Some Comments on
New Democratic Revolution and Cultural Revolution in China
New Democratic Revolution and Cultural Revolution in China
The study of history of Chinese Revolution and history of building socialism in China is very much essential today in order to understand and evaluate correctly the revolutionary movement particularly the ML movement after the out break of Naxalbari in India and correctly settling the question of ideology for forming a revolutionary party. The history of Chinese revolution as well as the problems of building socialism in China has many aspects but here we will discuss only its two aspects – 1) New Democratic revolution 2) socialist construction in China and cultural revolution.
We are of the considered view that the problem of revolution as well as the problem of socialist transformation of China and the role of CPC under the leadership of Mao in resolving those problems should be evaluated in its concrete historical and objective conditions to draw correct revolutionary conclusion.
Mao as a Marxist-Leninist, rightly advocated two stage of revolution – New Democratic Revolution and then Socialist Revolution on the basis of the following observation about China :
“Since the invasion of foreign capitalism and the gradual growth of capitalist elements in Chinese society, the country has changed by degrees into a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. China today is colonial in the Japanese-occupied areas and basically semi-colonial in the Kuomintang areas, and it is predominantly feudal or semi-feudal in both. Such, then, is the character of present-day Chinese society and the state of affairs in our country. …”
“In the course of its history the Chinese revolution must go through two stages, first, the democratic revolution, and second, the socialist revolution, and by their very nature they are two different revolutionary processes. Here democracy does not belong to the old category -- it is not the old democracy, but belongs to the new category -- it is New Democracy.” Mao On New Democracy
The first characteristic feature was that China was a colony in the areas occupied by Japanese imperialism and hence the element of national liberation movement was the necessary part of revolutionary process of China and hence CPC under the leadership of Mao rightly came to the conclusion that national bourgeoisie can play a revolutionary role in the first stage of revolutionary process. Hence, in his famous article “On New Democracy” Mao says that during the stage of new democratic revolution four class alliance is necessary in the particular circumstances of China.
Japan had not only occupied the part of Chinese territory but had expropriated the propertied class in their Japanese occupied areas.
Latter on, in his critique of Soviet economy while recalling those days of Japanese aggression, Mao says :
“The method of the Japanese used when they held our north-east provinces was to eliminate the major local capital and to turn their enterprises in to Japanese state – managed, or in some cases monopoly capitalist enterprises. For the small and middle capitalists they established subsidiary companies as a means of imposing control.” Page 26
Hence, Mao’s approach to win over the bourgeoisie to their side had originated from the need to broadened their resistance struggle against Japanese imperialism. Mao further says:
“The present situation requires us to change over slogan into one of a peoples republic. The reason is that ….. it is now possible not only for the petty bourgeoisie but even for the national bourgeoisie to join the anti-Japanese struggle. On Tactics against Japanese Imperialism S.W. V 1 page – 9
Latter on, when the need for further broadening the united front was required to defeat the Japanese imperialist aggression, he propounded the theses that class struggle during the new democratic revolution and particularly during the war of resistance against Japanese imperialism, should be subordinated to the National interest. He says:
“To subordinate the class struggle to the present national struggle against Japan –such is the fundamental principles of United Front.’ The question of Independence and Initiative within the United Front. SW Vol 2 page 215
He further says :
“The interest of class struggle must be subordinated to, and must not conflict with, the interests of the war of Resistance…. We do not deny class struggle, we adjust it.” Mao – The Role of Chinese Communist Party in the National war” S.W Volume 2 page 200.
He was compelled to give concession to big landlord and big bourgeoisie saying that even if big landlord and big bourgeoisie should not be discarded if they are for resistances. He says:
“The pro-Japanese big landlord and big bourgeoisie who are against resistance must be distinguished from the pro-British and pro-American big landlords and pro-American big landlords and big bourgeoisie who are for resistances.” On Policy S.W. Vol 2 P- 443
Even the question of Agrarian revolution was abandoned for certain period considering the necessity to broaden and intensify the war of resistance against Japanese imperialism. Mao says:
“The Communist Party has made a major concession in the anti-Japanese war period by changing its policy of ‘Land to the Tiller’ to one of reducing rent and interest….. If no special obstacles arises, we are prepared to continue this policy after the war. Mao- On coalition Government SW Vol 3, p- 298
And further he says :
“The confiscation of land of the landlords will be discontinued.” -- The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistence to Japan SW Vol1 P-269
Thus the tactics of the CPC during the war of resistance was primarily oriented towards the national liberation of China and towards the expropriation of property of pro-Japanese landlord and big bourgeoisie and class struggle and was subordinated to this goal itself. Therefore, Mao says about the composition of New democratic republic :
“What will be the composition of the new democratic republic? It will consist of the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and all those in the country who agree with the national and democratic revolution; it will be the alliance of these classes in lthe national democratic revolution. The salient feature here is the inclusion of the bourgeoisie ……
It was correct to put forward the slogan of a workers’ and peasants’ democratic republic in the past, and it is correct to drop it today.” Mao- The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Resistance to Japan.” SW Vol. 1 page 271-2
Was this tactics of Mao correct ? Let us see what Lenin says :
“It is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy… only by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this fail to understand even a grain of Marxism.” V. I. Lenin “Left wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder(April 1920) S.W. Vol 10 page – 112
And Stalin says :
“The Communist Party of each country must unfailingly avail itself of even the smallest opportunity of gaining a mass ally for the proletariat, even if a temporary, vacillating, unstable and unreliable ally.” J. V. Stalin; Notes on Contemporary Themes (July 1927) C. W. Vol. 9 page 337.
Thus it was absolutely correct on the part of CPC under the leadership of Mao to avail itself the opportunity of winning over national bourgeoisie and others as its mass ally in their resistance struggle against the Japanese imperialism. It was the Trotsky who opposed the same. Trotsky rejected this Marxist-Leninist view that bourgeois can play a revolutionary role in semi-colonial and colonial state. He says :
“The national bourgeois has been essentially an instrument of compradors and imperialism.” Leon Trotsky : The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin. Page 21.
Thus, Trotsky wrongly rejected the role of national bourgeois in the revolutionary process of colonial and semi-colonial type.
And SUCI, which has its origin from one of Trotskyite parties in India, says in their pamphlet :
“Again, in 1934, by projecting the same national bourgeoisie as progressive and even revolutionary before the people, through their so-called theory of 'national front', they enhanced its prestige and thereby helped the national bourgeoisie to further consolidate its hegemony.” From Why SUCI
Today, communist parties who believe in Mao as well as Soviet revisionist brand of communist parties in India has been assigning revolutionary role to national bourgeois even if India has achieved its freedom in 1947 and a bourgeois state was formed; on the pretext that bourgeois democratic revolution has not been fully completed.
The second feature of Chinese situation was that if it was colonial in Japanese occupied areas, it was semi-colonial in Kuomintang areas and predominantly feudal and semi-feudal in both.
The emancipation struggle in China took a specific form due to specific circumstances of China. First of all there was not any centralized political power. Secondly China was under direct rule of Japan in Japanese occupied area and it had to wage resistance struggle against imperialist invasion. Thirdly, China was divided into spheres of influence by imperialist powers in the rest of areas not under direct rule of any imperialist country. In that areas Chinese Empire had broken and local warlords had emerged. ‘In the face of powerful peasant wars and the revolution in 1911, a counter revolutionary alliance of the warlords and the compradore bourgeoisie with imperialism had been formed. These peculiar circumstances made armed struggle, the main form of struggle in the Chinese revolution. This was realised by Sun-Yat-Sen in the revolution of 1911. It was these circumstances that led to the setting up of the Whampoa Military Academy in 1924 with the help of Soviet military experts to form and train a revolutionary army.’
Therefore, in China, the main form of class struggle was armed struggle and main form of organization was army. Stalin says :
"In China the armed revolution is fighting the armed counter-revolution. This is one of the specific features and one of the advantages of the Chinese revolution". Mao/SW-2/pp.220-21
And Mao says:
"……….we have no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organise the workers to strike. Basically, the task of the communist party here is not to go through a long period of legal struggle before launching insurrection and war, and not to seize the big cities first and then occupy the countryside but the reverse.
When imperialism is not making armed attacks on our country, the Chinese Communist Party either wages civil war jointly with the bourgeoisie against the warlords (lackeys of imperialism) as in 1924-27 in the wars in Kwangtung province and the Northern Expedition, or unites with the peasants and the urban petty-bourgeoisie to wage civil wars against the landlord class and the compradore (also lackeys of imperialism) as in war of Agrarian Revolution of 1927-36...’ Mao/SW-2/pp.220-21
Thus resistance struggle in China originated in course of its struggle against Japanese imperialist invasion of China. Due to extreme backwardness of Chinese economy and absence of a central political power and warlords fighting against each other, there was the possibility of creating base area and establishing red political power in China. Mao had said in his famous article WHY IS IT THAT RED POLITICAL POWER CAN EXIST IN CHINA?
“First, it cannot occur in any imperialist country or in any colony under direct imperialist rule but can only occur in China which is economically backward, and which is semi-colonial and under indirect imperialist rule. For this unusual phenomenon can occur only in conjunction with another unusual phenomenon, namely, war within the White regime. It is a feature of semi-colonial China that, since the first year of the Republic [1912] the various cliques of old and new warlords have waged incessant wars against one another, supported by imperialism from abroad and by the comprador and landlord classes at home.”
Such was the specific situation of China which gave birth to specific Chinese form of class struggle, a situation which is quite different from the situations prevailing in India.
Hence, the question arises whether in a country which is not colonial and which is not the victim of foreign attack, whether national bourgeois can be a revolutionary ally ?
In a country which is not a semi-colonial and predominantly a semi-feudal like China which was divided under the spheres of influence by different imperialism and the feudal warlords fighting each other and supported by their imperialist masters, in a country such as India having a centralized political power with centralized bourgeoisie political institutions, is it correct and possible to create base area and to establish stable red power and to continue the protracted peoples war?
If there is no agenda of national liberation movement in India today, can mere economic exploitation through the export of finance capital facilitate any ground to make the national bourgeois an ally of working class and to conclude the stage of revolution as new democratic on this score?
These are the fundamental questions while determining the strategy and tactics of revolution in India today which must be considered while formulating a revolutionary theory.
The third characteristic feature of China was that it was an extremely backward country in so far as the development of level of productive forces was concerned. There was little penetration of capital in China as Mao had said that China was predominantly feudal and semi-feudal in both Japanese occupied areas and in the areas not occupied by Japanese imperialism. The economic backwardness was so much that there was neither possibility of victory of democratic revolution under the leadership of proletariat nor there was any possibility of skipping the capitalist development without the active support of a Socialist state. Lenin in his ”Report of the Commission on National And colonial Questions” says :
“The question was posed as follows : are we to consider as correct the assertion that the capitalist economic development is inevitable for backward nations now on the road to emancipation and among whom a certain advance progress is to be seen since the war? We replied in the negative. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them and the Soviet Governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal in that event it will be mistaken to assume that the backward people must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of developments.” Lenin C.W. Vol 31 p. 244
The first main point in the above theses was that the condition for success of revolution was that the victorious proletariat must conducts systematic propaganda among the backward nation and Soviet Government must come to their aid with all the means at their disposal.
The second point in the above theses was that capitalist development was not inevitable in the backward nation provided proletarian state come to their aid with all means in their disposal. It means that in event of success of democratic revolution China was not required to wait for socialist revolution till the full development of capitalism because a proletarian state had come in to existence and has shown their readiness to help in socialist construction.
In the light of the above thesis, Sixth Congress of the International and Stalin while pointing out the special features of Chinese Revolution, they always pointed out the necessary role of Soviet help for the success of new democratic revolution in China. (See programme of Communist Internal, Adopted at the Sixth Congress in 1928, Document of Communist Movement in India’.A CPI(M) Publication, National Book Agency, National Book Agency, Calcutta 1977, Vol-1, page 833 & J.V. Stalin : Prospects of Chinese Revolution, On the Opposition page 500 – 501)
Mao correctly applied this first thesis of Lenin in the conditions of China. He says :
“A change, however, occurred in China’s bourgeois democratic revolution after the out break of first Imperialist world war in 1914 and the founding of socialist state on one-sixth of the globe as a result of the Russian October Revolution of 1917.
Before these events, the Chinese revolution came within the old category of the bourgeois democratic revolution of which it was a part.
Since these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution has changed ; it has come within the new category of bourgeois-democratic revolutions and as far as the alignment of revolutionary forces is concerned, forms part of the proletarian world revolution.”p-6 On new democracy.
Thus, the Chinese revolution had come within the new category of bourgeois democratic revolution. Why? It was because as Mao says, apart from other reasons a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semi-colonies. This proposition was very much in line with Lenin’s proposition. And we know that the subsequent events in China did confirm this and Peoples Republic of China was established in 1949 after successful victory of new democratic revolution in China in which the role of Soviet Military aid was crucial.
Mao further elaborated the indispensable role of Soviet assistance for the victory of new democratic revolution in China in his famous article “On New Democracy” :
“All the imperialist powers in the world are our enemies, and China cannot possibly gain her independence without the assistance of the land of socialism and the international proletariat… In particular, Soviet assistance is absolutely indispensable for China's final victory in the War of Resistance. Refuse Soviet assistance, and the revolution will fail.” Mao – On New Democracy.
Therefore one of the essential pre-condition for the success of new democratic revolution of Chinese type was active support of a socialist state. The concept of New Democratic Revolution was a specific concept which originated in a specific historical internal and external conditions of China. The New Democratic revolution in China was different from the old category of bourgeois revolution in Europe and America in as much as the latter was to be completed under the leadership of the bourgeois whereas the former was completed under the leadership of the proletariat in alliance with peasantry, national bourgeois and petti-bourgeois and presupposed the active support of a proletarian state for completing new democratic revolution and building socialism by skipping capitalist development. It was also different from the democratic revolution of Russia in as much as in Russia democratic revolution was completed under the leadership of the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry as a whole and then it grew over to proletarian revolution under the leadership of the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry establishing dictatorship of the proletariat but it did not presuppose the help of socialist state in completion of its revolution and while building socialism, there was no question of skipping capitalist development as in Russia, capitalist economic structure was already maturing in the womb of feudalism. It was also different from peoples democratic revolution of Eastern European countries which arose mainly in the fight against fascist forces. Therefore, New Democratic revolution was a historical category which presupposes definite historical conditions and while applying the strategy and tactics of new democratic revolution, the historical preconditions should be always kept in mind.
If new democratic revolution is a historical category of revolution which means that strategy and tactics of revolution in an extremely backward colonial semi-colonial country presupposing active support of a socialist sate for its success, has it not become a thing of past, even if assuming that the internal conditions like China exist in India or any country in the world, with the restoration of capitalism in socialist sates all over the world ?
Hence, about the applicability of very theory of new democratic revolution as well as it’s strategy and tactics which was correct in specific internal and external conditions of China, does it not correct to say that it has no relevance at all for revolution in India as well as in any country of the world even if we assume that internal condition is like that of China?
Thus, is it not correct that in the absence of a socialist state today, all the talks of new democratic revolution is a myth, an utopia based on subjective evaluation, without any revolutionary content?
These are the fundamental questions which the upholders of new democratic revolution and following Chinese line in India and all over the world must overcome in order to correct their revolutionary theory without which there can be no revolution. This is the most important and fundamental lesson we conclude from the history of Chinese revolution.
II Problem of Socialist construction in China and Cultural Revolution.
i) Nature of state during the transition period.
Due to peculiar internal and external situations prevailing in China and correlation of class forces during the stage of new democratic revolution as envisaged by Mao in his article “On New Democracy” and in his subsequent articles during the resistance struggle against Japanese imperialism, the dictatorship of four classes under the leadership of the proletariat was established after the victory of New Democratic revolution in China.
