2/4 Comrade Adolfo's & others' mistakes on 4-Gang

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Jun 16 19:52:31 MDT 1996


2/4 Comrade Adolfo's & others' mistakes on 4-Gang [Sent.17.06.96]

[Continued from part 1/4:]

=A44.	You even argue (in your very last lines) that if I debate the
	question of the Gang of Four with the person we've called a
	"clone of Avakian" then I'm letting him drag me into an
	"isolated" position which, you say, is only mine at present,
	and "in no way involves any other supporter of the WMC".

	This is really a very bad argument on your part, even worse=20
	than the one in point 3. Marxists abslotutely shouldn't argue=20
	like that. In the documents of the 10th Congress of the CPC,=20
	in 1973, which is one of the many extremely important=20
	documents on Mao Zedong Thought which obviously the=20
	Avakianists have succeeded in suppressing completely,=20
	within the realm of their satrap kingdom, the necessity of a=20
	standpoint on principle precisely opposite to the one you're=20
	presenting here was pointed out to as one of the most=20
	important lessons of all of the CPC's many decades of=20
	inner-party struggles. Further below, I'll quote to you and
	to those other comrades who today are calling themselves
	"Maoists" some parts of these documents on this.


=A45.	You advocate "opposition to attacks on any kind upon the
	proletarian leaders, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman
	Mao and Chairman Gonzalo and their ideology, Marxism-	               =20
Leninism-Maoism, or of any attempt to besmirch, vulgarize=20
	and/or slander them as a condition for 'lending' support to=20
	the Peruvian revlution".

	Concerning this, in my opinion, one should distinguish
	between attacks, on the one hand, and well-intentioned
	criticism, in particular, correct criticism, on the other.

	Since more than 12 years back, for instance, the PCP
	under the leadership of comrade Gonzalo is publicly and,
	in later years, in more than 20 languages, engaging in an
	attack on the proletarian revolutionary line of Chairman Mao.=20
	This by its continued endorsement of the "RIM Declaration"=20
	of 1984. On page 23 in its English version, this document=20
	openly , "criticizing" the well-known "Proposal" of the CPC=20
	of 1963,  engages in an attack on an important and correct=20
	principle not only of Mao Zedong Thought but of Leninism=20
	and also Marxism as well, namely, that of differentiating=20
	between the most reactionary forces and	those which are=20
	not so extreme. It states that this principle, which lay behind=20
	one of the things which the CPC "Proposal" advocated,=20
	absolutely "should be broken with".

	On page 25 of that "Declaration", there even is an all-round
	attack on, and the vilest slander of, Chairman Mao's
	brilliantly correct genuinely internationalist foreign policy
	in the '70:s, which helped the peoples of the world so
	enormously and which thwarted the foul plans of the worst=20
	reactionaries on the international level at that time.

	I already have pointed these things out in the article in my
	"UNITE! Info #3en", in which I also criticized comrade
	Gonzalo and the PCP for their entire "RIM Declaration"
	endorsement. Nowhere so far have I seen you oppose the
	"RIM":s attacks on Chairman Mao concretely.=20

	It may be the case that you're bound by democratic centralism=20
	within the context of the PCP, or that you out of loyalty to that=20
	party are refraining to voice certain criticisms which you might=20
	have, publicly. In that case, I would respect this. But obviously,=20
	I, for instance, have an obligation to the proletariat in the world=20
	to oppose such unjust attacks as those I've mentioned.

	Furthermore, Marx, even in his days, pointed out that the
	proletarian revolution is one which constantly criticizes
	itself. New experiences and insights are constantly being=20
	gained as the years pass and class struggle proceeds. I
	don't think that there's any disagreement between us on
	principle in this respect, comrade Adolfo. You know, as I
	do, about the Chinese communists' criticism of Stalin on=20
	certain points. I'm certain that it wasn't your intention to
	say that this was impermissible.=20

	We both agree, I think, on the fact that the correct ideology=20
	of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong, which is the ideology of the 	       =20
proletariat, absolutely should be defended and not attacked.
=09

=A46.	In your discussion on the question of the phoney"left" Gang
	of Four, on several points there shows up a *confusion* on
	your part comcerning the difference between a *genuinely*
	left-wing policy and a *phoney* one, i.a. reactionary policy
	only *camouflaged* as "left-wing". Below, I'll show you this,
	quoting various lines of your posting.=20

	Here there's another error on your part which is *not* due to=20
	lack of information but which is an error on a quite important=20
	principle, on which the Marxists need to be very clear. I=20
	think you'll realize the correctness and the necessity of my=20
	criticism here.


