25-08-2014

Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(5)

In 2003 appeared Boudewijn Deckers' “analysis” about(although it is more “some reflections about....”) actual socialism in China in Marxist Studies. It was called “Questions about the development of socialism in China”.1 Marxist Studies (with its website marx.be ) should be (as was said on the 8th WPB-congress in 2008 ) an important instrument for the formation in Marxism of the members and sympathizers of the WPB.

Boudewijn Deckers was “historically” the number 2 in the party. He had been already earlier in a (I think several) party-delegation(s) in China. As his analysis appeared in Marxist Studies (and a summarizing article in Solidair) one can consider it as a - to study and to assimilate - party-point-of-view.
In 2003 (while not having studied all party-documents, as I should have....., but on China I had studied a lot from the moment of the Tien An Men “happenings” in 1989), I realised already, that the point of view developed by Boudewijn was (at least) “different” compared with the original (WPB-)party-point-of-view about the policy of the CCP under leadership of Deng Xiaoping...... About my reaction on Boudewijn Deckers' article in Marxist Studies (and his answer) you can read in the downloadble pdf-file I made“About revisionism being anti-Marxism”.
I will now show – based on the translation from certain parts of his text, how Boudewijn Deckers in fact “erased” out of the collective memory of the party, the original party-statements and on congresses voted party-points of view.

Boudewijn Deckers not “answering questions” but just repeating official actual CCP-line
Boudewijn Deckers, in his “answers” on questions about China - you will see that he is NOT in ANYWAY really answering - he is just repeating the official actual view of the CCP. So INDIRECTLY he is saying in fact, that, the by him repeated official view of the CCP, is now ALSO the “actual official” point of view of the WPB:
A delegation of the Central Committee of the Workers Party of Belgium (WPB/PVDA/PTB) was in China 16-25 February 2003, invited by the Communist Party of China (CPC). Boudewijn Deckers was leading the delegation. He is answering a number of frequent asked questions about China.
China experienced during the last thirty years serious reforms. Does this not leas to an aberration of socialism?
(...) In the beginning of the eighties, the Chinese Communist Party thought that an accelerated development of the economy, which she considered as absolutely necessary, was impossible to conform with the strict principles of the collectivisation which were ruling until that moment, although they had given China a solid base.(...)Socialism and communism as they were described by Marx and Engels, remained the final objectives. But, as the CPC was saying, the founders of scientific socialism had not worked out an answer of the question, how, from an outspoken backward situation, after two-thousand years feudality, make the step to socialism, in such a big country of the third world, with more than a billion inhabitants, and without the presence elsewhere of strong developed socialist countries?It is clear that China is building socialism in very different conditions than what is waiting us in the old capitalist countries or in the just industrialised countries
To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary2 Researchers of the CPC are referring to the New Economic Policy of Lenin which, according to them, allowed the development of capitalism after the devastations caused by the imperialist war (Boudewijn probably means here: the intervention war in the Soviet-Union by the imperialist powers, NICO) of 1981-1921.
It is impossible for us to judge all aspects of this matter. We do not know why the experience of the industrialisation, the collectivisation and the central planning of the thirties in the Soviet Union could not, one way or another, been applied in China today. We are neither able to make a complete review of the Chinese experience until the seventies, neither that of the years after then, by the way.
But we have to be objective and we have to learn to know the policy of the CPC and the Chinese government very well. We have to recognise as well as the problems for the country, as the undeniable successes, which are brought by the reform.”3
So Boudewijn, co-founder of AMADA (in 1970) and later the WPB(in 1979), who was part of a “WPB-delegation visiting China” several times, has not any notion about the history of the Chinese revolution and the building of socialism and has not any notion about the contradictions in the CPC. For what has he been in China, in the name of all the members of the WPB, if he is not been able to analyse and to take a stand as a leader of a communist party? So he went to China in February 2003 as an empty blank piece of paper. He is just able to repeat the argumentation of the CPC and to propagate it as a “correct Marxist-analysed policy”.
And very subtile he is by giving a very limited quote out of an article (see note:”Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 June 1989” - this article was on itself just a part, just the beginning, of a whole analysis), ERASING the original analyses and point of views of the WPB, about China and the developments and contradictions in the CPC, mostly formulated by Ludo Martens but AFTERWARDS affirmed on congresses (as I revealed in this article and this article). And while probably NO ONE party-member studied and assimilated those congress-documents, NOBODY (...but me,as you can see in the emails between me and Boudewijn Deckers in “About revisionism being anti-Marxism”) remarked the incorrect political attitude of Boudewijjn Deckers......In fact by his – as a leader of a communist party - unworthy attitude, he “allowed” other cadres -as Peter Franssen – to develop a REVISIONIST analysis about China.(I will analyse this in a next article, but I did it already earlier in this downloadable document)
Further Boudewijn Deckers (in a empiric/dogmatic way):
According to Deng Xiaoping and other important Chinese leaders, the CPC wanted to skip certain stages, with a fast, large-scale collectivisation which did not correspond with the backward situation of the production-forces. The socialist collectivisation demands a material base, and that should be a large industrial production and a mechanised agriculture.
The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries, the principles on which is founded our party, like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism, the transformation of the conception of the world which stays always necessary for communists, the bond with the masses and so much more. But in China itself, there were made, in that same period, important mistakes. According to the Chinese leaders was that period the climax of voluntarist and leftist policies, which was linked to wrong conceptions of egalitarianism and a negation of the principle of socialism “each according his work”. In that period there was a to extreme attention for class-struggle, while the priority under socialism should normally be, development of the economy. You can not abolish classes within the frame of a backward economy. The objective of socialism is giving the people a better and better level of living. The CPC is making the analysis that not any party can stay into power when she is not able to fulfil that task successfully.4
By a subtile formulation Boudewijn Deckers erased the lessons of the 4th congress of the WPB(1991) formulated in the document “USSR, the velvet counterrevolution”:
The analysis which Mao Zedong made in the sixties, is the best reflection of the reality of the socialist countries. Today this analysis can be made sharper in the light of the recent events in Eastern Europe, in the Soviet-Union and in China. But this analysis was somehow invalidated by certain leftist exaggerations during the Cultural Revolution. This made it easier for Deng Xiaoping to reject it totally in the eighties.
Mao Zedong saw the future of socialism as follows:
Socialist society covers a very long historical period. Classes and class struggle continue to exist in this society, and the struggle still goes on between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism. The socialist revolution on the economic front (in the ownership of the means of production) is insufficient by itself and cannot be consolidated. There must also be a thorough socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts.Here a very long period of time is needed to decide "who will win" in the struggle between socialism and capitalism. Several decades won't do it; success requires anywhere from one to several centuries. (...) During the historical period of socialism it is necessary to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and carry the socialist revolution through to the end if the restoration of capitalism is to be prevented, socialist construction carried forward and the conditions created for the transition to communism.” “Before Khrushchov came to power, they did not occupy the ruling position in Soviet society. Their activities were restricted in many ways and they were subject to attack. But since Khrushchov took over, usurping the leadership of the Party and the state step by step, the new bourgeois elements have gradually risen to the ruling position in the Party and government and in the economic, cultural and other departments, and formed a privileged stratum in Soviet society.” “ Even under the rule of the Khrushchov clique, the mass of the members of the CPSU and the Soviet people are carrying on the glorious revolutionary traditions nurtured by Lenin and Stalin, and they still uphold socialism and aspire to communism.(....) Among the ranks of the Soviet cadres, there are many who still persist in the revolutionary stand of the proletariat, adhere to the road of socialism and firmly oppose Khrushchov's revisionism.” “Class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment are the three great revolutionary movements for building a mighty socialist country. These movements are a sure guarantee that Communists will be free from bureaucracy and immune against revisionism and dogmatism, and will forever remain invincible. They are a reliable guarantee that the proletariat will be able to unite with the broad working masses and realize a democratic dictatorship. If, in the absence of these movements, the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and ogres of all kinds were allowed to crawl out, while our cadres were to shut their eyes to all this and in many cases fail even to differentiate between the enemy and ourselves but were to collaborate with the enemy and become corrupted and demoralized, if our cadres were thus dragged into the enemy camp or the enemy were able to sneak into our ranks, and if many of our workers, peasants, and intellectuals were left defenceless against both the soft and the hard tactics of the enemy, then it would not take long, perhaps only several years or a decade, or several decades at most, before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a national scale inevitably occurred, the Marxist-Leninist party would undoubtedly become a revisionist party or a fascist party, and the whole of China would change its colour.56

