The Cultural Revolution

[PigmerikanMao]

In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long? In my opinion, the rise of the new bourgeoisie in China can be attributed to the improper length of the Cultural Revolution. Did the new bourgeoisie rise because the Cultural Revolution was too long, leading the masses to support revisionist reform, or was it too short, thus failing to smash the bourgeoisie?

[Marsella]

In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long? In my opinion, the rise of the new bourgeoisie in China can be attributed to the improper length of the Cultural Revolution. Did the new bourgeoisie rise because the Cultural Revolution was too long, leading the masses to support revisionist reform, or was it too short, thus failing to smash the bourgeoisie?

Interesting. 2 more months and 13 days, and in my opinion, China would be Communist now.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The bourgeoisie gained power because they were not successfully eliminated. That will ultimately become the problem in any situation if steps are not taken to eliminate them-- completely, not just a little.

[RNK]

I think the GPCR may have been doomed before the start. Too little was done in the first decade of the Chinese Revolution in terms of uprooting the bourgeoisie and their ideals and implimenting socialist re-examination of class relations. The Party was rife with oppurtunists who had 10 years to sow discord and monger and monopolize power. When the PR did eventually kick off, the honest revolutionary movement in China was already at a disadvantage and the neo-bourgeoisie (or whatever you'd like to call them) was already in too strong a position within the Party and government.

So, basically, I don't think it's a matter of too long or too short, but too soon or too late. IMHO, it was too late -- I think it would have been much, much, much more effective if it had occured in the mid-50s.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:22 pm
I think the GPCR may have been doomed before the start. Too little was done in the first decade of the Chinese Revolution in terms of uprooting the bourgeoisie and their ideals and implimenting socialist re-examination of class relations. The Party was rife with oppurtunists who had 10 years to sow discord and monger and monopolize power. When the PR did eventually kick off, the honest revolutionary movement in China was already at a disadvantage and the neo-bourgeoisie (or whatever you'd like to call them) was already in too strong a position within the Party and government.

So, basically, I don't think it's a matter of too long or too short, but too soon or too late. IMHO, it was too late -- I think it would have been much, much, much more effective if it had occured in the mid-50s.
I suppose you have a good point, I think if more was done, the capitalist roaders could have been uprooted, especially if there were more time to do so, though an early start did give the neo bourgeoisie an obvious advantage. That I can't argue.

[Panda Tse Tung]

In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long?

Neither, it was incorrectly implemented which resulted in near Anarchy.
So in my opinion it's logical that it didn't last that long and it would have been disastrous to keep on going, but a correctly implemented Cultural Revolution would have to last much longer.


The bourgeoisie gained power because they were not successfully eliminated. That will ultimately become the problem in any situation if steps are not taken to eliminate them-- completely, not just a little.

Thats the point of the GPCR...


I think the GPCR may have been doomed before the start. Too little was done in the first decade of the Chinese Revolution in terms of uprooting the bourgeoisie and their ideals and implimenting socialist re-examination of class relations.

It's never too late. Thats like saying it was too late at the start of the revolution cause the bourgeoisie already had it's idea's spread by then...


The Party was rife with oppurtunists who had 10 years to sow discord and monger and monopolize power.

That is why the party's powers we're greatly weakened during the GPCR. Which is admittedly because of previous mistakes and the numbers of the party we're far too small (only 10 million members, so they had to use a lot of people from outside of the party).



So, basically, I don't think it's a matter of too long or too short, but too soon or too late. IMHO, it was too late -- I think it would have been much, much, much more effective if it had occured in the mid-50s.

Perhaps, but China might not have been ready jet at that point for a GPCR. There could have been other methods applied of course.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The root of the problem was the centralization, that it was the party members who held real power.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

While we are discussing Mao:


In the meantime, chaos in the collectives and unfortunate climatic conditions resulted in widespread famine, while Mao continued to export grain to "save face" with the outside world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revo...at_Leap_Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Great_Leap_Forward)

True, not true, or something in between ?

[Rawthentic]

The root of the problem was the centralization, that it was the party members who held real power.
The root? Wow, what a materialist understanding. You're nothing more than the camel that attempts to stomp on and crap on Marx's scientific socialist understanding and methods.

The real root of the problem were the contradiction in socialist society. As Marxists understand, socialism still bears the "birthmarks" of capitalism, so the transition period is where we move beyond such notions on the road to achieve the "4 alls."

Under commodity production (which there is in socialism) there is a constant regeneration of capitalism and the capitalist class. Under socialism, this means a more acute life-or-death struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and Mao took socialism to a whole other level in the Cultural Revolution, which aimed to keep the revolution on the socialist path by igniting a huge mass movement to destroy and overthrow those "communists" in the CCP whose program, thinking, and methods were more in line with capitalism and bourgeois mentality than what was needed to advance socialism.

In China, workers, peasants, and students actively took part in this process, and with a conscious understanding of why they were doing it and why it was absolutely necessary. Not that there were not very serious problems and excesses, because there were. But this is a revolution, not a fucking tea party.

To answer to the original post, I believe that the Cultural Revolution should have been a non-stop phenomenon (and must be in future proletarian states) because not until we get to communism will the class antagonisms and acute contradictions that we need to deal with under socialism, will finally disappear. If it does stop, it gives the enemy and opportunity to rise and overthrow proletarian rule, and we see China now and how super-fucked it is.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 25, 2007 03:12 pm
While we are discussing Mao:


In the meantime, chaos in the collectives and unfortunate climatic conditions resulted in widespread famine, while Mao continued to export grain to "save face" with the outside world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revo...at_Leap_Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Great_Leap_Forward)

True, not true, or something in between ?
It's on wikipedia, are you really going to use that as a primary source of debate?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long? In my opinion, the rise of the new bourgeoisie in China can be attributed to the improper length of the Cultural Revolution. Did the new bourgeoisie rise because the Cultural Revolution was too long, leading the masses to support revisionist reform, or was it too short, thus failing to smash the bourgeoisie?
Too short. The cultural rev was, in my opinion a 20+ year job.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The problem with the GPCR was not that it was the most democratic movement of the 20th century socialist experience, fighting all out against capitalist culture and bureacracy, racism, sexism, and capitalism. That's what made it one of the greatest movements of history. The problem was that it attacked the socialist bloc and the anti-imperialist bloc as much as it did the imperialists.

[Councilman Doug]

The problem was that it attacked the socialist bloc and the anti-imperialist bloc as much as it did the imperialists.


