Should Zhang Hongliang's banner be cut down or raised up?

At present there is a major ideological struggle occurring in China. The basic division is between those who want to revive the Chinese Communist Party and renew Chinese socialism and those who want to replace the CCP with a multi-party bourgeois democracy and dismantle socialism and replace it with full blown capitalism.


Within these two overarching trends of thought there are many divisions  On the Chinese left there are those who think that socialism in China has already fallen to capitalist restoration and that revisionism is synonymous with capitalist restoration. In this case China is a capitalist country ruled by a fascist party that is communist in name only. Under those conditions the CCP has to be overthrown and replaced by a true M-L-M party.  Others see revisionism quite differently, it is a transitory period during which the Party is taking the capitalist road and socialism is being eroded. As Mao said, during the transitional period of socialism class struggle between the proletariat and its allies against the bourgeoisie will continue and get more fierce as the struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads intensifies. Thus revisionism must be struggled against and reversed both inside and outside the Party. That is the position advocated in the following essay.


On the other hand there are those who advocate for continuing the current reform process by increasing marketization and engaging in more privatization of State Owned Enterprises. They also speak of the need for political reform and adherence to "universal values." These people are found both within and outside the CCP. Their line  is similar to Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost, which led to the dissolution of the CPSU and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It can be characterized as a long-term stealth strategy to turn the CCP into a bourgeois social democratic party and the PRC into a bourgeois democracy along the lines of what occurred in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. There are however those who call for the outright replacement of the CCP by a multi-party system and the wholesale importation of western values and institutions. That is the position of outright capitalist restoration and is promoted by the likes of Liu Xiaobo and Ai Weiwei and is put forth in Charter 8. Those who actively advocate that position are frequently harassed and at times prosecuted for subversion of state power and jailed.


Nevertheless, the range of opinion currently tolerated in China is quite broad. It ranges from those on the left who call for a return to M-L-M policies and practices to those on the right who call for an increased tempo of market-oriented reforms. Those on the far left or far right who call for the overthrow of the CCP are suppressed. Others who advocate diametrically opposite views regarding the future development of China are not. There are voices on both the right (Mao Yushi) and left (i.e. translation at this site) who are very critical of the policies and practices of the current leadership.


Which brings the discussion to the current Communist Party led government. In actual fact it is a coalition government that contains both rightist and leftist elements. The policies pursued are hence based on consensus building and compromise. There is intense two-line struggle and jockeying for power. A powerful illustration of this was the recent placement and removal of a statue of Confucius from Tiananmen Square.


The following essay refers to recent criticisms of Zhang Hongliang a well-known Chinese leftist, from those on the left who think his positions are too conciliatory and reformist. It is a justification of what can be called the renewalist position on the left which accepts the legitimacy of the CCP and advocates a struggle to reinvigorate it and revive the struggle for socialism in China.



Who is Zhang Hongliang? (Translated from Baidu Baike the Chinese equivalent of Google (Baidu) and Wikipedia (Baike)).

Zhang Hongliang, is a Professor at the Central University of Nationalities and the Securities Institute. He's a commentator on the current struggle between the right and left in China and his contributions are found on many blogs that focus on China's current financial situation, the people's livelihood, and other hot issues in international relations that reveal the current situation in Chinese society in order to wake people up.

Zhang Hongliang is a prominent critic of "genetically modified staple food” and the hazards they pose to humans. His essays are often found at the Maoist website Utopia. He gives talks at major universities and other academic establishments, participates in television programs and has a wide audience.

Should Zhang Hongliang's banner be cut down or raised up?

Recently, some who consider themselves left-wing revolutionaries have launched fierce attacks on Prof. Zhang Hongliang, accusing him of being a reformist and misleading the left by only being against corrupt officials but not the “emperor.”

I do not think this controversy is a bad thing, by means of this kind of debate we can better communicate and enhance our awareness of the underlying problem, rally the left, more clearly recognize some fundamental principles, and consolidate his status as a standard-bearer of the left. I declare my clear-cut support and full endorsement of his line and methods. Under the revolutionary situation of the new age that we find ourselves in Zhang Hongliang must be defended and supported. This is not just some personal preference.

Regarding the problem of Zhang Hongliang it's possible to talk about the dual aspects of strategy and tactics.

There is an old saying; “If the name is not correct, the words will not ring true.” Although there are things that smack of capitalist restoration in China, as long as China is still called a socialist country and the Communist Party still holds power it is both unjustified and undeserving to say that capitalism has been restored. It is illegal for those people and forces who want to bring down the banner of the Communist Party to carry out real deceptive restorationist activities.

I have repeatedly explained to one and all that the legacy of Mao Zedong has given the left enough breathing room to make a comeback, but we do not know how to use the conditions that Mao Zedong left us, and how to prepare and develop the space that he left behind.

Herein are some prerequisite plans that we should advance to implement renewal. If the premise is that we are a socialist country, then we must strive to perfect the operational economic mechanisms of the socialist system, that is to advance the renewal of socialism. Taking the road of the self-perfection of the socialist system, what's wrong with that kind of reform?

The main task of the current struggle for leftists is not to completely smash the state apparatus of the people's democratic dictatorship, but to enable the tools of the dictatorship to find their proper objective which strategically speaking requires that comrades on the left need to utilize the healthy power of the internal state apparatus to eliminate the obstacles to history's progress and lessen the expense of revolution.

If it is thought that China needs to produce something similar to a revolutionary war of liberation, that would be equivalent to rejecting out of hand Chairman Mao's historic contribution, starting from scratch and not conforming to the  laws of changing historic developments.

In "Journey to the West" when the genuine Thunder Temple was reached and when the genuine Tathagata Buddha appeared was the time when the great quest for the Sutras was close to success. The Chinese Revolution is also close to success but at present our country is at a crucial turning-point in the battle between genuine or fake socialism and a genuine or fake Communist Party.