Without analysis, comment, critic Boudewijn Deckers is just reporting (an in fact defending....)
First China encouraged a de-collectivisation on the countryside. The soil remains in ownership of the state or the community. The private production developed quickly. From 1985 until 2002 the average income of peasants increased from 397,60 yuan to 2475,60 yuan.7
In 1983 the CPC8 decided that the main contradiction in China was, the increasing needs of the people and the backwardness of the production-forces. In 1989 the CPC9 lanced a policy of reforms and an opening on the outside world.(...)
The CPC seemed us to be really united on the actual reform-policy. The surprising results should have comforted the most doubters. The reform is still getting fully attention, she is considered not yet to be completed.10

Boudewijn Deckers is suffering from amnesia
The whole analysis made, mostly by Ludo Martens (but considered to be the point of view of the party) in 1989 (and the years after) about the contradictions in the CPC, the obvious development of revisionism, the stimulation of restoring capitalist production-relations (by Deng Xiaoping the only way in order to “develop the backwardness of the productive forces” ...... and the working class is the most important productive force for Marx...but not for Deng Xiaoping), is erased out of the collective memory of the WPB and replaced by: “The CPC seemed us to be really united on the actual reform-policy.” That whole analysis is “summarised” by just ONE sentence out of the first article of a series;“To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary11 Remark: Of this “presumed amnesia” of Boudewijn Deckers I began in 2007-2008 with an elaborated abalyses based on the series of articles written by Ludo Martens. You can read it HERE (but it is still in Dutch....)
As a kind of pr-man of the CPC, instead as cadre of the WPB he is further reporting and defending the policy of the CPC, without any comment or critic:
China imported private-capital, allowed private ownership, lanced the slogan 'Enrich yourself': is that still socialism?
According to the analysis of the CPC, China is today in the first stage of socialism and that will last for several decades, maybe yet tot the end of this century. In this whole period the emphasis has to be put on the development of the production-forces, because they are completely backward.”12
And Boudewijn Deckers did not notice the pseudo-Marxist phrases of Deng Xiaoping about “primary stage of socialism”. Marx spoke about communism as alternative of capitalism, of which the first stage (of communism) was also called “socialism”....But that the first stage of communism (so socialism...) would on itself also have a “first stage”...., that is a”revision” of Marxism, so revisionism!
And then about “productive-forces”.... Well Deng Xiaoping talked on september 5 and sepember 12 1988 about “productive forces” in Science and technology constitute a primary productive force – excerpt from a talk with Gustave Husak of Czechoslovakia and excerpt from remarks made after hearing e report on a tentative program from the reform of prices and wages :
“Marx said that science and technology are part of the productive forces. Facts show that he was right. In my opinion, science and technology are a primary productive force.(.....)When I met with Husak, recently, I mentioned that Marx was quite right to say that science and technology are part of the productive forces, but now it seemed his statement was incomplete. The complete statement should be that science and technology constitute a primary productive force.”13
What Marx really said was that the working-class was the most important productive force.....Deng Xiaoping is even does not mention the working class as productive force.....and Boudewijn Deckers is not noticing it!
Further...
China has privatised a lot of its state-enterprises, China is developing in a capitalist direction, is there already a class of capitalists?
In 1989, after the events of Tien An Men, we had the impression that capitalism was clawing around rather wildly and threatened to become the main-aspect in China.14
But today the socialist state can use a growing number of laws and regulation to control very well the development of capitalist enterprises and to orient them towards a mixed economy.”15
For a second time Boudewijn Deckers made reference to an article of which he quoted one sentence (see further above): “To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary16) By this second reference to the same article he is in fact insinuating that the analysis then was wrong ( “In 1989, .... we had the (wrong?....)impression that ....”) Of course not many members in 2003 had still that article of 1989 and could not notice how they were mislead by Boudewijn Deckers and how the original point of view was just erased out of the collective memory of the WPB.....:
Out “De oorzaken van het bloedige drama in Bejing”, (“The causes of the bloody drama in Bejing”) editorial , Solidair nr 23, 7 juni 1989.
(This article was the first reaction of the WPB on the events on Tien An Men. I am not sure that THIS is written by Ludo Martens himself. But this was the start of a whole series of articles analysing the situation in China .... written by Ludo Martens.)
“During the 10 years of reforms, which were started by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, a lot of capitalist enterprises were been able to develop strongly.. To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary. But In China this process proceeded in a exaggerated, uncontrolled way and was linked to a growing cheerful sounding propaganda for capitalism and imperialism.
The responsibility for these negative events is laying by the actual leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. The capitalist powers have used the student-movement in order to demand “freedom” and “democracy” for themselves, which means a complete withdrawal of control of the socialist state.(....)
The development of capitalist powers in China is causing more and more outspoken differences between the Chines provinces. Imperialism is actively involved in increasing this division with the objective to make China explode and to submit her to its neo-colonial control.(...)
With the pro-capitalist ideas has also corruption entered the Chines Communist Party by the wide-opened front-door. So has become undermined the revolutionary spirit of the party. The ties of the CP with the masses deteriorated and the skills of the party in striving with determination for the interests of the masses diminished.
The corruption was the problem which moved most the masses.(...)
The leadership of the party has allowed the development of a capitalist sector and supported a trivial pragmatism, which was the reason of not being anymore able to stimulate the youth with a socialist ideal.”

