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.
“
Remark:
In 2004 when in Solidair
(weekly of the WPB) appeared an article of Boudewijn Deckers
introducing his “analysis” in Marxist
Studies
I sent a 'readers-mail' to Solidair
“To
Boudewijn Deckers about his article about socialism in China”.....
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.
Marx
said:
“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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten