Dead Soul of Confucius - Fond Dream of the New Tsars

Democracy and Class Struggle continues with its examination of Lin Biaoism and Confucius, many of the ideas of Soviet Revisionists on Confucius were later applied by Deng Xiaoping. 

In fact there was a project started in 1980's funded by hundreds of millions of dollars by the Chinese State to create Confucian Studies Departments at Universities which attracted some of the elite's children but the general population had little time for this academic neo confucianism.

The promotion of "Confucian Harmonious Society" was Hu Jintao's ruling philosophy.

Near the end of his tenure in 2011, Hu appeared to extend the ideology to an international dimension, with a focus on the international peace and cooperation, which is said to lead to a "harmonious world". 

The administration of Hu's successor, Xi Jinping, has used the philosophy more sparingly. See Xi Jingping and his approach in documents below.

Document No 9 and Document No 30 of the Chinese Communist Party in the 21st Century are reflections on the Communist Party of China's ideological failures since Mao and an attempt to hijack some features of Maoism to solve their current political problems has Confucianism or Neo Confucianiam has been an abject failure.

 

Dead Soul of Confucius,
Fond Dreams of New Tsars

— Comment on the despicable performance of the Soviet revisionists
in worshipping Confucius and opposing the Legalist school

by the Peking University and Tsinghua University Group for Mass Criticism

[This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 17, #6, Feb. 8, 1974, pp. 12-16.]

      FARCES of worshipping Confucius have been staged recently in some dark corners of the world. The most clumsy one is the foul performance to worship Confucius and oppose the Legalist school staged in Moscow and directed by the Soviet revisionist new tsars. From this performance by the Soviet revisionists, one can see their fierce social-imperialist features more clearly than ever.

Opposing China Is the Aim of Worshipping
Confucius and Opposing the Legalist School

      In the past few years the Soviet revisionist renegade clique has recruited a group of hack writers to whip up wave after wave of veneration for Confucius and opposition to the Legalist school, in the course of which sinister meetings were convened and a string of articles and treatises published.

They nauseatingly extolled Confucius as the “most holy sage and foremost teacher of China,” an “ingenious and wise statesman,” and a “respected” “activist in state affairs,” and, among many other things, they said that “it is precisely because of Confucianism that the Chinese are what they are and the Chinese civilization has such unique features.” The Soviet revisionist new tsars have outdone all reactionaries in the history of China in their worship of Confucius and they are truly worthy of being the modern disciples of the “modern sage.”

      People can only ask: Why are they so interested in Confucius who lived more than 2,000 years ago that they prostrate themselves before him? As to this kind of question, Lu Hsun long ago penetratingly pointed out:

 “It is said now that many people of other countries set great store by China’s old culture. Are they really doing so? They are only making use of it.”

      The fundamental aim of the Soviet revisionists’ worship of Confucius and opposing the Legalist school is to oppose China.

The essence of foreign imperialists’ veneration of Confucius is to oppose or “subjugate China.” Lu Hsun once said:

 “I believe that if foreigners are to subjugate China, ... Confucius would be even more revered.”

      In exposing the imperialist attempt to divide China, Lenin pointed out that, to the bourgeoisie, China was a “choice morsel.” For many years all imperialist wolves tried to devour this “choice morsel” and the present Soviet revisionist social-imperialists even want to devour it alone. Only because this piece of meat is very tough, no one has been able to bite into it for years.

But the Soviet revisionist new tsars have not given up their wild ambition to subjugate China.

For years, while stationing troops on the Chinese border as a military threat, they have also adopted the anti-China tactics of looking for agents to subvert from within and put their hopes on such renegades and traitors as Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao.

 Veneration of Confucius by the Soviet revisionists is to meet the needs of these anti-China tactics.

      Confucius was a reactionary thinker who stubbornly upheld the slave system. He lived in the latter part of the Spring and Autumn Period when the slave system was being replaced by the feudal system. Throughout his life, his words and deeds ran counter to the direction of historical developments in his time.

Confucianism is the ideology of the declining slave-owning class and a reactionary ideological system which opposes progress and revolution and advocates retrogression and restoration of the old order.

It has been proved by history that all reactionaries who advocate retrogression and restoration bank on the dead soul of Confucius and use it as an ideological weapon for their counter-revolutionary restoration.

All reactionaries and the chieftains of opportunism in the Party have been worshippers of Confucius. Both Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao were left-over evils of Confucius. Because they wanted to restore capitalism in China and turn back the wheel of history, they inevitably sought the aid of Confucius, the supreme master of counter-revolutionary restoration, and looked for support from imperialism and social-imperialism.

The criminal aim of the Soviet revisionist new tsars in worshipping Confucius is to support such faithful disciples of Confucius as Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao and fan up counter-revolutionary opinion in their vain attempt to subvert the proletarian dictatorship in China, restore capitalism and turn China into a colony of Soviet revisionist social-imperialism.

      Back in the early 1960s when our country encountered temporary economic difficulties and the class struggle at home and abroad was very sharp and intense, Liu Shao-chi who talked glibly about the “greatness of the old master Confucius” impatiently came into the open. While viciously attacking the general line, the big leap forward and the people’s communes, he again dished up his sinister book on “self-cultivation” to feverishly peddle the doctrine of Confucius and Mencius. He directed a sinister meeting of worshipping Confucius in Confucius’ native place in Shantung Province, fanatically lauding the “benevolence” advocated by Confucius as “treating a person as a human being.” In co-ordination, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique also came out with a big fanfare, wildly attacking China’s general line, big leap forward and people’s communes. Flaunting the torn banner of worshipping Confucius and lauding the doctrine of Confucius and Mencius as “humanism” and “fraternity,” it openly supported Liu Shao-chi and his gang in trying to bring about “peaceful evolution” in China.

      When China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was at a high tide, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique wailed dirges over Liu Shao-chi’s downfall. Their hired writers clamoured that “the Confucian school stands for the establishment of a government of benevolence” and “the overthrow of the power of a tyrant who failed to discharge his duties as a father.” They thus gave the hint to Lin Piao to act on the will of his Soviet revisionist masters, that is, to carry out subversive activities from within so as to realize the Soviet revisionists’ fond dream of subjugating China. Hearts which have a common beat are linked.

At the crucial moment of victory in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the “super spy” Lin Piao extolled Confucius to the skies and at the same time conspired to stage a counter-revolutionary coup d’etat.

In his notorious plan for an armed counter-revolutionary coup d’etat entitled Outline of Project “571,” he made it clear that he wanted to go over to the Soviet revisionists and seek their “nuclear umbrella” and he was sure that their counter-revolutionary “action will get the Soviet Union’s support.”

The Soviet revisionists dreamt of subjugating China whereas Lin Piao tried vainly to restore capitalism; the former wanted to be an overlord whereas the latter, a puppet emperor.

They prostrated themselves and burnt incense before the dead soul of Confucius, performing a “duet” of collaboration from within and without.

      By invoking the dead soul of Confucius to support his faithful disciple Lin Piao, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique was only repeating the old tsars’ stock trick in their aggression against China.

When Yuan Shih-kai made a big noise about worshipping Confucius after the Revolution of 1911 in order to make a comeback, a cultural spy of the old tsar at that time zealously extolled “Confucianism.”

He babbled that it was “China’s unique and most fundamental doctrine,” alleging that China would “lose her culture” and “not be able to make any progress for ever” if she should abandon “Confucianism.” He even spread the tale that the destiny of China lay in the “revival of the ancient way.”