Further Boudewijn Deckers “answering” questions:
How is it possible that now also capitalists can become member of the communist party in China?
Jiang Zemin has developed the theory about the “three representations” and the CPC sees it as a expansion of Marxist-Leninism, the Thought Mao Zedong and the theory of Deng Xiaoping. Abroad is just remembered one aspect of that theory, namely that capitalists from now can become member of the Communist Party; But that is a simplistic forgery.
What are those “three representations”? The demands of the development of the advanced productive forces, the orientation of the advanced Chinese culture and the interests of the large majority of the Chinese people. (...)
This theory puts the power of the CPC in another light: the CPC has to be the vanguard of here time, she has to be the core of the Chinese people, the leading centre of the modernisation of China. (....)
So has the CPC proposed to expand her mass-base. She registered six new social categories in the Chinese society, which are a consequence of the policy of modernisation and reform: the personnel of high technological enterprises (engineers and technicians), the entrepreneurs and managers of enterprises with mixed capital, entrepreneurs of private enterprises, employees of intermediary organisations (auditing, etc..), the self-employed (China counts 35 million intellectuals.”17
A “theory which is developed as a expansion of Marxist-Leninism”, and by no one rings the bell of ...revisionism? A theory which is a “copy” of the “theory of the party of the entire people” of .....Chruchov, a theory qualified by the CPC ( and by AMADA, co-founded by Boudewijn Deckers, in those days) as revisionist....
Boudewijn is now (suffering of amnesia?) saying: “It is impossible for us to judge all aspects of this matter. (...) We are neither able to make a complete review of the Chinese experience until the seventies, neither that of the years after then, by the way.(....)The CPC seemed us to be really united on the actual reform-policy.”
Boudewijn Deckers is saying, also: “The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries, the principles on which is founded our party, like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism....
And in the beginning in AMADA and of the WPB (in both Boudewijn Deckers was among the FOUNDERS and one of the national cadres study was promoted about Chruchev-revisionism with the study of the Polemic between the CPC and the CPSU. Well, Boudewijn Deckers has forgotten what “The Great Cultural Revolution” taught him “like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism”. Because otherwise he would be alarmed by what is now happening with the CPC when he would remember...:
REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE ENTIRE PEOPLE
At the nd Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov openly raised another banner, the alteration of the proletarian character of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He announced the replacement of the party of the proletariat by a “party of the entire people”. The programme of the CPSU states: As a result of the victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. And the consolidation of the unity of Soviet society, the Communist Party of the working class has become the vanguard of the Soviet people, a party of the entire people.
The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says that the CPSU “has become a political organization of the entire people”. How absurd!
Elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that, like the state, a political party is an instrument of class struggle.
Every political party has a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated expression of class character. There is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party and there never has been, nor is there such a thing as a “party of the entire people” that does not represent the interests of a particular class.
The party of the proletariat is built in accordance with the revolutionary theory and revolutionary style of Marxism-Leninism; it is the party formed by the advanced elements who are boundlessly faithful to the historical mission of the proletariat, it is the organized vanguard of the proletariat and the highest form of its organization. The party of the proletariat represents the interests of the proletariat and the concentration of its will.
Moreover, the party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of the people, who constitute over per cent of the total population. The reason is that the interests of the proletariat are identical with those of the working masses, that the proletarian party can approach problems in the light of the historical role as the proletariat and in terms of the present and future interests of the proletariat and the working masses and of the best interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, and that it can give correct leadership in accordance with Marxism-Leninism.
In addition to its members of working-class origin, the party of the proletariat has members of other class origins. But the latter do not join the Party as representatives of other classes.
From the very day they join the Party they must abandon, their former class stand and take the stand of the proletariat.
Marx and Engels said: If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition must be that they
should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian outlook.18 19