Can we say that this form of state was a form of dictatorship of proletariat? No, it was not, in as much as it included the participation of national bourgeoisie through their political parties. Had it been a dictatorship of the proletariat, Mao would not have advocated two stage of revolution- new democratic stage and proletarian stage. It was a dictatorship of four class including the national bourgeoisie. But it has a proletarian content in as much as it had expropriated the properties of pro-Japanese capitalists and landlords. This was the progressive and proletarian element of new-democratic state in China. Secondly, the leadership and predominant position in the state was with the working class party, the CPC. But along with CPC, the representatives party of the national bourgeoisie were also in the state power and their representative were given ministerial post. Mao said in 1956:
“In our country the various democratic parties, consisting primarily of the national bourgeoisie and its intellectuals, emerged during the resistence to Japan and the struggle against Chinang Kai-shek, and they continue to exist to this day. … We have purposely let the democratic parties remain, giving them opportunities to express their views and adovpting a policy of both unity and struggle towards them.” Vol V page 296-97
Latter on in his Critique to Soviet Political Economy published during the revisionist period, Mao while commenting on this issue says:
“On page 334 the book says, “the proletarian state can take various forms.” True enough, but there is not much difference essentially between the proletarian dictatorship in the people’s democracies and the one established in Russia after the October Revolution. Also, the Soviets of the Soviet Union and our people’s congress were both representative assemblies, different in name only. In China the peoples congress included those participating as representatives of the bourgeoisie, representatives who had split from the Nationalist Party, and representatives who were prominent democratic figures. All of them accepted the leadership of the Chinese Communist party.” Page -26
And further Mao comments on this :
“Such an inclusive form may appear different from the soviet, but it should be remembered that after the October Revolution the soviets included representatives of the Menshevik rightist Social Revolutionary Party, a Trotskyite faction, a Bukharin faction, a Zinoviev faction, and so forth. Nominally representatives of the workers and peasants, they were virtual representatives of he bourgeoisie. The period after the October Revolution was a time when the proletarian accepted a large number of personnel from the Kerensky Government- all of whom were bourgeois elements. Our own central people’s government was set up on the foundation of the North China people’s government. All members of the various departments were from the base areas, and the majority of the mainstay were Communist Party members.” Page- 26
Firstly, there is a difference between the Menshevik rightist Social Revolutionary Party, a Trotskyite faction, a Bukharin faction, a Zinoviev faction, and so forth, nominally representatives of the workers and peasants, but virtually representatives of he bourgeoisie ideology, not claiming the representative of the bourgeoisie class as no such class in sphere of industry was existing in Russia after the expropriation of their capital, the means of production, industries on the one hand and the Democratic Party in China claiming to be the party of national bourgeoisie existing as a class in that period in China where private property of national bourgeoisie in the means of production were not expropriated on the other hand. This was the difference not in form but also in content of the new democratic state in China and dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.
Secondly, in Russia, in the initial stage, the relation of production in the country side was not socialist, Kulaks were not abolished, there were numerous small peasants upon whom co-operative farm or collective farm could not have imposed immediately after the revolution. But in 1936, when through the implementation of five year plans and the class struggle waged by CPSU under the leadership of Stalin at appropriate time, the Kulaks were abolished and agricultural production were brought under co-operative and collective farms, the relation of production in the country side was no more that of domination and dominated, bourgeoisie as class was not existing in Soviet economy. It was in these circumstances that in 1936, Stalin could adopt a policy of non-permissibility of any party other than the Communist Party in the USSR. Stalin says :
“A party is a party of class, its most advance part. Several parties, and, consequently, freedom for parties, can exist only in a society in which there are antagonistic classes…’ Stalin: Problems of Leninism page-819
In USSR there were only two classes at that time- workers and peasants- and to defend their interests there was, and there should be, the Communist Party alone, said Stalin. Thus, abolition of bourgeoisie as class and absence of antagonistic classes in USSR was made by Stalin as the basis for further consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, one of the basic aspects of the superstructure. Only those, who do not understand all this, can say that Stalin committed mistake while making statement that bourgeoisie as class was abolished in USSR and that there were no antagonistic classes in USSR.
ii) Orientation of state policy
Therefore, the main task in building socialism in China was two fold: how to overcome and eliminate the bourgeois as a class and its influence from the state power and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat by ousting participation of bourgeoisie element from the state power and in production relation in the Chinese Society and to complete the socialist industrialization of its economy.
But during the resistance struggle against Japanese aggression, CPC under the leadership of Mao was compelled to give concession to pro-British and pro-American big landlord and big bourgeoisie who were assured that their interest will be protected in the new democratic state as discussed above. And, hence the new democratic state was also not free from the influence of pro-British and pro-American big landlord and big bourgeoisie apart from the national bourgeoisie. Therefore, it was necessary to emancipate the proletariat and the peasantry from the influence of the bourgeoisie and landlord of all kind through waging class struggle in China after the establishment of new democratic state which was not done during the new democratic revolution due to specific circumstances.
Any transition from the new democratic state to dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily involves the intensification of class struggle against the resistance of the bourgeoisie. During the period of new democratic revolution Mao had taken the stand that after the establishment of new democratic state bourgeois will not be eliminated. In the said article Mao had disclosed his views as to what will be the orientation of New Democratic State in China. In discussing the economy of the New Democracy. Mao said :
“China's economy must develop along the path of the "regulation of capital" and the "equalization of landownership", and must never be "privately owned by the few"; we must never permit the few capitalists and landlords to "dominate the livelihood of the people"; we must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type or allow the old semi-feudal society to survive. Whoever dares to go counter to this line of advance will certainly not succeed but will run into a brick wall.
Such are the internal economic relations which a revolutionary China, a China fighting Japanese aggression, must and necessarily will establish.”
Thus after the establishment of New Democratic State, the Chinese economy was to be developed along the path of the “regulation of capital” and the “equalization of landownership”. It was assured that few capitalists and landlords will not be allowed to dominate the livelihood of the people. Here, there is no indication that after completion of the first stage of revolution, China will enter in to second proletarian stage of revolution and the main tasks will be to eliminate the capitalist and landlord as class and from their participation in the state power. And if this approach was to continue after the establishment of New Democratic State, the politics of new democracy was to remain towards maintaining the leading and predominant position in the state power and party and other organs, regulating the capital and keeping the private capital and minor national bourgeoisie under their control. Much prior to the establishment of New Democratic state, this was the objective CPC had set before itself.
Such was the content of their new democratic approach and theory towards negation of bourgeois dictatorship of old category. But their theory had originated during the particular circumstances of China, particularly during the intense necessity to fight Japanese imperialism. Mao had said :
“We Communists will never push aside anyone who is revolutionary; we shall persevere in the united front and practice long-term co-operation with all those classes, strata, political parties and groups and individuals that are willing to fight Japan to the end. But it will not do if certain people want to push aside the Communist Party; it will not do if they want to split the united front. China must keep on fighting Japan, uniting and moving forward, and we cannot tolerate anyone who tries to capitulate, cause splits or move backward.” Mao – On New Democracy.
The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight. We are not utopians and cannot divorce ourselves from the actual conditions confronting us. Mao- On New Democracy.
Apparently, Mao at the one hand says that ‘We Communists will never push aside anyone’ (which include bourgeois also) and on the other hand he says that ‘The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism’. This contradicts his own statements. Here when he mentions first step he mentions ‘the actual conditions confronting us’ which means that quite a long time was to be needed in achieving the new democratic revolution. It was not that after the completion of first stage, the second stage of socialism was to be taken after a long time.
However, Mao in his famous article “On Tactics against Japanese Imperialism” has stated as follows:
“In the future democratic revolution will inevitably transformed into a socialist revolution. As to when the transformation will take place that will depend on the presence of the necessary conditions, and it may take quite a long time. We should not hold forth about the transition unless all the necessary conditions are present…. Compared with Russia, China will find it more difficult, and require much more time and effort to complete her democratic revolution politically and economically.” On Tactics against Japanese Imperialism S.W. V 1 page – 170
These views of Mao were not in the line of Lenin’s theses that backward nation could skip capitalist development if proletariat state comes to their help in building socialism by their all means. Mao sees here only internal condition for building socialism but not the external condition of building socialism, the soviet help. In the particular circumstances of China, this external condition was most fundamental and crucial for socialist industrialization of China.
iii) Problems of socialist construction in China
As discussed above, China could not have undertaken the task of socialist industrialization from its own available resources, without the help of a proletarian state, at that time, the Soviet Russia. With the help of Soviet Russia it did establish, to certain extent, enterprises producing means of production, the basic industry for the industrialization of its economy in its early period. It continued to receive the Soviet aids till the life time of Stalin and even to some extent till the revisionist take over of proletarian state by Khrushchev & Co.
After the death of Stalin in 1953 and after the revisionist take over of proletarian state by Khrushchev & Co and restoration of capitalism in Russia in 1956, the basic pre-condition of active support of a proletarian state by all means for socialist industrialization of China was absence. Right from the establishment of new democratic state in 1949 till 1956, had China achieved minimum level of Industrial development particularly in the sphere of industries producing means of production to complete its socialist industrialization of its economy? This was the basic question before the CPC under the leadership of Mao upon which depended the fate of building the economic base of socialism by completing socialist industrialization.
However, CPC did not pose this problem in this fashion and under took a different way by launching the Great Leap ‘in response to Khrushchev’s slowly but surely refusing to continue with the Aid and poking China on the most contentious border issue.’
Thus China plunged into a situation where it was very difficult, if not impossible, for China to go for socialist industrialization and building socialism without the support of a proletarian state in 1957 after revisionist take over of Soviet Russia by Khrushchev & Co after the death of Stalin, and that too without the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was the objective limitation of CPC under the leadership of Mao in building socialism and socialist industrialization in China in 1957 which should be remembered while evaluating Chinese socialism.
Can we say that the thesis of Lenin was still applicable in the sense that with the restoration of capitalism in Soviet Russia and now there being no proletarian state China can not skip over capitalist development owing to low level of productive forces?
Even in two line struggle under CPC we do not find scientific resolution of this question. Mao was ‘for peasant co-operatives aimed at collectivization of peasant farming even before the completion of socialist industrialization i.e. before heavy and large socialist industries were producing in plenty the machinery, tools and necessary implements needed in agriculture. Liu was on the other hand opposed to peasants’ co-operative till the fullest development of productive forces and till then wanted no proletarian ideology and its propagation and tried his best to retain new democracy and also opposed communist ideological propaganda like “communism is the ultimate hope of Chinese people” and “Down with private property.” Apparently Liu succumbed to the theory of productive forces for favoring new democratic rule giving more and more space for the bourgeois and Mao expedited in his own way the transition from New democracy to ‘socialism’ basing on peasant co-operatives and collectivization of peasant farm, peasant commune only, without expecting Soviet aid as by the time capitalism was restored in Russia, without having industrial base for the mechanization of agriculture, without expropriating private property completely, without expropriating the national bourgeois and without socialist industrialization of the industry. Thus Mao was compelled to impose ‘radical relation of production’ in the sphere of agriculture while ignoring the need of resolving contradiction between productive forces and relation of production in the sphere of industry in a revolutionary manner, giving space to the national bourgeoisie for it’s existence. This was in line of his peculiar theory of new democratic revolution in which revolution was to be made first in countryside and then in cities, his emphasis on the role of peasants in democratic revolution. Mao writes :
“We follow Lenin in the mass line and the class struggle. We want to eliminate the bourgeois thoroughly including its ideology, but without confiscating the property and destroying the people of the bourgeoisie. Stalin did not promote the mass line. He played favoritism and was too excessive in class struggle.” Mao S.W., Vol.-VIII, Page 114, para II)
This new democratic concept of class struggle was necessary during the resistance of war against Japanese imperialism in the particular internal and external conditions of China but it was quite unnecessary and wrong after the defeat of Japanese imperialism and establishment of New Democratic State in China in 1949. The continuation of this politics of new democracy even after the elimination of semi-feudal and semi-colonial state and establishment of new democratic state with the exception in the country side was not towards the consolidation of leadership of proletariat in the new democratic state.
Here it is necessary to examine how CPC under the leadership of Mao approached the fundamental problem of class struggle after the establishment of New Democratic State in China? Let us examine this problem.
iv) Class struggle in China
In 1952 the Central Committee of the CPC decided that “with nation wide victory in the new democratic revolution and the completion of the agrarian reform, the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie and between the socialist road and capitalist road became the principal internal contradiction. “Resolution on CPC History (1949-81) page- 19
Thus, during the life time of Stalin, the very orientation of class struggle was against the national bourgeoisie and the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie was considered to be one of principal internal contradictions.
However, after the death of Stalin, we find a change in approach towards the class struggle. This was the period of rise of Khrushchevite revisionism and CPC was taking the side of Khrushchevite revisionism on various issues, particularly on the issue of Stalin, class struggle etc.
In the Eighth National Congress of the party held in Sept 56 they “declared that the socialist system had been basically established in China; that … the principal contradiction within the country was no longer the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie but between the demand of the people for rapid economic and cultural development and the existing state of our economy and cultural which fell short of the needs of the people; and that although class struggle still existed and peoples and people’s democratic dictatorship had to be further strengthened, the basic task of the dictatorship was now to protect and develop the productive forces in the context of the new relations of production.”
When they say that socialist system had been basically established in China, it only means that the property of pro-Japanese Capitalist and landlord were expropriated which constituted as per Mao statement 80% of the industries and not of national bourgeoisie and landlords who were for resistances against Japanese imperialism.
Secondly, now the principal contradiction was no longer between the working class and the national bourgeoisie but ‘between the demand of the people for rapid economic and cultural development and the existing state of our economy’ and ‘that although class struggle still existed and people’s democratic dictatorship had to be further strengthened, the basic task of the dictatorship was now to protect and develop the productive forces in the context of the new relations of production.’
Thus principal contradiction was shifted to the contradiction between the productive forces and the new production relation. This theses was very much in line with Liu proposition of the contradiction between backward productive forces and advance relation of production.
Further in Feb 1957 Mao in his famous article “Correct Handling of Contradiction Among the People” declared that this class struggle against the bourgeoisie and landlord of all kind was no longer required to wage or to intensify holding that the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat can be resolved peacefully:
“The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and the exploited and is by very nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradictions between the two classes, if properly handled, can be resolved into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful means.” Mao- On the correct Handling of the Contradictions among the people.” S.W. Vol. 5 page 386.
Not only this, he supported Khrushchevite revisionism in their attack on Stalin on the issue of class struggle:
“After the elimination of classes, the class struggle should not continue to be stressed as being intensified, as it was done by Stalin, with the result that the healthy development of socialist democracy was hampered. The Communist Party of Soviet Union is completely right in firmly correcting Stalin’s mistake in this respect….” More on Historical Experiences of Dictatorship of the Proletariat- Mao
We will see that latter on Mao took a diametrically opposite view on the question of continuation of class struggle after abolition of classes in respect of Soviet Russia of Stalin period when he came in conflict with Khrushchevite revisionism.
However, in 1962 Mao said :
“the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie remained the principal contradiction” and that “throughout the historical period of socialism, the bourgeoisie would continue to exist and would attempt a come back and become the source of revisionism inside the party.” “Resolution on CPC History (1949-81) page- 30
Firstly, when Mao was formulating this proposition, socialism in its real sense was not created in China and it was still in transition stage, bourgeoisie as a class was not eliminated, their property were not expropriated, bourgeoisie relations of production in the countryside was still there, the relation of dominant and domination in the production relation was still there as the rich peasant as a class was not abolished, and hence the above formulation could not be in the context of socialist China but in the context of New Democratic economy of China where bourgeoisie was existing as class and it’s contradiction with the working class was the basic contradiction.
