In reading through the issues of Peking Review since the revisionists have consolidated their hold in the Central Committee of the CPC, one is immediately struck by the absurdity of various ’statements* and ’actions’ attributed to the ’four’, their followers, and Mao Tse-tung. Many of these ’statements’ and ’actions’ are so unbelievable that they appear at first glance to be a joke. But there can be nothing funny about gross slander and lies made in the name of communism, and the international proletariat. Judge for yourself:
’Quotations’ from the ’four’:
. henceforth there will be a petticoat government (Chiang)[1]
. It’s a headache to see workers. (Chiang)[2]
. Let the mountains fall and the earth split, its of little importance. (the ’four’)[3]
. How to consolidate the regime, kill. (Chang)[4]
. We can set up our own models, why should we learn from others? (Chang)[5]
. When I die, Marx will not receive me. (Wang)[6]
. What does it matter if there is nothing to reap at harvest? (the ’four’)[7]
. Studying is useless. (Chang)[8]
’Actions’ by the ’four’:
. She became so frantic as to forbid the Tachai people to sing The East Is Red...she also forbade the children to wear the red scarf.[9]
. He (Wang) refused to go near the open-hearth furnace because of the heat and dirt...this scoundrel had others support him when he went up and down stairs.[10]
’Quotations’ from Mao Tse-tung:
. ...In his own handwriting, ’With you in charge I’m at ease.’[11]
. Don’t function as a gang of four, don’t do it any more, why do you keep doing it?[12]
. Shit! Barking up the wrong tree.[13]
. After I die, she will make trouble.[14]
Would any “plotting”, “scheming”, “bourgeois careerist” say: “It’s a headache to see workers”? Surely no one would be that stupid. Or how about: “When I die, Marx will not receive me”? As if there is a life after death! Clearly these ’statements’, ’actions’, and ’quotations’, along with many others, are one lie after another.
The above is not all; however, it should be obvious Hua and the revisionists are big-time liars and their words are not to be trusted. Revisionists and opportunist everywhere have a definite ’need’ to replace dialectical and historical materialism with some form of idealism because as representatives of the exploiting and oppressing classes their days are numbered and their ’cause’ is objectively doomed:
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.[15] (Yao Wen-yuan)
The extinction of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and the victory of communism are inevitable, certain and independent of man’s will.[16](Chang Chun-chiao)
Below, a detailed presentation is made of the particular schemes the revisionists have employed in their attack on genuine communists in the CPC and an analysis of the ideological and political line that is being attacked in fact.
“On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie” by Chang Chun-chiao is a brilliant scientific analysis of specifically why it is imperative to “persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through to the end!” (p. 10)
Chang begins by discussing the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the need to study and apply Marxist-Leninist theory in this regard, and the material basis for the restoration of capitalism. He then points out:
Lenin time and again stressed 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 proved by practice in subsequent years. Sure enough, the new bourgeois have been engendered in one batch after another, and their representative is none other than the Khrushchov-Brezhnev renegade clique. These people generally have a good class background; almost all of them have been brought up under the red flag; they have joined the Communist Party organizationally, received college training and become so-called red experts. But 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 but failed to accomplish. At no time should we forget this historical experience in which ’satellites went up to the sky while the red flag fell to the ground,’ especially at a time when we are determined to build a powerful country. (p. 6)
There is no doubt that Chang is emphasizing the importance of:‥exercising a protracted, all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie”; watching out especially for “new bourgeois” elements; and not to fall victim to the ’theory’ of the productive forces as the Soviet Union did. The “new bourgeois” elements in the CPC, whom Chang is rubbing the wrong way, say:
They (the Marxist-Leninists, known as the “gang of four” to the revisionists-ed.) were against promoting production and construction...According to their logic, when the ’satellites go up to the sky’ then inevitably ’the red flag will fall to the ground.’[17]
It is such a rare occurrence that the revisionists try directly to attack any theoretical work written by a Marxist-Leninist (and not without good reason,) that this statement bears examination. A thread running through the entire revisionist line is that the “gang” (of Marxist-Leninists) “were against promoting production and construction.”
What the revisionists ’forgot’ to include in their formulation was the word capitalist in between promoting and production. The ’crime’ of the Marxist-Leninists in general, was that they ’were against promoting capitalist production and construction,” and in particular, because they were ideologically and politically attacking the “new bourgeois” elements.
The revisionists tell us over and over again that it is they who are following “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought’, the ”gang of four” are “enemies of the people”, etc., etc. But it can be clearly seen from the above passage that the revisionists have deliberately distorted Chang’s words to suit their ’needs’, the ’needs’ of the new bourgeoisie and the process of the restoration of capitalism in China that is underway.
Further on, Chang correctly argues that the sources of capitalist restoration lie not only with imperialism and social-imperialism, the overthrown landlords and capitalists.
unreconciled to their defeat but also because new bourgeois elements are being engendered daily and hourly as Lenin put it. Some comrades argue Lenin was referring to the situation before co-operation. Lenin’s remarks are not out of date...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 relation of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base. (p. 6)
As you will see shortly, the revisionists Chang is arguing against objectively want a halt in the proletarian revolution and the forward line of march to communism. This can only mean a disintegration of the gains achieved under the dictatorship of the proletariat and the restoration of capitalism. There is no third road.