All this was a terrific din calling for a monarchic restoration by Yuan Shih-kai and an attempt to provide the old tsar with a spiritual weapon to be used in his counter-revolutionary adventure of aggression against China.

In the footsteps of their predecessors, the Soviet revisionist new tsars now describe Confucianism as “China’s unique cultural treasure” and attack the current struggle in China to criticize Confucius as a campaign to “negate cultural traditions.” This is indeed a case of one black line running through two dynasties.

Shameless Renegades to the Proletarian Dictatorship

      In order to support Lin Piao, faithful disciple of Confucius, to restore capitalism in China, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique regarded the proletarian dictatorship in China as a thorn in its flesh. They raised the tattered banner of “humanitarianism” as their reactionary ideological weapon in attacking the proletarian dictatorship. These inheritors of “humanitarianism” are beside themselves with joy at discovering the so-called “humanitarian tradition” at the more than 2,000-year-old tomb of Confucius and treat it as a priceless treasure.

 They have added to Confucius’ concept of “benevolence” a lustre of “fraternity,” “love of man” and “humanitarianism,” and praised Confucius and Mencius who “regarded the people’s interests as the ultimate and highest goal in state administration.” According to their preaching, Confucius’ concept of ruling a country was that the ruler should “show concern for the people,” “must not rely on violence” and should “exercise government by means of virtue.”

On the other hand, they vilify the Legalist school as an “inhuman” “ideological system of autocratic tyranny,” curse the first emperor of the Chin Dynasty Chin Shih Huang (259-210 B.C.) as “the most ruthless tyrant in world history,” and madly defame China’s proletarian dictatorship as “dictatorial,” “autocratic,” “tyrannical” and “totalitarian.” These are nothing but typical howls of renegades to the proletariat!

      Marxism regards the state as the machinery for class rule and “the instrument by which one class oppresses another. It is an instrument for the oppression of antagonistic classes; it is violence and not ‘benevolence.’” In history there is the violence of the revolutionary classes and the violence of the reactionary classes.

In talking about dictatorship and violence, we should always bear in mind the fundamental fact in history—the division of society into classes.

      Confucius was a diehard apologist for the dictatorship of the slave-owning class. “Benevolence,” “the rule of virtue” and the other ways of ruling a country he advocated were ways of oppression by which the slave-owning aristocracy tried to suppress the slaves.

According to the Tso Commentary, when the reactionary slave-owning aristocracy put down a slaves’ uprising and ruthlessly slaughtered the slaves, Confucius exclaimed “excellent,” clamouring that “strict measures should be adopted” towards slave insurrections.

To suppress the newly rising forces of the landlord class, Confucius killed Shaocheng Mou, a reformer, on charges of “disruptive acts against the government.” Where in this could one find an iota of “humanitarianism” in Confucius or a trace of his “love of all men”?

These hard facts have exposed Confucius’ hypocritical talk about “benevolence, righteousness and virtue” and bared the Soviet revisionists’ real intent of depicting him as a “humanitarian.” Chin Shih Huang, an outstanding statesman of the newly rising feudal landlord class, followed the trend of the development of history, rejected the doctrine of Confucius and Mencius, applied laws advocated by the Legalists, unified China through war, abrogated the vassalage left over from the slave-owning system and established a centralized dictatorship of the feudal landlord class on the basis of the prefectural system.

He used this dictatorship to resolutely suppress with violence the reactionary Confucianists who were vainly trying to restore the slave system.

All these were precisely revolutionary actions to defend the dictatorship of the newly rising feudal landlord class.

Today in attacking the revolutionary violence and revolutionary dictatorship practised by Chin Shih Huang, the Soviet revisionists are sitting on the same bench with the dregs of the then reactionary slave-owning class.

      Thus, by worshipping Confucius, opposing the Legalist school and styling itself an admirer of Confucian “rule of virtue,” the Soviet revisionist renegade clique has found a worn-out fig-leaf to try to cover up its fascist dictatorship. But the fact is that Brezhnev and his ilk, like Confucius, are downright hypocrites.

In the present-day Soviet Union, there are concentration camps and “lunatic asylums” all over the country, where police and secret agents rampage, where people considered not so tractable are arrested and subjected to interrogation, or in more serious cases, imprisoned and murdered, and where the minority peoples suffer all kinds of national oppression.

      In a word, the Soviet Union under the yoke of the Soviet revisionist renegade clique has already become an absolute big jail for its people of all nationalities.

When this clique speaks of “humanism,” it means ruthlessly suppressing the working people while vindicating renegades, Trotskyites, counter-revolutionaries and bourgeois elements.

As Chairman Mao has penetratingly pointed out, “The Soviet Union today is under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the German fascist type, a dictatorship of the Hitler type.”

The following question may be put to the gentlemen of Soviet revisionism: What essential difference is there between your “humanism” and what Confucius called “rule of virtue” which was actually a dictatorship of the slave-owning aristocracy?

      As to such shop-worn expressions as “dictatorial” and “totalitarian” which the Soviet revisionist renegade clique uses to attack the proletarian dictatorship in China in its round of Confucius-worship and cursing Chin Shih Huang, the Chinese people have heard them too often and are tired of them. U.S. imperialists such as Dean Acheson and his like fumed and cursed us in the same manner as far back as 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was founded.

      Indeed, all counter-revolutionaries and revisionists of old also cursed the dictatorship of the proletariat in the same vein. That counter-revolutionary butcher Thiers, for one, reviled the Paris Commune, saying it was the “tyrants of labour” and howled for liberating Paris from the rule of the vicious and cruel tyranny.

That shameless renegade to the proletariat, Kautsky, also venomously attacked the Soviet state under the proletarian dictatorship led by Lenin, saying that it was a dictatorial system and despotic. And now these gentlemen of Soviet revisionism can only hum the tunes of their counter-revolutionary and revisionist progenitors without being able to utter anything new. Their hue and cry only shows to what shameful extent they have degenerated in their betrayal of the theory of proletarian dictatorship.

Diehard Champions of Old Traditions

      China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is a great political revolution carried out by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes. It is also a great revolution in the ideological sphere. It has smashed the two bourgeois headquarters of Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao and further consolidated and strengthened the proletarian dictatorship, and this is a heavy blow to Soviet revisionism for it has once again failed to make its dream of subjugating China come true.

This being so, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique has been in a fit of hysterical outbursts against China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, ten times more frenzied and a hundred times greater in its hatred than before. Its opposition to the Legalist school and cursing of Chin Shih Huang are only one of their especially shrill cries.

      The pen-men in the pay of Soviet revisionism falsely accuse the Legalists of “having destroyed education and culture on all accounts” and curse Chin Shih Huang for being so “vicious” as to have “burnt books and buried Confucian scholars alive”; from this they proceed to venomously attack China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, alleging that this revolution “has broken away from the progressive tradition” and “has practically destroyed all the old books as in the time of Chin Shih Huang”; in a word, it has “destroyed culture.”

      Marxism holds that a given culture is the product of a given politico-economic system and has a reaction on the politics and economy of a given society.

 Historically speaking, the assumption of power by a newly rising class invariably goes hand in hand with a fierce class struggle in the realm of ideology, with “all the old ideas handed down by tradition” being “flung into the lumber-room as irrational.”

On the other hand, all decadent and reactionary classes invariably preach the “worship of things ancient” and “restoration of the old order” and use the old traditions to resist the revolutionary tide and safeguard their rotten cause.

