Author Archives: admin

On the draft Call for a day of mobilization against the wars of capital

By | 02/20/2024

Recently, the European Coordination Committee of the ICOR sent out a draft Call for a day of mobilization against the wars of capital. Unfortunately, this draft actually distorts the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and propose a completely invalid analysis.

For starters, the allegation that the war in Ukraine began just on February 24, 2022, is completely wrong. Actually, this war began in the spring of 2014, when the Kyiv chauvinistic neo-Bandera regime tried to suppress the national liberation movement in the southeastern border region with an overwhelming dominance of the Russian population. The policy of decommunization and forced assimilation provoked armed resistance, partly supported by Russia. The  reunification of the Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass with Russia was as natural and fair as the Risorgimento in Italy or the unification of China.

The actual end of the ceasefire and the resumption of active warfare did not occur on February 24, 2022, too. Back on February 16, 2022 the neo-Bandera regime, incited by the imperialist Biden administration, intensified firing of Donbass, forcing thousands to flee. The special military operation that followed was Russia’s forced response to this treacherous and inhumane attack. It is completely groundless and erroneous to describe this forced defense of Russia as an “imperialist” war on its part.

The draft rhetorically asks:

“Which war against ‘Nazism’ on the part of Russia, when Putin and his entourage, who want to revive the tsarist empire, are supported by Russian Nazis and in turn support far-right organisations throughout Europe?”

This short phrase is filled with a misinterpretation of reality. The authors of the draft substitute Marxist-Leninist analysis with a mere narration of fibs about “wanting to revive the tsarist empire”, invented and disseminated by NATO gang leaders in order to demagogically cover up their own imperialist expansion, the desire for a bloody redistribution of the European oil and gas market and an attack on international security in the Eastern European region.

Here it is stated that “Putin and his entourage… are supported by Russian Nazis.” It almost looks like all Russian fascists support Putin and only Russian fascists support Putin. But this is obvious nonsense. The truth is that some Russian fascists support Putin. But this is only a very small part of the truth. If you want fully understand the situation, you must also be aware of the following circumstances.

Firstly, many, if not most, Russian fascists support the neo-Bandera regime. There are many known Russian fascists who even fight on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces against Russia as in so-called “Russian Volunteer Corps” (RVC) for example.

Secondly, even if we do not take into account the RVC, the support of the neo-Bandera regime by Ukrainian fascists is much more widespread and systemic.1

Thirdly, while Putin is forced to confront Ukrainian fascism, he gives the support of the entire Russian people and proletariat, which certainly and overwhelmingly are not “Russian Nazis”!

The supporting Putin by few Russian fascists should not be used as a pretext to devalue or hush up these much more important facts.

It also states that “Putin and his entourage… support far-right organizations throughout Europe.” This allegation is also largely sly. It aims to create the impression that this is systematic support for neo-Nazi gangs, but in fact this is not the case.

Firstly, you should understand that there was talking about right-wing parties indeed, but they are legal in the EU and are even allowed into parliaments. Secondly, there was not talking about any systematic support, but about some episodes of relatively limited interaction. Thirdly, these accusations are invented and kept discussing by journalists of fortune of the ruling bourgeois parties in the interests of winning in political competition. Most of these accusations have always suffered from a lack of reliable evidence.

Fourthly, the largest and most dangerous gangs of neo-fascist murderers in modern Europe are the neo-Bandera armed formations in Ukraine and their elimination is one of the goals of the Russian special military operation.

The authors of the draft confuse Marxist-Leninist analysis with bourgeois public relations, in which the popularization/discrediting of certain political figures is used to distract attention from the objective role they play in current circumstances. However, even if all these accusations against Putin were true and proven, this would not cancel the fact that “Putin and his entourage”, as capitalists, were vitally interested in peaceful trade with the EU, and instead is forced to confront the real fascism and NATO expansion thanks to obvious intrigues by the USA.

To demand “raise the banner” “against both camps of clashing powers” in such conditions means to profane Marxism-Leninism and harm anti-fascist solidarity, just as some so-called “left communists” did during the Second World War. Anyone who understands the actual situation in the region understands that Russia’s “revolutionary defeatism” now means nothing other than neo-Bandera genocide against the people of Donbass. The authors of the draft are trying to draw us into the swamp of the “green” and pseudo-left lackeys of the USA. Communists must not allow themselves to be deceived by “leftist” phrases.

  1. In addition to Russian and Ukrainian neo-fascists, other European neo-fascists are fighting on the side of the neo-Bandera regime: French Groupe Union Défense, Bulgarian National Alliance, CasaPound Italia, «Немецкий добровольческий корпус» and German Der Dritte Weg

Get Up, Stand, Feed the Cat

By | 02/19/2024

Get Up, Stand, Feed the Cat

Heavy shelling. Ground up, burnt sight.
A used to be house and used to be people inside.
Over the ruins walks a tailless cat
and screams sad.

The cat’s cry freezes next to a blue lip.
Stop lying dead, try to sit, grip.
Your corpse is not any good meat.
Don’t die, you aren’t something cats eat.

A nearby sniper is taking a peek.
Riddled by bullets, wracked van.
The cat nuzzles the dead cheek
of a used to be man.

Get up, walk to a used to be flat.
It is now void – a hole instead
Filled with silence of a used to be peace.
Get up, stand, feed the cat.

On Russia’s military presence in Latin America

By | 06/26/2023

In short.

The draft call of the ICOR on the World Day of Peace on September 1, 2015 included a number of clearly Russophobic propositions. There was a ridiculously exaggerated assessment of the Russian military presence in Latin America and the Caribbean among them. The Russian Maoist Party immediately pointed out the mistakes of the draft and asked to convey our criticism to the other member parties of the ICOR. The ICOR office, however, delayed this for almost a month while the project was being signed.

After that, we had a discussion with Comrade Alejandro Tapia from Colombia (apparently, he was one of the authors of the draft and responsible for this assessment. During this discussion, some facts of Russia’s military-technical cooperation with the countries of the region came to light. However, this evidences turned out to be categorically insufficient for the fantastic formulation included in the ICOR call as “establishing military bases, patrolling at the borders, rivers and oceans and joint military exercises” of Russia “in different parts of the Latin America and the Caribbean”. Finally our opponent interrupted the discussion.

On August 3, 2015, Torbasow wrote to ICOR criticizing the draft call for Anti-War-Day 2015, mainly regarding the fragment about the situation in Donbass, but also containing the following remark:

“… the call contains inaccuracy, speaking of ‘the military maneuvers of USA and Russia in different parts of Latin America and the Caribbean.’ Russian imperialism probably has such dreams but currently has no military bases in Latin America and does not hold military maneuvers there. The statement that ‘Russia has regained strength as an imperialist state’ is an exaggeration too. In fact, Russian imperialism is far from the old social-imperialism, with its Warsaw Pact bloc, numerous satellites in Eastern Europe and Asia, and military bases around the world.”

On August 22, Torbasow sent an additional letter:

“Please confirm whether our opinion (2015, August 3) on the Call has been sent to all member parties of ICOR, as we requested.

We have noticed that the Call was corrected and became a little bit better. However, it remains unacceptable until… there are the fantastic tales about Russian military expansion in Latin America. We support exposures ‘our own’ imperialism, but our people… would just laugh at us if we tell false facts.”

After another reminder, the ICOR office replied:

“We will translate your Statement on the Ant War call in Spanish and then send ist to al member organizations.”

On August 29, Torbasow tried to insist:

“Please send it immediately in English. It had to be sent immediately. You know perfectly well that it is especially important while the signing procedure proceeds. Our comrades in other parties of ICOR are making their decision under the circumstances of a lack of information. Please, do not conceal our observations from their view. The inhibition of the redistribution of our criticism is the wrong treatment.”

On August 30, in response to the allegation “that Russia trains the military forces of Venezuela and made an agreement for joint maneuvers,” Torbasow writes to ICOR:

“Please, could you specify the exact facts of ‘establishing military bases, patrolling at the borders, rivers and oceans and by joint military exercises’ by Russia ‘in different parts of Latin America and the Caribbean’? Where and when military maneuvers by Russia were held? Where there are Russian military bases in Latin America? We would like to discuss clear evidences.”

On August 31, Torbasow reported to the RMP:

“I sent my critical remarks in Russian and English to ICOR on August 3 with a request to forward them to other member parties of ICOR. And the call is timed to September 1. When do you think they sent them out? August 4 would be the wrong answer.

So I wait and wait, no response. Asked to confirm receipt, then again. Finally, on August 28, the ICOR office answered me that yes, they received it, they will translate it into Spanish and send it out. August 28. A call timed to  September 1. Already two and a half dozen signatures, and none of these parties have seen my comments.

I was writing already without much hope, I say, send it out immediately in English. You, I say, perfectly understand that after meat, mustard, it is nonsense. After that, they did not hesitate, and they sent out my critical remarks on August 30. August 30th. The call timing to September 1.

Along the way, S. Engel added that ‘justified objections were taken into account’ (well, indeed, minor points were corrected, I reported to you about this), but ‘that Russia trains the military forces of Venezuela and made an agreement for joint maneuvers is a fact.’ That is, the training of several dozen Venezuelan military experts in Russia and the agreement on joint maneuvers (which I am not yet sure that exists, and certainly not yet implemented, otherwise everyone would know) should pass for ‘establishing military bases, patrolling at the borders, rivers and oceans and by joint military exercises’ by Russia ‘in various parts of Latin America and the Caribbean’. Hem.”

On September 9, in the party’s mailing list, Torbasow added:

“There were maneuvers, although the statement about ‘joint maneuvers’ is some exaggeration. In fact, Russian participation, apparently, wasn’t massive.

In addition, there is such a message: ‘Russia and Venezuela will hold naval exercises in the Caribbean.’ It looks like more massive participation. It seems possible, because such maneuvers already took place in 2008. It is curious, however, that after March references to this event, which expected in the second half of the year, almost none. And it seems that the US isn’t very worried. Maybe these maneuvers were canceled or postponed. The ‘Pyotr Veliky’ is reportedly getting up for scheduled repairs, and such repairs take about three months.”

Subsequently, the RMP, through the ICOR, received a letter from Alejandro Tapia from the Communist Party of Colombia ‑ Maoist. The letter defended the correctness of the call’s assessments regarding the Russian military presence in Latin America, so it can be assumed that they came from him.

On June 2, 2016, RMP sent to ICOR the letter “On the military presence of Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean (for Com. Alejandro Tapia)”:

“We are very appreciative for Comrade Alejandro Tapia’ clarification letter. Unfortunately we could not find any evidence of several statements in this letter, so we aren’t sure that they are correct. Could the author like to kindly indicate the sources in confirmation of these allegations? Then this letter would be really useful.

Here is a list of statements that require evidence of:

  1. In 2014 the air forces of USA and Mexico and of Russia and Venezuela performed joint patrol maneuvers in Nicaragua’.

  2. In 2015 the construction of a base for logistic support of ships and airplanes of the Russian Federation was started on the Nicaraguan Caribbean coast’.

  3. In Nicaragua Russia has a military training camp “Marshal Shuckov”, a factory for war material, a camp for drug control and the multipurpose cross country vehicles GAZ-2975 Tigr’.

    We are aware that just the army of Nicaragua has the training center of Marshal Zhukov training center under the brigade of General Sandino and that the police of Nicaragua disposes of armored vehicles GAZ-2975 bought from Russia, but this is not something that ‘Russia has’.

  4. In 2014 Russia performed anti-drug maneuvers at the sea border to Colombia together with the Nicaraguan army’.

  5. Russia’s project was discussed to build military bases in Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba in exchange for oil, mining, technology and food purchases’.

