Re: Against existing " socialist contry"

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

MIYACHI TATSUO, is this an accurate translation of pen-l: 23629? Reply to
follow in separate comment.


I think that Roemer's limit is about money. He doesn't refer to abolish
money.

In " Critique of the Gotha programme" Marx point out that in socialist
society exchange through (using?) money does not exist.

MIYACHI TATSUO
9-10.OHTAI, MORIYAMA-KU
NAGOYA CITY
463-0044

JAPAN
miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx
Comrade
There are many debate about market socialism, economic character of
Cuba, evaluation of Roemer, etc.

We (BUND a faction of new left) have already defined the present world as
"Transitional world," which includes defining existing "socialist, or
communist"
country as transitional country toward socialism, and capitalist countries as
credit capital countries, which begins contradictory evolution towards
association society. Therefore, our definition does not recognize any
socialist
countries existed.

Below is published in 1978 in order to summarize critique of USSR& China
party. It can go under current situation.

MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
JOHBUSHI, 1-20
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre
JAPAN
0568-76-4131
miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx


study of the criticism against the " gang of the Four" by the Chinese
Communist Party

A. Criticism by Wu Lien

The china-Soviet dispute can be traced back to the 20th convention pf the
CPSU in 1956, but it did not become public until 1963. The CCP formed a
different view on distribution according to labor from that of the CPSU in
the
process of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of
socialistic reform by enlargement of people's communes.
This unique view has much to do with the problem whether there are classes
and class struggle, whether there is a need for proletarian dictatorship in a
socialist society, and particularly in China and also whether socialism is a
reality
in present Soviet or Chinese society.

Wu Lien's article which was published in 1960 in " the study of
economics; no. 5 "defines socialist society as a transitional society from
the view-point that in a socialist society there are classes, "two roads",
and a need for the power of the proletarian dictatorship.

 Wu Lien argue that the whole process of transformation from a capitalist
society to a higher stage of communist society is the transitional period
and, therefore, so is the socialist society which is the first stage of
communism.

(Wu Lien does not emphasize the necessity of the proletariat
dictatorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared
the dissolution of the proletarian dictatorship and the establishment of
" the whole people's state" at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October,
961).

Wu Lien's argument confronted the revisionist nature of Khrushchev's
policy in the 20th Congress of the CPSU where the general move from a
socialist society to a higher state of communism was discussed, and it
became a weapon of criticism against the dissolution of the proletarian
dictatorship at the 22nd Congress.

Wu Lien's understanding on distribution according to labor is, however,
based on a subjective interpretation of "the birth-marks of the old society"
and "bourgeois right" described in " Critique of the Gotha Programme".
The criticism by the CCP in the China-Soviet is politically correct, but
some subjective interpretation in it should be corrected.

In "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx's description of socialist
society states that it is "...still stamped with the birthmarks of the
old society from whose womb it emerges "
 Wu Lien in turn, depicts "the birth-marks of the old society" as
follows.

      "This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the
socialist production relationship. First, in the field of possession of
production means, although economic ownership by all the people has done
away with bourgeois right in relation to production means, due to the
influence of the socialist material interest principle, there is an
incentive wage system in national corporations, in which a small portion of
the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee to individuals,
and here a bourgeois right is retained. At the same time, at a certain stage
of socialism i.e. at an undeveloped stage, there are two types of joint
ownership-economic ownership by all the people and socialist collective
ownership. Socialist collective ownership is what negates private ownership,
and there production means are basically public-owned and no exploitation is
allowed... Collective ownership is, however, a transitional forms of
economy from private possession to economic ownership by all the people, and
when compared to economic ownership by all the people, it has quite a few
remnants and traces of private ownership. This is because members of a
commune still have their own holdings of land and their tools-avocations.
Collective economy itself still has traces of private ownership. That is,
in collective ownership common property is still low and its scope is
limited. Here again a bourgeois right has been retained.

       "Secondly, in human relationships in the process of labor, there is
basically no antagonism between people, but it is impossible to sweep away
all the influences of the old customs, to establish communistic equal
relationships overnight, and there is also a difference between industry and
agriculture, between a city and a framing village, between manual labor and
brain labor. Due to this difference, whereas socialist distribution has
become common distribution under collective production, distribution of
personal consumer goods is still based on the scale of quantity of labor
given by each worker, and still embodies the principle of equivalent
exchange; here again a bourgeois tight is retained."

As quoted above, Wu Lien cites three examples of "the birth-marks of the
old society" in socialist society and calls them " bourgeois rights". The
first one is the incentive wage system in national corporations distributing
their profits. The second one is holdings of land or lack of common
property in the collective ownership economy. The third one is distribution
according to labor.

The first and second ones are no other than traces of the old society
present in today's China, but distribution according to labor defined by
Marx has not yet been realized either in the USSR or China. Hence, to regard
these three indiscriminately as traces of bourgeois right is confusing.

  The confusion is based on the fact that Wu Lien grasps the present Chinese
society as that of the first stage of communism. As a result, traces of the
old society in today's China are understood as " the birth-marks of the old
society" in the socialist society as the as the first stage of communism,
and, in the field of distribution, what is in practice a wage system is
defined as distribution according to labor.

   This confusion lead Wu Lien to come to state as follows;

"As we understand, the bourgeois right is in its full sense private
ownership, that is, ownership pf commodities."

In his "Critique of the Gotha Programme, describing distribution in the
first stage of communism, Marx points out, " In the cooperative society
based on common ownership of the means of production, a producer does not
exchange his product."  Accordingly, it is evident that the socialist society
in Marx's mind is not a society like today's USSR or China where the
exchange of commodities still exists. Distribution according to labor in a
society where commodity exchange is extinct is defined as " a bourgeois
right in principle"(ibid,) because " when personal consumption means are
distributed among individual producers, the ruling principle is the same as
that of exchange of equivalent value-one from of labor is exchanged for
another form of labor of the same value,"(ibid)

 In short, distribution according to labor is ruled by the same law that
rules the exchange of commodities, and a right in this distribution is
"accompanied by a bourgeois limitation," This is why Marx called it " the
birth-marks of the old society" and a " bourgeois right."

   Distribution according to labor is, therefore, completely different from
the wage system in the USSR or China under which a worker is ranked
according to the quantity of his labor and by the money he receives with
which he purchases from the state materials for consumption as commodities.

   As Wu Lien grasped the wage systems of China as distribution according to
labor, he took bourgeois right for ownership of commodities, and by so
doing, he took Marx's " the birth-marks of the old society" for remnants of
the old society of China, exchange of commodities and profits.
Distribution according to labor was also taken for a remnant of the old
society in China.

   "Distribution in a socialist society is, on the one hand, common
distribution under communist collective production. Each worker must work
for the society according to his ability; and all the products belongs to the
worker as a whole, are distributed collectively and systematically.  A part
of the products (surplus products) is distributed according to the needs of
the society. All these points in socialist distribution are communist
elements.
On the other hand, considering the fact consumer goods are distributed by
the measure of labor, the principle of equivalent exchange still persists,
and it is not a characteristic of socialism but a trace of bourgeois right."

 The above is Wu Lien's statement concerning bourgeois right. He
understands that, in socialist distribution, collective and systematic
distribution, and distribution according to the needs of the society are
communist elements, but that distribution of personal consumption materials
according to labor, and call the former communist.  But his theory perverts
the meaning " according to needs " in a higher stage of communist society.
It is not what co-exists with distribution according to labor, but what is
far beyond it.

    Nevertheless, it must be seen that Wu lien's view reflects the
distribution policy of the CCP in the transitional period. He describes the
wage policy of China as follows;

    "In a wage system, the policy is to emphasize payment by the hour
rather than a piece wage and to increase the welfare of the groups.
Besides this, in farming villages distribution is done by the
combination of a wage system, which is mainly recompense according to labor,
and a rationing system, which is distribution according to the needs in
embryo. These systems have already in part broken the frame of bourgeois
right, and with the development of production and the awakening of the
people and the public, will break it up further."

