Major Study on the Cultural Revolution in China

[Rawthentic]

Is revolution possible? How can the people deepen revolutionary change after seizing power? To answer those questions, it is valuable to study Mao’s revolution in China, and especially the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Kasama would like to share “Evaluating the Cultural Revolution in China and its Legacy for the Future.” It was written by the by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the U.S. This comprehensive paper describes the course of the Cultural Revolution (CR) from 1966-1976, its achievements and shortcomings, and why future movements for revolution, socialism and communism must stand on its shoulders.”
This is the first of 8 articles composing a paper that was written by the MLM Revolutionary Study group. (http://www.mlmrsg.com/)

Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt. 1: Seeding Machine for Revolution (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/maos-cultural-revolution-pt-1-seeding-machine-for-revolution/) - Evaluating the Cultural Revolution (Part 1): Intro


Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt. 2: The Sweep of A Revolution, 1966-1976 (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/maos-cultural-revolution-pt-2-the-sweep-of-a-revolution-1966-1976/) - How it started


Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt. 3: A Startling Theoretical Leap (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/mao%e2%80%99s-cultural-revolution-pt-3-a-startling-theoretical-leap/)-Theoretical Underpinnings of the Cultural Revolution


Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt 4: Radical Changes in Culture (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/maos-cultural-revolution-pt-4-radical-changes-in-culture/)- Revolution in Culture, Education and Internationalism


Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt 5. Deep Among the People (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/maos-cultural-revolution-pt-5-deep-among-the-people/) - Workers, Peasants and Barefoot Doctors


(http://www.mlmrsg.com/)Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt 6. The Winding Road (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/maos-cultural-revolution-pt-6-roadblocks-and-revolution/)-Obstacles and Shortcomings


Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt 7: Struggling to Liberate Women (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/mao%e2%80%99s-cultural-revolution-pt-7-struggling-to-liberate-women/) -The Liberation of Women



Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt 9: Summing Up the Revolution (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/mao%e2%80%99s-cultural-revolution-pt-9-summing-up-the-revolution/) -Conclusion
(http://www.mlmrsg.com/)
*******

This is a huge, major study done on the Cultural Revolution in China. The links are to the Kasama Project website, where the articles are posted, along with the footnotes and citations.

I don't expect people to read them all, but if one interests them (or all) they can read them, and we can discuss them here.

Thanks.

[redguard2009]

Read Pt 1, reading Pt 2... excellent, very useful stuff.

[Bilan]

I've no doubt this is a ' critical analysis' :lol:

I'll give it a read once I'm finished my current book.

[redguard2009]

LOL your witty sarcasm is too much!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:

Of course its not critical! Maoists critical of Mao are you kidding!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I haven't read through all of it, but I am noticing it isn't as critical of Mao as it probably should be. For example, although Mao did have significant political and philosophical disagreements with Liu and Deng, I think it undersells the extent to which Mao's political struggles with the CCP caused him to use the Cultural Revolution. Moreover, it has yet to talk about Mao's disbanding of the Shanghai People's Commune which renders his claims of self-government problematic. Again, I have not read all of it, but as of yet these issues remain unaddressed. However, I genuinely hope they are addressed because otherwise the set of articles seems very well prepared.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, it's obvious you've read almost nothing.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Yeah, it's obvious you've read almost nothing.
Ok, so now that you've been flippant, dismissive, and unhelpful in every way, I want you to show me three places in the entire study where they offer criticism Mao's role in the cultural revolution with the exception of their critical take on the three worlds theory. Also, I want it to be a genuinely critical so it should not have the form of "Mao realized problem X and warned everyone about it, but was unable to stop it."

[Rawthentic]

What the fuck do you expect?

Claiming that Mao was some power hungry monster? A Maoist analysis takes a much deeper materialist analysis than that, or the one you want to see.

There's a whole fucking article on the GPCR's shortcomings.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

What the fuck do you expect?

