Liu Shaoqi's On the Party

[celticfire]

I came across Liu Shaoqi's "On the Party" and I was particularly interested in Democratic Centralism Within the Party

(http://marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-...-party/ch05.htm (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1945/on-party/ch05.htm))

I know Liu for the most of his career was a revisionist, but I wondered if anyone had any criticism of this particular piece. I personally liked it's explanation of democratic-centralism, so far it's the best explanation I've found...

But needless to say, I am sure there can be seen some revisionist lines within the document.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:46 PM
I know Liu for the most of his career was a revisionist,
How do you know? Have you read anything by him you thought was revisionist? Was Liu allowed to publish any of his views during the factional conflict between Liu and Mao, or do you only know his views from what Mao said about them?


But needless to say, I am sure there can be seen some revisionist lines within the document.

That may be, though it seems strange to conclude so in advance. But if this document is revisionist, that would reflect on the rest of the CCP as well, as it was later to choose this "revisionist" for high office in the party and government.

[redstar2000]

It appears to me to be a pretty straight-forward exposition of "democratic" centralism as endorsed by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin at the 10th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).

It makes for very dreary reading, of course. It seems like every other word is "subordination"...that is, obedience.

Good cure for insomnia, though.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[celticfire]

How do you know? Have you read anything by him you thought was revisionist? Was Liu allowed to publish any of his views during the factional conflict between Liu and Mao, or do you only know his views from what Mao said about them?


Honestly, not really. I haven't read a whole lot on Liu or his works entirely. Some current Chinese "communists" (capitalists) consider him a great "communist." I know that he did eventually become Chairman [head of state] of the People's Republic of China -- but is that a testament to the socialist democracy in the PRC, or the defeat of Mao's policies, or revisionism?

Mao did have bitter disputes with Liu Shaoqi, who favoured the introduction of piecework, greater wage differentials and measures that sought to undermine collective farms and factories...which does appear to be revisionism to me.

I don't think anyone can deny a new elite arose out of the Chinese revolution after 1949...but I think the question is who was the new ruling elite and who was fighting that new ruling elite. Some say Mao was a dictator, some a revolutionary leader. The same for Liu. But Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution which -- to me was unarguably a striking blow at the new elite.

Individuals like redstar2000 argue that Mao stopped the proletariat from taking real power [ie: The Shanghai January Storm] and not suggesting they implement a system of direct democracy/

But, I have never found anything that said that Mao ordered them to install Revolutionary Committees [which in my opinion is very democratic and stable with the added bonus of protection from revisionism and beuacracy] or ordered them to be implemented all over the PRC. Mao and Chang Chunqiao (sp?) it seems to me only suggested that the form of direct democracy was not stable enough to ward off counter-revolutionaries and revisionists and suggested that great success had been found in areas that used the form of Revolutionary Committees.

As comrade flyby said on AWIP (http://awip.proboards23.com/) the method of the revisionists was not to oust Mao by democratic means (ie, through elections) which they could have done according the Constiution of the PRC.

Now I am not uncritical of Mao, or PRC. I think there should be general, contested secret-ballot elections for all leaders in a socialist democracy with the right to recall, with a set system of term limits for heads of state.

[Which some of which was in the consitution of the PRC, but only if you were already an elected deputy (or "repsrestative" of the people)...but not the masses of people themselves. I think this contributed to the material basis of revisionism.]

...but not nessacarilly a "direct" democracy...I think leaders will still need to make some calls on their own, and maybe even secretly...but I think a socialist democracy needs a mechanism for keeping the leaders under the supervision of the masses.

Which Bob Avakian has vaguely talked about (bobavakian.net - Track 1 I believe)
when he says there should be contested elections, but it shouldn't happen that you can vote out the government. Now, I hope when he says government he means the socialist government and not himself.

[redstar2000]

You might want to have a look at Toni Sweep's blog...

TALKS AT THREE MEETINGS WITH COMRADES CHANG CH’UN CH’IAO AND YAO WEN-YUAN FEBRUARY 1967 (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12432067&postID=111806075712628345)

(Click the "Show Original Post" icon.)

Mao is explicitly hostile to the "commune" idea here.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:06 AM
Mao did have bitter disputes with Liu Shaoqi, who favoured the introduction of piecework, greater wage differentials and measures that sought to undermine collective farms and factories...which does appear to be revisionism to me.
How do you know he favored those things, if you haven't read anything by him? Because his factional opponents said so?

My basic point here is the completely unprincipled nature of a factional conflict in which only one side is allowed to speak.


I don't think anyone can deny a new elite arose out of the Chinese revolution after 1949...but I think the question is who was the new ruling elite and who was fighting that new ruling elite.

What if both sides represented it? They should both be allowed to speak, nevertheless. How else can the masses, or even the ranks of the party, know the real issues and make the decisions?


But Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution which -- to me was unarguably a striking blow at the new elite.