    We are unaware of these discussions, but the director of the Latin America Department in Russian Foreign Ministry Alexander Schetinin officially declared that ‘We have no any plans of opening military bases in Cuba. That was never on the table.’.

  6. In 2013 Brazil agreed on a treaty for five years about purchasing 12 helicopters for 150 million dollars, in 2014 on a treaty amounting to billions for an anti-missile system’.

    We know about the helicopters, but as concerning the treaty of 2014 – if the author meant the delivery of SAM systems Pantsir-S1, the conclusion of the contract was delayed for a long time, and Brazil refused it finally.

    We hope for further explanations on these issues.”

On August 7, Torbasow sent the following letter to ICOR:

“We are grateful to Comrade Alejandro Tapia for the links he provided. We have carefully studied the respective articles and compared their evidences against the allegations which we doubt. Let us return to these statements and see whether they can be considered confirmed.

  1. In 2014 the air forces of USA and Mexico and of Russia and Venezuela performed joint patrol maneuvers in Nicaragua.

    This event is said by two articles1: Nicaragua autoriza a EE.UU. y Rusia patrullar zona que Colombia perdió por fallo de La Haya. We ourselves have now found confirmation of these maneuvers in the Russian sources: «ВМФ России провел антинаркотические учения в Карибском море».

    However, it was not the military maneuvers of Russia but the international maneuvers against the drug traffics. No cruisers or aircraft carriers of Russia took part in it but ‘the communication ship Victor Leonov and ocean rescue tug Nikolay Chiker’. Accordingly, we are sure that this case is not a sufficient evidence of military expansion and a lot of military patrols, this would be an incorrect exaggeration.

    Another article you pointed out (“Bomba geoestratégica para EE.UU.”: Rusia y China preparan el canal de Nicaragua) is based on the allegations of Russian nationalist publicist Prokhanov, known for his inclination for rumors and fantasies. There are no confirmations of its allegation about ‘the agreement on the Russian military ships patrol the waters of the Caribbean’ in the authoritative sources. Perhaps he, as usual, had wishful thinking.2

  2. In 2015 the construction of a base for logistic support of ships and airplanes of the Russian Federation was started on the Nicaraguan Caribbean coast.

    In 2014 Russia performed anti-drug maneuvers at the sea border to Colombia together with the Nicaraguan army.

    In 2014 [Brazil agreed] on a treaty [with Russia] amounting to billions for an anti-missile system.

    We had not found any confirmations of these allegations in the articles you referred.

  3. In Nicaragua Russia has a military training camp “Marshal Shuckov”, a factory for war material, a camp for drug control and the multipurpose cross country vehicles GAZ-2975 Tigr.

    The two articles3 (RIA Novosti: Rusia ayudará a Nicaragua a modernizar el Ejército.) actually referred to ‘el campo de entrenamiento para las tropas terrestres’ and ‘fábrica para la desmilitarización de municiones (planta de desactivación de municiones)’, but they do not alleged that these belong to Russia! These belong to Nicaragua, these are not the Russian military bases. Therefore the allegation about the Russian military bases in the America has not been proven too.

  4. Russia’s project was discussed to build military bases in Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba in exchange for oil, mining, technology and food purchases.

    Such information is given in two articles you referred (“Negocian” base rusa en  Nicaragua and Centroamérica, en el punto de mira de Rusia). They refer to ‘la cadena rusa de Televisión RT’. The site of RT really gave such information. But you did not to take into account that this information was disproved later. Also there are no any further factual evidences for it.

  5. Three other articles (¿Qué hay detrás del episodio de los aviones rusos?, Rusia solidifica su presencia militar en Centroamérica a través de Nicaragua, Rusia, sigilosa al movilizar sus buques en AL) do not contain any proof of the allegations which we doubt.

Once again I want to emphasize that we are not questioned nor Russia’s economic presence in Latin America, nor the arms supply.”

At this point, the discussion was interrupted.

  1. One of these was posted on and is currently unavailable.
  2. Later, we could to find some evidence (however, also in unofficial sources), that Nicaragua “allowed Russian warships and aircraft to visit the country during the first half of 2014 and patrol the territorial waters of Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific Ocean until June 30, 2015”, and, according to another source, “allowed Russian warships to enter two of its ports (Pacific Corinto and Atlantic Bluefields)”. Presumably there were in the interests of protecting the Nicaraguan Canal project, which caused great displeasure of the United States who controls the Panama Canal. Whether any patrolling actually took place is unknown, and the canal project has somehow stalled.
  3. One of these was posted on and is currently unavailable.

Sri Lankan crisis: what was wished, what arrived, and what shall be

By | 06/10/2023

Aragalaya: the Roots

When the mass protests dubbed ‘the Aragalaya’ started in Colombo in February, not many suspected a foreign hand, for public disaffection with the government was strong because of its mishandling of the economy had led to shortages of food, fuel and many essential items including patent medicine. Prices were on the rise amid shortages marked by kilometres long queues for fuel for cooking and transport. The government was at a loss to address the problems, which would have been eased somewhat had there been planned procurement and distribution of essentials.

Much of the state’s inability to meet emergencies was inherited. Road transport of goods was almost fully private by late last century. The state owned railway, once the main island-wide bulk transporter of liquid fuel was undermined decades ago in the interest of private road transporters. Streamlined collection and milling of paddy by the Paddy Marketing Board was wrecked to serve rice milling monopolies. Most services under state control were left to rot by mismanagement under political appointees. The economy itself rapidly changed from a mainly farming and plantation crop economy struggling to industrialize to one exposed to predatory foreign investment and unhindered inflow of foreign goods, paid for by the export of labour on a large scale. (Over 2 million of a population of 21.6 million work abroad, mostly in the Middle East.)

Anti-union legislation, whipped up communal feelings and the civil war together had blunted the will for political protest. The JVP’s second insurrection (1988-89) was a disaster not just for the JVP, but also for all democratic opposition. The two JVP insurrections and the war were used to beef up the police and defence forces, which remain as strong as they were during the peak of the war. The war was fought on borrowed money. The country’s economy was in a state of ruin and none but a few lone voices were bothered by indebtedness, as there were many lenders for consumption. Thus, unlike before 1978, there was no public protest about rising prices and declining standard of living for the many as long as there was no shortage of goods.

The JVP, now nominally the strongest ‘left’ party, with its Sinhala chauvinism still intact, has become yet another opportunist parliamentary political party. In a hurry to share power, it compromised with Mahinda Rajapaksa to back his presidential bid in 2005 and become partner in the SLFP-led electoral alliance. It paid a heavy price by way of a three way split of the JVP and loss of credibility among earlier supporters. Mahinda took advantage of the military victory over the LTTE in May 2009 to sideline his rivals. Corruption and abuse of power caused his defeat in 2015. But the chaotic rule by the UNP-led alliance with the SLFP as junior partner that defeated him helped his brother, Gotabaya, an absolute novice in politics and a notorious Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist, to become president and Mahinda to be elected prime minister.

A global economic crisis was over the horizon when Gotabaya became president in 2019 November and the country’s economy began to feel its impact amid the global panic stirred by the said COVID-19 pandemic. Gross mishandling of COVID-19, was marked by a casual attitude initially followed by overkill including lockdowns, exaggeration of infection and mortality data, and mandatory vaccination, and led to loss of earnings from tourism and remittances from expatriates. It was compounded by the serious loss of work for casual and self-employed workers. This led to the closure of many urban small businesses, mostly forever. Thus it was well known in 2021 that an economic crisis and a financial crunch were impending, well ahead of the Central Bank declaring early this year that foreign reserves were at critically low levels. The financial crisis led to shortages of imported food, fuel and pharmaceuticals among other essentials.

An earlier comment in Marxist Leninist New Democracy has noted that economic trouble was to be expected owing to the global economic impact of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’. Among other serious mistakes, unduly harsh steps by the government to control infection further hurt the economy. Many fail to see the current problem as the outcome of opening up the economy in 1978, the resultant ruin of the national economy, and the tendency to borrow to feed an uncontrolled consumerism. Even as a financial crunch approached, non-essential goods including luxury motor vehicles were imported and the rich received tax concessions, in keeping with the pattern since 1978.

The China Bogeyman

Pro-Western and Indian media pundits denounce debts owned by China (just 10% of all foreign debt and mostly for development projects) ignoring big lenders like ADB, Japan and the World Bank and, notoriously, market borrowings from private investors in the West owning nearly half of the debt). An anti-China agenda in South Asia was initiated at the dawn of the century with the claim of a Chinese naval build-up in the Indian Ocean (the Necklace of Pearls). Unfounded charges aggressive intentions followed, and gathered momentum as Sino-Lankan ties improved in the face of US bullying of the government. Prior to the general election of 2015, the UNP, the main opposition party, declared that the Port City in Colombo was an ill-considered project which it will abandon when it came to power. It also denounced the Chinese built Hambantota Harbour as a white elephant and humiliated the Chinese built airport nearby by storing paddy in its warehouses. A leading figure in the UNP boastfully cited an African anti-China newspaper ‘The Namibian’ to deride Chinese credit as ‘loan traps’.

The UNP’s empty boast eventually came to naught although the UNP-led alliance won the elections. The Port City project resumed after an avoidable 17-month long construction delay. What the government achieved was a loss of goodwill.

Much of print and Internet media are under the influence of the West, partly owing to long time reliance on global media empires for foreign news. Tamil media pander to anti-left Tamil nationalists, who in turn pander to the Indian establishment.

There is reason to believe that some state officials deliberately act to give China a bad name. Experts in coal thermal power noted that frequent breakdowns at the Chinese built coal power station on the west coast was unusual for a Chinese coal power plant, as China leads the world in coal power technology. The power plant has since operated smoothly, but sections of the media even report a routine maintenance closure as a breakdown. Such mischief impacted on consumers suffering daily power cuts due to petroleum-based fuel shortage. Nothing is spared by some to attack China, and the ‘Chinese virus’ tale was a boon to them amid ones like aggression against Taiwan (not much on Tibet or Xinjiang nowadays), Chinese ‘organic fertilizer scandal’ (the scandal really being a state laboratory falsifying results to claim that the fertilizer had lethal bacteria contaminants), and China’s debt trap to seize Hambantota harbour (where 85% of the shares transfer of the harbour were transferred to a Chinese company to raise funds to service loans owed mainly to private lenders). The Chinese Naval research vessel episode of August is now spun by Indian media to claim that China provoked a dispute by arm twisting Sri Lanka to allow its vessel into Hambantota, whereas Indian arm twisting forced Sri Lanka to cancel a prior agreed visit by the Chinese vessel to provoke the crisis. Indian news media reporting has been most disgraceful since Indian humiliation in the Galwan Valley border skirmish of June 2020.

In the past several years, India went out of its way to wreck Sino-Lanka relations by pressurizing the government to cancel legitimate commitments to China, the last bring the failed effort to keep out a Chinese naval research vessel. Every time India had its way, insensitive Indian media gloating embarrassed Sri Lanka.

The US has been most vicious and uses the print and electronic media and the Internet to slander China. US diplomats and regional officers breach diplomatic norms to warn the Sri Lankan government against Chinese assistance and security threat to Sri Lanka.

Despite charges of a Chinese loan trap, India is the country that shamelessly uses loans and grants to pressurize Sri Lanka. It took advantage of the recent financial predicament of Sri Lanka to secure projects for Indian companies, bypassing normal procedures of scrutiny― the most shameful being the recent offer of two renewable energy projects to the Adani Group, a political ally of Premier Modi without calling for tenders. India has also secured a long lease of oil storage facilities close to the strategic natural harbour in Trincomalee. These are being challenged in court.

