghai Cooperation Organization beyond US control.”
WILLIAM HINTON
The
Great Reversal by William Hinton
is the first critical study of the widely heralded reforms currently
transforming China’s economy. From his long experience in Chinese agriculture,
Hinton first examines the course of agricultural reform over the past decade,
then looks at its consequences in different areas of the countryside and
considers its implications for the country as a whole. He raises troubling
questions about China’s capitalist future—the growing landlessness, increasing
inequality, and above all, the destruction of the nation’s natural resources
and the collectively built infrastructure that was the great achievement of the
revolution. In so doing he sheds new light on the sources of discontent behind
the demonstrations that culminated in the Tiananmen massacre of June 1989.
In The Great Reversal and his speeches in the 1990s, Hinton
marshals facts to demonstrate why Chinese agricultural production is already
stagnating and in some areas is in acute crisis as a result of the capitalist
“reforms.” He points to high levels of unemployment, migration, social ills,
and open political unrest. He points to growing social polarization and a
greater vulnerability of the Chinese economy to crises in the world capitalist
economy. His conclusion: The future does not look bright for Deng’s successors.
Throughout
the 1980s, it appears that Hinton believed that the political direction of the
new regime could still be reversed within the party by honest cadre. By 1989,
in the wake of the Tienanmen Massacre of several thousand students and workers
by units of the erstwhile People’s Liberation Army from Sichuan (Deng’s home
province), Hinton had reached a new view.
My
estimate is that there are large numbers of dedicated communists in the Chinese
Communist Party and also in the army. I foresee the possibility of change
brought about by the mobilization of such people—perhaps through an army coup
led by radical officers who can rally all the revolutionary elements in the
army, in the party, and in society. (191)
Putting aside the wisdom of a “change” strategy based on the party and army, Hinton no longer believed that the new regime could be reformed by means of non-antagonistic struggle within the Communist Party. Hinton would be very pleased to hear of the case of the Zengzhou Four, veteran workers from Henan who passed out flyers titled “Mao Zedong Forever Our Leader” on December 26, 2004, Mao’s birthday. The flyers denounced the party leadership and called for a return to the socialist road. Tens of thousands of people from all over China attended their trial, and news of their courageous actions spread over the internet.
DONGPIN HAN
Quoting
Dongpin Han ‘The market reform Deng Xiaoping introduced in China restored
capitalism in China. A great number of billionaires have been created in a very
short time. According to some statistics, China has more billionaires than any
other country except the United States. As a result, China’s Gini index (a
measure of inequality, in which ‘0’ is perfect equality, and ‘1’ is perfect
inequality, with all wealth concentrated in the hands of one person) reached
0.7, and thus China became one of the most unequal societies in the
world. But during the socialist era, China was one of the most equal societies
in the world; its Gini index was only 0.29 then.’
‘With
the restoration of capitalism, all the social vices returned with a vengeance.
Prostitution, drug trafficking, drug addiction, trafficking of women and
children, petty crime, organized crime, official corruption, and everything
related with profiteering, have become rampant in China. The Government became
powerless to fight these social vices. Corruption among officials is so rampant
that it would be hard to find an official who is not corrupt any more. I have
encountered Government officials who openly say that by Chairman Mao’s
standards they should be killed several times over. Some Chinese peasants told
me that if they killed every official, there might be one or two in one hundred
who would be wronged. But if they shoot every other official, then too many
corrupt ones would have escaped punishment. In a social climate like this, all
the Government’s efforts at ‘fighting corruption’ are useless. It seems that
the more the Government ‘fights corruption’, the more corrupt the system
becomes. And the people are no longer convinced about the effectiveness of the
Government’s anti-corruption measures. Purges have instead become a method for
the Government to remove people who pose a threat to it.’’
‘The
Chinese government has been boasting about China’s development model. Its model
has been very simple. It has been plundering the accomplishments of the Mao-led
Chinese revolution to get capital for its capitalist development. It sold the
land, the houses, the factories, and hospitals confiscated by the revolution
and very many more built during the Mao period. According to some statistics,
over 80 per cent of local government revenue came from selling land to
developers. A model like this has no applicable value elsewhere. They are able
to do this because of Mao’s revolution, even though they are constantly trying
to devalue the significance of Mao and his revolution.’’
‘The
reason Mao’s new democratic revolution and socialist revolution succeeded was
that they were aimed at benefiting the overwhelming majority of Chinese people.
Therefore, the revolution got the support from the overwhelming majority of the
Chinese people.’
‘Deng
Xiaoping’s reform was bound to fail because, from very beginning, his policy
was aimed at allowing a small minority of people to get rich first. When this
small minority happened to be his own children, other high officials’ children,
and officials themselves, people became resentful. But the Government refuses
to respond to people’s resentment, and continues to insist that the reform was
good and sound. Of course, the reform was good and sound for them, because they
and their families profited from it. But the ordinary people, who are the
overwhelming majority, have lost in the bargain, and they will continue to
resent their losses. Their resentment will accumulate and some day the resentment
will explode, which is one of the reasons that the rich and powerful are
leaving China.’’
‘’Any
reform that only benefits the minority will not succeed, and will only lead to
self destruction in the end, even if it appears to be going well in the beginning.’’
‘’What
is the way ahead for China? A return to socialism is the only way out.’’
No comments:
Post a Comment