Claiming that Mao was some power hungry monster? A Maoist analysis takes a much deeper materialist analysis than that, or the one you want to see.

There's a whole fucking article on the GPCR's shortcomings.

Yeah, and I read that article, which is why I knew enough about it to make claims about the 3 worlds position. I'll tell you you exactly what I expected


I haven't read through all of it, but I am noticing it isn't as critical of Mao as it probably should be. For example, although Mao did have significant political and philosophical disagreements with Liu and Deng, I think it undersells the extent to which Mao's political struggles with the CCP caused him to use the Cultural Revolution. Moreover, it has yet to talk about Mao's disbanding of the Shanghai People's Commune which renders his claims of self-government problematic. Again, I have not read all of it, but as of yet these issues remain unaddressed. However, I genuinely hope they are addressed because otherwise the set of articles seems very well prepared.

Ok, so now that you've been flippant, dismissive, and unhelpful in every way, I want you to show me three places in the entire study where they offer criticism Mao's role in the cultural revolution with the exception of their critical take on the three worlds theory. Also, I want it to be a genuinely critical so it should not have the form of "Mao realized problem X and warned everyone about it, but was unable to stop it."

I'm sorry, was that somehow ambiguous? I thought it was clear since I put both a qualitative and quantitative element to the demand. Maybe you should take some to read what I write rather than reacting to what you imagine I'm writing.

Also, I don't see how it's unreasonable to ask that a study on the Cultural Revolution address the issue of Mao's political power and position in the party since most people see that as a somewhat salient point. However, if thoughtful discussion about your Patron Saint Mao is not appreciated, then I'll find Maoists who are willing to have an intellectually honest discussion.

[redguard2009]

And what exactly is your definition of critical? Do you expect the article to somewhere make a u-turn and condemn Mao and Maoism?

It seems to me you're simply baiting the article and the OP by trying to underhandedly imply some form of uncritical, simple-minded obsession with Mao based on the lack of hard-line opposition to him. I challenge you to produce any article in which a self-proclaimed follower of a particular ideological tendency takes a hard, unyielding, and "acceptable critical" stance against the originator of said tendency (Trotskyists condemning Trotsky? Tankies criticizing Stalin?)

This article is not a critique. It is a study on the positive aspects of the Cultural Revolution and China and seeks to expose that which is often dismissed or kept hidden about the benefits the Cultural Revolution brought to China. It is unrealistic to expect an article which has the support of a particular event, person, party or other to contain heavy criticisms "or else it isn't unbiased, now is it". If you're looking for a critique, there are plenty of them written about Mao, Maoism, the revolution in China, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Dengist coup, and plenty of other subjects, by both Maoists and non-Maoists alike.

So please, fuck off and stop trying to bait us.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

And what exactly is your definition of critical? Do you expect the article to somewhere make a u-turn and condemn Mao and Maoism?

It seems to me you're simply baiting the article and the OP by trying to underhandedly imply some form of uncritical, simple-minded obsession with Mao based on the lack of hard-line opposition to him. I challenge you to produce any article in which a self-proclaimed follower of a particular ideological tendency takes a hard, unyielding, and "acceptable critical" stance against the originator of said tendency (Trotskyists condemning Trotsky? Tankies criticizing Stalin?)

This article is not a critique. It is a study on the positive aspects of the Cultural Revolution and China and seeks to expose that which is often dismissed or kept hidden about the benefits the Cultural Revolution brought to China. It is unrealistic to expect an article which has the support of a particular event, person, party or other to contain heavy criticisms "or else it isn't unbiased, now is it". If you're looking for a critique, there are plenty of them written about Mao, Maoism, the revolution in China, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Dengist coup, and plenty of other subjects, by both Maoists and non-Maoists alike.

So please, fuck off and stop trying to bait us.
Zizek, In Defense of Lost Causes is supportive of Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao while simultaneously being critical of them as people. I'll use the three communist examples because they have the best traction.

