[A-List] to make China a pure 'socialist' country

[Waistline2 at aol.com]

Calling China fascist is offensive. First things first.  
 
Fifty years ago, the Soviet Communist Bolsheviks specifically requested  that 
communist’s world wide ex-communicate the Khrushchev grouping from the  
international communist movement. In their criticism of the Khrushchev clique,  the 
last grouping of “Soviet Communist Bolsheviks,” spoke of the critical role  
that communists in Britain, Australia and America must play. America’s  
historical communist movement could not make heads or tails of the complex of  
struggle unfolding in the Soviet Union and consequently could not come to the  aid 
of the Soviet proletariat. 

Ma Bin, et al, “Open Letter” to  “General Secretary Hu Jintao and the CPC 
Central Committee Political Bureau  Standing Committee Members, Members and 
alternates” is not only extraordinary as  a political document with an immediate 
impact but bears a striking resemblance  to the document written by the Soviet 
Communist. Yet there is a difference  between the “Open Letter” and the 
document of the Soviet Communist Bolsheviks  that cannot be ignored. 

The “Open Letter” is an internal document  by CPC members written for CPC 
members and all communists within the  multinational state of China. The Soviet 
document was specifically written for  an international audience and 
painstakingly described the context of the  emergence of its caricature of the 
bourgeoisie - a petty bourgeoisie, attuned to  and seeking political and economic 
alliance with world capitalism as a basis for  internal political stability. .It 
is necessary to reprint exactly what the  Soviet Communists Bolsheviks stated: 

“From the moment that the  authority and the material and ideological 
influence of the Soviet State was  transformed absolutely and totally into a weapon 
for the affirmation of  revisionism in the Communist movement, the 
disengagement of all true  revolutionaries from the present leadership of the Union of 
Soviet Socialist  Republics became inevitable, a harsh necessity. There was a 
time when the  Russian Revolution, at the cost of innumerable losses, alone held 
the field of  battle for the proletarians of the all countries and when, at 
the beginning of  the 20th century, it held high the banner of great 
revolutionary battles. Today  the international Communist movement must come to the aid 
of the Russian  Revolution and help the Soviet State. All that is required is 
the frank  excommunication of the revisionist leaders of the CPSU from the 
ranks of  Communism, the unqualified demand for their removal from leadership. 
Such a  demand would be proof of the tremendous force and development of the 
world  Communist movement. It would be welcomed by the workers of the Soviet Union 
as  an act of revolutionary solidarity, because the Soviet people have always 
looked  upon the Soviet Union as the first citadel of the Communist 
International.”  
(Program and Principles of Revolutionary Soviet Communists (Bolsheviks) page  
41.) 

Today, there is no organizational framework for an  international communist 
movement, although an infrastructure and political basis  exists for one. 
Perhaps, hard pressed Cuba and Venezuela will provide the  catalyst. Thus, the 
words of individuals and various Marxist circles should be  carefully considered 
in evaluating events and political documents that originate  from within the 
Communist Party of China. 

The Soviets asked for  help from within the ruling party, with a stated view 
that the Soviets were the  cherished product of the sum total of the 
international working class movement.  The “Open Letter” does not seek or ask that 
communist world wide insert  themselves into the CPC inner party discussion. It 
is necessary to quote another  passage from the old Soviet Communists. 

Quote - “There is no doubt  whatsoever that the isolation of the revisionist 
leadership of the Communist  Party of the Soviet Union from the ranks of the 
Communist Parties would also  render them completely powerless inside the 
Soviet Union. In fact, the  revisionist clique of the U.S.S.R. remains on its feet 
only because although our  people are completely aware of the egotistical and 
rotten nature of the Soviet  bureaucrats, they have not yet understood the 
question from a class point of  view, they do not yet understand the need to 
pursue the struggle without mercy  to the end. To infuse this consciousness in 
them it is necessary to place the  revisionists in a catastrophic situation, for 
in a country like the U.S.S.R.  they could not remain in power for even one 
hour by force of arms. But do the  objective conditions necessary for the 
overthrow of the revisionists in fact  exist in the U.S.S.R.? The Marxist-Leninists 
in other countries do not know  intimately the feelings and life of the Soviet 
workers and by judging the state  of public opinion on the basis of press 
reports alone, could overestimate the  strength of the revisionists (for 
example, the significance of the  petty-bourgeois nonsense which fills our 
literature). The Marxist-Leninists of  other countries must understand that all that 
represents is just scum floating  on the surface.” (End quote) 