Next, Chang examines in detail the system of ownership in China (the length of this quote is unavoidable):
First, industry. Industry under ownership by the whole people accounted for 97 per cent of the fixed assets of industry as a whole, 63 percent of the industrial population, and 86 per cent of the value of total industrial output. Industry under collective ownership accounted for 3 per cent of the fixed assets, 36.2 per cent of the industrial population, and 14 per cent of the total output value. Besides these, individual handicraftsmen made up 0.8 per cent of the industrial population.
Next, agriculture. Among the agricultural means of productions 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. Those under 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 need and limited household side-line production.
Then commerce. State commerce accounted for 92.5 per cent of the total volume of retail sales, commercial enterprises under collective ownership for 7.3 per cent, and individual pedlars for 0.2 per cent. Apart from these, there still remained a 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 great victory in China.
However, we must see that the issue has not been entirely settled with respect to the system of ownership. We often say that the issue of the system of ownership ’has in the main been settled’; this means that it has not been settled entirely, neither has bourgeois right been totally abolished in the realm of the system of ownership.
The non-existence 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 society. Clearly we have not yet advanced to that stage. Neither in theory nor in practice should we overlook the very arduous tasks that lie ahead of the dictatorship of the proletariat in this respect. (p. 6-7)
Chang provides a concrete understanding of the system of ownership in China: “the issue of ownership ’has in the main been settled’” ’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 system of ownership in a socialist society...implies the conversion of all the means of production into the common property of the whole of society.”
It is especially important to note that with the system of ownership there is the question of which class owns and controls the means of production in fact, not just in form:
...the problem of the system of ownership as in all other problems, we should pay attention not only to its form but also to its actual content. It is perfectly correct for people to attach importance to the decisive role of the system of ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to attach no importance to whether the issue of the system of ownership has been resolved in form or in reality, to the reaction exerted on the system of ownership by the two other aspects of the relations of production–the relations between men and the form of distribution–and to the reaction exerted on the economic base by the superstructure; these two aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. The correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line, and the control of leadership in the hands of one class or another, decide which class owns a factory in reality. (p. 7)
The new bourgeoisie Chang is arguing against are particularly opposed to this line. They realize that if the proletariat exercises ownership and control over the means of production in fact this spells doom for their plans to maintain and expand “bourgeois right” and exploit and oppress the proletariat. This is a crucial struggle between the new bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the relations of production and the superstructure. This fierce class struggle found its expression in the recent struggle inside the CPC in which the new bourgeoisie launched a surprise attack on the Marxist-Leninists.
The form of distribution and the superstructure, particularly the existence of ’bourgeois right’ in these spheres, will be taken up in considerable detail when “On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique’ is analyzed. For now, it is sufficient to show that Chang’s formulation (“the relations among people and the form of distribution,..and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions”) is theoretically sound;
When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role...When the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive.[18]
Chang provides the following description of this phenomena:
Historically, every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement of slave system by feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was invariably preceeded by the seizure of political power which was then used to change the system of ownership on a big scale and consolidate and develop the new system of ownership. This is even more so with socialist public ownership which cannot be brought forth under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie...Likewise, a capitalist restoration is inevitably preceeded by the seizure of leadership and a change in the line and policies of the Party. (p. 7)
The central thrust of Chang’s essay is found in the following lengthy passage:
In The Class Struggles in France, 1648-1850, Marx deals in more specific terms with this dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of all class distinctions, 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, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations. Here Marx says ’all,’ and in all four places! Not a part, nor a greater 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 abolished on the earth so that it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes to exist or for new ones to arise, and we must not call a halt along the path of transition. In our view, only those who have such an understanding can grasp the essence of Marx’s teaching on the state. Comrades, please think it over. If the point is not grasped this way, if Marxism is to be limited, curtailed and distorted in theory and practice, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be turned into an empty phrase, or all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie rendered incomplete and exercised only in some but not all spheres, or only at some stages (for instance, before the transformation of the system of ownership) but not at all stages, or in other words, if the ’fortified villages’ of the bourgeoisie are not all destroyed but some are left to allow the bourgeoisie to expand its ranks again, doesn’t that mean to prepare the conditions for a bourgeois restoration? Doesn’t it mean to turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into something that protects the bourgeoisie, particularly the newly engendered bourgeoisie? All workers, all poor and lower-middle peasants and all other working people refuse to suffer once again, all Communists who dedicate 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 it is absolutely impermissible to give it up halfway. 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 stepped out of the confines of small production and of the bourgeoisie.