Secondly, when he says that ‘throughout the historical period of socialism, the bourgeoisie would continue to exist’ what does it mean in the context of China where national bourgeoisie and rich peasants were existing as a class? It certainly means the overthrown, expropriated pro-Japanese bourgeoisie and landlord who ‘would attempt a come back and become the source of revisionism inside the party’. But the source of revisionism inside the party were not only those overthrown pro-Japanese capitalists and landlords but also national bourgeoisie and other landlords who were protected from the onslaught of working class through the policy of restriction of bourgeoisie through various ways under new democratic state.
During the same period Mao while criticizing Soviet Political Economy published during the revisionist period, has said as follows:
“To say that China’s class struggle is not acute is unrealistic. It was fierce enough: We fought for twenty-two years and straight. By waging war we overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie’s National Party, and expropriated bureaucratic capital, which, which amounted to 80% of our entire capitalist economy. Only thus was it possible for us to use peaceful methods to mould the remaining 20% of national capital. In remolding process we still have to go through such fierce struggles as the “three –antis” and the “five-antis” campaigns.” Critique of Soviet Political Economy page 39.
Thus it is clear that still 20% of the means of production was allowed to retain by the national bourgeoisie. However, Mao assigned special reason for not expropriating property of national bourgeoisie. While referring the situation of Russia after the October revolution, Mao says that there the bourgeoisie ‘carried out armed resistance, thus compelling the proletariat to expropriate their property’. No such event happened in China. Ibid-page-39.
In his ‘Critique of Stalin’s Economic Problems’ while commenting the Lenin’s view summarized by Stalin in his Economic Problem of USSR, Mao has expressed the views that some means of production have to be classed as commodities and policy toward the national bourgeoisie has been to redeem their property. We are putting below Lenin’s proposition summarized by Stalin and then comment which Mao has made:
“l5 (b). The means of production in industry should be expropriated and converted into public property,
15. Our policy toward the national bourgeoisie has been to redeem their property.
26. [ How the two basic forms of ownership will ultimately become one] is a special question which requires separate discussion.
26. Stalin is avoiding the issue, having failed to find a method or suitable formulation for the transition from collective to public ownership.]
27. Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which is obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which together with its “money is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production.
27. The “sphere of action” is not limited to items of individual consumption. Some means of production have to be classed as commodities. If agricultural output consists of commodities but industrial output does not, then how is exchange going to be carried out? If “our country” is changed to “China,” the paragraph becomes all the more interesting to read. In China not only consumer goods but agricultural means of production have to be supplied. Stalin never sold means of production to the peasants. Khurshchev changed that.”
From the above discussion it is clear that even in 1962 Mao was not in a position to make a statement that all the means of production in industry has been expropriated and converted in to public property; he was not against complete abolition of means of production as commodity. With this subjective limitation, the shift in the approach of CPC under the leadership of Mao towards class struggle was bound to confuse class struggle during the period of New Democratic State and Economy with the class struggle during the period of a fully established socialism in Russia of 1936 onwards where bourgeoisie as a class was eliminated. As regards his comments on Stalin so called failure to find a method or suitable formulation for the transition from collective to public ownership, we will make our comments while dealing with Mao’s concept on base and superstructure in the subsequent paragraphs..
v) Base and super structure
In his Critique, his main contention against Stalin was on the question of role of superstructure in relation to productive forces. Mao starts the criticism of Stalin’s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR with the statement that “Stalin’s book from first to last says nothing about the superstructure.” Mao says:
“They speak only of the production relations not of the superstructure nor politics, nor the role of the people. Communism can not reached unless there is a communist movement.” Page –85
This is the first allegation against Stalin leveled by Mao that Stalin speaks only of production relation and not of superstructure. The second allegation which Mao has leveled in his book which is related to the first is that Stalin did not talk of relationship between superstructure and base.
Firstly, about production relation. Let us examine how Stalin and Mao speak about production relation in concrete situations. Stalin says :
“There certainly are, and will be, contradictions, seeing that the development of the relations of productions lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces. Given a correct policy on the part of the directing bodies, these contradictions can not grow into antagonisms, and there is no chance of matters coming to a conflict between the relations of production and productive the forces of the society…if we were to conduct a wrong policy… conflict would be inevitable, and our relations of production might become a serious break on the development of productive forces.
The task of the directing bodies 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.” Economic Problems : page – 69-70
Thus Stalin was advocating for taking timely measures to resolve the contradiction between the productive forces and production relation. At that time he was referring the two main form of property existing in socialist Russia- Public property and collective property. Collective farm property and commodity circulation were beneficial but they did create obstacles to the full extension of government planning to the whole of the national economy, especially agriculture. And therefore, timely measure was required to be taken. He says that “The task, therefore, is to eliminate these contradictions by gradually converting collective-farm property into public property, and by introducing – also gradually- product exhanges-exchange in place of commodity circulations. Economic Problems , page 69-70
And we have seen above Mao commenting on this issue that Stalin failed to find a method or suitable formulation for the transition from collective to public ownership.
Mao further comments on this issue:
“Commodity exchange laws governing value play no regulating role in our production. This role is governed by planning, by great leap forward under planning, by politics in command, Stalin speaks only of production relation, not of the superstructure, nor of the relationship between superstructure and economic base.” Page 80-81
Mao fails to understand what does it mean when it is stated that productions relation lags behind the productive forces and without considering this question whether at any particular stage of development in a society production relations lag behind the productive forces or not raises the question of relationship between superstructure and base. When Khrushchevite revisionist, after the death of Stalin took a retrogressive step by selling MTS (motor tractor station) to collective farm, Mao was not able to understand whether it was a retrogressive step or a progressive step, whether it was to resolve the contradiction between relation of productions and productive forces or to aggravate it. He simply says: “One real difference between Stalin and Khrushchev is that Stalin opposed selling such means of production as tractors, etc. to the collective farms while Khrushchev sold them.” Page 66
Thus on the question of relations of production which lagged behind with the productive forces at a time when private property in means of production in Russia was abolished and Stalin was advocating the need to further take the relation of productions ahead, Khrushchev after the death of Stalin sold the MTS to collective farm, thereby taking the relations of production to backward, aggravating the contradictions between productive forces and production relations. And Mao is unable to take either side on this question in the context of Russia after the death of Stalin whether it will resolve or aggravate the contradiction while making note of this difference between Stalin and Khrushchev in his Critique of Soviet Political Economy published in revisionist period on the one hand and on the other hand, in the context of China, he took the stand that certain means of production has to be kept as commodities.
Thus Mao was aware in what context the question of relations of production in Russia was a subject of difference between Stalin and Khrushchev and without giving answer to this question, he attacked Stalin that Stalin always speaks of relations of productions and not of superstructure, nor of relation between base and superstructure. Thus Mao believes that even without taking into consideration the contradiction between the productive forces and production relations and even without resolving those contradictions, mere emphasis on superstructure is sufficient, mere communist movement is sufficient. This is sheer nonsense and not historical materialism. Moni Guha in his letter to The Editor of Dayitvabodh while commenting on their paper ‘The Problems Socialism, Restoration of Capitalism And the Great Cultural Revolution says on this issues :
“If on the above basis, one analyses Mao’s Great leap’ and ‘peoples’ commune he will surely find that both the Economic Law in General and the Basic Economic Law of Socialism in particular have wantonly violated by Mao and he, subjectively imposed ‘too a radical’ relation of productions on the society the material basis was not created in womb of the existing relation of production.” Proletarian Path January to March 2001 page 26.
Firstly, Comrade Moni Guha sees imposing radical relations of production in the country side only but does not see the failure on the part of CPC under the leadership of Mao to resolve the contradiction between relation of production and productive forces in the sphere of industry. If all the means of production is not converted into public property and if some means of production is retained as commodity, does it not imply that the contradiction has not been fully resolved between the relations of production and productive forces so far as sphere of industry producing means of production is concerned; does it not mean that production relation in this respect lags behind the growth of productive forces?
Secondly, Comrade Guha is of the view that Mao subjectively imposed ‘too a radical’ relation of productions on the society the material basis was not created in womb of the existing relation of production.
Let us see what was the state of affairs in China in this regard.
Mao on the transformation of national capital said in his Critique of Soviet Political Economy says as follows:
“Our transformation of national capital passed through three stages, private manufacture on state order, unified government purchase and sale of private out put, joint state private operation (of individual units and of whole complexes). Each phase was carried out in a methodical way. This prevented any damage to production, which actually developed as the transformation progressed. We have gained new experience with state capitalism; for one example, the providing capitalist with fixed interest after joint state – private operation phase.” Page 26
The above policy reflects the existence of bourgeoisie relations of production in the sphere of Industry, in which the interest of nation bourgeoisie was protected. Was there any material conditions to expropriate the capital of national bourgeoisie, was relations of production lagging behind in this field with respect to the productive forces? Mao sought to resolve this contradiction by peaceful means, through state policy without expropriating the capital of national bourgeoisie, giving space to the national bourgeoisie in new democratic state.
Now let us examine the state of affairs in the countryside. In 1955 Mao said as follows:
“..An important aspect of the struggle between the two roads in China’s countryside manifests itself in the peaceful competition of the poor and lower-middle peasants with the well-to-do middle peasants. Who can increase the production within two or three years, the well-to-do middle peasants working on their own, or the poor and lower-middle peasants working together in co-operatives? In the beginning the competition was between a number of poor and lower-middle peasants organized in co-operatives and the well-to-do middle peasants working on their own, with most of the poor and lower middle peasants looking on; it was a context between the two sides to win over the masses. Behind the well-to-do middle peasants were landlords and rich peasants, who gave them support, sometimes openly, sometimes secretly. On the side of the co-operatives stood the Communist Party members…”C.W. Vol. 5 page 248
Thus, the very orientation of the agrarian policy was towards maintaining peaceful competition between the poor and lower-middle peasants working together in co-operatives on the one hand and the well-to-do middle peasants working on their own. Considering the level of productive forces, the policy to persuade the poor and low-middle peasants to work in co-operatives was a step to transform the production of numerous petty-producers in the country side to large scale production in co-operatives and hence it was correct policy.
Mao further pointed out:
“It is imperative to establish the dominant position of the present day poor peasants and the new lower peasants in the leading body of a co-operative, with the old lower-middle peasants and the new and old upper-middle peasants as the auxiliary force : only thus can unity between the poor and middle peasants be attained, the co-operative can be consolidated, production be expanded and socialist transformation in the entire country side be correctly carried out in the line of party’s policy”
Thus, Mao limits himself to ensure the dominant position of poor and lower middle peasant in the leading body of a co-operative. But this co-operative movement was not on the basis of mechanization of agriculture. Lenin said :
“The remaking of the small tiller, the remolding of his whole mentality and habits, is a work of generations. As regards the small tiller, this problem can be solved, his whole mentality can be put on healthy lines, so to speak, only by the material base, by introducing tractors and machines in agriculture on a mass scale.” (C.W. Vol.26, page 469-70)
But at that time when Great leap forward and peoples commune were launched, one of the basic precondition of support of a proletarian state for socialist mechanization of agriculture in China was absent as capitalism was restored in Soviet Russia. Lenin in his theses as discussed above, had stated that backward nation like China could skip the path of capitalist development because one proletarian state was willing to extend help by all means. In the absent of proletarian state, it was very difficult if not impossible to introduce tractors and machines in agriculture on a mass scale in China. Therefore, Mao was compelled to depend largely on political work raising consciousness of the peasants which according to him was life blood of all economic work and which was oriented towards transition of scattered peasant economy to a large scale co-operative economy. In the particular internal and external circumstances of China, this move was not a retrogressive step. Latter on, Mao in his Critique of Soviet Political Economy said:
“Our worker-peasant alliance has already passed through two stages. The first was based on land revolution, the second on the co-operative movement…… At the present time our worker-peasant alliance has to take the next step and establish itself on the basis of mechanization. For to have simply the cooperative and commune movements without mechanization would once again mean that the alliance could not be consolidated. We still have to develop the cooperatives into people’s communes. We still have to develop basic ownership ……. by the commune and that further into state ownership. When state ownership and mechanization are integrated, we will be able to begin truly to consolidate the worker peasants alliance and the difference between workers and peasants will surely be eliminated” Page 28
In the same Critique of Soviet Political Economy, Mao on the proposition that machine and tractor stations are important tools for the socialist transformation of agriculture, reacts:
“Again and again the text emphasizes how important machinery is for the transformation. But if the consciousness of the peasantry is not raised, if ideology is not transformed and you are depending on nothing but machinery-what good will it be? The question of the struggle between the roads, socialism and capitalism, the transformation and re-education of people –these are the major questions for China.” Page 33
This is how Mao was compelled to give more emphasis on ideology, socialist educations, communist movement which is only one of aspects, of superstructure.
But let us again come to comrade Moni Goha again. Comrade Moni Guha further says :
“Mao not only ignored that the superstructure is in the ultimate analysis-the reflection of the economic structure and as shadow in totality, always lags behind, in spite of its exertion of influence on the economic structure but also, made the super-structure and its role quite independent and sovereign of the material conditions of life. Hence, Mao made the monist Marxism a dualist one. He made the superstructure independent and sovereign of the structure and assigned determining role to the superstructure like that of the structure and thus brought dualism to monist Marxism.” Ibid.
Moni Guha’s views are correct in so far as by giving determining role to Superstructure, Mao brought dualism to monist Marxism. But so far his statement that superstructure is the reflection of base is concerned is partially correct. Superstructure has two aspects – social consciousness and form of state. Social consciousness is the reflection of economic base but the state is always the result of class struggle. Mao’s concept of superstructure does not include the second aspect- the state.
The concept of base and superstructure is used by Marx and Engels to propound the idea that the economic structure of the society (base) conditions, determines the existence and forms of the State and social consciousness. Thus apart from social consciousness, state is also one of the basic element of superstructure. Social consciousness can be reflection of the base but not the state institution, it is the product of class struggle conditioned and determined by the base.
Marx says :
“….it is always the direct relation of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers – a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby social productivity-which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it the political form of relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state”. (Marx Capital III Ch. 47, Sect. II)
Therefore, in the context of China and Russia, the question of form of State becomes the crucial questions. But as we have discussed above, in China the form of state was not that of dictatorship of proletariat, it was new democratic dictatorship, dictatorship of the four class including the national bourgeoisie from the beginning to the end of Mao’s life. Therefore, Mao’s emphasis on superstructure was only an emphasis on social consciousness. In that sense, it was not even emphasis on superstructure in the fullest sense of the term.
But why Mao came to the conclusion of this peculiar understanding of base and superstructure? Has this concept of superstructure any link with his concept of contradiction between base and superstructure reflected in his famous article “On Contradiction”? It is necessary to analyze his views on base and superstructure and productive forces and relation of production.
Mao in his famous article “On Contradiction” says:
“Some people think that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect; in the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the principal aspect; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect; and there is no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception, not the dialectical materialist conception. True, the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role”.
First of all relation of production is not the part of the superstructure it is the part of economic base. Though productive forces and production relation are in contradiction with each other and productive forces does play the decisive role, neither of them is the element of superstructure. And therefore to put production relations and superstructure in one category and to say that in certain conditions they manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role is wrong. Mode of production consists of two aspects – productive forces and production relation. The mode of production is part of economic base. Mao here wrongly considers the production relation which is an element of base as the element of superstructure. His endeavour to put relation of production as element of superstructure is a misconception of the materialist conception of base and superstructure. Marx writes :
“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of the society – the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite form of social consciousness.”
Secondly, the changes in the superstructure has already been necessitated by the changes in the economic base and hence the old superstructure has become the fitter for the development of the productive forces. The superstructure which will manifest itself in the new ‘principal and decisive role’ is not the old superstructure but the new superstructure already a product of the growth of productive forces. The old superstructure can play only its negative role, a hindrance in the growth of productive forces. Mao plays with the word superstructure without referring that a qualitative change has occurred in the superstructure due to decisive role played by the new economic base. While comparing with the base and superstructure and their respective role, it is must that one should keep in mind that what he is referring -the old superstructure or the new superstructure in relation to old productive forces or new productive forces.