Rising US and Indian influence with the Sri Lankan government was visible months after the election of the former US national Gotabaya as President and particularly after the appointment of his brother Basil, a US national, as Minister of Finance in July 2021. Basil resigned in disgrace both as minister and MP in June 2022, but remains a powerful manipulator within the ruling party. But the false impression persists that the Rajapaksa clan is under Chinese influence.

The Crisis and the Components of the Protest

Leaving out the oft repeated details, the crisis can be summed up as the outcome of a combination of global trends starting with the slowing down of the Western economy since 2018, aggravated by the impact of the (even deliberate) mishandling of COVID-19 by lockdowns that reversed global economic growth (notable exceptions being the pharmaceutical and private health care businesses which). The collapse of tourism income and fall in foreign remittances hurt foreign currency earnings to rapidly drain foreign currency reserves. Erroneous government policies compounded the problem to cause shortages, which were the main basis for the ‘Aragalaya’ protest.

The pain of shortages and price hikes were worsened by poor distribution owing to poor planning and domination of transport, storage, processing and distribution dominated by the private sector. An ill-advised devaluation of the rupee worsened the crisis with little benefit for foreign currency reserves. Shortages and ceaseless long queues gave birth to the Aragalaya. But the Aragalaya was not entirely spontaneous. There was organization and media support, with protesters persuaded that Rajapaksa family’s corruption was the main cause of the crisis. The President was the focus of attack, as paraphrased by the slogan ‘Gota go home’, with demands built around the dictatorial ways of the President, corruption of the Rajapaksa family, mismanagement of the economy, cronyism and breach of law and justice. But little went beyond ‘Gota go home’ and its corollaries like ‘Mahinda go home’ and ‘Bring back the loot’.

Aragalaya, however, had a strong spontaneous component comprising members of middle class, very literate in English. Absence of the poorer classes was not by design. The working classes, although supportive, kept a distance. Left and progressive circles noticed foreign hands and a hidden agenda, but considered it inappropriate to censure a campaign with growing popular support, and the only public protest that persistently stood up to a repressive government. Meanwhile, the government ― on a week wicket amid shortages and rising prices and fearful of unforeseen consequences ― held back on use of force to suppress the protest.

Moves by NGOs and other donors to visibly transform the protest into evenings of merriment manifested in providing protesters with holiday camping tents, gas cookers and cylinders of gas, bottled water, portable toilets and accessories, and packets of semi-luxury food. Some who were unimpressed nostalgically quoted Mao: “A revolution is not a dinner party” ― a strong reminder of which was badly needed.

While middle class supporters at home and abroad made fancy comparisons with the Arab Spring and Colour Revolutions (mindless of their eventual outcome), NGOs acted to depoliticize the struggle and narrow its scope to a demand for the resignation of the President while keeping all political parties out, in the name of unity of the struggle. The role of economic liberalization and imperialist meddling received minimal attention unlike the corruption of the Rajapaksas. Little thought was given to the post-crisis economic future.

With support for Aragalaya growing from left leaning trade unions and student bodies, NGOs began to lose grip. Calls emerged for more than resignations. While Aragalaya was content with parliamentary government, political discourse within Aragalaya led to calls for radically changing the constitution and a truer form of democracy.

Attack on the protesters by the Prime Minister’s goons was followed by his resignation, and well-coordinated arson attacks on properties of key ruling party personalities and a few killings. This orgy of violence helped the embattled President to regain composure and offer two leaders from the opposition SJB the post of Prime Minister, which they turned down so that Ranil Wickremesinghe became Prime Minister. His appointment was promptly welcomed by both the US and India.

The massive protest of 9th July expedited the President’s resignation that was over the horizon. The occupation of the President’s House, Presidential Secretariat and Prime Minister’s official residence intimidated the President to flee the country, resign his post, and name the Prime Minister as interim president as per constitutional provisions. The unforeseen election of Ranil as President by parliament was in fact a coup by the Rajapaksa family that marked Aragalaya’s change of fortune.

The lack of a clear plan, poor organization and uncertain aims led to serious tactical errors. Protesters at every level were blissfully unaware of the nature of the state. Some interpreted the rather restrained (but least of all supportive) posture of the police and the army as signs of weakness.

Ranil used occupation of state residences and offices as a pretext to unleash avoidable violence on the protesters. It was only a sign of things to come. The Army’s attack, that carefully avoided use of firearms, was designed as a warning to Aragalaya protesters. That intimidated a sizeable section of the comfortable middle class protesters and their supporters, who later found comfort in the gradual restoration of distribution of petroleum fuels and its benefits.

The US found itself in an awkward situation. Although the net outcome was to its pleasure with a very much pro-US politician as President, who is amenable to reactivating the bid to impose the Millennium Challenge Corporation project that has been rejected several times besides projects like the Status of Forces Agreement that fell by the wayside in the past several years. President Wickremasinghe is perhaps the keenest to oblige the IMF to secure a loan to tide over the debt problems by inflicting any harsh condition that the IMF may impose. He has already set in motion price increases of food, electricity and water supply based on the devaluation of the rupee early this year and the global rise in prices. Despite the heavy increase in price of food and fuel, urban public anger is yet to boiling over, as the middle class tends to compare the Wickremasinghe regime with what immediately preceded him.

Observations on the Aragalaya

Aragalaya started as a middle-class protest movement, deluded into imagining that an apolitical urban protest could put the country on track to economic recovery.

Its identification of abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement by government leaders as things that hurt the economy is valid. But that is an incomplete picture, as the country owes its present plight to the open economic policy since 1978 that destroyed the national economy, wasteful consumerism, and heavy borrowing for non-productive purposes, including an avoidable war. Aragalaya’s notable omission of imperialism as a source of the economic woes points to the say the US-funded NGOs had in it

It had faith in the parliamentary system, and blamed the failure of the economy on the corruption of a handful. Even at the stage when it suggested that all MPs should resign, it did not reject the parliamentary system. Realization that the parliamentary system as it exists cannot address the problems of the country, however, began to sprout within the Aragalaya, but needed time to mature into a policy alternative. But Aragalaya was derailed well before that could happen.

The Aragalaya was commendable for its secular and inclusive stand, call for rule of law free of state intervention, fair elections, freeing of political prisoners, defiance of threat by the arms of the state as well as by pro-government forces. But it was naïve to believe that transformation was attainable through a bourgeois parliament.

Discussion of the national question was eschewed by inadequate political debate. That became an excuse for Tamil nationalists to persuade Tamils to keep a distance. Only the Tamil left, especially the NDMLP, saw potential in the Aragalaya to address core issues.

Aragalaya ignored the class nature of the state (thanks to NGO activism), and mistook the tactical reserve shown by the armed forces and the police as fear of public wrath and hoped that they could be neutralized.

Political Attitudes

Parliamentary political parties that backed the Aragalaya saw in it a ladder for electoral uplift in what may follow the collapse of the government. Some explicitly desired that Aragalaya stopped with getting the President and at most the cabinet to resign. They saw in the crowds that gathered votes for themselves besides campaigners in the elections to come.

Those once associated with the SLPP-led government but parted company recently had less hope in the Aragalaya, and were thus critical supporters.

There were hard right wingers, including Ranil, whose endorsement of Aragalaya was nominal and limited to a democratic right to protest.

The collapse of the Aragalaya in the face of violence unleashed by Ranil exposed the vacillating nature of the urban middle class, of whom many quickly distanced themselves from the Aragalaya on pretext of undemocratic and unlawful conduct that let down the side. The NGOs are embarrassed, and at best denounce Ranil but stop short of mobilization against the oppressive state.

The US and its allies too were embarrassed as they had to retreat from their endorsement of the protest through secret funding for the NGOs.

Some have yet to reconcile to the turn of events that to their surprise if not shock brought Ranil to ‘power’.

The Future following the Great Reversal

The Ranil Wickremesinghe presidency has to be understood as a presidency with its executive power trimmed to suit the Rajapaksas. Ranil’s posturing as a tough leader maintaining law and order, cannot dare hurt the Rajapaksas or their cronies.

The President’s measures to address fuel shortage by a fuel rationing scheme was well received, although users of hiring vehicles are forced to buy most of their fuel in the back market, including petrol stations. Prices of all food items have soared and the level of child malnutrition is like to escalate. Removal of subsidy for small scale consumers of electricity has delivered a blow to the poor and lower middle class households. Removal of subsidies seems to be in anticipation of the grant of an IMF relief.

Enthusiasts for IMF credit seldom reveal that IMF loans are designed to keep the country indebted but able to service loans by burdening the toiling masses. It will take some months after the IMF deal for the pain to be felt.

Foreign policy will be tailored to suit US imperialist and Indian expansionist regional interests, but likely to avoid offending China, as the economy is likely to rely on the Colombo Port City to boost foreign investment.

Early economic recovery is unlikely, and even if shortages are eliminated, rising prices will deny access of goods, including essentials, to a large section of the population. While the state apparatus is being readied for a confrontation in the event of mass protests, legislation has been enacted to limit the scope of public protest and could be widened in scope in the face of growing mass agitation.

It is too soon to forecast a fascistic rule by an alliance of pro-Western imperialist forces and local reactionaries. But the danger drifts closer to realization, with no parliamentary political party showing the will, desire or capability to act against it.

The Response to be

  • In an immediate sense, the residual Aragalaya offers the most hopeful rallying point for the revival of resistance to state oppression.

    While building a democratic anti-imperialist movement for national unity and social justice is the challenge facing the genuine left and progressive forces, defence of democratic and legal rights of all citizens will need to be the immediate and central battle cry against state repression.

    Economic demands and call for social justice will inevitably enter the campaign as the Aragalaya evolves into a mass-based progressive anti-imperialist movement.

  • There is a great need to learn from the experiences of the seven months of struggle.

    Dangers of adventurism are manifold, and the very persons who hailed some of the ill-conceived actions as heroic were quick to denounce them as lawless after the protest collapsed.

    Caution is important against infiltration by vested interests through agencies such as NGOs.

  • Political education is urgently needed in:

    • Understanding imperialism and the importance of struggle against imperialism, its hegemonic allies and local partners.
    • Redefining development in ways that it will free the country from the imperialist economic grip
    • Appreciating that delivery of economic liberation demands the resolution of the national and democratic crises facing the country.
  • The genuine Left needs to take a realistic and flexible attitude towards Aragalaya to avert its being hijacked by narrow, opportunist interests. Reactionary thought and deed can be overcome only through a democratic process.

  • Freeing the country from the Western Credit Trap is central to economic recovery and that has to be accompanied by directing economic activity away from consumerism, rationalizing the service sector and reindustrializing the country based on a national economic policy.

  • The struggle has to transcend protest to activation of the masses in social and economic work towards devolution of political and economic power.

  • Resolution of the national question needs recognition as one concerning four nationalities with steps to eliminate hostility between nationalities as well as religions.

  • Liberation is also liberation from dominant reactionary ideology, and a proactive approach is essential towards gender and caste equality to eliminate hierarchy.

  • Most importantly, the struggle, to advance towards mobilization of the masses for national economic recovery and social justice, has to be firm in an anti-imperialist, anti-hegemonic stand. In short the struggle in the process of growth should undergo an educational process to remould itself as a revolutionary vanguard.

Reply to Comrade Kuo Mo-jo

By | 06/09/2023

–to the tune of Man Chiang Hung

On this tiny globe
A few flies dash themselves against the wall,
Humming without cease,
Sometimes shrilling,
Sometimes moaning.