Historical experience also shows 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 for the restoration of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. (p. 9)
Chang is directing his fire against the bourgeoisie, particularly those in the Party. Is it any wonder that the new bourgeoisie in the Party attacked Chang and other Marxist-Leninists? Chang advances genuine proletarian science–communist thought. Compare the above with the following selection by the current authors of Peking Review, evidently intended to ’refute’ Chang’s line:
As though they had a strong desire to hasten the advent of communism, the ’gang of four’ waxed eloquent about eliminating bourgeois right, exercising ’all-round dictatorship’ over the bourgeoisie and sweeping away what they called the ’fortified villages’ of the bourgeoisie. But what they did far exceeded the limits of bourgeois right: In fact, they arrogated to themselves not only the prerogatives of the bourgeoisie, but those pertaining to feudal lords and slave-owners. They were hellbent on toppling the dictatorship of the proletariat, restoring capitalism, founding a new feudal dynasty with Chiang Ching as the empress and putting China under a fascist dictatorship.[19]
Notice the phrase “what they called ’fortified villages’ of the bourgeoisie” is designed to make the reader think that such things really do not exist. This is the kind of ’science’ the revisionists provide precisely because they are building ’fortified villages’ and crushing communists who stand in their way. Here is Chang’s description of the “fortified villages” of the bourgeoisie:
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 said that 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. This is also like sweeping the floor: as a rule, 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 when all but one have been destroyed, this last one will not vanish of itself if the iron broom of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not reach there. What Lenin said is entirely correct: ’For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential.’ (p. 8)
The revisionists can make light of their own “fortified villages” all they like: this will not prevent communists and advanced workers from seeing through their schemes and taking the lead in storming all “fortified villages” ideologically, politically, and organizationally Until the last one falls, never to rise again – until the final victory of world communism!
The revisionists would like everyone to believe “There is nothing in the writings of the ’gang of four.’” But communists and advanced workers everywhere will study and learn from them!
The revisionists say “what they actually did far exceeded bourgeois right; in fact, they arrogated to themselves not only the preregatives of the bourgeoisie, but those pertaining to feudal lords and slave owners. How did they do this one might ask? To doubt the revisionists are sure to tell a long fairy tale about it some day. But since the subject of “slave owners” has been mentioned a momentary digression into the slave-owning mentality of the revisionists, as it concerns women, is in order.
The article “In Memory of Martyr Yang Kai-hui”[20] is a “story” about Mao Tse-tung’s first wife who was executed by the Kuomintang. The reader learns that she was “inspired ideologically by Chairman Mao”...“assisted him in expanding the Party”...“travelled with Chairman Mao”...“accompanied Chairman Mao home”...“helped Chairman Mao in Party building and starting peasants’ struggles there”...“following Chairman Mao’s instructions went underground”...“always enthusiastically supported him politically, helped him financially, day and night she helped Chairman Mao collate and copy documents and sometimes did sentry duty herself...” (p. 19) A ’good slave,’ as you will note, knows her place’ and how to be loyal, obedient, and take good care of her ’master.’ Never does she disagree with him or have an original idea.
The reader also learns that Chiang Ching sabotaged the building of a memorial park in her honor (fortunately Hua Kuo-feng came to the rescue in 1969). Chiang Ching was not a ’good slave’:
She was extremely hostile to Chairman Mao and on many occasions sabotaged and interfered with the treatment of his illness. When Chairman Mao was seriously ill, she stopped at nothing to persecute him with the result his conditions quickly deteriorated. (p. 20)
What is Chiang Ching like? “Chiang Ching is a devil with a human face and a heart of a beast...and even dreamt of becoming ’an empress.’” (p. 20)
In the follow-up article “Chiang Ching and Empress Lu”[21] (which is over-all quite instructive concerning the slave-owning mentality of the revisionists but only one aspect will be examined in full here) the revisionists write:
When we look at the historical records and find out the facts, we can strip off Chiang Ching’s mask and expose what kind of woman she really is, namely, a bourgeois careerist and conspirator vainly trying to usurp Party and state power. (p. 23)
This phrase “what kind of woman she really is” reveals deep-seated male chauvinism. Why bring up a person’s sex? To degrade the entire sex. This is by no means the full extent of the male chauvinist attacks launched against Chiang (objectively against all women and the international proletariat).
In the article “The People of Tachai and Hsiyang Denounce the ’Gang of Four’”[22] the revisionists write:
This anti-Party woman who bragged she was ’the standard bearer of the revolution in literature and art’ came to Tachai... and spent every night enjoying imported obscene films. (p. 7)
Chang was right when he wrote:
Those who are Communist in name but new bourgeois elements in reality exhibit the features of the decadent and moribund bourgeoisie as a whole.[23]
Finally, in the article “Chiang Ching: A Political Swindler”[24] the vulgar revisionists write:
The modern play Sai-Chin-Hua staged in Shanghai around that time (1936) was a specimen of ’national defense drama’ advocating national betrayal. Sai-Chin-Hua was a traitor prostitute who sold herself body and soul to the German commander Waldese of the combined forces of eight imperialist countries which invaded Peking in 1900...When the play was readied Chiang Ching fought for the title role. When the director decided her acting was not up to it and gave her a minor role, she raised a big uproar...Chiang Ching in the 60s and 70s was exactly what she was in the 30s. (p. 23)
Chiang Ching ’aspired’ to be a “traitor prostitute” so you see there is no ’need’ to discuss the actual form and content of art and literature in China during the “60s and 70s.” The only thing that is necessary is to reverse the correct verdicts of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
Yao hit the nail on the head when he said:
Once in power, the new bourgeoisie will start with sanguinary suppression of the people and the restoration of capitalism in the superstructure including all spheres of ideology and culture.[25]
It has been demonstrated in the sharpest possible terms who has the “slave owners” mentality: the new bourgeoisie in the form of the revisionists in power!