 Wu Lien regards the wage system as distribution to labor and the
rationing system as that according to need in the present Chinese
distribution system. And he suggests that to increase the latter is to break
the bourgeois right.

  As was discussed before though the wage system in the transitional period
is essentially different from wage slavery in a capitalist society. It is
based on the economic development stage where there exists commodity
production and various kinds of labor forces can be produced by giving s
worker a different amount of material for consumption. Therefore, what part
is by rationing and what part by wage is decided by various conditions of
production, and the Chinese rationing system is no longer than a part of
wage system. Distribution according to labor will be realized in a future
stage of economic development when the reproduction ability of various facets
of the labor force will decide the amount of consumer goods for each worker,
and it will mean the extinction of the wage system.  Even if there is a
difference in the amount of consumer goods, it will not brought about by the
economic need to ensure a variety in the labor force.

  The reason Wu Lien represented the ruling opinion of the CCP is that in the
transitional period the Chinese economy to a large extent was not modernized
in the field of industry and agriculture, and it was a historical period
when most of the producers were of about equal quality as the labor force.

  B Yao-yuan's point of view

 In "The Social Basis for Lin Piao's Anti-party Group"(Peking weekly, no, 11
1975), Yao Wen-yuan states " the existence of bourgeois right is an
important economic basis for producing new bourgeois elements" and
elaborates as follows;

"In a socialist society, there still are two types of joint
ownership-economic ownership by all the people and socialist collective
ownership. Due to this, what we have is the commodity system.  Both the
analyses of Lenin and Chairman Mao tell us that bourgeois rights which
inevitably exists in the fields of distribution and exchange must be
restricted under the proletarian dictatorship, and that any so doing we must
reduce the three main differences and class differences, and must endeavor to
create material and spiritual conditions for them in the long process of the
socialist revolution."

Yao Wen-yuan regards the remnants of the old society in socialism as the
"commodity system" and it follows that bourgeois rights in the field of
distribution and exchange is an inevitable result of existing " commodity
system". He shares the idea with Wu Lien that the remnant of the old
society in present China are bourgeois rights, but he takes a more radical
view about restricting them.

This radical view is the result of the China-Soviet dispute. While the CPSU
maintain at the 22nd Congress that the Soviet Union had established the
first stage of communism and there was no longer a need for the proletarian
dictatorship, and that it has become the whole people's state, the CCP argued
that the proletarian dictatorship needed to exist in the whole process from a
capitalist society to a higher stage of communist society and that there is
class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat in a socialist society.

  The CCP tightly exposed Khrushchev's revisionism by maintaining that "
every socialist country should hold fast to the proletarian dictatorship"(The
dispute of General road in the International Communist Movement). It did not
however succeed sufficiently with a theoretical criticism of Khrushchev's
revisionism.

   What the CCP should have criticized is Khrushchev's claim that the USSR
has
realized socialism. The USSR has not yet established a socialist society, but
still is in the transitional period from capitalism to the first stage of
socialism and there is, therefore, the need for proletarian dictatorship.

   The CCP, however, criticized Khrushchev from the standpoint that the
proletarian dictatorship should exist in socialism, and thus brought about
confusion and revision in the communist theory of Marx-Leninism.

   The CCP, in claiming the necessity of class struggles between the
bourgeois and proletariat in a socialist society, needed to clarify the
ground for the appearance of a bourgeois class in the production
relationship of a socialist society, which had been presented by Marx. And it
found the ground in bourgeois rights-the birthmarks of the old society.

   Wu Lien thought it was impossible to eliminate bourgeois rights, and he
expected that any increasing distribution according to need, it would be
possible to realize the transition to a higher stage of communism.
Yao-Wen-yuan, on the other hand, interpreted bourgeois right as elements and
therefore, they should be restricted. He describes the appearance of
bourgeois element as follows;

 "A minority controls goods and money through certain legal routes of
distribution and through many illegal routes. This " material stimulation"
will induce the capitalist to think of money making and profit earning, the
possibility pf converting public property to private ownership, speculation,
corruption, theft, and bribery.

  "The principle of capitalist commodity exchange will invade political life
and intra-party life, and the planned economy of socialism will collapse.
Capitalist exploitation by converting commodities and money into capital and
making labor power commodities will appear, and in departments and unites
in which revisionism is practiced, the character of ownership will change
and the state of suppressing and exploiting the working people will reappear.
As the result, from among party members, workers, rich farmers, and
bureaucrats of governmental organization, will appear a few bourgeois
elements and upstarts who will betray the proletarian class and working
people." (Ibid)

 This phenomenon is what is happening in present Chinese society and is
what is inevitable in the transitional period. The party must fight against
these bourgeois elements with the proletarian dictatorship. What Yao-Wen-yuan
describes is this struggle, but he does not understand that this is normal
in the transitional period from capitalism to the first stage of communism,
and thus he takes it for class struggle against the bourgeois elements as
the struggle against bourgeois rights which will exist in a future socialist
society.

   Yao Wen-Yuan developed Wu Lien's theory, but they both still share a
common misunderstanding. What they defined as distribution according to
labor is in reality the wage system of the transitional period.  The wage
system is inevitable in a proletarian dictatorship state such as China where
modernization of industry and agriculture is necessary, and the differences
expressed in the system are determined by economic need to obtain a variety
in the labor force. It is incorrect to regard " materialistic interest" as a
socialist element as Khrushchev did, but it is necessary to from material
pre-conditions to aid in developing socialistic elements.

   As Yao-Wen-yuan did, to regard the wage system as distribution according
to labor and to need " materialistic interest" in the name of restricting
bourgeois right will negate the economic elements necessary for forming the
material preconditions of the development of socialist elements, and will
, thus, be against the economic development of ht society in the transitional
period.  The Chinese theory of class struggle played a definite role in
criticizing Khrushchev's revisionism, but with its limited revision of
Marx-Leninism, it failed to combine the economic development of socialist
elements. This was expressed politically by the downfall of the " Gang of the
Four"


 B. The conversion in China

   1. Criticism of the " Gang of the Four" in compliance with the " Four
Modernization

 The new interpretation of distribution according to labor by the CCP
was published in Peking Weekly (no, 7 and no.31.1978)
 In no.7, Li pang-lin interprets bourgeois rights as stated by Marx in
his " Critique of the Gotha Programme as follows;

 " that it indicates only the exchange of equivalent labor is clear. In
a capitalist society, everything is commodity and exchange of commodity is
ruled by the exchange of equivalent labor. In a socialist society, too,
distribution of material for personal consumption is ruled by the same
principle. Marx described it only from this point as bourgeois rights in
principle."

In this interpretation Li Pang-lin criticizes the claim by the " gang of
the four" that " bourgeois right (i.e., distribution according to labor) is
the way to produce the bourgeois class."

 Yao Wen-yuan grasped bourgeois right not only in distribution according to
labor, but also in the commodity system in general, but Li-Pang-lin
disregards this and concentrates on proving that bourgeois rights in
distribution according to labor does not produce bourgeois elements.

  Li-Pang-lin maintains that bourgeois elements in a socialist society are
"not produced by distribution according to labor, but they appear through
speculation, corruption, and theft or by speculation on collective or
personal property through various illegal privileges"

 In opposition to the view that bourgeois elements are produced by saving a
part of the wage and
speculating with it as capital, LI objects by stating, "speculation with
wages saved cannot be blamed on the principle of distribution according to
labor." He concludes that the "economic system of socialism, distribution
according to labor, is absolutely not the ground for producing
bourgeois elements."

 In an article in the Peking-Weekly (no.31), a reviewer of the People's
Daily further develops Li-Pang- lin's view. He first states the influence
of the " Gang of Four" as follows;

"They caused great confusion by falsely maintaining that distribution
according to labor is theoretically "practice revisionism" and " to
resurrect capitalism." Due to their accusation some of our comrades
questioned whether it is necessary to practice distribution according to
labor in the period of socialism. In the field of practice, the "Gang of the
Four " tried to disturb and destroy the practice of distribution according
to labor. And they even tried to negate all the efficiency wages and
material incentives and also time wages."

