PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[PEN-L:28415] Reformism and revolutionary transitional period
- To: "pen l galaxy.csuchico.edu" <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [PEN-L:28415] Reformism and revolutionary transitional period
- From: miychi <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:44:24 +0900
- User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2615
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 untill 1963. The CCP formed a
different view on distribution acording to labor from tha of the CPSU in the
rocess of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of
socialistic reform by enlargement of pepole’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 dictorship in a
socialist society, and particularly in China whether socialism is a reality
in present Soviet or Chinese society.
Wu Lien’s artic;e which was published inj 1960 in “ the study of
economics; no.5” defines socialist society as a transitional society from
the view-point that in a scoalist society there are classes, “two roads”,
and a need for the power of tge proletarian dictorship.
Wu Lien argue thqat 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
dictorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared
the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship 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
dictorship at the 22nd Congress.
Wu Lien’s understanding on distribution accroding to labor is, however,
based on a subjective interpretation of “ the birth-marks of the old scoety”
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 "
Wo Lien in turn, depicts "the birth-marks ofn the old scociety" as
follows.
『 This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the
socialisy production relationship. First, in the field of possession of
production means ,althoguh economic ownership by all the people has done
away with bourgeois right in ralation to production means,due to the
influence of the socialist material interest principle , there is an
incentive wage system in national coroporations, in which a small portion of
the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee ot individulals,
and here a bourgoies right is retained. At th same tome ,ata certaion stage
of socialism i.e. at an unddeceloped stage, there are two types of joint
ownership-economic ownership by all th4 people and socialist collective
owbership. Socialist collective ownersgip 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
remnents and traces of private ownership. This is because members of a
commune still have their own holdings of land and their tools-avocations.
Collecitive 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 bourgoris right has been retained.
Secondaly, in human relationships n 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 ovetnight, and there is also a diffrence between industry and
agriculture, between a city and a framing village, between manual labor and
brain labor. Due to this diffrenece, whereas socialist distribution has
become common distirubution under collective production, distribution of
personal comsumer 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 bourgoeis tight is retained.』
As quoted above, Wu Lien cites three exapmles of " the birth-marks of the
old society" in socialist society and calls them " bourgeis rights". The
first one is the incentive wage system in national corporations distributing
their profits. The secomd one is holdings of land or lack of common
property in the collective ownership economy. The third one is distribution
according labor.
The first and second ones are no other than traces of the old society
present in today's China, but distirubution according to labor defined by
marx has not yet been realized either in the USSR or Chin. Hence, to regard
these three indiscirimately as traces of bourgeois right is cunfusing.,
The confusuin is based on the fact that Wu Lien grasp the present Chinese
society as that of the first stage of vommunism. 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
difined as distribution according to labor.
This confusion lead Wu Lien to come to state as follows;
『 As we undserstand, the bourgoeis right is in its fulll sense private
ownership, that is, ownership pf vommodities.』
In his "Critique of the Gotha Programme, describing distribution in the
first stage of of comminism, Marx points out, " In the cooperative society
based on common ownership of the means of production, a pruducer does not
exchage his product" Accrodingly, it is evident that the socialist society
in Marx's mind is not a society like today's USSR ot China where the
exchange of commodities still exists. Distribution accroding to labor in a
society where commodity exchange is extinct is defined as " a bourgeois
right in principle"(ibd,) because " when personal consumption means are
distributed amonf 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, didtribution 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 bourgoeis limiation," This is why Marx called it " the
birth-marks of the old society" and a " bourgoeis right"
Distirubition accroding to labor is , therefore, comletely different from
the wage system in the USSR ot China under which a worker is ranked
acccording 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 accroding to
labor, he took bouegoeis 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.
『 Distiribution in a socialsit society is , on the one hand, common
distribution under communist collective production. Each worker must work
for the society according his ability; and all the products belongs to the
worker as a whole, are distrubited collectively and systematically. A part
of ther products( sueplus pruducts) is distributed accroding to the needs of
the society. All thse poits i sovialist 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 staemnet concerning bourgeois right. He
undetstands that, in socialsit distribution, collective and systematic
distribution, and distribution according to the needs of the sociey are
communist elements, but that distribution of oersonal consumption materials
according to labor, and call the former communist. BUt his theory perverts
the meaning " accroding 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 describs the
wage policy of China as follows;
『In a wage system , the polivy is yo 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
vombination of a wage system which is mainly a recompence according to labor
and a rationing system which is distribution according to thr needs in
embryo.. These systems have already in part broken the frame of bougeois
right, and with the development of pruduction 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 tyo need in the present Chinese
distribution system. And he suggests that to increase the latter is to break
the bourgeois right.
As was discussed beforem though the wage system in the transitiona period
is essentially diffrent from wage slavery in a capitalisy society. it is
based on the economic development stage where there exists commodity
production and vairous kinds of labor forces can be produced by giving s
worker a different amount of material for comsumption . Therefore, what part
is by rationing and what part by wage is dicided 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 developmet when the repoduction ability of various facets
of the labor forve 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 goos, it will not brought about by th
economic need to ensure a variety in tje labor force.