Second, since capitalism in China has not yet been completely and finally restored, China is still considered a socialist country and the Communist Party still holds power our whole struggle must be for the self-perfection and self-renewal of the socialist system, and the self-cleansing of the Communist Party. Therefore, the general trend of the current revolution is around the theme of renewal, we have to squeeze the already rotten blood and putrid pus out of the body of socialism and the Communist Party in order to reinvigorate Socialism. It was Mao's earlier nation building revolution, and his Cultural Revolution that prevented restoration, that has made it possible to have a complimentary struggle both inside and outside the Party to force a return to the path of Mao Zedong Thought. The targets and pre-conditions of the revolution are not the same. The principles, tactics and methods of struggle are not the same.

Some people harshly believe that revolution is better than renewal, this is typical of dogmatic empiricism that originates from book learning and subjective desire. It is the expression of an extremely naive way of thinking.

Third, the main battlefield in the current struggle is ideological, we must use all available media resources to expand the influence of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Thought, not only expand its strength, but at the same time to cause the collapse of the enemy, lessen the transformation of those to be won over and narrow the target of revolution. In that way can reduce the obstacles to revolution by reducing the object of the fight for revolutionary changes and curbing resistance  to the the revolution. Therefore, Zhang Hongliang, Kong Qingdong, Dai Xu, Zheng Qiang, etc. who play a leading role in public opinion, are no less than the fighting strength of a division or army of the PLA during the War of Liberation. The role that these people play should be further strengthened, rather than constrained by irresponsible back-stabbing remarks.

Some people attack Zhang Hongliang due to naive thinking, while others purely out of ulterior motives, they want cut down Zhang Hongliang's banner to hoist their own, their method is to raise themselves up by bringing others down. Their hearts have no need for the great revolutionary cause, in their heart and bones they are only interested in fame and fortune.

Zhang Hongliang foresees that the great rejuvenation of Chinese socialism and the great rejuvenation of Chinese culture are both correct, history is developing in that direction. Zhang Hongliang is undoubtedly a pioneer of socialist revival, a crowing rooster, the morning star rising before the sun, playing the role of revolutionary standard-bearer amongst the left and the whole community. When he speaks he talks about principles, when criticizing he pays attention to politics, the attacks on Zhang Hongliang are in disarray, if it is said that Zhang Hongliang is for reform. I want to stand by his side and carry out his kind of reform to the very end.

We are not out to destroy the Communist Party we want to help the Communist Party fulfill its goals. We do not want to repeal the laws of socialism, but to invigorate the economic mechanisms of socialism, we want to return to communist beliefs and the path and direction pointed out by Mao Zedong Thought.

The growing trend of history is to reverse revisionism, the revisionists tried to castrate and revise Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought and alter its correct political line and policies, today we want to bring order out of chaos and correct the mistakes of the reform movement.

What's wrong with the renewal of the socialist system ? !

At present China has no shortage of people who want revolution, what China most lacks now are people who know how to make revolution and what kind of revolution to make. Strategy and tactics are the lifeblood of the Party and absolutely cannot be neglected. Confronting grave difficulties we must clearly distinguish between us and the enemy. Rally the great majority and win over the large number against the handful. Let our comrades unleash themselves to deal with the enemy and not be constrained by artificially adding confusion to the revolutionary cause.

Who can solve the dilemma in today's China?

Who is Wu Jinglian and why has he become an object of scorn and derision amongst Chinese Maoists?

The following entry from Wikipedia attests to the influence of and controversy surrounding his economic policies:

Wu Jinglian (吴敬琏; born January 24, 1930) is one of the preeminent economists of the People's Republic of China (PRC), primarily specializing in economic policy as it applies to China's ongoing series of economic reforms. Renowned for his resolute conviction that socialism is compatible with a market system, he is affectionately referred to in the media as Wu Shichang (吴市场; "Market Wu"). Wu currently (as of 2006) holds multiple positions, the most important of which are: Professor of Economics at both the China Europe International Business School and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Senior Research Fellow for the Developmental Research Centre of the State Council of the PRC; and Member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Wu graduated from Fudan University with a degree in economics in 1954. Through his long career, he has, in addition to his professorships at Chinese universities, been visiting researcher and professor at a number of international universities, including Yale, MIT, Duke, Stanford, and Oxford. A prominent target of political persecution during the Cultural Revolution, Wu was criticized for advocating the doctrine of "bourgeois right," more simply understood as the principle of "compensation according to work." He was forced to make public denunciations of his revered teacher Sun Yefang, for which he later expressed deep regret. He has honoured the memory of another victim of political persecution, Gu Zhun, whose unyielding character and pioneering attempts to revise Marxian economics in a market-oriented direction were for Wu a source of enlightenment. Having called for China's opening up and celebrated its entry to the WTO, Wu was distressed by the side-effects of rapid growth: corruption, inequitable distribution, and crony capitalism. In the last ten years he has joined Qin Hui, He Qinglian and other public intellectuals in raising social justice to prominence on the policy agenda. Wu is also the author of a number of books on China's economic reform. In 2008, state-owned media in China started calling Wu a spy for the U.S. The fact that the state-owned newspaper People Daily was authorized to call him such indicates that his economic and political ideas are great annoyances for the current leadership. Wu pointed out that “old-style Maoists” have been gaining influence in the government since 2004. These groups, he said, are pressing for a return to central planning and placing blame for corruption and social inequality on the very market reforms he championed. Wu also pointed out that corrupt bureaucrats are pushing for the state to take a larger economic role so they can cash in on their positions through payoffs and bribes, as well as by steering business to allies. Because of these developments, Wu is not optimistic about the future of China, because “[t]he Maoists want to go back to central planning and the cronies want to get richer.”

As the following article shows Chinese Maoists strongly disagree with Wu's assessments. The article has circulated widely on the Maoist web in China. One of it's most salient points is that today's China is at a crucial juncture, continue on the capitalist road, which will inevitably lead to the complete restoration of capitalism, the demise of the Chinese Communist Party and the vilification of Mao, or return to the socialist road and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. 