Following the unification of China by Chin Shih Huang, the reactionary aristocrats and Confucian scholars came into the open to use things ancient to denounce the contemporary and attack the new system of centralized political power.

      With a view to consolidating the newly established dictatorship of the landlord class and striking at restorationist forces, Chin Shih Huang decreed the “burning of books and burying of Confucian scholars alive.”

This was a revolutionary move to suppress the followers of Confucius and Mencius advocating the restoration of the old order, a revolution aimed at crushing the slave-owners’ restorationist forces in the realm of the superstructure, and an exercise of dictatorship over the reactionary class in the ideological and cultural fields.

      Ever since the division of human society into opposing classes, there has never been an all-inclusive culture; there is only culture of a definite class, that of the exploiting classes and that of the labouring people, the progressive culture representing a newly emerging class and the reactionary and decadent culture reflecting the ideas of a class in decline.

At all times there is a struggle between the two types of culture. “There is no construction without destruction, no flowing without damming and no motion without rest.” To oppose one culture and defend another—this has been done by all classes in history, with only a difference in nature.

      In this era of ours, there is either the culture of the proletariat, or that of feudalism, capitalism and revisionism. It was solemnly proclaimed long ago in the Manifesto of the Communist Party that the communist revolution in “its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas”—that is, to wipe out feudal, capitalist and revisionist culture and establish and develop a brand-new culture of the proletariat in the course of revolution.

With regard to the cultural heritage handed down by history, we must also take an analytical Marxist attitude: “It is imperative to separate the fine old culture of the people which had a more or less democratic and revolutionary character from all the decadence of the old feudal ruling class” and one should never swallow anything and everything.

      The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China has repudiated the fallacies of feudalism, capitalism and revisionism in the ideological field, firmly eliminated the old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits while extensively fostering new ideas, new culture, new customs and new habits, with the result that great, earth-shaking changes have taken place and are still taking place in the entire look of the country both ideologically and culturally.

The leadership in the realm of the superstructure is now firmly in the hands of the proletariat, and the workers, peasants and soldiers have truly become the masters of all sciences and culture.

All spiritual wealth in human history is created by workers, peasants and other labouring people, but for several thousand years this was monopolized by a few spiritual aristocrats of the exploiting classes. With the great victory of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, this reversal of history has been reversed back.

This is a very great cause never attempted by our forbears and has won universal acclaim from revolutionary people all over the world. The Soviet revisionist renegade clique, however, has taken the reactionary stand of all exploiting classes and made desperate and plaintive cries, cries which betray the clique as a gang of diehard champions of the old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits of the exploiting classes.

      What after all is the “culture” this clique is preserving and upholding? Today, in the Soviet Union under the yoke of the Soviet revisionist renegade clique, there is a hotch-potch of everything capricious in the ideological realm, ranging from the “pan-Slavism” of the old tsars to the social-imperialism of the new tsars, from the rotten doctrine of Confucius and Mencius to “Western culture” now so much in vogue, from religious fanaticism to the inculcation of sex and robbery.

The only thing banned in the Soviet Union today is genuine Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat.

      The Soviet revisionist renegade clique has not only revived in an all-round way reactionary imperialist ideology and culture at home but, to subjugate China, it has also tried to sell the lot to China and make it enter into a reactionary alliance with China’s old culture.

Chairman Mao says: “Imperialist culture and semi-feudal culture are devoted brothers and have formed a reactionary cultural alliance against China’s new culture.”

With the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution having won great victories, the Soviet revisionists and Lin Piao sang in chorus, viciously attacking the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, cursing new socialist things born of the revolution and stubbornly trying to revive already perished old ideas and old culture lest they should become extinct altogether.

Their criminal aim is to protect these reactionary things in every possible way, revive feudalism, capitalism and revisionism totally, and use the old and reactionary ideology as a weapon in their attack on the proletariat, so as to open a breach in the cultural and ideological field, and thence restore capitalism in China and turn it into a colony of the Soviet revisionist new tsars.

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the deepening mass struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius are precisely an ideological revolution to thoroughly repudiate feudalist, capitalist and revisionist ideas.

 And the deeper the revolution, the greater its success, the less the hope of Soviet revisionism for a capitalist restoration in China. This explains why the new tsars have expressed such despair in the face of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius in China.

      The Soviet revisionist renegade clique’s rabid attacks on China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution fully betray the new tsars’ morbid fear of revolution. They are afraid that its tremendous impact will arouse the proletarian revolutionaries and the revolutionary masses in their country to rise in revolt against them and thus endanger their tottering rule. But this impact of the proletarian revolution cannot be kept out of the door.

The broad masses of the people in the Soviet Union who have a glorious revolutionary tradition will surely hold aloft the fighting banner of Marxism-Leninism, persevere in a protracted struggle, break down one obstacle after another, overthrow the reactionary rule of the Soviet revisionist new tsars, re-establish the proletarian dictatorship and bring the Soviet Union back on the road of socialism.

(An abridged translation of an article
originally published in “Renmin Ribao”)


SEE ALSO :

http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/Lin-Confucius/CriticizingLinPiaoAndConfucius-2-1975.pdf

French Muslims condemn attack on Charlie Hebdo

Democracy and Class Struggle just like the muslim community does not like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons which have helped stoke anti muslim racism in France and strongly condemns the execution of its journalists.

Notions of blasphemy and apostasy - essentially medieval ideas should not be defended by communists.

Abstract notions of "free speech" for communists are mediated by the class struggle.

"This extremely grave barbaric action is also an attack against democracy and the freedom of the press," the French Muslim Council (CFCM) said in a statement.

The body represents France's Muslim community, which is Europe's biggest and estimated to number between 3.5 million and five million people.

CFCM president Dalil Boubakeur, who heads the Paris Mosque, planned to visit the scene of the shooting, his entourage said.

The Muslim council also called for calm and urged Muslims to beware of extremist manipulation.

"In this tense international climate stoked by the madness of terrorist groups unjustly claiming to represent Islam, we call on all those attached to the republic's values and to democracy to avoid provocation", it said.

The Muslim community must practice "the greatest vigilance towards possible manipulation by extremist groups," it added.

'\

FOR A DEEPER ANALYSIS OF EVENTS IN FRANCE GROM FRENCH COMRADE HERE WHO EXPOSES THE FALSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ARGUEMENT

http://servirlepeupleservirlepeuple.eklablog.com/puisqu-il-va-bien-falloir-emettre-une-opinion-a114205654

Statement by Maria Muratova, Maxim Firsov, Alexei Albu and Victor Shapinov about our detention in Donetsk

We -- Borotba activists Muratova, Albu, Firsov and Shapinov -- arrived in Donetsk on December 18 to establish contacts with representatives of the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and provide all possible assistance in the anti-fascist struggle of the people of Donbass. We also had information that at the end of December a prisoner exchange would take place, which would include our comrades trapped in the dungeons of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on charges of "creating a terrorist organization"  --  Vlad Wojciechowski and Nikolai Popov. We held a series of meetings with DNR activists, in particular with the Communists Alexander Smekalinym and Andriy Yakovenko. We were also scheduled to meet with DNR Foreign Minister Alexander Kofman, head of the Communist Party of Donbass Boris Litvinov and deputy chairman of the People's Soviet of the DNR Denis Pushilin. 

