December 31 1965: The Political is the Commander, the Political is the Soul

December 31 1965.  New Year Editorial from Hongqi (Red Flag Magazine, the CCP’s main theoretical outlet). Also reprinted in the People’s Daily.

At play at the time:

This editorial, probably written by Mao’s close ally Chen Boda, strongly advocates putting politics in command, and helps to elucidate this core concept of Mao Zedong thought. It is a not so thinly veiled criticism of the Liu Shaoqi Deng Xiaoping wing of the party who favored a more market oriented approach for the Chinese economy. Hongqi’s editorials will gradually supplant those in the People’s Daily as the primary source for political summations of the Cultural Revolution.

The Political is the Commander, the Political is the Soul

People’s Daily 1965.12.31 Page 1

Red Flag magazine 1966 New Year’s Editorial

1966, A new year begins. In the past year the Chinese people continued to raise high the great red flag of Mao Zedong Thought, giving prominence to politics on every battlefront, as such it was a year of splendid achievements

Comrade Mao Zedong repeatedly instructed us; politics is the commander, the soul in everything “Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul”① “Political work is the life-blood of all economic work.”②

To give prominence to politics, to put politics in command, is the emphasis of Mao Zedong thought, pragmatically study and use Mao Zedong Thought at the front of all work, and strengthen political work. In every kind of work, if you do this, then you can persist in the correct direction, you can prevail over every difficulty, and achieve remarkable accomplishments. Every time you do not do this or do it badly, then you certainly will not improve, or even follow an evil path. This is a truth repeatedly proven in our practice.

The relation between the  political and  economics, technical work and other services, and what position political work is put in, will impact the success or failure of our revolutionary and constructive policy and line questions.

Proletarian politics, reflects the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Our work is an integral part of the proletarian revolutionary cause. All work is subordinate to proletarian politics, all work is subordinate to the proletarian political line, and all work is at the service of proletarian politics. If it is not proletarian politics, then it is bourgeois politics. Economic, Military, Cultural, etc., politics that are not subordinate in truth do not exist. In reality, there are no economic politics, military politics, cultural politics, and so on, that are not subordinate. Lenin said: “without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either.”③ Thus we must continue to put politics in command, this fundamental principle of Marxism Leninism.

Comparing Political work and Economic work, Political work must come first. Comrade Mao Zedong has always stressed that politics is the concentrated expression of economics. Politics should lead economics, rather than economics leading politics. The so-called viewpoints of “good economy is good politics” and “good production is good politics” are wrong.

Comparing Political work and Military affairs, Political work must come first. The Military is only one tool for completing political tasks. Politics should lead military affairs, rather than military affairs leading politics.

Early in 1929 at the famous Gutian meeting, Comrade Mao Zedong resolved the problem of the relationship between military affairs and politics: Politics leads the military; it is not the other way around. The so-called viewpoint of “good military is good politics” is wrong.

Comparing political work and scientific work, political work must come first. Politics must lead science, rather than science leading politics. The so-called viewpoint of “good science is good politics” is wrong.

You can only arrange the relationship of politics with economics, military affairs, science and technology, and the relationship of political work with business, in this way.

Of course there are contradictions between political work and business. But to resolve this contradiction, we cannot weaken political work, or use the method of squeezing out political work. We can only give prominence to politics, strengthen political work, and place political work in front of professional work, in order to carry out business. By following this course politics can lead business, and allow business to advance.

Comrade Mao Zedong said politics “is the struggle of class against class.”⑤

In our country, who will win the battle of socialism versus capitalism still will have to experience a long historical period. In the world, Marxist Leninists and the revolutionary people are in a serious battle with American imperialists, reactionaries and modern revisions from every country. This is the class struggle on a global scale.

In this situation, raising politics to prominence requires us to always be alert for class enemies internally and externally. On every battlefront we must grasp the class struggle, grasp the battle of the two roads of socialism and capitalism, and implement and carry out the party’s class line. Only by doing this can we advance and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, so that our cause can healthily advance along the socialist road, and remain invincible, and more effectively support the revolutionary struggle of the people of the world. If we forget the class struggle, forget the two-line struggle, our work will lose direction, revisionism will arise, capitalism will get the upper hand, and our cause will change appearance.

Comrade Mao Zedong said, “Politics mean class politics, the politics of the masses.”⑤ Departing from the mass struggle is not politics.

Now, our fundamental task is to make the socialist revolution to the end, and continuously push forward socialist construction. To accomplish this task, we must mobilize the masses, and rely on the masses. To accomplish this, the most fundamental thing is to arm the people’s minds with Mao Zedong Thought to increase public awareness and mobilize the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses, to make their talents come out, and fully develop the peoples’ role.

Learning and using Mao Zedong thought, revolutionizes people’s thinking, it is the guarantee of good work. The masses of workers and peasants said it well: “Mao Zedong thought arms the people’s minds, makes the people’s hearts red, eyes bright, guts strong (brave), bones hard.” “If you have Mao Zedong thought in your brain, then you will not be scared away by difficulties, or bent aside by snags.” Mao Zedong thought is the greatest weapon and the greatest political power. The people who use the weapons of Mao Zedong thought have the greatest fighting strength.

Under the teachings of Mao Zedong thought have arisen the heoric people of Daqing, and the heroic people of Dazhai, on every battlefront many Lei Fengs have arisen, and communist soldiers such as Wang Jieshi. With self-reliance they struggle arduously and work energetically for the prosperity of the country. They do not fear hardship, they do not fear death. They work wholeheartedly for the revolution; they give everything for the revolution.

No matter what task, no matter what job, they all cherish the motherland, and view the world broadly.

They care about national affairs, party affairs, class affairs, and the affairs of the people, and international affairs. They care the most about politics. They understand the political goal and meaning of their work, and can self-consciously follow general political tasks. They can bring every specific task together with political undertakings, and bring every bit of commonplace work together with communist ideals. The Chinese people’s spirited appearance is the result of Mao Zedong thought being deeply rooted in their hearts.