A favorite scheme of the revisionists has also been exposed i.e. to sling mud everywhere to avoid principled struggle against the Marxist-Leninist line. This is to be expected. Revisionists and opportunists have to resort to vulgar deceptions and lies in a futile attempt to cover the reactionary social basis they represent.
Although there are other important points in “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie” it is necessary to focus on the sure signs of the growth of the bourgeoisie in the CPC described by Chang:
We would rather call comrades’ attention to the fact that it is another kind of wind which is blowing – the ’bourgeois’ wind. This is the bourgeois style of life Chairman Mao has pointed out, 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 those ’parts’ does the greatest harm to us. Poisoned by this evil wind, some people are permeated with bourgeois ideas: they scramble for fame and gain and feel proud instead of ashamed of this. Some have reached the point of looking at everything as a commodity, including themselves. They join the Communist Party and do some work for the proletariat merely for the sake of upgrading themselves as commodities and asking the proletariat for higher prices. Those who are Communists in name but new bourgeois elements in reality manifest the features of the decadent and moribund bourgeoisie as a whole. (p. 10)
True representatives of the proletariat do not tolerate ’bourgeois right’ and ’privileges’ within the ranks of the proletarian party. To tolerate ’bourgeois right’ and ’privileges’ with the ranks of the proletarian party can only lead to degeneration. To understand the crucial significance of this question, (There is also a good description of the problem by Engels and an important footnote by Lenin on page 92, State and Revolution, Peking Edition) here is Lenin’s analysis:
In this connection the following measures of the Commune emphasized by Marx are particularly noteworthy: the abolition of all presentation allowances, and of all monetary privileges in the case of officials, the reduction of the remuneration of all servants of the state to the level of ’workmen’s wages.’ This shows more clearly than anything else the turn from bourgeois democracy to proletarian democracy, from the democracy of the oppressors to the democracy of the oppressed classes, from the state as a ’special force’ for the suppression of a particular class to the suppression of the oppressors by the general force of the majority of the people – the workers and peasants. And it is precisely on this particularly striking point, perhaps the most important as far as the problem of the state is concerned, that the teachings of Marx have been most completely forgotten! In popular commentaries, the number of which is legion, this is not mentioned. It is ’good form’ to keep silent about it as if it were a piece of old-fashioned ’naivete,’ just as the Christians, after their religion had been given the status of a state religion, ’forgot’ the ’naivete’ of primitive Christianity with its democratic revolutionary spirit.[26] (bold type rather than underlined in text–ed.)
It is imperative to dwell on this “particularly striking point perhaps the most important as far as the problem of the state is concerned. The teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin “have been most completely forgotten!” by those who pretend to be communists. The bourgeoisie does not ’ forget’ these teachings it keeps them in mind and goes against them at every opportunity. It is the petty-bourgeoisie that sees “no harm” in a few “minor” privileges. Yes, there must be a clear ideological understanding of “this particularly striking point” but there must also be the “iron broom” of proletarian dictatorship! And it must be relentless in eliminating the slightest signs of privileges anywhere in the ranks of the party. The bourgeoisie must not be allowed to grow in the ranks of the party. Once the bourgeoisie has “minor” privileges “confirmed” it will inevitably want and take more, slowly turning the party into a parasite over the proletariat. Eventually the bourgeoisie, if not ruthless suppressed, will demand and take complete political rule. This process has already taken place in the Soviet Union. The essential features of this process will be dealt with in future writings.