Example?

[Panda Tse Tung]

I assume he is talking about the revisionists. I suggest that LeftyHenry should read 'the Polemic'. Which you can probably buy at the RCP-bookstore.
The Polemic was caused by the USSR, not by China. Fin.
Besides, it is within the historical context that you should see this. Afterwards speaking maybe you are right, but i wont condemn them without providing a historical context for their mistake.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It was a mutual thing iniatiated by Khruschev's right wing policies and critiscisms (peaceful co-exsistance and the "secret speach"), and then the right wing reaction by China (Social-Imperialism). I think both can be blamed, but that's not what matters. What matters is how harmful the Sino-Soviet Split was to People's Movements all over the world. How it played into the hands of US imperialism.


Example?

Well the constant call of rejecting Soviet Imperialism and Social Imperialism and "Khruschev's phoney communism" etc..

[Matty_UK]

The nature of stalinist state capitalism inevitably leads to a return of the bourgeoisie, whether Mao liked it or not. The CCP exploited workers in state owned industries and lived wealthy lives off the surplus value generated, and they were collectively in charge of the expansion of capital. Since their role is inherently based on maximising growth through exploitation it follows that after one generation they will develop a bourgeois mentality. Mao could not have prevented this development in any way, and the cultural revolution achieved nothing but misery and destruction.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+October 27, 2007 05:19 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ October 27, 2007 05:19 pm)
Karl Marx's [email protected] 25, 2007 03:12 pm
While we are discussing Mao:


In the meantime, chaos in the collectives and unfortunate climatic conditions resulted in widespread famine, while Mao continued to export grain to "save face" with the outside world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revo...at_Leap_Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Great_Leap_Forward)

True, not true, or something in between ?
It's on wikipedia, are you really going to use that as a primary source of debate? [/b]
This is a very common claim, if it's a distortion explain how or prove to me that it didn't happen.

[Panda Tse Tung]

It was a mutual thing iniatiated by Khruschev's right wing policies and critiscisms (peaceful co-exsistance and the "secret speach"), and then the right wing reaction by China (Social-Imperialism). I think both can be blamed, but that's not what matters. What matters is how harmful the Sino-Soviet Split was to People's Movements all over the world. How it played into the hands of US imperialism.

Right-wing policies? It is an outright distortion of Marxism and was only favorable to the ruling bureaucratic clique. From this point of view of is historically logical (not correct) that Mao turned towards this analyses. Later after the collapse of the USSR, we would see that although the USSR was not really Marxist-Leninist anymore it was still socialist because the bureaucracy was forced after years of workers-struggle to accept the fact that Socialism had to exist and could not be abolished over-night. It was a process that took them 40 years, in what had been build for 40 years. Which shows how strong Marxist-Leninism actually was within Soviet-Society. Because these states are/we're thus still Socialist i think they should be defended. But not as genuine socialist workers-states, you have to recognize their revisionism in order to prevent future errors.

[Rawthentic]

The problem with the GPCR was not that it was the most democratic movement of the 20th century socialist experience, fighting all out against capitalist culture and bureacracy, racism, sexism, and capitalism. That's what made it one of the greatest movements of history. The problem was that it attacked the socialist bloc and the anti-imperialist bloc as much as it did the imperialists.
The whole basis of the Cultural Revolution was to combat revisionism, that anti-communist disease that had overcome the Soviet Union. It attacked no socialist bloc, but the revisionist bloc. To downplay the fundamental character of the Cultural Revolution is definitely not Marxist-Leninist but revisionist.

[Hiero]

Do people think the GPCR was a complete failure, or did it produce some success?

[quirk]

It delayed the capitalist take over for a considerable time so in that sense it was a sucess

[jacobin1949]

NSWERS TO THE ITALIAN JOURNALIST ORIANA FALLACI
August 21 and 23, 1980


Oriana Fallaci: Will Chairman Mao's portrait above Tiananmen Gate be kept there?

Deng Xiaoping: It will, forever. In the past there were too many portraits of Chairman Mao. They were hung everywhere. That was not proper and it didn't really show respect for Chairman Mao. It's true that he made mistakes in a certain period, but he was after all a principal founder of the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China. In evaluating his merits and mistakes, we hold that his mistakes were only secondary. What he did for the Chinese people can never be erased. In our hearts we Chinese will always cherish him as a founder of our Party and our state.

Question: We Westerners find a lot of things hard to understand. The Gang of Four are blamed for all the faults. I'm told that when the Chinese talk about the Gang of Four, many of them hold up five fingers.

Answer: We must make a clear distinction between the nature of Chairman Mao's mistakes and the crimes of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four. For most of his life, Chairman Mao did very good things. Many times he saved the Party and the state from crises. Without him the Chinese people would, at the very least, have spent much more time groping in the dark. Chairman Mao's greatest contribution was that he applied the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, pointing the way to victory. It should be said that before the sixties or the late fifties many of his ideas brought us victories, and the fundamental principles he advanced were quite correct. He creatively applied Marxism-Leninism to every aspect of the Chinese revolution, and he had creative views on philosophy, political science, military science, literature and art, and so on. Unfortunately, in the evening of his life, particularly during the ``Cultural Revolution'', he made mistakes -- and they were not minor ones -- which brought many misfortunes upon our Party, our state and our people. As you know, during the Yan'an days our Party summed up Chairman Mao's thinking in various fields as Mao Zedong Thought, and we made it our guiding ideology. We won great victories for the revolution precisely because we adhered to Mao Zedong Thought. Of course, Mao Zedong Thought was not created by Comrade Mao alone -- other revolutionaries of the older generation played a part in forming and developing it -- but primarily it embodies Comrade Mao's thinking. Nevertheless, victory made him less prudent, so that in his later years some unsound features and unsound ideas, chiefly ``Left'' ones, began to emerge. In quite a number of instances he went counter to his own ideas, counter to the fine and correct propositions he had previously put forward, and counter to the style of work he himself had advocated. At this time he increasingly lost touch with reality. He didn't maintain a good style of work. He did not consistently practise democratic centralism and the mass line, for instance, and he failed to institutionalize them during his lifetime. This was not the fault of Comrade Mao Zedong alone. Other revolutionaries of the older generation, including me, should also be held responsible. Some abnormalities appeared in the political life of our Party and state -- patriarchal ways or styles of work developed, and glorification of the individual was rife; political life in general wasn't too healthy. Eventually these things led to the ``Cultural Revolution'', which was a mistake.