The reason Wu Lien reprsented 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"(Pekin weekly, no,11
1975), Yao Wen-yuan states " the exisistence of bourgeois right is an
important economic basis for producing new bourgeois elements" and
elabarates 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 tjat bourgeois rights which
inevitably exists in the fields of distribution and exchage must be
restricted under the prolrtarian dictorship, and that ny so doing we must
reduce the three main diffrences and class differences, and must endeavor to
create material and spiritual conditions for tjem 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
ditribution and exchange is an inevitable result of existing " commodity
system". He shares the idea with Wu Lien that ther 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 prolertarian
dictorship, and that it has become the whole people's state, the CCP argued
that the proletarian dictorship needed to exist in the whole process from a
capitalist sovieity 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 manintaining that "
every socialist country should hold fast to the proletarian dictorship"( The
dispute of General road in the International Cummunist Movement). It did not
,however succeed sufficietly with a theoretical critisism og Khrushchev's
revisionism.
What the CCP sould have criticized is Khrushchv's claim that the USSR has
realized socialim. The USSR has not yet established a socialist society, but
still is in the transitional period from capitalism to ther first stage of
socialism,.and there is , therefore, the need for proletarian dictorship.
The CCP, however ,criticized Khrushvhev from the standpoint that the
proletarian dictotship souid exist in socialism, and thus brought about
confusion and revision in the communist theory of Marx-Leninism.
The CCP, in claimimg the necessity of class struggles between the
bourgeois and proletariat in a socialsit society, needed to clalify the
ground for the the appearance of a bourgoies class in the production
relationship of a socialist society which had been presented by Marx. And it
found the ground in bourgeois rights-the birth-marks of th old society.
Wu Lien thouht it was impossible to elimminate bourgoeis rights, and he
expected that ny invreasing distribution according yo need, it would be
possible to realize the transtion to a higher stage of communism.
Yao-Wen-yuan, on the other hand, interpreted bourgoies right as elements and
, therefore, they should be restricted. He describes th eappearnce of
vourgeios 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 prifrit earning, tje
possibility pf converting public property to private ownership, speculation.
corruption. theft, and bribery,
The princple of caitalist commodity exchage 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 commoditiesw 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 reapear.
As the result, from among patry 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,(ibd)
This phenomena is what is happening in present chinese society and is
what is inevitable in the transitional period. The partty must fight against
these bourgeiois elements with the proletarian dictorship. What Yao-Wen-yuan
describes is this struggle, but he does not undetstand 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 bourgeios elements as
the struggle against bourgeois rights which will exist in a future socialist
socieity.
Yao Wen-Yuan developed Wu Lien's theory, but they boyj still share a
common misunderstanding. What they defined as distribution accroding to
labor is in reality the wage system pf the transitional period. The wage
system is inevitable in a proletarian dictorship state such as China where
modernizaition of industry and agriculture is necessary, and the differences
expressed in the system are determined by ecnomic neeed 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 nesessary to from material
pre-conditions to aid in developimg socialistic elements.
As Yao-Wen-yuan did, tomregard the wage system as distribution accroding
to labor and to ngate " materialistic interest" in the name of restrivting
bourgeois right will negate the economic elements nesesary for formimg 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 sturggle played a definite role in
criticizing Khrushchev's revsionism, but with its limited revision of
Marx-Leninism, it failed to combine the economic development of socialist
elements. This was expressed politically the dawonfal of the " Gang of the
Four"
B. The conversion in China
1. critisism of the " Gang of the Four" in compliance eith the " Four
Modernization
The new interpretation of distribution according to labor by the CCP
was published in Pekin Weekly(no,7 and no.31.1978)
In no.7, Li pang-lin interpterets 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, evrything is commodity and exchange of commodity is
ruled by the exchange of equinalent 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 critisizes the claim by the " gang of
the four" that " bourgeois right(i.e.. distribution according to labor) is
the way to pruduce the bourgeois class"
Yao Wen-yuan grasped bourgeois right not only in didtribution according to
kabor, but also in the commodity system inj general, but Li-Oang-lin
disregards this and concentrates on proving that bourgeois rights in distrib
ution according tyo labor does not produce bourgeois elements.
Li-Oang-lin maintains that bourgeois elements in a socialsit society are "
not produced by distribution according to labot, but they appear through
speculation, corruption, and theft or by speculation on collevtive ort or
oersonal property through various illegal privileges" In oppsition yo the
view that bourgeois elements are pruduced by saving a part of the wage and
speculating with it as capital. LI objects by stating that" speculation with
wages saved can not be blamed on the principle of distribution according to
labor" He concludes that the " economic system od socialsm, distruibution
according to labor,is not absolutely not the ground for the pruducing
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 thr 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 socialsm. Im the field of practice, the "Gang of the
Four " tried to distube and destory the prectice of distribution according
to labor. And they evene tried to negate all the efficiency wages and
material incentives and also time wages.』
It is very clear what the opposition around the distiribution 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 yo the " Critique of the
Gotha Programme" and criticizes the view od the " Gang og the Four". He
gives a frank oplinion about the characteristics of the lower stages of a
communist society and the acheivements of real Chinese society.