The author accepts the fact that China is a socialist country and the CPC is a M-L-M revolutionary party but with the caveat that it is in the midst of a titanic class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and a two line struggle within the Party between the capitalist road and the socialist road. The article is hence a salvo in this struggle.

Who can solve the dilemma in today's China

On the issue of Wu Jinglian's "Top-level Design"　　

Yunfan　

In a recent public lecture Wu Jinglian  aka "Market Wu" threw out the high sounding phrase - “comprehensive reform requires top-level design.” "Market Wu" first outlined a number of problems encountered  by reforms in today's China, recognizing that China's development had fallen into a dilemma and there needed to be a change in the mode of development, it must go through a series of all-around reforms, “in order to promote comprehensive reform in all sectors, the reform must be carried out by 'top-level design.'" Since this term has come into fashion I wanted to find out just what “top-level design” actually means, but upon investigation I couldn't find out it's true meaning. I wasn't sure whether this was an intentional attempt to keep people in the dark, an attempt to whet one's appetite, or out of a sense of embarrassment. Whenever I mentioned the term “top-level design” the conversation stopped as if people were reluctant to speak about it.  Thus it was impossible to get a direct answer as to what “top-level design” actually meant.

In fact, "Market Wu" is in a predicament of his own making as not so long ago, during the 4th meeting of the 12th National People's Congress, Chairman Wu Bangguo's formal proclamation of the “five dont's” (don't engage in multi-party elections, don't engage in diversification of the guiding ideology, don't engage in 'separation of powers' and the bicameral system, don't engage in federalism, don't engage in privatization) was still ringing in our ears. Therefore, it is quite understandable that in these times, "Market Wu ," despite having a lot to say, at present cannot but be afraid to go beyond a certain point. But the hidden meaning of  "top-level design" is still not too difficult to reveal despite all the beating around the bush. In  discussing resistance to "top-level design" "Market Wu" made particular reference to ideological resistance: "ideological resistance is due to the long-term ideological influence of the Soviet Union on our country, this type of ideological influence was necessarily a hindrance to market-oriented reforms.”  But what was this ideological influence that we received from the Soviet Union? There is no doubt, it was the influence of socialist ideology. Under the actual national conditions that China found itself in, this socialist ideology was politically based on the People's Democratic Dictatorship (i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat), to achieve and protect the power of the people to be masters of their own political destiny; economically the foundation was adherence to socialist public ownership of production, based on distribution according to work; ideologically and culturally it was based on taking Marxism-Leninism- Mao Zedong Thought as the guide for action. All of this is clearly and unequivocally stated in the Constitution of the PRC. Accordingly, the socialist system, including it's socialist ideology, is not only fundamental to China's political system but also fundamental to the establishment of the Communist Party of China. But to “Market Wu” these form major obstacles to “top-level design.” Moreover they have to be quickly removed. It can be seen what the true colors of so-called “top-level design” actually are.

It is unarguable that concomitant to the more than 30 years of development based on reform and opening up and the rapid expansion of GDP that there has also been an almost daily growth in all kinds of social contradictions, especially deep-seated contradictions that are like a coiled and tangled rope that is becoming more and more dense, more and more tightly wrapped, and has finally formed a string of endless knots one after another, so that China is increasingly faced with a dilemma, development has caused intractable problems and we Chinese seem to have once again come to a crossroads of history. Which way to go? China must make a choice. At this time, right-wing capitalist reformers such as "Market Wu" have come up with an answer “top-level design's” “long-term targets,” and  “comprehensive reform”  At first glance, this "top-level design" really seems mysterious, if not a bit scary,  but a careful analysis shows that it is nothing new, but still the same old stuff of Western neo-liberal residues and leftovers, nothing more than clichés such as "the market creates a level playing field that can promote the vigorous development of all walks of life ", "to have the market play the basic role in allocating resources", "there is a backsliding phenomenon, not in the direction of the market, but going in the opposite direction towards strengthening the domination of government resources"and and so on and so forth. What's different from the past is that they are no longer satisfied with market-oriented economic reforms, but want the imposition of  "top-level design" as a big system, "in this big system each subsystem should have such a design, including the economic system, legal system, cultural system, education system, etc. Obviously, "top-level design" is a kind of superstructure design directed towards political reform, it is an attempt to implement fundamental changes all at once. It is in fact a reaction against the “Five Don'ts” of Wu Bangguo, its essence is to transform the “Five Don'ts” into the “Five Dos” with the object of changing socialist ideology and the fundamental system of socialism. And finally, the text especially emphasizes: "All of these reforms are not only a top-level design and detailed implementation plan, but there must also be the determination to remove all obstacles and barriers to its implementation with strict obedience so that the reforms can be successful." Under the present conditions in which we face all kinds of difficulties and crises, and there is a growing awareness and a rising clamor among the masses of people for a return to socialism, the bourgeois reformists probably feel that time is growing short and they must protect "the fruits of reform and opening up." They must not only stake out a "program" but also show "commitment" and "resolve" in doing so. The urgency they show to force through their plans is palpable, vivid and colorful.

As we all know, although the reform and opening up of Chinese society has led to a tremendous growth in wealth, the attendant serious social crises have almost exhausted and offset it. Domestically there is bureaucratic corruption, polarization, inflation, environmental degradation, resource depletion, credit crises, cultural decadence and moral degeneracy; internationally U.S. imperialism has completed a military containment strategy, the South China Sea is being nibbled away, the Diaoyu Islands have been forcibly occupied, the accumulation of huge foreign exchange reserves, and foreign investment in U.S. junk bonds suffers from daily depreciation and loss, entry into the WTO has become a trap that has imposed unequal world trade regulations on us. China is like a tube with all its blood being sucked out day by day... In short, China while seeing its GDP rise to the world's 2nd  highest level, at the same time at home and abroad has fallen into an unprecedented predicament. The more deeply embedded the deeper we sink. At this point, one cannot help but wonder, if someone came back from the time of Mao Zedong, when the people were of one mind, when they held their heads up high, were high-spirited, when there was no domestic nor foreign debt, with a complete national economic system, about to confidently realize the four modernizations of a socialist country, how come we are in the type of predicament we are now in?  Why? Who can solve China's current predicament? 　　