Thirdly, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect in relation to old relation of production and not new which comes after resolution; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect in relation to old superstructure and not the new superstructure which comes after resolution; and there is no change in their respective positions. And this is not the mechanical materialist conception rather it is the historical materialist conception of relationship between base and superstructure.
And fourthly, without referring which superstructure – new or old –Mao’s statement that superstructure along with relation of production which is itself an element of economic base, in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role and thereby belittling the role of economic base as principal and decisive even in certain conditions, is nothing but the distortion of the concept of historical materialism.
Further Mao says:
“When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role.”
Changes in production relation has to be made because productive forces has grown and now it is in contradiction with the old production relation. And hence old relation of production has to be changed for the further growth of productive forces. In that sense, productive force is primary and production relation is secondary.
Mao further says:
“The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory plays the principal and decisive role in those times of which Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.''
In determining whether a theory will be revolutionary or not , the role of economic base and its contradiction with superstructure, i.e objective factor play the decisive role. There will be no revolutionary theory if the society is not pregnant with revolution i.e. growth of productive forces has reached at such a stage that economic base is in contradiction with the old superstructure. The role of revolutionary theory is only when the society is pregnant with revolution.
Mao further says:
“When the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive. Are we going against materialism when we say this? No.”
Here, Mao fails to understand that superstructure becomes fetters and obstructs the development of the economic political and cultural changes only when there is a growth in the productive forces leading to emergence of new mode of production which is in contradiction with the old superstructure and hence its replacement becomes principal and decisive tasks. In that way it is not the superstructure but the productive forces which is principal.
“The reason is that while we recognize that in the general development of history the material determines the mental and social being determines social consciousness, we also — and indeed must — recognize the reaction of mental on material things, of social consciousness on social being and of the superstructure on the economic base. This does not go against materialism;……”
This ‘mental’ is the product of cognition of material contradiction of new base and old superstructure about which men become conscious as Marx says. Neither we nor dialectical materialism deny the role of this consciousness.
Secondly, one of basic components of superstructure is state apart from other institutions. We do not find any mention of state as necessary and most important element of superstructure in Mao’s conception of superstructure and we have seen that Mao believed that the transformation from new democratic economy to socialism could be achieved with the instrument of new democratic state, a four class dictatorship under the leadership of proletariat, one of the basic instrument of new democratic superstructure because Mao sees not much difference in the content of New Democratic State and that of Proletarian State. Is there any difference between new democratic state and dictatorship of proletariat? If there is no difference why Mao did propound two stage of revolution – New Democratic Revolution and Proletarian Revolution- in his famous article on New Democracy. Therefore, it is important that while considering the influence of superstructure one should keep in mind the new superstructure of which the institution of state is the principal element. After the bourgeoisie democratic revolution in the early period, the old institution of feudal state was replaced by new institution of bourgeoisie state. The new bourgeoisie state along with bourgeoisie ideas of freedom, liberty and culture did facilitate the development of capitalism and in this sense it influenced the development of production and productive forces.
Similarly, after the success of new democratic revolution in China, the old semi-colonial and semi-feudal state was replaced by the new democratic state- a four class alliance state under the leadership of working class. The politics and culture of new democracy as well as new democratic state did facilitate in the development of productive forces and production in China. But this state was still a backward state in relation to dictatorship of proletariat which was established in Soviet Russia after the October revolution and without which(dictatorship of proletariat) all emphasis on superstructure would not have crossed the limit of new democracy. This was the fundamental question which Mao was unable to resolve in the context of China while giving emphasis on superstructure.
From the above discussion, it is very much clear that CPC under the leadership of Mao was not ideologically capable of leading the new democratic revolution to socialist revolution and establishing the dictatorship of proletariat. This was the subjective limitation of CPC under the leadership of Mao.
And hence Mao was compelled to give more emphasis on man’s conscious action, on his moral drives, communist propaganda and ideologically high-flown ideals, on forming peasant commune without creating conditions for socialist mechanization of agriculture, on fighting national bourgeois in the field of ideology only without expropriating their private property and without eliminating them as a class under his peculiar conception of mass line and on the role of “superstructure” or you may say creative means and method of building socialism.
Here, by no means, we under estimate the role of ‘man’s conscious action’ as an historical force in the development of productive forces of society and particularly conscious action induced by Mao among the vast masses of China which did play an important role in the development of China, which did shape the very orientation of the Chinese society and the Chinese State in favor of proletarian class and delayed the restoration of state power completely by the bourgeois and abolition of four class sharing of state under the leadership of proletariat.
But his emphasis on superstructure did not lead to replacement of four class rule including the national bourgeois for dictatorship of proletariat, did not lead to revolutionary change of state from four class new democratic state to proletarian state. We find national bourgeois existing as a class, sharing state power through their representative parties namely Democratic League and Chang Po – Chun, a leader of this party holding ministerial post in the Chinese Government, and having allowed to retain their private property.
Thus one of the basic constituent of superstructure being the state was not fully free from the influence of the national bourgeois in China and the requisite material conditions, both internal and external, for socialist industrialization of the economy was badly lacking, national bourgeoisie as a class was allowed to remain under the peculiar theory of mass line.
Such was the concrete historical conditions in which CPC under the leadership of Mao had to lead the Chinese society to the road to Socialism without Soviet aid. Indeed this was the most complex, complicated and a completely new situations ever posed by the history before a country. Lenin had said that backward nation could skip of capitalist development on the condition that a proletarian state was ready to extend help by all its means. But that Soviet aid was not with China as the capitalism was restored there. It was also different from the situation in Soviet Russia where dictatorship of the proletariat was established in October 1917 and simultaneous revolution in advance European countries as expected by Lenin had failed and hence the fundamental question the history put before them was whether building of socialism was possible in individual country like Russia or not. We know that Stalin gave the answer in positive and undertook socialist industrialization of the economy. He did not follow the so called Lenin’s theses of mass line.
In Russia all the means of production were public property. Means of production was not a commodity. On agrarian front, old landlords were eliminated immediately after the October revolution. Kulak or the capitalist farmers were allowed to operate through under certain restrictions. But in 1928 when the situation matured Stalin says :
“Now we are in a position to replace, and more than replace, their farming by our collective farms. There is no reason to tolerate these spiders and blood seekers.” Stalin – Problems of Leninism; page 515
Thus earlier policy of restricting the Kulak through taxation was replaced and Stalin announce new policy:
“In order to oust the kulaks as a class, the resistance of this class must be smashed in open battle and it must be deprived of the productive sources of its existence and development.” Stalin – Problems of Leninism; page 515
It is in this way that kulaks were eliminated from the countryside and collectivization was achieved.; by confiscating their property and persuading the small and medium peasantry to form co-operative farming. This is how socialism was built in Soviet Russia.
Only then Stalin could declare in 1933 that
“..we have established the principle of socialism in all the spheres of the national economy and have expelled the capitalist elements from them….”
However, Stalin did not forget to warn :
“Thrown out of their groove, and scattered over the whole face of the USSR, these “have-beens” have worked their way into our plants and factories, into our government offices, and trading organizations, into our railway and water transport enterprises, and principally, into collective farms … and taken cover there, donning the mask of “workers” and “peasants”, and some of them have even managed to worm their way into the Party.” Problems of Leninism page 622-23
And hence Stalin wrote :
“The task is to eject these “have-beens” from our own enterprises and institutions…” ibid
Stalin was aware that “the growth of the power of the Soviet State will intensify the resistance of the last remnants of the dying classes.” And therefore he advocated that “the abolition of class struggle is not achieved by the extinction of class struggle, but by its intensification.” Ibid
Further the party’s 17th congress held that “The major task of the Second Five-Year Plan was to “completely eliminate the capitalist elements, to overcome the survivals of capitalism in economic life and in the mind of the men…” History of CPSU Page 495.
In November 1936, while reporting on the draft of the new constitution of the USSR, Stalin declared that “all the exploiting classes have now been eliminated.” ibid p-800. In March 1939, in the 18th Party Congress Stalin stated in his report that the Soviet society “no longer contains antagonistic hostile classes “ and is “free of class conflicts”. Ibid However, in the same report, Stalin says:
“The principal task in this period was to organize socialist economy throughout the country and to eliminate the last remnants of the capitalist elements, to organize a cultural revolution, and to organize a thoroughly modern army for the defense of the country. Ibid
From the above discussion it is clear that Stalin never forget the need of fighting capitalist elements even during the period when exploiting classes were yet to be eliminated and during the period when there was no hostile and conflicting classes. Dictatorship of proletariat was already established in October revolution and the other aspect of superstructure like cultural revolution, the need to fight remnants of capitalism and continuation of class struggle were very much advocated by Stalin. When socialist relation of production was established in USSR where there was no relation of dominant and dominated in the production relation and when there were only two classes – workers and peasants- Stalin further took the step to eliminate other parties representing bourgeoisie element, thus consolidating further the dictatorship of proletariat- one of principal aspects of superstructure.
Therefore, there is no ground to accept Mao’s allegations against Stalin that Stalin speaks only about production relation and not about superstructure, relation between superstructure and base. Of course, Stalin’s conception of superstructure was dialectical materialist and not mechanical materialist and hence it was different from Mao’s conception of superstructure which was not dialectical materialist.
When revisionist takeover by Khrushchev & Co was completed and Khrushchev declared the Soviet State as the state of the whole people, Mao in his On Khrushchev's Phony Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World: Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (IX) 1964 while criticizing Khrushchev falsely accused Stalin for his approach towards class struggle as follows:
“As the Soviet Union was the first, and at the time the only, country to build socialism and had no foreign experience to go by, and as Stalin departed from Marxist-Leninist dialectics in his understanding of the laws of class struggle in socialist society, he prematurely declared after agriculture was basically collectivized that there were "no longer antagonistic classes" [1] in the Soviet Union and that it was "free of class con- flicts" [2], one-sidely stressed the internal homogeneity of socialist society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon the working class and the masses in the struggle against the forces of capitalism and regarded the possibility of restoration of capitalism as associated only with armed attack by international imperialism. This was wrong both in theory and in practice.”
This was seer nonsense on the part of Mao to make such statement against Stalin who never one-sidely stressed the internal homogeneity of socialist society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon the working class and the masses in the struggle against the forces of capitalism and regarded the possibility of restoration of capitalism as associated only with armed attack by international imperialism. It was the same Mao who during the period when he was in hand in globe with Khrushchevite revisionism had stated as follows:
“After the elimination of classes, the class struggle should not continue to be stressed as being intensified, as it was done by Stalin, with the result that the healthy development of socialist democracy was hampered. The Communist Party of Soviet Union is completely right in firmly correcting Stalin’s mistake in this respect….” More on Historical Experiences of Dictatorship of the Proletariat- Mao
We request our readers to compare the above two statement of Mao with respect to Stalin on the question of class struggle in Russia. Continuation of class struggle in socialist economy was propounded by Marx, Angles & Lenin and as a true pupil of these great leaders, Stalin always stressed on continuation of class struggle even during the early period which led to expropriation of property of Kulak and establishing Socialist relation in USSR and during the period when there was no antagonistic classes in USSR. The case of China was different which was still in a transitional stage of economy in which socialist relations of production were not established completely, bourgeoisie and landlord as a class were not eliminated completely as yet even at the time of launching of cultural revolution, antagonistic classes as such were not abolished and hence the question of continuation of class struggle in the context of China was to eliminate the national bourgeoisie and landlord as a class and not in the context of elimination of bourgeoisie elements only, to resolve the contradiction of production relation and productive forces not only in the country side but also in the sphere of industry.. Even the very nature of class struggle in China during the cultural revolution could not be the continuation of class struggle in the context of a fully developed socialist country like Russia in 1933 and onwards where there were no antagonistic classes. This is the most crucial point to understand the continuation of class struggle in a transitional society from new democratic economic system to socialist system and a class struggle in a fully established socialist system where there are no antagonistic classes, to correctly understand the fallacy of Mao’s criticism of Stalin on the question of continuation of class struggle and Cultural Revolution launched by Mao in China to prevent bourgeoisie restoration and establishing capitalism of old category..
In China, in the name of following the so called theory of Lenin’s mass line, the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois was abandoned which was a decisive preconditions for establishing dictatorship of the proletariat after the establishment of the four class new democratic state. What ever the class struggle Mao advocated after the tremendous increase of bourgeois influence in the sate power, CPC, Commune and other socio-political organization and engendering bourgeois take over of the state power following the Great Leap till and during the whole period of cultural revolution, was not oriented towards the elimination of bourgeois as a class and towards expropriation of their property but it was a class struggle oriented towards gaining leadership over the peasantry and other non- proletarian masses, petti-bourgeois and even a section of national bourgeois to protect their predominant and leading position in the new democratic state, CPC, Commune and other socio-political organization which was also shared and influenced by the national bourgeois.
In May 1963 while enumerating four great problems and their reason, Mao said : “The historical reason. On the one hand, there are regions where the task of democratic revolution has still not been completed. There are areas where feudal land lords have not been overturned. This is a problem of renewed revolution. On the other hand, there is the reason of the history of work. After land reform, we did not handle class struggle again.”
During the cultural revolution Mao said :
“the party added many new members. Were they all good? Are the democratic parties all so very bad? I think the democratic parties are better than P’eng, Lo, Lu and Young. We still want the democratic parties, the political consultative conference; we should explain this clearly to the Red Guards.” Vol IX page 302.
Thus, ‘Mao longed for the democratic parties even at the height of the GPCR and sometimes preferred them to communists and needed political consultative committee comprising the democratic parties.’
Hence, the class struggle even during the cultural revolution was not oriented towards expropriation of private property, elimination of bourgeois as a class and ousting their representative party from the new democratic state power; it was not oriented towards establishment of dictatorship of the proletariat but it was oriented towards gaining leadership and influence over the peasantry and other non- proletarian masses, petti-bourgeois and even a section of national bourgeois to protect their ensuring predominance in the new democratic state against a section of national bourgeois; it was oriented towards belittling the influence of the national bourgeois over the peasantry and other non- proletarian masses, petti-bourgeois to prevent their increasing influence in the new democratic state, CPC etc.
This class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois for securing predominant and leading position in the new democratic state power continued till the latter finally defeated the former after the death of Mao and capitalist restoration leading to predominant and leading position of the national bourgeois in the state power was not finally completed. Such was the nature and essence of class struggle in China after launching of Great Leap and during the whole period of cultural revolution and even after the completion of the period of cultural revolution, some time in disguised and some time in naked form.
From the above discussion the following conclusions can be drawn :
1) Mao’s conception of superstructure which considers production relation as an element of superstructure apart from considering the role of consciousness, theory, mass action without mentioning state institution which is one of major components of superstructure is wrong, a deviation from dialectical materialist conception of base and superstructure.
2) To emphasis on superstructure without mentioning the institution of state is nothing but the distortion of materialist conception of superstructure.
3) The question of continuation of class struggle after abolition of antagonistic classes arose in a country where socialism was established like that of Russia in 1933 and onwards and not earlier because it was but natural that class struggle could not be abandoned in a society where there are antagonistic classes, where bourgeoisie and kulaks were required to be eliminated and in this sense it was not a matter of question, it was only a matter of tactics. The class struggle even after the abolition antagonistic classes was very much continued by Stalin.
4) All types of class struggle did not lead to establishment of dictatorship of proletariat. A class struggle not oriented towards elimination of bourgeois as a class and expropriation of their property under new democratic state will neither lead to establishment of dictatorship of proletariat nor to socialism.
5) Even under New Democratic state, to abandon class struggle in the name of transforming national bourgeoisie by ‘peaceful means’ or what is called in the guise of mass line which will not expropriate private capital, which will not eliminate national bourgeoisie, is alien to Marxism-Leninism.
