Boudewijn Deckers -co-founder of AMADA in 1970 and of the WPB in 1979 - in fact “erased” out of the collective memory of the party (WPB), the original WPB-party-statements and on WPB-congresses voted party-points of view.
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:
China experienced during the last thirty years serious reforms. Does this not lead 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.(...)
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.”1 (...)
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..2
Why do I speak about “CONCSIOUSLY, ERASING of the collective memory or knowledge of the party”?
Boudewijn Deckers was the co-founder of AMADA in 1970, and he was (co-)leading the founding-congress of the WPB in 1979, as he was mostly (co-)leading ALL congresses of the WPB. He has always been “the number 2” as well in AMADA as in the WPB. He has always been responsible for the content and the level of political and ideological formation of the members. All I have learned about the October-revolution and the Chinese revolution, it is out of works, documents and books, PROMOTED by him. So as member you were advised to study certain works from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and also from Enver Hodga. The study of those works had to be combined with a study of the CONTEXT in which those works were written. So for example for Lenin, you should also study the book “ History of the CP of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)” and in combination of the works of Mao Zedong advised was to study “The morning deluge” and ““The wind in the tower” from Han Suyin (the books, which you can consider as the history of he CCP and the Chinese revolution)
Normally you would also consider that Boudewijn Deckers would have studied for example the most important texts of Deng Xiaoping (AFTER 1978)
Also IN Marxist Studies were published analyses about the “reform and opening” -policy of Deng Xiaoping so for example in Marxist Studies n° 4 , 20 March 1990, “Point de vue critique sur les réformes agricoles en Chine”:, an article of William H. Hinton:
“Cet article est une traduction d'une réponse de William H. Hinton3 à un article de Hugh Deane, journaliste américain spécialiste des questions chinoises, critiquant divers aspects de la politique agricole menée en Chine depuis le milieu des années cinquante jusqu'à l'aube des réformes de 1978. Tout en réfutant ou nuançant les analyses de H. Deane, William Hinton jette, à son tour, un regard très critique sur les réformes mises en oeuvre depuis 1978.4
...and in Marxist Studies n° 17, 20 March 1993, a report of a militant/cadre of the WPB (a medicine) about the health-service in China and the concrete effects of the “reform-”policy on it, “Les soins de santé en Chine”
The last chapter of this report is called: “The pervert effects of the reform on the healthcare-sector”:
“Nous ne nous attarderons pas ici sur les effets pervers de la réforme au niveau de l'agriculture. Ce n'est pas notre sujet. Nous nous pencherons par contre sur les effets pervers de la réforme en matière de santé. Si nous gardons en tête que le progrès dans la santé était le résultat d'une planification rigoureuse et l'application concrète du centralisme démocratique sur base de principes socialistes, le manque de planification et de centralisme démocratique devra nécessairement avoir des effets inverses sur le terrain. “
About some texts of Deng Xiaoping (which apparently Boudewijn Deckers was unable to study...)
“We are opposed to broadening the scope of class struggle. We do not believe that there is a bourgeoisie within the Party, nor do we believe that under the socialist system a bourgeoisie or any other exploiting class will re-emerge after exploiting classes and the conditions of exploitation have really been eliminated. But we must recognize that in our socialist society there are still counter-revolutionaries, enemy agents, criminals and other bad elements of all kinds who undermine socialist public order, as well as new exploiters who engage in corruption, embezzlement, speculation and profiteering. And we must also recognize that such phenomena cannot be all eliminated for a long time to come. The struggle against these individuals is different from the struggle of one class against another, which occurred in the past (these individuals cannot form a cohesive and overt class). However, it is still a special form of class struggle or a special form of the leftover, under socialist conditions, of the class struggles of past history. It is still necessary to exercise dictatorship over all these anti-socialist elements, and socialist democracy is impossible without it. This dictatorship is an internal struggle and in some cases an international struggle as well; in fact, the two aspects are inseparable. Therefore, so long as class struggle exists and so long as imperialism and hegemonism exist, it is inconceivable that the dictatorial function of the state should wither away, that the standing army, public security organs, courts and prisons should wither away. Their existence is not in contradiction with the democratization of the socialist state, for their correct and effective work ensures, rather than hampers, such democratization. The fact of the matter is that socialism cannot be defended or built up without the dictatorship of the proletariat.5
So while there is no bourgeois class, the special character of the class struggle is that there IS NO CLASS STRUGGLE....
“The Eleventh National Congress of the Party and the Fifth National People's Congress have set the great nationwide goal of achieving the four socialist modernizations before the end of this century. Now the Central Committee and the State Council are urging us to quicken the pace of our modernization and have set forth a series of relevant policies and organizational measures. The Central Committee points out that this is a great revolution in which China's economic and technological backwardness will be overcome and the dictatorship of the proletariat further consolidated. Since its goal is to transform the present backward state of our productive forces, it inevitably entails many changes in the relations of production, the superstructure and the forms of management in industrial and agricultural enterprises, as well as changes in the state administration over these enterprises so as to meet the needs of modern large-scale production. To accelerate economic growth it is essential to increase the degree of specialization of enterprises, to raise the technical level of all personnel significantly and train and evaluate them carefully, to greatly improve economic accounting in the enterprises, and to raise labour productivity and rates of profit to much higher levels. Therefore, it is essential to carry out major reforms in the various branches of the economy with respect to their structure and organization as well as to their technology. The long-term interests of the whole nation hinge on these reforms, without which we cannot overcome the present backwardness of our production technology and management. The Central Committee of the Party is confident that, in the interests of socialism and the four modernizations, our whole working class will play a selfless, model, vanguard role in these reforms”6
As the communes were dismantled and the collectivisation turned down “the changes in the relations of production” can only meant an reinforcing of the CAPITALIST production relations (which were step by step transformed just by the collectivisation and the installing of the communes). So “the further consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat” is just a PHRASE while “changes in the superstructure and the forms of management in industrial and agricultural enterprises” which has to lead to “raise labour productivity and the rates of profit to much higher level” meant giving the bourgeoisie more power and increasing the level of exploitation of the working class.