=A47.	In two instances, you ascribed certain "theories" to me which=20
	I've never, directly or indirectly, advocated, theories which it
	indeed would be foolish for anyone to advocate. You didn't
	quote anything from any of my postings to substantiate what
	you were maintaining. You didn't mention when or where,
	according to you, I might have advanced these "theories".=20
	You just proceeded to say that you were against them, and
	no wonder.=20

	Such a "method of discussion", in my opinion, could at best be
	interpreted as a case of sloppiness which, in such a context,
	obviously is no good. Some things which I've stated perhaps
	may have seemed so "strange" to you, who long have been
	"accustomed" (this I only *presume*, please note this) to the
	Avakianist manner of presenting certain matters, so that=20
	you've unconsciously, perhaps, formed the idea in your head
	that I must be an utter idiot in some respects, and therefore
	you didn't even bother to check out what I was really saying.
	At worst the "method" of yours on these two points could be
	interpreted as dishonesty.=20

	I'd like to add that, in all the earlier postings of yours I've read,=20
	I've never once seen dishonesty on your part. So I hope that's=20
	not what's behind this "reasoning" of yours here. At any rate,=20
	such "reasoning" is quite bad, isn't it, and I hope, for the good=20
	of our common cause, that you'll not engage in any such things=20
	in the future.


DETAILS OF MY CRITICISM (Further comments on some of the=20
above points, now in *reverse* order; I'll comment more on points
=A47, =A46, =A45......../complete that later/)=20

I find it suitable to comment further on some of the above points in=20
reverse order, i.e. beginning with my point =A47. etc, - I don't mean by=20
this to make a parallell to certain persons' attempts at reversing the
correct verdict on the Gang of Four.


DETAILS ON POINT =A47.

Do you play chess, comrade Adolfo? Several of the comrades of
Peruvian origin whom I know do so, as also some other people
likewise interested in Marxism. At any rate, I'll comment on the
opening of your posting, and on a couple of other lines in it, as if it=20
were the opening of a chess game.=20

In your second paragraph, you're giving me the white pieces in
our game, so to speak, and are making me advance:

>the Rolf Martens theory about the reactionary
>character of everybody except Mao=20
[in the Chinese revolution]

That is, you have me starting the game with something like1.f2-f3,=20
not a very good move. With it, certainly that small advantage which=20
white has in chess because of his right to the first move is gone=20
already. You yourself are replying to this:

>We do not accept in any way=20
[this theory.]
>Mao Tse-tung did not carry a revolution to success accompanied=20
>by a gang of counter-revolutionaries posing as his supporters.=20

Which obviuosly is quite correct. It corresponds, say, to a first=20
move by black of 1. -, e7-e6, a sound and not overly aggressive=20
development move. In your next report on the "theories" which "I"=20
am "advancing", you have me going from bad to worse. After=20
quoting from a speech by Mao Zedong in 1955, you write:

>Comrade Martens obviously bases himself in this correct=20
>evaluation of Chairman Mao to damn both the left and right in=20
>equal measure, as a superficial reading of Chairman Mao's=20
>speech  would apparently indicate. =20

That is, "I" am "damning" *both* the left, the *real* left, you seem to
mean, since you have no quotation marks around that word here,
and the right! That would be a stupidity indeed, for someone who
thinks he's advocating the proletarian revolution! It would mean, of=20
course, damning both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. (In
addition to your hint that I might be reading Mao "superficially".)

This is one of the instances in your posting where you don't
distinguish beteween *phoney* "left" and *genuine* one. Did you
really mean to suggest to people that I wanted to damn both
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? I don't think so. You probably
did mean to say that I advocated damning both the *phoney*"left"
and the openly-appearing right. At any rate, your leaving out the
qoutes here on the word "left" does suggest that you weren't clear
in your mind about the difference.