Question: You mentioned that in his last years, Chairman Mao was in poor health. But at the time of Liu Shaoqi's arrest and his subsequent death in prison Mao's health wasn't so bad. And there are other mistakes to be accounted for. Wasn't the Great Leap Forward a mistake? Wasn't copying the Soviet model a mistake? And what did Chairman Mao really want with the ``Cultural Revolution''?

Answer: Mistakes began to occur in the late fifties -- the Great Leap Forward, for instance. But that wasn't solely Chairman Mao's fault either. The people around him got carried away too. We acted in direct contravention of objective laws, attempting to boost the economy all at once. As our subjective wishes went against objective laws, losses were inevitable. Still, it is Chairman Mao who should be held primarily responsible for the Great Leap Forward. But it didn't take him long -- just a few months -- to recognize his mistake, and he did so before the rest of us and proposed corrections. And in 962, when because of some other factors those corrections had not been fully carried out, he made a self-criticism. But the lessons were not fully drawn, and as a result the ``Cultural Revolution'' erupted. So far as Chairman Mao's own hopes were concerned, he initiated the ``Cultural Revolution'' in order to avert the restoration of capitalism, but he had made an erroneous assessment of China's actual situation. In the first place, the targets of the revolution were wrongly defined, which led to the effort to ferret out ``capitalist roaders in power in the Party''. Blows were dealt at leading cadres at all levels who had made contributions to the revolution and had practical experience, including Comrade Liu Shaoqi. In the last couple of years before Chairman Mao's death he said that the ``Cultural Revolution'' had been wrong on two counts: one was ``overthrowing all'', and the other was waging a ``full-scale civil war''. These two counts alone show that the ``Cultural Revolution'' cannot be called correct. Chairman Mao's mistake was a political mistake, and not a small one. On the other hand, it was taken advantage of by the two counter-revolutionary cliques headed by Lin Biao and the Gang of Four, who schemed to usurp power. Therefore, we should draw a line between Chairman Mao's mistakes and the crimes of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four.

Question: But we all know that it was Chairman Mao himself who chose Lin Biao1 as his successor, much in the same way as an emperor chooses his heir.

Answer: This is what I've just referred to as an incorrect way of doing things. For a leader to pick his own successor is a feudal practice. It is an illustration of the imperfections in our institutions which I referred to a moment ago.

Question: To what extent will Chairman Mao be involved when you hold your next Party congress?

Answer: We will make an objective assessment of Chairman Mao's contributions and his mistakes. We will reaffirm that his contributions are primary and his mistakes secondary. We will adopt a realistic approach towards the mistakes he made late in life. We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought, which represents the correct part of Chairman Mao's life. Not only did Mao Zedong Thought lead us to victory in the revolution in the past; it is -- and will continue to be -- a treasured possession of the Chinese Communist Party and of our country. That is why we will forever keep Chairman Mao's portrait on Tiananmen Gate as a symbol of our country, and we will always remember him as a founder of our Party and state. Moreover, we will adhere to Mao Zedong Thought. We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchov did to Stalin.

Question: Do you mean to say that the name of Chairman Mao will inevitably come up when the Gang of Four is brought to trial as well as when you have your next Party congress?

Answer: His name will be mentioned. Not only at the next Party congress but also on other occasions. But the trial of the Gang of Four will not detract from Chairman Mao's prestige. Of course, he was responsible for putting them in their positions. Nevertheless, the crimes the Gang of Four themselves committed are more than sufficient to justify whatever sentences may be passed on them.

Question: I have heard that Chairman Mao frequently complained that you didn't listen to him enough, and that he didn't like you. Is it true?

Answer: Yes, Chairman Mao did say I didn't listen to him. But this wasn't directed only at me. It happened to other leaders as well. It reflects some unhealthy ideas in his twilight years, that is, patriarchal ways which are feudal in nature. He did not readily listen to differing opinions. We can't say that all his criticisms were wrong. But neither was he ready to listen to many correct opinions put forward not only by me but by other comrades. Democratic centralism was impaired, and so was collective leadership. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain how the ``Cultural Revolution'' broke out.

Question: There was one personage in China who always went unscathed, and that was Premier Zhou Enlai. How do you explain this fact?

Answer: Premier Zhou was a man who worked hard and uncomplainingly all his life. He worked 12 hours a day, and sometimes 16 hours or more, throughout his life. We got to know each other quite early, that is, when we were in France on a work-study programme during the 1920s. I have always looked upon him as my elder brother. We took the revolutionary road at about the same time. He was much respected by his comrades and all the people. Fortunately he survived during the ``Cultural Revolution'' when we were knocked down. He was in an extremely difficult position then, and he said and did many things that he would have wished not to. But the people forgave him because, had he not done and said those things, he himself would not have been able to survive and play the neutralizing role he did, which reduced losses. He succeeded in protecting quite a number of people.

Question: I don't see how terrible things like the ``Cultural Revolution'' can be avoided or prevented from recurring.

Answer: This issue has to be addressed by tackling the problems in our institutions. Some of those we established in the past were, in fact, tainted by feudalism, as manifested in such things as the personality cult, the patriarchal ways or styles of work, and the life tenure of cadres in leading posts. We are now looking into ways to prevent such things from recurring and are preparing to start with the restructuring of our institutions. Our country has a history of thousands of years of feudalism and is still lacking in socialist democracy and socialist legality. We are now working earnestly to cultivate socialist democracy and socialist legality. Only in this way can we solve the problem.

Question: Are you sure that things will proceed more smoothly from now on? Can you attain the goal you have set yourselves? I hear that the so-called Maoists are still around. By ``Maoists'' I mean those who backed the ``Cultural Revolution''.

Answer: The influence of the Gang of Four should not be underrated, but it should be noted that 97 or 98 per cent of the population hate them intensely for their crimes. This was shown by the mass movement against the Gang of Four which erupted at Tiananmen Square on April 5, 1976, when the Gang were still riding high, Chairman Mao was critically ill and Premier Zhou had passed away. Since the Gang's overthrow [in 1976], and particularly in the past two years, the will and demands of the people have been given expression in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Plenary Sessions of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. We are considering ways of resolving our problems by improving our institutions. Many issues have already been raised now. Particular emphasis is being laid on working single-mindedly for the four modernizations, and this is winning the hearts of the people. They want political stability and unity. They are fed up with large-scale movements. Such movements invariably ended up hurting a number -- and not a small number -- of people. Incessant movements make it practically impossible to concentrate on national construction. Therefore, we can say for sure that given the correctness of our present course, the people will support us and such phenomena as the ``Cultural Revolution'' will not happen again.

