Bill Bland's Class Struggles in China

[Ismail]

Written in 1997 by Hoxhaist Bill Bland (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/b/l.htm#bland-william) (who was sorta a "Hoxhaist before Hoxha" as he condemned Chinese revisionism in the 1960's), Class Struggles in China is about the Chinese state from 1949-1997, and how Maoist revisionism established a comprador bourgeois regime from its very beginnings.

This book was originally on the website Alliance Marxist-Leninist in HTML format, but that site no longer exists. I had actually copy & pasted the book into a PDF format before it went down because I had wanted to send it to a friend. Since AML has remained down for a long time, and because I feel it is a notable book, I'll put it up here. The typos and such are from the HTML version, which I assume was put up on the internet via OCR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition).

Link: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=M7RNJ4ND

[Lenin II]

Amazing book - thank you. I would reccommend all give it a look.

The most detailed and informed account of Maoist revisionism I've ever read. It shows with painstaking research how the political line and economics of China were always ruled by the bourgeoisie.

I particularly found its accounts of how the "Hundred Flowers" incident almost gave way to a military coup against the CCP, how pro-Stalin Marxist-Leninists like Kao Kang were purged from the Party and executed, and how Mao himself was pro-US from the start very compelling.

[Paul Cockshott]

Interesting the extent to which a strict Stalinist like Bland ends up with almost the same position as a Trotskyist like Rosa Lichtenstein on this list.

[Lenin II]

Interesting the extent to which a strict Stalinist like Bland ends up with almost the same position as a Trotskyist like Rosa Lichtenstein on this list.

Translation: has not read the book.

Otherwise he would know that Bland's criticisms and analyses do not share anything in common with a Trotskyites' criticisms of China under the CCP. Bland does not say that China is ruled by a "bureaucracy" or advocate permanent revolution. He provides ample evidence for Maoist revisionism that you do not address in any meaningful way. The book has literally every sentence sourced, and the best you have is trolling.

[Winter]

Thanks for this Ismail, I will give it a read when I have time :)

[Intelligitimate]

What a bizarre thesis, considering what Mao wrote, the policies advocated by the Comintern, films produced during the Mao era, the Sino-Soviet split, etc.

[Paul Cockshott]

Translation: has not read the book.

Otherwise he would know that Bland's criticisms and analyses do not share anything in common with a Trotskyites' criticisms of China under the CCP. Bland does not say that China is ruled by a "bureaucracy" or advocate permanent revolution. He provides ample evidence for Maoist revisionism that you do not address in any meaningful way. The book has literally every sentence sourced, and the best you have is trolling.
I noted that after reading a 3rd of the book, the period up to 48, the points he makes are actually very similar to ****** critique of Mao similar accusations of Mao representing a national bougeois interest.

[Lenin II]

I noted that after reading a 3rd of the book, the period up to 48, the points he makes are actually very similar to BobMcindles critique of Mao similar accusations of Mao representing a national bougeois interest.

No, Bland says that Liu Shao-Chi represented the national bourgeoisie. He said that Mao represented the pro-US comprador bourgeoisie.

[Paul Cockshott]

No, Bland says that Liu Shao-Chi represented the national bourgeoisie. He said that Mao represented the pro-US comprador bourgeoisie.
True enough, Bland does say that, but it is a relatively minor difference between him and the SWP position

[Lenin II]

True enough, Bland does say that, but it is a relatively minor difference between him and the SWP position

Can you outline the similarities for us then? I see no similarity between "Mao was not a Marxist-Leninist" and "Mao was not a Trotskyist," since those tow ideologies share precious little in common.

[Paul Cockshott]

In both cases he is accused of being over concilliatory to the propertied classes during the period up to the taking of power, and of proposing a 'new democracy' in which the property of the bourgeoisie would be preserved.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Funny how I too wrote a one-line snide against Mao's "new democracy" (the same stuff you're talking about) in my recent submission, which you have and which I hope will be a full-fledged newspaper article. ;) :D

[Lenin II]

In both cases he is accused of being over concilliatory to the propertied classes during the period up to the taking of power, and of proposing a 'new democracy' in which the property of the bourgeoisie would be preserved.

This is true of Mao. He did do this. Your point?

[Paul Cockshott]

This is true of Mao. He did do this. Your point?
I dont dispute that, what I am saying is that this action on his part is presented in a similarly critical light by both ****** and Bill Bland who are scarcely on spitting terms otherwise.

[Dimentio]

So what you are proposing is that he should have continued to fight the Kuomintang when the Japanese invaded?