Therefore, to speak of regime change  in China, from within the imperial 
centers, is a horrible mistake with political  consequences. It is inexcusable for 
communists in America and the imperial  centers to speak in a manner that 
disregard the stated difference between the  Soviet document and the “Open Letter.
”  

Communists of the  Marxist bent must at least attempt to acquire the basic 
political skills and  insight of the average trade unionists and call upon our 
150 years experience of  communist organization. How did Marx and Engels wage 
the inner party struggle?  What are the lessons of Lenin? What are the lessons 
of the Stalin period and the  rich history of three communist internationals? 
The Soviet experience is  critical. China is experiencing a Soviet phase. 

The inner party  struggle is a very complex thing precisely because political 
organizations  contain logic movement, that all communists who have been in 
communists groups  should instinctively understand. It is quite easy to 
understand a physical  reaction resulting from a physical attack. But this question 
becomes much more  complex in the class struggle, in which a particular 
political act may not have  any direct result until many years later. To build 
industry in the Soviet Union  wasn't it necessary to exert the greatest efforts and 
undergo the most  incredible hardships in the face of various ideological and 
political currents  demanding retreat and carrying the revolution to the 
advanced imperial centers,  when the workers in the imperial centers were not in an 
insurrectionary mode?  Wasn't Stalin right when he said: “That is what we 
must do or we will be  crushed?” 

All the ideological and political pronouncements about  Soviet socialism, at 
that time, missed the point and meaning of how a successful  insurrection 
advances from one stage and state of combat to the next. Many good  communists 
were caught flat footed and ended up on the wrong side of the  political 
equation. The answer to the question of rapidly building industry,  more often than 
not at the expense of proletarian democracy or on the basis of  the strictest 
centralism, was given in the Patriotic War against German led  European fascism, 
by the Soviet armed forces, who carried in their hands the  weapons forged by 
the Stalinists policy of industrialization. Therefore, those  who opposed the 
furious pace of the Stalinists policy of industrialization  wanted the Soviet 
people to fall under the hammer of German fascism. It matter  little whether 
the individual understood the logic of opposition to Stalinist  
industrialization of the USSR in 1929 and matter even less if in 1939 they said,  “I did not 
know we would be at war ten years ago.” 
 
Here is why communists of the Lenin tradition spend their entire life  
reading and assimilating our own history and advancing along a universal line of  
march. The demand on a communist is to be able to independently find ones own  
bearing. 

“The Open Letter” adheres to the universal communist line  of march, 
although the communists of China have not asked for our opinion.  

The bellicose imperial policy of American dominated world  speculative 
capital conditions the political conflicts in all countries on  earth, including 
China. It therefore follows that a particularly shape struggle  is unfolding at 
the summit of power, in all countries, that must first of all  rely upon and 
win a determining section of the military and intelligence  establishment. 
Whether a country - political state, is socialist or bourgeois  does not change the 
iron logic of this body politic. 

We cannot  read the “Open Letter” from the standpoint of pre and first stage 
industrial  societies, but must take into account the enormous bureaucracies, 
not simply  “the party bureaucracy,” that arise and consolidate as 
administrative agencies.  The CPC is not the government, just as the Republican Party 
in America is not  the government. The CPC has roughly seventy (70) million 
members in a country of  1.3 billion people. The Central Committee consists of 
roughly 350 individuals  with about 150 of them alternate members. The Political 
Bureau and standing  committee of the Political Bureau is less than 10% of 
the Central Committee. _http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/_ 
(http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/)  
 
In this context the “Open Letter” is an extremely sharp and revealing  
assessment of what is taking place in China today at the summit of power. The  
first consideration is always, “does ‘The Open Letter’ adheres to the general  
communist line of march?  Did not Lenin teach us that the art of politics  
consists in searching out the key link in a chain of events and grabbing hold of  
it in order to pull the entire chain forward? Does “The Open Letter” describe  
the key link in the chain of events? If it does not then one must explain 
what  the key link is, in order to show its absence. 

