The significance of Zhang Shanguang (reply to Macdonald)

["Ben Seattle" <Left-Transparency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Macdonald,

Thanks for your reply.  You are a very serious activist and I
have wanted to engage your attention for some time.  For this
privilege I have rejoined Louis' marxmail.org list and will
extend my stay here long enough to give you an opportunity to
reply to me.

Ben:
> In June of last year I made a series of posts explaining why
> the left and progressive movements should oppose the
> imprisonment of Zhang Shanguang, a political activist in
> China.  Zhang was imprisoned for giving an interview (in
> which he described local peasant peasant protests against
> increasing taxes) to Radio Free Asia (which is, essentially,
> directly controlled by the CIA). Néstor (and many others)
> believe that the national contradiction between China and US
> imperialism is paramount and overshadows the significance
> than the internal class struggle in China.  I argued that
> workers and peasants in China should have the right to
> organize and to make their views known--and that this right
> should extend to making use of news outlets controlled by
> imperialism.  The principle at issue is that revolutionaries
> and political activists are not serfs and have the right to
> make use of contradictions between their enemies.

Macdonald replies:
> I don't know all the specifics of this case, but if Mr.
> Zhang was giving interviews to "RFA", to oppose that is
> indeed upholding the class struggle and linking it with the
> national struggle. Do we still have doubts as to what the
> nature of "Radio Free Europe" was (and is)? Think what one
> wants on "independant organising in China, this is not
> representative of that idea. It is more representative of
> building a fifth column. Less because the national struggle
> of China is tied to socialism than that Imperial aims are
> tied to RFA. With support from the RFA, there is no way that
> any thing coming from that is more in tune with the needs of
> the Chinese peasants and workers.

I think that the heart of your argument is that "Radio Free Asia"
(let's just call it "Radio CIA" to make it clear that we know
what it is) could not possibly be "more in tune" with the
aspirations of the workers and peasants in China than the Chinese
government.  You are correct in this.  However this does not
prove what you think it does.  To understand this we need to
consider the nature of imperialism and imperialist rivalry.

It is the nature of imperialism to work to gain influence with
oppositional movements and currents--and then attempt to use this
influence to turn these movements and currents to its own
advantage.  This is a very old story going back to long before
imperialism assumed its modern form.  In many ways it is the
essence of diplomacy ... to use A against B and B against C.

In North America agents of the French monarchy encouraged the
Native Americans to stand up to and resist the encroachments of
British settlers.  I think this was in the 1760's.  When I was in
school this was called the "French and Indian War".  The
maneuvers of the French did not make the struggle of the natives
any less just.  Nor, obviously, did the French crown really give
a damn about the native struggle.  The French were simply
interested in making life difficult for the British--who, by this
time, were their main rivals for world supremacy.

Any serious study of history would probably find hundreds of
examples like this.  While I am ignorant of details it is
probably safe to assume that the British and French did their
best to stir up native uprisings against one another in Africa,
where they were fierce rivals, and in other colonial territories.

There is an excellent film, called "Burn!", staring Marlon Brando
and produced in 1969 [1].  Brando plays a British agent who plays
a role in inspiring a Caribbean rebellion against Portuguese
rule.  The film is mainly fiction (Portugal was not the colonial
power in the Caribbean but the movie was shot in Spain and, in
order to secure permission from the Spanish government for this,
Portugal had to be substituted for Spain in the script) but was,
of course, inspired by life.  If you have not already seen the
film, by the way, I highly recommend it.  Brando, for what it is
worth, felt it was the best performance of his career.

Did the Brando character (most fittingly named William Walker, by
the way) stay loyal to those he had helped inspire and organize?
I would not want to spoil the movie for you, but I think you can
guess the ending.  Anyhow, my point is that Brando, in the movie,
had no problem _appearing_ to be "in tune" with the aspirations
of the natives.  The key word here is appearing.  As materialists
we always strive to understand the distinction between
appearances and what is going on.

The most famous film along these lines, at least that I can think
of, is probably the classic "Lawrence of Arabia" which is, more
or less, based on a true story.  During the first world war
Lawrence helped to organize an Arab revolt against Ottoman rule.
In the movie (and probably in life) Lawrence was a bit of a fool,
who got into the position he found himself in more or less by
accident, and who probably genuinely wanted to help the Arabs
develop their national state and identity.  Lawrence was sent
packing after Damascas was captured and the British, as I
understand it, managed to betray everybody.  In the movie, as
Lawrence is dismissed, it is very clear that this is how things
always work.

Now I do not want to base a political argument on movies.  I want
to base my political argument on facts drawn from life.  I am
just using the movies to stimulate thought.  Someone can watch a
movie and some of these things may seen less dry and abstract
than text on a screen.