He first confrims 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 critisize 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 oresent development stage of Cinese society and the
ground for the appearance of bourgeois elements in it as follows;
『Our oresent society, of course, has not reached the first stage of
communism depicted by Marc. This is due to to the fact that we still have
commodity production and exchange throutgh 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 bourgoeois elements and
capitalistic factors, but they do not appear from socialistic pruduction
relationship,nor from the socialistic princple of distribution according to
labor, Thet have emerged from the destruction of th socialistic production
and distribution accordinf to labor(ibd) 』
The reviewer's articlehas drastically changed ther Chinese socialist theory
which had been consistent since Wu Lien's article. CCP's socialist theory
since Wu Lien has been to difene real Chinese society as that of socialismn,
to regard the remnants of old society there as the bouegois rights described
in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" and, by so doing, tyo justify the
existence of bouegeois rights aned clasds sturuggle in a socialist society.
Acccoridngly, Marx's assupmtion 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 regarded this level i.e. socialist society.
Theoretically, The CCP'S thoery 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 benn formed through the sturggle against Khrushchev's
revisionism and had played the part of a weapon in ther factional struggle
against revisonism, and , therefore, it can not rightly summarize previous
theorie of socialism. As a result, the reviewr's article is not different
from the revisionist thoery.
On the top of that, there is a decisively important confusing point in
the article. If the reviewer admits that in Marx's assumtion that commdity
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 distrubution 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 accroding to labor has not been realiazed in
China and sitll is a goal to attain. And this ambiguity is the reason for
its unconvincing criticism of the " Gang pf the Four" and its vague
difference from revisionism.
If the reviewer states that distribution accoring to labor has bee
realized in China and deducts " materalistic interest" from this
distribuition principle, it is the same as Khrushchev's revisionism. In
present China, it is necessary to organiaze " materialistic interst" anf to
maintain certain wage differences. But this necessity does not come from
distrubution according to labor. It is necessqary to realize, in the
transitional period, that modermizaition 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
modernizaiton and for the increase of labor producctivity. It depend on the
CCP's plolicy whether this modernizaition and the increase of labor
productivity willbe utilized for the development of socialistic elements. If
it deduces this economic nedd from the principle of distrubution according
to labor and claims it to be a socialistic element, the CCP,like the
XPSU,can not develop socialistic ekements through modernizaition and
increase of labor activity.
C.criticism of tevisionism in the new policy
As marx states" at all times, distribution of consumer goods is merely
trhe resultof division of production conditions rhemselves"( Critique of the
Gotha Programme). Accrodingly, it is incorrect to organize the communist
movement by means of the distribution problem. When we evaluate the
societies of Russsia 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 socieity is the relationhsip betweeen the
state which owns the production means and the immediate producer, and this
relationhsip and the policies of the party regulates each other.
The party which leads the class sturggle 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 summarises the prectice of the party and the proletariat correcyly.
Stalin looked on nationalizaition of produciton means in industry and
ther 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.
Stalin's revision was enlarged further by Khrushchev, and it became a
tool to claim that bourgeois elements in USSR society were commmunistic
elements.
We have endevoured to expose Stalin's and Khrusgchev's revisonism on
distribution according to labor by claryfying the change of the CPSU's
dfefinition about the wage system in the USSR. This revisionism turns black
into wite inj 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 beutifies the economic slavery of the
pruducers who are alienated from co-ownership of the state-owned production
means through the deteriration of the party and the state as " socialistic
possession"
The CCP criticized Khrushcheve's revisionisim 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 thr
dictorship of the proletarian. This claim was further developed in thr
process of the Great Cutltural Revolution as a criticisim against Liu
Shao-Chi plolicy.; we can't attain complete victory of socialism only by
socialist reformation of production means ownership.,but we must struggle
against bourgeios 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 ofn
it.
The CCP rightly insisted on the struggle against bourgeois remnants in
human relationships and in the field of disdtribution, but it coud not
accept the limits of Stalin'S 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 "
restricttion of bourgeois rights", that is in reality, impartialism, thet
based it on the view that socialistic reformation in human relationships and
in the field of distribution.. The CCP has advocated the " Four
modernizaition" after the downfall of the " Gang of the Four", but cannnot
tightly criticize their errors and thus tends to be revisionistic. In
order to develop socialistic elements through the " Four Nodernization",the
CCP needs to criticize Stalin's doctrine of socialism, and must ovetcome its
own limitations that criticism against Khrushchec by the CCP, especially
Mao Tse-tong,has been based on Stalin's doctrine.
Natioanlizaition 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
Modernizaitions " and the development of production power based on them is
the premise of htis further reformation. The " Gang of the Four" could not
grasp correctly the role of production power, because they clung to to the
dogma that the reform of ownership had been completed, and by doing so they
confined productionpower 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 Modernizaition"
and the development of production power, and there 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 Modernizaition". But it is revisonism to
derive this " material interest" from the socialist principle of
disdtribution according to labor and to define it as a socialst element.