This process is also taking place in China. Bear in mind Chang wrote about the “bourgeois” wind blowing in the Party, especially from “leading cadres” almost two years. The revisionists naturally take great offense to Chang and other Marxist-Leninists and write:
Comrade Hua Kuo-feng’s speech at the meeting on the criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping in February this year (1976) was discussed and endorsed by the Political Bureau and had Chairman Mao’s approval. The speech clearly pointed out that the movement should be conducted under the centralized leadership of the Party committees at all levels and that no attempt should be made to ferret out Teng’s agents at various levels. Trying to undermine the Party’s centralized leadership, the ’gang of four1 went their own way and put in their oar everywhere and clamoured for ferreting out people at all levels and even ’a layer of persons,’ in an attempt to overthrow a large number of Party, government and army leading comrades at the central and local levels.[27]
It is Important to note that “no attempt should be made to ferret out Teng’s agents at various levels.” If this statement is true it only proves that the revisionists occupied a dominant position in the Political Bureau. What other reason could there be for not clearing “out Teng’s agents at various levels” and moving against the “bourgeois” wind? Communists are vitally interested in exposing and purging all bourgeois agents and the bourgeoisie in the ranks of the party. Only revisionists and opportunists oppose this. As Stalin sharply points out:
The theory of ’defeating’ the opportunists elements by ideological struggle within the Party, the theory of ’overcoming’ these elements within the confines of a single party, is a rotten and dangerous theory, which threatens to condemn the Party to paralysis and chronic infirmity, threatens to make the Party prey to opportunism, threatens to leave the proletariat without a revolutionary party, threatens to deprive the proletariat of its main weapon in the fight against imperialism.[28]
And to “deprive the proletariat” of a revolutionary party can only mean to turn the proletarian party into a revisionist party. The ’crime’ of the Marxist-Leninists in the CPC was that they tried “to usurp Party and state power” from the revisionists. While the real criminals are the new bourgeoisie who usurped “Party and state power” from the proletariat!
This concludes the presentation of “On Exercising Ail-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie.” It is no wonder that the revisionists only take small pokes at this fine Marxist-Leninist work and failed miserably doing so, exposing themselves even further in the process.
Another excellent Marxist-Leninist work written by the “gang” (of leading communists) is “On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique” by Yao Wen-yuan. The revisionists desperately try to attack this work labelling it an “an anti-Party article” on the pretext that it was written “to oppose empiricism”[29] (meaning the revisionists in fact!). As you will soon see this is another disaster for the revisionists. But first, it is essential to understand specifically why this article was attacked. For this, a review of the “anti-Party article” is in order.
Yao summarizes why he wrote this article in his opening remarks:
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 came 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 Piao’? 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. (p. 5)
Next, Yao provides a general outline of this social basis:
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...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...It is precisely this latter aspect that merits our further analysis. (p. 5)
The one thing that the bourgeoisie must defend and try to slavage at all costs is “bourgeois right.” Without bourgeois right the bourgeoisie is denied an economic basis for existence. So when Yao launches an incisive attack on the material basis of the bourgeoisie a counter attack by the bourgeoisie is a natural and inevitable response. Yao points out:
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 stale organs there are people who follow the bourgeois style of life.”
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. STATE AND REVOLUTION, P. l12.
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 ef money, which are scarcely different from those 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.” (p. 6)
Then, Yao goes on to explain why “bourgeois right” must be restricted and the inevitable consequences of failing to take up this struggle correctly:
In socialist society, there still exist two kinds of socialist ownership, namely, ownership by the whole 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 making public property into private property, speculation, grail and corruption, theft and bribery will rise; ihe capitalist principle of the exchange of commodities will make its way into political life and 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 id 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. (p.5-6)
As you can see this is an “anti-Party article” precisely because it directs the spotlight on the activities of the new bourgeoisie and demonstrates their results. The new bourgeoisie always show “particular bitter hatred for certain restrictions placed on bourgeois right through the socialist revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country.” (p. 7)
Yao continues with a detailed explanation of the counter-revolutionary activities of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique, particularly drawing attention to the use of “material incentives” to “win over” certain sections of the people. He then states:
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, 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. (p. 8-9)
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 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 rind 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 over 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!” (p. 9-10)
Next, some ’theoretical’ attacks by the revisionists against the Marxist-Leninists in the CPC. The revisionists who have “usurped Party and state power” from the proletariat say that Chang:
praised to the skies the anti-Party article “On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique” written by his cohort Yao Wen-yuan to oppose ’empiricism.’[30]
It should be no surprise that there is not a single mention of “bourgeois right” in the entire article quoted above. An extensive presentation was made of this “anti-Party article” (of course, to the revisionists it is just that). The revisionists dismiss it in one sentence because, according to them, it was written “to oppose empiricism.” Many a gullible reader with a petty bourgeois and idealist world outlook will ’accept’ this, and whatever the revisionists say, as the ’correct line’ without a scientific Investigation (which would certainly prove otherwise).
The truth of the matter is that Yao wrote the article precisely to expose: the social basis of revisionism within the Party i.e. the new bourgeoisie; the economic basis of the new bourgeoisie i.e. “bourgeois right”; the material tasks in fighting the new bourgeoisie i.e. the restriction of “bourgeois right”; the ideological tasks in fighting revisionism i.e. to “study Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought” (p. 9) and “integrate theory and practice.” (p. 10) All these areas are taken up in their particularities, their interconnections, with concrete examples.
In the ideological sphere Yao stresses the importance of Marxist-Leninist theory in the struggle against revisionism in general and empiricism in particular. This in no way negates the struggle against revisionism or “revisionism is the main danger.” What it does is provide a concrete understanding of how to take up the struggle against revisionism.
Chang points out in “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie” the “new bourgeois elements” have...