Question: The Gang of Four could only have been arrested after the death of Chairman Mao. Who engineered their arrest? Who initiated the idea?

Answer: It was collective effort. First of all, I think, it had a mass base laid by the April 5th Movement [of 1976]. The term ``Gang of Four'' was coined by Chairman Mao a couple of years before his death. We waged struggles against the Gang for two years, in 1974 and 1975. By then people clearly saw them for what they were. Although Chairman Mao had designated his successor, the Gang of Four refused to accept this. After Chairman Mao's death, the Gang took the opportunity to try and get all power into their own hands, and the situation demanded action from us. They were rampant at that time, trying to overthrow the new leadership. Under these circumstances, the great majority of the comrades of the Political Bureau were agreed that measures had to be taken to deal with the Gang. The efforts of one of two individuals would not have sufficed for this purpose.

It should be pointed out that some of the things done after the arrest of the Gang of Four were inconsistent with Chairman Mao's wishes, for instance, the construction of the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall. He had proposed in the fifties that we should all be cremated when we died and that only our ashes be kept, that no remains should be preserved and no tombs built. Chairman Mao was the first to sign his name, and we all followed suit. Nearly all senior cadres at the central level and across the country signed. We still have that book of signatures. What was done in the matter after the smashing of the Gang of Four was prompted by the desire to achieve a relative stability.

Question: Does this mean that the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall will soon be demolished?

Answer: I am not in favour of changing it. Now that it is there, it would not be appropriate to remove it. It wasn't appropriate to build it in the first place, but to change it would give rise to all kinds of talk. Many people are now speculating whether we will demolish the Memorial Hall. We have no such idea.

Question: It is said that you are giving up the post of Vice-Premier.

Answer: I will not be the only one to resign. All other comrades of the older generation are giving up their concurrent posts. Chairman Hua Guofeng will no longer serve concurrently as Premier of the State Council. The Central Committee of the Party has recommended Comrade Zhao Ziyang as candidate for that post. If we old comrades remain at our posts, newcomers will be inhibited in their work. We face the problem of gradually reducing the average age of leaders at all levels. We have to take the lead.

There were previously no relevant rules. In fact, however, there was life tenure in leading posts. This does not facilitate the renewal of leadership or the promotion of younger people. It is an institutional defect which was not evident in the sixties because we were then in the prime of life. This issue involves not just individuals but all the relevant institutions. It has an even greater bearing on our general policy and on whether our four modernizations can be achieved. Therefore, we say it would be better for us old comrades to take an enlightened attitude and set an example in this respect.

Question: I have seen other portraits in China. At Tiananmen I've seen portraits of Marx, Engels and Lenin and particularly of Stalin. Do you intend to keep them there?

Answer: Before the ``Cultural Revolution'' they were put up only on important holidays. The practice was changed during the ``Cultural Revolution'', when they were displayed permanently. Now we are going back to the former way.

Question: The four modernizations will bring foreign capital into China, and this will inevitably give rise to private investment. Won't this lead to a miniaturized capitalism?

Answer: In the final analysis, the general principle for our economic development is still that formulated by Chairman Mao, that is, to rely mainly on our own efforts with external assistance subsidiary. No matter to what degree we open up to the outside world and admit foreign capital, its relative magnitude will be small and it can't affect our system of socialist public ownership of the means of production. Absorbing foreign capital and technology and even allowing foreigners to construct plants in China can only play a complementary role to our effort to develop the productive forces in a socialist society. Of course, this will bring some decadent capitalist influences into China. We are aware of this possibility; it's nothing to be afraid of.

Question: Does it mean that not all in capitalism is so bad?

Answer: It depends on how you define capitalism. Any capitalism is superior to feudalism. And we cannot say that everything developed in capitalist countries is of a capitalist nature. For instance, technology, science -- even advanced production management is also a sort of science -- will be useful in any society or country. We intend to acquire advanced technology, science and management skills to serve our socialist production. And these things as such have no class character.

Question: I remember that several years ago, when talking about private plots in rural areas, you acknowledged that man needs some personal interest to produce. Doesn't this mean to put in discussion communism itself?

Answer: According to Marx, socialism is the first stage of communism and it covers a very long historical period in which we must practise the principle ``to each according to his work'' and combine the interests of the state, the collective and the individual, for only thus can we arouse people's enthusiasm for labour and develop socialist production. At the higher stage of communism, when the productive forces will be greatly developed and the principle ``from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'' will be practised, personal interests will be acknowledged still more and more personal needs will be satisfied.

Question: You mentioned that there are others who made contributions to Mao Zedong Thought. Who were they?

Answer: Other revolutionaries of the older generation, for example Premier Zhou Enlai, Comrades Liu Shaoqi and Zhu De -- and many others. Many senior cadres are creative and original in their thinking.

Question: Why did you leave your own name out?

Answer: I am quite insignificant. Of course, I too have done some work. Otherwise, I wouldn't be counted as a revolutionary.

Question: What we did not understand was: If the Gang of Four was, as you said, a minority with all the country against them, how could it happen that they were holding the whole country, including the veteran leaders? Was it because one of the four was the wife of Mao Zedong and the ties between Mao Zedong and her were so profound that no one dared to touch her?

Answer: This was one of the factors. As I've said, Chairman Mao made mistakes, one of which was using the Gang, letting them come to power. Also, the Gang had their own factional set-up and they built a clique of some size -- particularly they made use of ignorant young people as a front, so they had a fair-sized base.

Question: Was Mao Zedong blinded by her so that he wouldn't see what she was doing? And was she an adventuress like the Empress Dowager Yehonala?

Answer: Jiang Qing did evil things by flaunting the banner of Chairman Mao. But Chairman Mao and Jiang Qing lived separately for years.

Question: We didn't know that.

Answer: Jiang Qing did what she did by flaunting the banner of Chairman Mao, but he failed to intervene effectively. For this he should be held responsible. Jiang Qing is rotten through and through. Whatever sentence is passed on the Gang of Four won't be excessive. They brought harm to millions upon millions of people.

Question: How would you assess Jiang Qing? What score would you give her?

Answer: Below zero. A thousand points below zero.

Question: How would you assess yourself?