This revisionism must be severely criticized.
Whether the " Four Modernizaiton" lead sto the development of socialstic
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 Stalinistic limitation of Maoism.
miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx
--B_3110381064_74963tained.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!Y=1B(J<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva">As quoted above, Wu Lien cites three exapmles of=
" the birth-marks of the old society" in socialist society and ca=
lls them " bourgeis rights". The first one is the incentive wage s=
ystem in national corporations distributing their profits. The secomd =
one is holdings of land or lack of common property in the collective ownersh=
ip economy. The third one is distribution according labor.<BR>
The first and second ones are no other than traces of the old society=
present in today's China, but distirubution according to labor defined by m=
arx has not yet been realized either in the USSR or Chin. Hence, to regard t=
hese three indiscirimately as traces of bourgeois right is cunfusing.,<BR>
The confusuin is based on the fact that Wu Lien grasp the prese=
nt Chinese society as that of the first stage of vommunism. As a result, tra=
ces of the old society in today's China are understood as " the birth-m=
arks of the old society" in the socialist society as the as the first s=
tage of communism, and, in the field of distribution, what is in practice a =
wage system is difined as distribution according to labor.<BR>
This confusion lead Wu Lien to come to state as fol=
lows;<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!X=1B(J</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> As we undsers=
tand, the bourgoeis right is in its fulll sense private ownership, that is, =
ownership pf vommodities.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!Y=1B(J<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> <BR>
In his "Critique of the Gotha Programme, describing distribution=
in the first stage of of comminism, Marx points out, " In the cooperat=
ive society based on common ownership of the means of production, a pruducer=
does not exchage his product" Accrodingly, it is evident that th=
e socialist society in Marx's mind is not a society like today's USSR ot Chi=
na where the exchange of commodities still exists. Distribution accroding to=
labor in a society where commodity exchange is extinct is defined as "=
a bourgeois right in principle"(ibd,) because " when personal con=
sumption means are distributed amonf individual producers, the ruling princi=
ple is the same as that of exchange of equivalent value-one from of labor is=
exchanged for another form of labor of the same value,"(ibid)<BR>
In short, didtribution according to labor is ruled by the same =
law that rules the exchange of commodities, and a right in this distribution=
is "accompanied by a bourgoeis limiation," This is why Marx=
called it " the birth-marks of the old society" and a " bour=
goeis right"<BR>
Distirubition accroding to labor is , therefore, comletel=
y different from the wage system in the USSR ot China under which a worker i=
s ranked acccording to the quantity of his labor and by the money he receive=
s with which he purchases from the state materials for consumption as commod=
ities.<BR>
As Wu Lien grasped the wage systems of China as distribut=
ion accroding to labor, he took bouegoeis right for ownership of commodities=
, and by so doing, he took Marx's " the birth-marks of the old society&=
quot; for remnants of the old society of China , exchange of commoditi=
es and profits. Distribution according to labor was also taken for a remnant=
of the old society in China.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!X=1B(J</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> D=
istiribution in a socialsit society is , on the one hand, common distr=
ibution under communist collective production. Each worker must work for the=
society according his ability; and all the products belongs to the worker a=
s a whole, are distrubited collectively and systematically. A part of =
ther products( sueplus pruducts) is distributed accroding to the needs of th=
e society. All thse poits i sovialist distribution are communist elements. O=
n 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=
.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!Y=1B(J<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> The above is Wu Lien's staemnet con=
cerning bourgeois right. He undetstands that, in socialsit distribution, col=
lective and systematic distribution, and distribution according to the needs=
of the sociey are communist elements, but that distribution of oersonal con=
sumption materials according to labor, and call the former communist. =
BUt his theory perverts the meaning " accroding to needs " in a hi=
gher stage of communist society. It is not what co-exists with distribution =
according to labor, but what is far beyond it.<BR>
Nevertheless, it must be seen that Wu lien's view r=
eflects the distribution policy of the CCP in the transitional period. He de=
scribs the wage policy of China as follows;<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!X=1B(J</FONT><FONT FACE=
=3D"Geneva">In a wage system , the polivy is yo emphasize payment by the hour =
rather than a piece wage and to increase the welfare of the groups.<BR>
Besides this, in farming villages distribution is d=
one by the vombination of a wage system which is mainly a recompence accordi=
ng to labor and a rationing system which is distribution according to thr ne=
eds in embryo.. These systems have already in part broken the frame of bouge=
ois right, and with the development of pruduction and the awakening of the p=
eople and the public, will break it up further.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B=