It is very clear what the opposition around the distribution according to
labor was. It was whether to introduce efficiency wages and material
incentives. The "Gang of the Four" were against them from the point of
restricting bourgeois rights and the review's article defend them on the
ground that bourgeois rights do not produce bourgeois elements.
The reviewer's article gives a new interpretation to the " Critique of the
Gotha Programme" and criticizes the view of the " Gang of the Four". He
gives a frank opinion about the characteristics of the lower stages of a
communist society and the achievements of real Chinese society.
He first confirms that " In the first stage pf a communist society in
Marx's ideal, there will no longer be commodity production and exchange
through money" and then criticize the " Gang of the Four" by stating that"
nobody can say that there still exists a bourgeois class or capitalism in
such a society."

 He describes the present development stage of Chinese society and the
ground for the appearance of bourgeois elements in it as follows;

 "Our present society, of course, has not reached the first stage of
communism depicted by Marc. This is due to the fact that we still have
commodity production and exchange through money in our society, and also
there are classes and class struggle, and newly born bourgeois and capitalist
elements, but this fact does not strengthen the logic of the " Gang of the
Four". This is because, first, though out present society has not reached
the first stage of communism, this fact does not imply that the socialist
principle of distribution according to labor is capitalistic. Secondly, in
our present society there exists newly-born bourgeois elements and
capitalistic factors, but they do not appear from socialistic production
relationship, nor from the socialistic principle of distribution according to
labor, which have emerged from the destruction of the socialistic production
and distribution according to labor (ibid) "

The reviewer's article has drastically changed the Chinese socialist theory
which had been consistent since Wu Lien's article. CCP's socialist theory
since Wu Lien has been to define real Chinese society as that of socialism,
to regard the remnants of old society there as the bourgeois rights described
in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" and, by so doing, to justify the
existence of bourgeois rights and class struggle in a socialist society.
Accordingly, Marx's assumption that a socialist society has no commodity
production or class has been negated.  The reviewer's
article however accepts Marx's assumption and admits that Chinese society
has not reached this level i.e. socialist society.

  Theoretically, The CCP'S theory of socialism since Wu Lien's is wrong and
the reviewer's article is correct.   But the latter neglects the fact that
the former had been formed through the struggle against Khrushchev's
revisionism and had played the part of a weapon in the factional struggle
against revisionism, and, therefore, it cannot rightly summarize previous
theories of socialism. As a result, the reviewer's article is not different
from the revisionist theory.

   On the top of that, there is a decisively important confusing point in
the article. If the reviewer admits that in Marx's assumption that commodity
production and classes are extinct in a socialist society and that Chinese
society has not reached that development stage yet, it is a contradiction to
claim that distribution according to labor is practiced in present Chinese
society which Marx applied to the production relationship in the first
stage of communism. If he tried to stand completely on Marx's theory, he
should state that distribution according to labor has not been realized in
China and still is a goal to attain.   And this ambiguity is the reason for
its unconvincing criticism of the " Gang of the Four" and its vague
difference from revisionism.

    If the reviewer states that distribution according to labor has been
realized in China and deducts " materialistic interest" from this
distribution principle, it is the same as Khrushchev's revisionism. In
present China, it is necessary to organize "materialistic interest" and to
maintain certain wage differences. But this necessity does not come from
distribution according to labor. It is necessary to realize, in the
transitional period, that modernization of industry and agriculture is
needed for the development toward a socialist society. The necessity to
organize "materialistic interest" is determined by economic need for
modernization and for the increase of labor productivity. It depend on the
CCP's policy whether this modernization and the increase of labor
productivity will be utilized for the development of socialistic elements. If
it deduces this economic need from the principle of distribution according
to labor and claims it to be a socialistic element, the CCP like the
CPSU cannot develop socialistic elements through modernization and
increase of labor activity.

    C. Criticism of revisionism in the new policy

 As Marx states" at all times, distribution of consumer goods is merely
the result of division of production conditions themselves"(Critique of the
Gotha Programme). Accordingly, it is incorrect to organize the communist
movement by means of the distribution problem. When we evaluate the
societies of Russia and China today, however, the analysis of distribution
of consumer goods is useful in that it throws light on the reality of
division of production conditions. In these state-owned economies, what
determines the character of a society is the relationship between the
state, which owns the production means, and the immediate producer, and this
relationship and the policies of the party regulates each other.