Even so, your reporting that I would recommend damning the phoney
"left" and the openly-appearing right "in equal measure" ascribes a
quite silly standpoint to me. What might such "equality" mean? 50=20
lines of criticism against the one deviation, 50 against the other, at
all times? Or 50 shells fired at the one adversary and 50 at the other,
in all circumstances and at every point in time? Obviously, in real life,
sometimes the phoney"left" constitutes the greater danger and=20
needs more attention and counterattack on the part of the Marxists,
on other occasions it's the openly-appearing right that does so.

You're making my second move in our game to be 2.g2-g4, in fact.
And you reply to it, which isn't difficult to do:

>In my opinion, this is a totally useless argument at present and=20
>only will give succour to Avakian's revisionism=20

Absolutely a devastating reply! You're confronting me with nothing
less than 2.-, Qd8-h4! Against this, I'm defenceless.

I've compared your "line of arguing" here to what in chess is known
as the "fool's mate" - the quickest way of all to end the game, by
white's "committing suicide" in this manner. But this was only
because *you* and not myself, directed how I was to move my
pieces. Will you let me show you that, when left to do it on my
own, I can do better than that? I once, long ago, played the=20
following ending as white:

Position: White: Ke5, Rg7, Pe4, Pf6 (=3D 4 pieces); Black: Kh6, Rc7,
Pb5, Pf7 (=3D 4 pieces), white to move:

1.Kf5, Rb7 2.e5, b4 3.Rxf7, Rxf7 4.e6, Rxf6+ 5.Kxf6, b3 6.e7, b2=20
7.e8 =3DQ, b1=3DQ 8.Qe3+, Kh7 9.Qh3+, Kg8 10.Qg4+, Kf8 11.Qc8
mate, 1-0. (Martens-Grabczevski, friendship match LASK, Lund,
Sweden, against Maraton, Warzawa, Poland, in Lund, 1969).

Why this little piece of (perhaps) "chesst beating"? In those days,=20
I not seldom engaged in chess tournament play, and the above in my
own opinion (with that Rook sacrifice on move 3) was my prettiest=20
combination - I had calculated the end position, as "main variation",=20
>from the initial one above - and it later made it to a so-called=20
Encyclopedia of Combinations because of its unusual motive and=20
also, as I happened to see, was published in the chess column of
the London daily "The Times".

I'm bringing this in order perhaps to help convince you that I'm not
such a complete fool as I was depicted as in some lines of your
posting, comrade Adolfo. My opponent in that game was a quite
nice fellow; he later beat me in one of the games in our return
match in Warzawa the same year, and on the wall right before my
eyes as I'm writing this I still have the picture of that city from 1646
which he gave me as a friendship present. In competition chess,
after the game, (normally) a transformation takes place in that the
earlier opponents now become partners in a science-like analysis
of the game, jointly trying objectively to ascertain what mistakes=20
each of them made during it. This I suggest wouldn't be such a=20
bad method to apply to political discussions either, at least to the=20
comradely ones.

Returning to this political discussion, I have to point out to you and
to others that I of course never, directly or indirectly, have=20
maintained such an idiocy as saying that Mao Zedong was "quite=20
alone" in leading the Chinese revolution. In my postings on the
4-Gang I mentioned one other important leader, Mao Zedong's
close ally Zhou Enlai. In the months before the passing away of
Mao himself, he died, as did the likewise well-known Zhu De, the=20
military man who in the '30:s was so closely connected with Mao=20
that some people in China thought they were one and the same,=20
and the other important leaders Tung Pi-wu and Kang Sheng.

