Achievements of Mao Tse Tung and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

26th December is the day Chairman Mao was born
On this occasion I would like to post an article
by Comrade Harsh Thakor
a research scholar based in Mumbai

Achievements of Mao Tse Tung


1.INTRODUCTION

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that was launched in China on May 16th 1966 wrote a historical epoch in the history of mankind. This was initiated by Comrade Mao Tse Tung to defeat the revisionists and create a ground for the ultimate triumph for Socialism. Mao discovered that even in a Socialist State there were capitalist elements who intended to turn the country to the capitalist road. From the example of the U.S.S R he learnt that a Socialist State can turn into a Social-Imperialist or Revisionist state and there can be a restoration of Capitalism. Stalin saved the Socialist State but he hardly made an effective attempt to democratize the Socialist State and initiate broad based mass movements.

True there were great achievements for workers but Stalin hardly gave attention to the superstructure and even violated Democratic Centralism to a great extent. Mao called for a revolt within his own party against the capitalist roaders Liu Shao Chi and Deng Xiaoping who opposed Mao’s line and felt that it was better to be ‘expert’ than ‘red.’ They advocated that profit from production should be the chief goal and opposed communization of land ,professing that peasants should get a private plot. What Sparked of the Cultural revolution was a play called “Hai Jui removed from office’ which defended Peng Te Huai who was removed from the Chinese Army for supporting ranks ,modernization against Communistic policies,and supporting the U.S S R. On 16th May 1966 Mao drafted a circular issued by the Central Committee alerting cadres against the revisionistsMao introduced a 16 points programme and finally gave a call to his followers the ‘Red Guards’ to ‘Bombard the Headquarters.

These were encompassing a broad-based revolutionary democratic programme explaining the masses to be daring above everything else and boldly arouse the masses,let the masses educate themselves in the movement through making the biggest use of big character posters and great debates to argue matters out so that masses can clarify theright and wrong views.It also stressed on applying the classs line of the party,correctly handling the contradictions amongst the people,be on guard against counter-revolutionaries discriminate cadres between good cadres ,those who have made serious mistakes and those who are anti-party or anti-Socialist.It was stressed that the anti-party rightists must be fully exposed, refuted or overthrown but at the same time be given the chance to turn over a new leaf.The programme went on to stress the importance of Cultural Revolutionary Group, committees and Congress’s. Another Important point stressed was educational reform where the old system of education would be completely transformed.

The other points were the question of criticizing by name in the press, policies towards Scientists, technicians and ordinary members of working staffs, question of arrangements of integration with the Socialist Education System and Countryside, stimulating production from a revolutionary perpective,revolutionizing the armed forces and finally establishing Mao Tse Tung Thought as the guide to action in the Cultural Revolution.

On May 25th at the Peking University a big poster was pasted up at Peking University which was the first big ‘Marxist LeninistIt attacked 2 corrupt university officials. Who negated the Cultural Revolution buy curbing mass initiative. The big character poster lit a flame in the hearts of the masses. Character Poster.’

2. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION

1. A de-centralized medical system creating Barefoot doctors. The Medical field made the most innovative changes. A worker’s fingers being replaced occurred, something unheard of even in Developed countries. Applying Mao’s line the broken bones were attached Etc.In no third world country before did medicine serve the poor peasantry to that extent.

2.Stopping examinations in schools and colleges and making students learn from the peasants and workers as well as participating in productive labour. Now it was the peasants and workers who taught the students. Factories were attached to schools so that students would learn science from production. In the villages students would learn about agriculture and peasants would explain them their problems and about production.

3.Enabling workers to be masters of Marxist Leninist philosophy through study in factory school which enabled workers to build their own machines and run their own factories.

4..Revolutionary committees launched where the workers and peasants democratic rights were represented. There were 3 in one committees. These were far more effective than the committees in factories in Western Style Democracies. Workers and peasants.

5.The Army served the people doing work like construction, building canals and rotated the jobs of Workers and peasants. They were politically enlightened and trained about the role of revolution and history and politics in connection to Marxism Leninism. The Army defended and protected the mass movements unlike bourgeois states. Ranks were abolished in the military.

6 revolutionizing the Agricultural Communes through mass movements and introducing piecemeal wage system.Tachai is the best Example as well as Shanghai.