!Y=1B(J<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> <BR>
Wu Lien regards the wage system as distribution to =
labor and the rationing system as that according tyo need in the present Chi=
nese distribution system. And he suggests that to increase the latter is to =
break the bourgeois right.<BR>
<BR>
As was discussed beforem though the wage system in the transiti=
ona period is essentially diffrent from wage slavery in a capitalisy society=
. it is based on the economic development stage where there exists commodity=
production and vairous kinds of labor forces can be produced by giving s wo=
rker a different amount of material for comsumption . Therefore, what part i=
s by rationing and what part by wage is dicided by various conditions of pro=
duction, and the Chinese rationing system is no longer than a part of wage s=
ystem. Distribution according to labor will be realized in a future stage of=
economic developmet when the repoduction ability of various facets of the l=
abor forve will decide the amount of consumer goods for each worker, and it =
will mean the extinction of the wage system. Even if there is a differ=
ence in the amount of consumer goos, it will not brought about by th economi=
c need to ensure a variety in tje labor force.<BR>
The reason Wu Lien reprsented the ruling opinion of the CCP is =
that in the transitional period the Chinese economy to a large extent was no=
t modernized in the field of industry and agriculture, and it was a historic=
al period when most of the producers were of about equal quality as th=
e labor force.<BR>
<BR>
B Yao-yuan's point of view<BR>
<BR>
In "The Social Basis for Lin Piao's Anti-party Group"=
(Pekin weekly, no,11 1975), Yao Wen-yuan states " the exisistence of bo=
urgeois right is an important economic basis for producing new bourgeois ele=
ments" and elabarates as follows;<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!X=1B(J</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva">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 tjat bourgeois rights which inevitably exists in the fi=
elds of distribution and exchage must be restricted under the prolrtarian di=
ctorship, and that ny so doing we must reduce the three main diffrences and =
class differences, and must endeavor to create material and spiritual condit=
ions for tjem in the long process of the socialist revolution.</FONT><FONT F=
ACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!Y=1B(J<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"><BR>
Yao Wen-yuan regards the remnants of the old society in socialism as the &q=
uot;commodity system" and it follows that bourgeois rights in the field=
of ditribution and exchange is an inevitable result of existing "=
; commodity system". He shares the idea with Wu Lien that ther remnant =
of the old society in present China are bourgeois rights, but he takes a mor=
e radical view about restricting them.<BR>
This radical view is the result of the China-Soviet dispute. While th=
e CPSU maintain at the 22nd Congress that the Soviet Union had established t=
he first stage of communism and there was no longer a need for the prolertar=
ian dictorship, and that it has become the whole people's state, the CCP arg=
ued that the proletarian dictorship needed to exist in the whole proce=
ss from a capitalist sovieity to a higher stage of communist society and tha=
t there is class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat in a socialist s=
ociety.<BR>
The CCP tightly exposed Khrushchev's revisionism by manintainin=
g that " every socialist country should hold fast to the proletarian di=
ctorship"( The dispute of General road in the International Cummunist M=
ovement). It did not ,however succeed sufficietly with a theoretical critisi=
sm og Khrushchev's revisionism.<BR>
What the CCP sould have criticized is Khrushchv's claim t=
hat the USSR has realized socialim. The USSR has not yet established a socia=
list society, but still is in the transitional period from capitalism to the=
r first stage of socialism,.and there is , therefore, the need for proletari=
an dictorship.<BR>
The CCP, however ,criticized Khrushvhev from the standpoi=
nt that the proletarian dictotship souid exist in socialism, and thus brough=
t about confusion and revision in the communist theory of Marx-Leninis=
m.<BR>
The CCP, in claimimg the necessity of class struggles bet=
ween the bourgeois and proletariat in a socialsit society, needed to clalify=
the ground for the the appearance of a bourgoies class in the production re=
lationship of a socialist society which had been presented by Marx. And it f=
ound the ground in bourgeois rights-the birth-marks of th old society.<BR>
Wu Lien thouht it was impossible to elimminate bourgoeis =
rights, and he expected that ny invreasing distribution according yo need, i=
t would be possible to realize the transtion to a higher stage of comm=
unism. Yao-Wen-yuan, on the other hand, interpreted bourgoies right as eleme=
nts and , therefore, they should be restricted. He describes th eappearnce o=
f vourgeios element as follows;<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!X=1B(J</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> A=
minority controls goods and money through certain legal routes of distribut=
ion and through many illegal routes. This " material stimulation" =
will induce the capitalist to think of money making and prifrit earning, tje=
possibility pf converting public property to private ownership, speculation=
. corruption. theft, and bribery,<BR>
The princple of caitalist commodity exchage will invade p=
olitical life and intra-party life, and the planned economy of socialism wil=
l collapse. Capitalist exploitation by converting commodities and money into=
capital and making labor power commoditiesw will appear , and in department=
s and unites in which revisionism is practiced, the character of ownership w=