As members of the then elected Standing Committee of the
Political Bureau of the CC of the CPC, the Documents of the 1973
CPC 10th Congress enumerate (in the transcription of that time):
Mao Tsetung, Wang Hung-wen, Yeh Chien-ying, Chu Teh, Li
Teh-Sheng, Cang Chun-chiao, Chou En-lai, Kang Sheng and Tung
Pi-wu, or eight persons in addition to Mao Zedong. (Peking
Review, No. 35-36 / 1973 page 10.)=20

It's true that, out of these, two later took part in the factional activity=
=20
that was repeatedly criticized by Chairman Mao, and after his death=20
were arrested as members of the counter-revolutionary Gang of Four.=20
But that leaves six others, doesn't it? When did I ever deny their=20
existence or call them "reactionaries"?  =20

The same Documents also name (same source, p. 10):

Chairman of the Central Committee: Mao Tsetung.

Vice-Chairmen of the CC: Chou En-lai, Wang Hung-wen, Kang
Sheng, Yeh Chien-ying, Li Teh-sheng.
[5 persons; 2 of them died in 1975-76, 1 of  them was in 4-Gang.]

Members of the Political Bureau of the CC (listed in the order of
strokes in their surnames): Mao Tsetung, Wang Hung-wen, Wei
Kou-ching, Yeh Chien-ying, Liu Po-Cheng, Chiang Ching (f.),
Chu Teh, Hsu Shih-yu, Hua Kuo-feng, Chi Teng-kuei, Wu Teh,
Wang Tung-hsing, Chen Yung-kuei, Chen Hsi-lien, Li Hsien-nien,
Li Teh-sheng, Chang Chun-chiao, Chou En-lai, Yao Wen-yuan,
Kang Sheng, Tung Pi-wu; Alternate Members: Wu Kuei-hsien (f.),
Su Chen-hua, Ni Chih-fu, Saifudin.

That's 24 persons in addition to Mao Zedong. True, out of those
24, four persons later formed the infamous 4-Gang. And Hua=20
Guofeng, who on 07.04.1976 on Mao Zedong's proposal was
elected First Vice-Chairman and in October 1976 assumed the
post as Mao's successor, in the very next month started to commit
open treason and eventually teamed up with Deng Xiaoping (who=20
as you can see wasn't then on the PB - but he was among the 319=20
Members and Alternate Members of the CPC 10th Central=20
Committee) to restore capitalism in China. But that still leaves 19=20
other main leaders beside Mao. When and where in my writings=20
did I ever try to "wipe out" those revolutionaries??

I never did this. The Avakianists have tried to do it, ridiculously
trying to portray the persons who degenerated into forming the
counter-revolutionary Gang of Four as "Mao's closest comrades-
in-arms", and, recently, the person we've called "clone" repeated
just that. And the "MIM" long has been saying the same thing.
I all along have been saying something completely different. It
would be a good thing, I think, if you distanced yourself from that
upside-down description of this in your earlier posting, comrade
Adolfo.

You actually even a third time in your posting indicated that you
were considering me an utter fool, but this time it wasn't so bad
as in the other two instances, since you only stated what, in your
opinion, I "seemed" to think:

>Comrade Rolf seems to think that if everyone, both the "Left"
>and the Right had united after the passing away of the center
>of party unity, Chairman Mao, everything would have been
>hunky dory. This is of course true, but only in so far as good
>wishes go, because in the midst of very acute class struggles
>this kind of happy outcomes are not possible.

I by no means have thought anything like that. By "the 'Left'" here,
you're referring to the phoney"left" Gang of Four, aren't you, and=20
by "the Right" to the Deng Xiaoping group. But I have written *only*=20
on the absolute necessity, for the *real" left in the Party and in China=20
as a whole, of COMBATING BOTH those *reactionary* groups.=20
And this was what the Marxist-Leninsts in the international=20
movement at that time expressly supported, too.=20

I on my part NEVER have raised such a "wishful-thinking" question=20
as "What MIGHT have happened if those *bourgeois* forces had=20
been *proletarian* forces instead?". Nowhere in my writings do I say
anything even remotely pointing in that direction. What "seems" to
be the case, comrade Adolfo, is that for some reason or other you =20
absolutely don't want to quote me, concretely, but prefer to consult=20
only some "inner ear" of yours or whatever, when it comes to finding=20
out, and telling other people, what it is that I'm saying. Please stop
behaving like that! We don't want our allies to look bad.

[Continued in part 3/4]



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list