...a better nose than many of our comrades. Some of our comrades say that study is a flexible task, whereas those people have sensed by instinct that the current study is an inflexible task for both classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They may indeed stir up some wind of ’communization’ or take over one of our slogans deliberately to confuse the two different types of contradictions and create some trouble. This merits our attention. (p. 10)
Keep in mind the tactic of taking “over one of our slogans” because this is what the revisionists repeatedly do. For example:
The fact is that Tachai, following Chairman Mao’s teachings, had steadily strengthened the all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and imposed certain necessary restrictions on bourgeois right, and this had offended the ’gang of four.’[31]
This demagogic and idealist statement, and others like it, try to make it appear that the revisionists are ’upholding’ a correct line and the Marxist-Leninists did not. Yet, as shown earlier Chang and Yao did exactly the opposite of what the revisionist say.
Another charge against the Marxist-Leninists is that:
By making anti-empiricism the ’key link’ Chang Chun-chiao openly opposed Chairman Mao’s consistent teaching that class struggle should be the key link and negated the Party’s basic line. Chang Chun-chiao did all this in an attempt to stamp out the struggle waged by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie so that he and his cohorts could have a free hand in attacking the proletariat. This really was most reactionary.[32] (emphasis ours)
Even if the above assertion was true the revisionists turn around and do the same thing themselves. Certainly if this line was advanced it would have appeared in the pages of Peking Review before the revisionists seizure of power. In any event, pretend for a moment this is a true assertion.
The contradiction between socialism and capitalism, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and between Marxism and revisionism at present is epitomized in the contradiction between our Party and the ’gang of four’...we firmly grasp the key link namely the thorough exposure and criticism of the ’gang of four.’[33] (emphasis ours)
Should it be said that the new bourgeoisie is attempting to substitute “exposure and criticism of the ’gang of four’ is the key link” for “class struggle is the key link”? No! The new bourgeoisie agrees that the principal contradiction in Socialist society is between the proletariat and itself. That is why they attack the true representatives of the proletariat!
Class struggle is the key link” in everything. However, the use of “key link” may be given the orientation of singling out a particular strategic task. This is what the Party of Labour of Albania does:
Although each of the strategic tasks is equally important (all strategic tasks must be completed in interconnection-ed.) this does not hinder the working class Party at a given stage from bringing to the fore one of its strategic tasks, taking this as a main link on which the whole chain depends, to ensure the accomplishment of all the tasks, both strategic and tactical.[34]
Stalin in Foundation of Leninism gives the “key link” a tactical orientation:
To locate at any given moment the particular link in the chain of processes which, if grasped, will enable us to keep hold of the whole chain and to prepare the conditions for achieving strategic success. (p. 94)
What does all this mean? It means that the new bourgeoisie, in saying that Chang was attempting to negate “class struggle is the key link” with “anti-empiricism is the key link,” has dished up a completely bankrupt formulation. Chang was right when he said the “new bourgeois” elements may deliberately try to confuse two different types of contradictions! This is also a good example of a trick used by the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique: “using expertise to cover up politics.”[35]
Is there any doubt that as far as the struggle against revisionism is concerned that “empiricism” was the “main danger”?
The revisionists also say that the “gang” of Marxist-Leninists were actually dogmatists because they “talked about opposing empiricism” but “did not oppose dogmatism.” Not more than one paragraph later in the sane article the revisionists write:
The ’gang of four’ knew nothing about farming, industrial production, or military affairs. They had no practical experience whatsoever; they had experience only in plotting and conspiring. As Chairman Mao pointed out in his directive, they did not know Marxism-Leninism at all but always considered themselves in the right and were ready at all times to lecture others. They were typical subjective idealists. They shammed opposition to empiricism but really practiced idealism.[36]
Let’s see: ...no...whatsoever...all...always...all...only...
The leading traitor Hua makes a similar assertion:
Ideologically, they substituted idealism and metaphysics for materialism and dialectics. Chairman Mao sharply criticized them, pointing out: “Metaphysics, onesidedness is rampant.” In all spheres of ideology and culture, they wantonly distorted Marxism...[37]
The only thing these charges do is fall back on the heads of the revisionists. Even one example of Wang Hung-wen is enough to reverse these lies. Wang is a proletarian who worked in the No. 17 State Cotton Mill, dared to resist capitalist-roaders during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and was brought into the Central Committee by Mao Tse-tung. This only proves it is the revisionists who are subjective idealists. Yes, “Metaphysics onesidedness is rampant” among the new bourgeoisie who are suppressing the Marxist-Leninists!
