[I have a high degree of unity with the recent article by the fraternal MIWS cell. Maoists are trying to break the fan club approach to leadership and history. The fan club approach to Mao has led to a situation where pre-scientific people avoid engaging with Lin Biao’s great article because of very dubious historical verdicts against Lin Biao within the Chinese Communist Party after 1971. The fan club approach to “Maoism” gives the enemy much room to maneuver. Pushing the Lin Biao issue is not about raising up Lin Biao as a better leader over, for example, the Gang of Four or Mao. Although, it isn't about necessarily denying it either. Pushing the Lin Biao issue is about breaking with dogmatism and the fan club approach to leaders and history. Ironically, Lin Biao along with the Chinese Maoist camp as a whole encouraged the fan club approach which was eventually turned against them and turned against Maoism. I will continue to push the Lin Biao issue until the communist movement “gets over it,” thereby disarming the fakes.
There is little credible evidence that Lin Biao upheld the Theory of Productive Forces, certainly not overall. (Or, if we use an expanded definition of the Theory of Productive Forces, then we ought be consistent and say that Mao Zedong and the Gang of Four upheld it too.) Lin Biao argued against the analogue of the Theory of Productive Forces in the PLA very early on. His Four Firsts policy of 1960 was a direct refutation of the Theory of Productive Forces in the military sphere. Lin Biao raised the slogan of “politics in command” in the early 1960s. Lin Biao was one of the main voices and symbols at the height of the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1971. He made numerous statements against the Theory of Productive Forces in those years. In addition, the economic policies and vision for society that Lin Biao pushed up until his fall were leftist, whether practical or not.
Firstly, many movements claiming to be Maoist continue to trash Lin Biao for basically the same reason that many others also trashed the Gang of Four. Many organizations are not genuinely scientific organizations. Many organizations were basically just following every twist and turn of the Chinese Communist Party. When the Chinese Communist Party denounced Lin Biao following his fall in 1971, so did many in the “New Communist Movement.” When the Chinese Communist Party denounced the Gang of Four in 1976, many others followed suit. Those that were dogmatically following every twist and turn up until 1976 or shortly after were correct to reject the revisionist leadership in China after 1976. However, these movements inherited and dogmatically retained the 1976 pre-fall of the Gang of Four orthodoxy. They inherited a narrow view of the Cultural Revolution, often mixed up with a dressed up anti-Marxist great man theory of history. There is no reason to retain the dubious verdicts on Lin Biao today. There are reasons to question such verdicts.
Secondly, many fake-Maoists trash Lin Biao to trash real Maoism. Lin Biao is a stand-in bogy for real Maoism:
1. Lin Biao blazed a trail by recognizing that Maoism was a new universal stage of Marxism. Lin Biao is attacked as a way to attack Maoism as universal or to downgrade the scientific contributions that are unique to Maoism.
2. Lin Biao is attacked in order to undermine people’s war. Lin Biao is attacked in order to push reformist, capitulationist and revisionist approaches. Attacks on Lin Biao are used to reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, and its class character.
3. Lin Biao is attacked in order to attack global class analysis. Lin Biao is attacked in order to attack the scientific conclusion that the first world has no significant proletariat. Lin Biao is attacked as a way to advance the social fascist interests of the labor aristocracy who constitute the majority of first world populations.
4. Lin Biao is attacked in order to attack the content of Cultural Revolution. Fake-Maoists claim to uphold the Cultural Revolution while rejecting its content. They claim to uphold the Cultural Revolution, yet they really uphold liberalism. They attack Lin Biao as a way to hide their liberalism under a “Maoist” facade.
