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

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Jun 16 20:00:59 MDT 1996


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


[Continued from part 3/4:]

DETAILS ON POINT =A44:

In stating the objective truth, do we sometimes get "isolated"?

Many times in the last two decades or so, I've heard that silly old=20
reactionary ditty: "Now don't you try to say this, you flea, you
microbe, you'll only isolate yourself if you do, and how can you be
so presumptous as to think that *only you* are right and all the rest
of us (oh, so "genuine", oh so "valiant") Marxists, Leninists and
adherents of Mao Zedong Thought, and generally Leftist and very
nice people, are wrong??"

You must have heard that ditty sung to you, too, comrade Adolfo,=20
one or two times or even three. (How was it, for instance, that Mr.
Milliband, as you've told us, "reasoned"?) And now, when I hear it=20
being sung, against me, by you, in the last lines of your 10.06=20
posting, how can I suitably reply to you?=20

I could remind you, for starters, of good old Galileo Galilei and=20
such people, or of our comrade Gonzalo's pointing out that, in their=20
time, Marx and Engels were only two people, etcetera, etcetera.=20
I could even remind you of someone saying that, if in the whole of=20
North America, there were as many as "two or three" "real Maoists",=20
that "would be fine". (So how come those poor guys or chicks=20
wouldn't get "outvoted on the truth" every day, at every meeting=20
they went to, huh?)=20

But mainly, I'll reply by quoting to you some passages from the=20
extremely important Documents of the CPC 10th Congress in 1973.=20
As I already said, these documents (and others) have been=20
suppressed completely by the Avakianists, so that most comrades=20
in today's movement don't even know of them. I'm planning to post=20
them in full, or at least the most important parts of them, later.

(Do you, btw, perhaps have access to them in Spanish or know=20
someone who has? That would be very important. Your own=20
"isolated"-mistake here contributes to showing just *how*=20
important.)
=20
You wrote, on my stating to "Avakian clone 'C'" that a line debate
with him/her would be fine, and on my earlier stating that the
4-Gang question was one which needed to be debated today:

>You would do well, if you MUST debate a fellow who has not a
>leg to stand on the issues, to keep him to that, instead of
>letting him drag you into an isolated position, which you
>yourself admit is only yours at present, and in no way involves
>any other supporter of the WMC.

(In fact, I don't remember "admitting" precisely this. I've spoken=20
of "most comrades" not agreeing etc. And, whether they know it or
not, the question of whether or not to oppose the attempts at=20
reversing the correct verdict on the 4-Gang *does* involve the other=20
WMC supporters, too.)

I quote from the Documents from the Tenth National Congress of
the Communist Party of China, Peking Review No. 35-36 / 1973:

>From Report on Behalf of the Central Committee, by Zhou Enlai:

(p. 21:)

"Chairman Mao teaches us that *'the correctness or incorrectness
of the ideological and political line decides everything.'* If one's
line is incorrect, one's downfall in inevitable, even with the control
of the central, local and army leadership. If one's line is correct,=20
even if one has not a single soldier at first, there will be soldiers,=20
and even if there is no polical power, political power will be gained.=20
This is borne out by the historical experience of our Party and by=20
that of the international communist movement since the time of Marx."

(p.21:)

"We should attach importance not only to the Party's lines and
policies for specxific work but, in particular, to its basic line and
policies. That is the fundamental guarantee of greater victories
for our Party."

[This particular quote, and the third next below, I bring against=20
any "theory" that, in preparing for the WMC, one should solely
concern oneself with the organisatorical issues and neglect
the question of line, which is always the most important one.]

(p. 21:)

"It is imperative to note that one tendency covers another. The
opposition to Chen Tu-Hsiu's Right opportunism which advocated=20
'all alliance, no struggle' covered Wang Ming's 'Left' opportunism=20
which advocated 'all struggle, no alliance'. The rectification of=20
Wang Ming's 'Left' deviation covered Wang Ming's Right deviation.=20
The struggle against Liu Shao-chi's revisionism covered Lin Piao's=20
revisionism. There were many instances in the past when one
tendency covered another and when a tide came, the majority
went along with it, while only a few withstood it."

(p.21:)

"And when a wrong tendency surges towards us like a rising tide,
we must not fear isolation and must dare to go against the tide
and brave it through. Chairman Mao states, *"Going against the
tide is a Marxist-Leninist principle."* In daring to go against the
tide and adhere to the correct line in the ten struggles between
the two lines within the Party, Chairman Mao is our example and=20
teacher. Every one of our comrades should learn well from
Chairman Mao and hold to this principle."

(p. 25:)

"It should be emphatically pointed out that quite a few Party
committees are engrossed in daily routines and minor matters,
paying no attention to major issues. This is very dangerous. If
they do not change, they will inevitably step on to the road of
revisionism. It is hoped that comrades throughout the Party,
leading comrades in particular, will guard against such a
tendency and earnestly change such a style of work."