On Sunday, December 21, three of us -- Muratova, Firsov and Shapinov – set off to see areas of Donetsk that suffered from the shelling of the Ukrainian army. In the district of Marshal Zhukov Boulevard, we were stopped by a car carrying soldiers of the “Essence of Time” division of the Vostok Brigade. Having checked our documents, they demanded we get into their car. Complying, we were taken to the headquarters of the Vostok Brigade in the vicinity of the Donetsk airport. There we were handed over to the commandant, who took us to the Special Division of the Vostok Brigade (4th base of Vostok in the area of St. Elevatornaya). The staff of the Special Division confiscated our mobile phones and personal belongings, and said that after checking we would be released. 

In the Special Department we were not allowed to contact friends or relatives to inform them about where we were, and the staff also refused to inform them. As it turned out, the staff of the Special Division did not admit our detention even in response to direct requests from DNR officials. After a few days of detention, we managed to secretly inform our comrades of our whereabouts. 

Learning about our arrest, Alexei Albu wrote to the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Denis Pushilin and head of the parliamentary committee Boris Litvinov. Albu went to the Special Division with a letter written by Boris Litvinov to release the Borotba activists, but instead of releasing the detainees, Albu was arrested. 

Requests to the Vostok Brigade leadership for the release of the Borotba activists came from DNR officials (Denis Pushilin, Boris Litvinov, "Gloomy", Alexander Kofman), well-known anti-junta public figures (Boris Rozhin (Colonel Cassad), Oleg Tsarev, Konstantin Dolgov, Igor Dimitrov, Alexander Vasilyev, Vladimir Rogov, Daria Mitin, Anatoly Baranov, Boris Kagarlitskiy, Victor Tyulkin and others), Russian left-wing politicians and social activists (Yulia Polukhina, members of the Communist Party Valery Rashkin, Kazbek Taisaev, etc.). But their testimony that we are activists in the resistance to the Kiev regime made no impression on the staff of the Special Division. 

Throughout our detention, we were not shown any charges. The staff were limited to the bizarre claim that "we need to check." 

After two weeks of detention in the Special Division, members of the Ministry of State Security of the DNR came. They told us that we would be immediately taken to the Russian border and deported from the DNR. They also reported that we are forbidden to enter the territory of the DNR and the Lugansk People’s Republic (LC). In response to a question about the motives of deportation, Ministry officers said that "now you are with us for one thing, and then we do not know what you want to do." Apparently, there is a view that as representatives of the communist movement, we could start an opposition to the activities of the DNR leadership.  

At the moment we do not have enough information to make an unambiguous conclusion about what is behind our arrest and expulsion from the DNR -- banal excessive vigilance of intelligence agencies of the Republic, political denunciation or some kind of political order. In any case, such actions with respect to sincere friends of the Donbass rebellion only harm the reputation of the People's Republics. 

Despite this unfortunate incident in which we were unwitting participants, we have not changed our attitude to the People's Republics and the anti-fascist uprising in the Donbass. We remain bitter enemies of the Kiev regime of oligarchs and Nazis, and friends of all who oppose fascism. However, some recent developments, including our arrest and deportation, give rise to legitimate concerns -- whether the original spirit of the anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic revolt will continue, or will it be buried in favor of commercial and political interests of various groups operating in the republics? 

During the time of our arrest, members of the Special Division and militia showed us the best attitude. We did not witness any ill-treatment or force used against prisoners, including soldiers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (APU) and punitive "territorial" battalions. We were fed three times a day, the same as the militias. We had the opportunity to bathe and wash our clothes.  APU prisoners and militias who have committed offenses are held in the same conditions, and the prisoners are allowed to visit relatives. We saw them trying to educate APU soldiers about the aggressive nature of the war in Donbass and the regime in Kiev. 

We are going to fight to lift the ban on entry of Borotba activists to the territory of People's Republics.

We thank all the friends and comrades who sought our liberation. 

Maria Muratova, Alexei Albu, Maxim Firsov, Victor Shapinov

Borotba Four Released in Donetsk - Good News for 2015

See Also :
http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/borotba-activists-maxim-firsov-victor.html

See Also :

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/ukraine-alexey-albu-survivor-of-odessa.html

Mao Zedong : Talks With Responsible Comrades at Various Places During Provincial Tour : August to 12 September 1971

 

 

Democracy and Class Struggle publish these talks by Comrade Mao Zedong has part of the background material necessary for understanding Mao Zedong's conflict with Lin Biao.

Concerning the denial of Class Struggle in Imperialist or First World countries this does not just come from the right today but also from a US based current that calls itself Third World Maoist..

This anti Marxist current bases its analysis of class on consumption in Imperialist countries and not production relations .

 

Marxism Leninism Maoism bases its class analysis on production relations has that is the base for unity of the working class with other oppressed classes.

 

The Frankfurt School in the 1930's was a school of consumptionist critiques of Marxism loved by revisionists and rejected by Marxist Leninist Maoists..

 

A theory based on consumption relations sets nations against nations and not classes against classes and opposes the unity of working class and oppressed peoples not only theoretically but practically and is a counter - revolutionary theory appearing  left in form but right in essence just like Trotskyism and would be combated by Marx and Engels..Lenin and Stalin and Mao Zedong.

 

Democracy and Class Struggle Statement in 2011 against Third World Maoist Group that became anti Maoist LLCO.

 

Source: http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/fighting-task-confronting-workers-in.html

 

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/seek-truth-lin-biao-refuting-unknown-mao.html

 

From the middle of August to 12 September 1971

[SOURCE: Mao Chu-hsi wen-hsun.]

---

(Summary)

 

Chairman Mao said: I hope that you will practice Marxism and not revisionism; that you will unite and not split; that you will be sincere and open and not resort to plotting and conspiracy.
The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way.

If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it may lose. The line is a net rope. When it is pulled, the whole net opens out.

This Party of ours already has fifty years’ history, during which time we have had ten big struggles on the question of our line. During these ten struggles there were people who wanted to split our Party, but none of them were able to do so.

This is a question worth studying: such a big country, such a large population, yet no split. We can only say that this means that the Party wants what the people want, and the Party members do not want a split. In view of its past history, the future of the Party is full of hope.

First came Ch’en Tu-hsiu, who went in for right opportunism. After the ‘August 7th’ Conference of 1927 he organized the ‘Leninist left-opposition faction’ together with Liu Jen-ching, P’eng Shu-chih and others, and eighty-one of them issued a statement. They aimed to split our Party but they did not succeed. They then fled to the Trotskyites.

Next Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai committed mistakes of line. His people came across a pamphlet of mine in Hunan which contained my remark, ‘Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.’ This infuriated them. How could political power possibly come from the barrel of a gun?

So they stripped me of my position as alternate member of the Politburo. Later Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai was captured by the Kuomintang, wrote his ‘Superfluous Words’, betrayed us, and went over to the other side.[1]

After the Sixth Congress of the Party in 1928 Li Li-san started to put on airs. From June to September 1930 he followed his Li-san Line for over three months. He advocated attacks on big cities, and first winning victory in one or several provinces. I did not agree with all this. At the Third Plenum of the Sixth Central Committee Li Li-san fell.

From 1930 to 1931 Lo Chang-lung’s rightist faction set up a separate Central Committee and engaged in splitting activity.[2] But they did not succeed either.

The Wang Ming Line had the longest life-span. He had formed a faction in Moscow, and organized the ‘28½ Bolsheviks’.

Relying on the might of the Third International they seized power in the Party and held it for a full four years.

Wang Ming called the Fourth Plenum of the Sixth Central Committee in Shanghai, and published his pamphlet, Fight for the Greater Bolshevization of the Chinese Communist Party, in which he criticized Li Li-san for not being ‘left’ enough.