Before analysing the so-called “Marxist” argumentation on one point of the policy “Reform and Opening”: “reform of the relations of production that do not correspond with the rapid development of the productive forces”; let's first give the argumentation of Deng Xiaoping (which Boudewijn Deckers was unable to study):
I. EMANCIPATING THE MIND IS A VITAL POLITICAL TASK
When it comes to emancipating our minds, using our heads, seeking truth from facts and uniting as one in looking to the future, the primary task is to emancipate our minds. Only then can we, guided as we should be by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, find correct solutions to the emerging as well as inherited problems, fruitfully reform those aspects of the relations of production and of the superstructure that do not correspond with the rapid development of our productive forces, and chart the specific course and formulate the specific policies, methods and measures needed to achieve the four modernizations under our actual conditions.(....)
Henceforth, now that the question of political line has been settled, the quality of leadership given by the Party committee in an economic unit should be judged mainly by the unit's adoption of advanced methods of management, by the progress of its technical innovation, and by the margins of increase of its productivity of labour, its profits, the personal income of its workers and the collective benefits it provides. The quality of leadership by Party committees in all fields should be judged by similar criteria. This will be of major political importance in the years to come. Without these criteria as its key elements, our politics would be empty and divorced from the highest interests of both the Party and the people.
So far as the structure of management is concerned, the most important task at present is to strengthen the work responsibility system. (....)
To make the best use of the responsibility system, the following measures are essential.
First, we must extend the authority of the managerial personnel. Whoever is given responsibility should be given authority as well. Whoever it is -- a factory director, engineer, technician, accountant or cashier -- he should have his own area not only of responsibility but of authority, which must not be infringed upon by others. The responsibility system is bound to fail if there is only responsibility without authority.
Second, we must select personnel wisely and assign duties according to ability. We should seek out existing specialists and train new ones, put them in important positions, raise their political status and increase their material benefits. What are the political requirements in selecting someone for a job? The major criterion is whether the person chosen can work for the good of the people and contribute to the development of the productive forces and to the socialist cause as a whole.
Third, we must have a strict system of evaluation and distinguish clearly between a performance that should be rewarded and one that should be penalized. All enterprises, schools, research institutes and government offices should set up systems for evaluating work and conferring academic, technical and honorary titles. Rewards and penalties, promotions and demotions should be based on work performance. And they should be linked to increases or reductions in material benefits.
In short, through strengthening the responsibility system and allotting rewards and penalties fairly, we should create an atmosphere of friendly emulation in which people vie with one another to become advanced elements, working hard and aiming high.
In economic policy, I think we should allow some regions and enterprises and some workers and peasants to earn more and enjoy more benefits sooner than others, in accordance with their hard work and greater contributions to society. If the standard of living of some people is raised first, this will inevitably be an impressive example to their ``neighbours'', and people in other regions and units will want to learn from them. This will help the whole national economy to advance wave upon wave and help the people of all our nationalities to become prosperous in a comparatively short period. (.....)
During the drive to realize the four modernizations, we are bound to encounter many new and unexpected situations and problems with which we are unfamiliar. In particular, the reforms in the relations of production and in the superstructure will not be easy to introduce. They touch on a wide range of issues and concern the immediate interests of large numbers of people, so they are bound to give rise to complications and problems and to meet with numerous obstacles. In the reorganization of enterprises, for example, there will be the problem of deciding who will stay on and who will leave, while in that of government departments, a good many people will be transferred to other jobs, and some may complain. And so on. Since we will have to confront such problems soon, we must be mentally prepared for them. We must teach Party members and the masses to give top priority to the overall situation and the overall interests of the Party and the state. We should be full of confidence. We will be able to solve any problem and surmount any obstacle so long as we have faith in the masses, follow the mass line and explain the situation and problems to them. There can be no doubt that as the economy grows, more and more possibilities will open up and each person will be able to make his contribution to society. 7
“Guided .... by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, find correct solutions to the .... reform those aspects of the relations of production and of the superstructure that do not correspond with the rapid development of our productive forces, .... to achieve the four modernizations under our actual conditions.(....) The quality of leadership given by the Party committee in an economic unit should be judged mainly by the unit's adoption of advanced methods of management, by the progress of its technical innovation, and by the margins of increase of its productivity of labour, its profits, the personal income of its workers and the collective benefits it provides.(...)First, we must extend the authority of the managerial personnel. .... -- a factory director, engineer, technician, accountant or cashier -- he should have his own area not only of responsibility but of authority, which must not be infringed upon by others. ....
We must select personnel wisely and assign duties according to ability. ... put them in important positions, raise their political status and increase their material benefits. .... We must have a strict system of evaluation and distinguish clearly between a performance that should be rewarded and one that should be penalized. ... Rewards and penalties, promotions and demotions should be based on work performance. And they should be linked to increases or reductions in material benefits.”
It is SUGGESTED - by Deng Xiaoping .... and this “suggestion” is supported by Boudewijn Deckers – that it is apparently defended by Marx, Lenin and Mao to “reform the production-relations” (which can only mean RE-install the by collectivisation and installing of communes torn down, CAPITALIST production-relations) which will be able to “develop the backward productive forces”.