The material becomes spiritual, and the spiritual can also become material. People’s spirited appearance towards any work has a resolved meaning.

You only need to grasp Mao Zedong thought, and give prominence to politics, and then production will go well, technology will go well, and enterprises will go well. If you do not put politics in the lead then production, technology, and enterprise will not go well. In fact it is like this. Once Mao Zedong thought has been grasped by the great masses of the people then it transforms into a great material force.

Modern revisionists oppose putting politics in command. They advocate “material incentives,” “profit incentives,” “award incentives,” and the development of bourgeois individualist egoism. Lenin once pointed out: Work to make money… this is the ethic of the capitalist world.”(6) Modern Revisionists precisely pursue this sort of ethic of the capitalist world.

A soul of proletarian politics that puts politics in command, or a soul of material incentives that puts individual fame and profit in command, represent two fundamentally opposed world views. Are they two fundamentally opposed political lines? We put forward the political, put politics in front, this is persisting upon the proletarian worldview, opposing the capitalist world view in supporting the Marxist Leninist political line, opposing the revisionist political line.

China’s third five year plan has begun. In the age of the new battle, as long as we continue to put politics in front in all forms of work, and continue to put the living and learning of Mao Zedong thought in the first place  the people will continually revolutionize their thought, and undoubtedly will achieve new and  greater achievements.

① Mao Zedong”On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.” 1957. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm
② Mao Zedong”Editor’s Notes From Socialist Upsurge In China’s Countryside.” 1948.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_48.htm)
③ Once Again On The Trade Unions, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
④⑤ “Talks At The Yenan Forum On Literature And Art.” 1942. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_08.htm
⑥ Lenin” Report on the joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.”1918.

Editorial Repudiates Appeals to Unity by the Soviet Union as an Excuse for Collaboration with U.S. Imperialism: December 30, 1965, People’s Daily Editorial

At Stake at the Time

By printing the Soviet Union’s attacks on China’s political direction in full, today’s edition of the People’s Daily and the following editorial attempts to expose the false banner of unity which party members there, and others at home in China, were calling for. Then Cultural Revolution had overlapping national and international dimensions. Previously this month, Mao critiqued general Luo Ruiqing, in an effort to weaken military pressure for overt war in Vietnam led by a China-Soviet coalition with the logic that such a move would silence internal struggle in China about the direction of the socialist revolution. This editorial’s advocacy for the primacy of people’s struggle in Vietnam, rather than international diplomatic maneuvers on behalf of the Vietnamese people, follows a tenet of the movement that international revolutionary armed struggles are a necessary part of the road towards communism. The path of negotiation under the guidance of the Soviet Union is critiqued here as in effect a form of collaborating with the aims of U.S. imperialism. The CIA’s report from the previous May indicated that a victory of the Vietnamese forces over the U.S. would be a vindication of Chinese political line a repudiation of the Soviet one, and a blow to the global trust is US ability to counter guerrilla insurgency

 (see: https://dailycr.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/december-24-1965-storm-clouds-at-home-and-abroad-peng-zhen-presides-over-the-peoples-daily-the-u-s-incites-war-in-cambodia/ ),The editorials in Pravda this month condemning this “break from unity” are symptomatic of these differences coming to a head.

At Stake at the Present

Some today argue that a broad united front is the best the left can hope for given its comparatively weak status. However, the politics of this editorial advocate that principled unity is the only alliance capable of revolutionary aspirations.


The Leaders of the C.P.S.U. are Betrayers 
of the Declaration and the Statement:

by the Editorial Department of “Renmin Ribao”

On December 30, 1965, the day the following article was published, Renmin Ribao reprinted in full the December 12 anti-Chinese article by the editorial department of Pravda, entitled “Line Confirmed by Life Itself.” It also reprinted extracts from the following six anti-Chinese articles appearing recently in the Soviet press…

ON the fifth anniversary of the issuance of the Statement of 1960, the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. staged a short anti-Chinese farce by publishing a batch of articles.

The revolutionary principles of the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960 are as diametrically opposed to Khrushchov revisionism as is fire to water. In trying to confuse people by flaunting the banner of the Declaration and the Statement the faithful followers of Khrushchov revisionism only help to reveal their own ugly features still further.

During the drafting of the Declaration and the Statement, the Marxist-Leninists waged intense struggles against the Khrushchov revisionists.

The revisionist line advanced by Khrushchov at the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. is the opposite of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration of 1957. The 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. created grave confusion in the international communist movement. Together with other fraternal Parties, the Communist Party of China conducted a principled struggle against Khrushchov’s revisionist line at the Moscow Meeting.

It was again at Khrushchov revisionism that the revolutionary principles of the Statement of 1960 were directed. By that time, Khrushchov had completely transposed enemies and friends, was openly collaborating with U.S. imperialism, had thoroughly undermined the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries and was creating a split in the international communist movement. Together with other Marxist-Leninist Parties, the Communist Party of China waged a tit-for-tat struggle against the Khrushchov revisionist clique and safeguarded the purity of Marxism-Leninism.

Of course, the formulation of certain questions in the Declaration and the Statement is not altogether clear and there are even weaknesses and errors. As the leaders of the C.P.S.U. repeatedly requested that allowances should be made for their need to connect this formulation with the formulation of the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., we made certain concessions at that time in order to reach agreement. On more than one occasion, we have expressed our readiness to accept any criticism of us on this point. Despite all this, the Declaration and the Statement set forth a series of revolutionary principles which all Marxist-Leninist Parties should abide by.