Further Boudewijn Deckers defending all “expansions” of Marxist-Leninism:
To what will lead this policy of reforms?
Our trust in the CPC is based of her earlier and actual realisations. The CPC was able to preserve her unity after the counterrevolutionary movement of Tien An Men. She could regain the control on the developments and the enormous economic growth could be preserved.(...)
The 16th Congress underlined the necessity of the study of Marxism-Leninism and the Thought Mao Zedong ( and the theories of Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin). The future will show if there were taken concrete measures to organise a thorough study of Marsism-Leninism on a sufficient large scale.”20

The CPC which was “able to preserve her unity” the final party-line depended on which line was “winning” the struggle between two lines: sometimes it was the “social-democratic” line formulated by Liu Chaochi, sometimes it was the revolutionary line, formulated by Mao Zedong. AFTER the death of Mao Zedong the “social-democratic” line was re-taken by Deng Xiaoping, formulated in phrases of “remaining loyal to Marxism-Leninism and the Thought Mao Zedong”. (This statement I will prove concretely in a coming article)

Boudewijn Deckers is forgotten all what ”The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries”
It is interesting that Boudewijn said see above):”The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries, the principles on which is founded our party, like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism, the transformation of the conception of the world which stays always necessary for communists, the bond with the masses and so much more.”.
In the book “Party of the revolution” which is composed out of the discussed, amended and voted documents of the 5th WPB-congress (1995) there is “Chapter 1. The organisation of a party of the Bolchevic type”, in which the 5th part is called “The transformation of the conception of the world” (“Omvorming van wereldopvatting”, in Dutch):
The transformation of the conception of the world, the critic on the bourgeois conceptions and the acquisition of a proletarian conception of the world, are fundamental matters for each communist and that during his whole life.(....) The moment that our party obtained a certain political and organisational consolidation, transformation of the conception of the world has become an abstract given, and are they not anymore working for their transformation of their conception of the world through study, their work and the daily practice.(....)
The transformation of the conception of the world demands special efforts of the cadres. Until the end of his life, a communist cadre has to be committed to increase his knowledge and to ameliorate his abilities and to correct his ideological and political weaknesses.
Let get a closer look on the experiences of the communist parties of China and the Soviet-Union. (...)
In 1922 lenin criticised Bukharin. He stated that “his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).”21 During the discussion about the peace of Brest-Litovsk, Bukharin was already conjuring with the social-democracy against Lenin. In 1927-1929, during the debates about the collectivisation, Stalin made several pertinent critics on the rightist, social-democratic positions of Bukharin. Bukharin never used all these correct critics as departure to transform his conception of the world. In 1936 he made conspiracies with social-democratic counter-revolutionaries.
Mao Zedong has criticised thoroughly the political mistakes of Deng Xiaoping. He emphasised the fact that Deng has participated in the revolution, not founded on a Marxist conception of the world, but founded on a revolutionary anti-feudal anti-imperialist position. Deng has made several formal self-critics, but after the death of Mao he returned to his bourgeois and petty-bourgeois conceptions.22

1 Marxistische Studies no 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01,“Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek”, Boudewijn Deckers. Een delegatie van het Centraal Comité van de Partij van de Arbeid van België (PVDA) was van 16 tot 25 februari 2003 in China, op uitnodiging van de Communistische Partij van China (CPC). Boudewijn Deckers, verantwoordelijk voor de Internationale Betrekkingen van de PVDA, leidde de delegatie.
2 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.
3http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)
4 http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)
5http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/KPC64.html, ON KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM AND ITS HISTORICAL LESSONS FOR THE WORLD - COMMENT ON THE OPEN LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU (IX), by the Editorial Department of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag ), July 14, 1964. Foreign Languages Press Peking 1964. Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, djr@cruzio.com (July 1997)
6Translated by me, Nico, out of “USSR, de fluwelen contrarevolutiie”(“USSR, the velvet counterrevolution”) by Ludo Martens, EPO, 1991.This book forms the document of the 4th congress of the WPB in 1991.
7 www.china.org.cn, cijfers van het Chinese Bureau voor statistiek (China Statistical Data).
8 Derde Plenum van het 11e Centraal Comité van de Communistische Partij van China.
9 Vierde Plenum van het 13e Centraal Comité van de Communistische Partij van China.
10http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)
11 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.
12http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)
14 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.
15http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)
16 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.
17http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)
18Marx and Engels to A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and Others (“Circular Letter”), Sept. 17-18, 1879”, Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II,
19Out “THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT”, FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRES, , Printed in the People’s Republic of China.. From Marx to Mao ML© Digital Reprints. 2006: REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE ENTIRE PEOPLE”.
20http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)
21http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm, Lenin volume 36 Collecte Works, “Letter to the Congress (...) II Continuation of the notes. December 24, 1922.

22Translated by me, NICO in English out“Party of the Revolution”, chapter 1, part 5. Transformatiion of the concption of the world (“Omvorming van wereldopvatting”), EPO, ISBN 60 6445 933 9.