Ants on the locust tree assume a great-nation swagger
And mayflies lightly plot to topple the giant tree.
The west wind scatters leaves over Changan,
And the arrows are flying, twanging.

So many deeds cry out to be done,
And always urgently;
The world rolls on,
Time presses.
Ten thousand years are too long,
Seize the day, seize the hour!

The Four Seas are rising, clouds and waters raging,
The Five Continents are rocking, wind and thunder roaring.
Our force is irresistible,
Away with all pests!

On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique

By | 05/19/2023

Speaking of the necessity for a clear understanding of the question of the proletariat exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, Chairman Mao pointed out explicitly: “It would be quite easy for people like Lin Piao to push the capitalist system if they come to power. Therefore, we should read some more Marxist-Leninist works.” This brings up a most important question: What is the class nature of ”people like Lin Plao”? What is the social basis that engendered the Lin Piao anti-Party clique? Undoubtedly a clear understanding of this question, is fully necessary for consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and preventing capitalist restoration and for firmly implementing the Party’s basic line for the historical period of socialism and creating step by step conditions in which it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist, or for a new bourgeoisie to arise.

As in the case of all other revisionists and revisionist trends of thought, the appearance of Lin Piao and his revisionist line was not accidental. Lin Piao and his sworn followers were extremely isolated in the whole Party, in the whole army and among the people of the whole country; but there is a deep-rooted class basis in society that engendered this bunch of extremely isolated persons who described themselves as ”heavenly horses flying through the skies, solitary and free.”

It is fairly clear that the Lin Piao anti-Party clique represented the interests of the overthrown landlord and capitalist classes and the aspirations of the overthrown reactionaries to topple the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique opposed the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and had inveterate hatred for the socialist system under the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country, slandering it as ”feudal autocracy” and cursing it as ”Chin Shih Huang of the contemporary era.” They wanted the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists ”to achieve genuine liberation politically and economically,” i.e., politically and economically they wanted to turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the landlord and comprador-capitalist classes and the socialist system into capitalist system. As an agent in the Party, an agent of the bourgeoisie working hard for a restoration, the Lin Piao anti-Party clique was wild in its attack on the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, so much so that it set up an organization of secret agents and plotted a counter-revolutionary armed coup d’etat. Such frenzy is a reflection of the fact that the reactionaries who have lost political power and the means of production inevitably will resort to every means to recapture the lost positions of the exploiting classes. We have seen how Lin Piao, after his political and ideological bankruptcy, tried to ”eat up” the proletariat by staking everything on a single cast as a desperate gambler would do, and how he finally betrayed the country and fled to defect to the enemy; despite the very patient education, waiting and efforts to save him by Chairman Mao and the Party Central Committee, his counter-revolutionary nature did not change in the least. All this reflects the life-and-death struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the two major antagonistic classes, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, a struggle that will go on for a long period. As long as the overthrown reactionary classes still exist, the possibility remains for the emergence within the Party (and in society as well) of representatives of the bourgeoisie who will try to turn their hope for restoration into attempt at restoration. Therefore, we must heighten our vigilance and guard against and smash any plot by the reactionaries at home and abroad, and on no account must we slacken our vigilance. Such an understanding, however, still does not embrace all aspects of the issue. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique represented not only the hope of the overthrown landlord and capitalist classes for a restoration but also the hope of the newly engendered bourgeois elements in socialist society for usurping power. Members of this clique had certain characteristics of newly engendered bourgeois elements, and a number of them were in fact such elements. And some of their slogans met and reflected the needs of the bourgeois elements and those wishing to take the capitalist road in developing capitalism. It is precisely this latter aspect that merits our further analysis.

Chairman Mao has pointed out: “Lenin said, ‘Small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale.’ This also occurs among a section of the workers and a section of the Party members. Both within the ranks of the proletariat and among the personnel of state organs, there are people who follow the bourgeois style of life.” Some in the Lin Piao anti-Party clique were the very representatives of such newly engendered bourgeoisie and capitalism. Among them, Lin Li-kuo [Lin Piao’s son] and his small ”fleet” [code name for their secret agent organization] were out-and-out anti-socialist bourgeois elements and counter-revolutionaries engendered in socialist sodiety.

The existence of bourgeois influence and the existence of the influence of international imperialism and revisionism are the political and ideological source of new bourgeois elements, while the existence of bourgeois right provides the vital economic basis for their emergence.

Lenin pointed out: “In the first phase of communist society (usually called Socialism) ‘bourgeois right’ is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production.” ”However, it continues to exist as far as its other part is concerned; it continues to exist in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labour among the members of society. The socialist principle: ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat,’ is already realized; the other socialist principle: ‘An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour,’ is also already realized. But this is not yet Communism, and it does not yet abolish ‘bourgeois right,’ which gives to unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labour, equal amounts of products.”

Chairman Mao has pointed out: “China is a socialist country. Before liberation, she was more or less like capitalism. Even now she practises an eight-grade wage system, distribution to each according to his work and exchange by means of money, which are scarcely different from these in the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has changed.” ”Our country at present practises a commodity system, and the wage system is unequal too, there being the eight-grade wage system, etc. These can only be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

In socialist, society, there still exist two kinds of socialist ownership, namely, ownership by the whole social people and collective ownership. This determines that China at present practises a commodity system. The analyses made by Lenin and Chairman Mao tell us that bourgeois right which inevitably exists as regards distribution and exchange under the socialist system should be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat, so that in the long course of the socialist revolution the three major differences between workers and peasants, between town and country and between manual and mental labour will gradually be narrowed and the discrepancies between the various grades will be reduced and the material and ideological conditions for closing such gaps will gradually be created. If we do not follow this course, but call instead for the consolidation, extension and strengthening of bourgeois right and that part of inequality it entails, the inevitable result will be polarization, i.e., a small number of people will in the course of distribution acquire increasing amounts of commodities and money through certain legal channels and numerous illegal ones; capitalist ideas of amassing fortunes and craving for personal fame and gain, stimulated by such ”material incentives,” will spread unchecked; such phenomena as turning public property into private property, speculation, graft and corruption, theft and bribery will rise; the capitalist principle of the exchange of commodities will make its way into political life send even into Party life, undermine the socialist planned economy and give rise to such acts of capitalist exploitation as the conversion of commodities and money into capital and labour power into a commodity; and there will be a change in the nature of the system of ownership in certain departments and units which follow the revisionist line; and instances of oppression and exploitation of the labouring people will once again occur. As a result, a small number of new bourgeois elements and upstarts who have totally betrayed the proletariat and the labouring people will emerge from among Party members, workers, well-to-do peasants and personnel in state organs. Our worker-comrades have put it well: ”If bourgeois right is not restricted, it will check the development of socialism and aid the growth of capitalism.” When the economic strength of the bourgeoisie grows to a certain extent, its agents will ask for political rule, try to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system, completely change the socialist ownership, and openly restore and develop the capitalist system. Once in power, the new bourgeoisie will first of all carry out a bloody suppression of the people and restore capitalism in the superstructure, including all spheres of ideology and culture; then they will conduct distribution in proportion to the amount of capital and power each has, and the principle ”to each according to his work” will be nothing but an empty shell, and a handful of new bourgeois elements monopolizing the means of production will at the same time monopolize the power of distributing consumer goods and other products. Such is the process of restoration that has already taken place in the Soviet Union.

As regards the way the Lin Piao anti-Party clique stooped to anything to amass riches, insatiably pursued the bourgeois way of life and used bourgeois right to carry out insidious, unsavoury and vile activities, many instances have been brought to light and subjected to criticism. But even more illustrative is its programme for a counter-revolutionary coup d’etat, Outline of Project ”571,” in which the Lin Piao anti-Party clique used precisely the idea of bourgeois right, and not anything else, to abet or incite certain people of various classes to oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, the class interests the programme represents, in addition to the interests of the old bourgeoisie, are precisely the interests of a number of new bourgeois elements and a few people who want to use bourgeois right to develop capitalism. This explains why the programme directs its attack on Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line and why it shows particularly bitter hatred for certain restrictions placed on bourgeois right through the socialist revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique slandered office cadres going to May 7th cadre schools as ”unemployment in a disguised form”; it vilified simplifying administrative set-ups and maintaining close relations with the masses as an attack on cadres. It held that cadres should be overlords sitting on the backs of the people and, therefore, they become ”unemployed” once they take part in collective productive labour. This was designed to incite a section of the office workers—those who wish to extend bourgeois right, seek official posts and become overlords and those who are seriously infected with the bourgeois style of life—to oppose the Party’s line and the socialist system.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique slandered intellectuals integrating themselves with the workers and peasants and going to the countryside as ”reform through forced labour in a disguised form.” Young people, full of vigour and imbued with communist consciousness, have gone group after group to the countryside. This is a great undertaking of far-reaching significance for narrowing the three major differences and for restricting bourgeois right. All revolutionary people enthusiastically praise it, but those corrupted by bourgeois ideology, and particularly those fettered by the idea of bourgeois right, oppose it. Whether the integration of educated young people with the workers and peasants is upheld or not has a direct bearing on whether the revolution in university education can be carried on by following the road taken by the Shanghai Machine Tool Plant—enrolling students from among the workers and peasants and assigning them to work among workers and peasants upon graduation. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique’s special hatred of this not only showed its opposition to the labouring people but also exposed its scheme to use bourgeois right to attack the Party in an attempt to incite some people deeply influenced by the idea of bourgeois right to oppose the socialist revolution. Its programme was aimed at widening the gap between town and country and between manual and mental labour, and turning educated young people into a new stratum of elite, so as to win the support of those deeply influenced by the idea of bourgeois right for its counter-revolutionary coup d’etat.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique smeared as ”exploitation in a disguised form” the communist spirit displayed by the working class in criticizing, the revisionist ”material incentives.” Lin Piao was a fanatic advocate of ”material incentives.” He wrote in his sinister notebook such revisionist trash as ”material incentives are still necessary” ”materialism—material incentives,” ”inducements—official post, emolument, favour.” A principal member of the Lin Piao anti-Party clique also wrote that ”the principle of to each according to his work and of material benefit” was the ”decisive motive force” in promoting production. On the face of it, they advocated using money to ”stimulate” the workers, but actually they wanted to widen without any limit the differences in grade among the workers in order to foster and buy over a small section of the working class, turn it into a privileged stratum which betrays the proletarian dictatorship and the interests of the proletariat, and split the unity of the working class. They tried to corrupt the workers with the bourgeois world outlook and use the small number of workers who are deeply influenced by the idea of bourgeois right as a force in support of their opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lin Piao and company attached ”particular importance” to using ”wages” to lure ”young workers,” and their ”inducements—official post, emolument, favour” were a sinister scheme. This shows us by negative example that young, workers, particularly those who have become cadres, must consciously reject the material inducements of the bourgeoisie and the flattery offered them in various forms by the idea of bourgeois, right. They must maintain and bring into play the communist revolutionary spirit of fighting valiantly for the complete emancipation of the proletariat and the whole of mankind and strive to arm themselves with the Marxist-Leninist world outlook; they must never be dazzled and become light-headed by the varicoloured world of commodities, exchange by means of money, vulgar flattery, sycophancy and factionalism, so as not to be taken in by political swindlers like Lin Piao or by the landlord and bourgeois elements in society. Under the cloak of ”showing concern,” all these persons are actually giving the young workers ”incentives” to lure them to take the capitalist road, and they could thus be called political ”abettors.” Inexperienced newly engendered bourgeois elements openly break the law while cunning bourgeois elements of long standing direct them from behind the scenes—this is a common occurrence in class struggle in the society today. We lay special emphasis on hitting the backstage abettors in dealing with corrupted young people who have committed criines. We must continue to adhere to this principle. Quite a number of young workers who take a clear-cut stand in the fight against bourgeois corruption have come to the fore in present-day struggles; we must support them and sum up their experience in struggle.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique also vilified that the peasants ”lack food and clothing,” that ”the living standards” of cadres in the armed forces ”are deteriorating,” and that the Red Guards who displayed the spirit of daring to think, speak, blaze a trail, act and make revolution in criticizing the bourgeoisie during the Great Cultural Revolution ”are being hoodwinked and used”…. All this was aimed at totally negating the socialist system and the Party’s mass line, negating the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, extending bourgeois right and restoring capitalism. In spreading, the slander that peasants ”lack food and clothing,” the Lin Piao anti-Party clique aimed at inciting the peasants to ”eat up and divide everything” so as to undermine and liquidate the socialist collective economy. If things were done along this line, a small number of people would become the new bourgeoisie while the overwhelming majority would suffer capitalist exploitation. And this would be a situation the landlords, rich peasants and a part of well-to-do middle peasants taking the capitalist road in the countryside yearned for.