ill change and the state of suppressing and exploiting the working people wi=
ll reapear. As the result, from among patry members, workers, rich farmers, =
and bureaucrats of governmental organization, will appear a few bourgeois el=
ements and upstarts who will betray the proletarian class and working</FONT>=
<FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!Y=1B(J</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> people,(ibd)<BR>
<BR>
This phenomena is what is happening in present chinese so=
ciety and is what is inevitable in the transitional period. The partty must =
fight against these bourgeiois elements with the proletarian dictorship. Wha=
t Yao-Wen-yuan describes is this struggle, but he does not undetstand that t=
his is normal in the transitional period from capitalism to the first stage =
of communism, and thus he takes it for class struggle against the bourgeios =
elements as the struggle against bourgeois rights which will exist in a futu=
re socialist socieity.<BR>
Yao Wen-Yuan developed Wu Lien's theory, but they boyj st=
ill share a common misunderstanding. What they defined as distribution=
accroding to labor is in reality the wage system pf the transitional =
period. The wage system is inevitable in a proletarian dictorship stat=
e such as China where modernizaition of industry and agriculture is necessar=
y, and the differences expressed in the system are determined by ecnomic nee=
ed to obtain a variety in the labor force, It is incorrect to regard " =
materialistic interest" as a socialist element as Khrushchev did, but i=
t is nesessary to from material pre-conditions to aid in developimg socialis=
tic elements.<BR>
As Yao-Wen-yuan did, tomregard the wage system as distrib=
ution accroding to labor and to ngate " materialistic interest" in=
the name of restrivting bourgeois right will negate the economic elements n=
esesary for formimg the material preconditions of the development of sociali=
st elements, and will ,thus, be against the economic development of ht socie=
ty in the transitional period. The Chinese theory of class sturggle pl=
ayed a definite role in criticizing Khrushchev's revsionism, but with its li=
mited revision of Marx-Leninism, it failed to combine the economic developme=
nt of socialist elements. This was expressed politically the dawonfal of the=
" Gang of the Four"<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
B. The conversion in China<BR>
1. critisism of the " Gang of the Four" i=
n compliance eith the " Four Modernization<BR>
<BR>
The new interpretation of distribution accord=
ing to labor by the CCP was published in Pekin Weekly(no,7 and no.31.1978)<B=
R>
In no.7, Li pang-lin interpterets bourgeois r=
ights as stated by Marx in his " Critique of the Gotha Programme as fol=
lows;<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!X=1B(J</FONT><FONT FACE=
=3D"Geneva"> that it indicates only the exchange of equivalent labor is clear.=
In a capitalist society, evrything is commodity and exchange of commodity i=
s ruled by the exchange of equinalent labor. In a socialist society, too, di=
stribution of material for personal consumption is ruled by the same princip=
le. Marx described it only from this point as bourgeois rights in principle.=
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!Y=1B(J<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> <BR>
In this interpretation, Li Pang-lin critisizes the claim by the " gang=
of the four" that " bourgeois right(i.e.. distribution according =
to labor) is the way to pruduce</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka"> the bourgeois clas=
s"<BR>
Yao Wen-yuan grasped bourgeois right not only in didtribution a=
ccording to kabor, but also in the commodity system inj general, but Li-Oang=
-lin disregards this and concentrates on proving that bourgeois rights in di=
strib=1B$B!!=1B(Jution according tyo labor does not produce bourgeois elements.<=
BR>
Li-Oang-lin maintains that bourgeois elements in a socialsit so=
ciety are " not produced by distribution according to labot, but they a=
ppear through speculation, corruption, and theft or by speculation on collev=
tive ort or oersonal property through various illegal privileges" In op=
psition yo the view that bourgeois elements are pruduced by saving a part of=
the wage and speculating with it as capital. LI objects by stating that&quo=
t; speculation with wages saved can not be blamed on the principle of distri=
bution according to labor" He concludes that the " economic system=
od socialsm, distruibution according to labor,is not absolutely not the gro=
und for the pruducing bourgeois elements"<BR>
In an article in the Peking-Weekly(no.31), a reviewer of the Pe=
ople's Daily further</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osa=
ka">develops Li-Pang- lin's view. He first states the influence of the "=
; Gang of thr Four" as follows;<BR>
<BR>
=1B$B!X=1B(J They caused great confusion by falsely maintaining that dist=
ribution according to labor is theoretically " practice revisionism&quo=
t; and " to resurrect capitalism" Due to their accusation some of =
our comrades questioned whether it is necessary to practice distribution acc=
ording to labor in the period of socialsm. Im the field of practice, the &qu=
ot;Gang of the Four " tried to distube and destory the prectice of dist=
ribution according to labor. And they evene tried to negate all the efficien=
cy wages and material incentives and also time wages.=1B$B!Y=1B(J<BR>
<BR>
It is very clear what the opposition around the distiribution according to =
labor was. It was whether to introduce efficiency wages and material incenti=
ves. The "Gang of the Four" were against them from the point of re=
stricting bourgeois rights and the review's article defend them on the groun=
d that bourgeois rights do not produce bourgeois elements.<BR>