03-08-2014

Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(4)

While analysing (in Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(2) ) the critic of Alexandré Garcia, En defensa del pueblo chino (1a parte) on the articleThe International role of China”, writtten by Elisseos Vagenas, member of the CC of KKE, I realised how the ACTUAL revisionist leadership of the WPB/PVDA/PTB once manipulated the congresses, in preparation of a later “revisionist transformation”.
Important political analyses (to compare with analyses which were made in the KKE and then submitted to an affirmation on the 19th congress) made by Ludo Martens - when he was still by-majority-on-congresses elected president of the WPB – normally should have been discussed, eventually amended and then voted in order to be a party-point-of view which had to be assimilated by alle party-members.
But those analyses, presented as “books written by Ludo Martens” were integrally – but very formally – presented as “party-points-of view” in reports ABOUT the congresses. And - in the beginning – everybody was urged “to buy, read and promote around him or her “ those books. But this “guideline” quiet down and now (while those books are not printed and sold anymore by EPO itself) the new leadership can take positions which are OPPOSING former positions.
So for example there is the book (not existing in English, only in French or Dutch) “From Tien An Men to Timisoara struggle and debates inside the PVDA(WPB) (1989-1991)”, (EPO, 1994, ISBN 90 6445 898 7) (I searched on the web... this book is not available anymore, anywhere)
In the book “Party of the revolution” (compilation of the documents of the 5th congress in 1995) there is made references to the book “From Tien An Men to Timiisoara...”:
“Inside the Workers Party of Belgium is existing a huge consensus on decisive political questions on which a lot of organisations have split.
These consensus is the result of broad debates: and is formulated in definitive documents.(...) “From Tien An Men to Timisoara” (...)”The USSR, the velvet contra-revolution” (...) ”Another view on Stalin”...”1
By “huge consensus” is formulated a - by a lack of conscious study and discussion among ALL members and eventually amending on the 5th congress - just formal acceptance as “party-point-of-view”.

Translations of characteristic passages of “From Tien An Men to Timisoara...”:

p. 13 Who chooses to become member of the Workers Party of Belgium (WPB; Partij Van De Arbeid – PVDA) is doing that after serious deliberation. He will engage himself for the liberation of the working class and the working masses. He knows that he is sharing with all other members of the Workers Party of Belgium an identical ideal and an identical engagement and that all are bounded by an identical discipline. In the Party democracy and creativity is promoted in order to realise better common objectives. A communist is not only struggling to put an end to exploitation, repression and injustice in his own country. Since capitalism has become a global system, class-struggle of the workers is internationalist. Each communist is supporting the anti-imperialist and democratic revolutionary movements in the third world. He is solidary with the socialist revolution and with those communists who defend socialist construction against the old hostile classes, against the imperialist subversion and against the revisionist tendencies in the party itself. The political line of the Workers Party of Belgium concerning the history of the socialist countries, is formulated in the two books “The USSR and the velvet contra-revolution” and “Another view on Stalin” an further in the document “Tien An men, from revisionist derailment to contra-revolutionary rebellion

p.145 .....(S)ince Deng Xiaoping, about whom Mao said he was the second Chinese Chruchev, came into power, the policy of Mao certainly is revised and revisionism has certainly spread.

p. 170 When Hu Yaobang, and later on Zhao Zhiang, were secretary-general of the Chines Communist Party, they followed a line which was more revisionist than that of Chruchov between 1956 and 1964. Who is claiming that the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie has began with Chruchov, logically has to conclude – as are doing our Albanian comrades – that capitalism is restored in China. But we have seen how fiercely has been struggled in the Chinese CP and how the rightmost group has taken a beating in June 1989
This proves that the seizure of power by the revisionists encounters over a long historical period of great resistance and that they can be reversed., A fact that does not diminish the enormous difficulties to realize that turnaround.

The authentic dialectical points of view of the WPB (formulated by Ludo Martens but afterwards affirmed on the 5th congress in 1995),on the analyses made by Enver Hoxha about the political developments in China are certainly less unilateral as those of Alexandré Garcia (of which he insinuated that they are the SAME as that of the WPB – read the large quote in the paragraph “The references of Alexandré Garcia to the WPB and/or its former president Ludo Martens, in my previous article Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(3) ):