By now we can see what Lin Piao meant by ”building genuine socialism.” It meant the extension of bourgeois right under the signboard of socialism so that new bourgeois elements and certain factions and groupings intending to take the capitalist road could, in collusion with the overthrown landlord and capitalist classes, ”have everything under their command and everything at their disposal,” overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism. Lin Piao and his like were their political representatives. The programme advanced by the Lin Piao anti-Party clique in Outline of Project ”571” neither dropped from the skies nor was it innate in the minds of those who described themselves as ”super-geniuses”; it was a reflection of social being. To be exact, this clique which proceeded from its reactionary bourgeois stand reflected the demands of unreformed landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists—who account for only a few per cent of the population—and the demands of a small number of new bourgeois elements and those intending to make use of bourgeois right to become new bourgeois elements. On the other hand, it opposed the demands of the revolutionary people, who make up more than 90 per cent of the population, to adhere to the socialist road. Members of this clique used idealist apriorism to oppose the materialist theory of reflection; however, the materialist theory of reflection must be used to explain how their counter-revolutionary ideas came into being.

Why would it be quite easy for people like Lin Piao to push the capitalist system if they should come to power? This is because in our socialist society there are still classes and class struggle, there are still the soil and conditions for engendering capitalism. In order to gradually reduce such soil and conditions and finally eliminate them altogether, we must persevere in continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a task which the vanguard of the proletariat, guided by Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line, can accomplish only through the firm and indomitable efforts of a number of generations. So we must adhere to the Party’s basic line, enhance the political consciousness of the working class, consolidate the worker-peasant alliance, unite all forces that can be united with and unite the masses of revolutionary people and lead them in consciously remoulding their world outlook in the fight against class enemies and in the three great revolutionary movements of class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment. And so we must consolidate and develop socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective ownership by working people, prevent the restoration of bourgeois right already liquidated with regard to the system of ownership and continue to fulfil, gradually and over a fairly long period of time, that part of the task which is yet to be fulfilled in the transformation of ownership; and with regard to the two other aspects in the relations of production, namely, the mutual relations between men and the relations of distribution, we must restrict bourgeois right, criticize the idea of bourgeois right and continually weaken the basis that engenders capitalism. So we must persevere in the revolution in the realm of the superstructure, deepen our criticism of revisionism and the bourgeoisie and achieve the all-round dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

In his talks given during an inspection tour of various places in the country in August and September 1971, Chairman Mao said: “We have been singing The Internationale for fifty years, and there have been ten occasions on which someone in our Party worked for a split. As I see it, another ten, twenty or thirty such occasions may arise. Don’t you believe this? Well, if you don’t, I do anyway. There will be no more struggles with the realization of communism? That’s not what I believe. There will be struggles even then, although they will be struggles between the new and the old, between what is correct and what is wrong. Even tens of thousands of years from now, what is wrong won’t pass, it won’t stand up.” Lenin said: “Yes, by overthrowing the landowners and bourgeoisie we cleared the way but we did not build the edifice of socialism. On the ground cleared of one bourgeois generation, new generations continually appear in history, as long as the ground gives rise to them, and it does give rise to any number of bourgeois. As for those who look at the victory over the capitalists in the way that the petty proprietors look at it—‘They grabbed, let me have a go too’—indeed, every one of them is the source of a new generation of bourgeois.” What Lenin dealt with is the protracted nature of class struggle in society; what Chairman Mao deals with is the protracted nature of the two-line struggle which takes shape as a reflection in the Party of class struggle in society. We must carry out such class struggle and two-line struggle and continually defeat the bourgeoisie and its agents working for revisionism, for a split and for intrigues and conspiracy; only thus can we gradually create conditions in which it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist or for a new bourgeoisie to arise, and finally eliminate classes. Such is the great cause to be accomplished during the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The new bourgeois elements who arise as a result of erosion by bourgeois ideas and the existence of bourgeois right generally share the political features of double-dealers and upstarts. In order to carry out capitalist activities under the dictatorship of the proletariat, they always put up a certain socialist signboard; since their restorationist activities aim not at seizing back any means of production of which they have been dispossessed but at grabbing the means of production they have never possessed, they are especially greedy, anxious to swallow at one gulp the wealth belonging to the whole people or the collective and place it under their private ownership. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique had these political features. ”Like the Chungshan wolf in the ancient fable, you commit treachery once you are in a position to have your own way.” These two lines from The Dream of the Red Chamber, which describe how Sun Shao-tsu, a relentless brute, ”stoops to anything to adapt himself to the circumstances,” can be aptly applied to the Lin Piao anti-Party clique. Before Lin Piao was ”in a position to have his own way,” that is, before he got hold of part of political and economic power, he used counter-revolutionary double-dealing tactics to deceive the Party and the masses, and utilized the might of the mass movement to serve his own ends; in doing this, he did not scruple at putting up a revolutionary sign-board or shouting revolutionary slogans while at the same time distorting them. Analysing the innermost feelings of Lin Piao and his gang in a letter written in the early days of the Great Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao pointed out: “I guess their true intention is to make use of Chung Kuei to fight the ghosts.” [Chung Kuei is a legendary character said to have the power to drive away ghosts.] This put the case well. It was a case of making use of a brick to knock open the door, and once that was done they would no longer need it and would brutally get rid of it. Acting as counter-revolutionary double-dealers, opposing the red flag by waving red flags, ”speaking nice things to your face but stabbing you in the back,” or, as the Lin Piao anti-Party clique itself confessed, ”waving Chairman Mao’s banner to strike at Chairman Mao’s forces”—these are but different ways of expressing things done in one and the same manner. The moment the Lin Piao anti-Party clique thought, as they put it, that ”after several years of preparation, the ideological, organizational and military level has been raised considerably and an ideological and material foundation has been laid to a certain extent,” they decided to have their own way. In units and departments under their domination and control, they turned socialist public ownership into the Lin Piao anti-Party clique’s private ownership. More and more openly they exposed their political ambitions which were sure to grow as they were more and more “in a position to have their own way,” just as the bourgeoisie’s avarice knows no bounds and grows with the accumulation of capital. In analysing the bourgeoisie, Marx said: “As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital.” The soul of Lin Piao, a bourgeois agent inside the Party, was also nothing but the soul of the old bourgeoisie which has been toppled but dreams of a come-back and the soul of the new bourgeoisie which is coming into being and is vainly attempting to rule. A class analysis makes quite clear the root cause of the perverse, counter-revolutionary political activities of Lin Piao said his gang: Preaching the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, betraying the Party and the Chinese people and going over to social-imperialism, they were engaged in the same kind of dirty business as the Chinese comprador-bourgeoisie which worshipped Confucius and betrayed the country; as to the counter-revolutionary coup d’etat they so feverishly plotted, it was only a carbon copy of the method the bourgeoisie of many countries in the world has resorted to numerous times and still resorts to even to this day.

Our task is, on the one hand, to gradually dig away the soil breeding the bourgeoisie and capitalism and, on the other, to be able to see through in good time the new bourgeoisie like Lin Piao when it appears or is emerging. This is why the study of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is important. If we depart from the guidance of Marxism, we cannot accomplish the above-mentioned two tasks; moreover, when a revisionist trend of thought surfaces, one may be taken in and may even blindly board the gangsters’ boat because of the idea of bourgeois right in one’s own mind or because of failure to discern it. If this was not so, why did some people follow a revisionist line when it emerged? Why could Lin Piao and company deceive people at the Second Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party by resorting to idealism plus raising a big hullabaloo? Why could those naked words of the Lin Piao anti-Party clique aimed at splitting the Party and overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat find a market among a small number of cadres? Why could the ”fleets,” big and small, openly use such methods as giving feasts and presenting gifts, offering official posts and other favours as a means for luring people over to form a clique, for carrying out factional activities and for conspiring? Why did they write in their sinister notebooks such trash as ”using expertise to cover up politics” and use it as their tactics for carrying out counter-revolutionary activities? There is a profound lesson here. In opposing the Peng Teh-huai anti-Party clique in 1959, Chairman Mao pointed out that “at present, the main danger lies in empiricism.” Therefore we should read and study conscientiously. In the past decade and more, Chairman Mao has reiterated this opinion on many occasions. He stressed that high-ranking and intermediate Party cadres, first of all members of the Party Central Committee, “should all conscientiously read and study according to their different levels and have a good grasp of Marxism.” He also stressed that “in the next few years, special attention should be paid to propagating Marxism-Leninism.” After the collapse of the Lin Piao anti-Party clique, Chairman Mao once again said: “I formally advise comrades to do some reading.” And he again stressed this recently when he spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat. How heartening these earnest and significant teachings are! All comrades in the Party, especially the high-ranking cadres, must grasp conscientious study and reading as a matter of cardinal importance in consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat. First of all, they must themselves study well and thoroughly understand the expositions by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and by Chairman Mao and their main works on the dictatorship of the proletariat, strive to explain the question by integrating theory with practice and rid themselves, both ideologically and in action, of the bourgeois ideas and styles of work which are divorced from the masses, so as to identify themselves with the masses, really become promoters of the new emerging socialist things and be good at discerning and daring to resist corrosion by capitalism. We must inherit and carry forward our Party’s glorious tradition of plain living and arduous struggle which has been developed over the past decades. We must have a clear understanding of the situation and study policies, including economic policies. It is imperative to adhere to the principle of grasping revolution and promoting production and other work and preparedness against war, a principle which has proved effective in practice. Attention should be paid to distinguishing between the two different types of contradictions and dealing accurate and powerful blows at the very small number of bad elements; as regards the bourgeois influence among the masses, it should be eliminated by applying the formula “unity, criticism, unity”—mainly by such methods as studying and raising consciousness, supporting advanced things which are firmly opposed to capitalism, recalling past suffering and contrasting it with today’s happiness as well as persuading and educating people and making criticism and self-criticism, all for the purpose of uniting 95 per cent of the cadres and of the masses. In criticizing capitalist tendencies, it is necessary to create public opinion, win aver the majority, awaken consciousness and give active guidance. As for the few who have sunk deep into the quagmire of capitalism, they must be told sharply: “Comrades, mend your ways right now!”