First, he argues that Lenin, while brilliant, was unable or unwilling to attempt to manage the Soviet Union while the Soviets themselves were powerful loci of popular support and action. So, in order to consolidate the gains made, real gains mind you, he ultimately reigned in the Soviets to rest under central control.

Secondly, Stalin lead the Soviet Union while there was a huge explosion of experimentation. One specific example is the ministry of labor where they were experimenting with new ways of laboring and associating. Most specifically, they ran a few factories where the workers would function regularly like machines. Stalin, in his fear of this experimentation and what it might mean for humanity, returned the Soviet Union to a regular (albeit deeply more effective) state.

Thirdly, Zizek argues that Mao, in a power struggle with Deng unleashed the smoldering popular will of the people. This uprising lead to a wellspring of revolutionary action that set the entire country on fire. On location in particular was the Shanghai Commune. Here we had a radically new form of association where even the party structure itself was coming into question. Mao, unable to cope with the loss of a major industrial city and unsure of whether or not this revoultion would spread, used the army to dispell the Shanghai Commune.

So what's the point of this? That Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are power hungry monsters? That we should throw away everything they wrote and did? Of course not, however we need to take a critical examination of the objective conditions that make movements unsuccessful which the above study did quite well, but also the subjective conditions which were completely absent. In a sentence, we must learn how to become more Maoist than Mao.

I haven't been underhanded in my critique of the study. I laid out exactly what I would have liked to see in it. And let me repeat again, since you seem to have problems reading for the third time


However, I genuinely hope they are addressed because otherwise the set of articles seems very well prepared.

I thought that Maoists would be the the ones in the best position to offer a critical take on Mao. At least in both your cases, I make no claims for the Kasama Project because a lot of good work seems to be coming out of there, you're unable to provide the necessary critiques to move Maoism forward. Until someone is able to provide that honest critique, we're going to be left with worthless mendacious shit like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/0679422714

[Rawthentic]

RD actually makes a good post that is worth responding to.

To start off, we need to break through that idea that Mao unleashed the people as a way to maintain power (which is how RD frames it).

It was much deeper, and involved a sweeping new analysis of the class forces and emergence of a new bourgeois under socialism.

Have you read what these articles have to say on the Shanghai Commune?


From part 4:

The Cultural Revolution was first and foremost a revolution in the political and ideological superstructure of Chinese society. One of the most important parts of this superstructure under socialism is the Communist Party. According to the “16 Point Decision” that became the political charter of the Cultural Revolution, its principal task was to overthrow “those within the Party who are in authority and taking the capitalist road.”[2]

The Cultural Revolution moved into high gear in January 1967 with a seizure of power from below in Shanghai. In the plants, neighborhoods and at the city-wide level in Shanghai and many other cities, rebel workers criticized and replaced revisionist party officials with their own representatives. Through revolutionary committees, made up of representatives of the mass organizations of workers, revolutionary party cadre and political cadre of the People’s Liberation Army, millions of people began to play a more direct role in economic and state affairs. Likewise, revolutionary committees were established in many areas of the countryside based on self-organized mass associations of peasants and workers in local factories and shops."from part 5:


After the Cultural Revolution was launched in the spring of 1966, politically conscious workers in China’s industrial centers watched events closely. Some made contact with local Red Guard groups and began to discuss their grievances with the top-down system of management that had been widely imposed in the early 1960s. One of the first groups to organize themselves in the factories was the “revolutionary technicians,” many of who were former workers. They began to criticize the formally educated “technical authorities” in their plants who relied on Western or Soviet technical methods and refused to experiment or listen to workers’ suggestions for innovations.[2]


The mass uprising of hundreds of thousands of workers in Shanghai in January 1967 was a signal to workers elsewhere, particularly workers in large state-owned enterprises who had participated in the Great Leap Forward, to organize and seize power from managers and party cadre who were running their factories like capitalist enterprises. These power seizures were led by varying combinations of rank and file workers, work group leaders, technicians, middle-level managers, and revolutionary cadre at various levels.[3] Where these in-plant uprisings took place, elected revolutionary committees–composed of workers, technicians and party cadre–took over directing the daily activities of the factories. This new form of factory management was promoted as a model and spread nationwide during 1967 and early 1968.