Over the last 30 years, China has indeed developed, but the result has been to place economic and social development in serious opposition to the people's livelihood, and as this opposition is intensifying and growing there is the danger of economic and social collapse. All this shows that development itself has produced a certain problem. At present the official mainstream view is that the problem is the pattern of development. In fact, the problem is the direction of development, the problem is the political line of development. Bourgeois reformists talk as if "development is the last word," today's situation proves that the principle direction and political line of development is more important than the principle of development in and of itself. For a long time, bourgeois reformists have embraced selfishness, they talk about development only in the abstract. But they choose to ignore the question of along which route should development proceed and for whom is development meant. Once they started under the signboard  of "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth" they began shouting that "trampling on the red flag" and "breaking through to the forbidden zone", should become the guiding ideology of the Communist Party - with Mao Zedong Thought discarded to the side, thinking that they are more brilliant than Mao Zedong. They threw around  the "cat" theory (it doesn't matter what color the cat is as long as it catches mice), the "touch" theory (walking across the river by feeling the stones) until they finally came up with the "no debate" theory. During this period they were wantonly fed by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and other hostile forces These brainwashed right-wing scholars, vigorously accepted Western neo-liberal ideas, such as marketization and privatization, boring holes into the socialist public economy based on public ownership. causing the public owned economy to shrink  to less than 30% of the total national economy; forcing workers to be laid off, farmers to be dispossessed, causing the working class to go from being the leading class to being a disadvantaged class, and making the worker-peasant alliance a thing of the past. When this type of reform brought about a series of serious social and economic problems, they should have learned a bitter lesson and engaged in self-criticism, but instead the right-wing reformists, were self-congratulatory and refused to reflect on the reforms. They totally ignored any mention of "practice being the sole criterion for testing truth," instead they came up with "nonsense," such as addressing the problems of reform depends on deepening the reform. In this fashion we go further along the "the wrong path” so that today the problems are even more intractable. Today's predicament demonstrates that China must go no further! China must get to the root of things and make a fresh start! Otherwise, China is faced with evil, a disaster, an abyss! 　　

At a time when China is sinking deeply into a difficult situation, when we need to make an historic choice, the die-hard bourgeois reformists, with "Market Wu" as representative of the right-wing scholars, are impatiently jumping up and down, once again promoting the discredited theory of neo-liberalism, already long ago made bankrupt by the Western financial crisis, repackaging it as "top-level design" to even further harm China. Since the reform and opening up, Western neo-liberalism has for decades wrecked havoc in China. During this span of time the superstitions of the market economy and privatization have placed the Chinese people of the 21st century in an ideological cage. Bound in this cage, the market and privatization are seen as a panacea to solve all economic and social problems. The current way this superstition is represented in  China is the expression that "the spirit of the market economy is privatization." Under the auspices of this superstition the common people of China have experienced one calamity after another, after the housing reform no one could afford housing, after the education reform no one could afford to go to school, after the health care reform no one could afford to get sick, after the pension reform no one could afford to get old, and the list goes on. Obviously, since the bourgeois reformists gained power, under the din of the long-term trend of Western neo-liberal thinking, by fostering private capitalism without restriction, by infringing on the people's livelihood without restraint, by suppressing mass democracy without any soul-searching, and by indulging in reactionary speech without question, we have long since departed from the original intent that “reform is to consolidate and improve socialism."

Mao Zedong Thought is clearly the most advanced theoretical ideology in the world today. It is  clearly the only way for the Chinese people to move toward common prosperity, and is the powerful thinking behind the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, but it is condemned by right-wing academics and “elite” bourgeois reformists as being on the "extreme left" and rejected to the point of repudiation, even though all day long they are keen to crawl on their bellies through the unbearable stink of a pile of Western neo-liberal bullshit to find the statecraft that they seek. They deserve to be seen as examples of seeking truth in a pile of shit and finding flaws in a gem . Today, at a time when capitalism has been hit with a once in a century financial crisis that has increasingly evolved into a deepening economic and social crisis, when even among bourgeois scholars from the Western capitalist world there is a rising tide criticizing market fundamentalism and neo-liberalism, Chinese such as "Market Wu" who represents the elite bourgeois reformists are still stubbornly and unrepentantly holding to the fundamentalist mentality that the market economy is everything, that privatization is everything which has brought China to the brink of disaster. Even more contemptible is that they have skillfully used the “Devil's Dictionary” to redefine the platitudes of market fundamentalism and neo-libralism and repackage them as “top-level design” to achieve their treacherous design of continuing to suppress the common people of China. But the people pushing "top-level design" cannot hope to see how to overcome the predicament that China finds itself in, but they can clearly delineate the discredited 20 year old “New thinking” of Gorbachev that led to the destruction of the Soviet Union and the collapse  of the CPSU.

If only the basic meaning of “top-level design” is sought out, then under the present circumstances China is in desperate need of it. In order to get China out of its predicament one cannot just treat the symptoms, one must treat the root cause and find the underlying solution which is the “top-level design” that truly represents the interests of the masses and inevitably moves history forward.  Of course this type of "top-level design" and the former type of "top-level design" are intrinsically different, this "top-level design" is the revolutionary line of Mao Zedong Thought, the socialist political orientation. Under the guidance of this  line those in power should look at the overall holistic situation and grasp the strategic development of China, and not just be limited to the technical aspects of tinkering with minutia. This requires real Communists, willing to brave death,  make a determined effort with the resolute spirit of a proletarian revolutionary, with the courage and resourcefulness to make a fresh start, to restring the bow in the political, economic, military, diplomatic, ideological and cultural fields, to launch a series of all-around, thorough actions to set things right by using Mao Zedong Thought, to guide the overall situation, only then can the predicament that today's China finds itself in be addressed.