In the eyes of the Khrushchov revisionists, however, both the Declaration and the Statement were mere scraps of paper. They tore up these documents on the very day they signed them. The Khrushchov revisionists had made up their minds to sing a tune opposite to that of Marxism-Leninism and the Declaration and the Statement. By the time of the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U. they produced the revisionist Programme of the C.P.S.U., casting to the four winds all the basic theses of Marxism-Leninism and all the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement.

Let us contrast the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement with the line laid down at the 20th and 22nd Congresses and in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., which is being followed tenaciously by its new leaders.

The Declaration and the Statement lay down a revolutionary line. But the Khrushchov revisionists are pressing forward with their anti-revolutionary line of “peaceful coexistence,” “peaceful competition” and “peaceful transition.” They themselves do not want revolution and forbid others to make revolution. They themselves oppose the armed revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and forbid others to support armed revolutionary struggles.

The Declaration and the Statement point out that U.S. imperialism is the common enemy of the people of the world and that the people throughout the world must form the broadest united front against the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war. But the Khrushchov revisionists are uniting with U.S. imperialism against the people of the world and carrying out the policy of U.S.-Soviet collaboration for world domination.

The Declaration and the Statement point out that socialist countries must maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and carry out socialist revolution and socialist construction. But the Khrushchov revisionists advance the fallacies of the “state of the whole people” and the “party of the entire people,” abolishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and changing the character of the C.P.S.U. as the vanguard of the proletariat. They are enforcing the dictatorship of the privileged bourgeois stratum in the Soviet Union and have embarked on the road of capitalist restoration.

The Declaration and the Statement point out that unity among all the Communist Parties and socialist countries must be based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and that in their relations with each other fraternal Parties and countries must follow the principles of independence, complete equality, mutual support and the attainment of unanimity through consultation. But the Khrushchov revisionists practise big-power chauvinism, national egoism and splittism, waving their baton everywhere, wilfully interfering in the affairs of fraternal Parties and countries, trying hard to control them and carrying out disruptive and subversive activities against them, and splitting the international communist movement and the socialist camp.

The Declaration and the Statement point out that all Communist Parties must wage struggles against revisionism and dogmatism, and particularly against revisionism, which is the main danger in the international communist movement at present, and the Statement, moreover, explicitly denounces the Yugoslav Tito clique as renegades. But the Khrushchov revisionists join the Tito clique in a passionate embrace and publicly try to reverse the verdict an this gang of traitors. They gather around themselves revisionists of all descriptions to oppose the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people throughout the world.

The great debate in the international communist movement over the last few years represents a great struggle over whether to uphold or to betray Marxism-Leninism and whether to safeguard or to discard the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement.

The “Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement” which the Communist Party of China put forward on June 14, 1963, sums up the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement, upholds the Marxist-Leninist position and refutes Khrushchov revisionism on a series of fundamental questions relating to the revolution in our times.

Preliminary but important results have already been achieved in the Marxist-Leninists’ fight against the Khrushchov revisionists. The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. love to talk of the “line confirmed by life itself,” don’t they? Please open your eyes and have a look. The results “confirmed by life itself” are quite clear. In the face of resolute struggle by all the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people, the great people of the Soviet Union included, Khrushchov revisionism has been discredited and its founder driven off the stage of history. This is a great victory in the struggle to defend Marxism-Leninism. It is a great victory in the struggle to defend the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement.

In an article in Pravda, the new leadership of the C.P.S.U. said, “The C.P.S.U. has been and will continue to be loyal to the general line of the international communist movement.” Well, let us now examine what the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have been and will continue to be.

What were they in the past? They were Khrushchov’s close comrades-in-arms. They were loyal to the general line of Khrushchov revisionism. They had to relegate to limbo the illustrious Khrushchov, the founder of their faith and the maestro who “creatively developed Marxism-Leninism,” simply because Khrushchov was too disreputable and too stupid to muddle on any longer, and because Khrushchov himself had become an obstacle to the carrying out of Khrushchov revisionism. The only way the Khrushchov revisionist clique could maintain its rule was to swop horses.

What are they now? They are the old cast of the Khrushchov revisionist leading group. They remain loyal to the general line of Khrushchov revisionism. They never weary of swearing that the general line worked out at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the C.P.S.U. under Khrushchov’s sponsorship is their “only, immutable, line in the entire home and foreign policy.” At times they give the appearance of opposing the United States, but all their policies boil down to one of U.S.-Soviet collaboration for the domination of the world. They have reaffirmed time and again “the immutability of the policy of the U.S.S.R. aimed at establishing all-round co-operation with the United States.” While proclaiming that they are building “communism” in the Soviet Union, they are speeding up the restoration of capitalism. Amidst the dust and din of their “united action,” they called the divisive March Moscow meeting, stepping up their divisive activities, and they are now hatching a big plot for a general attack on China and a general split in the international communist movement and the socialist camp. They are going farther and farther along the road of Khrushchov revisionism.

And what will they continue to be? Whether or not they can return to the path of Marxism-Leninism and whether or not they can return to the path of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement, depend mainly on whether or not they themselves can repudiate the revisionist general line laid down at the 20th and 22nd Congresses and in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. Unless they utterly repudiate this line, whatever tricks they play and whatever patching they do can only prove that they are still practising Khrushchov revisionism without Khrushchov. All Marxist-leninists, the great Soviet people and the revolutionary people everywhere have no alternative but to continue to expose them and fight them to the end.