Maoists are breaking with the fan club approach that allows the fakes to destroy our movement from within. Let the fakes raise the Lin Biao bogy. Who cares? It is only a bogy if we allow them to make it one. -- Prairie Fire]
[MSH is reproducing this recent article from our fraternal comrades at Maoist Information Web Site (MIWS) from November 11th, 2007. MSH plans to continue our research on the Cultural Revolution and our campaign to promote Lin Biao’s Long Live the Victory of People’s War! Our fine comrades over at Shubel Morgan are now producing videos, including a two part video adaptation of Long Live the Victory of People’s War!, in multiple languages. Additional readings on the Cultural Revolution are here, here and here. Unedited MIWS article follows. -- MSH]
Lin Biao excerpt on the theory of the productive forces
Below is an excerpt from chapter 25, “”I Am Not Equal to My Task” : Secret Address to the Eleventh Plenary Session (1966),” of a book on Lin Biao by Martin Ebon. Ebon had a u.$. government and military background. MIWS does not offer here an assessment of Ebon’s book as a whole.
As far as the works he left, Lin Biao is most commonly associated with “Long Live the Victory of People’s War,” the political report he delivered at the CPC Ninth Congress, and some words about Mao Tse-tung’s thought as a new stage of Marxism. Since publishing the below excerpt may seem unsual, MIWS would like to comment.
It is November 2007 as this is being written. The centennial of Lin Biao’s birthday is coming up. Birthdays are individualist to begin with. As with “Long Live the Victory of People’s War,” more important than the biography of someone to whom four-decade-old words are attributed is the content of the writing or speech.
In the rest of Martin Ebon’s chapter, not appearing below, Lin Biao talks, among other things that have to do with supporting the struggle against the new bourgeoisie and orienting the forces that will carry on the cultural revolution, about carrying out Mao Zedong’s instructions “whether we understand them or not” — perhaps necessary in a situation where there was a science and knowledge gap that couldn’t narrowed in the short term. By contrast, in 2007, there is no choice to be made about Lin Biao or even Mao as an individual leader. Maoists in the 21st century are scientific communists with their own theoretical and concrete understanding, not followers of Mao in the sense of following the leader as if Mao were alive today leading a still-unfolding movement. What scientific communists know about Mao’s thought represents the most advanced stage of Marxism, and so they are Maoists, but not exploring the revolution associated with Mao as if only Mao the individual were the correct guide. So, people who bring up Lin’s biography, disputed history and the allegations surrounding his death to justify not examining what he said are ridiculous. They make Lin as an individual more important than some scientifically useful things he may have said though Lin is no longer a factor as an individual in any struggle. Those who are overly concerned with the coup allegation and derivative claims about Lin as a secret counterrevolutionary, either for or against the claims about Lin, typically act as if some imminent decision had to be made about Lin as an individual, but Lin is not alive in 2007 and there is nobody analogous to him living today.
What is most interesting about Lin are:
1) things in his writing that are unique, true and universal
If Lin’s writing weren’t somehow unique, MIWS would not be talking about it. “Long Live the Victory of People’s War” is unique relative to other writing in English being distributed. If MIWS hesitated to publish the below Lin Biao excerpt, it is only because there were already articles in Peking Review and other writings in English dealing with the theory of the productive forces and material incentives from the cultural revolution period.
2) the social struggles that Lin’s writing reflected
In this context, it wouldn’t be particularly relevant if Lin opposed material incentives just to raise the red flag to oppose it. What is important are the surrounding struggles Lin’s words reflected. There was a class struggle over material incentives and a class struggle over Liu Shaoqi’s ideas, not a struggle between a small number of individuals detached from the masses. During the cultural revolution, there was a class struggle over putting politics in command and a class struggle against the theory of the productive forces. So, if Lin raised the red flag, it is because he had to because class struggle required it. Lin’s writing is expressive of a class struggle — that is the correct way to approach Lin’s writing. (Similarly, the mass movement against Confucian thought was more important than Lin as an individual, regardless of the accuracy of the charges appearing in published writing against any one individual. The movement represented a class struggle.) The bourgeoisie looking at the cultural revolution prefers to emphasize a conflict of bureaucratic individuals raising the red flag just to eliminate each other as if there were no class struggle.
In thinking about Lin Biao, a comparison may arise between Lin and Mao, especially among people who are obsessed with the individuals and personalities of revolution. Whether Lin’s ideas were more or less correct than Mao’s, whether Lin made more or fewer errors than Mao — these are things that MIWS does not care about, and MIWS sees no reason at this time to focus on any one individual. What is key is Maoist science and relevant writing, such as H. W. Edwards’ and Arghiri Emmanuels’. Exploratory investigation of Lin’s errors and practice as an individual should be connected to conclusions of universal relevance; otherwise, it is just contemplative research. Any explanation of the counterrevolution, or discussion Lin Biao’s role, mistakes, or merits, should offer a lesson that is new or confirm a previous lesson. Most people who talk about Lin’s practice as an individual do not connect that discussion to the production of any new, universal knowledge. No lesson is drawn from what Lin supposedly did or thought. On the contrary, often when Lin is not the topic of discussion, Lin is attacked as a way of attacking Maoism on the principal contradiction, people’s war, the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations, concrete analysis of class structure and politics in the First World, and even the cultural revolution in some cases. Additionally, the majority of those focused on criticizing Lin, apart from the anti-Confucian campaign and making a point about the existence of a new bourgeoisie in the party, have no social explanation for how the counterrevolutionary restoration came about in China, no scientific analysis of the First World class structure, and no consistent and developed analysis in other areas.
In the below excerpt, Lin identifies the cultural revolution as something that the Soviet Union “did not have.” Like Mao and others, Lin recognized that there was no precedent to the cultural revolution in world history. The cultural revolution and mass struggles against the new bourgeoisie in the party were new to Marxism-Leninism. A new bourgeoisie develops in the communist party under socialism and needs to be defeated by the masses. If the masses do not grasp the truth themselves, eventually those with responsibilities in the party will not be able to and will descend into bourgeois ideology. The masses can be an obstacle to the actions of the new bourgeoisie in the party.
The excerpt also has to do specifically with the revisionist theory of the productive forces, which the new bourgeoisie in the Communist Party of China supported. One aspect of the theory of the productive forces is the idea that nations have to catch up with the most advanced, and the most parasitic, imperialist countries in economic development before moving toward communism. This idea is expressed, especially today, in the idea that technology and technical aspects are the main thing determining the wealth and living standards gap between nations, and that the improvement of technology and production techniques can enable an upward equalization so that oppressed nations reach the level of imperialist nations without the imperialist nations’ moving lower in their level. The corresponding general idea is that concerns about relations of production can be subordinated to the productive forces, which are seen as primary, and that economic development can and should take place without transformation of production relations and class struggle. Another aspect of the theory of the productive forces is that wage differentials are acceptable as long as development occurs. The theory is called “revisionist” when it is upheld as Marxist. Ultimately, the revisionists rely not only on material incentives and income differentiation, but also on profit incentives, without putting politics in command. In oppressed nations, the theory of the productive forces is a “Marxist” part of the ideology sustaining neo-colonialism, obscuring international exploitation and the relations of the production that exist in the world economy.
On the one hand, technology is labor-saving. Also, transfers of value due to workers’ using different technology constitute a non-equivalent exchange as Karl Marx showed in Capital, and this would also apply in the international economy. So, technological improvement may be considered desirable. Technological improvement may improve a nation’s position in international economic relations, with downward, not upward equalization. On the other hand, it is incorrect to make the assumption that technology is the most important factor influencing economic conditions in a nation or advance toward communism. International wage differences also play a role and, as Arghiri Emmanuel showed, may play a larger role than technology itself in the relative wealth of different nations. Ignoring the impact of international economic relations on the national economy leads to pragmatism in the Third World nation’s economic policy and trying to attain the living standards of the First World. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the emphasis was on putting politics in command in general. The greater challenge faced by the oppressed in advancing toward communism was not a lack of technology, but a lack of political development.