Answer: I would be quite content if I myself could be rated fifty-fifty in merits and demerits. But one thing I can say for myself: I have had a clear conscience all my life. Please mark my words: I have made quite a few mistakes, and I have my own share of responsibility for some of the mistakes made by Comrade Mao Zedong. But it can be said that I made my mistake with good intentions. There is nobody who doesn't make mistakes. We should not lay all past mistakes on Chairman Mao. So we must be very objective in assessing him. His contributions were primary, his mistakes secondary. We will inherit the many good things in Chairman Mao's thinking while at the same time explaining clearly the mistakes he made.

(Excerpts concerning domestic issues taken from the Chinese transcript of a two-part interview.)

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+October 29, 2007 11:26 am--> (Matty_UK @ October 29, 2007 11:26 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:19 pm

Karl Marx's [email protected] 25, 2007 03:12 pm
While we are discussing Mao:


In the meantime, chaos in the collectives and unfortunate climatic conditions resulted in widespread famine, while Mao continued to export grain to "save face" with the outside world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revo...at_Leap_Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Great_Leap_Forward)

True, not true, or something in between ?
It's on wikipedia, are you really going to use that as a primary source of debate?
This is a very common claim, if it's a distortion explain how or prove to me that it didn't happen. [/b]
You put forth a disreputable source. The burden of proof is upon you, as the affirmative.

[Dros]

I think it is more of a quetion of when and how than length.

Firstly, I think the cultural revolution was implemented to soon. That kind of policy designed to "step up" socialism can only be effectively taken when a functional socialist (or at least proletarian) method of production has been instated. The Cultural Revolution resulted in mass famines because there was 1.) an insufficient central orginization (ie the CCP was not properly organized to cary out the Cultural Revolution) and 2.) the socialist system of production was insufficiently developed.

Secondly, the specific way in which the revolution was implemented is (in my opinion) contradictory to Marxist goals. I think the revolution should have focused on building urban industry in stead of agriculture. I know this is "un-Maoist" but I think it is true. The goals of socialism can not be achieved through coercively forcing people into working such and such a way or to live in such and such a place. It must be done by systematically reorganizing the means of production and, by doing so, the way they think. In dealing specifically with the Bourgoisie, it is important to note that, while they are the class enemy of the Proletariat, they are not in any meaningful sense "bad". Allow me to explain. Communism is not about the reversal of oppressor and oppressed. It is not about oppressing the Bourgoisie. It is about the universal emancipation of humanity. Thus, the Bourgoisie should be led to work, but not forced to, or treated in an inhumane way when it can be avoided. The fact that they will need to work to support themselves will suffice to have them willingly work. The Cultural Revolution should have been implemented in a way that allowed a cohesive restructuring of firstly identity (racial, class, etc), secondly, economic structure (end of Bourgoisie control of production and centering of productive capital in the hands of the proletariat), and thirdly the way people think (competition). I don't think that the Cultural Revolution was implemented in a way that allowed this to occur.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Firstly, I think the cultural revolution was implemented to soon. That kind of policy designed to "step up" socialism can only be effectively taken when a functional socialist (or at least proletarian) method of production has been instated.

And it was not?

1.) an insufficient central orginization (ie the CCP was not properly organized to cary out the Cultural Revolution)

Because it was not the CCP that carried out the whole GPCR. It we're the red guards and the masses of people. Whether this is a correct line or not is something else to discuss, but was there really an alternative?

2.) the socialist system of production was insufficiently developed.

In what sense?

Secondly, the specific way in which the revolution was implemented is (in my opinion) contradictory to Marxist goals. I think the revolution should have focused on building urban industry in stead of agriculture. I know this is "un-Maoist" but I think it is true.

You clearly haven't correctly studied the GPCR, during which there was still a lot of industrialization and Urban development.
It's not 'un-maoist' because it's Marxist and Maoism is an extension to Marxism.

The goals of socialism can not be achieved through coercively forcing people into working such and such a way or to live in such and such a place. It must be done by systematically reorganizing the means of production and, by doing so, the way they think.

Wow, you don't understand the GPCR at all do you?
The point is that merely altering the means of production wont alter the way people think. You need Socialist education, cultural change, changes in every single aspect of society in order to achieve an great alternation in ones consciousness. Or revisionism and other capitalist tendency's will never be fully eradicated (even after a world-revolution).

In dealing specifically with the Bourgoisie, it is important to note that, while they are the class enemy of the Proletariat, they are not in any meaningful sense "bad". Allow me to explain. Communism is not about the reversal of oppressor and oppressed. It is not about oppressing the Bourgoisie. It is about the universal emancipation of humanity.

Bull-shit, talking about un-Marxist. The bourgeoisie has everything to lose, why on the fucking earth would they support a system that takes away all their power, money, influence, etc...?
That is the most Utopian statement i have ever read on revleft this far. The bourgeoisie can be re-educated, sure. But involving them in the process of building a Proletarian Dictatorship (the word says it, the Proletariat oppresses the bourgeoisie) is bull-shit, and impossible. Of course you might need some of their less reactionary technicians until proletarian ones can be re-instated, but thats a whole different way of placing things.

Thus, the Bourgoisie should be led to work, but not forced to, or treated in an inhumane way when it can be avoided. The fact that they will need to work to support themselves will suffice to have them willingly work.

You don't really get the point surrounding the suppression of the bourgeoisie do you?
Read up on ya history, and you'll get it.

The Cultural Revolution should have been implemented in a way that allowed a cohesive restructuring of firstly identity (racial, class, etc), secondly, economic structure (end of Bourgoisie control of production and centering of productive capital in the hands of the proletariat), and thirdly the way people think (competition). I don't think that the Cultural Revolution was implemented in a way that allowed this to occur.

Ohw, lets take a look at your point. Point 1 identity. I will stick to race, cause altering the structure of class is... nonsensical. A lot of issue's surrounding racism we're struggled against. There are many different ethnic groups so this is a problem that occurred well before the GPCR and was already fought, that is why it was not as obvious that this racism was 'specifically' fought during the GPCR. But it was.
Point 2. This was already implemented...
Point 3. This was basically the major facet of the whole GPCR wise nose... For example in a certain commune (forgot it's name) they abolished the grade-system in favor of a cooperative form of education wherein the better-off students would help the lesser-off ones in developing. Thereby creating a cooperative instead of a competitive attitude. And again, this was basically one of the major facets of the GPCR.

[Dros]

Firstly, I think the cultural revolution was implemented to soon. That kind of policy designed to "step up" socialism can only be effectively taken when a functional socialist (or at least proletarian) method of production has been instated.