>From Report on the Revision of the Party Constitution, by Wang=20
Hongwen (later one of the 4-Gang, but this report is good):

(p.31-32:)

"We must have the revolutionary spirit of daring to go against the=20
tide. Chairman Mao pointed out: *Going against the tide is a=20
Marxist-Leninist principle.* During the discussions on the revision
of the Party Constitution, many comrades, reviewing the Party's
history and their own experiences, held that this was the most
important in the two-line struggle within the Party."

"In the early period of the democratic revolution, there were
several occasions when wrong lines held sway in our Party. In
the later period of the democratic revolution and in the socialist
revolution, when the correct line represented by Chairman Mao
has been predominant, there have also been lessons in that
certain wrong lines or wrong views were taken as correct for a
time by many people and supported as such. The correct line
represented by Chairman Mao has waged resolute struggles
against those errors and won out."

"When confronted with issues that concern the line and the=20
overall situation, a true Communist must act without any selfish
considerations and dare to go against the tide, fearing neither
removal from his post, expulsion from the Party, imprisonment,
divorce nor guillotine."=20

Pretty good, what?

Such things as the above you *never* see in PCP writings.
They're a *very* important part of Mao Zedong Thought
"Isolation", that's something you may need on generators.

In orther further to make clear of the character of the "argument":=20
"What do the other supporters of the WMC say?", I'll reproduce
one more quote from the above-mentioned Documents of the
10th Congress of the CPC; it's from Zhou Enlai's report again:

(p. 20:)

"Marx and Engels said in the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*
that *"all previous historical movements were movements of
minorities, or in the interest of minorities*. *The proletarian
movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the
immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority."*=20
Chairman Mao has made *"working for the interests of the vast
majority of people of China and the world" one of the principal
requirements for successors to the cause of the proletarian
revolution, and it has been written into our Party Constitution.
To build a party for the interests of the vast majority or for the
interests of the minority? This is the watershed between=20
proletarian and bourgeois political parties and the touchstone
for distinguishing true Communists from false."

In the world there are today some 5.8 billion people. Assessing
"generously", the number of people who have an interest in
counter-revolution as great as, perhaps, 100 million, one would=20
calculate that 5.7 billion people have an interest in revolution.

How many people are there altogether in those organizations
which, so far, have stated their support for the WMC (a body which,
according to the call for it, i.a. is to "defend Maoism" etc)? Perhaps
more than 570, probably less than 57 000. Now if one person out
of those pointed to an important truth or advocated a correct line
in one respect or another, which all the remaining WMC supporters=20
absolutely were against, who would really be in the majority and
who in the minority on this issue?

Since the vast majority of people have an interest in the truth and,=20
at least potentially, will follow the correct line and not the=20
incorrect one, the erring "remaining WMC supporters" in fact would=20
be (at least
potentially) outnumbered, within the context of "WMC support", by
a factor of something between 100 000 to 1 and 10 million to 1.

OK, they would be applauded, openly or secretly, by that group
which above was "generously" calculated to be100 million people
in the world, so that, in reality, they would "only" be outnumbered=20
by some 57 to 1, independently of whether the total number of "WMC=20
supporters" were 570 or 57 000, which would be an insignificant=20
number anyway compared to that (calculated) one of the entire
reactionary minority in the world, 100 million.

That's how things stand with majorities in the world, and with the=20
question of how "isolated" those who actually represent the truth=20
and the correct line (in some respect or other) really need to feel.


DETAILS ON POINTS =A42 and =A41:

There is no need  to go into the details here on the questions of
whether the Gang of Four in China was a counter-revolutionary,
ultrarightist group or not or whether this question was settled,
in China and in the international Marxist-Leninist movement
almost 20 years ago, or not, other than to point to my series of
postings on these questions. It has appeared, on the Maxrism list=20
and on newgroups, under the (initial) subject line:

"The Four" & events in China 1976" (+ item number + end note)

and the 12 postings so far have had item numbers and end notes:=20

(1): To comrade J.		[Posted: 13.05.96]
(2): PR #15 lies!   		[Posted: 13.05.96]
(3): 2 posts again   		[Posted: 13.05.96]
(4): April etc 1/2   		[Posted: 13.05.96]
(5): April etc 2/2 		[Posted: 13.05.96]
(6): Shanghai, Oct   		[Posted: 13.05.96]
(7): Tsingtao, Oct   		[Posted: 13.05.96]
(8): PR on Oct blow		[Posted: 18.05.96]
(9): NE on Oct blow 		[Posted: 10.06.96]
(10): NE Oct 1978		[Posted: 10.06.96]
(11): Intl. verdict 1/2		[Posted: 17.06.96]
(12): Intl. verdict 2/2		[Posted: 17.06.96]


Rolf M.



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list