"The Four" & events in China 1976 (1): To comrade J.

[rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rolf Martens)]

"The Four" & events in China 1976 (1): To comrade J. [Sent:13.05.96]

This is part of a discussion on the Jefferson Village Virginia
Marxism list and is also sent to newsgroups.


Hello Jay,

It's excellent that you've taken up a discussion on the subject on
which I made a couple of statements in replies to "Chris, London",
namely, the  question of what role "The Four", led by Mao Zedong's
wife Jiang Qing, actually played in the struggle which eventually led
to the overthrow of socialism in China.

It would be very good if others, too, take an interest in this
discussion and contribute to it, for instance with additional nformation
that so far has been unknown to both of us.

As I already wrote in one of those replies, and as you also agree,
this issue for several reasons has an important bearing on some
vital issues today. You and I also are in agreement on supporting the
recent call for a World Mobilisation Commission to defend the
revolution in Peru. Might a discussion on the issue of "The Four"
distract from the necessary preparation for such a Commission?
I hold that, on the contrary, ithis is one of the issues which need
to be cleared up in order for that body to avoid falling into the
earlier trap of Avakianism, whose ideological roots IMO are far
>from beaten yet.

You disagree completely with me on the character of that group
in China, and so do most other comrades today, I should think.

However, the facts show that you're all wrong on that count. It
seems that most of those who today are calling themselves "Maoists"
have very little information on the basic historical facts, which were
quite well-known at least to some of us here in Sweden, Germany
etc a little less than 20 years ago but which have since either
been plain forgotten or, above all, massively suppressed by the
reactionaries and/or distorted beyond recognition by their
Avakianist helpers. Therefore, I intend to post a whole little series
of articles on this matter, numbering them (1) (this one), (2), (3) etc.

I intend to show you that the "Gang of Four" were - respectively, by
1976 had degenrated into - people of precisely the same kind as
Avakian and his recently exposed aide and partner Herbie the
Hermaphrodite, aka "Mr Quispe" / "Ms Ccorimanya", or Punch 'n
Judy, as comrade Adolfo Oleachea calls that circus of his (hers?
its?). As you know, Jiang Qing always was a quite particular "hero"
of Avakian's, and he and another sidekick of his, Lotta, as early as
back in 1978-79 published two entire books eulogizing "The Four"
as "the real revolutionaries". Two of them are propagandized as
such in the "RIM Declaration" of 1984 too, which the PCP so
unfortunately has put its signature to - still not withdrawn.

Today I'm posting an initial bunch of articles on the subject:

(1) This one, quoting also your second posting, with comments on it
(2) The Peking Review article on 05.04.76 you posted, with comments
(3) My two original replies to Chris ("Luftmensch..." "Re: The mass...")
(4) On events in April '76 (etc)  Eyewitness report, with comments1/2
(5) Part 2/2 of the posting begun in (4)
(6) An eyewitness report on events in Shanghai, Oct '76, + comments
(7) Eyewitness account from Tsingtao, Oct '76, plus an analysis

Here below I'll first  comment on your first posting and then reproduce
your second and briefer quote from Peking Review #15 /1976, on the CPC CC
resolution, adding a couple of comments on that. .

>From: detcom@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 23:13:10 -0700
>Subject: Re: Luftmensch on maoism

>Rolf, I agree with you that the period of the Great Proletarian
>Cultural Revolution and the history of the overthrow of socialism
>in China is very important today.  It was studying this period
>over again that led us to break with the Avakianists and denounce
>their phony Maoism.  However, you make a greivious error in
>thinking Chiang Ching a "hypocitical rightist".  You say a lot of
>stuff, insinuating that proof of her rightism is that the masses
>were "jubilant" when she and the other revolutionaries were
>arrested.  This isn't so.  Armed struggles broke out, and
>ESPECIALLY in Shanghai.  The real rightists had to have many
>tens of thousands of real revolutionaries arrested after their
>coup. Many never heard from again.

On what really happened in Shanghai in October 1976, see my
No. (6)! It tallies with the other accounts from China at the time, too.

You write that "armed struggles broke out", etc. When was that?
Where? And what is/are your source or sources? (No Avaki-Herbie!)

It's exellent, by the way, that you do have the Peking Review issues
of that time, and that you made these extracts from it available to
others. Such articles are quite essental as references - even when
they sometimes *are liyng*, as I'll show you they are on some points!