This political mobilization and surge of China’s industrial workers enabled them to make many of the transformations within the factories that had first been attempted with varying degrees of success during the Great Leap Forward. Piece wage systems were abolished; by 1971, individual and group bonuses had been eliminated in most plants.[4] Production teams took over managerial responsibilities for their units. They took attendance, planned daily tasks, recorded use of materials, scheduled maintenance, performed quality control and coordinated production with other units. In some factories, yearly production quotas were determined after a lengthy process of consultation with all units in the plant, and production teams determined their own pay within the basic wage scale, based on length of experience, level of skill, and their attitude towards work and fellow workers.[5]



At the same time, the 8 grade wage system—in which the differential between the highest paid skilled workers and the lowest paid unskilled workers averaged three to one—was not a subject of struggle. One reason for this was that seniority allowed workers’ wages to increase over the years; in some cases, senior skilled workers made more than managers.[6]


As the Cultural Revolution progressed, managers and full-time cadre in all industrial enterprises were required to work on the shop floors on a regular or rotating basis. Those with intellectual backgrounds were given training in a particular skill. Members of in-plant revolutionary committees, as well as their administrative staff, participated in labor and made regular visits to the shop floor to assess conditions and make decisions. “Triple combinations” of workers, technicians and administrators were organized to solve technical problems and make innovations at the point of production.
what do you think?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

RD actually makes a good post that is worth responding to.

To start off, we need to break through that idea that Mao unleashed the people as a way to maintain power (which is how RD frames it).

This may or may not be done, but I'm asking you to do it if it can be done. Also, if Mao unleashed the people to maintain power it doesn't entail that was simply the end. The position that Mao believed he had the proper leadership to lead. It's not optimal, but isn't any better or worse than any other leader in the history of the world, Cincinatus excluded.


It was much deeper, and involved a sweeping new analysis of the class forces and emergence of a new bourgeois under socialism.

Have you read what these articles have to say on the Shanghai Commune?


From part 4:
from part 5:
what do you think?
I want to say, I generally approve of teh Shanghai commune with little to no reservations. However, I still want to know why it was dissolved. That's the relevant question to me especially since it seems like it functioned quite well.

Also, let me be clear. I in no way support Deng and his revisionism. Furthermore, I have a fundamentally positive view on the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution despite their major problems. However, I feel we must learn from those problems of all varieties.

I eagerly await your reply.

[Rawthentic]

Mao did not "unleash the people to maintain power." That's precisely the argument that bourgeois ideologists and pseudo-marxists make about the GPCR.

He called on the people to "bombard the headquarters" meaning that they take up the struggle against the capitalist roaders that were weilding power that would (and did) objectively take China back to capitalism.

One of the problems of the Shanghai Commune is that its leaders wanted to dissolve the entire state structure and build a new one. Mao correctly understood that only a thoroughly revolutionary line with communist leadership could keep China on the socialist road, and its dismantling would be disastrous.

Instead, new forms of management and participation were devised through that struggle as a means to combat the tide towards capitalist methods in production.

For Mao, it was not about taking down the entire state, but staging a huge communist political struggle that would oust the capitalist roaders and in the process forge new communist leaders from the lower sectors in society (women, workers, peasants), thus revolutionizing chinese society as a necessary stage to maintain socialist transformation.

[redguard2009]

The position that Mao believed he had the proper leadership to lead.

Incorrect.