p. 213. From 1973, when the foreign policy of China began to swing to the right, Enver Hoxha formulated a number of pertinent observations on the class struggle internationally. It is beyond all doubt that the Chinese Communist Party, and also our own party, could have drawn lessons out of these critics and could have avoid positions which were to one-sighted.
When China began to support a united Europe against the two superpowers,as well on political as on economic and military level, Enver Hoxha made the following remark:”Let us struggle to tighten the contradictions, Zhou Enlai is saying. Up there we agree. But for whose benefit the contradictions had to be tightened? And are those the only contradictions? (...) Do we have to forget that there exists the huge problem of classes, the struggle of the proletariat, that is to say, solving the contradictions between proletariat and bourgeoisie?”2
Enver Hoxha has never shared the opinion of the Chinese Communist Party, considering the USSR in the years '75-'85 as the most dangerous superpower. (...)
Enver Hoxha was therefore right to focus the barrage of his criticism on the strategy of Deng Xiaoping, who declared in October '77: "One must have to defeat the global war plan of the Soviet Union and I hope that that fight will unify the whole world, third world world, the second world and even the United States that belong to the first world. (...) the mobilization should be a"multilateral, political, ideological, economic and military one.”3 Enver Hoxha accused the adventurous type and provocative character of that strategy. "It may not care Deng Xiaping whether the actions that he stands lead the peoples of the proletariat of all countries into a bloodbath collapse ... That fascist takes no notice of the liberation struggle of the people which turn against imperialism, social-imperialism and against the reactionary bourgeoisie in their own country."4
But while Enver Hoxha condemned the opportunistic deviations from the Chinese Communist Party, he overreached in a no less dangerous leftist formulations..
From the moment that Nixon in 1971 was received in China, Enver Hoxha advanced the hypothesis that China was becoming a new “superpower”. (...)
Enver Hoxha had a clear view on the danger existed that the Chinese leadership would conciliate with certain revisionist tendencies. (...)
But instead of making a concrete analysis of the political struggle in the Chinese Communist Party – as well of the revisionist tendencies which surely exist, as also of the Marxist-Leninist tendency – Enver Hoxha lost himself in leftist exaggerations and unfounded statements. (...)
But Enver Hoxha thought he had to prove more, namely that Mao would never have been a Marxist! “Mao continues to claim that "the peasants the most revolutionary and guiding force, that the revolution must rely on farmers. The role of the proletariat in the revolution under Mao is only coming on the second and perhaps even on the third place.(....)”5 The first text of the first volume of the works of Mao has as title ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY. It is written in 1926 and is on itself sufficient to contradict all think twists of Enver Hoxha. During the whole revolution the Chinese Communist Party delivered an intense clandestine work among the workers. Lot of worker-cadres were sent to guerilla-areas when they were on the brick of been discovered by the police. There they joined the proletarian cadre which has always been the backbone of the peasant-army.
It is in fact interesting to determine once more that the leftist and extremist “analyses” are standing apart from reality and are denying dialectics. That is the reason why they can easily coincide with the “revisionist” analyses.(...)
Enver Hoxha has formulated some critics on the way on which the struggle has been waged in the Chinese Communist Party. They are worth being studied. In 1966-67 he had the following commentary on the struggle against revisionism during the Cultural Revolution.”One should fight his enemies not only in word or wall papers but, if necessary, even with a well-directed shot. The enemy must feel the blows of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”6 “If one continues with the opportunist “education, and re-education”, than is one exposed to great danger.”7 “A revolution which is not hitting the leaders of the betrayal, is not revolution”.8 (...) “It was found that there is an opportunist, liberal-bourgeois attitude adopted towards the hostile, anti-party elements. Khrushchev praised the Chinese for that attitude and Mikoyan called it "the good attitude of the Chinese comrades" who "had nothing in common with the policies of Stalin towards de cadres.”9 “Liu Shaoqi and with him his whole group, will again bow his head, like he did already all those times, and he will raise his again, like those other times. But Mao will not anymore be there to save the situation.”10
The events of the last fifteen years, give those comments their full meaning. Deng Xiaoping and the other members of the group around Liu Shaoqi have made their self-criticism, and promised that they would no longer set the correct decisions of the Cultural Revolution in question But once in power, they have allowed that Hu Yaobang and Zhao Zhijang put into practice a much more advanced revisionism than what Mao fought in 1966. It is clear that the CCP has difficulties to develop a coherent Marxist-Leninist line, in what concerned the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class struggle under socialism and Marxist-Leninist education. The party has not been able to find a correct balance between the criticism on and education of cadres who have made mistakes of opportunism and the elimination of the hard revisionists. And apparently the revisionists constantly improve their tactics, to hide their true intentions, to take in leadership positions and to recruit bourgeois elements of
But Enver Hoxha withdrew unfounded and premature decisions out of the fact that opportunistic mistakes could be noticed. He contributed little to the aspect of "political struggle - criticism - education and re-education of the cadres” and laid one-sided emphasis on purification and repression (...).
For Enver Hoxha any disagreement was a conspiracy. There was little effort to try to solve even serious disagreements by discussion and political struggle. Balances of such political struggles were not used for the education and the political and ideological unification of the cadres. There was apparently a unity, but that was not based on the common understanding of the contradictions that came up during the fight.

The official (on congresses by a majority affirmed) line of the WPB/PVDA/PTB about China is one that is very critical about the politic of “Reform and Opening” started in 1978 by Deng Xiaoping. Although at the time of 1994 there was the recognition of “positive aspects” to it, there was ALSO the recognition of “a danger of revisionism” of the possibility of a “restoration of capitalism” in China. This point of view was abandoned by the national WPB-cadre, Boudewijn Deckers, and so was silently “allowed” to WPB-cadre Peter Franssen to develop the point of view that “the politic of Deng Xiaping was a correct Marxist answer on the utopian or “leftist” policy which Mao had supported after -say- 1950”. (I will prove this CONCRETELY in further articles – in fact I did this already partly in this (downloadable) document wich is an critic on Peter Fransen's analysis) The by congresses approved - by Ludo Martens formulated - point of view about “the reforms of Deng Xiaoping:

p.221. In the first place there is the economy. The ten years of the reforms of Deng Xiaoping have brought undoubtedly much material progress. But they have also increased the influence of capitalism and imperialism and so created the economic base for the contra-revolution. The liberalisation and the liberation of the powers of the market have strengthened the economic powers which fight socialism and which sooner or later, will unchain a fight for the power. And that is what they have done during the so-called “movement for democracy on the Tien An men-square.(...)

Boudewijn Deckers in 200311 referred to this point of view in a negative and “truncated” (and so subjective) way.... and then linked it to Ludo Martens or to the “WPB-point of view of that moment” (see note), so wiping the original point of view out of the “collective memory” of the party:
“In 1989, after the events of Tien An Men, we had the impression that capitalism was wildly attacking in all directions and was threatening to become the main aspect in China12. But today the socialist state disposes more laws and regulations in order to control the development of the capitalist enterprises and to orientate towards a mixed economy.”13
Further, the ORIGINAL point of view of the WPB -formulated by Ludo Martens in the book “From Tien An Men to Timisoara....”:
p.222 The otherwise reasonable policy of the limited development of capitalist industry in China has been derailed and resulted in a proliferation of capitalist enterprises.(...)

