The Chinese revolution for beginners

[daft punk]

The Chinese revolution was not supposed to be a socialist one. Both Mao and Stalin wanted it to be a bourgeois one. However Stalin did not back Mao, but instead backed the capitalist KMT.

China was a semi-feudal backward country, with some foreign domination. The Chinese revolution happened in 1949, but it started in 1925.

In the first one, 1925-7, Stalin was still evolving, he was probably not deliberately trying to sabotage it. However he did screw it up. He told Mao and the Communist Party to join the KMT, a bourgeois-nationalist party. Trotsky warned against this.

The KMT massacred workers and communists and the revolution was crushed.

The CCP went off into the countryside to escape. They set up a big commune but in the end it was crushed by the KMT and a million people were killed. The CCP went on the road.

During WW2 the CCP and KMT both fought the Japanese, but the KMT sometimes backed the Japanese, and sometimes fought the CCP, or at least sections did these things. At one time Chiang Kai-shek, the KMT leader, was kidnapped, and Stalin fought for his release. Chiang had been to Moscow to Comintern meetings and was supported by Stalin. I think almost all the war supplies from Russia went to the KMT.

In 1945 Mao said he wanted China to be capitalist for at least several decades. This was standard Stalinist policy, it was what they attempted in almost all the countries at the time. Stalin still wanted Mao to surrender to the KMT. However Mao was wise to the fact that doing to would probably mean the communists would get massacred, so he fought them for power.

Stalin and the USA backed the KMT. The USA sent many warplanes. The KMT were much better armed than the CCP. But the workers and peasants rose up in support of Mao and Mao won. Stalin had to hurriedly swap sides at the last minute, promising some aid if Mao rewrite history and pretend that Stalin had backed him all along.

Stalin and Mao both wanted China to be capitalist. However this plan failed like it did in Eastern Europe etc. His several decades of capitalism ended up being just a couple of years. The Korean war speeded things up as the resistance of the bourgeois in China increased. The futility of the Two Stage Theory and the Popular Front were proven by events.

A deformed workers state emerged from the failed attempt at a capitalist China governed by a communist-capitalist coalition as hoped for Mao. Stalin of course had just wanted a KMT led capitalist China with no CCP.

Ok I will leave it there for now, this was off the top of my head but hopefully it is all correct.

By the way, if anyone wants to contest any of the above, you need to quote supporting evidence, with links and quotes or paraphrasing, as I will be doing. And I suggest you dont try to cover all the points in one go.

[daft punk]

ok here is my first bit of supporting evidence, the friendship treaty signed between Stalin and Chiang in 1945, note how Stalin calls Chiang Mr President:

J. V. Stalin
To Chiang Kai Shek

August 31, 1945

Source : Works, Vol. 16
Publisher : Red Star Press Ltd., London, 1986
Transcription/HTML Markup : Salil Sen for MIA, 2009
Public Domain : Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.
Thank you for your congratulations on the occasion of the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance as well as the agreements between China and the U.S.S.R., signed on August 14.
I am sure that this Treaty and the agreements will provide a solid base for an ultimate development of friendly relations between the U.S.S.R. and China for the well-being and prosperity of our peoples and the reinforcement of peace and security in the Far East and in the whole world.
I beg you, Mr. President,to accept my congratulations on the occasion of the confirmation of these historical documents.
J. STALIN
("Pravda," 31 August, 1945)


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/31.htm

[daft punk]

I'm so lonely! Will nobody join me on my thread? Nobody? :(

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I WON'T FORSAKE YOU, DAFT PUNK!:cool:

While I agree with what you are saying, I do have think that Mao did do some good for the Chinese. That being said, I am not a Maoist at all! I do not think of Mao as some great socialist leader. Through A Glass Darkly: American Views on the Chinese Revolution and The Battle for China's Past by Mobo Gao are some good books that show the famine was not an intentional famine created by Mao, that China had always been plagued by famine, etc.

I also agree that Stalin was supporting the capitalists as well. Basically, in conclusion, I agree with your statements:D

[Tim Cornelis]

If Mao wanted China to be capitalist, why did he set up "people's communes," and abolished money within these 'communes'?

[dodger]

I'm so lonely! Will nobody join me on my thread? Nobody? :(

Just state simply and clearly what the Trotsky people did during the revolution and in addition what they achieved...thanks daft punk.