6) A particular type of class struggle i.e. a class struggle which would lead to the expropriation of private capital of the national bourgeois and their elimination from the state power- is necessary not only for the transition from new democratic state to dictatorship of proletariat and building socialism but also necessary to prevent bourgeoisie restoration of capitalism from new democratic state under the leadership of the proletariat.
We are of the considered view that the problem of revolution as well as the problem of socialist transformation of China and the role of CPC under the leadership of Mao in resolving those problems should be evaluated in its concrete historical and objective conditions to draw correct revolutionary conclusion.
Mao as a Marxist-Leninist, rightly advocated two stage of revolution – New Democratic Revolution and then Socialist Revolution on the basis of the following observation about China :
“Since the invasion of foreign capitalism and the gradual growth of capitalist elements in Chinese society, the country has changed by degrees into a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. China today is colonial in the Japanese-occupied areas and basically semi-colonial in the Kuomintang areas, and it is predominantly feudal or semi-feudal in both. Such, then, is the character of present-day Chinese society and the state of affairs in our country. …”
“In the course of its history the Chinese revolution must go through two stages, first, the democratic revolution, and second, the socialist revolution, and by their very nature they are two different revolutionary processes. Here democracy does not belong to the old category -- it is not the old democracy, but belongs to the new category -- it is New Democracy.” Mao On New Democracy
The first characteristic feature was that China was a colony in the areas occupied by Japanese imperialism and hence the element of national liberation movement was the necessary part of revolutionary process of China and hence CPC under the leadership of Mao rightly came to the conclusion that national bourgeoisie can play a revolutionary role in the first stage of revolutionary process. Hence, in his famous article “On New Democracy” Mao says that during the stage of new democratic revolution four class alliance is necessary in the particular circumstances of China.
Japan had not only occupied the part of Chinese territory but had expropriated the propertied class in their Japanese occupied areas.
Latter on, in his critique of Soviet economy while recalling those days of Japanese aggression, Mao says :
“The method of the Japanese used when they held our north-east provinces was to eliminate the major local capital and to turn their enterprises in to Japanese state – managed, or in some cases monopoly capitalist enterprises. For the small and middle capitalists they established subsidiary companies as a means of imposing control.” Page 26
Hence, Mao’s approach to win over the bourgeoisie to their side had originated from the need to broadened their resistance struggle against Japanese imperialism. Mao further says:
“The present situation requires us to change over slogan into one of a peoples republic. The reason is that ….. it is now possible not only for the petty bourgeoisie but even for the national bourgeoisie to join the anti-Japanese struggle. On Tactics against Japanese Imperialism S.W. V 1 page – 9
Latter on, when the need for further broadening the united front was required to defeat the Japanese imperialist aggression, he propounded the theses that class struggle during the new democratic revolution and particularly during the war of resistance against Japanese imperialism, should be subordinated to the National interest. He says:
“To subordinate the class struggle to the present national struggle against Japan –such is the fundamental principles of United Front.’ The question of Independence and Initiative within the United Front. SW Vol 2 page 215
He further says :
“The interest of class struggle must be subordinated to, and must not conflict with, the interests of the war of Resistance…. We do not deny class struggle, we adjust it.” Mao – The Role of Chinese Communist Party in the National war” S.W Volume 2 page 200.
He was compelled to give concession to big landlord and big bourgeoisie saying that even if big landlord and big bourgeoisie should not be discarded if they are for resistances. He says:
“The pro-Japanese big landlord and big bourgeoisie who are against resistance must be distinguished from the pro-British and pro-American big landlords and pro-American big landlords and big bourgeoisie who are for resistances.” On Policy S.W. Vol 2 P- 443
Even the question of Agrarian revolution was abandoned for certain period considering the necessity to broaden and intensify the war of resistance against Japanese imperialism. Mao says:
“The Communist Party has made a major concession in the anti-Japanese war period by changing its policy of ‘Land to the Tiller’ to one of reducing rent and interest….. If no special obstacles arises, we are prepared to continue this policy after the war. Mao- On coalition Government SW Vol 3, p- 298
And further he says :
“The confiscation of land of the landlords will be discontinued.” -- The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistence to Japan SW Vol1 P-269
Thus the tactics of the CPC during the war of resistance was primarily oriented towards the national liberation of China and towards the expropriation of property of pro-Japanese landlord and big bourgeoisie and class struggle and was subordinated to this goal itself. Therefore, Mao says about the composition of New democratic republic :
“What will be the composition of the new democratic republic? It will consist of the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and all those in the country who agree with the national and democratic revolution; it will be the alliance of these classes in lthe national democratic revolution. The salient feature here is the inclusion of the bourgeoisie ……
It was correct to put forward the slogan of a workers’ and peasants’ democratic republic in the past, and it is correct to drop it today.” Mao- The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Resistance to Japan.” SW Vol. 1 page 271-2
Was this tactics of Mao correct ? Let us see what Lenin says :
“It is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy… only by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this fail to understand even a grain of Marxism.” V. I. Lenin “Left wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder(April 1920) S.W. Vol 10 page – 112
And Stalin says :
“The Communist Party of each country must unfailingly avail itself of even the smallest opportunity of gaining a mass ally for the proletariat, even if a temporary, vacillating, unstable and unreliable ally.” J. V. Stalin; Notes on Contemporary Themes (July 1927) C. W. Vol. 9 page 337.
Thus it was absolutely correct on the part of CPC under the leadership of Mao to avail itself the opportunity of winning over national bourgeoisie and others as its mass ally in their resistance struggle against the Japanese imperialism. It was the Trotsky who opposed the same. Trotsky rejected this Marxist-Leninist view that bourgeois can play a revolutionary role in semi-colonial and colonial state. He says :
“The national bourgeois has been essentially an instrument of compradors and imperialism.” Leon Trotsky : The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin. Page 21.
Thus, Trotsky wrongly rejected the role of national bourgeois in the revolutionary process of colonial and semi-colonial type.
And SUCI, which has its origin from one of Trotskyite parties in India, says in their pamphlet :
“Again, in 1934, by projecting the same national bourgeoisie as progressive and even revolutionary before the people, through their so-called theory of 'national front', they enhanced its prestige and thereby helped the national bourgeoisie to further consolidate its hegemony.” From Why SUCI
Today, communist parties who believe in Mao as well as Soviet revisionist brand of communist parties in India has been assigning revolutionary role to national bourgeois even if India has achieved its freedom in 1947 and a bourgeois state was formed; on the pretext that bourgeois democratic revolution has not been fully completed.
The second feature of Chinese situation was that if it was colonial in Japanese occupied areas, it was semi-colonial in Kuomintang areas and predominantly feudal and semi-feudal in both.
The emancipation struggle in China took a specific form due to specific circumstances of China. First of all there was not any centralized political power. Secondly China was under direct rule of Japan in Japanese occupied area and it had to wage resistance struggle against imperialist invasion. Thirdly, China was divided into spheres of influence by imperialist powers in the rest of areas not under direct rule of any imperialist country. In that areas Chinese Empire had broken and local warlords had emerged. ‘In the face of powerful peasant wars and the revolution in 1911, a counter revolutionary alliance of the warlords and the compradore bourgeoisie with imperialism had been formed. These peculiar circumstances made armed struggle, the main form of struggle in the Chinese revolution. This was realised by Sun-Yat-Sen in the revolution of 1911. It was these circumstances that led to the setting up of the Whampoa Military Academy in 1924 with the help of Soviet military experts to form and train a revolutionary army.’
Therefore, in China, the main form of class struggle was armed struggle and main form of organization was army. Stalin says :
"In China the armed revolution is fighting the armed counter-revolution. This is one of the specific features and one of the advantages of the Chinese revolution". Mao/SW-2/pp.220-21
And Mao says:
"……….we have no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organise the workers to strike. Basically, the task of the communist party here is not to go through a long period of legal struggle before launching insurrection and war, and not to seize the big cities first and then occupy the countryside but the reverse.
When imperialism is not making armed attacks on our country, the Chinese Communist Party either wages civil war jointly with the bourgeoisie against the warlords (lackeys of imperialism) as in 1924-27 in the wars in Kwangtung province and the Northern Expedition, or unites with the peasants and the urban petty-bourgeoisie to wage civil wars against the landlord class and the compradore (also lackeys of imperialism) as in war of Agrarian Revolution of 1927-36...’ Mao/SW-2/pp.220-21
Thus resistance struggle in China originated in course of its struggle against Japanese imperialist invasion of China. Due to extreme backwardness of Chinese economy and absence of a central political power and warlords fighting against each other, there was the possibility of creating base area and establishing red political power in China. Mao had said in his famous article WHY IS IT THAT RED POLITICAL POWER CAN EXIST IN CHINA?
“First, it cannot occur in any imperialist country or in any colony under direct imperialist rule but can only occur in China which is economically backward, and which is semi-colonial and under indirect imperialist rule. For this unusual phenomenon can occur only in conjunction with another unusual phenomenon, namely, war within the White regime. It is a feature of semi-colonial China that, since the first year of the Republic [1912] the various cliques of old and new warlords have waged incessant wars against one another, supported by imperialism from abroad and by the comprador and landlord classes at home.”
Such was the specific situation of China which gave birth to specific Chinese form of class struggle, a situation which is quite different from the situations prevailing in India.
Hence, the question arises whether in a country which is not colonial and which is not the victim of foreign attack, whether national bourgeois can be a revolutionary ally ?
In a country which is not a semi-colonial and predominantly a semi-feudal like China which was divided under the spheres of influence by different imperialism and the feudal warlords fighting each other and supported by their imperialist masters, in a country such as India having a centralized political power with centralized bourgeoisie political institutions, is it correct and possible to create base area and to establish stable red power and to continue the protracted peoples war?
If there is no agenda of national liberation movement in India today, can mere economic exploitation through the export of finance capital facilitate any ground to make the national bourgeois an ally of working class and to conclude the stage of revolution as new democratic on this score?
These are the fundamental questions while determining the strategy and tactics of revolution in India today which must be considered while formulating a revolutionary theory.
The third characteristic feature of China was that it was an extremely backward country in so far as the development of level of productive forces was concerned. There was little penetration of capital in China as Mao had said that China was predominantly feudal and semi-feudal in both Japanese occupied areas and in the areas not occupied by Japanese imperialism. The economic backwardness was so much that there was neither possibility of victory of democratic revolution under the leadership of proletariat nor there was any possibility of skipping the capitalist development without the active support of a Socialist state. Lenin in his ”Report of the Commission on National And colonial Questions” says :
“The question was posed as follows : are we to consider as correct the assertion that the capitalist economic development is inevitable for backward nations now on the road to emancipation and among whom a certain advance progress is to be seen since the war? We replied in the negative. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them and the Soviet Governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal in that event it will be mistaken to assume that the backward people must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of developments.” Lenin C.W. Vol 31 p. 244
The first main point in the above theses was that the condition for success of revolution was that the victorious proletariat must conducts systematic propaganda among the backward nation and Soviet Government must come to their aid with all the means at their disposal.
The second point in the above theses was that capitalist development was not inevitable in the backward nation provided proletarian state come to their aid with all means in their disposal. It means that in event of success of democratic revolution China was not required to wait for socialist revolution till the full development of capitalism because a proletarian state had come in to existence and has shown their readiness to help in socialist construction.
In the light of the above thesis, Sixth Congress of the International and Stalin while pointing out the special features of Chinese Revolution, they always pointed out the necessary role of Soviet help for the success of new democratic revolution in China. (See programme of Communist Internal, Adopted at the Sixth Congress in 1928, Document of Communist Movement in India’.A CPI(M) Publication, National Book Agency, National Book Agency, Calcutta 1977, Vol-1, page 833 & J.V. Stalin : Prospects of Chinese Revolution, On the Opposition page 500 – 501)
Mao correctly applied this first thesis of Lenin in the conditions of China. He says :
“A change, however, occurred in China’s bourgeois democratic revolution after the out break of first Imperialist world war in 1914 and the founding of socialist state on one-sixth of the globe as a result of the Russian October Revolution of 1917.
Before these events, the Chinese revolution came within the old category of the bourgeois democratic revolution of which it was a part.
Since these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution has changed ; it has come within the new category of bourgeois-democratic revolutions and as far as the alignment of revolutionary forces is concerned, forms part of the proletarian world revolution.”p-6 On new democracy.
Thus, the Chinese revolution had come within the new category of bourgeois democratic revolution. Why? It was because as Mao says, apart from other reasons a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semi-colonies. This proposition was very much in line with Lenin’s proposition. And we know that the subsequent events in China did confirm this and Peoples Republic of China was established in 1949 after successful victory of new democratic revolution in China in which the role of Soviet Military aid was crucial.
Mao further elaborated the indispensable role of Soviet assistance for the victory of new democratic revolution in China in his famous article “On New Democracy” :
“All the imperialist powers in the world are our enemies, and China cannot possibly gain her independence without the assistance of the land of socialism and the international proletariat… In particular, Soviet assistance is absolutely indispensable for China's final victory in the War of Resistance. Refuse Soviet assistance, and the revolution will fail.” Mao – On New Democracy.
Therefore one of the essential pre-condition for the success of new democratic revolution of Chinese type was active support of a socialist state. The concept of New Democratic Revolution was a specific concept which originated in a specific historical internal and external conditions of China. The New Democratic revolution in China was different from the old category of bourgeois revolution in Europe and America in as much as the latter was to be completed under the leadership of the bourgeois whereas the former was completed under the leadership of the proletariat in alliance with peasantry, national bourgeois and petti-bourgeois and presupposed the active support of a proletarian state for completing new democratic revolution and building socialism by skipping capitalist development. It was also different from the democratic revolution of Russia in as much as in Russia democratic revolution was completed under the leadership of the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry as a whole and then it grew over to proletarian revolution under the leadership of the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry establishing dictatorship of the proletariat but it did not presuppose the help of socialist state in completion of its revolution and while building socialism, there was no question of skipping capitalist development as in Russia, capitalist economic structure was already maturing in the womb of feudalism. It was also different from peoples democratic revolution of Eastern European countries which arose mainly in the fight against fascist forces. Therefore, New Democratic revolution was a historical category which presupposes definite historical conditions and while applying the strategy and tactics of new democratic revolution, the historical preconditions should be always kept in mind.
If new democratic revolution is a historical category of revolution which means that strategy and tactics of revolution in an extremely backward colonial semi-colonial country presupposing active support of a socialist sate for its success, has it not become a thing of past, even if assuming that the internal conditions like China exist in India or any country in the world, with the restoration of capitalism in socialist sates all over the world ?
Hence, about the applicability of very theory of new democratic revolution as well as it’s strategy and tactics which was correct in specific internal and external conditions of China, does it not correct to say that it has no relevance at all for revolution in India as well as in any country of the world even if we assume that internal condition is like that of China?
Thus, is it not correct that in the absence of a socialist state today, all the talks of new democratic revolution is a myth, an utopia based on subjective evaluation, without any revolutionary content?
These are the fundamental questions which the upholders of new democratic revolution and following Chinese line in India and all over the world must overcome in order to correct their revolutionary theory without which there can be no revolution. This is the most important and fundamental lesson we conclude from the history of Chinese revolution.
II Problem of Socialist construction in China and Cultural Revolution.
i) Nature of state during the transition period.
Due to peculiar internal and external situations prevailing in China and correlation of class forces during the stage of new democratic revolution as envisaged by Mao in his article “On New Democracy” and in his subsequent articles during the resistance struggle against Japanese imperialism, the dictatorship of four classes under the leadership of the proletariat was established after the victory of New Democratic revolution in China.