Politically, comprehensively carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat under Mao Zedong's theory of continuing the revolution. It must be recognized that under socialism the two classes of proletariat and bourgeoisie still continue to exist, there is a two-line struggle between socialism and capitalism, and the revolutionary mass line must be adhered to in order to conduct the class struggle and the two-line struggle. First, we must fully mobilize the masses, preaching to the masses the spiritual concept that "revolution is not a sin” and “it is right to rebel." Do not fear mass movements, do not fear the revolt of the people, moreover create the conditions and environment that supports people to rebel. Of course, such a rebellion is a peaceful rebellion to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party, unlike that which was instigated by saboteurs during the Cultural Revolution that created disorder among the masses and gave rise to armed conflicts. The object is a serious rebellion of the masses against revisionism, bureaucracy and capitalist roaders, unlike those deluded people with ulterior motives who poisoned the well and struck down everything during the Cultural Revolution. The method of rebellion is to take full advantage of the people's democratic rights to take charge and call the shots, such as the four great freedoms (trans: speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big character posters), the freedom to strike, the right to vote, supervise, recall and so on. Second, get rid of the mandarins and restore the political status of the people as the masters of their own destiny and participants in the supervision of national social affairs, to exercise free and effective democratic oversight of the government, particularly the implementation of the people's power of removal, that party members and cadres, irrespective of position, as long as they are separated from the masses, and are no longer serving the people, then the people can exercise the right of recall at any time to end their political life. If this is not done it will not be possible to combat bureaucratic corruption; to maintain the capacity of the all powerful and immune Communist Party for self-renewal and to prevent the Party from turning revisionist and the country from changing it's color, it will not be possible to completely dismantle the barriers between cadres and the masses, to restore the relationship between the party and the people as between the fish and the sea, rather than the relationship of the boat on the water. 

Economically, grow and consolidate the base of socialist public ownership, and control private capital. It is vital that the public ownership system of the economy have absolute dominance and plays the leading role. especially in regard to the people's livelihood, social and economic security, and development strategies in key sectors. If this is not the case, it won't be possible to achieve and protect the people's status as political masters, provide a solid economic base, make fundamental adjustments in the national income distribution in order to completely eliminate polarization; it will not be possible to strengthen science and technology research and development into a formidable force, to achieve autonomous innovation; it will not br possible to counter international monopoly capital, break the monopoly of foreign investors, control our national economy, safeguard national interests, or truly take the road of independence and self-determination. 　　

Diplomatically, utilize Mao Zedong's three worlds strategy, completely abandon the delusion of "peaceful rise." It should be clearly recognized that at present we are still in the era of imperialism, the demise of imperialism should not be mourned. We must unite with the  multitude of third world countries to support their just cause. The survival and development of the Chinese nation must be linked together with the third world's struggle against imperialism and their lackeys, we must take the strategy of "standing our ground and fighting tit for tat” and implement Mao's philosophy of struggle. "to struggle for peace, will keep the peace; to compromise for peace, will  destroy the peace."

Ideologically and culturally, use Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought to occupy the ideological front-lines of public opinion, vigorously promote socialist ideology and values while at the same time focus on criticizing bourgeois ideology and culture. Take full advantage of both the  positive and negative aspects of the experiences and lessons of the two 30 year periods after the establishment of the PRC to educate the people to realize that the rise to power of revisionism and bourgeois reformism will lead not only to the restoration of capitalism, but the very worst of capitalism, the common people will end up eating a double dose of bitterness, and suffer a double crop of crime. In this way the conviction to struggle against revisionism and oppose capitalism will deeply enter the people's hearts and minds and lead the masses to conscious action. Let those who have been bought by hostile international forces, the well-fed traitorous scholars, and reactionary snobs stand before the masses with nowhere to hide, like mice on the streets, that the people scream at and beat .

“Shore up the falling heavens and create order out of the reign of chaos." As the Chinese people are once again faced with a life and death crisis, are once again at a crossroads forced to choose between two historic destinies, Guo Moruo's poem is the best portrayal of Mao Zedong Thought, and the revolutionary line of Mao Zedong Thought, the political direction of socialism can break the deadlock that China finds itself in today, the magic wand leading the Chinese people to a bright future.

Long live invincible Mao Zedong Thought!

Gorbachev's Perestroika and the Consequences of Criticizing Stalin

The following article is circulating on the Maoist web. It was originally posted at globalview.cn. The article is an analysis of the role that criticism of Stalin had in the dissolution of the CPSU and the collapse of the Soviet Union. As such it is a succinct synopsis of the fall of the USSR from a Chinese M-L-M perspective. The lesson to be learned is that the first step in the formal restoration of capitalism in Communist ruled socialist states is the delegitimization of the Party and its leaders. Once that is accomplished it becomes much easier to deconstruct the historical legacy of socialism in order to disillusion the people and turn them against the Party and the State. The argument goes as follows; once the Party loses its grip on power bourgeois democracy will become established and the socialist state apparatus will be demolished. It's then only a matter of time before full-fledged capitalist restoration occurs.


The implications for today's China are obvious. The clamor for "political reform," "democratization," "transparency," and "universal values" among "liberal" elements both inside and outside the CPC echoes the calls made by Gorbachev for "perestroika, democracy, glasnost and human rights" in the last years of the Soviet Union. Is China entering a similar period of "peaceful evolution?" While certain subjective factors may be similar, the objective conditions in China are quite different now then they were for the USSR in the late 1980s. The Soviet Union had just fought a losing war in Afghanistan, was burdened with maintaining a military, economic and political presence in Eastern Europe, had a non-competitive "command" economy which resulted in consumer discontent amongst the upper social strata, had experienced a profound ecological disaster (Chernobyl) and prior to Gorbachev had a sclerotic, moribund political culture. China has problems but they are quantitatively and qualitatively quite different. It has witnessed thirty years of unparalleled economic growth and development with a vibrant domestic market, has not engaged in an unsustainable military buildup and hegemonic contention with the U.S. and has a self-sustaining political culture.