>And the account of the mass protests in Tienamen Square from
>"Peking Review" show clearly the counter-revolutionary aspect of it
>all and that it was clearly organized by the Pro-Dengists in the main,
>they were not just taking advantage of it. I am sure very few on this
>list have the Peking Reviews so I present here the article telling the
>story  that Rolf mentions.I hope it helps to clarify the true nature of the
>demonstration. In re-reading it I could see where Avakian-lumpen
>methodology traces back to.   -Jay Miles / Detroit

In re-reading that article, one passage in particular IMO should have
made you very suspicious! I'll soon tell you why. But first I bring your
quote from me, then your (briefer) second posting, where I'd like
to argue against your argument. In my posting (2) I'll then reproduce
the PR article on the Tiananmen Square events, with some comments

>ROLF WROTE:
>>The mass protests on Tienanmen Square on 05.04.76, essentially,
>>*were* a protest against Jiang Qing's and the other "G 4" peoples'
>>*suppressing* the manifestations of mourning for Zhou Enlai. There
>>were some other forces mixed up in the whole thing also, some
>>supporters of the *other* anti-Mao fraction, that of Deng Xiaoping,
>>which tried to take advantage of the situation, but, if you read the
>>issues of Peking Review from that time carefully, you can confirm
>>the above pretty well.

I should have added: "comparing these issues with other reports".
But even from the PR by itself you can draw some conclusions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 I'll insert here the second thing you posted as "further proof",
namely, the CPC CC resolution of 07.04.76 on the dismissal of  Deng
Xiaoping. I'll briefly comment on your argumentation.
_______________________________________________

From: detcom@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 23:44:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Luftmensch on maoism

>Further evidence of Deng's organizing of the counter-
>revolutionary demonstration, the decision by the CPC CC.
>-Jay Miles / Detroit

As *evidence*, you quote the statement by the CPC CC that the
demonstration was counterrevolutionary. Firstly, the CC actually
avoids directly maintaining that Deng organized it. But perhaps
this might be taken as somehow implied by the logic of the
resolution.

Secondly, even the CC of the CPC at that time was *not* infallible -
as, back in early 1976, I for one in practice more or less considered
it to be, I must admit! In theory of course I well knew that Marxists
shouldn't have such metaphysical ideas. I hereby, since you seem
to exclude the possibility of a mistake by the CPC CC, "accuse" you
of being somewhat like the me of early 1976!  Please note that in my
first reply to Chris, where I raised the matter, I wrote i.a. that IMO the
CC must have made a mistake here.

If we're to be objective, of course we should say that, firstly, the
judgement of that CC is an important fact but that, secondly, it's the
actual information on the events in question that really counts - which
leads to the question of whether we can get sufficient such
information to make a clear independent judgement. And this we
can, even today. In my postings (4) and (5) on this subject, I'm
bringing and commenting on an eyewitness account by one
foreign correspondent, which can also be substantiated by that
of many other eyewitnesses  and which in the main cannot have been
invented - far too many people were involved for that.

And this information quite clearly shows that the CC of the CPC
on this particular point *was* wrong. I hope you'll agree with me
on that when you've read it. If you compare the account of events
which I'm bringing to that of the PR article you posted (see my (2))
you'll probably also agree that the latter is incomplete and
misleading, in fact untruthful. But here first the CC resolution again:


>RESOLUTION OF C.P.C. CENTRAL COMMITTEE ON DISMISSING
>TENG HSIAO-PING FROM ALL POSTS BOTH INSIDE AND
>OUTSIDE PARTY

>Having discussed the counter-revolutionary incident which
>took place at Tien An Men Square and Teng Hsiao-ping's
>latest behavior, the Political Bureau of the Central
>Committee of the Communist Party of China holds that the
>nature of the Teng Hsiao-ping problem has turned into one
>of antagonistic contradiction.  On the proposal of our
>great leader Chairman Mao, the Political Bureau unanimously
>agrees to dismiss Teng Hsiao-ping from all posts inside
>and outside the Party while allowing him to keep his Party
>membership so as to see how he will behave in the future.

>The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China
>April 7, 1976
>(from Peking Review #15, April 9, 1976)

[So far a first posting. The longer article from that PR follows in
my posting (2), together with some comments. - Rolf M.]



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---