And it was not?

No. Not to the point where the Cultural Revolution could be effective.


1.) an insufficient central orginization (ie the CCP was not properly organized to cary out the Cultural Revolution)

Because it was not the CCP that carried out the whole GPCR. It we're the red guards and the masses of people.

I didn't say it was. I understand that the Cultural Revolution has a large grass routes element to it. But it was officially begun and officially ended by Mao. So it was gov't policy. One of the reasons there were mistakes made (I hope you recognize that mistakes were made even if they have been exagerated) was that the CCP had some orginizational flaws that were also exacerbated by capitalist roaders.


2.) the socialist system of production was insufficiently developed.

In what sense?

Socialism is not easy. There were systemic problems in production that would have been expected for such a country. This makes social revolution rather difficult though certainly not impossible.


Secondly, the specific way in which the revolution was implemented is (in my opinion) contradictory to Marxist goals. I think the revolution should have focused on building urban industry in stead of agriculture. I know this is "un-Maoist" but I think it is true.

You clearly haven't correctly studied the GPCR, during which there was still a lot of industrialization and Urban development.
It's not 'un-maoist' because it's Marxist and Maoism is an extension to Marxism.

I understand that there was industrialization. But there was a focus on agriculture. Industrialization, while it certainly did occur, did not occur as fast as under the Soviet Union. Furthermore, most possative scholarship done on the Cultural Revolution deals with the benefits to the country sides, such as the work of anthropologist Mobo Gao.

Allow me to reexplain what I meant about Maoism. Some people have told me that in their view rapid industrialization is un-Maoist. I clearly disagree. My statement should read "I know that some may think that this is un-Maoist."


The goals of socialism can not be achieved through coercively forcing people into working such and such a way or to live in such and such a place. It must be done by systematically reorganizing the means of production and, by doing so, the way they think.

Wow, you don't understand the GPCR at all do you?
The point is that merely altering the means of production wont alter the way people think. You need Socialist education, cultural change, changes in every single aspect of society in order to achieve an great alternation in ones consciousness. Or revisionism and other capitalist tendency's will never be fully eradicated (even after a world-revolution).

I understand that. My whole point is that the Cultural Revolution was ineffective at these goals!
Perhaps you should recognize that interpretations of history other than your own might not be wrong. You should be more willing to engage in debate without making silly comments about other's understanding. It makes the good arguments you make sound petty.


Bull-shit, talking about un-Marxist. The bourgeoisie has everything to lose, why on the fucking earth would they support a system that takes away all their power, money, influence, etc...?
That is the most Utopian statement i have ever read on revleft this far. The bourgeoisie can be re-educated, sure. But involving them in the process of building a Proletarian Dictatorship (the word says it, the Proletariat oppresses the bourgeoisie) is bull-shit, and impossible. Of course you might need some of their less reactionary technicians until proletarian ones can be re-instated, but thats a whole different way of placing things.

I didn't say they would support the system. After private property is abolished, they won't be able to exploit the proletariat to stay alive. They will have to work the same as everybody else. My statement is not Utopian. If you have in any way interpreted it in such a manner then you have totally miscontrued my argument. I didn't say we should involve them in building the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I said the system of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the policies it enacts should be designed in a way that lead the Bourgoisie into working. Not building the system just working in the most basic sense of the word.


You don't really get the point surrounding the suppression of the bourgeoisie do you?
Read up on ya history, and you'll get it.

Again with interpretations of history. And no. I think I do get the point. Perhaps try making in argument instead of just calling me stupid (again).


altering the structure of class is... nonsensical

Then why are we all Communists? The whole point is to modify (destroy) class! Perhaps I have misunderstood. Care to ellaborate?


Ohw, lets take a look at your point. Point 1 identity. A lot of issue's surrounding racism we're struggled against. There are many different ethnic groups so this is a problem that occurred well before the GPCR and was already fought, that is why it was not as obvious that this racism was 'specifically' fought during the GPCR. But it was.
Point 2. This was already implemented...
Point 3. This was basically the major facet of the whole GPCR wise nose... For example in a certain commune (forgot it's name) they abolished the grade-system in favor of a cooperative form of education wherein the better-off students would help the lesser-off ones in developing. Thereby creating a cooperative instead of a competitive attitude. And again, this was basically one of the major facets of the GPCR.

I understand that. My point was that the way it was implemented failed to achieve these goals.

[Panda Tse Tung]

No. Not to the point where the Cultural Revolution could be effective.

And why not?

I didn't say it was. I understand that the Cultural Revolution has a large grass routes element to it. But it was officially begun and officially ended by Mao. So it was gov't policy. One of the reasons there were mistakes made (I hope you recognize that mistakes were made even if they have been exagerated) was that the CCP had some orginizational flaws that were also exacerbated by capitalist roaders.

Yes, thats why it was placed out of action.


Socialism is not easy. There were systemic problems in production that would have been expected for such a country. This makes social revolution rather difficult though certainly not impossible.


Of course, but you can have social revolution during imperfect conditions. Thats the whole point. There is no such a thing as perfect conditions. Besides, if the GPCR wasn't implemented at the time the capitalist-roaders would have been in power some 10 years early.


I understand that there was industrialization. But there was a focus on agriculture. Industrialization, while it certainly did occur, did not occur as fast as under the Soviet Union. Furthermore, most possative scholarship done on the Cultural Revolution deals with the benefits to the country sides, such as the work of anthropologist Mobo Gao.

Because a too rapid urbanization would have been harmful to society. But the policy never was 'don't industrialize'. In fact the policy was 'do industrialize'.


I understand that. My whole point is that the Cultural Revolution was ineffective at these goals!
Perhaps you should recognize that interpretations of history other than your own might not be wrong. You should be more willing to engage in debate without making silly comments about other's understanding. It makes the good arguments you make sound petty.

Because it is about understanding. Your arguments we're nonsensical and had no back-up in any way/shape or form. You merely assumed others might know what the crap you are talking about.
So, again i will ask: how was the GPCR ineffective at these goals?


I didn't say they would support the system. After private property is abolished, they won't be able to exploit the proletariat to stay alive. They will have to work the same as everybody else. My statement is not Utopian. If you have in any way interpreted it in such a manner then you have totally miscontrued my argument.

Then formulate a more coherent argument.

I didn't say we should involve them in building the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I said the system of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the policies it enacts should be designed in a way that lead the Bourgoisie into working. Not building the system just working in the most basic sense of the word.