“The Open Letter,”  - it seems to me, reveals an extremely sharp struggle 
that has emerged over the  role and direction of the party and the need to 
legally attack and expel  capitalists from the CPC. Obviously, communists outside 
China have no way to  measure such a policy move, if enacted, other than on the 
basis of ideology and  general party doctrine. 
 
It is interesting that the context of the “Open Letter” draws from the  
history of Marxism in China in its tone. 

Quote: 
‘The tragedy  of the Soviet Union's and socialist Eastern European countries' 
collapse and the  lessons from the decline of the international communist 
movement that took place  after the 1980s are still fresh in our minds. 
Imperialism, capitalism, and their  agents, have encircled and suppressed us in the 
areas of politics, ideology,  economic and political finance, educational 
methods, national defence and the  military, diplomatic, and national issues, and 
religion. They have penetrated  very deep. However, we see that the effects are 
not great, and their measures  are not effective. Although we often talk about 
peace, cooperation, and harmony,  there are indications that they are doing 
whatever they can to prepare the  military siege against us, ready to launch a 
war of aggression or the threat to  use force. We can currently say that the 
Party and government have seriously  detached themselves from the people. 
Precarious is China's socialism! The  Chinese people have reached another extremely 
critical time!” (End quote)  

Those familiar with the writing of Mao understand the extreme  counter 
measures implied in the above statement. That is to say, in hot war, the  Chinese 
Communists, under the leadership of Mao, evolved a distinct military  doctrine 
to defeat an encirclement and suppression campaign. “The Open Letter”  
advocates applying this doctrine to the internal political theater and external  
political environment dominated by American imperialism. 

In fact  it is not "ideas" and "thought" of Deng Xiaoping at all dominating 
the political  essence of “The Open Letter.” Rather, Deng Xiaoping‘s name is 
used in seeking  and establishing judicial and legislative ordinances in 
halting the polarization  between wealth and poverty in China caused by the influx 
of foreign capital and  allowing domestic capital to flourish.. Here is what “
The Open Letter” states:  

Quote: “Comrade Deng Xiaoping once said that, if reform and  opening leads to 
polarization, it is obvious that we are digressing. Digression  is nothing 
but a mistake and the road of capitalism. ” (end quote)  

Specifically, the military doctrine of encirclement and  suppression requires 
pitting a superior force against a single point in the  enemy military chain. 
“The Open Letter” discusses China “military industrial  complex” as one of 
the critical points of focus. This presupposes  a  certain support of “The 
Open Letter” in the Central Military Commission and  Central Commission for 
Discipline Inspection of the CPC, or at the very least an  appeal to this party 
sector. . 

It is very important to understand  that in a modern industrial country, the 
transfer of political power from one  sector of the political establishment to 
another, brings with it the threat and  possibility of Civil War and outside 
of a general war time collapse, as was the  case of the Russian (Bolshevik) 
Revolution, the insurrection can only take place  at the top or summit of 
political power. The masses create history but by  definition of their mass, can 
never carry out insurrection.  

Perhaps one should restudy the July 1990 28 Congress of the CPSU  where the 
last fierce battles took place over Gorbachev’s policies and the  resulting 
splintering and implosion of the CPSU. The communists’ forces in the  CPSU could 
have prevailed but vacillated during the critical period of the  insurrection. 

In my mind “The Open Letter” does not indicate  decomposition of the CPC and 
figures show that the party has added more than ten  million members since 
1997. This is not to say that a financial spike, or change  in US monetary 
policy or/ and a sharp drop in consumer demand in the imperial  centers would not 
accelerate a certain depolarization within the CPC by calling  some of its 
economic policies into question.  

The CPC is  already polarized, which is why “The Open Letter” can exist. The 
demand to oust  capitalists from the party and deny them membership; and 
allow an expansion of  China’s multiparty system seems a measured compromise. The 
implied purge of the  military industrial complex of foreign and domestic 
capital is not a sign of  “revisionism” but seems a measured response to halt the 
insurgent  counterrevolution and prevent the consolidation of China’s growing 
middle class  into something akin to the “Orange  Revolutionists.” 






************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour