Response to Doug and Ken on Capitalist Roaders in China

[Rubyg580@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 96-04-12 Ken H writes:
> 4/11/96, Rubyg580@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>The leadership in China now says "to get rich is glorious" because that is
>>>what those leaders have been saying since the 70s.  Mao called them
>>>"capitalist roaders" and led theChinese people to defeat them thru the
>>>upheaval of the cultural revolution and the struggle in the mid 70s
against
>>>the "right deviationist wind."

Doug H replied:
>>This isn't really an explanation. Did the Chinese revolution depend
>>entirely on Mao, and once he was gone, the capitalist roaders took power?
>>Is that a serious social analysis in the Marxian tradition? What happened
>>in Chinese society that led to this reversal? Is it just a matter of a
>>handful of gerontocrats turning their back on Mao Zedong thought?
>>Doug

Ken H commented:
>A kind of traversty and glorification of the gang of four and the cultural
>revolution which in the end was nothing more then an interbureacratic
>struggle in which masses were mobilised and got out of hand. It took
>Deng to reign them in and get back on course.
>Ken Howard

Gina again:
Yup, that's exactly what Deng himself says.  Typical capitalist roader
analysis, where the masses are only pawns to be used by the big
shots in their interbureaucratic conflicts.

The problem is, interbureaucratic conflicts cannot begin to explain
the origins of all the "socialist new things" that were created by the
masses during the cultural revolution.  Millions of "barefoot doctors"
were trained from the ranks of workers and peasants, bringing
basic health care to the factories and the vast countryside.

New schools sprang up all over, and educational practices in the
existing schools were overhauled, to make education more responsive
to the actual needs of the masses in the three great revolutionary
movements:  The struggle for production, scientific experiment and
the class struggle.

The arts were made available to the masses as never before. Peasants
took up painting, workers formed acting companies; Troops of youth
trekked out to the remote areas of the countryside carrying portable
generators and projectors to show the new movies to the peasants.
New plays, operas and films were produced that celebrated the
revolutionary struggles of the workers, peasants and soldiers, instead
of the old emperors and mythological beings that had been the subject
of such cultural works up to then.

No bureauctatic in-fighting could have produced this kind of overhaul
of every realm of human activity.  And, it is particularly telling that the
first things Deng and Co. had to get rid of when they siezed power
after Mao's death were the revolutionary committees.  These were
collective forms of administration that took the place of one-man
managers in factories and other institutions, and took the place of
the old style administration of cities and other governmental units.

Deng had to "reign this in" exactly because it stood in the way of
developing the kind of dependant capitalism he wanted to "get
back on course".  This course includes the wonderful sight of
a Micky Dee on every corner and a KFC here and there, and Coca
Cola machines next to the time clocks and piece work rates in the
factories.

It also includes massive dislocation of people from the
countryside to the cities, or to the "maquiladora" areas next to Hong
Kong; it includes female infanticide, prostitution, arranged marriages,
forced abortion for the second pregnancy; even reports of foot-binding
making a come-back! [I have not seen confirmation of this last
so it may be just a nasty rumor]

Ken doesn't say what is his opinion of this "reigning in" by Deng and
company.  If he thinks it's a good thing, that shows his class bias.
If he thinks it's a continuation of Mao's line or policy, it shows his
ignorance of the subject.

Gina/ Detroit


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---