The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. are shouting themselves hoarse for “united action.” Above all, they are clamouring for “united action” on the question of Vietnam. But it is precisely on this question, which is the focus of the present international struggle, that their anti-revolutionary position is revealed in its most concentrated form. Far from believing that the Vietnamese people can win in a people’s war against U.S. imperialist aggression, they are afraid that this will bring “troubles” and hamper their collaboration with U.S. imperialism. Whatever pretences they put up, in the final analysis all their activities are aimed at united action with U.S. imperialism to bring the question of Vietnam into the orbit of Soviet-U.S. collaboration, help U.S. imperialism to realize the plot of “peaceful negotiations” and extinguish the raging flames of the Vietnamese people’s revolution. The slogan of “united action” has now become a poisoned weapon in the hands of the Khrushchov revisionists for sowing dissension. In co-ordination with U.S. imperialism, they are vainly trying to use this slogan to undermine the fighting friendship between the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples and the Vietnamese people’s unity against U.S. aggression. The Vietnamese people are waging a victorious struggle against U.S. imperialism and for national salvation. It is the duty of the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people to give their staunch support to the just revolutionary struggle of the Vietnamese people and firmly expose the plot of “united action” hatched by the new leaders of the C.P.S.U.

The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. assert that anyone who does not take “united action” with them is “encouraging the imperialists to launch their ventures.” This is turning things upside down. Is it not the very policies of appeasement and capitulationism of the revisionist leading group of the C.P.S.U. and its line of Soviet-U.S. collaboration for world domination that are helping to inflate the aggressive arrogance of U.S. imperialism? It should be pointed out that it is the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. themselves who are actually “encouraging the imperialists to launch their ventures.”

What the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. fear most is that the Marxist-Leninists will draw a line of demarcation between themselves and these leaders. But, as Lenin said,

The great work of uniting and consolidating the fighting army of the revolutionary proletariat cannot be carried out unless a line of demarcation is drawn and a ruthless struggle is waged against those who serve to spread bourgeois influence among the proletariat.¹

By clinging to their revisionism and splittism the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have placed themselves in direct antagonism to Marxism-Leninism. In such circumstances, can the Marxist-Leninists be expected to fall to draw a line of demarcation, both politically and organizationally, between themselves and the new leaders of the C.P.S.U.?

If we failed to draw a clear line of demarcation, both politically and organizationally, between ourselves and the Khrushchov revisionists:

Wouldn’t we be joining them in betraying Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement and become revisionists ourselves?

Wouldn’t we be joining them in entering into the service of U.S. imperialism and acting as its accomplices?

Wouldn’t we be joining them in undermining the revolution of the fraternal Vietnamese people and rendering service to the U.S. imperialist policy of aggression against Vietnam and of war expansion?

Wouldn’t we be accepting them as the “patriarchal father Party” and serving as an instrument under their baton, recognizing their big-power privileged status and serving as their appendage?

Wouldn’t we be following them in restoring capitalism at home and once again reducing the broad masses of labouring people to a position in which they are oppressed and exploited?

Wouldn’t we be following them in putting ourselves in antagonism to the people of our own country and the whole world and heading for a miserable end without being able to escape the punishment of history?

As a serious Marxist-Leninist Party, the Communist Party of China can only give the categorical answer that we will do none of these things either now or in the future.

The Chinese Communist Party has consistently upheld the unity of the international communist movement and of the socialist camp. The only genuine unity is unity based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and on the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement. What the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. call “unity” is sham unity. They have betrayed Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism and the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement, and their betrayal can only lead to a split. We want genuine unity and resolutely oppose sham unity. It is for the sake of achieving genuine international proletarian unity that we are waging struggles against Khrushchov revisionism.

Together with all the other Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people of the world, the Chinese Communists will continue, as always, to hold aloft the banner of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, abide by the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement and carry the struggle against Khrushchov revisionism through to the end.

The world is on the march. It is our strong conviction that the struggle of the people of the world against imperialism, reaction and modern revisionism and the cause of world peace, national liberation, people’s democracy and socialism are bound to keep on winning new great victories.

_______________

¹ V.I. Lenin, “Resolution Adopted by the Second Paris Group of the R.S.D.L.P. on the State of Affairs in the Party,” Collected Works, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XVII, p. 223.

 

Renmin Ribao, on December 29, 1965, devoted nearly three pages to the full text of the following three articles marking the 5th anniversary of the publication of the Moscow Statement:

1, The December 6 editorial of the Korean paper Rodong Shinmoon, “Unite All Revolutionary Forces and Wage a More Powerful Anti-Imperialist Struggle.”

2, The December 10 article of the editorial department of the Albanian paper Zeri i Popullit, “The Khrushchov Revisionists Are Facing Serious Difficulties, Setbacks and Contradictions.”

3, The December 7 editorial of the Japanese Communist Party organ Akahata, “Struggle Against Modern Revisionism, Strengthen the International Fight Against U.S. Imperialism.”

On the same day, Renmin Ribao also reprinted extracts from an article in the December issue (No. 17) of the Australian Communist, the theoretical journal of the Australian Communist Party (Marxist-leninist). The article condemned the Khrushchov revisionists for entering into an alliance with the U.S. imperialists and the Indian reactionaries to oppose China and oppose revolution. —P.R. Editor.

Peking Review’s translation of the editorial from: http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/#1966

 

December 29 1965 “Do Trade and Financial Work By Making It Political”

On December 29th the People’s Daily ran two articles on trade and finance.

“Do Trade and Financial Work By Making It Political” and “Grass Roots Advanced Workers Discuss the Experience of Revolutionary Commerce, You Must Rely On Politics To Do Business.” Both articles argue that finance and trade are not merely economic activities but should be treated as political activities:

“Trade and finance is not just economic work but is also revolutionary work.”

“You must treat commercial work as political work, only if you look at commercial work in this way can you understand it is revolutionary work. Only if you are engaged in commercial work in this way then you can do commerce well.”

The articles give examples of how shop keepers have applied the idea of treating commercial work as political: The paper gives multiple examples of sales clerks going out of their way to help customers. Salespeople should not treat profit as the motive for their work; to this end clerks with bad class backgrounds are criticized as being too aggressive.

The CCP slogan “Serve the People,” taken from the title of the September 1944 article (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_19.htm), is deployed to show that the aim of commerce is not for personal gain but for the greater good of the people and the revolution.