7.There were mass rallies where the broad masses could print big character posters. The C.P.C. was never afraid of disorder. “Great Debates’ and anti-Rightist campaigns were held. The masses could voice their demands to punish corrupt officials, oppose bureaucraticsm, fight for press freedom and for democratic Rights. They had the four great ‘freedoms ‘of speaking out Freely, airing views folly, holding great debates, and writing big character posters.

8.A Revolutionary Democratic Army that always stood by the peoples Movements. The Army represented the heart and the soul of the broad masses being based from the basic classes. Once the Cultural Revolution started in earnest, the Army was not allowed to intervene in what emerged as a civil war between the various factions of Red Guards and Red Rebels. The PLA was ordered by Mao to “support the left” by standing aside, even when their arsenals were looted by the civilian combatants.

When the chaos reached its climax, when the Party was in disarray and the economy had come to a virtual standstill, the Army appeared to be the only functioning organization left, and Mao turned to the PLA to restore order. As a result, the PLA emerged from the chaos with greatly increased position and power: senior Army men headed the newly-formed revolutionary committees responsible for local administration; almost half of the Central Committee members elected in 1969 were soldiers; and half of the State Council members in 1971 belonged to the PLA. Ranks were abolished in the Peoples Liberation Army. The Army had to participate in the production in factories and help the peasants in production. They were involved in digging the Countryside, transporting grain and all kinds of furniture on carts, leading Children in drills a school.

All forms of hierarchy and paternalism were removed. A soldier recognized his commanding officer just like a revolutionary committee obeyed it’s leader. Inspite of that the Peoples Liberation Army was recognized as the most disciplined. The Army was indoctrinated with Mao’s thought and taught to support the liberation Struggles of the masses all over the world. The virtues of the Chinese Revolution were explained and nation chauvinism was totally opposed in the teachings. In the Cultural Revolution upheavals the Army always stood by the Revolutionary Committees Army controlled instances when Red Guard Group rivalry took place or civilians were attacked.

Only when factional non –revolutionary tendencies take place did the Army intervene. (An Ultra –left trend took place caused by a certain Red Guard faction) Army in the world. Another feature of the Cultural Revolution was the emphasis on studying Marxist Philosophy. (Taken from Daily life in Revolutionary China Once Lin Biao fell from grace in 1971 and his supporters were purged, the PLA’s model function as the “great school of Mao Thought” ceased to be stressed. Instead, the close relations between the Army and the people were propagated once more (“as close as fish and water”). Foreigners were taken to a unit of the P.L.A to learn about the study of the Thought of Mao Tse Tung.The soldiers worked on farms to feed themselves and helped commune members when they needed help.

9.Great Innovations in the field of Art and literature representing the proletariat.
Below are a compilation or collection of notes compiled from a book ‘Daily Life in Revolutionary China’ by a member of the Italian Communist Party Maria Macciocci who visited Socialist China in the heyday of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which elaborate the points I discussed.

To read the complete article
click on the link below

Rest of the article

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Achievements of Mao Tse Tung and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    It is interesting that you write, “Stalinism sowed the seeds of revisionism”. We know that Com Stalin fought against the line of Trotsky-Bukharin and others to uphold proletarian dictatorship and the possibility of victory of socialism in one country. Today, you are criticizing Com Stalin for revisionism. Nobody can deny that there were mistakes in USSR, even in the report of 17th congress of CPSU(B) com Stalin said
    “Bureaucracy and red tape in the administrative apparatus; idle chatter about “leadership in general” instead of real and concrete leadership; the functional structure of our organizations and lack of individual responsibility; lack of personal responsibility in work, and wage equalization; the absence of a systematic check on the fulfilment of decisions; fear of self-criticism — these are the sources of our difficulties; this is where our difficulties now lie.
    ….
    “In order to overcome these difficulties and achieve success it was necessary to organize the struggle to eliminate them; it was necessary to draw the masses of the workers and peasants into this struggle; it was necessary to mobilize the Party itself; it was necessary to purge the Party and the economic organizations of unreliable, unstable and degenerate elements.
    What was needed for this? We had to organize:

    1) Full development of self-criticism and exposure of short comings in our work.