As was pointed out at the beginning of this article, the Lin Plao anti-Party clique was extremely isolated from the people of the whole country. In tracing its emergence to the class roots, we pointed to the soil and conditions which produced the Lin Piao anti-Party clique. After stating this aspect of the matter, we must also point out that the Lin Piao anti-Party clique was in essence very feeble; like all reactionaries, it was only a paper tiger. All the counter-revolutionary activities of this clique constituted only a record of defeat and impasse, not of victory. The socialist system is bound to replace the capitalist system and communism is bound to triumph throughout the world; this is an objective law independent of man’s will. Since socialist society is born out of the old society, it “is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectuality, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” This is not strange. The history of the past 25 years tells us that so long as we uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat, adhere to Chairman Mao’s theory of continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and keep to the line, principles and policies for the socialist revolution which Chairman Mao has laid down for us, we are able to smash the resistance put up by the class enemies, erase these birth marks step by step and continually win fresh victories. The present excellent situation marked by ever greater prosperity of our socialist cause is in sharp contrast to the situation of imperialism and social-imperialism which are disintegrating internally and beset with difficulties at home and abroad. Chairman Mao’s latest instruction on the question of theory will certainly enable us, both in theory and in practice, to understand more fully the historical tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the ways to accomplish them; it will greatly help consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, deepen the socialist revolution, spur the development of socialist construction and promote nationwide stability and unity. The Communists of China are full of confidence, so are the proletariat and the revolutionary people of the country. United as one and in high spirits, they are waging a struggle under the leadership of the Party to combat and prevent revisionism. The history of the Chinese revolution is a history of the revolutionary people advancing to victory through tortuous struggles and the reactionaries heading for destruction after repeated trials of strength. As Chairman Mao has summed it up: “In China, after the emperor was overthrown in 1911, no reactionary was able to stay long in power. The longest was only twenty years (Chiang Kai-shek), but he was also toppled once the people rose in revolt. Chiang Kai-shek climbed to power by taking advantage of Sun Yat-sen’s trust in him and by running the Whampoa Academy and gathering around him a big bunch of reactionaries. Practically the whole landlord class and bourgeoisie supported him when he turned against the Communist Party. Moreover, the Communist Party was inexperienced at the time. So, he gleefully gained temporary ascendancy. In those twenty years, however, he never achieved unification. There occurred the war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, the wars between the Kuomintang and the various warlord cliques, the Sino-Japanese war and, finally, the four-year large-scale civil war, which sent him scampering to a cluster of islands. If the Rightists were to stage an anti-Communist coup d’etat in China, I am sure they would have no peace either and their rule would most probably be short-lived, because it would never be tolerated by the revolutionaries who represent the interests of the people constituting move than 90 per cent of the population.” ”The conclusion is still the two oft-repeated sentences: The future is bright; the road is tortuous.” Let us advance courageously in the direction and along the road pointed out by Chairman Mao!

On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie

By | 05/19/2023

Quotations from Chairman Mao

Why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? It is essential to get this question clear. Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism. This should be made known to the whole nation.

Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist works.

Lenin said that “small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale.” They are also engendered among a part of the working class and of the Party membership. Both within the ranks of the proletariat and among the personnel of state and other organs there are people who take to the bourgeois style of life.

The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat has long been the focus of the struggle between Marxism and revisionism. Lenin said, “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” And it is precisely to enable us to go by Marxism and not revisionism in both theory and practice that Chairman Mao calls on the whole nation to get clear on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Our country is in an important period of its historical development. As a result of more than two decades of socialist revolution and socialist construction, and particularly of the liquidation of the bourgeois headquarters of Liu Shao-chi and of Lin Piao in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, our proletarian dictatorship is more consolidated than ever, and our socialist cause is thriving. Full of militancy, all our people are determined to build China into a powerful socialist country before the end of the century. In the course of this effort and in the entire historical period of socialism, whether we can persevere all the way in the dictatorship of the proletariat is a cardinal issue for China’s future development. Current class struggles, too, require that we should get clear on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chairman Mao says, “Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism.” it won’t do if only a few people grasp the point; it must “be made known to the whole nation.” The present and long-range importance of success in this study cannot be overestimated.

As early as 1920, Lenin, basing himself on practical experience in leading the Great October Socialist Revolution and directing the first state of proletarian dictatorship, pointed out sharply, “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections o the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential.” Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society, that it means all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Lenin stressed time and again that it is impossible to triumph over the bourgeoisie without exercising a protracted, all-round dictatorship over it. These words of Lenin’s, especially those he underscored, have been confirmed by practice in subsequent years. Sure enough, new bourgeois elements have been engendered batch after batch, and it is precisely the Khrushchov—Brezhnev renegade clique that is their representative. These people generally have a good class background; almost all of them were brought up under the red flag; they have joined the Communist Party organizationally, received college training and become so-called red experts. However, they are new poisonous weeds engendered by the old soil of capitalism. They have betrayed their own class, usurped Party and state power, restored capitalism, become chieftains of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and accomplished what Hitler had tried to do but failed. Never should we forget this experience of history in which “the satellites went up to the sky while the red flag fell to the ground,” especially not at this time when we are determined to build a powerful country.

We must be soberly aware that there is still a danger of China turning revisionist. This is not only because imperialism and social-imperialism will never give up aggression and subversion against us, not only because China’s old landlords and capitalists are still around and unreconciled to their defeat, but also because new bourgeois elements are being engendered daily and hourly, as Lenin put it. Some comrades argue that Lenin was referring to the situation before collectivization. This is obviously incorrect. Lenin’s remarks are not out of date at all. These comrades may look up Chairman Mao’s On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People published in 1957. There Chairman Mao shows by concrete analysis that after the basic victory in the socialist transformation of the system of ownership, which includes the achievement of agricultural co-operation, there still exist in China classes, class contradictions and class struggle, and there still exist both harmony and contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base. Having summed up the new experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat after Lenin, Chairman Mao gave systematic answers to various questions arising after the change in the system of ownership, set forth the tasks and policies of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and laid the theoretical basis for the Party’s basic line and for continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Practice in the past 18 years, particularly in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, has proved that the theory, line and policies advanced by Chairman Mao are entirely correct.

Chairman Mao pointed out recently, “In a word, China is a socialist country. Before liberation she was much the same as a capitalist country. Even now she practises an eight-grade wage system, distribution according to work and exchange through money, and in all this differs very little from the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has been changed.” In order to gain a deeper understanding of Chairman Mao’s instruction, let us look at the changes in the system of ownership in China and the proportions of the various economic sectors in China’s industry, agriculture and commerce in 1973.

First, industry. Industry under ownership by the whole people covered 97 per cent of the fixed assets of industry as a whole, 63 per cent of the people engaged in industry, and 86 per cent of the value of total industrial output. Industry under collective ownership covered 3 per cent of the fixed assets, 36.2 per cent of the people engaged in industry, and 14 per cent of the total output value. Besides these, individual handicraftsmen made up 0.8 per cent of the people engaged in industry.

Next, agriculture. Among the agricultural means of production, about 90 per cent of the farmland and of the irrigation-drainage machinery and about 80 per cent of the tractors and draught animals were under collective ownership. Here ownership by the whole people made up a very small proportion. Hence, over 90 per cent of the nation’s grain and various industrial crops came from the collective economy. The state farms accounted for only a small proportion. Apart from these, there still remained the small plots farmed by commune members for their personal needs, and a limited amount of household side-line production.

Then commerce. State commerce accounted for 92.5 per cent of the total volume of retail sales, collectively owned commercial enterprises for 7.3 per cent, and individual pedlars for 0.2 per cent. Apart from these, there still remained the sizable amount of trade conducted at rural fairs.

The above figures show that socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective ownership by working people have indeed won a great victory in China. The dominant position of ownership by the whole people has been greatly enhanced and there have also been some changes in the economy of the people’s communes as regards the proportions of ownership at the three levels – commune, production brigade and production team. On Shanghai’s outskirts, for example, income at the commune level in proportion to total income rose from 28.1 per cent in 1973 to 30.5 per cent in 1974, that of the brigades rose from 15.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent, while the proportion going to the teams dropped from 56.7 per cent to 52.3 per cent. The people’s commune has demonstrated ever more clearly its superiority, consisting in its larger size and higher degree of public ownership. In so far as we have, step by step in the past 25 years, eliminated ownership by imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalism and feudalism, transformed ownership by national capitalism and by individual labourers and replaced these five kinds of private ownership with the two kinds of socialist public ownership, we can proudly declare that the system of ownership in China has changed, that the proletariat and other working people in China have in the main freed themselves from the shackles of private ownership, and that China’s socialist economic base has been gradually consolidated and developed. The Constitution adopted by the Fourth National People’s Congress specifically records these great victories of ours.

However, we must see that with respect to the system of ownership the issue is not yet fully settled. We often say that the issue of ownership “has in the main been settled”; this means that it has not been settled entirely, and also that bourgeois right has not been totally abolished in this realm. The statistics cited above show that private ownership still exists partially in industry, agriculture and commerce, that socialist public ownership does not consist entirely of ownership by the whole people but includes two kinds of ownership, and that ownership by the whole people is still rather weak in agriculture, which is the foundation of the national economy. The disappearance of bourgeois right in the realm of the system of ownership in a socialist society, as conceived by Marx and Lenin, implies the conversion of all the means of production into the common property of the whole of society. Clearly we have not yet reached that stage. Neither in theory nor in practice should we overlook the very arduous tasks that lie ahead for the dictatorship of the proletariat in this respect.

Moreover, we must see that both ownership b the whole people and collective ownership involve the question of leadership, that is, the question of which class holds the ownership in fact and no just in name.

Speaking at the First Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party on April 28 1969, Chairman Mao said, “Apparently, we couldn’t do without the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, for our base was not solid. From m observations, I am afraid that in a fairly large majority of factories — I don’t mean all or the overwhelming majority — leadership was not in the hands of real Marxists and the masses of workers. Not that there were no good people in the leadership of the factories. There were. There were good people among the secretaries, deputy secretaries and members of Party committees and among the Party branch secretaries. But they followed that line of Liu Shao-chi’s, just resorting to material incentive, putting profit in command, and instead of promoting proletarian politics, handing out bonuses, and so forth.” “But there are indeed bad people in the factories.” “This shows that the revolution is still unfinished.” Chairman Mao’s remarks not only explain the necessity for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution but also help us be more aware that in the problem of the system of ownership, as in all others, we should pay attention not only to its form but also to its actual content. It is perfectly correct for people to give full weight to the decisive role of the system of ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to give no weight to whether the issue of ownership has been resolved merely in form or in actual fact, to the reaction upon the system of ownership exerted by the two other aspects of the relations of production — the relations among people and the form of distribution — and to the reaction upon the economic base exerted by the superstructure; these two aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. Whether the ideological and political line is correct or incorrect, and which class holds the leadership, decides which class owns those factories in actual fact. Comrades may recall how we turned any enterprise owned by bureaucrat capital or national capital into a socialist enterprise. Didn’t we do the job by sending a military-control representative or a state representative there to transform it according to the Party′s line and policies? Historically, every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement of slavery by the feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was invariably preceded by the seizure of political power, which was then used to effect large-scale change in the system of ownership and consolidate and develop the new system. Even more is this the case with socialist public ownership which cannot be born under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bureaucrat capital, which controlled 80 per cent of the industry in old China, could be transformed and placed under ownership by the whole people only after the People’s Liberation Army had defeated Chiang Kai-shek. Similarly, a capitalist restoration is inevitably preceded by the seizure of leadership and a change in the line and policies of the Party. Wasn’t this the way Khrushchov and Brezhnev changed the system of ownership in the Soviet Union? Wasn’t this the way Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao changed the nature of a number of our factories and other enterprises to varying degrees?