Nevertheless, similar tactics can be used for the same strategic goals under a variety of circumstances and liberal attempts to discredit Mao and disparage the history of the PRC, as recently attempted by Mao Yushi and others inside and outside the CPC, mimic those of Gorbachev and his allies. Hence the alert sounded by this and similar articles to warn Maoists what to expect and arm them with the foreknowledge needed to combat these efforts.

Gorbachev's Perestroika (Restructuring) and the Consequences of Criticizing Stalin

Li Yan Liu Xinmin　

[Abstract]: During Gorbachev's perestroika (restructuring) the Soviet Union launched a movement in the ideological field to criticize Stalin. This was a movement led by Gorbachev to vilify Stalin and criticize the activities of other Soviet leaders. It severely tarnished the image of Soviet leaders, confused people's thinking and brought about a crisis of faith. Exposing  historical "blank spots" unleashed all sorts of social contradictions and was the main factor  leading to the Soviet Communist Party's lose of power and the break up of the Soviet Union.

During Gorbachev's perestroika the slogans were "democratization" and "openness (glasnost),"  which pushed forward a movement of criticism in the ideological field.  The spearhead of criticism was directed against Stalin, but also pointed to other early Soviet leaders. In essence, it targeted the entire Soviet socialist system. This campaign of criticism not only distorted history, but completely distorted the image of Stalin and other leaders of the former Soviet Union, and seriously damaged the prestige of the Soviet Communist Party.  It shook the ideological, social and political foundations of the Soviet state and was  an important ideological factor in the break-up of the Soviet Union .

Not long afterwards, Russian academic and political circles began to analyze the reasons for  the break up of the Soviet Union. A re-evaluation of history began, reflecting on the years of criticism of Stalin and other leaders. Before and after entering the new millennium, a re-evaluation of Stalin's social thought began in Russia. This re-evaluation was not just a personal re-evaluation of Stalin, but also of the history of the Soviet era, and a new look at the achievements and mistakes of the Soviet Communist Party. In a sense, it was a deconstruction of the destruction of social values by Gorbachev's perestroika

1.The Soviet Union's Criticism of Stalin during Gorbachev's reforms

Early in 1986, Gorbachev proposed the slogans of "democratization", "openness" and "diversity of public opinion." Among the central authorities, Gorbachev called for making material from the 1930's purges public, because “the party and society still do not know all the crimes of the Stalinist system, lessons drawn from the facts of that period must be accepted and the truth must be made public.” This began the opening up of a number of historical archives, and the establishment of a number of special committees for the rehabilitation of Stalin's victims. A large number of dissidents and political prisoners were gradually released from labor camps or internal exile. They became living examples of “political persecution.” At the CPSU Central Committee Plenary Session n January 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev proposed to expand glasnost. He further proposed that “there should be no forgotten personages or blank spots in the history of the Soviet Union.” Among famous historians, philosophers, and economists no one came forward to openly express dissatisfaction. Whereupon, there was a mobilization in those areas of a movement to criticize Stalin. To expand the propaganda offensive "Pravda", "Moscow News" and other mainstream newspapers had their editors replaced with liberal intellectuals. These newspapers published articles which went to great lengths criticizing Stalin. In the Report on the Commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution, Gorbachev severely criticized Stalin and Stalinism. From 1987-1988, the campaign to criticize Stalin reached a high tide. In July 1990, in a report given at the 28th Congress of the CPSU, Gorbachev once again severely criticized the "crimes of Stalin and his gang," and there were several statements calling for the abandonment of "Stalin’s totalitarian regime." A resolution formally adopted by the General Assembly clearly stated: "Stalin's totalitarian system was responsible for huge losses to the state, people, party, and socialist ideology, this system must be canceled." The criticism of Stalin continued after the break up of the Soviet Union. In this way, under the leadership of its top echelons the Soviet Union set off a frenzy of criticism to totally negate Stalin. According to some people all the Soviet Union's setbacks and mistakes were caused by Stalin, and all it's achievements and progress were made against his will. Stalin was seen as a bane who brought pain and misfortune to the people, "dictator", "tyrant", "conspirator", "murderer" became his common epithet and so within a few years Stalin was completely demonized.

As the criticism of Stalin heated up it was only natural that the phenomenon of questioning and  criticizing other Soviet leaders came to the fore. After 1989, criticism of Stalin gradually extended to a critique and denial of Leninism, the October Revolution and Lenin himself. Initially, some articles explicitly or implicitly said that Stalin's errors were actually errors of Leninism and the October Revolution and that even Lenin himself was directly implicated. Others simply said, the reason why Stalin's "sins accumulated" was because Lenin had brought forth a "bad egg." In 1990, in preparation for commemorating the 120th anniversary of Lenin's birth, Gorbachev proposed to his subordinates that there should be "an end to the phenomena of deifying and worshiping Lenin” and an attempt should be made to relegate him to the ranks of other activists. He should be evaluated based on the “background of his times and he should be studied and understood in an objective and scientific manner,” whereupon the “fight was brought to” Lenin. The main argument used to demonstrate Lenin's “crimes” went like this: the October Revolution was not a social revolution of world-historic significance but a huge conspiracy, it was conducted by a small group of conspirators and adventurers helped by intelligence agencies in Western Europe, it was the 'German spy' Lenin and the 'Anglo-American secret agent' Trotsky who plotted to incite and organize a 'coup'. Writers openly declared that the October Revolution was simply unnecessary, "Lenin" was not a good person," but a "cruel revolutionary," Stalin was no more brutal than his mentor Lenin, who was in fact “yesterday's Stalin.” Since 1989, statues of Lenin have been pulled down and his portrait painted over throughout the former Soviet Union.

2.The origin and purpose of the criticism of Stalin and other Soviet leaders was to negate the validity of the Soviet socialist system

The criticism of Stalin and other Soviet leaders during the period of Gorbachev's reforms had an ideological origin and an ultimate goal.