Never heard of re-education?
If those weren't policies applied to 're-educate' the bourgeoisie, then what we're they?


Again with interpretations of history. And no. I think I do get the point. Perhaps try making in argument instead of just calling me stupid (again).

I never said you we're stupid. I have never in my life called anybody stupid. I told you to 'read up on ya history'. Suggesting that i perceive you to be smart enough to understand it. If i did not perceive you to be smart enough i wouldn't have even engaged in this debate now would i?


Then why are we all Communists? The whole point is to modify (destroy) class! Perhaps I have misunderstood. Care to ellaborate?

Ok, i perceived you to be saying 'under Socialism we can just modify classes'. As in 'ok, now your not bourgeoisie anymore, join the gang!'. Since we we're talking about the GPCR. I assume this is a mis-interpretation on my behalf.


I understand that. My point was that the way it was implemented failed to achieve these goals.

In what sense? For the time being they we're certainly successful and they had some long-term impact as well. Obviously with the re-construction of capitalism it would have been un-beneficial to stick to proletarian culture therefore it was destroyed. But stating it never was even close to achieving these aims, is nonsensical (do keep in mind there was a huge propaganda-campaign against the GPCR right after Mao's death).

[Dros]

And why not?

I don't think the infrastructure in China was sufficiently developed. During the period right before the CR, there were sporatic famines. These have been greatly exagerated but they do show that there were kinks in Chinese socialism that needed to be worked out.


you can have social revolution during imperfect conditions. Thats the whole point. There is no such a thing as perfect conditions.

Of course. I'm not saying Mao shouldn't have done anything nor that the proletariat and the peasentry shouldn't have tried to reform the party. I'm saying that the way it was implemented in a way that became counter productive.


Never heard of re-education?
If those weren't policies applied to 're-educate' the bourgeoisie, then what we're they?

Again, the argument was that these were incorrectly implemented. They alienated people.


In what sense?

In the sense that it killed a lot of revolutionary people and to some extent disconnected the party with the people.

I'm sorry these arguments aren't fleshed out. I'm a little rushed right now. Perhaps I will explain more latter.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I don't think the infrastructure in China was sufficiently developed. During the period right before the CR, there were sporatic famines. These have been greatly exagerated but they do show that there were kinks in Chinese socialism that needed to be worked out.

That was Chinese economics throughout it's history and existence. Not specific to the Socialist economy it later followed, which was capable of eliminating most of these famines. On a side-note, during the GPCR there wasn't a single famine.



Of course. I'm not saying Mao shouldn't have done anything nor that the proletariat and the peasentry shouldn't have tried to reform the party. I'm saying that the way it was implemented in a way that became counter productive.

Of course, and that is something to be learned from. But overall i think the GPCR was a very successful advance in Marxist practice and theory.



Again, the argument was that these were incorrectly implemented. They alienated people.


A lot of bourgeoisie we're re-educated and factually gained voting-right. So, i do not think this specific aspect of Socialism in China was flawed.



In the sense that it killed a lot of revolutionary people and to some extent disconnected the party with the people.


Well, that is the problem with staging such a great project. And i think it inevitable, i mean it is a very difficult task to achieve what was achieved during the GPCR. And yes there we're excesses, and yes this led to problems. But excesses and problems are inevitable.


I'm sorry these arguments aren't fleshed out. I'm a little rushed right now. Perhaps I will explain more latter.

I would like that :).

[Dros]

That was Chinese economics throughout it's history and existence. Not specific to the Socialist economy it later followed, which was capable of eliminating most of these famines.

No it was not specific to socialism but it implies that development was needed.


i think the GPCR was a very successful advance in Marxist practice and theory

Could you perhaps recommend some sources? We seem to be basing our arguments off entirely different versions of history!


A lot of bourgeoisie we're re-educated and factually gained voting-right. So, i do not think this specific aspect of Socialism in China was flawed.

All I can speak to is that I've met second and third generation descendants of people in the cultural revolution who are still embittered and pissed as hell about the CR.


Well, that is the problem with staging such a great project. And i think it inevitable, i mean it is a very difficult task to achieve what was achieved during the GPCR. And yes there we're excesses, and yes this led to problems. But excesses and problems are inevitable.


Of course that's true. I seem to not be seeing all these benefits that were won. Perhaps you can give me some reading?

[Panda Tse Tung]

I almost forgot to respond, since i already read the thread but in a hurry so it was signed as 'read'.



No it was not specific to socialism but it implies that development was needed.

Obviously, but again. What choice did they have?



Could you perhaps recommend some sources? We seem to be basing our arguments off entirely different versions of history!

Of course :). My sources are mostly dutch, but i hope most of them have English titles as well.

China: the quality of life. by Wilfred Burchett and Rewi Alley (high recommendation)
Mao papers: anthology and bibliography by Jerome Ch'en
The Chinese road to Socialism, economics of the Cultural Revolution by E.L. Wheelwright and Bruce McFarlane
And of course other works of Mao himself.

Edit: accidentally pressed 'post'.



All I can speak to is that I've met second and third generation descendants of people in the cultural revolution who are still embittered and pissed as hell about the CR.

Emigrated or native Chinese?
I still dunno what you mean by second and third, you mean those who weren't there? The descendants?
I basically need answers to those questions to fully reply to your statement so yeah :).



Of course that's true. I seem to not be seeing all these benefits that were won. Perhaps you can give me some reading?

See above.

[Dros]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 11, 2007 09:28 pm
Emigrated or native Chinese?
I still dunno what you mean by second and third, you mean those who weren't there? The descendants?
I basically need answers to those questions to fully reply to your statement so yeah :).
Emigrated. But their parents were born in China to "victims" of the cultural revolution. And they're still pretty pissed about what happened to their grandparents and their parents.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Victims as in bourgeoisie. Your still rather vague, and of course someone who is victimized by a certain progressive movement wont be positive about it. But being somewhere isn't the same as analyzing it.

[Dros]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 13, 2007 10:27 pm
Victims as in bourgeoisie. Your still rather vague, and of course someone who is victimized by a certain progressive movement wont be positive about it. But being somewhere isn't the same as analyzing it.
I'm vague because I'm not sure. But I am sure that the grandchildren of people alive during the Cultural Revolution are still bitter. That at least means that some people were alienated. Maybe they were bougoisie. It sounded like they were peasants but the fact that they are now living in the U.S. suggests that they had sufficient resources to move. I'll look into it.