He was not satisfied until he had made a clean sweep of the bases, as in the end he practically did. During the four years from 1931 to 1934 I had no voice at all at the Centre.

The Tsunyi Conference of January 1935 corrected mistakes of Wang Ming’s line and he fell.

During the Long March, after the meeting of the First and Fourth Front Armies, Chang Kuo-t’ao carried out a split and set up a separate Centre, but he did not succeed. Before the Long March the Red Army had 300,000 men. On its arrival in North Shensi only 25,000 remained. In the Central Soviet Area there had been 80,000. Of these only 8,000 arrived in North Shensi. Chang Kuo-t’ao did not want to go to North Shensi and carried out a split. But what way out was there at that time, other than to go to North Shensi? This was a question of political line.

Our political line at that time was correct. If we had not gone to North Shensi, how could we have later gone to the North China Region, the East China Region, and the Central China Region, the North-East Region? How could we have built so many bases in the Anti-Japanese War? When we arrived in North Shensi, Chang Kuo-t’ao fled.

After nationwide victory Kao Kang and Jao Shu-shih created an anti-party alliance, with the intention of seizing power, but they did not succeed either.

At the 1959 Lushan Conference P’eng Te-huai colluded with a foreign country to seize power.

Huang K’e-ch’eng, Chang Wen-t’ien, Chou Hsiao-chou popped up and opposed the Party. They formed a military club, though they did not discuss military affairs, but said such things as: ‘The people’s communes were set up too soon,’ ‘Our gains do not compensate for our losses,’ etc. P’eng Te-huai also wrote a letter which was an open declaration of war. His intention was to seize power, but he did not succeed.

Liu Shao-ch’i and his lot also wanted to split the Party, but they did not achieve their ambitions either.

Then came the struggle at the 1970 Lushan Conference.[3]

At the 1970 Lushan Conference they made a surprise attack and carried out underground activity. Why did they not dare to act openly? Clearly they had something to hide. So they first dissembled and then made a surprise attack. They concealed things from three of the five members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo.

They also concealed things from the great majority of comrades on the Politburo apart from their own few big generals. These big generals included Huang Yung-sheng, Wu Fa-hsien, Yeh Ch’ün, Li Tso-p’eng, and Ch’iu Hui-tso, as well as Li Hsüeh-feng and Cheng Wei-shan.[4] Before they launched their surprise attack they did not let out a whisper.

They caused trouble not merely for a day and a half, but from 23 August right through the 24th and up to midday on the 25th, altogether two days and a half. This kind of behaviour shows that they had some aim in mind! P’eng Te-huai formed a military club and issued a declaration of war. They were not even up to P’eng Te-huai’s level.

This only shows how low their style of work was. In my view, behind their surprise attack and their underground activity lay purpose, organization and a programme. Their programme was to appoint a state chairman, and to extol ‘genius’: in other words, to oppose the line of the Ninth Congress and to defeat the three-point agenda of the Second Plenum of the Ninth Central Committee.

A certain person was anxious to become state chairman, to split the Party and to seize power. The question of genius is a theoretical question. Their theory was idealist apriorism. Someone has said that to oppose genius is to oppose me.

But I am no genius. I read Confucian books for six years and capitalist books for seven. I did not read Marxist-Leninist books until 1918, so how can I be a genius?

Didn’t I put circles round those adverbs several times over?[5] The Party Constitution was settled at the Ninth Congress.

Why not take a look at it? I wrote ‘Some Opinions’,[6] which specially criticizes the genius theory, only after looking up some people to talk with them, and after some investigations and research. It is not that I do not want to talk about genius. To be a genius is to be a bit more intelligent. But genius does not depend on one person or a few people. It depends on a party, the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat. Genius is dependent on the mass line, on collective wisdom.

Comrade Lin Piao did not discuss that speech of his[7] with me, nor did he show it to me. When they had something to say they did not disclose it in advance. Probably this is because they thought they had a grip on things and were likely to succeed. But as soon as they were told that their ideas were not acceptable, they became jittery.

At first they were as bold as brass, giving the impression they could raze Lushan to the ground or stop the earth revolving. But after a few days they hurriedly withdrew the draft.[8] If it was right, why withdraw it? This shows that they were devoid of ideas and in a panic.

The struggle with P’eng Te-huai at the 1959 Lushan Conference was a struggle between two headquarters. The struggle with Liu Shao-ch’i was also a struggle between two headquarters. The struggle at this Lushan Conference is yet another struggle between two headquarters.

The struggle at Lushan this time was different from the nine previous struggles. On the previous nine occasions we drew some conclusions, while this time we have shielded Vice-Chairman Lin and have not drawn conclusions concerning an individual. He must, of course, assume some responsibility. What are we to do about these people? We should still operate a policy of educating them, that is, ‘learning from past mistakes to prevent future ones and curing the disease to save the patient’. We still want to protect Lin. No matter who it is who has made mistakes, it is not a good thing to forget unity and the line.

After I return to Peking I must seek them out again to have a talk. If they do not come to see me I will go to see them. Some of them may be saved, others it may not be possible to save. This depends on their actions. They have two possible futures: they may reform or they may not. It is difficult for someone who has taken the lead in committing major errors of principle, errors of line or direction, to reform. Looking back, did Ch’en Tu-hsiu reform? Did Ch’u Ch’iu-pai, Li Li-san, Lo Chang-lung, Wang Ming, Chang Kuo-t’ao, Kao Kang, Jao Shu-shih, P’eng Te-huai or Liu Shao-ch’i reform? They did not reform.

I spoke to Comrade Lin Piao and some of the things he said were not very accurate. For example he said that a genius only appears in the world once in a few centuries and in China once in a few millennia.

This just doesn’t fit the facts. Marx and Engels were contemporaries, and not one century had elapsed before we had Lenin and Stalin, so how could you say that a genius only appears once in a few centuries?

In China there were Ch’en Sheng and Wu Kuang, Hung Hsiu-ch’üan and Sun Yat-sen,[9] so how could you say that a genius only appears once in a few millennia?

And then there is all this business about pinnacles and ‘one sentence being worth ten thousand’.[10]

Don’t you think this is going too far? One sentence is, after all, just one sentence, how can it be worth ten thousand sentences? We should not appoint a state chairman. I don’t want to be state chairman. I have said this six times already. If each time I said it I used one sentence, that is now the equivalent of sixty thousand sentences.

But they never listen, so each of my sentences is not even worth half a sentence. In fact its value is nil. It’s only Ch’en Po-ta’s sentences that are worth ten thousand apiece to them. He talked about ‘establishing in a big way’, by which he gave the appearance of meaning to establish my prestige.[11] But when you get to the bottom of it, he really meant himself.

They also said that the People’s Liberation Army was built and led by me, and commanded personally by Lin.[12] It seems that the person who founded it cannot command it! And I did not build it all by myself either.

When it comes to questions of line, questions of principle, I take a firm hold and do not relax my grip. On major questions of principle I do not make concessions. After the Lushan Conference I employed three methods: the first was throwing stones, the second was mixing sand into soil and the third was undermining the wall.

I criticized the material produced by Ch’en Po-ta which fooled a great many people.

I approved the report of the Thirty-eighth Army and the report of the Tsinan Military Region which opposed arrogance and complacency.[13] Then there was the Military Affairs Committee which held such a long discussion meeting without a word of criticism of Ch’en. I inserted a few critical notes about that in a certain document.[14]

My method was to pick up these stones, write a few remarks on them, and let everyone discuss them. This is what I call throwing stones. When soil is too compressed it cannot breathe. If you mix in a little sand, then it can breathe.