Nothing "unarguable" about it. If you look at the facts of what happened, rather than Mao's proclamations, it was a factional conflict within the elite, with blows dealt to working people as well. Total thought control.


As comrade flyby said on AWIP (http://awip.proboards23.com/) the method of the revisionists was not to oust Mao by democratic means (ie, through elections)

Their goal doesn't seem to have been to oust Mao at all, just to defend their positions. Mao's personal prestige was essential to the interests of the bureaucracy as a whole. Also, there does not seem to have been a unified opposition to Mao. Rather, the Cultural Revolution was a multi-sided factional conflict.


which they could have done according the Constiution of the PRC.

That Constitution was meaningless words on paper, which never had anything to do with how the PRC actually ran.

Conceivably the non-Maoist majority on the CCP Central Committee coulda ousted Mao, if all of Mao's opponents had been united behind such a goal....and if Mao hadn't used his control of the army, through Lin Piao, to prevent such a meeting.

Liu attempted to call a meeting of the Central Committee for July 21, 1966. Lin Piao's army surrounded Peking and under this threat the meeting was rescheduled. The army remained in place while the Central Committee did meet in August and adopt the decisions Mao wanted.

If even the Central Committee of the CCP couldn't meet without army interference, it's ridiculous to suggest Mao could have been removed through elections.

[celticfire]

severian: I didn't say I hadn't read anything by Liu, just not extensively, just what is available online at marxists.org (http://marxists.org) but since you're raising the question "how do I know", how do you know "That Constitution was meaningless words on paper, which never had anything to do with how the PRC actually ran."? If the majority of the Central Committee was "anti-Maoist" I think they would have succesfully ousted Mao, "Lin Piao's" army or not.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:06 PM
severian: I didn't say I hadn't read anything by Liu, just not extensively, just what is available online at marxists.org (http://marxists.org)
'Scuse, I misspoke. But can you show me where Liu advocated those things? I did a google search of that archive and couldn't turn up anything on piecerate. I'm guessing you meant that Mao said that Liu said those things.

Also, you will note, that archive does not include anything from after 1966. Whatever Liu had to say in response to Mao's attacks on him, nobody knows for sure.


but since you're raising the question "how do I know", how do you know "That Constitution was meaningless words on paper, which never had anything to do with how the PRC actually ran."?

It's called history. I recommend "The Chinese Communist Party in Power" by Peng Shu-tse for a beginning.


If the majority of the Central Committee was "anti-Maoist" I think they would have succesfully ousted Mao, "Lin Piao's" army or not.

Evidence that was their goal? And.....how?

[celticfire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:46 AM



It's called history. I recommend "The Chinese Communist Party in Power" by Peng Shu-tse for a beginning.

;) Fair enough, I will read that, but I can also point you to:

-Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions, Bob Avakian (please don't stereotype because it's Bob Avakian, it is a good book!)

-Mao Tse-Tung: A Guide to his though, Alain Blouc

-Mao's China; A History of the People's Republic, Maurice Meisner

The last one is actually "anti" Maoist, but I feel it fairly quotes and places Liu Shaoqi's positions.

But back to the main point severian, do you have any thing to say about the document I originally posted? What do you think about democratic centralism in general? Thoughts?

[Severian]

Sure, why not?

Why do we say the Party’s democracy is democracy under centralized guidance? This means that every Party meeting is convened by a leading body and carried through under proper leadership. The adoption of every resolution or ruling is preceded by a full preparation and careful deliberation. Every election is based on a carefully prepared list of candidates.

It's difficult to see what's democratic about this concept of "democratic centralism". So Liu is apparently innocent of the charge of "revisionism"; rather he is advocating "orthodox Marxism-Leninism", that is, Stalinism.

However, he also writes:
Some members do not understand that centralism in the Party is based on democracy. Consequently, they separate their leadership from inner-Party democracy and from the rank and file of the Party membership and call this “centralism”. They think that their authority as leaders need not be conferred by the Party membership but can be arrogated by themselves. They think that they need not gain leading positions through election, nor need they enjoy the confidence of the Party membership and the lower Party organizations, but that they can simply proclaim themselves leaders.

Which could be interpreted as a veiled attack on Mao's style of leadership, and it wouldn't surprise me if this was one of the passages used by the Maoists when they started looking for excuses to go after Liu.

Yeah, I remember "why not", now. Because Stalinism is not a matter of ideological errors; it has no ideological content at all beyond excuses for a course of action which is pragmatically decided in order to advance the immediate interests of a shortisghted bureaucratic caste. To criticize it for having the wrong line misses the point and risks implying a false analysis of the Stalinist phenomenon.

Which is why I'm more interested in actual history of China than in "Mao's Thought".

But since Maoists think there was a struggle between two lines in the CCP, you can't take the same attitude towards Liu; you can't possibly judge the contending lines when only the writings of one side are available.