“Modernization does represent a great new revolution. The aim of our revolution is to liberate and expand the productive forces. Without expanding the productive forces, making our country prosperous and powerful, and improving the living standards of the people, our revolution is just empty talk. We oppose the old society and the old system because they oppressed the people and fettered the productive forces. We are clear about this problem now. The Gang of Four said it was better to be poor under socialism than to be rich under capitalism. This is absurd.
Of course, we do not want capitalism, but neither do we want to be poor under socialism. What we want is socialism in which the productive forces are developed and the country is prosperous and powerful. We believe that socialism is superior to capitalism. This superiority should be demonstrated in that socialism provides more favourable conditions for expanding the productive forces than capitalism does. This superiority should have become evident, but owing to our differing understanding of it, the development of the productive forces has been delayed, especially during the past ten-year period up to 1976. In the early 1960s, China was behind the developed countries, but the gap was not as wide as it is now. Over the past 11 or 12 years, from the end of the 1960s through the 1970s, the gap has widened because other countries have been vigorously developing their economies, science and technology, with the rate of development no longer being calculated in terms of years, not even in terms of months, but in terms of days. For a fairly long period of time since the founding of the People's Republic, we have been isolated from the rest of the world. For many years this isolation was not attributable to us; on the contrary, the international anti-Chinese and anti-socialist forces confined us to a state of isolation. However, in the 1960s when opportunities to increase contact and cooperation with other countries presented themselves to us, we isolated ourselves. At last, we have learned to make use of favourable international conditions. “8
“First, it is essential to follow a firm and consistent political line.
We now have such a line. In his speech at the meeting in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic, Comrade Ye Jianying formulated the general task -- or, if you will, the general line -- as follows: Unite the people of all our nationalities and bring all positive forces into play so that we can work with one heart and one mind, go all out, aim high and achieve greater, faster, better and more economical results in building a modern, powerful socialist country. That was the first fairly comprehensive statement of our present general line. This general line is of immense political importance today -- how can it be otherwise? It represents our long-term task. If a massive war breaks out and we have to fight, we will have to suspend our efforts to fulfil this task, but otherwise, we must keep at it consistently and devotedly. Having experienced many twists and turns in our work during the past 30 years, we have never really been able to shift its focus to socialist construction. Consequently, the superiority of socialism has not been displayed fully, the productive forces have not developed in a rapid, steady, balanced way, and the people's standard of living has not improved much. The decade of the ``cultural revolution'' brought catastrophe upon us and caused profound suffering. Except in the event of a massive war, we must steel ourselves to carry out this task with constancy and devotion; we must make it our central task and allow nothing to interfere with its fulfilment. Even if there is a large-scale war, afterwards we will either pick up where we left off or start over. The whole Party and people should form this high resolve and keep to it without faltering. Had it not been for the ``Left'' interference, the reversals of 1958 and especially of the ``cultural revolution'', significant progress would certainly have been achieved in our industrial and agricultural production and in science and education, and the people's standard of living would certainly have improved to a fair extent. We could have accomplished these things simply by working conscientiously and methodically, even without applying the experience of the advanced countries and having the high resolve we have today. Take steel for instance. If there had been steady development, by now we could have been producing at least 50 to 60 million tons of usable steel a year. Today we enjoy very favourable international conditions and we can be fully confident that our future will be bright as long as the whole Party and people, with one heart and mind, resolutely follow the political line formulated by the Central Committee.” 9
“The aim of our revolution is to liberate and expand the productive forces. Without expanding the productive forces, ... our revolution is just empty talk. We oppose the old society and the old system because they oppressed the people and fettered the productive forces. ... The Gang of Four said it was better to be poor under socialism than to be rich under capitalism. This is absurd. ... What we want is socialism in which the productive forces are developed and the country is prosperous and powerful. We believe that socialism is superior to capitalism. This superiority should be demonstrated in that socialism provides more favourable conditions for expanding the productive forces than capitalism does. ”
In fact socialist revolution is tearing down capitalist production relations (based on private ownership of means of production which is protected by bourgeois dictatorship) and installing proletarian dictatorship and progressively build communist production-relations..... and this is done and leaded by the most important productive force: the working class (in alliance with other forces...)
The revolution which is (only) “liberating and expanding productive forces” is a bourgeois democratic revolution (against feudality)
A (bourgeois) revisionist can of course not speak of a “revisionist”(and so “bourgeois”) disaster ”of the “reversals of 1958” and the “cultural revolution”. A (bourgeois) revisionist can only negate class-character and so speaks of a “left” (wrong) policy. (but at the same time the revisionist proofs his own BOURGEOIS class-character by making an ANTAGONIST (not to be able to solve by discussion or political struggle) contradiction between his own (as correct, revolutionary, Marxist) line or policy and the so-called “left” line or policy. And of course while the position which Deng Xiaoping is “We do not believe that there is a bourgeoisie within the Party, nor do we believe that under the socialist system a bourgeoisie or any other exploiting class will re-emerge after exploiting classes and the conditions of exploitation have really been eliminated.10”..... he can not speak anymore about a (bourgeois) revisionist line in the CCP, .... so he speaks of a “left” line. (...but attributes antagonist characteristics to “the leftists Lin Biao and the Gang of Four”: “contra-revolutionary” - in some texts he says “fascists”)
And what are for Deng Xiaoping “the (primary) productive forces”? (For Marx, as for Lenin and Mao, it was the working class....):
“I The world is changing, and we should change our thinking and actions along with it. In the past we pursued a closed-door policy and isolated ourselves. How did that benefit socialism? The wheels of history were rolling on, but we came to a halt and fell behind others. 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. For us, the basic task is to maintain socialist convictions and principles, expand the productive forces and raise the people's living standards. To accomplish this task, we must open our country to the outside world. Otherwise, we shall not be able to stick to socialism. In the 1950s, for example, the gap in technology between China and Japan was not great. Then we closed our doors for 20 years and made no effort to compete internationally, while during the same period Japan grew into an economic power.