     The party, which leads the class struggle in the transitional period,
need to recognize accurately the economic laws of the state-owned economy of
the transitional period and the practice of the party and of the
proletariat.  This task is fulfilled when it bases itself on Marx-Leninism
and summarizes the practice of the party and the proletariat correctly.

     Stalin looked on nationalization of production means in industry and
the formation of collective ownership in agriculture as completion of
socialist reformation in ownership, and prescribed that the USSR had reached
the first stage of communism. Due to this definition, he was forced to come
up with a new theory that allowed commodity production and value law in a
socialist society, and thus he revised the Marx's view of communist society.

     Khrushchev enlarged Stalin's revision further, and it became a
tool to claim that bourgeois elements in USSR society were communistic
elements.

     We have endeavored to expose Stalin and Khrushchev's revisionism on
distribution according to labor by clarifying the change of the CPSU
definition about the wage system in the USSR. This revisionism turns black
into white in every field of USSR society, by giving the name " all the
people's state" to the bourgeois character of the USSR state which oppress
the proletariat and ethnic groups, and beautifies the economic slavery of the
producers who are alienated from co-ownership of the state-owned production
means through the deterioration of the party and the state as " socialistic
possession."

 The CCP criticized Khrushchev's revisionism and claimed that there
still would be remnants of the old society after socialistic reform of
ownership and that there would be class struggle between bourgeois and
proletariat in a socialist society and therefore there was a need for the
dictatorship of the proletarian. This claim was further developed in the
process of the Great Cultural Revolution as a criticism against Liu
Shao-Chi policy. We can't attain complete victory of socialism only by
socialist reformation of production means ownership, but we must struggle
against bourgeois remnants in human relationships and in the field of
distribution.

       However, state ownership and collective ownership of production means
is the starting point of socialist ownership, and not the completion of it.

   The CCP rightly insisted on the struggle against bourgeois remnants in
human relationships and in the field of distribution, but it could not
accept the limits of Stalin doctrine, which regarded state-and-collective
ownership as the completion of socialist ownership. When the " Gang og the
Four" criticized the " Four modernizaiton and insisted on the "
restriction of bourgeois rights", that is in reality, imperialism, that
based it on the view that socialistic reformation in human relationships and
in the field of distribution.  The CCP has advocated the " Four
modernization" after the downfall of the " Gang of the Four", but cannot
tightly criticize their errors and thus tends to be revisionist.   In
order to develop socialistic elements through the " Four Modernization", the
CCP needs to criticize Stalin's doctrine of socialism, and must ovetcome its
own limitations that criticism against Khrushchev by the CCP, especially
Mao Tse-tong, has been based on Stalin's doctrine.

   Nationalization and collective ownership does not mean the completion of
socialistic reform of ownership. Socialistic ownership is nothing else than
common ownership pf producers, and state and collective ownership is what
must be further reformed toward this.   In China, the " Four
Modernizations " and the development of production power based on them is
the premise of this further reformation. The " Gang of the Four" could not
grasp correctly the role of production power, because they clung to the
dogma that the reform of ownership had been completed, and by doing so they
confined production power within the frame of the state and collective
ownership.

   In order to reform this ownership in the direction of common ownership of
producers, there must be the material premise of the " Four Modernization"
and the development of production power, and there also needs to be communist
policies of the party.

   After the downfall of the " Gang of the Four", the economic development
stage of China made it necessary for the CCP to adopt " material interest"
in order to realize the "Four Modernization".  But it is revisionism to
derive this "material interest" from the socialist principle of
distribution according to labor and to define it as a socialist element.
This revisionism must be severely criticized.

    Whether the " Four Modernization" leads to the development of socialistic
element or to the resurrection of capitalist element the CCP, to take the
first step must criticize Stalin's doctrine of socialism, recover that of
Marxism and conquer the Stalinist limitation of Maoism.