Can we say that this form of state was a form of dictatorship of proletariat? No, it was not, in as much as it included the participation of national bourgeoisie through their political parties. Had it been a dictatorship of the proletariat, Mao would not have advocated two stage of revolution- new democratic stage and proletarian stage. It was a dictatorship of four class including the national bourgeoisie. But it has a proletarian content in as much as it had expropriated the properties of pro-Japanese capitalists and landlords. This was the progressive and proletarian element of new-democratic state in China. Secondly, the leadership and predominant position in the state was with the working class party, the CPC. But along with CPC, the representatives party of the national bourgeoisie were also in the state power and their representative were given ministerial post. Mao said in 1956:
“In our country the various democratic parties, consisting primarily of the national bourgeoisie and its intellectuals, emerged during the resistence to Japan and the struggle against Chinang Kai-shek, and they continue to exist to this day. … We have purposely let the democratic parties remain, giving them opportunities to express their views and adovpting a policy of both unity and struggle towards them.” Vol V page 296-97
Latter on in his Critique to Soviet Political Economy published during the revisionist period, Mao while commenting on this issue says:
“On page 334 the book says, “the proletarian state can take various forms.” True enough, but there is not much difference essentially between the proletarian dictatorship in the people’s democracies and the one established in Russia after the October Revolution. Also, the Soviets of the Soviet Union and our people’s congress were both representative assemblies, different in name only. In China the peoples congress included those participating as representatives of the bourgeoisie, representatives who had split from the Nationalist Party, and representatives who were prominent democratic figures. All of them accepted the leadership of the Chinese Communist party.” Page -26
And further Mao comments on this :
“Such an inclusive form may appear different from the soviet, but it should be remembered that after the October Revolution the soviets included representatives of the Menshevik rightist Social Revolutionary Party, a Trotskyite faction, a Bukharin faction, a Zinoviev faction, and so forth. Nominally representatives of the workers and peasants, they were virtual representatives of he bourgeoisie. The period after the October Revolution was a time when the proletarian accepted a large number of personnel from the Kerensky Government- all of whom were bourgeois elements. Our own central people’s government was set up on the foundation of the North China people’s government. All members of the various departments were from the base areas, and the majority of the mainstay were Communist Party members.” Page- 26
Firstly, there is a difference between the Menshevik rightist Social Revolutionary Party, a Trotskyite faction, a Bukharin faction, a Zinoviev faction, and so forth, nominally representatives of the workers and peasants, but virtually representatives of he bourgeoisie ideology, not claiming the representative of the bourgeoisie class as no such class in sphere of industry was existing in Russia after the expropriation of their capital, the means of production, industries on the one hand and the Democratic Party in China claiming to be the party of national bourgeoisie existing as a class in that period in China where private property of national bourgeoisie in the means of production were not expropriated on the other hand. This was the difference not in form but also in content of the new democratic state in China and dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.
Secondly, in Russia, in the initial stage, the relation of production in the country side was not socialist, Kulaks were not abolished, there were numerous small peasants upon whom co-operative farm or collective farm could not have imposed immediately after the revolution. But in 1936, when through the implementation of five year plans and the class struggle waged by CPSU under the leadership of Stalin at appropriate time, the Kulaks were abolished and agricultural production were brought under co-operative and collective farms, the relation of production in the country side was no more that of domination and dominated, bourgeoisie as class was not existing in Soviet economy. It was in these circumstances that in 1936, Stalin could adopt a policy of non-permissibility of any party other than the Communist Party in the USSR. Stalin says :
“A party is a party of class, its most advance part. Several parties, and, consequently, freedom for parties, can exist only in a society in which there are antagonistic classes…’ Stalin: Problems of Leninism page-819
In USSR there were only two classes at that time- workers and peasants- and to defend their interests there was, and there should be, the Communist Party alone, said Stalin. Thus, abolition of bourgeoisie as class and absence of antagonistic classes in USSR was made by Stalin as the basis for further consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, one of the basic aspects of the superstructure. Only those, who do not understand all this, can say that Stalin committed mistake while making statement that bourgeoisie as class was abolished in USSR and that there were no antagonistic classes in USSR.
ii) Orientation of state policy
Therefore, the main task in building socialism in China was two fold: how to overcome and eliminate the bourgeois as a class and its influence from the state power and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat by ousting participation of bourgeoisie element from the state power and in production relation in the Chinese Society and to complete the socialist industrialization of its economy.
But during the resistance struggle against Japanese aggression, CPC under the leadership of Mao was compelled to give concession to pro-British and pro-American big landlord and big bourgeoisie who were assured that their interest will be protected in the new democratic state as discussed above. And, hence the new democratic state was also not free from the influence of pro-British and pro-American big landlord and big bourgeoisie apart from the national bourgeoisie. Therefore, it was necessary to emancipate the proletariat and the peasantry from the influence of the bourgeoisie and landlord of all kind through waging class struggle in China after the establishment of new democratic state which was not done during the new democratic revolution due to specific circumstances.
Any transition from the new democratic state to dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily involves the intensification of class struggle against the resistance of the bourgeoisie. During the period of new democratic revolution Mao had taken the stand that after the establishment of new democratic state bourgeois will not be eliminated. In the said article Mao had disclosed his views as to what will be the orientation of New Democratic State in China. In discussing the economy of the New Democracy. Mao said :
“China's economy must develop along the path of the "regulation of capital" and the "equalization of landownership", and must never be "privately owned by the few"; we must never permit the few capitalists and landlords to "dominate the livelihood of the people"; we must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type or allow the old semi-feudal society to survive. Whoever dares to go counter to this line of advance will certainly not succeed but will run into a brick wall.
Such are the internal economic relations which a revolutionary China, a China fighting Japanese aggression, must and necessarily will establish.”
Thus after the establishment of New Democratic State, the Chinese economy was to be developed along the path of the “regulation of capital” and the “equalization of landownership”. It was assured that few capitalists and landlords will not be allowed to dominate the livelihood of the people. Here, there is no indication that after completion of the first stage of revolution, China will enter in to second proletarian stage of revolution and the main tasks will be to eliminate the capitalist and landlord as class and from their participation in the state power. And if this approach was to continue after the establishment of New Democratic State, the politics of new democracy was to remain towards maintaining the leading and predominant position in the state power and party and other organs, regulating the capital and keeping the private capital and minor national bourgeoisie under their control. Much prior to the establishment of New Democratic state, this was the objective CPC had set before itself.
Such was the content of their new democratic approach and theory towards negation of bourgeois dictatorship of old category. But their theory had originated during the particular circumstances of China, particularly during the intense necessity to fight Japanese imperialism. Mao had said :
“We Communists will never push aside anyone who is revolutionary; we shall persevere in the united front and practice long-term co-operation with all those classes, strata, political parties and groups and individuals that are willing to fight Japan to the end. But it will not do if certain people want to push aside the Communist Party; it will not do if they want to split the united front. China must keep on fighting Japan, uniting and moving forward, and we cannot tolerate anyone who tries to capitulate, cause splits or move backward.” Mao – On New Democracy.
The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight. We are not utopians and cannot divorce ourselves from the actual conditions confronting us. Mao- On New Democracy.
Apparently, Mao at the one hand says that ‘We Communists will never push aside anyone’ (which include bourgeois also) and on the other hand he says that ‘The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism’. This contradicts his own statements. Here when he mentions first step he mentions ‘the actual conditions confronting us’ which means that quite a long time was to be needed in achieving the new democratic revolution. It was not that after the completion of first stage, the second stage of socialism was to be taken after a long time.
However, Mao in his famous article “On Tactics against Japanese Imperialism” has stated as follows:
“In the future democratic revolution will inevitably transformed into a socialist revolution. As to when the transformation will take place that will depend on the presence of the necessary conditions, and it may take quite a long time. We should not hold forth about the transition unless all the necessary conditions are present…. Compared with Russia, China will find it more difficult, and require much more time and effort to complete her democratic revolution politically and economically.” On Tactics against Japanese Imperialism S.W. V 1 page – 170
These views of Mao were not in the line of Lenin’s theses that backward nation could skip capitalist development if proletariat state comes to their help in building socialism by their all means. Mao sees here only internal condition for building socialism but not the external condition of building socialism, the soviet help. In the particular circumstances of China, this external condition was most fundamental and crucial for socialist industrialization of China.
iii) Problems of socialist construction in China
As discussed above, China could not have undertaken the task of socialist industrialization from its own available resources, without the help of a proletarian state, at that time, the Soviet Russia. With the help of Soviet Russia it did establish, to certain extent, enterprises producing means of production, the basic industry for the industrialization of its economy in its early period. It continued to receive the Soviet aids till the life time of Stalin and even to some extent till the revisionist take over of proletarian state by Khrushchev & Co.
After the death of Stalin in 1953 and after the revisionist take over of proletarian state by Khrushchev & Co and restoration of capitalism in Russia in 1956, the basic pre-condition of active support of a proletarian state by all means for socialist industrialization of China was absence. Right from the establishment of new democratic state in 1949 till 1956, had China achieved minimum level of Industrial development particularly in the sphere of industries producing means of production to complete its socialist industrialization of its economy? This was the basic question before the CPC under the leadership of Mao upon which depended the fate of building the economic base of socialism by completing socialist industrialization.
However, CPC did not pose this problem in this fashion and under took a different way by launching the Great Leap ‘in response to Khrushchev’s slowly but surely refusing to continue with the Aid and poking China on the most contentious border issue.’
Thus China plunged into a situation where it was very difficult, if not impossible, for China to go for socialist industrialization and building socialism without the support of a proletarian state in 1957 after revisionist take over of Soviet Russia by Khrushchev & Co after the death of Stalin, and that too without the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was the objective limitation of CPC under the leadership of Mao in building socialism and socialist industrialization in China in 1957 which should be remembered while evaluating Chinese socialism.
Can we say that the thesis of Lenin was still applicable in the sense that with the restoration of capitalism in Soviet Russia and now there being no proletarian state China can not skip over capitalist development owing to low level of productive forces?
Even in two line struggle under CPC we do not find scientific resolution of this question. Mao was ‘for peasant co-operatives aimed at collectivization of peasant farming even before the completion of socialist industrialization i.e. before heavy and large socialist industries were producing in plenty the machinery, tools and necessary implements needed in agriculture. Liu was on the other hand opposed to peasants’ co-operative till the fullest development of productive forces and till then wanted no proletarian ideology and its propagation and tried his best to retain new democracy and also opposed communist ideological propaganda like “communism is the ultimate hope of Chinese people” and “Down with private property.” Apparently Liu succumbed to the theory of productive forces for favoring new democratic rule giving more and more space for the bourgeois and Mao expedited in his own way the transition from New democracy to ‘socialism’ basing on peasant co-operatives and collectivization of peasant farm, peasant commune only, without expecting Soviet aid as by the time capitalism was restored in Russia, without having industrial base for the mechanization of agriculture, without expropriating private property completely, without expropriating the national bourgeois and without socialist industrialization of the industry. Thus Mao was compelled to impose ‘radical relation of production’ in the sphere of agriculture while ignoring the need of resolving contradiction between productive forces and relation of production in the sphere of industry in a revolutionary manner, giving space to the national bourgeoisie for it’s existence. This was in line of his peculiar theory of new democratic revolution in which revolution was to be made first in countryside and then in cities, his emphasis on the role of peasants in democratic revolution. Mao writes :
“We follow Lenin in the mass line and the class struggle. We want to eliminate the bourgeois thoroughly including its ideology, but without confiscating the property and destroying the people of the bourgeoisie. Stalin did not promote the mass line. He played favoritism and was too excessive in class struggle.” Mao S.W., Vol.-VIII, Page 114, para II)
This new democratic concept of class struggle was necessary during the resistance of war against Japanese imperialism in the particular internal and external conditions of China but it was quite unnecessary and wrong after the defeat of Japanese imperialism and establishment of New Democratic State in China in 1949. The continuation of this politics of new democracy even after the elimination of semi-feudal and semi-colonial state and establishment of new democratic state with the exception in the country side was not towards the consolidation of leadership of proletariat in the new democratic state.
Here it is necessary to examine how CPC under the leadership of Mao approached the fundamental problem of class struggle after the establishment of New Democratic State in China? Let us examine this problem.
iv) Class struggle in China
In 1952 the Central Committee of the CPC decided that “with nation wide victory in the new democratic revolution and the completion of the agrarian reform, the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie and between the socialist road and capitalist road became the principal internal contradiction. “Resolution on CPC History (1949-81) page- 19
Thus, during the life time of Stalin, the very orientation of class struggle was against the national bourgeoisie and the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie was considered to be one of principal internal contradictions.
However, after the death of Stalin, we find a change in approach towards the class struggle. This was the period of rise of Khrushchevite revisionism and CPC was taking the side of Khrushchevite revisionism on various issues, particularly on the issue of Stalin, class struggle etc.
In the Eighth National Congress of the party held in Sept 56 they “declared that the socialist system had been basically established in China; that … the principal contradiction within the country was no longer the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie but between the demand of the people for rapid economic and cultural development and the existing state of our economy and cultural which fell short of the needs of the people; and that although class struggle still existed and peoples and people’s democratic dictatorship had to be further strengthened, the basic task of the dictatorship was now to protect and develop the productive forces in the context of the new relations of production.”
When they say that socialist system had been basically established in China, it only means that the property of pro-Japanese Capitalist and landlord were expropriated which constituted as per Mao statement 80% of the industries and not of national bourgeoisie and landlords who were for resistances against Japanese imperialism.
Secondly, now the principal contradiction was no longer between the working class and the national bourgeoisie but ‘between the demand of the people for rapid economic and cultural development and the existing state of our economy’ and ‘that although class struggle still existed and people’s democratic dictatorship had to be further strengthened, the basic task of the dictatorship was now to protect and develop the productive forces in the context of the new relations of production.’
Thus principal contradiction was shifted to the contradiction between the productive forces and the new production relation. This theses was very much in line with Liu proposition of the contradiction between backward productive forces and advance relation of production.
Further in Feb 1957 Mao in his famous article “Correct Handling of Contradiction Among the People” declared that this class struggle against the bourgeoisie and landlord of all kind was no longer required to wage or to intensify holding that the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat can be resolved peacefully:
“The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and the exploited and is by very nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradictions between the two classes, if properly handled, can be resolved into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful means.” Mao- On the correct Handling of the Contradictions among the people.” S.W. Vol. 5 page 386.
Not only this, he supported Khrushchevite revisionism in their attack on Stalin on the issue of class struggle:
“After the elimination of classes, the class struggle should not continue to be stressed as being intensified, as it was done by Stalin, with the result that the healthy development of socialist democracy was hampered. The Communist Party of Soviet Union is completely right in firmly correcting Stalin’s mistake in this respect….” More on Historical Experiences of Dictatorship of the Proletariat- Mao
We will see that latter on Mao took a diametrically opposite view on the question of continuation of class struggle after abolition of classes in respect of Soviet Russia of Stalin period when he came in conflict with Khrushchevite revisionism.
However, in 1962 Mao said :
“the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie remained the principal contradiction” and that “throughout the historical period of socialism, the bourgeoisie would continue to exist and would attempt a come back and become the source of revisionism inside the party.” “Resolution on CPC History (1949-81) page- 30
Firstly, when Mao was formulating this proposition, socialism in its real sense was not created in China and it was still in transition stage, bourgeoisie as a class was not eliminated, their property were not expropriated, bourgeoisie relations of production in the countryside was still there, the relation of dominant and domination in the production relation was still there as the rich peasant as a class was not abolished, and hence the above formulation could not be in the context of socialist China but in the context of New Democratic economy of China where bourgeoisie was existing as class and it’s contradiction with the working class was the basic contradiction.
Secondly, when he says that ‘throughout the historical period of socialism, the bourgeoisie would continue to exist’ what does it mean in the context of China where national bourgeoisie and rich peasants were existing as a class? It certainly means the overthrown, expropriated pro-Japanese bourgeoisie and landlord who ‘would attempt a come back and become the source of revisionism inside the party’. But the source of revisionism inside the party were not only those overthrown pro-Japanese capitalists and landlords but also national bourgeoisie and other landlords who were protected from the onslaught of working class through the policy of restriction of bourgeoisie through various ways under new democratic state.