The staff of the Military Affairs Committee was too uniform in its composition, and needed to have some new names added. This is mixing sand in the soil. The reorganization of the Peking Military Region was undermining the wall.[15]

What is your opinion of the Lushan Conference? For instance, is the Sixth Brief Report of the North China Group really revolutionary, semi-revolutionary or counter-revolutionary? I myself regard it as a counter-revolutionary report.

You were all present at the meeting of the ninety-nine, when the Premier made the summing-up speech and the self-examinations of the five big generals were issued, as well as those of big generals Li Hsüeh-feng and Cheng Wei-shan, so that everyone thought that the problem had been solved.[16] But in fact the Lushan affair had not finished, the problem had not been solved.

They wanted to suppress it. They did not even let cadres of the rank of head of the General Command and the General Staff departments know about it. This would not do!

What I have been saying are my own personal opinions, which I am giving you informally. I shall not draw formal conclusions now, this must be done by the Central Committee.

*
You should be prudent. First of all the army must be prudent and secondly the regions must be prudent. You must not be arrogant, if you are arrogant you will commit errors. The army must be unified; it must be rectified. I just don’t believe that our army could rebel. I just don’t believe that you, Huang Yung-sheng, could order the Liberation Army to rebel! Under [each] army are divisions and regiments and the judicial, political and support units. If you try to mobilize the army to do bad things, do you think they will obey you?

You should pay attention to military affairs. You should not only be civil officials but also military officials. Grasping army work means studying the line and rectifying incorrect styles of work. You should not go in for mountain-top-ism or sectarianism, but pay attention to unity.

I approve of the army’s traditional style of quick and decisive action.

But this style cannot be applied to questions of ideology, for which it is necessary to make the facts known and reason with people.

I added my approval to the document of the Canton Military Region on the ‘three supports and two militaries’.[17] In order to get people to give it their attention I appended the words, ‘To be studied seriously’, to the Central Committee’s endorsement. Now that the regional Party Committees have been established, they should exercise unified leadership. It would be putting the cart before the horse if the matters already decided by regional Party committees were later turned over to the army Party committees for discussion.

In the past the military training given to our armed forces included unit-by-unit coaching. From individual coaching to battalion coaching took five to six months. Now that they only go in for civil and not military matters, our army has become a cultural army.

When ‘one good’ leads ‘three goods’ perhaps that ‘one good’ of yours will lead correctly and perhaps it will lead incorrectly.[18] And then there are the congresses of representatives of activists. It is worth studying what their actual effect is. Some are successful, but many are not. This is primarily a question of line. If the line is mistaken then the activists’ congress cannot be successful.

‘In industry learn from Tach’ing, in agriculture learn from Tachai; let the people of the whole country learn from the PLA.’ This is incomplete. We should add, ‘Let the PLA learn from the people of the whole country.’

*

You should study the article written by Lenin on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Eugene Pottier. Learn to sing ‘The Internationale’ and ‘The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention’.

Let them not only be sung but also explained and acted upon. ‘The Internationale’ and Lenin’s article express throughout a Marxist standpoint and outlook. What they say is that slaves should arise and struggle for truth.

There never has been any supreme saviour, nor can we rely on gods or emperors.

We rely entirely on ourselves for our salvation. Who has created the world of men? We the labouring masses.

During the Lushan Conference I wrote a 700-word article which raised the question of who created history, the heroes or the slaves.[19] ‘The Internationale’ says we must unite until the day comes when Communism will certainly be realized.

If you study Marxism you will see that it teaches unity and not splitting.

We have been singing ‘The Internationale’ for fifty years but people have tried to split our Party ten times.

I think it possible that they will do it another ten times, or twenty times, or thirty times. You don’t believe it?

Maybe you don’t but I do.

When we reach Communism will there be no struggles? I don’t believe that either.

When we reach Communism there will still be struggles, but they will be between the new and the old, the correct and the incorrect, that is all. After tens of millennia have passed by, the incorrect will still be no good and will fail.

The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention must be ‘remembered clearly, each and every one’ and ‘the people of the whole country welcome and support them’. Yet there are a few of the rules and points for attention which are not clearly remembered, especially the first of the Three Rules and the first and fifth of the Eight Points.

These are not remembered clearly. How fine it would be if they could all be clearly remembered and put into effect. The first of the Three Rules is that in all actions orders must be obeyed, for only if we march in step can we win victory. If we are not in step we cannot win victory. Then there are the first and fifth of the Eight points which say that towards the people, and towards fellow soldiers and subordinates, we should always be polite.

We must not put on airs; warlord ways must be rooted out. These are the points of emphasis. If there were no points of emphasis there would be no policy. I hope that we will use the Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention to educate the army, educate the cadres, educate the masses, educate the Party members and the people.

*

The Lushan Conference called for the study of books by Marx and Lenin.[20] I hope you will read more books from now on. It just won’t do if high-ranking cadres don’t even know what is materialism and what is idealism. What do we do if we find the books of Marx and Lenin difficult?

We can ask a teacher to help us. You are all secretaries, but you ought to be students too. I myself become a student every day.

I read two volumes of Reference Material[21] daily, and that’s why I know a little about international affairs.

I never approved of one’s wife becoming the office manager in one’s own work unit. Over at Lin Piao’s, it is Yeh Ch’ün who manages his office.

When the four of them want to ask Lin Piao about anything they have to go through her.

In doing any work one should do it oneself and read and endorse papers oneself.

One should not rely on one’s secretary. One shouldn’t let one’s secretary wield so much power.

My secretary is only responsible for receiving and dispatching papers.

I select the documents myself, read them myself, and when something has to be done I do my own writing so that no mistakes are made.

*

The Cultural Revolution dragged out Liu Shao-ch’i, P’eng, Lo, Lu, and Yang. This was a big achievement. There were also some losses. Some good cadres have still not been able to re-emerge. The great majority of our cadres are good. The bad ones are a very small minority. Those who have been cleared out only comprise one per cent, while those who have been suspended are less than three per cent. The bad ones must be given appropriate criticism.

The good ones must be praised, though not to the skies. It does a person under thirty no good at all if you call him a ‘super-genius’.

At the recent Lushan Conference some comrades were deceived and hoodwinked. The problem does not lie in you but in Peking. It does not matter if you have made mistakes.

Our Party has a rule that those who made mistakes should first make a self-examination, and then they should be permitted to correct their mistakes.

We must take care to educate people in our ideological and political line.

Our principle must still be ‘learning from past mistakes to avoid future mistakes’, and ‘curing the disease to save the patient’.

Unite to win still greater victories.

 

---

Notes

[1.] Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai, see note 2 on p. 97 of this volume.

[2.] Lo Chang-lung (1901-49) was a founding member of the Chinese Communist Party and an important labour leader in the 1920s. In late 1930 he supported Ho Meng-hsiung’s bid for control of the Party. As a result he was expelled at the Fourth Plenum in January 1931, and thereafter joined Ho in setting up a rival Central Committee. Hence Mao’s charge of ‘splittism’. He later became a Trotskyite.

[3.] The Second Plenum of the Ninth Central Committee, held at Lushan from 23 August to 6 September 1970.