    2) The mobilization of the Party, Soviet, economic, trade union, and Young Communist League organizations for the struggle against difficulties.

    3) The mobilization of the masses of the workers and peasants to fight for the application of the slogans and decisions of the Party and of the Government.”

    But, do these limitations mean that com Stalin is responsible for revisinonism? Did com Mao say it?

    The beauty of RIM line is it cannot upheld com Mao without denouncing com Stalin. In essence they deny Leninism by negating com Stalin.

    Here you praised a lot the line of RCP-USA and Bob Avakin. In one discussion he said “Stalin—some of his errors are his own, resulting to a large degree from his methodological problems, and some of it was carried forward from Lenin” (http://rwor.org/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm).

    I hope, this could encourage you to rethink over the line of RIM—what negation of Stalin actually means.

    I would request you all to read this discussion and let’s debate on this.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    It is interesting that you write, “Stalinism sowed the seeds of revisionism”. We know that Com Stalin fought against the line of Trotsky-Bukharin and others to uphold proletarian dictatorship and the possibility of victory of socialism in one country. Today, you are criticizing Com Stalin for revisionism. Nobody can deny that there were mistakes in USSR, even in the report of 17th congress of CPSU(B) com Stalin said
    “Bureaucracy and red tape in the administrative apparatus; idle chatter about “leadership in general” instead of real and concrete leadership; the functional structure of our organizations and lack of individual responsibility; lack of personal responsibility in work, and wage equalization; the absence of a systematic check on the fulfilment of decisions; fear of self-criticism — these are the sources of our difficulties; this is where our difficulties now lie.
    ….
    “In order to overcome these difficulties and achieve success it was necessary to organize the struggle to eliminate them; it was necessary to draw the masses of the workers and peasants into this struggle; it was necessary to mobilize the Party itself; it was necessary to purge the Party and the economic organizations of unreliable, unstable and degenerate elements.
    What was needed for this? We had to organize:

    1) Full development of self-criticism and exposure of short comings in our work.

    2) The mobilization of the Party, Soviet, economic, trade union, and Young Communist League organizations for the struggle against difficulties.

    3) The mobilization of the masses of the workers and peasants to fight for the application of the slogans and decisions of the Party and of the Government.”

    But, do these limitations mean that com Stalin is responsible for revisinonism? Did com Mao say it?

    The beauty of RIM line is it cannot upheld com Mao without denouncing com Stalin. In essence they deny Leninism by negating com Stalin.

    Here you praised a lot the line of RCP-USA and Bob Avakin. In one discussion he said “Stalin—some of his errors are his own, resulting to a large degree from his methodological problems, and some of it was carried forward from Lenin” (http://rwor.org/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm).

    I hope, this could encourage you to rethink over the line of RIM—what negation of Stalin actually means.

    I would request you all to read this discussion and let’s debate on this.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    After reading this article and discovering so much praise of RCP-USA and Bob Avakin, I started reading Bob Avakin. It is important to mention that he is one of the advocates of “Maoism” and very important leader of RIM.
    You would appreciate his potential; starting from com Stalin’s error how far he went—errors of com Lenin, and finally errors of com Mao.
    At this point I have an appeal to all genuine communist revolutionaries. Please go through the teachings of our teachers, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao. Also go through the writings of Bob Avakin and RIM. Then decide what essentially their “Maoism” is. Is it the teaching of com Mao or something else. Also kindly go through the writings of teachers of Indian revolutions, com Charu Mazumdar, com Saroj Dutta, com Susital Roychowdhury, com Amulya Sen, com Kanai Chatterjee, com Chandrasekhar Das the respected teachers of CPI(ML) and MCC. Do you see any similarity with the line of RIM? Did our great martyrs and teachers spend time to find errors of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao?

    Bellow some of the quotes of Avakin from http://revcom.us/bob_avakian/conquerworld/index.htm.

