 |
| Liu Shaoqi |
During the Cultural Revolution in China, two factions
in the Chinese Communist Party were in conflict. On the one hand, the Marxist-Leninists
based on the working class. On the other hand, the capitalist roaders, fascists
and revisionists. And the leader of the latter faction was…Mao Zedong?!
Such is the “line” of the 1967 pamphlet “On the
situation in the People´s Republic of China”, published by a small ex-Maoist
group, the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain (MLOB). Probably completely
forgotten today, MLOB´s publication was apparently somewhat notorious at the time.
Maoism was at the height of its popularity around the world. In the Western
world, left-wing radical students struck up an interest in Mao Zedong Thought, often
under the influence of the so-called Cultural Revolution. MLOB had previously
thought of themselves as Maoists, indeed some of their members might have been among
the first Maoists in the UK. But after observing the chaos during Mao´s “bombardment
of the headquarters”, they reassessed their position and came out in support of
Liu Shaoqi, who had been branded the number one “capitalist roader” within the
Chinese party by the Red Guards. Presumably, you couldn´t win a popularity contest
among the radical campus leftists in 1967 by launching a struggle session
*against* Chairman Mao and his allies!
What makes MLOB´s pamphlet interesting is that they don´t
attack Mao Zedong for “ultraleftist deviations”, which is probably the “logical”
take for a strict Marxist-Leninist group which opposes the Cultural Revolution.
Rather, they take the position that Mao was a “revisionist” from the start and
hence was a “rightist” deviator of the same type as Bukharin. Mao´s writings from
the 1950´s are used to prove (or “prove”) that Mao supported Khrushchev´s
criticism of Stalin, wanted reconciliation with Tito, called for a prolonged
period of peaceful co-existence between the workers and the national bourgeoisie
in China, opposed “uninterrupted revolution”, and attempted to purge
Marxist-Leninists from the party and the military. MLOB supports Marshal Peng
Dehuai, a Chinese military leader who was often accused of being pro-Soviet and
hence a “revisionist”. MLOB argues that Khrushchev´s support for Peng Dehuai was
a conspiracy. The Soviet leader pretended to support Peng so Mao would get an
excuse to purge him?! Not sure if I buy that one, tbh. As already mentioned,
MLOB also expresses strong support for Liu Shaoqi, China´s president and a prominent
rival of Mao in the Communist Party leadership. Both Peng and Liu were purged
during the Cultural Revolution, both eventually dying in prison.
MLOB actually charges Mao with plotting the
restoration of capitalism and bourgeois state power in China. The Red Guards
are really fascist storm-troopers. To MLOB, the evidence for this position is
pretty obvious: the Red Guards and their allies attacked Communist Party officials,
dissolved Communist local organizations, and likewise attempted to dissolve the
Communist youth organization and the trade unions. The “revolutionary
committees” ordered wage freezes and called on workers to tighten their belts.
Serious training in Marxism-Leninism was rejected in favor of mindless parroting
of “Mao Zedong Thought” in the form of short soundbites from the Little Red
Book. The most interesting part of the pamphlet (which unfortunately doesn´t
cite any sources) details the civil war-like situation in various Chinese
provinces, as supporters and opponents of the Cultural Revolution violently
battled each other. MLOB believes that thousands of workers resisted the Red
Guards, often arms in hand! The army seems to have been split, which is
interesting (if true) since the PLA was supposedly allied with Mao.
There are obvious weaknesses in the report. Liu´s
support for Mao´s erstwhile “revisionism” is simply brushed aside by declaring
that he simply followed party discipline. MLOB also have problems explaining
away China´s foreign policy, which was pretty radical at the time.
As already mentioned, “On the situation in the
People´s Republic of China” was MLOB´s main claim to fame. The group must have
been quite small (although they did have international co-thinkers) and underwent
a split in 1974. One of the leaders, MB, was accused of Third Period-style
politics and expelled. He subsequently became a Council Communist. The other
leader, BB, changed the name of the MLOB to the Communist League and expressed support
for Enver Hoxha´s Stalinist regime in Albania. There is a “family likeness”
between Hoxha´s criticisms of Mao and the Cultural Revolution, and that offered
by MLOB ten years earlier. However, the Communist League also had unspecified differences
with Hoxha. The group might still exist, and on the web I found a bizarre condemnation
of BB by a German ultra-Stalinist group which accuses him of the original political
deviations “Anti-Stalinism-Hoxhaism”, “Beria-ism” and “Neo-Menshevism”. Apparently,
the ultras believe that Beria murdered “our beloved comrade Stalin” so BB´s “Beria-ism”
rubbed them the wrong way…
But that´s just another Tuesday in ML-Land. No, the
really interesting contribution these comrades did probably was the publication
under review here.