Also, we must see that what we are practising today is a commodity system. Chairman Mao says, “Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system.” This state of affairs which Chairman Mao pinpointed cannot be changed in a short period. For instance, in the rural people’s communes on the outskirts of Shanghai where the economy at the commune and production brigade levels has developed at a rather fast pace, commune ownership accounts for 34.2 per cent of the fixed assets owned at all three levels, and brigade ownership accounts for only 15.1 per cent, while ownership by the production teams still occupies 50.7 per cent of the whole. Therefore, even if we take economic conditions in the communes alone, it will require a fairly long time to effect the transition from the team as the basic accounting unit to the brigade and then to the commune. Moreover, even when the commune becomes the basic accounting unit, the ownership will still be collective. Thus, in the short term, there will be no basic change in the situation in which ownership by the whole people and collective ownership co-exist. So long as we still have these two kinds of ownership, commodity production, exchange through money and distribution according to work are inevitable. And since “under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted,” the growth of capitalist factors in town and country and the emergence of new bourgeois elements are likewise inevitable. If such things are not restricted, capitalism and the bourgeoisie will grow more rapidly. Therefore, on no account should we relax our vigilance just because we have won a great victory in the transformation of the system of ownership and carried out one Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. We must realize that our economic base is not yet solid, that bourgeois right has not yet been abolished entirely in the system of ownership, and that it still exists to a serious extent in the relations among people and holds a dominant position in distribution. In the various spheres of the superstructure, some areas are in fact still controlled by the bourgeoisie which has the upper hand there; some are being transformed but the results are not yet consolidated, and old ideas and the old force of habit are still stubbornly obstructing the growth of socialist new things. New bourgeois elements are engendered, batch after batch, in the wake of the development of capitalist factors in town and country. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. Even when all the landlords and capitalists of the old generation have died, such class struggles will by no means come to a stop, and a bourgeois restoration may still occur if people like Lin Piao come to power. In his speech The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan, Chairman Mao described how in 1936, near the site of the Party Central Committee in Pao-an, there was a fortified village held by a handful of armed counter-revolutionaries who obstinately refused to surrender until the Red Army stormed into it to settle the problem. This story has a universal significance, for it tells us: “Everything reactionary is the same; if you don’t hit it, it won’t fall. It is like sweeping the floor; where the broom does not reach, the dust never vanishes of itself.” Today there are still many “fortified villages” held by the bourgeoisie; when one is destroyed, another will spring up, and even if all have been destroyed except one, it will not vanish of itself if the iron broom of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not reach it. Lenin was entirely correct in saying, “For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential.”

Historical experience shows us that whether the proletariat can triumph over the bourgeoisie and whether China will turn revisionist hinges on whether we can persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie in all spheres and at all stages of development of the revolution. What is all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? The most succinct generalization is found in a passage from a letter Marx wrote in 1852 to J. Weydemeyer, which we are all studying. Marx said, “…no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle of the classes, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes, What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.” In this splendid observation, Lenin said, Marx succeeded in expressing with striking clarity the chief and radical difference between his theory on the state and that of the bourgeoisie, and the essence of his teaching on the state. Here it should be noted that Marx divided the sentence on the dictatorship of the proletariat into three points, which are interrelated and cannot be cut apart. It is impermissible to accept only one of the three points while rejecting the other two. For the sentence gives complete expression to the entire process of the inception, development and withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat and covers the whole task of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its actual content. In The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, Marx deals in more specific terms with this dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, and to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations. In all the four cases, Marx means all. Not a part, a greater part, or even the greatest part, but all! This is nothing surprising, for only by emancipating all mankind can the proletariat achieve its own final emancipation. The only way to attain this goal is to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through to the end, until the above-mentioned four alls are banished from the earth so that it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes to exist or for new ones to arise; we definitely must not call a halt along the path of the transition. In our view, only those who understand the matter this way can be deemed to have grasped the essence of Marx’s teaching on the state. Comrades, please think it over: If the matter is not understood in this way, if Marxism is limited, curtailed and distorted in theory and practice, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is turned into an empty phrase, or all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie is crippled by amputation and exercised only in some spheres but not in all, or only at a certain stage (for instance, before the transformation of the system of ownership) but not at all stages, or in other words, if not all of the “fortified villages” of the bourgeoisie are destroyed but some are left, allowing the bourgeoisie to expand again, doesn’t this mean preparing the conditions for bourgeois restoration? Doesn’t it mean turning the dictatorship of the proletariat into a thing that protects the bourgeoisie, particularly the newly engendered bourgeoisie? All workers, all poor and lower-middle peasants and other working people who refuse to be plunged back into suffering and woe, all Communists who have dedicated their lives to the struggle for communism, and all comrades who do not want China to turn revisionist, must firmly bear in mind this basic principle of Marxism: It is imperative to exercise all- round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, and absolutely impermissible to give it up half-way. There are undeniably some comrades among us who have joined the Communist Party organizationally but not ideologically. In their world outlook they have not yet over-stepped the bounds of small production and of the bourgeoisie. They do approve of the dictatorship of the proletariat at a certain stage and within a certain sphere and are pleased with certain victories of the proletariat, because these will bring them some gains; once they have secured their gains, they feel it’s time to settle down and feather their cosy nests. As for exercising all- round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, as for going on after the first step on the 10,000-li long march, sorry, let others do the job; here is my stop and I must get off the bus. We would like to offer a piece of advice to these comrades: It’s dangerous to stop half-way! The bourgeoisie is beckoning to you. Catch up with the ranks and continue to advance!

Historical experience also teaches us that, as the dictatorship of the proletariat wins one victory after another, the bourgeoisie may pretend on the surface to accept this dictatorship while in reality it continues to work to restore the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This is exactly what Khrushchov and Brezhnev have done. They changed neither the name “Soviet,” nor the name of the party of Lenin, nor the name “socialist republics.” But, accepting these names and using them as a cover, they have gutted the dictatorship of the proletariat of its actual content and turned it into a dictatorship of the monopoly capitalist class that is anti- Soviet, opposed to the party of Lenin and opposed to the socialist republics. They put forward the revisionist programme of “the state of the whole people” and “party of the entire people,” which is an open betrayal of Marxism. But when the Soviet people stand up against their fascist dictatorship, they hoist the flag of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to suppress the masses. Similar things have happened in China. Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao did not limit themselves to spreading the theory of the dying out of class struggle; they, too, flaunted the flag of the dictatorship of the proletariat while suppressing the revolution. Didn’t Lin Piao preach his four “never forgets”? One of them was “never forget the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Indeed that was something he “never forgot,” only the words “to overthrow” need inserting to make it into “never forget to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat,” or as confessed by his own gang, “wave Chairman Mao’s banner to strike at Chairman Mao’s forces.” At times they trimmed their sails to the proletariat and even pretended to be more revolutionary than anyone else, raising “Left” slogans to create confusion and carry out sabotage, but they were usually waging a direct counter-struggle against the proletariat. You wanted to carry out socialist transformation? They said the new democratic order had to be consolidated. You wanted to organize co-operatives and communes? They said it was too early to do that. When you said literature and art should be revolutionized, they said it would do no harm to stage a few plays about ghosts. You wanted to restrict bourgeois right? They said it was an excellent thing indeed and should be extended. They are a bunch of past masters at defending old things and, like a swarm of flies, buzz all day long over the “birth marks” and “defects” of the old society referred to by Marx. They are particularly keen on taking advantage of the inexperience of our young people to boost material incentive to them, saying that like strong bean-curd cheese, it stinks but tastes fine. And they invariably wave the banner of socialism while carrying on these dirty tricks. Aren’t there some scoundrels who, engaging in speculation, graft and theft, say that they are promoting socialist co-operation? Don’t some instigators of crime who poison the minds of young people hoist the banner of “care and love for the successors to the cause of communism”? We must study their tactics and sum up our experience so as to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie more effectively.

“Are you out to stir up a wind of ‘communization’?” To fabricate rumours by posing such a question is a tactic which some persons have resorted to recently. We can give a definite answer: The wind of “communization” as stirred up by Liu Shao-chi and Chen Po-ta shall never be allowed to blow again. We have always held that, instead of having too much in the way of commodities, our country has not yet a sufficient abundance of them. So long as the communes cannot yet offer much to be “communized” along with what the production brigades and teams would bring in, and enterprises under ownership by the whole people cannot offer a great abundance of products for distribution to each according to his needs among our 800 million people, we will have to continue practising commodity production, exchange through money and distribution according to work. We have taken and will continue to take proper measures to curb the harm caused by these things. The dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship by the masses. We are confident that under the leadership of the Party, the broad masses have the strength and the ability to fight against the bourgeoisie and finally vanquish it. Old China was a vast sea of small production. Conducting socialist education among several hundred million peasants is a serious question at all times and requires the endeavour of several generations. But among the several hundred million peasants, the poor and lower-middle peasants form the majority, and they know from practice that the only path to the bright future for them is to follow the Communist Party and keep on along the socialist road. Our Party has relied upon them to forge unity with the middle peasants for the step-by-step advance from mutual-aid teams to the elementary and advanced agricultural producers’ co-operatives and then to the people’s communes, and we can surely lead them in further advance.

We would rather call the attention of comrades to the fact that it is another kind of wind that is now blowing — the “bourgeois wind.” This is the bourgeois style of life Chairman Mao has pointed to, an evil wind stirred up by those “parts” of the people who have degenerated into bourgeois elements. The “bourgeois wind” blowing from among those Communists, particularly leading cadres, who belong to these “parts,” does us the greatest of harm. Poisoned by this evil wind, some people have got their heads full of bourgeois ideas; they scramble for position and gain and feel proud of this, instead of being ashamed. Some have sunk to the point of looking at everything as a commodity, themselves included. They join the Communist Party and go to work for the proletariat merely for the sake of upgrading themselves as commodities and asking the proletariat for a higher price. Those who are Communists in name but new bourgeois elements in reality exhibit the features of the decadent and moribund bourgeoisie as a whole. Historically, when the slave-owning, landlord and capitalist classes were in the ascendancy, they did some things of benefit to mankind. But today’s new bourgeois elements are heading in the opposite direction to their forefathers. They are nothing but a heap of “new” garbage that can only harm mankind. Among the rumour-mongers about a wind of “communization” being stirred up, some are new bourgeois elements who have taken public property into their private possession and fear that the people will “communize” it again; others want to use the chance to grab something for themselves. These people have a better nose than many of our comrades. Some of our comrades say that study is an “elastic” task that can yield precedence to others, whereas these people have sensed by instinct that the present study is an “inelastic” matter gravely confronting both classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Indeed they themselves may deliberately stir up some wind of “communization,” or take over one of our own slogans in order to confuse the two different types of contradictions and play some unexpected trick. This is worth watching.

Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, the mighty army of the proletarian revolution formed by China’s masses in their hundreds of millions is striding vigorously forward. We have 25 years of practical experience in exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as all the international experience since the Paris Commune, and so long as the few hundred members of our Party Central Committee and the several thousand senior cadres take the lead and join the vast numbers of other cadres and the masses in reading and studying assiduously, carrying on investigation and analysis and summing up experience, we can certainly translate Chairman Mao’s call into reality, gain clarity on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and ensure our country’s triumphant advance along the course charted by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” This infinitely bright prospect will surely continue to inspire growing numbers of awakened workers and other working people and their vanguard, the Communists, to keep to the Party’s basic line, persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through to the end! The extinction of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and the victory of communism are inevitable, certain and independent of man’s will.

Mao Zedong, ‘We Hope the Arab Countries Will Unite’

By | 05/04/2023

This is the main part of Mao Zedong’s talk with a visiting Syrian goodwill delegation.

All revolutionaries and political parties in Asia should unite against imperialism. The strength of one or two countries is insufficient, but they can become a formidable force by uniting together. The entire Arab world is confronting imperialism. We hope the Arab countries will unite.