During the same period Mao while criticizing Soviet Political Economy published during the revisionist period, has said as follows:
“To say that China’s class struggle is not acute is unrealistic. It was fierce enough: We fought for twenty-two years and straight. By waging war we overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie’s National Party, and expropriated bureaucratic capital, which, which amounted to 80% of our entire capitalist economy. Only thus was it possible for us to use peaceful methods to mould the remaining 20% of national capital. In remolding process we still have to go through such fierce struggles as the “three –antis” and the “five-antis” campaigns.” Critique of Soviet Political Economy page 39.
Thus it is clear that still 20% of the means of production was allowed to retain by the national bourgeoisie. However, Mao assigned special reason for not expropriating property of national bourgeoisie. While referring the situation of Russia after the October revolution, Mao says that there the bourgeoisie ‘carried out armed resistance, thus compelling the proletariat to expropriate their property’. No such event happened in China. Ibid-page-39.
In his ‘Critique of Stalin’s Economic Problems’ while commenting the Lenin’s view summarized by Stalin in his Economic Problem of USSR, Mao has expressed the views that some means of production have to be classed as commodities and policy toward the national bourgeoisie has been to redeem their property. We are putting below Lenin’s proposition summarized by Stalin and then comment which Mao has made:
“l5 (b). The means of production in industry should be expropriated and converted into public property,
15. Our policy toward the national bourgeoisie has been to redeem their property.
26. [ How the two basic forms of ownership will ultimately become one] is a special question which requires separate discussion.
26. Stalin is avoiding the issue, having failed to find a method or suitable formulation for the transition from collective to public ownership.]
27. Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which is obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which together with its “money is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production.
27. The “sphere of action” is not limited to items of individual consumption. Some means of production have to be classed as commodities. If agricultural output consists of commodities but industrial output does not, then how is exchange going to be carried out? If “our country” is changed to “China,” the paragraph becomes all the more interesting to read. In China not only consumer goods but agricultural means of production have to be supplied. Stalin never sold means of production to the peasants. Khurshchev changed that.”
From the above discussion it is clear that even in 1962 Mao was not in a position to make a statement that all the means of production in industry has been expropriated and converted in to public property; he was not against complete abolition of means of production as commodity. With this subjective limitation, the shift in the approach of CPC under the leadership of Mao towards class struggle was bound to confuse class struggle during the period of New Democratic State and Economy with the class struggle during the period of a fully established socialism in Russia of 1936 onwards where bourgeoisie as a class was eliminated. As regards his comments on Stalin so called failure to find a method or suitable formulation for the transition from collective to public ownership, we will make our comments while dealing with Mao’s concept on base and superstructure in the subsequent paragraphs..
v) Base and super structure
In his Critique, his main contention against Stalin was on the question of role of superstructure in relation to productive forces. Mao starts the criticism of Stalin’s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR with the statement that “Stalin’s book from first to last says nothing about the superstructure.” Mao says:
“They speak only of the production relations not of the superstructure nor politics, nor the role of the people. Communism can not reached unless there is a communist movement.” Page –85
This is the first allegation against Stalin leveled by Mao that Stalin speaks only of production relation and not of superstructure. The second allegation which Mao has leveled in his book which is related to the first is that Stalin did not talk of relationship between superstructure and base.
Firstly, about production relation. Let us examine how Stalin and Mao speak about production relation in concrete situations. Stalin says :
“There certainly are, and will be, contradictions, seeing that the development of the relations of productions lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces. Given a correct policy on the part of the directing bodies, these contradictions can not grow into antagonisms, and there is no chance of matters coming to a conflict between the relations of production and productive the forces of the society…if we were to conduct a wrong policy… conflict would be inevitable, and our relations of production might become a serious break on the development of productive forces.
The task of the directing bodies 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.” Economic Problems : page – 69-70
Thus Stalin was advocating for taking timely measures to resolve the contradiction between the productive forces and production relation. At that time he was referring the two main form of property existing in socialist Russia- Public property and collective property. Collective farm property and commodity circulation were beneficial but they did create obstacles to the full extension of government planning to the whole of the national economy, especially agriculture. And therefore, timely measure was required to be taken. He says that “The task, therefore, is to eliminate these contradictions by gradually converting collective-farm property into public property, and by introducing – also gradually- product exhanges-exchange in place of commodity circulations. Economic Problems , page 69-70
And we have seen above Mao commenting on this issue that Stalin failed to find a method or suitable formulation for the transition from collective to public ownership.
Mao further comments on this issue:
“Commodity exchange laws governing value play no regulating role in our production. This role is governed by planning, by great leap forward under planning, by politics in command, Stalin speaks only of production relation, not of the superstructure, nor of the relationship between superstructure and economic base.” Page 80-81
Mao fails to understand what does it mean when it is stated that productions relation lags behind the productive forces and without considering this question whether at any particular stage of development in a society production relations lag behind the productive forces or not raises the question of relationship between superstructure and base. When Khrushchevite revisionist, after the death of Stalin took a retrogressive step by selling MTS (motor tractor station) to collective farm, Mao was not able to understand whether it was a retrogressive step or a progressive step, whether it was to resolve the contradiction between relation of productions and productive forces or to aggravate it. He simply says: “One real difference between Stalin and Khrushchev is that Stalin opposed selling such means of production as tractors, etc. to the collective farms while Khrushchev sold them.” Page 66
Thus on the question of relations of production which lagged behind with the productive forces at a time when private property in means of production in Russia was abolished and Stalin was advocating the need to further take the relation of productions ahead, Khrushchev after the death of Stalin sold the MTS to collective farm, thereby taking the relations of production to backward, aggravating the contradictions between productive forces and production relations. And Mao is unable to take either side on this question in the context of Russia after the death of Stalin whether it will resolve or aggravate the contradiction while making note of this difference between Stalin and Khrushchev in his Critique of Soviet Political Economy published in revisionist period on the one hand and on the other hand, in the context of China, he took the stand that certain means of production has to be kept as commodities.
Thus Mao was aware in what context the question of relations of production in Russia was a subject of difference between Stalin and Khrushchev and without giving answer to this question, he attacked Stalin that Stalin always speaks of relations of productions and not of superstructure, nor of relation between base and superstructure. Thus Mao believes that even without taking into consideration the contradiction between the productive forces and production relations and even without resolving those contradictions, mere emphasis on superstructure is sufficient, mere communist movement is sufficient. This is sheer nonsense and not historical materialism. Moni Guha in his letter to The Editor of Dayitvabodh while commenting on their paper ‘The Problems Socialism, Restoration of Capitalism And the Great Cultural Revolution says on this issues :
“If on the above basis, one analyses Mao’s Great leap’ and ‘peoples’ commune he will surely find that both the Economic Law in General and the Basic Economic Law of Socialism in particular have wantonly violated by Mao and he, subjectively imposed ‘too a radical’ relation of productions on the society the material basis was not created in womb of the existing relation of production.” Proletarian Path January to March 2001 page 26.
Firstly, Comrade Moni Guha sees imposing radical relations of production in the country side only but does not see the failure on the part of CPC under the leadership of Mao to resolve the contradiction between relation of production and productive forces in the sphere of industry. If all the means of production is not converted into public property and if some means of production is retained as commodity, does it not imply that the contradiction has not been fully resolved between the relations of production and productive forces so far as sphere of industry producing means of production is concerned; does it not mean that production relation in this respect lags behind the growth of productive forces?
Secondly, Comrade Guha is of the view that Mao subjectively imposed ‘too a radical’ relation of productions on the society the material basis was not created in womb of the existing relation of production.
Let us see what was the state of affairs in China in this regard.
Mao on the transformation of national capital said in his Critique of Soviet Political Economy says as follows:
“Our transformation of national capital passed through three stages, private manufacture on state order, unified government purchase and sale of private out put, joint state private operation (of individual units and of whole complexes). Each phase was carried out in a methodical way. This prevented any damage to production, which actually developed as the transformation progressed. We have gained new experience with state capitalism; for one example, the providing capitalist with fixed interest after joint state – private operation phase.” Page 26
The above policy reflects the existence of bourgeoisie relations of production in the sphere of Industry, in which the interest of nation bourgeoisie was protected. Was there any material conditions to expropriate the capital of national bourgeoisie, was relations of production lagging behind in this field with respect to the productive forces? Mao sought to resolve this contradiction by peaceful means, through state policy without expropriating the capital of national bourgeoisie, giving space to the national bourgeoisie in new democratic state.
Now let us examine the state of affairs in the countryside. In 1955 Mao said as follows:
“..An important aspect of the struggle between the two roads in China’s countryside manifests itself in the peaceful competition of the poor and lower-middle peasants with the well-to-do middle peasants. Who can increase the production within two or three years, the well-to-do middle peasants working on their own, or the poor and lower-middle peasants working together in co-operatives? In the beginning the competition was between a number of poor and lower-middle peasants organized in co-operatives and the well-to-do middle peasants working on their own, with most of the poor and lower middle peasants looking on; it was a context between the two sides to win over the masses. Behind the well-to-do middle peasants were landlords and rich peasants, who gave them support, sometimes openly, sometimes secretly. On the side of the co-operatives stood the Communist Party members…”C.W. Vol. 5 page 248
Thus, the very orientation of the agrarian policy was towards maintaining peaceful competition between the poor and lower-middle peasants working together in co-operatives on the one hand and the well-to-do middle peasants working on their own. Considering the level of productive forces, the policy to persuade the poor and low-middle peasants to work in co-operatives was a step to transform the production of numerous petty-producers in the country side to large scale production in co-operatives and hence it was correct policy.
Mao further pointed out:
“It is imperative to establish the dominant position of the present day poor peasants and the new lower peasants in the leading body of a co-operative, with the old lower-middle peasants and the new and old upper-middle peasants as the auxiliary force : only thus can unity between the poor and middle peasants be attained, the co-operative can be consolidated, production be expanded and socialist transformation in the entire country side be correctly carried out in the line of party’s policy”
Thus, Mao limits himself to ensure the dominant position of poor and lower middle peasant in the leading body of a co-operative. But this co-operative movement was not on the basis of mechanization of agriculture. Lenin said :
“The remaking of the small tiller, the remolding of his whole mentality and habits, is a work of generations. As regards the small tiller, this problem can be solved, his whole mentality can be put on healthy lines, so to speak, only by the material base, by introducing tractors and machines in agriculture on a mass scale.” (C.W. Vol.26, page 469-70)
But at that time when Great leap forward and peoples commune were launched, one of the basic precondition of support of a proletarian state for socialist mechanization of agriculture in China was absent as capitalism was restored in Soviet Russia. Lenin in his theses as discussed above, had stated that backward nation like China could skip the path of capitalist development because one proletarian state was willing to extend help by all means. In the absent of proletarian state, it was very difficult if not impossible to introduce tractors and machines in agriculture on a mass scale in China. Therefore, Mao was compelled to depend largely on political work raising consciousness of the peasants which according to him was life blood of all economic work and which was oriented towards transition of scattered peasant economy to a large scale co-operative economy. In the particular internal and external circumstances of China, this move was not a retrogressive step. Latter on, Mao in his Critique of Soviet Political Economy said:
“Our worker-peasant alliance has already passed through two stages. The first was based on land revolution, the second on the co-operative movement…… At the present time our worker-peasant alliance has to take the next step and establish itself on the basis of mechanization. For to have simply the cooperative and commune movements without mechanization would once again mean that the alliance could not be consolidated. We still have to develop the cooperatives into people’s communes. We still have to develop basic ownership ……. by the commune and that further into state ownership. When state ownership and mechanization are integrated, we will be able to begin truly to consolidate the worker peasants alliance and the difference between workers and peasants will surely be eliminated” Page 28
In the same Critique of Soviet Political Economy, Mao on the proposition that machine and tractor stations are important tools for the socialist transformation of agriculture, reacts:
“Again and again the text emphasizes how important machinery is for the transformation. But if the consciousness of the peasantry is not raised, if ideology is not transformed and you are depending on nothing but machinery-what good will it be? The question of the struggle between the roads, socialism and capitalism, the transformation and re-education of people –these are the major questions for China.” Page 33
This is how Mao was compelled to give more emphasis on ideology, socialist educations, communist movement which is only one of aspects, of superstructure.
But let us again come to comrade Moni Goha again. Comrade Moni Guha further says :
“Mao not only ignored that the superstructure is in the ultimate analysis-the reflection of the economic structure and as shadow in totality, always lags behind, in spite of its exertion of influence on the economic structure but also, made the super-structure and its role quite independent and sovereign of the material conditions of life. Hence, Mao made the monist Marxism a dualist one. He made the superstructure independent and sovereign of the structure and assigned determining role to the superstructure like that of the structure and thus brought dualism to monist Marxism.” Ibid.
Moni Guha’s views are correct in so far as by giving determining role to Superstructure, Mao brought dualism to monist Marxism. But so far his statement that superstructure is the reflection of base is concerned is partially correct. Superstructure has two aspects – social consciousness and form of state. Social consciousness is the reflection of economic base but the state is always the result of class struggle. Mao’s concept of superstructure does not include the second aspect- the state.
The concept of base and superstructure is used by Marx and Engels to propound the idea that the economic structure of the society (base) conditions, determines the existence and forms of the State and social consciousness. Thus apart from social consciousness, state is also one of the basic element of superstructure. Social consciousness can be reflection of the base but not the state institution, it is the product of class struggle conditioned and determined by the base.
Marx says :
“….it is always the direct relation of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers – a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby social productivity-which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it the political form of relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state”. (Marx Capital III Ch. 47, Sect. II)
Therefore, in the context of China and Russia, the question of form of State becomes the crucial questions. But as we have discussed above, in China the form of state was not that of dictatorship of proletariat, it was new democratic dictatorship, dictatorship of the four class including the national bourgeoisie from the beginning to the end of Mao’s life. Therefore, Mao’s emphasis on superstructure was only an emphasis on social consciousness. In that sense, it was not even emphasis on superstructure in the fullest sense of the term.
But why Mao came to the conclusion of this peculiar understanding of base and superstructure? Has this concept of superstructure any link with his concept of contradiction between base and superstructure reflected in his famous article “On Contradiction”? It is necessary to analyze his views on base and superstructure and productive forces and relation of production.
Mao in his famous article “On Contradiction” says:
“Some people think that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect; in the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the principal aspect; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect; and there is no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception, not the dialectical materialist conception. True, the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role”.
First of all relation of production is not the part of the superstructure it is the part of economic base. Though productive forces and production relation are in contradiction with each other and productive forces does play the decisive role, neither of them is the element of superstructure. And therefore to put production relations and superstructure in one category and to say that in certain conditions they manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role is wrong. Mode of production consists of two aspects – productive forces and production relation. The mode of production is part of economic base. Mao here wrongly considers the production relation which is an element of base as the element of superstructure. His endeavour to put relation of production as element of superstructure is a misconception of the materialist conception of base and superstructure. Marx writes :
“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of the society – the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite form of social consciousness.”
Secondly, the changes in the superstructure has already been necessitated by the changes in the economic base and hence the old superstructure has become the fitter for the development of the productive forces. The superstructure which will manifest itself in the new ‘principal and decisive role’ is not the old superstructure but the new superstructure already a product of the growth of productive forces. The old superstructure can play only its negative role, a hindrance in the growth of productive forces. Mao plays with the word superstructure without referring that a qualitative change has occurred in the superstructure due to decisive role played by the new economic base. While comparing with the base and superstructure and their respective role, it is must that one should keep in mind that what he is referring -the old superstructure or the new superstructure in relation to old productive forces or new productive forces.
Thirdly, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect in relation to old relation of production and not new which comes after resolution; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect in relation to old superstructure and not the new superstructure which comes after resolution; and there is no change in their respective positions. And this is not the mechanical materialist conception rather it is the historical materialist conception of relationship between base and superstructure.