The struggle of the natives in North America was a just struggle.
The struggles in Africa and the Caribbean were just.  The
struggle of the Arabs was just.  German imperialism, I think, had
some minor contact and influence with the Irish ... but the
stuggle of the Irish was not any less a just cause on that
account.

My point is that imperialist powers will _pretend_ to assist a
just struggle.  This goes on all the time.  US imperialism has,
at various times, "befriended" the cause of Kurdish nationalism
(in Iran and Iraq, not in Turkey) when not setting the Kurds up
for massacre.  I think there have been several cycles of this
over the decades.  But is the struggle of the Kurds in Iran or
Iraq any less just than in Turkey?

US imperialism "befriended" the Vietnamese struggle against the
Japanese.  And US imperialism was even "friendly" with Castro at
one time:

   "The most widely circulated and influential American
   capitalist magazines: Time, Life, Coronet, Newsweek,
   etc. as well as leading capitalist newspapers like The
   New York Times, glorified Castro and his famous
   "barbudos" (bearded ones) depicting them as romantic
   Robin Hoods, gallantly fighting for the freedom of the
   Cuban people." [2]

Would we argue that the struggle of the Vietnamese or Cuban
people was in any way illegitimate because US imperialism at one
time pretended to be friendly to them?

Of course when Castro came to power and began to expropriate the
sugar mills things turned sour fast.  But the point is that
imperialism maneuvers the way a shark swims: constantly.
Imperialism is constantly on the prowl, constantly looking for
movements to "befriend" and "assist".  Some of these movements
may have a leadership that is conscious enough to avoid the
teeth of this shark.  Other times the leadership may be
foolish or corruptible.  But in any event these movements may
represent a _just cause_ regardless of whether or not imperialism
pretends to support them.

And this, Macdonald, brings us to China.  China and US
imperialism are on a collision course because the US has emerged
as the dominant power of the twentieth century and China is
likely to emerge as the dominant power of the twenty-first.  Your
logic is that the protests of the Chinese workers and peasants is
not a just cause ... because the US imperialist media reports
them and encourages them.  This is really the heart of your
argument.

                    *          *          *

Now the New York Times is not the same as "Radio CIA".  But, if
we look at matters, not as liberals, but from the point of view
of classes, we will see that the differences are often
exaggerated.  Radio CIA and the New York Times both serve the
same master.  They are not identical but this is more a division
of roles (ie: a division of labor) than anything else.  They are
both _highly conscious_ tools that serve the class interests of
the bourgeoisie.

Radio CIA may have been interviewing Zhang simply for
intelligence purposes.  Or they may have been making an effort to
cultivate him as a contact and eventually as part of their
network of agents or tools.  We don't know this because we live
in a world of imperfect information.  But we do know something
else about Radio CIA.  It also makes broadcasts that have an
audience in China and represents one of the few ways, at the
present time, that a political activist in China can make his
views widely known.  And Radio CIA makes these broadcasts (and
often broadcasts the truth) because it cannot pose as the
"friend" of Chinese workers and peasants unless it has a minimum
amount of credibility.  And this gets into the nature of the news
media under imperialism.  They lie a lot, of course.  But they
must also tell enough of the truth enough of the time to maintain
a minimum amount of credibility--or they will be discredited and
of little use to the bourgeoisie.  And revolutionary activists
have always made use of the imperialist media when the
opportunity presented itself.

Let me ask you a question.  If you were approached, during the
period you were in Seattle for the WTO protests, by a reporter
from the New York Times--and asked questions about some event
that would be very useful or important for a national audience to
know--would you have said "Go to hell you lying tool of the
bourgeoisie.  I won't supply you with a single fact or a single
word because you are the enemy of the workers and oppressed." ?

I have, at various times, been approached by reporters at
demonstrations.  Sometimes I have talked to them and other times
I have told them to get lost: "You wouldn't print what I have to
say so I think you might as well go talk to somebody else".  The
point is that as an activist I have the right to _decide for
myself_ the likelyhood that something I say to a news outlet
(controlled by and serving the class enemy) will see the light of
day.

And I assert that Zhang Shanguang has that same right.  Not
legally, of course.  But in the eyes of a movement that
recognizes the right of workers everywhere to struggle for their
interests.

                    *          *          *

> Think what one wants on "independant organising
> in China", this is not representative of that idea

Actually, as I understand it, Zhang was an organizer of
unemployed workers.  Before that he had been sent to prison for
seven years because of a speech he gave at the time of the
Tiananmen protests.  While he was in prison he contracted
tuberculoses.  At least these are the few facts I have found in
the bourgeois media.

You may think that Zhang is a poor example because he talked to
Radio CIA.  How can I "prove" that he is not a "spy"?  I can't.
We live in a world of imperfect information.  But we can use our
minds and a certain amount of common sense.  How could organizers
from the CPUSA in the 1920's (I think it was) prove that the
eight Scotsboro boys did not really rape the white girl?  But it
turned out that the defense of the Scotsboro boys turned out to
be important in raising the consciousness of workers in the South
of the need to fight racial discrimination and violent
repression.