At Play at the Time:

Besides from having good manners and being helpful these articles do not go into great detail about how to treat commercial work as political work. Importantly failures to do business in a suitable manner are blamed on class enemies. It highlights cooperation between people engaged in commerce and the peasant and classes. Any class tension is due not to a growth of new class tensions under socialism, but the latent influence of the corrupt bourgeoisie from the old society.

A Search for A New Commune Model: December 28, 1965

Use Dazhai’s Spirit to Encourage the Drive of the Masses, Use Dazhai’s Spirit to Activate the Wisdom of the Masses, Red Flag Brigade Sees Success After Independently Activated Auxiliary Productive Activities: People’s Daily, December 28, 1965

The article covers the experience of the Red Flag Brigade, located in the East #4 Commune of Liaoning’s Haicheng County. The brigade suffered from excessive flooding in the previous year.

In the aftermath of the disaster, members of the commune decided that they would rely on their own efforts for relief by promoting secondary production work.

This followed studying the examples of Dazhai Commune, which opened production through members’ ability to expand terraced fields and irrigation systems. In addition, members studied examples such as “the foolish man who removed the mountains:”

(see https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_26.htm ).

An emergency fund of 500 yuan provided by the nation was returned by the brigade, the envelope unopened.

At first people thought that the area lacked the conditions for secondary forms of production. However, through relying on local knowledge of reed weaving, including reed mats and grass baskets and by inviting neighboring experts, the brigade was able to achieve a large increase in production, the profits of which were shared between cooperative members and the collective.

At Play at the Time

Cooperatives and communes often were privatized following the setbacks experienced during the Great Leap Forward. However, the learn from Dazhai Campaign, promoted by Mao in 1963, was an effort to retrench and experiment with models of collective agriculture. Its example was wildly emulated during the Cultural Revolution, and the local leader of the commune, Chen Yonggui, became a national figure, and a proponent of rural progress towards communism. He remained prominent in China until Deng Xiaoping repudiated the Dazhai model in favor of private plots after the Cultural Revolution. Secondary production was a way of realizing local knowledge and abilities, and represented a divergence from “economy of scale” type planning best known of during the Great Leap Forward period. However, the GLF itself began as a movement towards decentralization, and secondary production was encouraged during the movement in urban communes as well during the movement. Local experiments often explored various forms of commune management, and are an under-reported component of the Cultural Revolution. Often the devil is in the details with such projects, especially regarding the democratic character of such mobilizations, their private versus public character, and relatedly, their relationship to rival neighboring villages and communes.

At Play at the Present

Chen Yonggui in particular was something of a people’s hero in China, and represents something of a parallel inquiry during the Cultural Revolution, the search for a rural path towards communism. The relationship between the urban movement and the rural movement during the Cultural Revolution in China provides insight into the inevitable unequal development of political movements across geographies and economies.

December 27 1965: U.N. Has No Right to Discuss Korean Question

In the December 27 edition of the People’s Daily an editorial lambasted the UN Security council’s resolution calling for UN supervised elections uniting North and South Korea. The editorial argues that the UN as a belligerent in the Korean war had no right to call for an election uniting North and South Korea. The resolution was just another imperialist ploy to undermine the North Korean communist regime.

The main focus of the editorial is the argument that the UN was a tool of joint US Soviet imperialism used for the suppression of anti-colonial revolutionary forces. To this end the article enumerates multiple instances of Soviet-American cooperation in the United Nations.

• Supporting India against Pakistan in the conflict in Kashmir. The CCP considered the Indian state to be reactionary, and supported Kashmiri self determination.
• Supporting British suppression of anti imperialist revolts in Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe)
• Establishment of a permanent UN peace keeping force.
• Opposing Nuclear Proliferation, which was namely seeking to stop the PRC from developing Nuclear Weapons.

“People have seen that like Khrushchov, the new Soviet leaders have used the United Nations as an avenue for collusion with the U.S. imperialists, and they have even gone further than Khrushchov. In trying to fulfill their fond dream of Soviet-American co-operation for worldwide domination, they have not hesitated to betray the revolutionary cause of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America and of the people of the world in general, and they have readily served as an accomplice of the U.S. imperialists.”

(https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/1966/PR1966-01.pdf)

At Play at the Time:

The Korean War was the source of a long-standing disagreement between the CCP and the CPSU, and a major factor in the Sino-Soviet Split. For reasons not well understood, in 1950, Stalin refrained from vetoing the United States’ resolution to use the UN to combat the North Korean regime’s annexation of South Korea. The Soviet Union subsequently failed to do much to support the North Korean war effort, leaving China to essentially be the sole supporter of the North Korean Communists against the US army fighting under the banner of the UN. After being provoked by US forces under General MacArthur, who was eager to provoke war with the PRC, the PLA suffered heavy casualties driving invading American forces back to the 38th parallel.

Moreover, the PRC was at this time still unrecognized by the UN, and unrepresented; the UN recognized the US backed dictatorship in Taiwan, under the name the Republic of China, as the only legitimate Chinese government.

The rift between the Soviet and the PRC was not only confined to ideological and organizational differences. Both states pursued different foreign policy objectives, which were often in conflict with one another. They encouraged the growth of diverging tendencies in the international communist movement. This would become more pronounced with the emergence of Maoist parties across the world in the following few years.

At play in the present

This editorial raises questions about the role of imperialist powers on “peace keeping missions” in current day conflicts. The United States, the UK, Germany, France, and Russia, and Turkey are all currently involved combat missions in Syria and Iraq. While combating the arch-conservative group ISIS, not a single one of these groups supports self-determination for the oppressed people of the region, most notably the Kurds. Imperialist military and intelligence leaders all freely admit that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, yet offer no viable alternative and gleefully continue to bombard population centers. A central question posed for anti-war activism in the current day is how is it possible to both oppose imperialistic intervention as well as the fascistic forces that it seeks fight at the same time as giving meaningful aid to the oppressed people of Syria and Iraq.