II From a long-term point of view, we should pay attention to education and science and technology. We have already wasted 20 years when we should have been developing. If we paid no attention to education, science and technology, we would waste another twenty years, and the consequences would be dreadful to contemplate. 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 seems his statement was incomplete. The complete statement should be that science and technology constitute a primary productive force. The future of agriculture will eventually lie in bioengineering and other highly advanced technologies.”11
The so-called Marxist argumentation for the policy “Reform and Opening”
2. ECONOMIC LAWS OF SOCIALISM
There are different formulations about the economic laws of socialism. Marx pointed out in his Critique of the Gotha Programme that a socialist society must carry out the principle of "to each according to his work", and that this is an objective law independent of man's will. In his Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Stalin referred to the law that the relations of production must conform with the character of the productive forces, the basic economic law of socialism, the law of balanced, proportionate development of the national economy, the law 'of value, and so on. (He stressed that the law of value still plays a role in socialist society.This is a significant addition to Marxism-Leninism.) These are all important economic laws in a socialist society. They arise from different circumstances and may be classified into the following types:
1. Acommon law thatruns throughallstages ofthe developmentofhumansociety,i.e.,thelawthattherelationsofproductionmustconformwiththelevelofthegrowthofproductiveforces.This law has operated in all stages of human society but is of particular importance to socialist society. All socio-economic formations in human history came into being spontaneously in correspondence with this economic law. The case is different with the socialist relations of production, which emerge and develop gradually through the application of the principles and policies set by the proletariat which has consciously grasped the same objective law. Before liberation, the Chinese Communist Party formulated a political programme for a transition to a socialist revolution via a democratic revolution. After the birth of New China, the Party announced in 1953 the general line for the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, which provided for the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production. This led to the belief that the rise and gradual reform of the socialist relations of production may be determined by the subjective will of the Party without following the objective laws of socialist economic development. This view led to serious mistakes. Even today, many of our comrades underestimate the difficulties involved in the building of socialism in our country where the level of productive forces is very low, particularly in agriculture. They arc apt to make a rash advance whenever the economic situation is good. Taking advantage of people's inadequate knowledge of this law, the Lin Biao and Jiang Oing counter-revolutionary cliques dished out many ultra-Left slogans to make trouble, bringing enormous losses to our national economy. We must take warning from this.
When Marx spoke of the contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces, he often referred to cases where the relations of production lagged behind the requirements of the growing productive forces. That was because he was analysing mainly the capitalist system which had become an obstacle to the development of productive forces. But he also pointed out in clear-cut terms:
“A social order never perishes before all the productive forces for which it is broadly sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the womb of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it can solve, since closer examination will always show that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the process of formation.12”
Over the past thirty years, people appear to have unanimously acknowledged this objective law the relations of production must conform with the level of the growth of productive forces. In practice, however, they have differed in their understanding of the dialectical relationship between the socialist relations of production and, the developing productive forces. For a time, we overemphasized how backward relations of production would fetter productiye forces and hastened to change the relations of production in the absence of a significant growth in productive forces. We failed to see that a change in the relations] of production that was too radical for the actual growth of prodlictive forces would likewise hamper such a growth . The rise of new relations of production opened broad vistas for the growth of productive forces. But we were not fully aware of the need to stabilize these new relations of production and concentrate on raising the level of productive forces. These misconceptions accounted for the lasting dominance of the idea that a "Left" mistake was more justifiable than a Right one and it was better to be too much to the left than too much to the right. As a result we took rash steps to change the relations of production, a mistake which was repeated over and again in some regions, causing heavy losses to industrial and agricultural production. In view of all this, when we study questions of China's socialist economy, we must grasp this most important economic law of human history by applying the vital principle that practice is the sole criterion of truth, instead of reciting the law as a dogma, we must be clear on its specific content and dialectics by examining the practical experience in China's socialist revolution and construction.13
Summarising the positions taken: “Marx pointed out in his Critique of the Gotha Programme that a socialist society must carry out the principle of "to each according to his work", ... In his Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Stalin referred to the law that the relations of production must conform with the character of the productive forces, the basic economic law of socialism, ...A common law that runs through all stages of the development of human society, i.e., the law that the relations of production must conform with the level of the growth of productive forces. ....“A social order never perishes before all the productive forces for which it is broadly sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the womb of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it can solve, since closer examination will always show that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the process of formation.14”....this objective law the relations of production must conform with the level of the growth of productive forces. In practice, however, they have differed in their understanding of the dialectical relationship between the socialist relations of production and, the developing productive forces. For a time, we overemphasized how backward relations of production would fetter productive forces and hastened to change the relations of production in the absence of a significant growth in productive forces. We failed to see that a change in the relations] of production that was too radical for the actual growth of productive forces would likewise hamper such a growth . The rise of new relations of production opened broad vistas for the growth of productive forces. But we were not fully aware of the need to stabilize these new relations of production and concentrate on raising the level of productive forces.”
What was Marx himself saying, more than only the given limited quotes, about “production-relations” and “productive forces”?
““The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.(...)
The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.15
Marx does not speak about “changes in the relations of production” are “too radical for the actual growth of productive forces” of “the need to stabilize new relations of production”and first “concentrate on raising the level of productive forces”.
Marx (to which the CCP-ideologues are referring) further:
In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.