[4.] The five names on Mao’s list of the ‘big generals’ making up Lin Piao’s clique were all members of the Politburo. With the exception of Lin’s wife, Yeh Ch’ün, they were all senior military men. Huang Yung-sheng (1906- ) had been Chief of Staff since March 1968. Wu Fa-hsien (1914- ) had been Commander of the Air Force since August 1965, and Deputy Chief of Staff since May 1968, Li Tso-p’eng had been First Political Commissar of the Navy since June 1967. Ch’iu Hui-tso was Director of the PLA General Logistics Department, and had been Deputy Chief of Staff since February 1969. Of the other two, Li Hsüeh-feng (see note 2 on p. 186 of this volume) was an alternate member of the Ninth Politburo, and Political Commissar of the Peking Military Region. Cheng Wei-shan (1914- ) had been Deputy Commander of the Peking Military Region from November 1959 to March 1968, and Commander since that time. He was also Vice-Chairman of the Peking Revolutionary Committee.

[5.] ‘With genius’, ‘creatively’, and ‘comprehensively’. These adverbs, used by Lin Piao in his foreword to the December 1966 edition of Quotations from Chairman Mao to characterize Mao Tse-tung’s contribution to the development of Marxism-Leninism, sum up the view of the subject which he had been propagating since 1960 and especially since 1966.

Mao Tse-tung, who was endeavouring in 1970 to downgrade his own cult, here attributes all the responsibility for previous excesses to Lin Piao.
 

[6.] A 700-word statement said to have been released by Comrade Mao during the Lushan Plenum. Nothing is known of its contents except for Mao’s own summary here.

[7.] Lin Piao’s speech of 23 August 1970 to the Lushan Plenum.

[8.] Yeh Ch’ün is said to have withdrawn the minutes of her intervention before a meeting of the Central-South Group during the plenum.

[9.] Ch’en Sheng and Wu Kuang were contemporaries who jointly led an insurrection against the Ch’in in the third century B.C. Hung Hsiu-ch’üan (1814-64), the leader of the Taipings, was born only half a century before Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925). Mao attributes ‘genius’ to these men because they were all, in some sense, revolutionary precursors, who therefore drew on the wisdom of the masses.

[10.] Lin Piao made this statement that what Chairman Mao says in one sentence surpasses what others say in 10,000 sentences, in his speech of 18 May 1966.

[11.] This referee to efforts by Ch’en Po-ta and Lin Piao to reinsert, in the draft Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the provision for a State Chairman which Mao had decided to strike out in March 1970. They claimed that their aim in this was further to glorify Chairman Mao, but in Mao’s view their real intention was to ensure that Lin Piao should succeed Mao as the head both of the Party and of the state. Lin Piao and Ch’en Po-ta appear to have concluded a tactical alliance at the time of the Lushan Plenum, but clearly represented different factions and different viewpoints.

[12.] The question raised here as to who exercised real and immediate authority over the army is obviously closely related to that of Party control over the ‘gun’, which had become a burning issue within the leadership  —  and between Mao and Lin  —  in 1969-70.

[13.] ‘Arrogance and complacency’ was, by this time, the accepted expression for referring to the errors in Lin Piao’s work style.

[14.] This apparently refers to Mao’s ‘Open Letter to the Whole Party’ of 15 September 1970, calling for a campaign to criticize Ch’en Po-ta.

[15.] Throwing stones’ refers to Mao’s action in compelling the ‘big generals’ supporting Lin to denounce Ch’en Po-ta. ‘Mixing sand in soil’ meant weakening Lin’s control of the Military Affairs Committee by adding new members. The wall or cornerstone of Lin’s power represented by the Peking Military Region was undermined by the dismissal of his supporters Cheng Wei-shan and Li Hsüeh-feng in December 1970.

[16.] At a report meeting called by the Central Committee in April 1971, and attended by ninety-nine responsible cadres from the Centre, the regions and PLA units, for the purpose of discussing the progress of the campaign to criticize Ch’en Po-ta and carry out rectification, self-criticisms by the ‘big generals’ of the Lin Piao clique (as enumerated by Mao) were distributed.

[17.] This refers to the ‘Summary of the Canton Military Region’s Forum on Political and Ideological Work relating to the Three Supports and Two Militaries’, distributed by the Central Committee on 20 August 1971. The ‘three supports’ (‘support the broad masses of the left, support industry and agriculture’) and ‘two militaries’ (‘military control and military training’) was the slogan summing up the policy of active intervention by the PLA in all aspects of politics and society which had developed in the course of the Cultural Revolution. Mao Tse-tung, who had launched the process in January 1967 with his directive to Lin Piao to intervene in the Cultural Revolution in support of the left, had clearly regarded this as a temporary expedient, but by 1970-71 there were signs that Lin Piao and his supporters took it as setting the long-term pattern of the Chinese political system, and were using the above slogan as a standard for opposing the restoration of Party control. Presumably the Canton document adopted a more balanced position.

[18.] This apparently refers to Lin Piao’s replacement of Mao’s ‘five requirements for successors’ by ‘three criteria’ of his own, which he formulated as follows in his speech of 1 August 1966: ‘ (1) Do they hold high the red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thought? Those who fail to do so shall be dismissed from office; (2) Do they engage in political and ideological work? Those who disrupt it and the Great Cultural Revolution are to be dismissed; (3) Are they enthusiastic about the revolution? Those who are entirely devoid of such enthusiasm are to be dismissed . . . We must select, promote and employ cadres in accordance with Chairman Mao’s five requirements and these three criteria, especially the first one’ ‘One good’ leading ‘three goods’ is Mao’s summary of Lin’s viewpoint according to which a correct understanding of Mao Tse-tung’s thought in itself guaranteed that a person would be a good cadre. This criticism of Lin fits into the context of Mao’s ongoing effort, since the Ninth Congress, to stress that political zeal must be complemented by a correct work style and, building on this, to denounce the ‘arrogance and complacency’ of Lin and his supporters in the army.

[19.] This refers to Mao’s ‘Some Opinions’ mentioned earlier. The link between Lin’s glorification of the role of ‘genius’ and the evocation here of the ‘Internationale’, with its message, ‘II n’y a pas de sauveur supreme,’ is obvious.

[20.] Whereas Lin Piao had earlier put the view that “In the classical works of Marxism-Leninism, ninety-nine per cent of our studies must be from Chairman Mao’s works,” a movement had been under way since the Lushan Plenum of September 1970 to encourage the study of the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

[21.] A daily bulletin (Ts’an-k’ao hsiao-hsi) circulated to a fairly wide audience of cadres, containing translations from foreign news services.

SEEK THE TRUTH - LIN BIAO - REFUTING THE "UNKNOWN MAO" BY COMRADE NICKGLAIS

Comrade Nicklglais wrote this article about 10 years ago when he did a study of Lin Biao and Lin Biaoism .

We post some links below this article which examine a trend called Third World Maoism which largely but not exclusively turns out to be Lin Biaoism.

In 2014 our revisionist targets were Prachandism and  Avakianism in 2015 it will be  LLCO's Lin Biaoism.

The Leading Light Communist Organisation now completely embraces Lin Biaoism and sees Marxism Leninism Maoism has a ladder to climb to a new position and then throw Maoism away.

The so called "Maoist" Rebel News" has also embraced Lin Baoism but  still trades under the false description of Maoism  and aids the confusion created by LLCO counter revolutionary politics.




Chang Jung and Jon Halliday love to compare Mao to Hitler but the absurdity of their comparison becomes evident when they raise Lin Biao's son Li Guo also known as "Tiger "to a comparison with Claus von Stauffenberg, the German officer who tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944.

Jung Chang and Jon Halliday skip over the political differences between Mao and Lin Biao and everything becomes personal between Lin Biao and Mao and politics disappears.