p.223. Imperialism and capitalism, who have a solid base of influence in the Chinese economy, supported the so-called democratic movement and the "reformers" in the circles around Zhao Zhiyang, with the aim to establish a legal political power.(...)
The second negative development which we could notice in China between 1979 and 1989, is situated on political level; with the growing of a new contra-revolutionary power.
As soon as China proposed an economic policy that involved the development of a capitalist sector and let do the multinationals their appearance, also appeared on the political level, the first anti-socialist forces. In 1979, Beijing had a "wall of democracy", a wall on which all types of anti-communist publications found a place. On March 9, 1979 on what became a famous wall poster (.....) .... the following lines (...) Second point: "We demand the release of the obsolete statements of Mao Zedong and of the principles of Marxism, which no longer correspond to reality. In addition, we demand the abolition of class struggle" Third:"We demand that the Communist Party, which was owned by Mao Zedong, once again become the party of the whole people "(...)14 (...).
p. 224 The man who in '78-'79 defended most powerful the political views of imperialism, was Wei Jingsheng. He has, in the Western right-side, acquired a certain prestige with its slogan that China needed a fifth modernization: democracy (...).
The counter-revolutionary ideas, which Wei defended along with a small group of admirers of imperialism in '79, found over the years an increasing resonance among the intellectuals. There are several causes for this. The party neglected the Marxist-Leninist education of the students. She has not waged no more struggle against the political conceptions of imperialism. Liberalism, corruption and illegal enrichment spread among certain factions of the party. (...)
p. 225. A third negative development played a decisive role in the development of the mass movement of Bejing: the internal divisions of the Chinese Communist Party and the appearance of a very influential revisionist wing.
Hu Yaobang, General Secretary of the Party since 1981, was the most prominent representative of this Chinese revisionism. In 1981 his group "rejected the theory of classes and class struggle throughout the socialist period and the presence of the bourgeoisie within the Communist Party.”15

WPB-cadre Peter Franssen talked about the necessity during construction of socialism of a “united front ... with the (national) capitalists and bourgeoisie”, in 2007.
In this “analysis” of 2007, he is in fact “paraphrasing” Mao Zedong's “fundamental essays “About new Democracy”(1940) “About Coalition-government” (1945) and “About the correct solution of contradictions among the people” (1957), in which is strived towards a united front with the capitalist class in order to lift the country out of its underdevelopment and in which is defended that the building of socialism is very gradually an spread over a long historical period.16
Further the ORIGINAL point of view of the WPB...:
p. 226. Four years later Hu would declare: “We have decided from now on, not to use anymore the expression of anti-party and anti-socialist element.”17 Rotten and corrupted elements, bureaucrats and revisionists could now quietly proceed.

Deng Xiaoping “rehabilitated” those party-cadres as Liu Chaochi, who were judged that they followed an anti-socialist and a capitalism-promoting direction...18
Further the original judgement of the WPB about the link between “rehabilitation” of revisionists and the submission of the whole CCP to their revisionist ideology:
p. 226 In 1988 Hu was replaced by one of his allies in the revisionist faction: Zhao Zhyyang.
To make clear in which direction the evolution went, Beijing Information wrote in 1988 that “Chruchov won a certain popularity in China”, while “ Stalin was a dictator and certainly not a revolutionary”. (....)
If some people start a subjective not-argued reasoning against Stalin, one does well to focus in order to capture their real message.
So, Professor Lu Congming of the Party School depending of the Central Committee, stated that "the character of the present age gradually changes from imperialism to social capitalism.19 Suddenly the danger of imperialism disappeared, both for the Third world and for China! Lu continued, "developed capitalism can produce elements of socialism and transition to socialism by peaceful means. (...) The socialist economy and capitalist economy are both socialized market economies. (...) The contemporary capitalism is a good model of a socialized market.”

WPB-cadre, Peter Franssen, defended the “policy” of the CCP of “let to do the development of capitalist production-relations their historical job of preparing the production-forces in order to be able to alter the production-relations at the moment that they are 'ripe' enough to do so”..20
The point of view of the WPB about this policy, prepared in the analysis of Ludo Martens but affirmed on the 5th Congress(1995) was:

p.226 When we hear such stupidities, we can understand the rage of Mao Zedong who was criticising during the Cultural Revolution “the bunch of contra-revolutionary revisionists”.21

That “bunch of contra-revolutionary revisionists”.... were rehabilitated by Deng Xiaoping, while the Cultural Revolution was considered by him and the majority of the leadership of the CCP (and the leadership of the WPB after 2003 supported this consideration...) to be a “total-not-to-repeat-ever-again disaster”.
Further:
p. 226 Afterwards, Professor Lu lifted a paean to capitalism. "One sees a change in ownership of the means of production: social ownership supersedes private property. Then there is the participation of the workers in the management of their business. The macro-state control over the economy, in fact, marks the beginning of planned economy. The new distribution of income by the government and the development of social security, helping to reduce the difference between rich and poor,” This revisionist states capitalism as a social model that has already has fulfilled all the promises of socialism Then he calls for a capitalist policy in China, as the best means of developing socialism .... And so we find that the ideology which Lu, as a teacher at the Higher Party-cadre, proclaims, is very similar to the thoughts of Mr. Wei, who still stays in prison. (...)

We find this also very similar with the ideology of Peter Franssen, who was able to propagate this ON a meeting organised by the University of Wuhan, the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the CC of the Communist Party of China and the Academy of Social Sciences of China as a “honourable” speaker.22
But the original point of view of the WPB (formulated by Ludo Martens).... included the remark that the repression of Deng Xiaoping against the contra-revolutionary insurge (1989) does not guarantee that Deng left his revisionism:

p. 227 To understand the political clash May-June 1989 at the Tien An Men Square, we should know that in January broke out a first major internal struggle within the Chinese Communist Party. The student movement of 1986, inspired and led by Fang Lizhi, had attacked the very basis of socialism in China. Deng Xiaoping, who hitherto followed tightly revisionist Hu Yaobang, changed optics. (....)
The fall of Hu Yaobang has weakened the revisionist core at the head of the party. Nevertheless, Deng Xiaoping had appointed another representative of the same flow, Zhao Zhiyang as Secretary-General. (...)
In 1988, Zhao Zhiyang, the new Secretary-General, continued the same policy and protected the revisionist groups that were brought by Hu Yaobang in the leadership of some party-institutions. Under his leadership, they could expand their influence. A in 1986 had the closest cooperator of Zhao, Bao Tong, Beijing, authorized the establishment of a Fund for Reform and Opening of China. George Soros, a major American businessman, was the lender.23 (...)