First of all, the earliest criticism of Stalin can be traced to the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party. As we all know, at the 20th Party Congress Khrushchev made a  major criticism of Stalin's personality cult  which was a prelude to the adoption of a large series of "de-Stalinization" measures after the 22nd Party Congress. Gorbachev held a positive attitude towards this and saw it as a "re-evaluation of domestic and foreign policies, and an analysis of historical facts", but he felt that this kind of "re-evaluation and analysis" had to be  further "developed." During the Gorbachev reform period the exposure and criticism of Stalin's "crimes" not only deepened but broadened infinitely in scope.

Gorbachev called himself a "child of the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party.” He repeatedly praised the “courageous action of Khrushchev” and spoke highly of the "initial attack on the totalitarian system and the first attempt to democratize society" by the 20th Congress. However, Gorbachev felt that there was still a limitation to Khrushchev's revelations about Stalin, he was "unable and unwilling to reveal and attack the underlying basis of the phenomenon." Gorbachev pointed out clearly that the "underlying basis" was the "social system." So when he decided to implement “openness, democratization" and the "break from totalitarian bureaucracy" throughout the whole society, he naturally followed the practice of Khrushchev, and initiated attacks against Stalin and the leaders of the Soviet Communist Party

Secondly, the ideological root cause of Gorbachev’s and other's negation of the Soviet Union's history and leaders was that, from an ideological viewpoint, Gorbachev had no firm belief in communism. Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in a preface to a book: "from the beginning of reform, my major concern was policy. I thought there must be a thorough change  in the policy of the Soviet Communist Party, because it was leading the country towards a dead end and pushing the world towards a nuclear confrontation." It really was like that, from the beginning of reform, Gorbachev's "strategy of  quick development" was frustrated, he was not looking for the subjective reasons, but thought that it was the system itself that created barriers, so he rush started political change. He was very clear that in order to implement a program of democratic socialism, there must be a break from the old Soviet system, and the illusory capitalist "democratic" system must replace the "old system." Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the former Soviet Union A. I. Lukyanov, and former Soviet Defense Minister D. Yazov recalled in 2001, “Before 1987 Gorbachev acted as if he was very firm, but in fact he had already had his faith shaken. He privately said: "The communist ideology is obsolete for me." Later, he and A. N. Yakovlev together, organizationally engaged in anti-communist propaganda activities. First, they had control of Soviet propaganda, and under the pretext of "openness" and "democratization" they vigorously promoted democratic anarchism, and totally negated Stalin by exaggerating the Soviet Union's historical errors. By constantly harping on the existence of bureaucracy and corruption in the Party they created chaos in the thinking of party members and the masses, establishing the ideological and theoretical basis for the final betrayal.

To carry out reform of the Soviet Union, a correct evaluation of Stalin and the Stalinist model had to be made. It is right to sum up historical experience to promote reform and it is no doubt useful to explore new ways of building socialism, but the "re-evaluation of history" by Gorbachev et al. was from the beginning done with great subjectivity and one-sidedness, and step by step totally negated party leaders and the Soviet Union’s 70-year history of socialism.

Again, the essence of the criticism of Stalin and the Soviet leaders was directed at the Soviet socialist system.

The objective reason why the target of "Openness (Glasnost)" was directed against Stalin was that Gorbachev, from the beginning, gave reform the revolutionary objective of destroying the original system. "Reform” has a broad meaning, and is an extremely rich word. If, however, from it’s many synonyms a key meaning is selected that best expresses the essence of the word for Gorbachev, it can be said: “reform is a revolution (or counter-revolution, trans.).” Gorbachev et al’s, first mission was to completely repudiate the representative of this "incorrect" system - Stalin, but in fact they were eventually out to destroy the Soviet socialist state itself.

In the report given by Gorbachev at the 19th National Party Conference in June 1988, regarding structural reform of the Soviet government, not only were policy questions  of "democracy", "openness" and "media pluralism" addressed, but the question of renouncing the Soviet Communist Party as the core structure of the Soviet form of government was raised. This was the question of whether political power should be transferred from the Party to the Soviets. This was the first time Gorbachev clearly proposed that the objective of the reform was to replace the actually functioning socialist system (which he called totalitarian socialism) with a fundamentally different, "humane, democratic socialist" system. In accordance with the practice of "humane, democratic socialism" it was necessary to replace the basic set of Marxist theoretical ideas and transform the party's ideology towards the Western theory of Social Democracy and use this theory to transform the party and eventually abolish the party's ruling position. According to Gorbachev's statement "power must be removed from the exclusive hands of the Communist Party and handed to the freely elected Soviet representatives of the people as mandated by the Constitution"; he used this theory to transform the social system from socialism to capitalism.

3. The criticism of Stalin led to the negation of the  Soviet Union’s history and had far-reaching negative social consequences

The end result of the use of various media tools to produce a high-profile criticism of Stalin and the leaders of the Soviet Communist Party was to deny the legitimacy of the Soviet socialist system, it was a total negation of Soviet history and brought ideological confusion to society, giving rise to a series of ideological and social problems.

First of all, it seriously damaged the image of the Soviet leaders and led to ideological confusion that brought on a crisis of faith.

The overwhelming criticism of Stalin and the re-interpretation  of some historical problems that went along with glasnost or "openness" caused a great amount of academic and intellectual confusion. Stalin became the "devil", Lenin became a "rogue," the entire history of the CPSU and the Soviet Union was sinful and evil, the socialist October Revolution brought only disaster, while in their minds capitalism had become a heaven of freedom and prosperity. A misguided sense of social thinking, had turned everything upside down. As one Russian scholar summed it up "the reform led to the destruction of the Soviet ideological mechanism which had done a lot of work forming the historical collective memory of society, the symbols of the country's history and it’s milestones had been cast in Black and  ridiculed, black and white were reversed."At that time, not only was Stalin's personal image seriously distorted, since he had led the party, the socialist Soviet Union's image was badly damaged, it destroyed socialist values and the people's faith in the Communist Party and led to the decline of socialism. By 1991 the mainstream media had repeated thousands of times that the Soviet Union and the Soviet practice of socialism were failures, a variety of media had created the image of implacably dark party leaders, who had lied and spread fallacies to party members and the people. When the Communist Party was dissolved and the socialist system overthrown who was there to stand up for the Communist Party and socialism?