As Lin Biao mentions, labor is the primary aspect in productivity, compared with technology. Within a broader sense, this means labor explains observed differences in economic conditions between nations. The economic conditions of the First World reflect an appropriation of Third World labor, not wealth stemming from the use of technology itself. Lin Biao emphasizes in the below excerpt the political development of the masses as a crucial factor in preventing counterrevolutionary restoration. This is actually relevant to international disparity and the international appropriation of labor. Like Mao and other Maoists during the cultural revolution and within the framework of the movement to overthrow the top capitalist-roaders, in the party, working to restore capitalism, Lin held that material incentives at the time had a negative impact on the outlook of the masses — as relatively small as those incentives were by international comparison. Today, social-imperialists in the making calling themselves Maoists are working for living standards for the parasitic imperialist nation so-called working class and middle class higher than the living standards Liu Shaoqi would have dreamed of being possible through material incentives. There is no revolutionary upsurge in the First World; yet, the labor bureaucrats and petty-bourgeois pseudo-communists who never really studied Marxist economics and the labor theory of value prop up a wage distribution in which average First World people receive incomes several times greater than even the highest typical wages of Third World workers.
Excerpt
Bracketed text and ellipses are in the original in Martin Ebon’s book.
Source: Martin Ebon, Lin Piao: The Life and Writings of China’s New Ruler, New York, Stein and Day, 1970, pp. 272-273
Excerpt from “”I Am Not Equal to My Task” : Secret Address to the Eleventh Plenary Session (1966)”:
[Turning to the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group:] Your work was beset with difficulties. The movement was started in a vigorous manner, but then cold water was poured on it. The Chairman has reversed the situation. Otherwise, the Cultural Revolution would have been cut short, the bourgeoisie would have gained the upper hand, and we would have suffered defeat. We must destroy the bourgeois ideas, . . . wipe out old ideas. . . . On the one hand, we must begin with the material aspect by developing production and improving technology; on the other hand, we must begin with the spiritual aspect by reforming man’s thinking. The important factor of productivity is man, and we must develop the human factor, change ideas and concepts and raise our sense of responsibility to society. This is easier said than done. There are to be reversals, and we can reform man only through numerous struggles, criticisms, and commendations and a major struggle on the ideological front as a whole.
The struggle is to advance from many lower states to the higher stages on the two fronts, the material and spiritual fronts. Our Cultural Revolution Group takes care of the spiritual front, but we advance simultaneously along the two fronts. The thought of Mao Tse-tung is the locomotive for our advance along both fronts. We must advance like a train along two tracks. We must not promote material incentives as the revisionists are doing, or we are bound to revert to the old rule and revisionism is bound to appear. In doing everything, we must put the thought of Mao Tse-tung in the lead, and we must firmly grasp the thought of Mao Tse-tung as a spiritual weapon and fight this battle through to the end. If we win in our minds, we shall win the war against material incentives. You comrades have played a part in the recent several months . . . I hope that you will play a bigger part. Of course, we do not allow pouring of cold water, and the Chairman will see that the situation is reversed. . . .
The Great Cultural Revolution is an undertaking that has never been attempted before. The Soviet Union does not have it. . . .
Now fish eyes are confused with pearls, and we must separate them. We must hand the pearls over to the masses of workers and peasants so that the people may have culture and see the bright future ahead of them. If fish eyes are mixed with pearls, we ourselves will have difficulty in selecting the pearls. We must now tell them that the thought of Mao Tse-tung is the pearl, and we must all bear responsibilities.
***
Also see: Two Roads Defeated part 1; Two Roads Defeated part 2; Two Roads Defeated part 3; Mao Declassified; Some of Us reviewed (Part 1); Some of Us reviewed (Part 2);Some of Us reviewed (Part3); A Maoist-Third Worldist Review of Mobo Gao, The Battle for China’s Past; In memory of the great Lenin..; Some lines within the CCP in the Maoist period; Shubel Morgan video On the Theory of Productive Forces; The Essence of “Theory of Productive Forces” Is to Oppose Proletarian Revolution; The Lin Biao Centennial, hooray!; Lin Biao excerpt on the TOPF with important commentary by Prairie Fire; Mao’s Bloody Revolution Revealed (with Philip Short, 2007); Really supporting the GPCR vs. Opportunist Yapping;Morning Sun (2003, Carma Hinton, Richard Gordon and Geremie R. Barmé); Subel Morgan’s Series On “On the Theory of the Productive Forces”