No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.
In broad outlines Asiatic[A], ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close.16
For Marx, the most important and decisive productive force is the working class. And when the working class (as productive force) becomes conscious that the capitalist production relations are not suitable for the further development of the working class and in fact of the majority of th people (that capitalism is not a production system which can fulfil the needs of the working class and the rest of humanity), than they have to break those production relations and build new (communist) production-relations.....and that period of transformation of the “old” production relations inherited from the “old” society into the new ones is the first stage of communism .... or socialism. And the “superstructure” is the proletarian dictatorship.
Not changing the production-relations, just focussing on development of the productive forces to its utmost, and “stabilising” this situation, is maintaining the situation of the (bourgeois) democratic revolution and not allowing the working class to proceed into the socialist revolution. For this, the bourgeoisie IN the CCP developed a Marxist-sounding phraseology AND “deleted” the historical knowledge and memory, creating their “own” history of “left” mistakes against a “correct” line..... the bourgeois cadres in the WPB (as for example Boudewijn Deckers) did the same!
So also the Marxist “proof” of the policy of “reform and opening” consist also in quoting Stalin (or rather paraphrasing Stalin) out of his work “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”: ” Stalin referred to the law that the relations of production must conform with the character of the productive forces.”....and so making a dogma out of this “quote”, the base-guideline of the policy of “Reform and Opening”.
And Boudewijn Deckers never read Stalin? ...although it was advised to new members to do so! Well, I did...!
“The specific role of Soviet government was due to two circumstances: first, that what Soviet government had to do was not to replace one form of exploitation by another, as was the case in earlier revolutions, but to abolish exploitation altogether; second, that in view of the absence in the country of any ready-made rudiments of a socialist economy, it had to create new, socialist forms of economy, "starting from scratch," so to speak.
That was undoubtedly a difficult, complex and unprecedented task. Nevertheless, the Soviet government accomplished this task with credit. But it accomplished it not because it supposedly destroyed the existing economic laws and "formed" new ones, but only because it relied on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand, was private, capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the exploiting system and created socialist forms of economy. Had it not been for this law, and had the Soviet government not relied upon it, it could not have accomplished its mission.
The economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces has long been forcing its way to the forefront in the capitalist countries. If it has failed so far to force its way into the open, it is because it is encountering powerful resistance on the part of obsolescent forces of society. Here we have another distinguishing feature of economic laws. Unlike the laws of natural science, where the discovery and application of a new law proceeds more or less smoothly, the discovery and application of a new law in the economic field, affecting as it does the interests of obsolescent forces of society, meets with the most powerful resistance on their part. A force, a social force, capable of overcoming this resistance, is therefore necessary. In our country, such a force was the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, who represented the overwhelming majority of society. There is no such force yet in other, capitalist countries. This explains the secret why the Soviet government was able to smash the old forces of society, and why in our country the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces received full scope. (....)
The working class utilized the law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces, overthrew the bourgeois relations of production, created new, socialist relations of production and brought them into conformity with the character of the productive forces. It was able to do so not because of any particular abilities it possessed, but because it was vitally interested in doing so. The bourgeoisie, which from an advanced force at the dawn of the bourgeois revolution had already become a counter-revolutionary force, offered every resistance to the implementation of this law - and it did so not because it lacked organization, and not because the elemental nature of economic processes drove it to resist, but chiefly because it was to its vital interest that the law should not become operative. (....)
You assert that complete conformity of the relations of production with the character of the productive forces can be achieved only under socialism and communism, and that under other formations the conformity can only be partial.
This is not true. In the epoch following the bourgeois revolution, when the bourgeoisie had shattered the feudal relations of production and established bourgeois relations of production, there undoubtedly were periods when the bourgeois production relations did fully conform with the character of the productive forces. Otherwise, capitalism could not have developed as swiftly as it did after the bourgeois revolution.
Further, the words "full conformity" must not be understood in the absolute sense. They must not be understood as meaning that there is altogether no lagging of the relations of production behind the growth of the productive forces under socialism. The productive forces are the most mobile and revolutionary forces of production. They undeniably move in advance of the relations of production even under socialism. Only after a certain lapse of time do the relations of production change in line with the character of the productive forces.
How, then, are the words "full conformity" to be under-stood? They are to be understood as meaning that under socialism things do not usually go to the length of a conflict between the relations of production and the productive forces, that society is in a position to take timely steps to bring the lagging relations of production into conformity with the character of the productive forces. Socialist society is in a position to do so because it does not include the obsolescent classes that might organize resistance. Of course, even under socialism there will be backward, inert forces that do not realize the necessity for changing the relations of production; but they, of course, will not be difficult to over-come without bringing matters to a conflict. (....)
Next: Concerning the Errors of Comrade L. D. Yaroshenko (....)
Comrade Yaroshenko thinks that it is enough to arrange a "rational organization of the productive forces," and the transition from socialism to communism will take place with-out any particular difficulty. He considers that this is quite sufficient for the transition to communism. He plainly de-dares that "under socialism, the basic struggle for the building of a communist society reduces itself to a struggle for the proper organization of the productive forces and their rational utilization in social production." Comrade Yaroshenko solemnly proclaims that "Communism is the highest scientific organization of the productive forces in social production."
It appears, then, that the essence of the communist system begins and ends with the "rational organization of the productive forces."
From all this, Comrade Yaroshenko concludes that there cannot be a single political economy for all social formations, that there must be two political economies: one for pre-socialist social formations, the subject of investigation of which is men's relations of production, and the other for the socialist system, the subject of investigation of which should be not the production, i.e., the economic, relations, but the rational organization of the productive forces. (...)
