(source: shubelmorgan.wordpress.com) From the video: When China was socialist, many good Maoists made war on this imperialist lie (the theory of the productive forces). They understood that the lie of forgetting class struggle led back to capitalism. They fought very hard. And their struggle remains a glorious inspiration for the world’s oppressed and exploited majority. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution remains the furthest advance toward communism in the history of humankind. And fundamentally the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was pitched class war against bourgeois traitors to Chinese socialism peddling the duplicitous theory of the productive forces. The battle was not new. The Peking Review article published by MIWS, The Essence of “Theory of Productive Forces” Is to Oppose Proletarian Revolution leaves no doubt that the struggle against this deadly ideology reached back to the earliest days of China’s new-democratic revolution. And it was not a battle on the Chinese ideological periphery. The traitor Liu Shaoqi, for instance, was obviously centrally positioned in the Chinese Communist Party. Further, the struggle in socialist China against the lie of the theory of the productive forces was not episodic, but continuous. The fight can be seen clearly as raging during the Great Leap Forward, throughout the Socialist Education Movement, and to its culmination in Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution itself. In the end, of course, the traitors won. Socialism was defeated. And the international proletariat demands answers. Not some shameless goober theoretic answer like, “Well, there was a coup, you know.” Or any of the other equally contemptuous individualistic, frequently anti-communist, and always bone-head dumb judgments of so-called “communists” which provide no universal lessons with which to better arm the international proletariat. These fake communist non-assessments amount to little more than saying “they should have done better” or “the individual x was bad, and so, well, you know …” MIWS provides an essential guide to elementary revolutionary political analysis that explicitly calls out the frauds and pretenders offering such crap explanations on capitalist restoration in China. Now, there is much to say about Prairie Fire’s article, Some notes on lines within the Chinese Communist Party in the Maoist period, which the international proletariat is wholeheartedly applauding. But the first thing to say is that it is unprecedented. The article is to our knowledge an absolutely unprecedented political/historical analysis of the role played by the ideology of the international theory of the productive forces and first world labor aristocracy in the defeat of Chinese socialism. That’s a mouthful, so let’s break it down: The article is the first in history to analyze concretely the possible contribution to the defeat of Chinese socialism of the imperialist lie of the international theory of the productive forces as powered by the first world labor aristocracy. For nearly the entirety of the ICM this will be no big deal. Less than no big deal. Because to nearly the entirety of the ICM such an enterprise is just akin to chasing after ghosts. For them it’s like saying ghosts had a hand in capitalist restoration because, just like ghosts, there is no such thing as an international theory of the productive forces powered by the first world labor aristocracy because, just like ghosts, there is no first world labor aristocracy to speak of. “Well, my goodness,” they’d tell us, “for a lie like that to have any power at all it’d have to be backed up with millions upon millions of actual first world parasites on the majority of humanity. Why, there’d have to be whole nations of those leeches and bloodsuckers. It’s hard to even imagine, but we’re sure glad nothing like that’s happening so far as we can see.” Sadly, that’s the ICM, and has been. Sadder still, that’s even most Third World parties claiming to be waging People’s War, and we’ll most certainly come back to that. For the Third World masses, on the other hand, Prairie Fire’s article is cause for celebration. Finally, some actual communists, the Maoists-Third Worldists, are catching up theoretically with the long existing global material conditions of the TOPF. And the Maoists-Third Worldists are beginning to apply that understanding to one of the international proletariat’s most grave defeats at the hands of imperialism. It’s only a beginning, to be sure. But even being so early on this analysis proves readily that Maoism-Third Worldism is an indispensably powerful weapon for fully understanding past proletarian defeats, just as it is an indispensably powerful weapon to ensure current and future proletarian victory. Take the article’s discussion of Peng Zhen. And remember, the international proletariat is highly suspicious that the international TOPF as powered by the first world labor aristocracy has for some time been much more robust and ubiquitous than has been admitted by the ICM, most of which still doesn’t even acknowledge its very existence. So now take Peng Zhen. He was accused of saying that Chinese capitalists were more progressive than amerikan “workers.” Why? Because amerikan “workers” were richer than most Chinese capitalists. Prairie Fire points out that this political line sought to use a correct class analysis – amerikkkans as reactionary labor aristocracy – to excuse Chinese capitalists from class struggle. Peng Zhen was saying, in effect, if we’re calling the richest, most reactionary populations on earth “a great people” and allies of the proletariat, then you’d have to think at least as well of China’s capitalists, who obviously pale in comparison. By this method Peng Zhen pushed a local version of the TOPF to the Chinese masses: forget class struggle against Chinese capitalists because even the world’s biggest enemies are friends. But the message of Peng’s TOPF doesn’t stop there. We spoke before of the powerful “payoff” offered by the international TOPF for the good behavior of forgetting class struggle. By bringing amerikan parasite labor aristocrats into the picture the implied payoff was beefed up considerably: and then you’ll get to live like amerikkkans. That was the true message of payoff hawked by Peng Zhen’s “local” TOPF. You could possibly try to argue that, no, Peng Zhen’s line was totally local, that the line only intended to fool the Chinese masses into thinking that the payoff was that they’d get to live like Chinese capitalists. But it would be silly to argue that when Peng’s whole line depended on admitting loudly and clearly that amerikkkans were rich, it depended on contrasting the great wealth of “ordinary” amerikans with that of Chinese capitalists. This line was just plainly powered by the first-world-labor-aristocracy-fueled international TOPF. Ok then, suppose we’re right so far. Suppose Peng Zhen’s line was indeed powered by the promise, and then you’ll get to live like amerikans. Then some questions arise. For instance. Peng knew the masses. He was against the masses, but he knew the masses. So what made him think that the masses would buy this payoff? Wouldn’t it be only if he knew that the Chinese masses were already aware of the truth of amerikkkan wealth? And wouldn’t it be only if the Chinese masses already had some idea that that was something perfectly acceptable to aspire to? Think of it this way. Would Peng’s offer have had any currency amongst the masses if the consistent Chinese Communist Party line had all along been that the first world populations are parasites and enemies of the oppressed and exploited? How well would Peng have anticipated his offer of and then you’ll get to live like amerikans going over with the masses had that been the case? See, only if you assume of the Chinese masses that they had been set up by the CCP to believe that becoming a rich amerikkkan is a good thing does Peng’s offer even make sense. And that could only happen if the CCP, as they mostly did, had bought into the international theory of the productive forces as powered by the first world labor aristocracy, and had been in turn selling it to the Chinese masses. The criticism of Peng Zhen, recall, was that his line let Chinese capitalists off the hook, not that the line let the richest populations on earth off the hook. So here, right off the bat in an initial Maoist-Third Worldist analysis, we see a shining concrete example of how the CCP’s error on the international TOPF “weakened,” as the video says, “the struggle against capitalism.” A reactionary line such as Peng Zhen’s is only possible through that error. This was not “just” mistaking amerikans for friends. This was in effect throwing the Chinese masses to the dogs of capitalist restoration, not only by setting them up for Peng’s particular reactionary line, but all the similar reactionary lines aiming for capitalist restoration. The video then concludes of the seriousness of this CCP error: The cost may have been socialism in the People’s Republic. By now some readers will have begun to see the possible truth of such a claim. Many will have not. But for now let’s take a break to let everybody chew on this section a bit.
No Comments Yet
Walang puna.
Mga Puna RSS Bakas-pabalik Tagatukoy na URI
Mag-iwan ng puna