[Rawthentic]

No doubt there were excesses in the GPCR, it was a mass movement that aimed for nothing less than communism (of course there was the need for world revolution). It attempted (and did in many respects) revolutionize all sectors of society.

So yes, there were people unfairly imprisoned, ridiculed, and alienated. But it was an overwhelmingly positive experience in socialism.

[kasama-rl]

Here is an important point from Mao:

"Without excesses, it is impossible to right wrongs."

This is because the masses must emancipate themselves, and learn through the process of emancipating themselves. It can't be done with a tweezers and an eyedropper (on behafl of the people, by subsituting for them.)

As mao said:

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

this is really something to wrestle with. Because it has many implications.

It is drawn from one of Mao's most early works -- which is very important to study for methodological reasons.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...e-1/mswv1_2.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm)

It lays out the importance of standing with the people, and standing among them, and leading them -- not standing to the side criticizing them and kvetching.

* * * * *

This is tied to some critiques I have about the recent turn of the RCP which now criticizes the masses themselves more and more bitterly for "complicty" and even "crimes"!

for example Avakian now says: "“The politics of the ‘possible’ is the politics of monstrosity. To adhere to, or acquiesce in, the politics of the ‘possible’ is to support, and actually to facilitate, monstrosity.”"

And he has an article called: "Refusal to Resist Crimes Against Humanity Is Itself a Crime" (http://revcom.us/a/109/avakian-resistance-en.html)

He has also now talked about cursing the masses of people "yes, [i] have cursed in graphic terms—the people in this society who are sitting by and doing nothing in the face of atrocities and horrors committed by their government and in their name…"

This raises important issues of the "mass line" -- standing with the masses, and how to deal with their backwardness, passivity or erroneous ideas at various time.

Are we part of the masses, their advanced detachment, or are we cursing them in frustration and impotence from afar? These are questions of two very different roads and methods.

[Panda Tse Tung]

As Mao stated:

"Every Communist working in the mass movements should be a friend of the masses and not a boss over them, an indefatigable teacher and not a bureaucratic politician."

"Communists must never separate themselves from the majority of the people or neglect them by leading only a few progressive contingents in an isolated and rash advance, but must take care to forge close links between the progressive elements and the broad masses. This is what thinking in terms of the majority means."

"A Communist must never be opinionated or domineering, thinking that he is good in everything while others are good in nothing; he must never shut himself up in his little room, or brag and boast and lord it over others."

"Communists must listen attentively to the views of people outside the Party and let them have their say. If what they say is right, we ought to welcome it, and we should learn from their strong points; if it is wrong, we should let them finish what they are saying and then patiently explain things to them."

"The attitude of Communists towards any person who has made mistakes in his work should be one of persuasion in order to help him change and start afresh and not one of exclusion, unless he is incorrigible."

"As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward."

Needless to say that if the RCP is doing what your saying their doing, then it is completely wrong. Not because Chairman Mao stated it, but hey if someone else stated it better then you, why not quote him ;).

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 27, 2007 05:56 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 27, 2007 05:56 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long? In my opinion, the rise of the new bourgeoisie in China can be attributed to the improper length of the Cultural Revolution. Did the new bourgeoisie rise because the Cultural Revolution was too long, leading the masses to support revisionist reform, or was it too short, thus failing to smash the bourgeoisie?
Too short. The cultural rev was, in my opinion a 20+ year job. [/b]
I'd give it 25-30 years.
And kill them reformists

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by petey+November 22, 2007 11:50 am--> (petey @ November 22, 2007 11:50 am)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 27, 2007 05:56 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long? In my opinion, the rise of the new bourgeoisie in China can be attributed to the improper length of the Cultural Revolution. Did the new bourgeoisie rise because the Cultural Revolution was too long, leading the masses to support revisionist reform, or was it too short, thus failing to smash the bourgeoisie?
Too short. The cultural rev was, in my opinion a 20+ year job.
I'd give it 25-30 years.
And kill them reformists [/b]
yes, there comes a time when elimination becomes a necessary task.

[kasama-rl]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 27, 2007 07:17 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 27, 2007 07:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:50 am

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 27, 2007 05:56 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long? In my opinion, the rise of the new bourgeoisie in China can be attributed to the improper length of the Cultural Revolution. Did the new bourgeoisie rise because the Cultural Revolution was too long, leading the masses to support revisionist reform, or was it too short, thus failing to smash the bourgeoisie?
Too short. The cultural rev was, in my opinion a 20+ year job.
I'd give it 25-30 years.
And kill them reformists
yes, there comes a time when elimination becomes a necessary task. [/b]
The experience of the French Revolution is that the guillotine is not a solution to class contradictions.

In fact we have to transform the social relations (including the class relations)... and just eliminating the particular people now occupying those class positions does not eliminate the class structure.

The process requires a whole other level of transformation: the ownership system, the system of distribution, the relations IN production. Three different aspects of class systems.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:30 pm
It delayed the capitalist take over for a considerable time so in that sense it was a sucess
Yes, with three years (1979). ^^

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Serpent+November 30, 2007 02:36 pm--> (Serpent @ November 30, 2007 02:36 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 01:30 pm
It delayed the capitalist take over for a considerable time so in that sense it was a sucess
Yes, with three years (1979). ^^[/b]
More like 13: 1967-1979. ^_^

I found a video on youtube on the subject of the GPCR and although I'm usually one to go against the MIM, think they did a good job with this one. Any opinions on it?

Death of Jiang Qing (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7PguXnEiQmI&feature=related)

[RNK]

The experience of the French Revolution is that the guillotine is not a solution to class contradictions.

The guillotine is not the solution but for practicality it is an essential one. Revolutions can not sit idly by and hope to stifle and destroy the ruling class by words and talk alone. If we could, we wouldn't be here; if there's one thing the bourgeoisie excel at, it is manipulation. Case in point: despite the fact that the vast, vast majority of the population suffer and are exploited and manipulated by capital, very few actually realize it, and even fewer speak out about it. They've all been convinced that this is the way things are supposed to be.

[kasama-rl]

the socialist period in china was 1949-1976, not 1949-1979.

The turning point for the restoration of capitalism came in the coup of september 1976, right after Mao's death, when his supporters were arrested (many were killed), and the cultural revolution was suppressed by armed force.

This is a rather important point of history -- that concentrates important points of theory and key lessons of the twentieth century (about how capitalist restoration happens, and how it is prepared and potentially how it can be prevented.)