The reviewer's article gives a new interpretation yo the " Criti=
que of the Gotha Programme" and criticizes the view od the " Gang =
og the Four". He gives a frank oplinion about the characteristics of th=
e lower stages of a communist society and the acheivements of real Chinese s=
ociety.<BR>
He first confrims that " In the first stage pf a communist=
society in Marx's ideal, there will no longer be commodity production and e=
xchange through money" and then critisize the " Gang of the Four&q=
uot; by stating that" nobody can say that there still exists a bourgeoi=
s class or capitalism in such a society"<BR>
He describes the oresent development stage of Cinese society an=
d the ground for the appearance of bourgeois elements in it as follows;<BR>
<BR>
=1B$B!X=1B(JOur oresent society, of course,=
has not reached the first stage of communism depicted by Marc. This is due =
to to the fact that we still have commodity production and exchange throutgh=
money in our society, and also there are classes and class struggle,and new=
ly born bourgeois and capitalist elements, But this fact does not strengthen=
the logic of the " Gang of the Four". This is because, first, tho=
ugh out present society has not reached the first stage of communism,. this =
fact does not imply that the socialist principle of distribution according t=
o labor is capitalistic. Secondly, in our present society there exists newly=
-born bourgoeois elements and capitalistic factors, but they do not appear f=
rom socialistic pruduction relationship,nor from the socialistic princple of=
distribution according to labor, Thet have emerged from the destruction of =
th socialistic production and distribution accordinf to labor(ibd)</FONT><FO=
NT FACE=3D"Geneva"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka">=1B$B!Y=1B(J<BR>
<BR>
The reviewer's articlehas drastically changed ther Chinese socialist =
theory which had been consistent since Wu Lien's article. CCP's socialist th=
eory since Wu Lien has been to difene real Chinese society as that of social=
ismn, to regard the remnants of old society there as the bouegois rights des=
cribed</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> in the "Critique of the G=
otha Programme" and, by so doing, tyo justify the existence of bouegeoi=
s rights aned clasds sturuggle in a socialist society. Acccoridngly, M=
arx's assupmtion that a socialist society has no commodity production or cla=
ss has been negated. The reviewer's article,however,accepts Marx's ass=
umption and admits that chinese society has not regarded this level i.e. soc=
ialist society.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka"> Theoretically, The CCP'S thoery of sociali=
sm since Wu Lien's is wrong</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Geneva"> and the reviewe=
r's article is correct. But the latter neglects the fact that th=
e former had benn formed through the sturggle against Khrushchev's revisioni=
sm and had played the part of a weapon in ther factional struggle against re=
visonism, and , therefore, it can not rightly summarize previous theorie of =
socialism. As a result, the reviewr's article is not different from the revi=
sionist thoery.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Osaka"> On the top of that, there is a decis=
ively important confusing point in the article. If the reviewer admits that =
in Marx's assumtion that commdity production and classes are extinct in a so=
cialist society and that Chinese society has not reached that development st=
age yet, it is a contradiction to claim that distrubution according to labor=
is practiced in present Chinese society which Marx applied to the pro=
duction relationship in the first stage of communism. If he tried to stand c=
ompletely on Marx'S theory, he should state that distribution accroding to l=
abor has not been realiazed in China and sitll is a goal to attain. &n=
bsp;And this ambiguity is the reason for its unconvincing criticism of=
the " Gang pf the Four" and its vague difference from revisionism=
.<BR>
If the reviewer states that distribution accoring t=
o labor has bee realized in China and deducts " materalistic inte=
rest" from this distribuition principle, it is the same as Khrushchev's=
revisionism. In present China, it is necessary to organiaze " material=
istic interst" anf to maintain certain wage differences. But this neces=
sity does not come from distrubution according to labor. It is necessqary to=
realize, in the transitional period, that modermizaition of industry and ag=
riculture is needed for the development toward a socialist society. The nece=
ssity to organize " materialistic interest" is determined by econo=
mic need for modernizaiton and for the increase of labor producctivity. It d=
epend on the CCP's plolicy whether this modernizaition and the increase of l=
abor productivity willbe utilized for the development of socialistic element=
s. If it deduces this economic nedd from the principle of distrubution accor=
ding to labor and claims it to be a socialistic element, the CCP,like the XP=
SU,can not develop socialistic ekements through modernizaition and increase =
of labor activity.<BR>
<BR>
C.criticism of tevisionism in the new policy<BR>
<BR>
As marx states" at all times, distribution of =
consumer goods is merely trhe resultof division of production conditions rhe=
mselves"( Critique of the Gotha Programme). Accrodingly, it is incorrec=
t to organize the communist movement by means of the distribution problem. W=
hen we evaluate the societies of Russsia and China today, however, the analy=
sis of distribution of consumer goods is useful in that it throws ligh=
t on the reality of division of production conditions. In these state-owned =
economies, what determines the character of a socieity is the relationhsip b=
etweeen the state which owns the production means and the immediate producer=