[Die Neue Zeit]

No. The national bourgeoisie had representation outside the Guomindang too, as evidenced by the CCP's own timid reforms upon taking power.

[Dimentio]

No. The national bourgeoisie had representation outside the Guomindang too, as evidenced by the CCP's own timid reforms upon taking power.

That was not disputed by me. I read the book though, and it seems like the author is criticising about every step which could be described as cautious or pragmatic, like the decision to ally with the Kuomintang or the decision to focusing on land-owners before rich peasants. It seems like the author is interpreting these measures as a betrayal against the revolution rather than steps which either were necessary given the situation or the party thought of as necessary in order to keep the situation under control.

This idea that somehow intentions are governing the performance of socialist or quasi-socialist regimes is attractive, but nevertheless probably not the whole picture. As for Mao and his cohorts, I do not have any strong preferences for them, but one should remember that they did not have any particularily well-thought of ideas of how post-revolutionary China would look like.

It is possible that they indeed tried to subvert the revolution in some kind of petite bourgeois direction, but in that case why did they not go for dengist reforms already in the 1950's?

[Paul Cockshott]

So what you are proposing is that he should have continued to fight the Kuomintang when the Japanese invaded?
Not at all, I am just pointing out that Bland and Mckindles make the same criticism of Mao. I am neither of those two comrades.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is a good book, if only because it provides a different view, and thanks to Ismail for getting it in an accessible form. Isaacs is still my favourite though despite it only covering the 1920s.


So what you are proposing is that he should have continued to fight the Kuomintang when the Japanese invaded?

This is a strange question, it's like asking whether you think the German SPD should enter into coalition governments with the CDU - in both cases you're dealing with two organizations that do/did not have an organic connection with the working class. It is not the job of socialists to tell bourgeois organizations how they should interact with one another, it is our job to seek to organize the working class and provide revolutionary leadership. In the context of China in the 1930s, there was very little that socialists could do, both because of the political conditions they were operating under, in the form of the KMT's white terror, and the policy of the Comintern, which was subsequently taken up by the CPC and called on urban members to basically reject any participation in the yellow unions that had been set up by the KMT and Nanjing government and to call on workers to overthrow the state instead. In many cities membership had fallen to a dismal level and the party as a whole had changed from being an organization of the working class into a party whose leadership was drawn from the ranks of the intelligentsia and whose main support base was the poor peasantry, and the party's urban policy did not gain much support amongst a working class that had been traumatized by the events of 1927 and was constantly facing vicious inflationary pressures. If I had been an urban CPC member in the 1930s or if I had been in charge of the party's policy I would have argued in favour of the party seeking to influence the working class through the yellow unions until the class was sufficiently strong and confident to challenge the nationalist regime directly...but the key point is that any political organization cannot remain revolutionary if it is isolated from the working class. In the case of the CPC its isolation manifested itself in the form of Maoism, which was a repudiation of everything the party's first leaders had stood for and essentially a nationalist distortion of revolutionary socialism.

Also, it's not like the CPC wanted to fight the KMT during the mid- and late-1930s anyway. Before the KMT was forced to accept the second united front, the CPC had already been calling for it for some time.


Not at all, I am just pointing out that Bland and ***** make the same criticism of Mao. I am neither of those two comrades.Do you have a problem?

Also, I've never argued that the CPC represented a "national bourgeois" interest in China before 1949.

[Dimentio]

Moderator actions: Censored the real name(?) of a user.

[BobKKKindle$]

Moderator actions: Censored the real name(?) of a user.

..."McKindles" isn't my real name, I was just asking about what's that supposed to refer to.

[Dimentio]

..."McKindles" isn't my real name, I was just asking about what's that supposed to refer to.

Ah... okay. I just thought you reacted in that way due to him revealing it. Sorry for being tense.

[Paul Cockshott]

It is a good book, if only because it provides a different view, and thanks to Ismail for getting it in an accessible form.
...but the key point is that any political organization cannot remain revolutionary if it is isolated from the working class. .
That seems to be a trifle counter factual.

The characteristic flow of politics in the working class movement
in any country with a well established mechanism for electing
governments is social democracy. There may be side eddies of
syndicalism, but social democracy rather than anything revolutionary
is what is what we see again and again.


We are used to see Social Democracy and Communism as very different, but the original distinguishing feature of Communism – that it sought power by preparing armed insurrection, was long ago abandoned by most communist political parties. This original communist principle has been retained only by Maoist parties in Asia and South America, all other left wing parties are in practice Social Democrats.