It is not true, in the first place, that the role of the relations of production in the history of society has been confined to that of a brake, a fetter on the development of the productive forces. When Marxists speak of the retarding role of the relations of production, it is not all relations of production they have in mind, but only the old relations of production, which no longer conform to the growth of the productive forces and, consequently, retard their development. But, as we know, besides the old, there are also new relations of production, which supersede the old. Can it be said that the role of the new relations of production is that of a brake on the productive forces? No, it cannot. On the contrary, the new relations of production are the chief and decisive force, the one which in fact determines the further,and, moreover, powerful, development of the productive forces, and without which the latter would be doomed to stagnation, as is the case today in the capitalist countries.
Nobody can deny that the development of the productive forces of our Soviet industry has made tremendous strides in the period of the five-year plans. But this development would not have occurred if we had not, in October 1917, re-placed the old, capitalist relations of production by new, socialist relations of production. Without this revolution in the production, the economic, relations of our country, our productive forces would have stagnated, just as they are stagnating today in the capitalist countries.
Nobody can deny that the development of the productive forces of our agriculture has made tremendous strides in the past twenty or twenty-five years. But this development would not have occurred if we had not in the 'thirties re-placed the old, capitalist production relations in the country-side by new, collectivist production relations. Without this revolution in production, the productive forces of our agriculture would have stagnated, just as they are stagnating today in the capitalist countries.
Of course, new relations of production cannot, and do not, remain new forever; they begin to grow old and to run counter to the further development of the productive forces; they begin to lose their role of principal mainspring of the productive forces, and become a brake on them. At this point, in place of these production relations which have become antiquated, new production relations appear whose role it is to be the principal mainspring spurring the further development of the productive forces.
This peculiar development of the relations of production from the role of a brake on the productive forces to that of the principal mainspring impelling them forward, and from the role of principal mainspring to that of a brake on the productive forces, constitutes one of the chief elements of the Marxist materialist dialectics. Every novice in Marxism knows that nowadays. But Comrade Yaroshenko, it appears, does not know it.
It is not true, in the second place, that the production, i.e., the economic, relations lose their independent role under socialism, that they are absorbed by the productive forces, that social production under socialism is reduced to the organization of the productive forces. Marxism regards social production as an integral whole which has two inseparable sides: the productive forces of society (the relation of society to the forces of nature, in contest with which it se-cures the material values it needs), and the relations of production (the relations of men to one another in the process of production). These are two different sides of social production, although they are inseparably connected with one another. And just because they constitute different sides of social production, they are able to influence one another. To assert that one of these sides may be absorbed by the other and be converted into its component part, is to commit a very grave sin against Marxism.
“In production, men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by cooperating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place."17
Consequently, social production consists of two sides, which, although they are inseparably connected, reflect two different categories of relations: the relations of men to nature (productive forces), and the relations of men to one another in the process of production (production relations). Only when both sides of production are present do we have social production, whether it be under the socialist system or under any other social formation.
Comrade Yaroshenko, evidently, is not quite in agreement with Marx. He considers that this postulate of Marx is not applicable to the socialist system. Precisely for this reason he reduces the problem of the Political Economy of Socialism to the rational organization of the productive forces, discarding the production, the economic, relations and severing the productive forces from them.
If we followed Comrade Yaroshenko, therefore, what we would get is, instead of a Marxist political economy, some-thing in the nature of Bogdanov's "Universal Organizing Science."
Hence, starting from the right idea that the productive forces are the most mobile and revolutionary forces of production, Comrade Yaroshenko reduces the idea to an absurdity, to the point of denying the role of the production, the economic, relations under socialism; and instead of a full-blooded social production, what he gets is a lopsided and scraggy technology of production - something in the nature of Bukharin's "technique of social organization." (...)
It is not true, lastly, that communism means the rational organization of the productive forces, that the rational organization of the productive forces is the beginning and end of the communist system, that it is only necessary to organize the productive forces rationally, and the transition to communism will take place without particular difficulty. There is in our literature another definition, another formula of communism - Lenin's formula: "Communism is Soviet rule plus the electrification of the whole country."18 Lenin's formula is evidently not to Comrade Yaroshenko's liking, and he replaces it with his own homemade formula: "Communism is the highest scientific organization of the productive forces in social production."
In the first place, nobody knows what this "higher scientific" or "rational" organization of the productive forces which Comrade Yaroshenko advertises represents, what its concrete import is. In his speeches at the Plenum and in the working panels of the discussion, and in his letter to the members of the Political Bureau, Comrade Yaroshenko reiterates this mythical formula dozens of times, but nowhere does he say a single word to explain how the "rational organization" of the productive forces, which supposedly constitutes the beginning and end of the essence of the communist system, should be understood.
In the second place, if a choice must be made between the two formulas, then it is not Lenin's formula, which is the only correct one, that should be discarded, but Comrade Yaroshenko's pseudo formula, which is so obviously chimerical and un-Marxist, and is borrowed from the arsenal of Bogdanov, from his "Universal Organizing Science."
Comrade Yaroshenko thinks that we have only to ensure a rational organization of the productive forces, and we shall be able to obtain an abundance of products and to pass to communism, to pass from the formula, "to each according to his work," to the formula, "to each according to his needs." That is a profound error, and reveals a complete lack of understanding of the laws of economic development of socialism. Comrade Yaroshenko's conception of the conditions for the transition from socialism to communism is far too rudimentary and puerile. He does not understand that neither an abundance of products, capable of covering all the requirements of society, nor the transition to the formula, "to each according to his needs," can be brought about if such economic factors as collective farm, group, property, commodity circulation, etc., remain in force. Comrade Yaroshenko does not understand that before we can pass to the formula, "to each according to his needs," we shall have to pass through a number of stages of economic and cultural re-education of society, in the course of which work will be transformed in the eyes of society from only a means of supporting life into life's prime want, and social property into the sacred and inviolable basis of the existence of society. (....)