During the Cultural Revolution in China, two factions
in the Chinese Communist Party were in conflict. On the one hand, the Marxist-Leninists
based on the working class. On the other hand, the capitalist roaders, fascists
and revisionists. And the leader of the latter faction was…Mao Zedong?!
Such is the “line” of the 1967 pamphlet “On the
situation in the People´s Republic of China”, published by a small ex-Maoist
group, the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain (MLOB). Probably completely
forgotten today, MLOB´s publication was apparently somewhat notorious at the time.
Maoism was at the height of its popularity around the world. In the Western
world, left-wing radical students struck up an interest in Mao Zedong Thought, often
under the influence of the so-called Cultural Revolution. MLOB had previously
thought of themselves as Maoists, indeed some of their members might have been among
the first Maoists in the UK. But after observing the chaos during Mao´s “bombardment
of the headquarters”, they reassessed their position and came out in support of
Liu Shaoqi, who had been branded the number one “capitalist roader” within the
Chinese party by the Red Guards. Presumably, you couldn´t win a popularity contest
among the radical campus leftists in 1967 by launching a struggle session
*against* Chairman Mao and his allies!
What makes MLOB´s pamphlet interesting is that they don´t
attack Mao Zedong for “ultraleftist deviations”, which is probably the “logical”
take for a strict Marxist-Leninist group which opposes the Cultural Revolution.
Rather, they take the position that Mao was a “revisionist” from the start and
hence was a “rightist” deviator of the same type as Bukharin. Mao´s writings from
the 1950´s are used to prove (or “prove”) that Mao supported Khrushchev´s
criticism of Stalin, wanted reconciliation with Tito, called for a prolonged
period of peaceful co-existence between the workers and the national bourgeoisie
in China, opposed “uninterrupted revolution”, and attempted to purge
Marxist-Leninists from the party and the military. MLOB supports Marshal Peng
Dehuai, a Chinese military leader who was often accused of being pro-Soviet and
hence a “revisionist”. MLOB argues that Khrushchev´s support for Peng Dehuai was
a conspiracy. The Soviet leader pretended to support Peng so Mao would get an
excuse to purge him?! Not sure if I buy that one, tbh. As already mentioned,
MLOB also expresses strong support for Liu Shaoqi, China´s president and a prominent
rival of Mao in the Communist Party leadership. Both Peng and Liu were purged
during the Cultural Revolution, both eventually dying in prison.
MLOB actually charges Mao with plotting the
restoration of capitalism and bourgeois state power in China. The Red Guards
are really fascist storm-troopers. To MLOB, the evidence for this position is
pretty obvious: the Red Guards and their allies attacked Communist Party officials,
dissolved Communist local organizations, and likewise attempted to dissolve the
Communist youth organization and the trade unions. The “revolutionary
committees” ordered wage freezes and called on workers to tighten their belts.
Serious training in Marxism-Leninism was rejected in favor of mindless parroting
of “Mao Zedong Thought” in the form of short soundbites from the Little Red
Book. The most interesting part of the pamphlet (which unfortunately doesn´t
cite any sources) details the civil war-like situation in various Chinese
provinces, as supporters and opponents of the Cultural Revolution violently
battled each other. MLOB believes that thousands of workers resisted the Red
Guards, often arms in hand! The army seems to have been split, which is
interesting (if true) since the PLA was supposedly allied with Mao.
There are obvious weaknesses in the report. Liu´s
support for Mao´s erstwhile “revisionism” is simply brushed aside by declaring
that he simply followed party discipline. MLOB also have problems explaining
away China´s foreign policy, which was pretty radical at the time.
As already mentioned, “On the situation in the
People´s Republic of China” was MLOB´s main claim to fame. The group must have
been quite small (although they did have international co-thinkers) and underwent
a split in 1974. One of the leaders, MB, was accused of Third Period-style
politics and expelled. He subsequently became a Council Communist. The other
leader, BB, changed the name of the MLOB to the Communist League and expressed support
for Enver Hoxha´s Stalinist regime in Albania. There is a “family likeness”
between Hoxha´s criticisms of Mao and the Cultural Revolution, and that offered
by MLOB ten years earlier. However, the Communist League also had unspecified differences
with Hoxha. The group might still exist, and on the web I found a bizarre condemnation
of BB by a German ultra-Stalinist group which accuses him of the original political
deviations “Anti-Stalinism-Hoxhaism”, “Beria-ism” and “Neo-Menshevism”. Apparently,
the ultras believe that Beria murdered “our beloved comrade Stalin” so BB´s “Beria-ism”
rubbed them the wrong way…
But that´s just another Tuesday in ML-Land. No, the
really interesting contribution these comrades did probably was the anti-Maoist struggle session under review here.
No comments:
Post a Comment