[daft punk]

I WON'T FORSAKE YOU, DAFT PUNK!:cool:

While I agree with what you are saying, I do have think that Mao did do some good for the Chinese. That being said, I am not a Maoist at all! I do not think of Mao as some great socialist leader. Through A Glass Darkly: American Views on the Chinese Revolution and The Battle for China's Past by Mobo Gao are some good books that show the famine was not an intentional famine created by Mao, that China had always been plagued by famine, etc.

I also agree that Stalin was supporting the capitalists as well. Basically, in conclusion, I agree with your statements:D

Cheers! Actually I read somewhere that despite millions dying in famines (which were partly a result of some rubbish science), the Chinese actually gained billions of years of life overall due to longer life expectancy.

I also agree that Mao was not all bad, in fact he was genuine I think, unlike Stalin.

Just to kinda give a bit of balance here, this is what my party has written:

"The successful Chinese Revolution of 1944-49, as far as socialists and Marxists are concerned, is the second greatest event in human history"
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/1861

[l'Enfermé]

Not to mention that Stalin offered Chaing Kai-shek to become a member of the Executive Committee of the Comintern!

[daft punk]

If Mao wanted China to be capitalist, why did he set up "people's communes," and abolished money within these 'communes'?

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism."

"Our Party must also have a specific programme for each period based on this general programme. Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

Mao, 1945
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

"o Terebin to be passed to Mao Zedong.

We have received both letters from Comrade Mao Zedong from 30 November 1947, and 15 March 1948. We could not react to them immediately because we were checking some information necessary for our answer. Now that the facts are verified, we can answer both letters. First. The answer to the letter of 30 November 1947. We are very grateful for the information from Comrade Mao Zedong. We agree with the assessment of the situation given by Comrade Mao Zedong. We have doubts only about one point in the letter, where it is said that “In the period of the final victory of the Chinese Revolution, following the example of the USSR and Yugoslavia, all political parties except the CCP should leave the political scene, which will significantly strengthen the Chinese Revolution.” We do not agree with this. We think that the various opposition parties in China which are representing the middle strata of the Chinese population and are opposing the Guomindang clique will exist for a long time. And the CCP will have to involve them in cooperation against the Chinese reactionary forces and imperialist powers, while keeping hegemony, i.e., the leading position, in its hands. It is possible that some representatives of these parties will have to be included into the Chinese people’s democratic government and the government itself has to be proclaimed a coalition government in order to widen the basis of this government among the population and to isolate imperialists and their Guomindang agents. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie. With Communist greetings"

Stalin
20 April 1948

http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.document&identifier=CA9A2341-EFF8-0392-03026972E39F2528&sort=Coverage&item=China

Ok, so you can see from the above some solid evidence, plus the Stalin treaty mentioned earlier, that both wanted to stick with the bourgeois revolution, Stalin even more than Mao. Stalin still wanted Mao to merge with Chiang after 1945, but Mao knew that would mean the slaughter of all the communists, so he fought him.

Mao did however want land reform and that in particular secured him the support of the peasants.

Basically he was compelled to move forward much faster than planned after 1945 for various reasons, in particular the Korean war, which made the Chinese gentry put up resistance. Plus, if I remember rightly, the landlords and the bourgeois were generally the same people, so you cant get rid of one without getting rid of the other, fairly sure Trotsky said that. So it could not be a bourgeois revolution as the bourgeois had already replaced feudalism. This is confirmed here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oxTe1YYZa7MC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=trotsky+china+landlords++bourgeois&source=bl&ots=oEnOxr8mGc&sig=NAr_BxMk7mlm-KiK5m55KbUjzD8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vstsT4m2BenD0QXd2423Bg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=trotsky%20china%20landlords%20%20bourgeois&f=false). This is a bit different from the usual Permanent Revolution line where the bourgeois cannot rule because they are stunted. On the national question Trotsky said that the Chinese bourgeois were representatives of imperialism and so would never challenge it.

[daft punk]

Just state simply and clearly what the Trotsky people did during the revolution and in addition what they achieved...thanks daft punk.
Ironically Mao was accused by some of the CCP of being Trotskyist at one point.

Ok so were there Trots in China and what happened to them?

First you have to remember that Russia seemed like salvation to the Chinese, they thought it was socialism and they wanted that, and Stalin ran the show so he had a lot of leeway. Plus he exerted a lot of influence on Mao, even though he backed the KMT. Not many people had access to Trotsky's writings. Stalin had banned them.