Comrade Yaroshenko is mistaken when he asserts that there is no contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces of society under socialism. Of course, our present relations of production are in a period when they fully conform to the growth of the productive forces and help to advance them at seven-league strides. But it would be wrong to rest easy at that and to think that there are no contradictions between our productive forces and the relations of production. There certainly are, and will be, contradictions, seeing that the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces. Given a correct policy on the part of the directing bodies, these contradictions cannot grow into antagonisms, and there is no chance of matters coming to a conflict between the relations of production and the productive forces of society. It would be a different matter if we were to conduct a wrong policy, such as that which Comrade Yaroshenko recommends. In that case conflict would be inevitable, and our relations of production might become a serious brake on the further development of the productive forces.
The task of the directing bodies is therefore promptly to discern incipient contradictions, and to take timely measures to resolve them by adapting the relations of production to the growth of the productive forces. This, above all, concerns such economic factors as group, or collective-farm, property and commodity circulation. At present, of course, these factors are being successfully utilized by us for the promotion of the socialist economy, and they are of undeniable benefit to our society. It is undeniable, too, that they will be of benefit also in the near future. But it would be unpardonable blindness not to see at the same time that these factors are already beginning to hamper the powerful development of our productive forces, since they create obstacles to the full extension of government planning to the whole of the national economy, especially agriculture. There is no doubt that these factors will hamper the continued growth of the productive forces of our country more and more as time goes on. The task, therefore, is to eliminate these contradictions by gradually converting collective-farm property into public property, and by introducing - also gradually - products-exchange in place of commodity circulation. (....)
It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all-round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is required in order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved, and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods.
These are the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to communism. (...)
As we see, the transition from socialism to communism is not such a simple matter as Comrade Yaroshenko imagines.
To attempt to reduce this complex and multiform process, which demands deep-going economic changes, to the "rational organization of the productive forces," as Comrade Yaroshenko does, is to substitute Bogdanovism for Marxism. (....)
Further, Comrade Yaroshenko declares that in his "Political Economy of Socialism," "the categories of political economy - value, commodity, money, credit, etc., - are replaced by a healthy discussion of the rational organization of the productive forces in social production," that, consequently, the subject of investigation of this political economy will not be the production relations of socialism, but "the elaboration and development of a scientific theory of the organization of the productive forces, theory of economic planning, etc.," and that, under socialism, the relations of production lose their independent significance and are absorbed by the productive forces as a component part of them.
It must be said that never before has any retrograde "Marxist" delivered himself of such unholy twaddle. Just imagine a political economy of socialism without economic, production problems! Does such a political economy exist anywhere in creation? What is the effect, in a political economy of socialism, of replacing economic problems by problems of organization of the productive forces? The effect is to abolish the political economy of socialism. And that is just what Comrade Yaroshenko does - he abolishes the political economy of socialism. In this, his position fully gibes with that of Bukharin. (....)
Further, Comrade Yaroshenko reduces the problems of the political economy of socialism to problems of the rational organization of the productive forces, to problems of economic planning, etc. But he is profoundly in error. The rational organization of the productive forces, economic planning, etc., are not problems of political economy, but problems of the economic policy of the directing bodies. They are two different provinces, which must not be confused. Comrade Yaroshenko has confused these two different things, and has made a terrible mess of it. Political economy investigates the laws of development of men's relations of production. Economic policy draws practical conclusions from this, gives them concrete shape, and builds its day-to-day work on them. To foist upon political economy problems of economic policy is to kill it as a science.(...)
Comrade Yaroshenko forgets that men produce not for production's sake, but in order to satisfy their needs. He forgets that production divorced from the satisfaction of the needs of society withers and dies. (....)
Desiring to preserve what he calls the "primacy" of production over consumption, Comrade Yaroshenko claims that the "basic economic law of socialism" consists in "the continuous expansion and perfection of the production of the material and cultural conditions of society." That is absolutely wrong. Comrade Yaroshenko grossly distorts and vitiates the formula given in Comrade Stalin's "Remarks." With him, production is converted from a means into an end, and the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural requirements of society is thrown out. What we get is expansion of production for the sake of expansion of production, production as an aim in itself; man and his requirements disappear from Comrade Yaroshenko's field of vision.
It is therefore not surprising that, with the disappearance of man as the aim of socialist production, every vestige of Marxism disappears from Comrade Yaroshenko's "conception."
And so, what Comrade Yaroshenko arrives at is not the "primacy" of production over consumption, but something like the "primacy" of bourgeois ideology over Marxist ideology.”19 20
So reading the whole booklet of Stalin and not only the limited quotes, presented as dogma's, you see (and Boudewijn Deckers could see it too, when he would read Stalin as he advised to members -...as me) that Stalin in fact CRITICISED and OPPOSED a policy as it was presented by Deng Xiaping. For Stalin it is similar to the policy of Bukharin and is replacing “Marxist ideology” by “bourgeois ideology”.