In the article “Obey the Party Central Committee Headed by Chairman Hua in All Our Actions”3o provides the most outstanding exposition of the idealism of the new bourgeoisie:
HISTORY, in the final analysis, develops in accordance with the will and wishes of the people. The great leader Chairman Mao fully expressed the aspirations of the Chinese people in their hundreds of millions when in April this year he proposed that Comrade Hua Kuo-feng be the First Vice-Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and Premier of the State Council. (p. 8)
We can interpret this in two ways: one, after considering all the factors involved we arrive at the idealist conception of history” or, two history develops toward the realization of Hegel’s “absolute Idea.” In either case, the first sentence of this quote particularly represents the idealist world outlook. With this outlook “anything is possible” including the restoration of capitalism which it is designed to serve. With this idealist world outlook there is every indication that the Collected Works of Mao Tse-tung will continue to ’expand’ or be ’modified’ (develop according to the will and wishes of the new bourgeoisie) under Chairman Hua’s ’guidance’.
Immediately after smashing the ’gang of four’ the Central Committee adopted the decision on the publication of the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung and the preparation of the Collected Works of Mao Tse-tung...This will be a great event in the political life of our people as well as in the annals of the development (read: total betrayal–ed.) of Marxism. Volume V of the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung will be of extremely great significance for guiding the thorough criticism of the ’gang of four’ the building of our Party and the socialist revolution and socialist construction (read; restoration of capitalism–ed.) of our country and will exert most profound (revisionist–ed.) influence internationally.[38]
As every Marxist-Leninist knows HISTORY “in the final analysis” develops according to objective scientific laws independent of the will of man. The subjective factor, consciousness, is a reflection of the objective factor and accelerates or retards the objective development but does not determine it. Otherwise, there is no such thing as scientific socialism. Communism becomes a dream rather than a certainty.
Perhaps, the revisionists could write an article about Khrushchov since they are so good at telling fairy tales...
The people of the Soviet Union grew tired of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism on the road to communism. Khrushchov happened along one day and ’HISTORY’ developed ’in accordance with the will and wishes of the people.’ Before long, capitalism was completely restored... and so the people of the Soviet Union lived unhappily ever after.[39]
Now that the ideology of the revisionists is clearly understood the attention is on their political programme. It should be obvious by now that their ’maximum programme” is the complete restoration of capitalism, developing ”in accordance with the will and wishes” of the new bourgeoisie. This will be carried out under the ’theory’ of the productive forces (as the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the CPC repeatedly charged).
As Hua said:
Revolution means liberating the productive forces. The great revolution which has smashed the ’gang of four’ has done away with a bane which disrupted the productive forces and obstructed their growth.[40]
The Marxist-Leninists opposed the expansion of “bourgeois right” and the inevitable growth of the forces of capitalism that follow, therefore, they had to be suppressed. This is the real meaning of Hua’s statement and no amount of idealism can alter this objective fact. There are a few hints of ’liberating the productive forces’’ of capitalism elsewhere:
We will energetically grasp revolution and promote production and develop the national economy at the quickest possible speed (using “material incentives”, expanding “bourgeois right”, etc.-ed.) so as to contribute our share in building China into a powerful socialist country with a modern agriculture, industry, national defense and science and technology before the end of this century.[41]
We must step up the pace of farm mechanization. Damage has been done to our iron and steel industry in the last few years as a result of interference and sabotage by the ’gang of four,’ which affected the progress of farm mechanization. We must race against time, surmount all difficulties and resolutely push forward farm mechanization work.[42]
The revisionists are not going to spell it out, just yet, this would expose them too badly. But give them time.
The political line of the revisionists is in essence the same line as Teng advanced, which was:
The programme of ’taking the three directives as the key link’ was dished up last summer with ulterior motives by that unrepentant capitalist-roader. It is a distortion of Chairman Mao’s instructions by putting his directives on stability and unity and on pushing the national economy forward on a par with the directive on studying the theory of the proletarian dictatorship and combatting and preventing revisionism, describing all three as ’the key link.’
Chairman Mao recently pointed out: “What ’taking the three directives as the key link’! Stability and unity do not mean writing off class struggle; class struggle is the key link and everything else hinges on it.” This important directive of Chairman Mao has penetratingly exposed the programme of ’taking the three directives as the key link’ as an out-and-out revisionist programme negating the taking of class struggle as the key link. The essence of this programme is to restore capitalism.[43]
Currently, this same line takes the following form;
In his speech, Chairman Hua pointed out that it is a strategic policy decision by the Party Central Committee to achieve stability and unity in our country, consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and bring about great order across the land in the course of acute struggles between the classes...The implementation of this strategic policy demands that we firmly grasp the key link, namely, the thorough exposure and criticism of the ’gang of four.’[44]
The “strategic policy”...“to achieve stability and unity” can only mean to consolidate the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Stability and unity are in fact relative while instability and disunity are absolute. It is necessary for the new bourgeoisie to “firmly grasp the key link, namely, the thorough exposure and criticism” and suppression of the Marxist-Leninists who dared to go against the tide in order to accomplish its “strategic policy” i.e. the complete restoration of capitalism.