Nevertheless a small Trotskyist section emerged within the CCP in the 1920s, mainly younger comrades who had been to Russia. At first the young Trots did not oppose the merger with the KMT. However Trotsky wisely opposed this disastrous idea of Stalin and Mao. I dont think the Chinese knew this, but soon some began to reach the same conclusion. The KMT then massacred thousands of communists. Ch’en Tu-hsiu resigned as CCP secretary general because the Comintern would not let them leave the KMT.

"Harold Isaacs has noted that in the period after his removal from the CCP leadership Ch’en Tu-hsiu “wrote several letters to the Central Committee opposing the policy of staging futile and costly uprisings. In August 1929 he addressed a letter to the Central Committee expressing his opposition to the party’s course and demanding a reexamination of its policies. ...” [29] (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/china1.htm#f29n) When the Comintern leadership learned of the oppositionist attitude of Ch’en and P’eng they sent an invitation to the two Chinese to attend the Sixth World Congress of the International which was scheduled to meet in Moscow within a few months. Although Ch’en was first inclined to accept the invitation, he finally agreed with P’eng’s argument that their only alternatives if they were to go to Moscow would be to “confess their error” and thus be assured a continuing role in the CCP; or to state frankly their opposition to Comintern policy in China, which would almost certainly result in their not being allowed to return home. Both men turned down the invitation to the Sixth Congress [30] (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/china1.htm#f30n). Harold Isaacs has noted that Ch’en Tu-hsiu turned down still another invitation to go to Moscow in 1930 [31] (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/china1.htm#f31n).
In the spring of 1929 two of the Chinese students returning from Moscow brought with them two documents of Trotsky, “Summary and Perspective of the Chinese Revolution” (http://www.zhongguo.org/trotsky/revbetrayed/images/China/31.htm) and “The Chinese Question After the Sixth World Congress,” (http://www.zhongguo.org/trotsky/revbetrayed/images/China/33.htm) which they presented to P’eng Shu-tse [32] (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/china1.htm#f32n). P’eng immediately came to the conclusion that he agreed with Trotsky’s analysis of the errors of the Stalinist Comintern.
P’eng showed the documents to Ch’en Tu-hsiu who also agreed with them. As a consequence the two men decided to organize a Left Opposition within the Chinese Communist Party. "

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/china1.htm

"The Stalinist group accused the Trotskyists of “illegal” factional activity. They denounced the Left Opposition rather than arguing with the points which it raised. On November 15, 1929, Ch’en, P’eng, Wang Zekal, Ma Yufu and Cai Zhenda were expelled from the party, accused of “Trotskyism,” as well as of “factionalism and anti-party, anti-international activities.” [34] (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/china1.htm#f34n). In all about one hundred members were expelled from the party at this time " (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/china1.htm#f35n)

"When an independent Trotskyist movement was finally organized in China it did not emerge as a single united organization. For several years there were four different groups claiming allegiance to Trotskyism. Although these were ultimately united, the differences among the various Trotskyist leaders in the early period of the movement were to bean element in further splits which occurred in later years."

The article stops at 1929. I get the impression they were driven into exile after that. The author is a historian, not a Trot.

[lombas]

It's interesting to see though how even today the PRC values the KMT for their efforts in liberating China and their social concern.

Sun Yat-sen for example is held in high esteem. Of course he was totally different from Chiang Kai-shek.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism."

"Our Party must also have a specific programme for each period based on this general programme. Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

Mao, 1945
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

"o Terebin to be passed to Mao Zedong.

We have received both letters from Comrade Mao Zedong from 30 November 1947, and 15 March 1948. We could not react to them immediately because we were checking some information necessary for our answer. Now that the facts are verified, we can answer both letters. First. The answer to the letter of 30 November 1947. We are very grateful for the information from Comrade Mao Zedong. We agree with the assessment of the situation given by Comrade Mao Zedong. We have doubts only about one point in the letter, where it is said that “In the period of the final victory of the Chinese Revolution, following the example of the USSR and Yugoslavia, all political parties except the CCP should leave the political scene, which will significantly strengthen the Chinese Revolution.” We do not agree with this. We think that the various opposition parties in China which are representing the middle strata of the Chinese population and are opposing the Guomindang clique will exist for a long time. And the CCP will have to involve them in cooperation against the Chinese reactionary forces and imperialist powers, while keeping hegemony, i.e., the leading position, in its hands. It is possible that some representatives of these parties will have to be included into the Chinese people’s democratic government and the government itself has to be proclaimed a coalition government in order to widen the basis of this government among the population and to isolate imperialists and their Guomindang agents. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie. With Communist greetings"