Are there better representatives of independent organizing in
China?  You tell me.  I have no more free time to find out than
you do.  On July 2 Yoshie posted a New York Times article about
the imprisonment of Zhou Wei for leading "thousands of Shenyang's
revered old Communist cadres in a mounting series of protests and
petition campaigns against the local government, loudly
denouncing its corruption and its failure to look after the
farmers, workers and retirees it had pledged to serve."  Would
Zhou Wei be a better example?  I posted an article a few days
later about Huang Qi, who was arrested for running a web site
with articles about the 1989 massacres during the Tiananmen
protests.

If you step back and look at the big picture you will see that
the differences between Zhang Shanguang and Zhou Wei and Huang Qi
are not fundamental.  The main difference, for me, is that I had
never heard of the later two when I made a post, in December 1998
titled: "Zhang Shanguang and the struggle for information freedom
in China" on the Leninist-International email list.  This post
then kicked off a series of exchanges with Henry Liu who said
that Zhang Shanguang is guilty of "treasonous conspiracy with
hostile foreign forces" and that I was pretending to be a
leftist.

And if we examine the arguments that have been used by my
opponents--we will see that they likewise are not focused on
Zhang Shanguang as an individual.  Louis Paulsen (from the
Workers' World Party) and Néstor argued that I shouldn't talk
about Zhang Shanguang unless I first jumped thru a series of
hoops that involved focusing on him as an individual (ie: finding
and translating his writings and getting statements from people
who know him).  Jumping thru these hoops would have been
completely impractical for me, within any realistic limit of
time--and furthermore, were not presented with sincerity.  The
significance of Zhang Shanguang is inseparable from the
principles that shape our attitudes to the massacre of thousands
of workers in 1989.  Here is how I put it in my reply to Louis
Paulsen:

> If you believe that China is socialist, have confidence
> in the Chinese ruling party and believe that the main
> enemy of the Chinese people is foreign imperialism
> --you are likely to believe that Zhang Shanguang is
> an imperialist pawn and belongs in jail.  On the other
> hand, if you believe that classes and class struggle still
> exist in China and that students and workers in their
> millions were right to protest the hypocrisy and
> corruption of the ruling party--and demand the
> democratic right of speech, press and association
> --you are likely to believe that Zhang Shanguang
> should be free.

                    *          *          *

Now here is my suggestion Macdonald.  The principles that I have
raised are fundamental and probably fairly far removed
from your current way of thinking.  While I would like to win you
over to them this is probably not very realistic, at least in the
short term.  What might be more realistic would simply be that
you give these questions some thought.  Let me know if you want
to reply to me and, if so, and I will stay around for a little
bit longer.

My previous post, to which you replied, made reference to two
posts [3] that I wrote in response to Louis Paulsen and Vladimir
Bilenkin.  Of the various criticisms that were made of my series
on Zhang Shanguang, these were the only two that I considered
serious.  If you would like to reply to me I suggest that you
first read these two posts.  I believe that they are highly
relevant to your views.  And I would like to know your opinion of
them.  In particular I am interested in your opinion of my reply
to Vladimir titled: "Will democratic rights undermine China's
struggle against imperialism?"  Vladimir had presented the
arguments against me that, in my view, had the greatest depth and
I made the greatest effort to reply to Vladimir.  This is also
the post that, due to a decision by Néstor that I remain
convinced is profoundly mistaken, subscribers to L-I have never
been allowed to see.


Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,

Ben Seattle
----//-// 18.Sep.2000
www.Leninism.org

     ========================================================
     Read "Notes of an Information Theorist"
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Watch Ben apply the tactics of "information war"
     (characterized by intelligent listening and calm,
     scientific argument) to help transform the marxism space
     into a powerful weapon against bourgeois rule.
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/theorist/
     To subscribe: theorist-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
     ========================================================


---[1]---

The movie "Burn!" (also released as "Quemada" and "Queimada") is
discussed here:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0064866

---[2]---


   http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives
   /bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter9.html
   (the URL above has been broken up)

---[3]---

I have created a page dealing with the principles related to the
imprisonment of Zhang Shanguang.  It can be seen at:
http://Leninism.org/stream/99/zhang/intro.asp

Two of the key posts that I made (in reply to
Louis Paulsen and Vladimir Bilenkin) are as follows:

Subject: Zhang Shanguang and the principles of our recovery
             (reply to Louis Paulsen)
Date:    Tuesday, June 29, 1999
http://Leninism.org/stream/99/zhang/7principles.asp

Subject: Will democratic rights undermine
         China's struggle against imperialism?
         (reply to Vladimir)
Date:    Thursday, July 08, 1999
http://Leninism.org/stream/99/zhang/0708-bensea-vb.asp

<>