The important political differences between Mao and Lin Biao manifested themselves after the 9th Party Conference in the way Lin Biao was using his control of the military in a bureucratic way.

Lin Biao also took advantage of Sino-Soviet border clashes in the spring of 1969 to declare martial law and further used his position to rid himself of some potential rivals to the succession.

Several leaders who had been purged during 1966–68 died under the martial law regime.


In foreign affairs the Lin Biao line was the tactical policy of the cultural revolution, fight both enemies at the same time with equal force and spread revolution, ignoring or showing hostility to other aspects of the international situation.

In regard to party and state Lin Biao intended to retain military hegmony if not dramtaically increase army control over society.

Zhou Enlai supported by Mao wanted the return of civilian control of society after the cultural revolution in opposition to Lin Biao's line of the army in control.

In foreign affiars both Zhou Enlai and Mao wanted a foriegn policy that favoured distinctions between imperialists, to determine which is the principal and which is the secondary enemy at a given time and to make use of the contradictions within the enemy camp and between the enemy camps.

The new foreign policy line represented Chairman Mao's ideas tactically applied to the current world situation.

This line meant accepting the temporary relaxation in relations offered by US Imperialism so as to remove one threat from China, attempt to divide the superpowers to the extent possible where they collude and build an important alliance of small medium and third world nations - to struggle against the "two overlords" defeating them one at a time

On August 22nd 1970 the Second Plenum of the Chinese Communist Party was once again held in Lushan. It was the Lushan Conference that first brought the differences between Mao and Lin Biao to the public. Lin Biao surprisingly did not provide a copy of his Lushan speech in advance which was the normal curtesey he gave to Mao.

The sharp difference at the Lushan conference was over the post of State President, Mao did not want the post but Lin Biao insisted that Mao take the position. It was Lin Baio's insistence on this matter that alerted Mao to the fact that Lin Biao wanted him to take this position to ensure the vice President would go to himself and confirm his succession to Mao.

There was also Chen Bo Da insisiting that Mao's genius be inserted into the Constiution of China. Mao was seeing clearly that Chen Bo Da and Lin Biao were using the Mao Cult as a cover for naked power seeking for themselves. Mao had Chen Bo Da removed from the standing committee as a warning to Lin Biao to change his ways.

After the Nineth Party Congress Lin Biao had continuously requested promotions within the party and Central Government leading Mao to suspect him of wanting supreme power as quickly as possible. If Lin were to become Vice President he would legally have supreme power after the Presidents death.

Mao made his position clear about Lin Biao on a visit to Southern China after the Lushan meeting when he said that Lin Biao's politics had overestimated the role of the army in society, Lin Biao says that the army is everything, Mao said no the people are everything.

Mao wanted the rectified communist party to return to governing the provinces but Lin Biao wanted the army supervising the party. Mao made it plain the party controls the gun not the gun the party. Mao started moves to bring the army under control and this was the trigger that sent Li Guo the "Tiger:" into action to overthrow Mao.

During his visit to Southern China Mao still hoped to bring Lin Biao back to the straight and narrow inviting Lin Biao to criticise Chen Bo Da's "genius" nonsense which Mao so brilliantly ridiculed in with his classic sense of humour. Lin Biao comment that one word of Mao Tse Tung is worth 10,000 words of anybody else's were also the subject of Mao's wit on the South China visit. But Lin Biao refused to criticise Chen Bo Da and take Mao's offer of a way out of conflict and started to behave erratically at public functions..

Mao however had not calculated on the devastating effect of Lin Biao's son Li Guo who saw in his fathers diminution his diminution and saw in his fathers rise his rise. While Chang Jung and Jon Halliday relish any gossip abouts Mao's personal life they are more circumspect when it comes to Li Guo conceding he was something of a playboy, but no details here as he is another Claus von Stauffenberg and it would not do staining the character of their hero, albiet he was the spoilt son of a doting mother who could see no wrong in him, but worried about his womanising.

Without the fanatical hatred of Li Guo for Mao Tse Tung (shared by Jung Chang) there would probably not have been the 571 or Wu Qi Yi chinese pronounciation like "armed uprising"

But Li Guo was determined to kill Mao and raise his father to number one.

Qui Jin an historian who has studied the Lin Biao incident probably more than anyone else and whose father was head of the Airforce under Lin Biao believes that Lin Biao did not know all his son was up to and his son may have been acting on his own in organising the the attempts on Mao's life.

Her view that Lin Biao he did not know anything until the 12th Sepember at 9 pm I do not find credible as to many things were going on for him not to know nothing.

Lin Biao was not a stupid man as his history demonstrates he was a brilliant military commander and his Manchurian Campaign a classic of military history.

Li Guo, Lin Biao's son contacted Jiang Teng -Jiao the youngest general in China to kill Mao. with a plan was to shoot up Mao's train in Shanghai but the plot did not proceed as planned because the Korean War ace asked to do the job deliberately hospitalised himself to avoid carrying out the task.

Li Guo was now getting desperate and planned a suicide helicopter attack on Tiananmen Gate in Beijing but this was aborted at the last moment. There does appear to be evidence of some kind of attack on Mao in Shanghai, assassination attempts were made against Mao in Shanghai from September 8th to September 10th 1971 according to police records.

However everything unravelled when Dodo, Lin Biao's daughter informed on her brother, father and mother as fleeing the country, the first plan to flee to Hong Kong was abandonded in favour of fleeing to Russia, with Li Guo shooting Lin Biao's bodyguard on the way to the plane, the plane was forced to take off without sufficient fuel and crashed over Mongolia killing Lin Baio his wife and son and all on board..

Mao was deeply shocked by the turn of events and began a purge of the armed forces which according to Jung Chang and Jon Halliday "not a single person was executed" page 685 of "Unknown Mao".

What did Hitler do after Claus von Stauffenberg failed in his assasination attempt ?

" About 180 to 200 plotters were shot or hanged or, in some cases, viciously strangled with piano wire or hung up on great meat hooks, and executed. Hitler had some of the gruesome executions filmed and watched the movies."


Encyclopedia Brittanica on July Plot 1944

Well you make an ambitious playboy son into an brave man like Claus von Stauffenberg, you admit Li Guo wanted to kill Mao on a number of occassions but failed, furthermore he caused the death of his mother and father as a result from his fool hardiness in taking off in a plane half full with fuel which crashes resulting in the death of all on board.That was not all ,as Lin Biao's friends and associates like Qui Jin's father as head of the airforce were also implicated in Li Guo's plots and suffered disgrace and were purged and we are told to regard him as a hero and not as the fool he was.

Let the consequences Li Guo's self consuming hatred of Mao stand as a warning to Jung Chang and Jon Halliday.


SEE ALSO :

 

 http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/mao-zedong-talks-with-responsible.html

 

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/dead-soul-of-confucius-fond-dream-of.html

 

 http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/kevin-rashid-johnson-mim-or-mlm.html

 

 

 

New Years Greetings in 2015 to our readers from Democracy and Class Struggle - Raise the Red Flag higher in 2015 - Long Live Marxism Leninism Maoism

                                                 
                                        The Red Flag flying in Wales since 1831

Antonio Gramsci: I await socialism for this reason too.

Because it will hurl into the trash all of these dates which have no resonance in our spirit and, if it creates others, they will at least be our own

FOR THE DATES THAT MATTER VISIT YR AFLONYDDWCH MAWR HERE

http://greatunrest2012.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-great-unrest-red-remembrancer.html