Stalin
20 April 1948

http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.document&identifier=CA9A2341-EFF8-0392-03026972E39F2528&sort=Coverage&item=China

Ok, so you can see from the above some solid evidence, plus the Stalin treaty mentioned earlier, that both wanted to stick with the bourgeois revolution, Stalin even more than Mao. Stalin still wanted Mao to merge with Chiang after 1945, but Mao knew that would mean the slaughter of all the communists, so he fought him.

Mao did however want land reform and that in particular secured him the support of the peasants.

Basically he was compelled to move forward much faster than planned after 1945 for various reasons, in particular the Korean war, which made the Chinese gentry put up resistance. Plus, if I remember rightly, the landlords and the bourgeois were generally the same people, so you cant get rid of one without getting rid of the other, fairly sure Trotsky said that. So it could not be a bourgeois revolution as the bourgeois had already replaced feudalism. This is confirmed here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oxTe1YYZa7MC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=trotsky+china+landlords++bourgeois&source=bl&ots=oEnOxr8mGc&sig=NAr_BxMk7mlm-KiK5m55KbUjzD8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vstsT4m2BenD0QXd2423Bg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=trotsky%20china%20landlords%20%20bourgeois&f=false). This is a bit different from the usual Permanent Revolution line where the bourgeois cannot rule because they are stunted. On the national question Trotsky said that the Chinese bourgeois were representatives of imperialism and so would never challenge it.

You're not answering my question, you are just repeating yourself in a more elaborate manner. In 1945 Mao said he wanted China to be capitalist for a few decades. Yet 8 years after this reign he started setting up people's communes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_commune) and reducing money within these communes to a secondary role of external trade. Internally the people's communes used work-points. Work was collectively organised in production brigades.

These policies were clearly aimed at realising a socialist society (whether they achieved it is another discussion entirely). Property was collectivised, and he initiated a Cultural Revolution with the goal of eliminating backward, traditional, and capitalist elements within Chinese society. Lastly, he attacked so-called "capitalist roaders" who supposedly wanted China to divert to a capitalist path.

If he wanted China to be capitalist, then why did he initiate all these policies that were clearly aimed at destroying capitalism and introducing socialism?

What he said or wanted in 1945 is irrelevant to what he said and wanted in 1950 and 1958 and what he did in practice if the two contradict. He clearly changed his mind.

[daft punk]

You're not answering my question, you are just repeating yourself in a more elaborate manner. In 1945 Mao said he wanted China to be capitalist for a few decades. Yet 8 years after this reign he started setting up people's communes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_commune) and reducing money within these communes to a secondary role of external trade. Internally the people's communes used work-points. Work was collectively organised in production brigades.

These policies were clearly aimed at realising a socialist society (whether they achieved it is another discussion entirely). Property was collectivised, and he initiated a Cultural Revolution with the goal of eliminating backward, traditional, and capitalist elements within Chinese society. Lastly, he attacked so-called "capitalist roaders" who supposedly wanted China to divert to a capitalist path.

If he wanted China to be capitalist, then why did he initiate all these policies that were clearly aimed at destroying capitalism and introducing socialism?

What he said or wanted in 1945 is irrelevant to what he said and wanted in 1950 and 1958 and what he did in practice if the two contradict. He clearly changed his mind.

I told you, he was forced to speed things up because his plan to collaborate with the bourgeoisie was rubbish, because the landlords were the bourgeois, so you cant eliminate one and keep the other, and because the Korean war speeded things up by increasing the resistance of the bourgeois/landowners.

Also Mao was scared by the Korean war that Chuna would be attacked next. America even had nukes lined up and MacArthur wanted to invade China and destroy it.

[manic expression]

It's interesting to see though how even today the PRC values the KMT for their efforts in liberating China and their social concern.

Sun Yat-sen for example is held in high esteem. Of course he was totally different from Chiang Kai-shek.
The PRC, I think, views Sun Yat-sen and earlier KMT members as those who set the basis for the modernization of China, and the redefinition of China along progressive lines. It's valuing their historical contributions in the same way Marx valued the Jacobins. Like you alluded to there's a very strong distinction made between that and anti-worker criminals like Chiang Kaishek.