Second, The criticism of Party leaders led to the heightening of social contradictions and was a leading ideological factor in the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Ideological confusion exacerbated the economic deterioration in 1988, the climax of criticism of Stalin occurred in 1989, the Soviet economy for the first time in decades experienced "negative growth," the instability of society heightened, ethnic centrifugal tendencies strengthened. After the convening of the first People's Congress in 1989 the Soviet Union fell into a state of total confusion: nationalist sentiment was seething. On the eve of a large-scale civil conflict that occurred in Nagorno - Karabakh hundreds of trains were stranded in the Transcaucasus.  In Kharkov, the "Peoples Movement of the Ukraine” claimed that its "ultimate aim” was to establish an independent Ukraine. In February 1990, 250-300,000 people demonstrated in Moscow, people not only shouted slogan’s such as  "Down with Ligachev,” " Down with "Gorbachev" but also "Down with the entire CPSU" and the KGB, demanding that everything be overthrown, leaving the regime in ashes.

Under conditions in which the image of Communist Party leaders was trashed and public opinion became muddled, centrifugal tendencies within Party organizations of  the Soviet Union’s constituent Republics began to gain strength. Beginning in 1989 Communist Parties in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and some other former republics of the Soviet Union raised demands that they separate or become independent of the CPSU. Despite opposition and discouragement from the CPSU  on December 20, 1989 during its 20th Congress, the Lithuanian CP adopted the "Lithuanian Communist Manifesto" and based on "the decision on the status of the Communist Party of Lithuania", declared that the Communist Party of Lithuania had broken away from the Soviet Communist Party, and would maintain a comradely  "equal partnership" with it. So-called "democrats" in the Communist Party took advantage of this situation, and together with ethnic separatists outside the Party began to work closely together to split the CPSU and engage in activities that led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Third, at the same time that the socialist system was being criticized Western “Democracy” was being "beautified." This opened up opportunities for the implementation of the Western strategy of "peaceful evolution."

At the same time that Stalin and the Soviet socialist system were being criticized the Soviet media was touting Western democracy, freedom, human rights, and ideological equality, launching an enormous attack against the Soviet Union’s original ideological beliefs and moral values. The criticism of the socialist system, and the propaganda for Western democracy and freedom, greatly influenced the Soviet people, especially the political orientation of intellectuals. Towards the end of Gorbachev's perestroika, the original so-called "firm Leninists" had gained a new lease on life as fighters against "totalitarianism," they supported a "radical tide of thought" that spread everywhere, in the universities courses in Marxist philosophy became the object of ridicule, throughout the country a large number of teaching centers and research institutes devoted to the study of scientific communism almost overnight turned into bases for the spread of Western political science. A considerable number of intellectuals worshipped the Western model and were disgruntled with the history and current situation of the Soviet Union, among which a small number of intellectual elite ultimately became “pioneers” advocating the collapse of the Soviet Communist Party and the destruction of the Soviet socialist system.

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, reflecting upon the upheaval that had occurred, a considerable number of Russian scholars recognized that: "The break-up of the Soviet Union was the result of a conscious policy by Western imperialism which drew support from people in the Soviet Union who were bought and paid for, a corrupt gang that directly implemented its aims.”

4. Reflections on the  Lessons of History

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, upon reflection of the historical course of events, the  historical facts surrounding the criticism of Stalin gradually became clarified. In recent years, there has been a prominent current of thought among Russian scholars and people re-evaluating Stalin. On March 5, 2003, during the 50th anniversary of Stalin's death, this current of thought reached a peak, as "Izvestia" said: "During the 50th anniversary of the death of the people’s leader Stalin, calls for his full rehabilitation have become an organized movement." Most representative were those who once had a critical attitude towards Stalin or even had dissident views. The Russian “Red Patriot” author Yuri Bondarev once criticized Stalin as being "cruel, cunning, strong willed and full of contradictions." In the late 90's, his viewpoint underwent a great change. At the end of 1998, he said in a speech that Stalin was "a person unparalleled in human history." He recognized that Stalin "transformed Russia,” and established a unique and unrivaled highly developed society." In notes published in 1999, he put Stalin side by side with the outstanding statesman in world history and fully endorsed the meritorious service of Stalin in the Great Patriotic War. The reappraisal of Stalin is a reflection of the existing social crisis in Russia and also reflects the hope of the Russian people for a stable social order, because in their minds Stalin was a really firm leader who combined together "stability" and "order."  Government and national leaders should have "a strong hand" like Stalin.

In those years criticism of Stalin and other Soviet leaders made them out to be the epitome of evil. The Soviet socialist system was denounced as a "totalitarian regime," while at the same time bourgeois democracy and freedom was vigorously promoted even to the extent of destroying the national image and national interests. The pursuit of so-called liberal democracy, completely destroyed the image of the Soviet leadership, destroyed the people’s trust in the Communist Party of the Soviet and belief in socialism, even the basic system of societal values was rejected and denigrated. The re-evaluation of Stalin and the history of the Soviet Union in today's Russia has stressed Stalin's nationalism, and great power thinking. It is aimed at rebuilding a system of societal values based on themes of patriotism, collectivism, social morality and national dignity, social values, which after the break up of the Soviet Union and under the conditions of a deteriorating economy are important steps in rebuilding national confidence in the Russian government. From this perspective, the real meaning of the re-evaluation of Stalin and Soviet history is to rebuild Russian society and it’s main body of values, because any society needs to have the correct set of values for there to be a healthy body and a stable value system. Only by maintaining a set of stable social values is it possible to have a social consciousness that guarantees the legitimacy of government action and rationality in order to consolidate the ideological foundations of the country. But, destruction is easy, reconstruction is very difficult, this is the profound lesson for people to learn left behind by Soviet history.

("Global Vision globalview.cn" No. 375, taken from the 2010 10 "theorists")