, and this relationhsip and the policies of the party regulates each other.<=
BR>
The party which leads the class sturggle in t=
he transitional period need to recognize accurately the economic laws of the=
state-owned economy of the transitional period and the practice of the part=
y and of the proletariat. This task is fulfilled when it bases itself =
on Marx-Leninism and summarises the prectice of the party and the proletaria=
t correcyly.<BR>
Stalin looked on nationalizaition of producit=
on means in industry and ther formation of collective ownership in agricultu=
re as completion of socialist reformation in ownership, and prescribed that =
the USSR had reached the first stage of communism. Due to this definition, h=
e 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.<BR>
Stalin's revision was enlarged further by Khr=
ushchev, and it became a tool to claim that bourgeois elements in USSR socie=
ty were commmunistic elements.<BR>
We have endevoured to expose Stalin's and Khr=
usgchev's revisonism on distribution according to labor by claryfying the ch=
ange of the CPSU's dfefinition about the wage system in the USSR. This revis=
ionism turns black into wite inj every field of USSR society, by giving the =
name " all the people's state" to the bourgeois character of the U=
SSR state which oppress the proletariat and ethnic groups, and beutifies the=
economic slavery of the pruducers who are alienated from co-ownership of th=
e state-owned production means through the deteriration of the party and the=
state as " socialistic possession"<BR>
The CCP criticized Khrushcheve's =
revisionisim and claimed that there still would be remnants of the old socie=
ty after socialistic reform of ownership and that there would be class strug=
gle between bourgeois and proletariat in a socialist society and therefore t=
here was a need for thr dictorship of the proletarian. This claim was furthe=
r developed in thr process of the Great Cutltural Revolution as a criticisim=
against Liu Shao-Chi plolicy.; we can't attain complete victory of socialis=
m only by socialist reformation of production means ownership.,but we must s=
truggle against bourgeios remnants in human relationships and in the field o=
f distribution.<BR>
However. state ownership and coll=
ective ownership of production means<BR>
is the starting point of socialist ownership, and not the completion =
ofn it. <BR>
The CCP rightly insisted on the struggle against bourgeoi=
s remnants in human relationships and in the field of disdtribution, b=
ut it coud not accept the limits of Stalin'S doctrine which regarded state-a=
nd-collective ownership as the completion of socialist ownership. When the &=
quot; Gang og the Four" criticized the " Four modernizaiton and in=
sisted on the " restricttion of bourgeois rights", that is i=
n reality, impartialism, thet based it on the view that socialistic reformat=
ion in human relationships and in the field of distribution.. The CCP =
has advocated the " Four modernizaition" after the downfall of the=
" Gang of the Four", but cannnot tightly criticize their errors a=
nd thus tends to be revisionistic. In order to develop socialist=
ic elements through the " Four Nodernization",the CCP needs to cri=
ticize Stalin's doctrine of socialism, and must ovetcome its own limitations=
that criticism against Khrushchec by the CCP, especially Mao Tse-tong=
,has been based on Stalin's doctrine.<BR>
Natioanlizaition and collective ownership does not mean t=
he completion of socialistic reform of ownership. Socialistic ownership is n=
othing else than common ownership pf producers, and state and collective own=
ership is what must be further reformed toward this. In Ch=
ina, the " Four Modernizaitions " and the development of productio=
n power based on them is the premise of htis further reformation. The "=
Gang of the Four" could not grasp correctly the role of production pow=
er, because they clung to to the dogma that the reform of ownership had been=
completed, and by doing so they confined productionpower within the frame o=
f the state and collective ownership.<BR>
In order to reform this ownership in the direction of com=
mon ownership of producers, there must be the material premise of the "=
Four Modernizaition" and the development of production power, and ther=
e needs to be communist policies of the party.<BR>
After the downfall of the " Gang of the Four", =
the economic development stage of China made it necessary for the CCP to ado=
pt " material interest" in order to realize the "Four Moderni=
zaition". But it is revisonism to derive this " material int=
erest" from the socialist principle of disdtribution according to labor=
and to define it as a socialst element. This revisionism must be severely c=
riticized.<BR>
Whether the " Four Modernizaiton" lead st=
o the development of socialstic element or to the resurrection of capitalist=
element the CCP, to take the first step. must criticize Stalin's doctrine o=
f socialism, recover that of Marxism and conquer the Stalinistic limitation =
of Maoism.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><BR>
miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx</FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- Thread context:
- [PEN-L:28339] Re: The Line,
Waistline2 Tue 23 Jul 2002, 14:10 GMT
- [PEN-L:28338] Re: Options spin....,
Waistline2 Tue 23 Jul 2002, 13:57 GMT
- [PEN-L:28337] Re: Re: reformism,
Waistline2 Tue 23 Jul 2002, 13:45 GMT
- [PEN-L:28336] Re: bankruptcy rate,
Waistline2 Tue 23 Jul 2002, 13:36 GMT
- [PEN-L:28335] Re: Consumer Credit Card Debt,
Waistline2 Tue 23 Jul 2002, 13:29 GMT
- [PEN-L:28334] New Video on the Steady State Revolution,
Diane Monaco Tue 23 Jul 2002, 13:25 GMT
- [PEN-L:28333] Humans wired to cooperate,
Diane Monaco Tue 23 Jul 2002, 13:17 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]