As Wang Hung-wen pointed out:
...there are still a small number of cadres, especially some leading cadres, who will not tolerate differing views of the masses inside or outside the Party. Then even suppress criticism and retaliate, and it is quite serious in some individual cases. In handling problems among the people, Party discipline absolutely forbids such wrong practices as resorting to ’suppression if unable to persuade, and arrest if unable to suppress.’[45]
Isn’t this an excellent description of what Hua and the “gang” of revisionists did? But with the Marxist-Leninists arrested, suppressed, or killed the revisionists currently have the upper hand and are determined to ’mount violent attacks on the ’gang of four’ anti-Party clique and sweep away all these pests.”[46] However, the stability of the “gang” of revisionists is relative while their overthrow is absolute.
Is it not clear why the revisionists wanted “no attempt to ferret out Teng’s agents at various levels”? Remember Teng? Criticism of Teng has dropped from sight in the pages of Peking Review. It is only a matter of time until Teng is back in the Party heirarchy.
The revisionists charge the Marxist-Leninists with trying to overthrow “large number of revolutionary cadres” who the Marxist-Leninists said were ’bourgeois democrats and capitalist roaders.”[47] If only they had succeeded!!
Instead, “Led by our wise leader Chairman Hua, we have begun a new march forward, a great undertaking to carry on the unfinished task and blaze the way to the future.”[48]
The revisionists have indeed started a “new march” only it is BACKWARD – toward the complete restoration of capitalism. The Chinese proletariat has an “unfinished task”; the overthrow of the revisionists!
The only principled course of action for communists is an open and resolute break with the CPC and an ideological and political struggle against the revisionists.
[1] Peking Review # 46, Nov. 12, 1976, p. 6
[2] Ibid, # 50, Dec 10, 1976, P. 17.
[3] Ibid, # 48, Nov. 26, 1976, P. 14
[4] Ibid, # 52, Dec 24, 1976, P. 10
[5] Ibid, # 6, Feb. 4, 1977, P. 9
[6] Ibid, # 6, Feb. 4, 1977, P. 13
[7] Ibid, #7 Feb. 11, 1977, P. 11
[8] Ibid, # 8, Feb. 18, 1977, P. 13
[9] Ibid, # 46, Nov. 12, 1976, P. 6
[10] Ibid, # 50, Dec. 10, 1976, P. 17
[11] Ibid, # 44, Oct. 29, 1976, P. 12
[12] Ibid, # 44, Oct. 29, 1976, P. 13
[13] Ibid, #2, Jan. 7, 1977, P. 7
[14] Ibid, # 3, Jan. 14, 1977, P. 29
[15] Yao Wen-yuan, “On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique”, Peking Review, Mar. 7, 1975, p. 10
[16] Chang Chun-chiao, “On Exercising Ail-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie”, Peking Review, Apr. 4, 1975, p. 11
[17] Peking Review, # 48, Nov. 26, 1976, p. 13
[18] Mao Tse-tung, “On Contradiction”, Four Essays on Philosophy, p. 58
[19] Peking Review, # 7, Feb. 11, 1977, p. 11
[20] Ibid, # 52, Dec. 24, 1976, p. 19
[21] Ibid, # 52, Dec. 24, 1976, p. 21
[22] Ibid, # 46, Nov. 12, 1976, p. 6
[23] Chang Chun-chiao, “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie”, Peking Review, Apr. 4, 1975, p. 10
[24] Peking Review, #7, Feb. 11, 1977, p. 15
[25] Yao Wen-yuan, “On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique”, Peking Review, Mar. 7, 1975, p. 6
[26] V. I. Lenin, State and Revolution, p. 51
[27] Peking Review, #2, Jan. 7, 1977, p. 9
[28] J. V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, p. 116
[29] Peking Review, # 50, Dec. 10, 1976, p. 13
[30] Ibid, # 50, Dec. 10, 1976, p. 13
[31] Ibid, # 46, Nov. 12, 1976, p. 6
[32] Ibid, # 50, Dec. 10, 1976, p. 14
[33] Ibid, # 8, Feb. 18, 1977, P. 6
[34] “The Vanguard of the Revolution and Socialist Construction”, Albania Today, 1972
[35] Yao Wen-yuan, “On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique”, Peking Review, Mar. 7, 1975, P. 9
[36] Peking Review, # 50, Dec. 10, 1976, p. 14
[37] Ibid, # 49, Dec. 3, 1976, p. 7
[38] Ibid, # 49, Dec. 3, 1976, p. 8
[39] Ibid, # 1, Jan. 1, 1977, P. 43 (Hua Kuo-feng)
[40] Ibid, # 1, Jan. 1, 1977, p. 41
[41] Ibid, # 49, Dec. 3, 1976, p. 12
[42] Ibid, # 2, Jan. 7, 1977, P. 14
[43] Ibid, # 14, Apr. 2, 1976, p. 6
[44] Ibid, # 8, Feb.18, 1977, P. 6
[45] Wang Hung-wen, “Report on the Revision of the Party Constitution”, The Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, (Documents), 1973, p. 55
[46] Peking Review, # 44, Oct. 29, 1976, p. 21
[47] Ibid, # 50, Dec. 10, 1976, p. 14
[48] Ibid, # 8, Feb. 18, 1977, P. 7