 

The Funeral of Huang Yanpei: honoring the former industrialist in the People’s Daily: December 25, 1965

Party and state leaders Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Deng Xiaoping, Guo Moruo, Yang Mingxuan, Cheng Qian, Lin Feng, et. all, observing a moment of silence for Vice Chairman Huang Yanpei. Xinhua News Agency Zhang Binshe.

Huang Yanpei passed away on December 21^st 1965, a state funeral held in his honor at Zhongshan in Park in Beijing was held on December 24^th. A short article about the funeral and a large photo spread appeared as the first article in the People’s Daily on the 25^th.

Huang was a former industrialist and founding member of the China Democratic League (CDL), a liberal political party that sided with the CCP against the Guomindang in the Chinese Civil War (The historian Wu Han, who was concurrently under criticism was also a prominent member of the CDL in the 1940’s). He had served multiple terms as the Vice Chairman of Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, an important but largely symbolic advisor body whose members are drawn from outside of the Communist party. During the republican period Huang was very influential in educational circles, founding many schools and sitting on educational advisory boards. Notably, Huang had opposed the nationalization of industry in the 1950’s and openly advocated for a market-based economy.

At Play at the Time:

The special treatment that Huang’s funeral received in the People’s Daily points to the continuing influence of the former national bourgeoisie in Chinese government and education. The photo of leading communists Premier Zhou Enlai, Marshall Zhu De, Deng Xiaoping, Guo Moruo, Yang Mingxuan, Cheng Qian, and Lin Feng paying tribute to Huang belies this point. The center, represented by Zhou Enlai, and right wing of the Communist Party, represented by Deng Xiaoping, were signaling their support for Huang and fellow high ranking former capitalists at the same time that Mao was stirring up class conflict from his retreat in Hangzhou. This represented a fundamental difference in interpretation of the role of class struggle under socialism: the right wing supporting the Stalinist interpretation the class conflict ended under state socialism and that threats to Chinese Communism were primarily external, and the left wing arguing that class conflict continued and threats were primarily internal.

The bourgeoisie, unlike the landlords that were annihilated as a class during the land reform campaign in the late 1940-early 1950’s, although lacking in social prestige, still maintained high standards of living, and were over represented in industrial management, cultural, and academic, jobs. Their good fortune was due to the fact instead of allowing the working class to expropriate the means of production in the first half of the 1950’s the Communist state bought out all privately owned factories. Fearing a lack of expertise in management, the CCP paid the old factory owners to stay on as managers and consultants, with high salaries, which matched or came close to matching their former income. The continued fortune of the bourgeoisie under the state socialism contributed to growing class tensions in schools and factories. In factories, workers resented the effectively unchanged labor regime, and continued high stature of their former bosses under socialism. This compounded class conflicts between the working class and the emerging bureaucratic cadre class, which helped to inspire a massive strike wave in Shanghai 1957 (See Perry, Elizabeth J.. 1994. “Shanghai’s Strike Wave of 1957”. The China Quarterly, no. 137. Cambridge University Press: 1–27). Moreover, cadres and workers resented the high wages that the former bourgeoisie continued to receive (See: Wang, Shaoguang. “The Roots of Discontent 1949 to 1966” Failure of Charisma: The Cultural Revolution in Wuhan. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1995. 23-53). The children of the bourgeoisie and intellectuals disproportionately made up the teaching staff at schools and their children disproportionately attended the best schools in the country. This caused resentment among the children of cadres, who felt that they as the children of revolutionaries deserved the most favored treatment. At the same time the children of workers, peasants, and intellectuals, resented the special privileges enjoyed by the children of cadres. A few months later when the Cultural Revolution officially began these grievances came out into the open. (see Andreas, Joel. “Cradle of the Red Engineers” in Rise of the Red Engineers The Cultural Revolution and the Origins of China’s New Class. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2009. 63-83).

Abbie adds: Many of Huang Yanpei’s patriotic actions during the civil war period can be seen as one aspect of the successful united front policy enacted by the Party, based on the basis for participation in the proletarian led struggle by sections of the oppressed national bourgeoisie, based on an analysis that saw China beset by the “three mountains” of capitalism, imperialism, and feudalism. However, following the founding of the People’s Republic, this situation shifted. During the start of the Cultural Revolution, China could be seen at a fork in the road, in which development could precede on a path towards imperialist capitalist development, or towards continuing socialist revolution. Many of those at Huang’s funeral probably would not have recognized, or not opposed, the potential for the former path.

At Play in the Present:

This article brings up the importance of close reading of seemingly banal happenings. Whom state leaders chose to honor is often quite important, but rarely explained, see for example Hillary Clinton’s recent cozying up to war criminal Henry Kissinger. There are often hidden class politics at play in public displays of propaganda, and it can be quite important to dissect and try to discover these politics, as it certainly was at the time for the readers of the People’s Daily in 1965.

 

December 22, 1965 (Part 2): People’s Daily article

 

“Use Mao Zedong Thought to Ideologically Arm the Minds of Personnel, Use Advanced Machinery to Equip Every Department in the Civilian Economy, A Revolutionary Campaign Is Launched to Promote the Designs of the Masses Established at the National Machinery Product Design Conference”

Premier Zhou Enlai received the audience of machine designers and workers and presented them with an important instruction:

In the third five-year plan our country intends to meet the new requirements of many machine parts. The historical mission that machine designers face is to rapidly design machinery that is advanced, suitably economical, and also which matches our country’s actual situation.

To establish this goal, the conference mandated that all designers including all technicians and workers immediately take action, and through this campaign work to break out of foreign frameworks, develop innovation…and reach and surpass top global standards.

