Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt. 3: A Startling Theoretical Leap

Is revolution possible? How can the people deepen revolutionary change after seizing power? To answer those questions, it is valuable to study Mao’s revolution in China, and especially the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Kasama would like to share “Evaluating the Cultural Revolution in China and its Legacy for the Future.” It was written by the by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the U.S. This comprehensive paper describes the course of the Cultural Revolution (CR) from 1966-1976, its achievements and shortcomings, and why future movements for revolution, socialism and communism must stand on its shoulders.”

This is the thrid of eight articles composing a paper that was written by the MLM Revolutionary Study group.

Part 1 and part 2 are available on Kasama. The other parts will soon follow.

Evaluating the Cultural Revolution (3):
Theoretical Underpinnings of the Cultural Revolution

The persistence of class struggle and the emergence of a new bourgeoisie under socialism In the middle of the 20th century, the prevailing thinking in the international communist movement was that a capitalist class had to be anchored in the private ownership of the means of production. While Stalin claimed that by 1936—with the nationalization of industry and collectivization of agriculture—no exploiting classes existed in the Soviet Union,[1] Mao recognized that class struggle would persist and intensify at key points in socialist society. As he pointed out in 1957 in On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People:

In China, although in the main socialist transformation has been completed with respect to the system of ownership…there are still remnants of the overthrown landlord and comprador classes, there is still a bourgeoisie, and the remolding of the petty bourgeoisie has only just started. The class struggle is by no means over. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological fields 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.[2]

This theoretical perspective has immense political implications. A claim that exploiting classes have been abolished under socialism strongly implies that the main threat to socialism must be external (capitalist encirclement and aggression), and that internal opposition is not rooted in the contradictions among classes but rather in treachery or imperialist subversion. In contrast, Mao emphasized the internal dangers to socialism, and that these dangers must be addressed through political and ideological means. These, of course, are very different from the approaches taken towards foreign agents, who are typically imprisoned or shot.

Mao’s analysis led to the path-breaking understanding that, beyond the remnants of the old exploiting classes, the contradictions in socialist society itself give rise to new bourgeois elements, which can coalesce into a new bourgeoisie. This understanding was described by William Hinton based on his experience with the Chinese Revolution.

Socialism must be regarded as a transition from capitalism to communism (or in the case of China from new democracy to communism). As such it bears within it many contradictions, many inequalities that cannot be done away with overnight or even in the course of several years or several decades. These inequalities are inherited from the old society, such things as pay differentials between skilled and unskilled work and between mental and manual work, such things as the differences between the economic, educational, and cultural opportunities available in the city and in the countryside. As long as these inequalities exist they generate privilege, individualism, careerism and bourgeois ideology…. They can and do create new bourgeois individuals who gather as a new privileged elite and ultimately as a new exploiting class. Thus socialism can be peacefully transformed back into capitalism.[4]

Thus the birthmarks of the old society continue to be reproduced in new configurations in socialist society. There are still substantial disparities in decision making power, wealth (varying salaries and living conditions) and access to social resources such as education, culture and information.[5] This is the material basis for the development of new bourgeois forces in socialist society and within the Communist Party itself.
In order to make the transition from socialism to communism, these inequalities in political, economic and intellectual resources—these class differences–must be narrowed and eventually eliminated. This requires mass campaigns and political struggle that enable the masses of people to master all aspects of society and overcome the age-old difference between mental and manual labor. Only then can the communist goal of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” be fully realized.

1966 poster shows revolutionaries removing capitalist-roaders from power

Why the new bourgeoisie is concentrated in the Communist Party

In a country advancing on the socialist road, the Communist Party is the leading force in the state owned and collectively owned enterprises, and in the government at all levels. The decisive debates and struggle over economic development, foreign policy, education, culture and the direction of society as a whole take place in the party. Therefore, newly arisen bourgeois forces group themselves and aspire to high positions in the party.

The bourgeoisie in the party is in a position to advocate and implement policies that can, if not checked, pull the country off the socialist road. These revisionist policies defend and widen differences in wealth, decision making power and other social resources, and appeal to narrow self-interest, thereby creating a base of support among more privileged strata such as government administrators, managers, technicians and intellectuals.

Bourgeois elements in the party also promote political passivity and fight tooth and nail against campaigns that mobilize the masses of people to more directly and consciously determine the overall direction of socialist society. They assert that the class struggle is over both inside the party and in society as a whole, and that the main task is economic development of the productive forces. They then claim that revolutionary politics stands in the way of achieving these economic goals.

