1920s CCP class collaboration

TAHIR WOOD TWOOD at SPAMadfin.uwc.ac.za
Fri Aug 13 07:55:57 MDT 1999

>>> "Saul Thomas" <saulthomas at bigfoot.com> 08/13 3:09 PM >>>

--Can you turn this bloody history into an argument in favor
of class collaboration? Is there someone out there who
actually claims that the 1920's CCP-GMD collaboration was a

I doubt it. But all revolutions involve mistakes. The
revolutions that don't are the ones that don't happen at
all. Your post does illustrate my earlier points: 1. that
the communists should never abdicate leadership in favour of
the nationalists (although an alliance can be necessary,
even if only to neutralise them for a time); 2. that
alliances should be based on thorough class analysis and
stategic considerations; 3. that the Chinese found it
necessary to reject Soviet advice at many points during
their revolution, later on in the area of economic
development as well. You know very well that the twenties
preceded virtually all of Mao's theoretical work that has
recently been discussed under this thread. This involved
identifying which classes were necessarily in the enemy camp
- these include all the classes you mentioned. Now is there
anyone out there who would actually deny that the united
front against Japanese imperialism was a success? It was a
success not because the Kuomintang fought the Japanese
bravely (they hardly fought them at all), but because it
postponed the time when the communists would have to fight
the nationalists and thus take on two enemies at once. Why
focus on the twenties? The party was so young and virtually
ignorant of marxism, having just been formed. Or is this
focus just a handy rhetorical device? Rather like using the
word "collaboration" with its load of connotations rather
than "alliance".


More information about the Marxism mailing list