The conference emphasized that all wisdom comes from labor, and comes from the masses. Through many examples, the conference proved that as long as good design was produced, it has been achieved through the direct participation of workers in the design process. As a result, designers must go to the site of production, to the site of labor, and invite workers to serve as their teachers and fully realize the principle of the “triple combinations” (i.e. joint participation of workers, specialists and leading cadre in production), a phrase which in 1960 had been combined with the instruction of “a switch with dual participation” in which cadres participated in the production process, and workers participated in management.

In addition, the work was instructed to pay attention to the following three facts:

Firstly, Mao Zedong Thought should be held as a red banner, both studied and used to promote design for revolution, and for the needs of socialist construction.

Secondly, revolutionary leadership of the design process should be strengthened, to achieve top-level results, achieved by frequently assisting work at the actual site.

Thirdly, every factory generally should construct its own design apparatus. Smaller factories with difficulty can unite together. All should exchange experiences.

At Play at the Time:

While “Mao Zedong” is proclaimed in the title, a very different sort of revolutionary campaign is proposed on the front page of the People’s Daily, compared to what Mao and his allies have in mind in Hangzhou. Elements of efforts to oppose technocratic production forms, divorced from the masses are retained in the article, including the idea that workers, specialists, and cadres (“three in one”) work together in the factory. However, the lack of mention about what would be socialist or revolutionary about the productive relations sustained by such new machinery makes the project’s promise somewhat hollow. In addition this “three in one” slogan was ripped from a longer 1960 slogan, one that insisted that workers actually switch places with managers, part of a campaign to oppose Soviet one-man management techniques, though the promotion of a “Yishan City Factory Constitution” opposed to a theoretical Soviet “Magnitogorsk” constitution. See: http://baike.baidu.com/view/579388.htm

At Play at the Present:

The use of left-wing vocabulary or figureheads to oppose actual left politics has been a constant feature of the workers’ movement, referred to during the Cultural Revolution as “waving the red flag to oppose the red flag.” The key question of what sort of social system an innovation serves is usually met with a deafening silence, in almost comical forms when business or state employees proclaim with straight faces that their work will certainly  “make the world a better place.”

Today on December 21, 1965: Mao’s statement in Hangzhou

On December 21^st 1965 Mao Zedong made a speech at Hangzhou criticizing the historians Wu Han and Jian Bozan. At the time Mao was operating out of retreat off of Hangzhou’s scenic west lake.

At Play at the Time

This speech ratcheted up Maoist criticism of the influential academic historians, which had started with the publication of Yao Wenyuan’s article “On the New Historical Play ‘Hai Rui Dismissed from Office’” in the Shanghai newspaper Wenhui Bao on November 10^th . (Reprinted in the nationwide People’s Daily on November 30^th). Jian and Wu, who was vice mayor of Beijing, were political allies of Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, Mao’s main rivals within the party. Yao and Mao saw Wu Han’s play as a criticism of Mao’s purge of Marshall Peng Dehuai who had spoken out against the agricultural policy of the Great Leap Forward. Mao used the occasion of this speech to make that accusation explicit.

Abbie adds: “Jian Bozan was a prominent Marxist historian criticized during a set of rectifications from 1964-65 set in motion largely following a speech by Jiang Qing in May of 1964, her first public address, in which she argued that “our foremost task’ was performing operas on ‘revolutionary contemporary themes which reflect real life in the fifteen years since the founding of the PRC” in addition to “historical operas ‘portraying the life and struggles of the people.” The statement led to the creation of a leftist oppositional clique within the party. Later, Jian Bozan was critiqued for his argument that historical “facts” needed to be seen on an equal ground as “theory.”

 This rectification was set about largely behind the scenes through critiques in Shanghai, culminating with Yao Wenyuan’s polemic against Wu Han printed in Shanghai’s Wenhui Bao November on November 10, 1965. The piece followed a long period of discussion among allies of Jiang and Mao who sought to “set a fuse” against a bureaucratic opposition. This was unbeknownst to the party establishment, who proceeded to defend Wu Han, a central figure in the Beijing power elite, and suppressed the circulation of the article. The following statement by Mao to allies in Hangzhou who included Ai Siqi, Chen Boda, Tian Jiaying, and Hu Sheng, signaled his support for Yao’s polemic, but it was not publicized at large, and defenders of the establishment continued to defend Wu Han for the subsequent month.” See Roderick Macfarquar, The Origins of the Cultural Revolution, Vol. 3, New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, 390-452.

 Evan adds: “The influential Maoist theorist Chen Boda, was in the audience of this speech, and may very well have helped Mao write and edit its contents.”

 

At Play at Present

This speech raises several questions for the present day: What is the relationship between personal conflict in the course of political struggles and class conflict? What is the relationship between book/classroom learning and practical education in the field? What is the class content of different forms of education? In what ways does the rarified environment of the academy stifle the generation of a genuine working class understanding of history?

Mao writing at his desk in Hangzhou

While certain historians simplistically critique Mao’s speech and actions as being cynically driven by a desire to purge his enemies from positions of power in Beijing’s city government and universities, he puts forward significant ideological positions on the politics of history and radical educational reforms in this speech.

Mao criticizes Jian for putting forward a theory of peasant revolt that deemphasized class conflict. Jian stressed the landlord class’ strategy of making concessions to peasants in order to mollify rebels, or potential rebels. Mao argued instead that landlords never made concessions to the rebellious peasantry, and always brutally repressed rebels, and potential rebels. Mao argues that any historical progress made on the part of the working classes was not gained through concessions from the ruling classes, but instead hard struggles seized by the revolutionary working classes.

“I hope that those who are engaged in philosophical work will go to the factories and the countryside for a few years. The system of philosophy should be reformed. You should not write in the old manner and you should not write so much.”