And fourthly, without referring which superstructure – new or old –Mao’s statement that superstructure along with relation of production which is itself an element of economic base, in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role and thereby belittling the role of economic base as principal and decisive even in certain conditions, is nothing but the distortion of the concept of historical materialism.
Further Mao says:
“When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role.”
Changes in production relation has to be made because productive forces has grown and now it is in contradiction with the old production relation. And hence old relation of production has to be changed for the further growth of productive forces. In that sense, productive force is primary and production relation is secondary.
Mao further says:
“The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory plays the principal and decisive role in those times of which Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.''
In determining whether a theory will be revolutionary or not , the role of economic base and its contradiction with superstructure, i.e objective factor play the decisive role. There will be no revolutionary theory if the society is not pregnant with revolution i.e. growth of productive forces has reached at such a stage that economic base is in contradiction with the old superstructure. The role of revolutionary theory is only when the society is pregnant with revolution.
Mao further says:
“When the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive. Are we going against materialism when we say this? No.”
Here, Mao fails to understand that superstructure becomes fetters and obstructs the development of the economic political and cultural changes only when there is a growth in the productive forces leading to emergence of new mode of production which is in contradiction with the old superstructure and hence its replacement becomes principal and decisive tasks. In that way it is not the superstructure but the productive forces which is principal.
“The reason is that while we recognize that in the general development of history the material determines the mental and social being determines social consciousness, we also — and indeed must — recognize the reaction of mental on material things, of social consciousness on social being and of the superstructure on the economic base. This does not go against materialism;……”
This ‘mental’ is the product of cognition of material contradiction of new base and old superstructure about which men become conscious as Marx says. Neither we nor dialectical materialism deny the role of this consciousness.
Secondly, one of basic components of superstructure is state apart from other institutions. We do not find any mention of state as necessary and most important element of superstructure in Mao’s conception of superstructure and we have seen that Mao believed that the transformation from new democratic economy to socialism could be achieved with the instrument of new democratic state, a four class dictatorship under the leadership of proletariat, one of the basic instrument of new democratic superstructure because Mao sees not much difference in the content of New Democratic State and that of Proletarian State. Is there any difference between new democratic state and dictatorship of proletariat? If there is no difference why Mao did propound two stage of revolution – New Democratic Revolution and Proletarian Revolution- in his famous article on New Democracy. Therefore, it is important that while considering the influence of superstructure one should keep in mind the new superstructure of which the institution of state is the principal element. After the bourgeoisie democratic revolution in the early period, the old institution of feudal state was replaced by new institution of bourgeoisie state. The new bourgeoisie state along with bourgeoisie ideas of freedom, liberty and culture did facilitate the development of capitalism and in this sense it influenced the development of production and productive forces.
Similarly, after the success of new democratic revolution in China, the old semi-colonial and semi-feudal state was replaced by the new democratic state- a four class alliance state under the leadership of working class. The politics and culture of new democracy as well as new democratic state did facilitate in the development of productive forces and production in China. But this state was still a backward state in relation to dictatorship of proletariat which was established in Soviet Russia after the October revolution and without which(dictatorship of proletariat) all emphasis on superstructure would not have crossed the limit of new democracy. This was the fundamental question which Mao was unable to resolve in the context of China while giving emphasis on superstructure.
From the above discussion, it is very much clear that CPC under the leadership of Mao was not ideologically capable of leading the new democratic revolution to socialist revolution and establishing the dictatorship of proletariat. This was the subjective limitation of CPC under the leadership of Mao.
And hence Mao was compelled to give more emphasis on man’s conscious action, on his moral drives, communist propaganda and ideologically high-flown ideals, on forming peasant commune without creating conditions for socialist mechanization of agriculture, on fighting national bourgeois in the field of ideology only without expropriating their private property and without eliminating them as a class under his peculiar conception of mass line and on the role of “superstructure” or you may say creative means and method of building socialism.
Here, by no means, we under estimate the role of ‘man’s conscious action’ as an historical force in the development of productive forces of society and particularly conscious action induced by Mao among the vast masses of China which did play an important role in the development of China, which did shape the very orientation of the Chinese society and the Chinese State in favor of proletarian class and delayed the restoration of state power completely by the bourgeois and abolition of four class sharing of state under the leadership of proletariat.
But his emphasis on superstructure did not lead to replacement of four class rule including the national bourgeois for dictatorship of proletariat, did not lead to revolutionary change of state from four class new democratic state to proletarian state. We find national bourgeois existing as a class, sharing state power through their representative parties namely Democratic League and Chang Po – Chun, a leader of this party holding ministerial post in the Chinese Government, and having allowed to retain their private property.
Thus one of the basic constituent of superstructure being the state was not fully free from the influence of the national bourgeois in China and the requisite material conditions, both internal and external, for socialist industrialization of the economy was badly lacking, national bourgeoisie as a class was allowed to remain under the peculiar theory of mass line.
Such was the concrete historical conditions in which CPC under the leadership of Mao had to lead the Chinese society to the road to Socialism without Soviet aid. Indeed this was the most complex, complicated and a completely new situations ever posed by the history before a country. Lenin had said that backward nation could skip of capitalist development on the condition that a proletarian state was ready to extend help by all its means. But that Soviet aid was not with China as the capitalism was restored there. It was also different from the situation in Soviet Russia where dictatorship of the proletariat was established in October 1917 and simultaneous revolution in advance European countries as expected by Lenin had failed and hence the fundamental question the history put before them was whether building of socialism was possible in individual country like Russia or not. We know that Stalin gave the answer in positive and undertook socialist industrialization of the economy. He did not follow the so called Lenin’s theses of mass line.
In Russia all the means of production were public property. Means of production was not a commodity. On agrarian front, old landlords were eliminated immediately after the October revolution. Kulak or the capitalist farmers were allowed to operate through under certain restrictions. But in 1928 when the situation matured Stalin says :
“Now we are in a position to replace, and more than replace, their farming by our collective farms. There is no reason to tolerate these spiders and blood seekers.” Stalin – Problems of Leninism; page 515
Thus earlier policy of restricting the Kulak through taxation was replaced and Stalin announce new policy:
“In order to oust the kulaks as a class, the resistance of this class must be smashed in open battle and it must be deprived of the productive sources of its existence and development.” Stalin – Problems of Leninism; page 515
It is in this way that kulaks were eliminated from the countryside and collectivization was achieved.; by confiscating their property and persuading the small and medium peasantry to form co-operative farming. This is how socialism was built in Soviet Russia.
Only then Stalin could declare in 1933 that
“..we have established the principle of socialism in all the spheres of the national economy and have expelled the capitalist elements from them….”
However, Stalin did not forget to warn :
“Thrown out of their groove, and scattered over the whole face of the USSR, these “have-beens” have worked their way into our plants and factories, into our government offices, and trading organizations, into our railway and water transport enterprises, and principally, into collective farms … and taken cover there, donning the mask of “workers” and “peasants”, and some of them have even managed to worm their way into the Party.” Problems of Leninism page 622-23
And hence Stalin wrote :
“The task is to eject these “have-beens” from our own enterprises and institutions…” ibid
Stalin was aware that “the growth of the power of the Soviet State will intensify the resistance of the last remnants of the dying classes.” And therefore he advocated that “the abolition of class struggle is not achieved by the extinction of class struggle, but by its intensification.” Ibid
Further the party’s 17th congress held that “The major task of the Second Five-Year Plan was to “completely eliminate the capitalist elements, to overcome the survivals of capitalism in economic life and in the mind of the men…” History of CPSU Page 495.
In November 1936, while reporting on the draft of the new constitution of the USSR, Stalin declared that “all the exploiting classes have now been eliminated.” ibid p-800. In March 1939, in the 18th Party Congress Stalin stated in his report that the Soviet society “no longer contains antagonistic hostile classes “ and is “free of class conflicts”. Ibid However, in the same report, Stalin says:
“The principal task in this period was to organize socialist economy throughout the country and to eliminate the last remnants of the capitalist elements, to organize a cultural revolution, and to organize a thoroughly modern army for the defense of the country. Ibid
From the above discussion it is clear that Stalin never forget the need of fighting capitalist elements even during the period when exploiting classes were yet to be eliminated and during the period when there was no hostile and conflicting classes. Dictatorship of proletariat was already established in October revolution and the other aspect of superstructure like cultural revolution, the need to fight remnants of capitalism and continuation of class struggle were very much advocated by Stalin. When socialist relation of production was established in USSR where there was no relation of dominant and dominated in the production relation and when there were only two classes – workers and peasants- Stalin further took the step to eliminate other parties representing bourgeoisie element, thus consolidating further the dictatorship of proletariat- one of principal aspects of superstructure.
Therefore, there is no ground to accept Mao’s allegations against Stalin that Stalin speaks only about production relation and not about superstructure, relation between superstructure and base. Of course, Stalin’s conception of superstructure was dialectical materialist and not mechanical materialist and hence it was different from Mao’s conception of superstructure which was not dialectical materialist.
When revisionist takeover by Khrushchev & Co was completed and Khrushchev declared the Soviet State as the state of the whole people, Mao in his On Khrushchev's Phony Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World: Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (IX) 1964 while criticizing Khrushchev falsely accused Stalin for his approach towards class struggle as follows:
“As the Soviet Union was the first, and at the time the only, country to build socialism and had no foreign experience to go by, and as Stalin departed from Marxist-Leninist dialectics in his understanding of the laws of class struggle in socialist society, he prematurely declared after agriculture was basically collectivized that there were "no longer antagonistic classes" [1] in the Soviet Union and that it was "free of class con- flicts" [2], one-sidely stressed the internal homogeneity of socialist society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon the working class and the masses in the struggle against the forces of capitalism and regarded the possibility of restoration of capitalism as associated only with armed attack by international imperialism. This was wrong both in theory and in practice.”
This was seer nonsense on the part of Mao to make such statement against Stalin who never one-sidely stressed the internal homogeneity of socialist society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon the working class and the masses in the struggle against the forces of capitalism and regarded the possibility of restoration of capitalism as associated only with armed attack by international imperialism. It was the same Mao who during the period when he was in hand in globe with Khrushchevite revisionism had stated as follows:
“After the elimination of classes, the class struggle should not continue to be stressed as being intensified, as it was done by Stalin, with the result that the healthy development of socialist democracy was hampered. The Communist Party of Soviet Union is completely right in firmly correcting Stalin’s mistake in this respect….” More on Historical Experiences of Dictatorship of the Proletariat- Mao
We request our readers to compare the above two statement of Mao with respect to Stalin on the question of class struggle in Russia. Continuation of class struggle in socialist economy was propounded by Marx, Angles & Lenin and as a true pupil of these great leaders, Stalin always stressed on continuation of class struggle even during the early period which led to expropriation of property of Kulak and establishing Socialist relation in USSR and during the period when there was no antagonistic classes in USSR. The case of China was different which was still in a transitional stage of economy in which socialist relations of production were not established completely, bourgeoisie and landlord as a class were not eliminated completely as yet even at the time of launching of cultural revolution, antagonistic classes as such were not abolished and hence the question of continuation of class struggle in the context of China was to eliminate the national bourgeoisie and landlord as a class and not in the context of elimination of bourgeoisie elements only, to resolve the contradiction of production relation and productive forces not only in the country side but also in the sphere of industry.. Even the very nature of class struggle in China during the cultural revolution could not be the continuation of class struggle in the context of a fully developed socialist country like Russia in 1933 and onwards where there were no antagonistic classes. This is the most crucial point to understand the continuation of class struggle in a transitional society from new democratic economic system to socialist system and a class struggle in a fully established socialist system where there are no antagonistic classes, to correctly understand the fallacy of Mao’s criticism of Stalin on the question of continuation of class struggle and Cultural Revolution launched by Mao in China to prevent bourgeoisie restoration and establishing capitalism of old category..
In China, in the name of following the so called theory of Lenin’s mass line, the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois was abandoned which was a decisive preconditions for establishing dictatorship of the proletariat after the establishment of the four class new democratic state. What ever the class struggle Mao advocated after the tremendous increase of bourgeois influence in the sate power, CPC, Commune and other socio-political organization and engendering bourgeois take over of the state power following the Great Leap till and during the whole period of cultural revolution, was not oriented towards the elimination of bourgeois as a class and towards expropriation of their property but it was a class struggle oriented towards gaining leadership over the peasantry and other non- proletarian masses, petti-bourgeois and even a section of national bourgeois to protect their predominant and leading position in the new democratic state, CPC, Commune and other socio-political organization which was also shared and influenced by the national bourgeois.
In May 1963 while enumerating four great problems and their reason, Mao said : “The historical reason. On the one hand, there are regions where the task of democratic revolution has still not been completed. There are areas where feudal land lords have not been overturned. This is a problem of renewed revolution. On the other hand, there is the reason of the history of work. After land reform, we did not handle class struggle again.”
During the cultural revolution Mao said :
“the party added many new members. Were they all good? Are the democratic parties all so very bad? I think the democratic parties are better than P’eng, Lo, Lu and Young. We still want the democratic parties, the political consultative conference; we should explain this clearly to the Red Guards.” Vol IX page 302.
Thus, ‘Mao longed for the democratic parties even at the height of the GPCR and sometimes preferred them to communists and needed political consultative committee comprising the democratic parties.’
Hence, the class struggle even during the cultural revolution was not oriented towards expropriation of private property, elimination of bourgeois as a class and ousting their representative party from the new democratic state power; it was not oriented towards establishment of dictatorship of the proletariat but it was oriented towards gaining leadership and influence over the peasantry and other non- proletarian masses, petti-bourgeois and even a section of national bourgeois to protect their ensuring predominance in the new democratic state against a section of national bourgeois; it was oriented towards belittling the influence of the national bourgeois over the peasantry and other non- proletarian masses, petti-bourgeois to prevent their increasing influence in the new democratic state, CPC etc.
This class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois for securing predominant and leading position in the new democratic state power continued till the latter finally defeated the former after the death of Mao and capitalist restoration leading to predominant and leading position of the national bourgeois in the state power was not finally completed. Such was the nature and essence of class struggle in China after launching of Great Leap and during the whole period of cultural revolution and even after the completion of the period of cultural revolution, some time in disguised and some time in naked form.
From the above discussion the following conclusions can be drawn :
1) Mao’s conception of superstructure which considers production relation as an element of superstructure apart from considering the role of consciousness, theory, mass action without mentioning state institution which is one of major components of superstructure is wrong, a deviation from dialectical materialist conception of base and superstructure.
2) To emphasis on superstructure without mentioning the institution of state is nothing but the distortion of materialist conception of superstructure.
3) The question of continuation of class struggle after abolition of antagonistic classes arose in a country where socialism was established like that of Russia in 1933 and onwards and not earlier because it was but natural that class struggle could not be abandoned in a society where there are antagonistic classes, where bourgeoisie and kulaks were required to be eliminated and in this sense it was not a matter of question, it was only a matter of tactics. The class struggle even after the abolition antagonistic classes was very much continued by Stalin.
4) All types of class struggle did not lead to establishment of dictatorship of proletariat. A class struggle not oriented towards elimination of bourgeois as a class and expropriation of their property under new democratic state will neither lead to establishment of dictatorship of proletariat nor to socialism.
5) Even under New Democratic state, to abandon class struggle in the name of transforming national bourgeoisie by ‘peaceful means’ or what is called in the guise of mass line which will not expropriate private capital, which will not eliminate national bourgeoisie, is alien to Marxism-Leninism.
6) A particular type of class struggle i.e. a class struggle which would lead to the expropriation of private capital of the national bourgeois and their elimination from the state power- is necessary not only for the transition from new democratic state to dictatorship of proletariat and building socialism but also necessary to prevent bourgeoisie restoration of capitalism from new democratic state under the leadership of the proletariat.
No comments:
Post a Comment