Mao stepped down from his leadership role at the end of 1959, in the aftermath of the failures of the GLF. In his closing statements, he made it clear that both he and his party deserved to be criticized for their roles. It was a statement he obviously took to heart, while the party and government did not. It's easy to declare someone is manipulating a situation to suit their own needs, but it's clearly evident that Mao was simply following what he thought was the right course of action in challenging the Party and speaking out against it and its right-wing turn. A great many people idolized and were inspired by him, and agreed with him; Mao urged the people to be critical of their government, to speak out, to communicate, to criticize and analyse and that is exactly what they did, not at his command but completely autonomously. Throughout the GPCR automous workers unions, student collectives, peasant communes and the like began to heed Mao's message and think for themselves, coming up with their own solutions to the problems they faced -- not adopting any decrees from Mao.

[Armand Iskra]

He called on the people to "bombard the headquarters" meaning that they take up the struggle against the capitalist roaders that were weilding power that would (and did) objectively take China back to capitalism.

The chinese people, on what Mao hath said to them, urges a call to purge the party of opportunists, of careerists within it, in order to maintain the party and its revolutionary line intact. Since at that time, china wanted not to follow the Khrushchevist line since Khrushchev is a revisionist.

[cccplikai]

I am a Chinese，Chinese people miss Chairman Mao~Maoism is right~Reform and opening-up to destroy the socialist system!We need to Maoism~;)

[scarletghoul]

Wow, this is a lot of writing! Thanks. I look forward to reading this as the Cultural Revolution is a subject of interest that I dont know much about.

And yeah, we all need to Maoism

[scarletghoul]

What happened to part 8?

[Rawthentic]

scarletghoul:

This series was posted on the Kasama website, and so not every single article was posted.

mlmrsg.com might have the entire project in sections as well.

cccplikai:

are you really Chinese? Can you tell us a bit more of how the people feel about Mao and socialism in China?

[Invader Zim]

I haven't read it, but I immidiately take issue with the terms 'huge' and 'major'. In what way is it either?

[Rawthentic]

Zim:

It is clearly a long, detailed, and well-sourced work on the GPCR.

If you haven't read it, I'd suggest it.

[Invader Zim]

Zim:

It is clearly a long, detailed, and well-sourced work on the GPCR.

If you haven't read it, I'd suggest it.

It isn't that long, looking at it is about the length of say an MRes. As for its sources, it strikes me as very sophormoric. Examining the notes, I see that archival, and indeed primary, sources generally, are seriously lacking.

[ComradeOm]

As for its sources, it strikes me as very sophormoric. Examining the notes, I see that archival, and indeed primary, sources generally, are seriously lacking.In fairness that is not uncommon when dealing with China. Primarily to blame is the closed nature of the state archives and, until very recently, the constraints on research in the countryside itself

[Invader Zim]

In fairness that is not uncommon when dealing with China. Primarily to blame is the closed nature of the state archives and, until very recently, the constraints on research in the countryside itself

Yeah. I was told an amusing, if dubious, anecdote recently, that there is a thriving trade in black market historical documents in China. Apparently when the archives are full, the excess is purged. As a result boxes and boxes of documents are simply thrown away with the other rubbish. As a result people rummage through the matterial and then flog rather smelly documents to historians.

[Wanted Man]

Yeah. I was told an amusing, if dubious, anecdote recently, that there is a thriving trade in black market historical documents in China. Apparently when the archives are full, the excess is purged. As a result boxes and boxes of documents are simply thrown away with the other rubbish. As a result people rummage through the matterial and then flog rather smelly documents to historians.
Maybe that's how Jung Chang and Jon Halliday managed to write around 800 pages.

[scarletghoul]

Hahaha.

China has the most interesting history of all countries, it is a shame that they would throw away historical documents.

Anyway Ive read some of the article(s), its pretty good and really interesting.

[Invader Zim]

Maybe that's how Jung Chang and Jon Halliday managed to write around 800 pages.

Nope, oral history!