Mao criticizes Jian’s historical viewpoints as being un-dialectical as a result of his being out of touch with the actual conditions of production. He uses the opportunity to enumerate key elements of Mao Zedong thought, which would become to central to Cultural Revolution politics and educational policy. Students and professors who spend all of their time reading and attending class have no material basis for their education, making it useless for real world application. Mao’s strongest evidence is the victory of uneducated Communist peasant generals over the highly trained graduates of the Whampoa academy who staffed the Nationalist armies. Mao recommends, in a call back to the Yan’an rectification campaign of the late 1930’s, that intellectuals should go down into the fields and factories and learn from experience. The length of schooling should be cut down, and the emphasis of education should be placed on practical learning.

“A man should work in many fields, have contact with all sorts of people. Leftists should not only meet leftists but also rightists. They should not be afraid of this and that. I myself have met all sorts of people; I have met big officials and small ones.”

Link to the full English text of the speech: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_44.htm#b2

Today on December 20, 1965: People’s Daily

Chen Yi, Zhou Enlai, and over 2,300 guests from 40 countries around the world held a conference today to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the creation of the People’s Liberation Armed Forces of Southern Vietnam and warmly hail the victory of the Southern Vietnamese People’s War.

In addition, the Chinese embassy in the city of Medan in North Dumatra, Indonesia has issued a notice to the Indonesian ambassador to China strongly condemning the rightist violence fomented against overseas Chinese, resulting in people being massacred and rapes, as well as large-scale looting of Chinese property. The military leadership is implicated, recent news has been hard to secure as a result of the suspension of normal communication with the Chinese consulate in North Sumatra.

50 Years Ago Today: December 19th 1965

The Party’s Leadership is Omnipresent: Reporting on the Renewed Attempt Under the Party’s Leadership to Struggle for a Mountain River in Lin County, Henan”

People’s Daily Lead Article: Dec 19th 1965

At Play at the Time

By upholding an achievement launched during the dawn of the Great Leap Forward, a collectivization campaign opposed by the present leadership such as Liu Shaoqi, while focussing on a need for party members to join workers in actual practice, the report is a sign that a radical push may be in the making. However, at the same time the article emphasizes that the campaign was conducted “under the leadership of party.” This could be seen as a message proclaiming stability on high. 

At Play at Present

How can past political mobilizations be understood? This article argues that we uphold the good, and discard the bad. The Red Flag Canal, an often overlooked achievement of people’s engineering, also foreshadows later struggles over the relationship between a people’s struggle and scientific objectivity. 

Content

The “Red Flag Canal” was a project initiated it 1957 to irrigate a high and arid region in Henan, by constructing terraced fields and a canal through steep mountain gorges. Completed in May of the year, this end of year article provides a summation of the achievement.

Content Summary

The canal is a tremendous effort, completed often with primitive tools.

After 9 years time, the county has now changed its appearance according to the ambitions of the revolutionary people. A 70 kilometer red flag canal has been built to transport water from far away Shanxi Province in addition to the construction of  34 branches of canals totaling 750 kilometers, and numerous small reservoirs and anti-erosion projects. This has resulted in increased yields of up to 410 jin of grain per mu of land, and even in an unprecedented drought in 1965, the country has achieved yields averaging 361 jin per mu.

Even greater of a change has been experienced by the people of Lin County. For countless years, the people of the county had to rely on “Mother Nature” to put their affairs in order. Now, under the leadership of the party, they have become a laboring army infused with socialist consciousness, which cannot be scared away by natural difficulties.

It was the poorest peasants who advocated most strongly for collectivization, and who fought against a tendency for collectives to focus on individual profits. In addition, officials early on often yielded to a tendency to overlook the political nature of work, rather than concentrating on a mechanical approach to accomplishing tasks.

During the Great Leap Forward, many older cadres did not grasp the importance of socialist ideals, having joined the party during the new-democratic movement, which opposed feudalism. Despite the area having been a center of revolutionary activity during the war period, cadres had a habit of working hard and sticking there head into their work, sometimes without considering the political implications. On the other hand, new comrades lacked experience under fire. In addition, new problems and complications multiplied during collectivization. Mechanical work styles followed. Meetings and reports multiplied, rather than concrete political practice. While such tendencies were criticized in the early 50s, this time they were eventually remedied with an insistence that cadres work alongside peasants to produce actual results, as opposed to rectifications in the past which simply opposed bureaucratic political styles by on the spot measures to reduce meeting time and paperwork.

The task was defined all along between struggles over the question of socialist direction. Questions such as could the project even be completed without a previous model, how could the project be conducted if it cut through existing land, should it be self-organized, or rely on national support, should the results be consumed right away or amassed for future efforts all were debated heavily through the project, using the practice of “mass debates” rather than methods of criticizing people through the use of “dunce hats.”

The county’s production of 60 million jin of grain, and accumulation of 40 million yuan in earnings may not be a shocking figure compared to large-scale grain producing counties. But in Lin County, this number is not small at all, and for such production to have increased in a short time is shown not only to be possible, but actually is a fact!

During the hardships of drought and natural disasters experienced early in the project, the effort was temporarily suspended. However, the county’s party committee at the time took a “one divides into two” approach to this pause. On one hand, the weaknesses in the project needed to be acknowledged. However, on the other hand, the revolutionary achievement of the people could not be denied. At the time of the suspension, the canal had reached up to 20 kilometers, and had already entered Lin County, a success, and a motivation for future work.

An elderly stone worker trains an apprentice. As part of the Red Canal project, he has trained numerous apprentices from the Yao Village Commune.

After four years of bitter struggle, the people of Lin County have completed a 70 kilometer canal (shown at right) through their mountains, bringing water from Shanxi’s Zhang River directly to their ploughed land.

A Mountain Village turns into Venice (literally the “southern Yangtze”). The Red Canal passes through the Baijiazhuang Village Commune.