The hands of the Americans stretch very far, committing aggression everywhere. In 1958 they landed in Lebanon and British troops landed in Jordan, thus creating a tense situation. They were compelled to withdraw only under the pressure of world public opinion. Subsequently, civil war broke out in Lebanon. The U.S. Sixth Fleet is in the Mediterranean Sea and its Seventh Fleet surrounds us. The U.S. has four fleets altogether: The Seventh Fleet is the biggest, then the Sixth Fleet; the Second Fleet is scattered along the U.S. West Coast, and it is the reserve force of the Seventh Fleet; the First Fleet is on the U.S. East Coast, as the reserve force of the Sixth Fleet. Moreover, the U.S. has military bases in Morocco, Libya and other places, while the U.K. also has such bases in Aden and the Persian Gulf.

In resisting Japanese imperialism we stood together with the U.S., U.K. and France. After the surrender of Japan the U.S. helped Chiang Kai-shek launch the civil war to attack us. The U.K. and France were at that time powerless to bother about our affairs. The United States didn’t directly participate in the war, only stationed some troops in harbors along the Chinese coast. They withdrew after we had annihilated Chiang Kai-shek’s several million troops and when we were about to liberate those harbors. We later encountered them again on the Korean battlefield and fought for three years. The Vietnamese people have also met them now. It seems that the United States is fond of making war. Korea and Vietnam are so distant from the U.S., yet it still sent troops there.

Both our countries were subjected to colonial oppression. You were under French domination, while we were under the domination of several imperialist powers. They divided China into spheres of influence, one for France, one for Britain and another for Japan. They were all expelled by us afterward. We fought against Japanese imperialism in the northeast for 14 years and in other places for eight years. Japanese imperialism helped us by causing China to unite against it, thus promoting the Chinese revolution. American troops are now occupying our Taiwan, South Korea and many places in Japan, as well as waging war in Vietnam. In fact, such behavior by the U.S. is teaching the Asian people they must unite and carry on a resolute struggle. For example, the Vietnamese people didn’t know how to fight a war before, but they are able to do so now. This is the advantage rendered us by imperialism. Imperialism also has its good side, don’t you agree?

Sometimes imperialism educates the people through its running dogs, such as China’s Chiang Kai-shek, who taught us how to fight by launching the civil war. A person like me was unable to fight, having never even thought of such a thing in the past. However, the running dogs of imperialism forced us to take up arms. There are now wars in Africa: in the Congo, Angola, Portuguese Guinea and elsewhere. Algeria obtained independence after fighting for eight years. War also broke out around the Suez Canal. You won independence when the French were forced to evacuate during the Second World War. Is that right?

We are different in appearance and in religious beliefs. I should say I have no religion, but this by no means hampers our cooperation. I believed in polytheism when I was a child and abandoned it as I grew up. China also has a God, but one different from yours; our god wears Chinese clothes. We help each other, support each other, and do not harm the other party. We won’t subvert you, nor you us. We are friendly countries and share a common objective: first, to oppose imperialism and, second, to build up our own country.

We support revolution wherever it takes place. Imperialism hates us very much, calling us bellicose. In fact, the problems of any country can be solved only by the revolution of the local people. External support, though necessary, is only secondary. For example, there are only 14 million people in South Vietnam, yet they are putting up a good fight.

The Arab people are very militant. If you unite, the imperialist conspiracy won’t succeed. It should be put this way, that every nation is militant, and victory can be obtained through unity and struggle. It’s only a matter of time. The victory of the revolution in China was obtained by undergoing 22 years of fighting: first against the domestic enemy, conducting the Long March, then against Japanese imperialism, and finally against the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries supported by the U.S. We also committed mistakes during this period, such as Rightist and “Leftist” opportunism. We won after our mistakes were corrected. A man invariably commits mistakes. A political party is like a man. It is impossible not to commit any mistakes at all.

Many examples have proved that imperialism can be defeated, and revolution will be triumphant.

(From the verbatim record)

Sweep Away All Monsters and Demons

By | 03/30/2023

An upsurge is occurring in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in socialist China whose population accounts for one quarter of the world’s total.

For the last few months, in response to the militant call of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao, hundreds of millions of workers, peasants and soldiers and vast numbers of revolutionary cadres and intellectuals, all armed with Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, have been sweeping away a horde of monsters that have entrenched themselves in ideological and cultural positions. With the tremendous and impetuous force of a raging storm, they have smashed the shackles imposed on their minds by the exploiting classes for so long in the past, routing the bourgeois “specialists,” “scholars,” “authorities” and “venerable masters” and sweeping every bit of their prestige into the dust.

Chairman Mao has taught us that class struggle does not cease in China after the socialist transformation of the system of ownership has in the main been completed. He said:

The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is still not really settled.

The class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has been very acute right through the sixteen years since China’s liberation. The current great socialist Cultural Revolution is precisely a continuation and development of this struggle. The struggle is inevitable. The ideology of the proletariat and the ideology of all the exploiting classes are diametrically opposed to each other and cannot coexist in peace. The Proletarian Revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploiting classes and all systems of exploitation; it is a most thoroughgoing revolution to bring about the gradual elimination of the differences between workers and peasants, between town and country, and between mental and manual laborers. This cannot but meet with the most stubborn from the exploiting classes.

In every revolution the basic question is that of state power. In all branches of the superstructure ideology, religion, art, law, state power — the central issue is state power. State power means everything, Without it, all will be lost. Therefore, no matter how many problems have to be tackled after the conquest of state power, the proletariat must never forget state power, never forget its orientation and never lose sight of the central issue. Forgetting about state power means forgetting about politics, forgetting about the basic theses of Marxism and switching to economism, anarchism and utopianism and becoming muddle-headed. In the last analysis, the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle for leadership. The exploiting classes have been disarmed and deprived of their authority by the people, but their reactionary ideas remain rooted in their minds. We have overthrown their rule and confiscated their property, but this does not mean that we have rid their minds of reactionary ideas as well. During the thousands of years of their rule over the working people, the exploiting classes monopolized the culture created by the working people and in turn used it to deceive, fool and benumb the working people in order to consolidate their reactionary state power. For thousands of years, theirs was the dominant ideology which inevitably exerted widespread influence in society. Not reconciled to the overthrow of their reactionary rule, they invariably try to make use of this influence of theirs surviving from the past to shape public opinion in preparation for the political and economic restoration of capitalism. The uninterrupted struggle on the ideological and cultural front in the sixteen years from liberation up to the current exposure of the black anti-Party and anti-socialist line of the “Three-Family Villages,” big and small, has been a struggle between the forces attempting restoration and the for! ces opposing restoration.

In order to seize state power, the bourgeoisie during the period of the Bourgeois Revolution likewise started with ideological preparations by launching the Bourgeois Cultural Revolution. Even the Bourgeois Revolution, which replaced one exploiting class by another, had to undergo repeated reversals and witness many struggles — revolution, then restoration and then the overthrow of restoration. It took many European countries hundreds of years to complete their bourgeois revolutions from the start of the ideological preparations to the final conquest of state power. Since the Proletarian Revolution is a revolution aimed at completely ending all systems of exploitation, it is still less permissible to imagine that the exploiting classes will meekly allow the proletariat to deprive them of all their privileges without seeking to restore their rule. The surviving members of these classes who are unreconciled will inevitably, as Lenin put it, throw themselves with a tenfold furious passion into the battle for the recovery of their lost paradise. The fact that the Khrushchev revisionist clique has usurped the leadership of the Party, army and state in the Soviet Union is an extremely serious lesson for the proletariat throughout the world. At present the representatives of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois “scholars” and “authorities” in China are dreaming precisely of restoring capitalism. Though their political rule has been toppled, they are still desperately trying to maintain their academic “authority,” mould public opinion for a comeback and win over the masses, the youth and the generations yet unborn from us.

The anti-feudal cultural revolution waged by the bourgeoisie ended as soon as it had seized power. The Proletarian Cultural Revolution, however, is a cultural revolution against the ideology of all exploiting classes. This Cultural Revolution is entirely different from the bourgeois cultural revolution. It is only after the creation of the political, economic and cultural prerequisites following the capture of state power by the proletariat that the broadest road is opened up for the Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

The Proletarian Cultural Revolution is aimed not only at demolishing all the old ideology and culture and all the old customs and habits, which, fostered by the exploiting classes, have poisoned the minds of the people for thousands of years, but also at creating and fostering among the masses an entirely new ideology and culture and entirely new customs and habits — those of the proletariat. This great task of transforming customs and habits is without any precedent in human history. As for all the heritage, customs and habits of the feudal and bourgeois classes, the proletarian world outlook must be used to subject them to thoroughgoing criticism. It takes time to clear away the evil habits of the old society from among the people. Nevertheless, our experience since liberation proves that the transformation of customs and habits can be accelerated if the masses are fully mobilized, the mass line is implemented and the transformation is made into a genuine mass movement.

As the Bourgeois Cultural Revolution served only a small number of people, i.e., the new exploiting class, only a small number of people could participate in it. The Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the broad masses of the working people and is in the interests of the working people who constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. It is therefore able to attract and unite the broad masses of the working people to take part in it. The bourgeois individuals who carried out the enlightenment invariably looked down upon the masses, treated them as a mob and considered themselves as the predestined masters of the people. In sharp contrast, proletarian ideological revolutionaries serve the people heart and soul with the object of awakening them, and work for the interests of the broadest masses.

The bourgeoisie, with its base selfishness, is unable to suppress its hatred for the masses. Marx said:

The peculiar nature of the material it [political economy] deals with, summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the furies of private interest.

This also holds for the bourgeoisie when it has been overthrown.

The scale and momentum of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution now being carried on in China have no parallel in history, and the tremendous drive and momentum and boundless wisdom of the working people manifested in the movement far exceed the imagination of the lords of the bourgeoisie. Facts have eloquently proved that Mao Tse-tung’s Thought becomes a moral atom bomb of colossal power once it takes hold of the masses. The current great cultural revolution is immensely advancing the socialist cause of the Chinese people and undoubtedly exerting an incalculable, far-reaching influence upon the present and future of the world.

The stormy Cultural Revolution now under way in our country has thrown the imperialists, the modern revisionists and the reactionaries of all countries into confusion and panic. At one moment, they indulge in wishful thinking saying that our Great Cultural Revolution has shown that there are hopes of “a peaceful evolution” on the part of China’s younger generation. A moment later, they become pessimistic, saying that all this has shown that Communist rule remains very stable. Then again, they seem to be fearfully puzzled, saying that it will never be possible to find genuine “China hands” who can promptly pass accurate judgment on what is taking place in China. Dear Sirs, your wishful thinking invariably runs counter to the march of the history. The triumphant progress of this great and unparalleled Cultural Revolution of the proletariat is already sounding the death knell not only of the remnant capitalist forces on Chinese soil, but of imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction. Your days are numbered.

Illuminated by the great Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, let us carry the Proletarian Cultural Revolution through to the end. Its victory will certainly further strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country, guarantee the completion of the socialist revolution on all fronts and ensure our successful transition from socialism to triumphant communism!

By | 03/29/2023

The victory or defeat of the revolution can be determined only over a long period of time. If it is badly handled, there is always the danger of a capitalist restoration. All members of the party and all the people of our country must not think that after one, two, three, or four great cultural revolutions there will be peace and quiet. They must always be on the alert and must never relax their vigilance.


The present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is only the first; there will inevitably be many more in the future. The issue of who will win in the revolution can only be settled over a long historical period. If things are not properly handled, it is possible for a capitalist restoration to take place at any time in the future.

(August 1967)