Besides the use of Marxist-sounding phraseology (based on “quoting” Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin an even quoting Mao himself) to “proof” the correctness of his policy, Deng Xiaoping is falsifying the history of the Chinese revolution and the history of the CCP itself. An example:
After the birth of New China, the Party announced in 1953 the general line for the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, which provided for the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production. This led to the belief that the rise and gradual reform of the socialist relations of production may be determined by the subjective will of the Party without following the objective laws of socialist economic development. This view led to serious mistakes. Even today, many of our comrades underestimate the difficulties involved in the building of socialism in our country where the level of productive forces is very low, particularly in agriculture. They arc apt to make a rash advance whenever the economic situation is good. Taking advantage of people's inadequate knowledge of this law, the Lin Biao and Jiang Oing counter-revolutionary cliques dished out many ultra-Left slogans to make trouble, bringing enormous losses to our national economy. We must take warning from this.(...)
Over the past thirty years, people appear to have unanimously acknowledged this objective law the relations of production must conform with the level of the growth of productive forces. In practice, however, they have differed in their understanding of the dialectical relationship between the socialist relations of production and, the developing productive forces. For a time, we overemphasized how backward relations of production would fetter productiye forces and hastened to change the relations of production in the absence of a significant growth in productive forces. We failed to see that a change in the relations] of production that was too radical for the actual growth of prodlictive forces would likewise hamper such a growth . The rise of new relations of production opened broad vistas for the growth of productive forces. But we were not fully aware of the need to stabilize these new relations of production and concentrate on raising the level of productive forces.21
This “historical idealism” (producing IDEAS as historical FACTS) of Deng Xiaoping, I will analyse in a next article, while also arguing that Boudewijn Deckers must by CONCSIOUSLY blind for this, because I will prove it with material once promoted by him to all members of the WPB.
1http://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)
2 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)
3 William H.Hinton, célèbre analyste des questions agricoles en Chine où il séjourna à plusieurs reprises. Auteur du best-seller «Fanshen - La révolution communiste dans un village chinois» et de «Shenfan», son second ouvrage sur le village de «La Longue Courbe», durant la période de la collectivisation jusqu'à la Révolution culturelle.
4 Les articles de H.Deane et W. Hinton ont été publiés dans Monthly Review, Volume 40, N°10, mars 1989.
5UPHOLD THE FOUR CARDINAL PRINCIPLES March 30, 1979, (A speech at a forum on the principles for the Party's theoretical work.)
6THE WORKING CLASS SHOULD MAKE OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FOUR MODERNIZATIONS October 11, 197.
7EMANCIPATE THE MIND, SEEK TRUTH FROM FACTS AND UNITE AS ONE IN LOOKING TO THE FUTURE December 13, 1978 (Speech at the closing session of the Central Working Conference which made preparations for the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party that immediately followed. In essence, this speech served as the keynote address for the Third Plenary Session.)
8WE CAN DEVELOP A MARKET ECONOMY UNDER SOCIALISM November 26, 1979 (Excerpt from a talk with Frank B. Gibney, Vice-Chairman of the Compilation Committee of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. of the United States, Paul T. K. Lin, Director of the Institute of East Asia at McGill University of Canada, and others.)
9THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE TASKS BEFORE US January 16, 1980. (Speech at a meeting of cadres called by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.)
10UPHOLD THE FOUR CARDINAL PRINCIPLES March 30, 1979, (A speech at a forum on the principles for the Party's theoretical work.)
11SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONSTITUTE A PRIMARY PRODUCTIVE FORCE September 5 and September 12, 1988. (Excerpt from a talk with President Gustav Husak of Czechoslovakia and excerpt from remarks made after hearing a report on a tentative programme for the reform of prices and wages.)
12 Karl Marx, Preface and Introduction to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Kconomy". FLP. Beijing. 1976. p. 4.
13IN “Conclusion - OBJECTIVE LAWS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENMT” , out “China's socialist economy”. First Edition 1981 Revised Edition 1986 ISBN-083SI-1592.5 (Hard Cover) ISBN-098351.1703.0 (Paperback) Copyright 1986 by Foreign Languages Press Published by the Foreign Languages Press, 24 Baiwanzhuang Road, Bering, China. Printed by the L. Rex Offset Printing Co. Ltd. Man Hing Industrial Godown Bldg., 14/F. No.4, Yip Fat St., Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong. Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation (Guoji Shudian), P. 0. Box 399. Beijing, China
14 Karl Marx, Preface and Introduction to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Kconomy". FLP. Beijing. 1976. p. 4.
15 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk, Manifesto of the Communist Party
16https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm, Abstract from the Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
17 Karl Marx, "Wage Labour and Capital", Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951. Vol. I, p. 83.
18 V.I. Lenin, "Our Foreign and Domestic Position and the Tasks of the Party", Collected Works, Russian ed., Vol. 31.
19http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm, Source: Booklet, Written: 1951, Published: Foreign Languages Press, Peking: 1972 (First Edition) (1) . Online Version: Joseph Stalin Reference Archive, July 2005 . Transcription: Hari Kumar for Alliance-ML. HTML: Mike B. for MIA, 2005. Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
20The present English translation of J. V. Stalin’s Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. is a reprint of the text given in the English pamphlet by the same name, published in Moscow, 1952. Changes have been made according to other English translations of the pamphlet. The notes at the end of the book have been translated from the Chinese edition published by the People's Publishing House, Peking, March 1971
21IN “Conclusion - OBJECTIVE LAWS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENMT” , out “China's socialist economy”. First Edition 1981 Revised Edition 1986 ISBN-083SI-1592.5 (Hard Cover) ISBN-098351.1703.0 (Paperback) Copyright 1986 by Foreign Languages Press Published by the Foreign Languages Press, 24 Baiwanzhuang Road, Bering, China. Printed by the L. Rex Offset Printing Co. Ltd. Man Hing Industrial Godown Bldg., 14/F. No.4, Yip Fat St., Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong. Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation (Guoji Shudian), P. 0. Box 399. Beijing, China