p.237 Hu Yaobang deceased on 15 April 1989. He was an important representative of the liberal and pro-imperialist faction in the party. (...)

p.249 As of 1989, some American specialists believed that in China restoring capitalism had reached. "the point of no return". The decline of collectivization in the countryside, the development of collective and private enterprises, the autonomy of enterprises, the creation of a layer of technocrats who were won for the Western model, the special economic zones, foreign investment ... That everything, so they told, is a solid economic base for capitalism.
Also, some revolutionaries believed that Deng Xiaoping had restored capitalism in China. But the recent changes (this text was written in 1990, NICO) after June 1989 in the political and economic orientation show that these were premature conclusions.
The question remains whether the Communist Party will persevere this rectification long enough and will implement the critics on the mistakes made, thoroughly?
The China-experts assume different hypotheses to predict the future of China
Some believe that the revisionists in the party will now keep quiet a time, to use more left-wing language and will wait on serious economic difficulties for another power grab to do.
Others think that the current political and ideological rectification will remain superficial, that bureaucratism, corruption and parasitism will spread further and that the rot will continue as it has done since 1978. The happening of June 1989 would have only delayed the advance of the capitalism.
A third group believes that Deng Xiaoping will pivot back tot the right and will support a tendency à la Hu Yaobang and Zhao Zhiyang. They recall that in February 1989 Deng still claimed that the party had not made no major errors since 1978. Deng would recoil from a serious self-criticism over this period and rejoin the political reforms of the capitalist type.
Other experts predict that China will burst under pressure from provincial particularism and by the actions of counter-revolutionary pro-Taiwan forces. China would know a new period of devastating civil wars whose outcome can not be predicted.
Finally, one can also consider that the current party leadership will succeed in making the correct synthesis of the political principles that Mao has developed during the Cultural Revolution and the more flexible economic policies that were followed since then. Thus China would be able to find a new dynamism, both at the political and economic side.
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong indeed not found the right methods to solve the problem of capitalist decay. on But at least he had estimated correctly this crucial issue. The political evolution of the past ten years clearly confirms some of his analysis.(...)

All these positions about China, Deng Xiaoping, danger of revisionism, danger of restoration of capitalism are just “erased out of the collective memory of the members of the WPB” ....and so “allowed” other cadres, as Herwig Lerouge and Peter Franssen to develop a REVISIONIST WPB-point-of view.
This I will explain concretely in further articles and proving my statements by BROADLY quoting texts of national WPB-cadres, Herwig Lerouge, Boudewijn Deckers and Peter Franssen.

1“Partij van de Revolutie”, EPO, 1996, ISBN 60 6445 933 9.
2Enver Hoxha, Reflexions sur la Chine, part 2 (1973-1977), Ed. 8 Nëntori, Tirana, 1979 p. 6-7.
3Ibidem, p.685.
4Ibidem, p.688.
5Ibidem, p. 193-194.
6Enver Hoxha, op cit., deel 1, p.357.
7Ibidem, p. 352.
8Ibidem, p. 376.
9Ibidem, p. 385.
10Ibidem, p. 386.
11In Marxistische Studies no 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01, “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese
Volksrepubliek”, Boudewijn Deckers
12Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.
13http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, Marxistische Studies nummer 64, publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, Marxistische Studies en auteurs — Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden, "Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek" ("Questions about the development of socialism in de Chinese Peoples Republic"), by Boudewijn Deckers
14Le Printemps du Pékin, Gallimard, Parijs, 1980, p. 69-71 – Le dégel, 6 March 1979.
15Beijing Information, 2 November 1981, p. 21.
16 http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=72&doc_id=376, Marxistische Studies nummer 78, publicatiedatum: 2007-11-22 Copyright © EPO, Marxistische Studies en auteurs — Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden, "De ontwikkeling van het socialisme in China", Peter Franssen. in "Hoofdstuk 2 1949-1976: de eerste periode van de socialistische opbouw",.....in "§ De Culturele Revolutie".
17Lawrence Macdonald and Jean-Christophe Tournebise, Le Dragon et la Souris, Bourgeois, Paris, 1987, p. 34.
18http://www.people.com.cn/english/dengxp/contents2.html, Selected works of Deng Xiaoping Vol. II, "ADHERE TO THE PARTY LINE AND IMPROVE METHODS OF WORK, February 29, 1980" (but at the moment -as I tested- the text itself in not attainable, perhaps in another place.......)....YES I found another link: http://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/adhere-to-the-party-line-and-improve-methods-of-work/
19Beijing Information, 9 January 1989, p. 21-23.
20 http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=72&doc_id=376, Marxistische Studies nummer 78, publicatiedatum: 2007-11-22 Copyright © EPO, Marxistische Studies en auteurs — Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden, "De ontwikkeling van het socialisme in China", Peter Franssen. in "Hoofdstuk 2 1949-1976: de eerste periode van de socialistische opbouw",.....in "§ De voorwaarden voor het economisch socialisme".
21Circular Note of the Central Committee, 16 May 1966.
22https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NZDehsll_dDToNYzkh1POex98FvdQmvSIHgvtrvOAtQ/preview?pli=1, Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China. It is 110 years since Friedrich Engels, the man who along with his companion Karl Marx laid the foundations of scientific socialism, passed away. To commemorate his death, an international symposium was held in the Chinese city of Wuhan. The organisers were the University of Wuhan, the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the CC of the Communist Party of China and the Academy of Social Sciences of China. 32 Chinese speakers made contributions, as well as 13 foreigners. At the request of the organisers, Peter Franssen, journalist with the Belgian weekly Solidaire and researcher at the Institute for Marxist Studies, wrote a contribution.

23Problems of Communism, September-October 1989, p. 19.