Thus, what defines the bourgeoisie in the party, as a class, is their concentration in leading positions in the party and a consolidated revisionist political line that has developed in opposition to a revolutionary line. If they are able to unite around a common political program and implement this program in significant sections of the government, the economy, the educational system, the armed forces and, most importantly throughout the party itself, they may be able to seize power and set up a new form of capitalism with socialist trappings. Hence, Maoists refer to this new bourgeoisie in the party as “capitalist roaders.”[6]

Another important reason for the development of capitalist roaders in the Chinese Communist Party harkens back to the new democratic stage of the revolution. During the long years of struggle against Japanese and U.S. imperialism, large numbers of nationalists were attracted to communism and the CCP as the most effective way to liberate China from imperialism and feudalism, clearing the way to make it a prosperous and powerful country. China was hardly unique in this respect. In the first half of the twentieth century, many political movements seeking to liberate themselves from imperialism saw Marxism merge with nationalism of various kinds.

What largely distinguished the Chinese experience from that of other countries was Mao’s insistence that the struggle for national liberation was a way station on the path to socialism and communism. However, many who had initially joined the CCP did not have a thorough understanding of capitalism and lacked Mao’s determination to struggle for socialism, especially as it became increasingly clear as the 1950s and 1960s progressed how difficult that struggle would be.[7]

Mao employed a policy of unity and struggle to win them over, but the goal of a powerful and prosperous China trumped many of these party members’ commitment to socialism. From the perspective of bourgeois nationalism, there was little wrong with one-man management, material incentives and reliance on advanced technology from abroad if they contributed to economic growth. As the preeminent capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping said, “black cat, white cat, it makes no difference as long as it catches mice.”

The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union

Mao’s path breaking understanding of the nature of socialist society and the danger
of capitalist restoration in China was in large part due to his study of the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, which still operated under the sign-board of socialism. This was not due to old pre-revolutionary remnants of the Russian bourgeoisie hiding and regrouping, biding their time and lying in wait for a good moment, and then making a grab for power. And it had not occurred as the result of an imperialist invasion, nor by external forces sneaking agents into the Soviet Union.

Instead, Khrushchev had organized a coup as the leader of a new capitalist class that had grown up within the CPSU, based on newly generated class privileges and a revisionist political line. This new bourgeoisie in the party was largely unrecognized, and grew without challenge until it could seize and consolidate its power in 1956 and 1957.

Notes

1. “On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.” http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SC36.html

2. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm.

3. Internal contradictions are, as a rule, the basis of change. Socialism is no exception to this central tenet of dialectics. In On Contradiction, Mao explained that materialist dialectics holds that “in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it… [Materialist dialectics] holds that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable environment an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.” SW Vol. 1, 1937, pp. 313, 314. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/index
Denying the existence of internal contradictions leads to serious problems. Speaking on the experience of the Soviet Union, Mao asked: “Are there any contradictions in socialist society? Lenin once talked about this question and thought there were contradictions. But Stalin did not admit this for a long time. During Stalin’s later life, people were neither allowed to speak ill of the society nor to criticize the party or the government. In fact, Stalin mistook contradictions among the people for those between ourselves and the enemy, and consequently regarded those who bad-mouthed [the party or government] or who spread gossip as enemies, thus wronging many people.” “Speech at a CPC Cadres Meeting in Shanghai,” March 20, 1957, The Writings of Mao Zedong: 1949-1976, Volume II: January 1956-December 1957, editors John Leung and Michael Kau, 1992, p. 465.

4. Hinton, pp. 20-21.

5. At the core of these inequalities that continue to operate under socialism is the existence of “bourgeois right.” See page 77 for discussion of this important concept and why it must be restricted in order to keep on the socialist road.

6. An article that appeared in the theoretical journal Study and Criticism in 1976 discussed the nature of “capitalist roaders in power” such as Deng and Liu. “As individuals, they may not necessarily own capital, run factories and operate banks like the former capitalists, but their political line which energetically upholds the capitalist relations of production [including the inequalities that continue to exist in socialist society-ed.] reflects in a concentrated way the economic interests and political aspirations of the bourgeoisie as a whole.” In a prescient remark, the article points out that if they usurp the Party and state power, the bourgeoisie in the party “will change the nature of the socialist system of public ownership and openly restore the capitalist system. By then, capitalist roaders, big and small, will re-divide among themselves and in proportion to their capital and power, all the wealth created by the laboring people.” Chuang Lan, “Capitalist Roaders are Representatives of the Capitalist Relations of Production,” Lotta, pp. 371-372.

Around this time, Zhang Chunqiao recognized the need for more “works with depth that describe the struggle against the capitalist roaders inside the party in the era of the socialist revolution.,.. If we don’t properly investigate what constitutes the distinctive characteristic of the struggle in the era of the socialist revolution, and the distinctive characteristic and essence of capitalist roaderrs inside the party, we will have great difficulty writing good works of quality devoted to this topic. Such works would not only be able to teach the people of today something, but also have an educational value for future generations.” MacFarquhar and Schoenhals, p. 433.

7. One of their chief representatives was State Chairman Liu Shiaoqi, who in the 1950s advocated an extended period of new democracy before the collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of small and medium-size enterprises was completed.