    “To step back for a second, you’ll recall Lenin had not been completely free of some of these same tendencies, that is, the notion that the viability of the proletarian dictatorship—the socialist state—depended on higher technique, a higher productive base than capitalism in general and the imperialist stage in particular. Even though, as noted, Lenin did say “in the final analysis” and so on he nevertheless did have this tendency to make that identification too direct and immediate. Lenin obviously did not live to grapple with the fuller development and implications of this contradiction. And as I mentioned before even in Lenin’s famous response to the Mensheviks, Kautskyites, et al.—why can’t we first seize power and then create the kind of civilization that you say is necessary, though you can’t say exactly what level it is—even this can be seen to have a rather sharp contradiction in it, refuting them on the one hand but accepting certain bases of their orientation on the other. But this became much more pronounced both as the contradiction developed more fully and frankly also under the leadership of people, including Stalin, who were not as thoroughly dialectical nor as thoroughly materialist in their approach to problems and their attempts to resolve problems as Lenin had been. And increasingly from the mid-30s on (again this is noted in the outline presented at the last Central Committee meeting of our Party) wrong lines and policies were increasingly in command in the Soviet Union and in the international communist movement.”
    …………………
    “In fact, a question which I am grappling with and is worth pondering is: if Stalin had succeeded, for example, in forcing on Mao the policy that he attempted to enforce, that is, of killing the Chinese revolution after World War 2 and getting Mao to enter, in a subordinate position, into a coalition government with Chiang Kai-shek, would the U.S. have then turned on the Soviet Union to the same degree that it did? Because in other places where he was able to, Stalin did what he could do (and in some cases it wasn’t insignificant) to kill the revolutionary struggle of the masses in order not to bring down the wrath of U.S. imperialism. I think we have to face up to this in the case of Greece and a number of other places. I don’t claim at this point to have unraveled this muddle, but it’s certainly not so clear-cut as perhaps we have thought in the past and some still want to cling to; and I think that at best it’s a question of Stalin’s muddle and Khrushchev’s resolution.”

    ……………
    “And there is, along with this, a certain tendency recurring in Mao to make a principle out of the policy of making use of contradictions among the enemies, defeating the enemies one by one. For example, this is put forward in a concentrated way in his essay written during the anti-Japanese war, “On Policy.” Making use of the contradictions among the enemy, defeating our enemies one by one, etc., was precisely a correct policy in those concrete conditions and it can be, under many different conditions, a correct policy. But it is wrong to elevate this to the level of a general principle.”

    …………….
    “Returning to the question of Mao: also linked to the general erroneous tendencies in Mao—too much of a country by country perspective, the tendency to see things too much in terms of nations and national struggle—something else that should be reviewed here briefly is confusion and some of Mao’s errors on the question of internal and external, and in particular the internal basis of change and the external conditions of change and how this applies in the relationship between revolutions in particular countries, on the one hand, and the overall world struggle and the world situation, on the other.”

    …………….
    “…even in Mao, despite and in contradiction to his contributions to and development of materialist dialectics, there were some metaphysical tendencies which interpenetrated with nationalist tendencies on this question.”
    ………
    “All this, in turn, is linked with a wrong view of, or a wrong method of dealing with, the question of the development of conjunctures. It’s not that Mao totally failed to grasp the question and the importance of conjunctures shaping up; certainly he grasped this in a certain way in relationship to World War 2, for example, and how that interpenetrated with the Chinese revolution. But we have to understand how Mao’s approach to such historic situations reflected certain errors that go along with what I said earlier about this orientation as set forth in “On Policy,” of attempting to line up all the progressive forces, or all the forces that can be lined up, against one main enemy, especially in the face of a developing conjuncture like that and in particular of a world war.”

    No wonder the followers of RIM line decided to take part in multiparty system in Nepal forgetting proletarian dictatorship, the teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    After reading this article and discovering so much praise of RCP-USA and Bob Avakin, I started reading Bob Avakin. It is important to mention that he is one of the advocates of “Maoism” and very important leader of RIM.
    You would appreciate his potential; starting from com Stalin’s error how far he went—errors of com Lenin, and finally errors of com Mao.
    At this point I have an appeal to all genuine communist revolutionaries. Please go through the teachings of our teachers, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao. Also go through the writings of Bob Avakin and RIM. Then decide what essentially their “Maoism” is. Is it the teaching of com Mao or something else. Also kindly go through the writings of teachers of Indian revolutions, com Charu Mazumdar, com Saroj Dutta, com Susital Roychowdhury, com Amulya Sen, com Kanai Chatterjee, com Chandrasekhar Das the respected teachers of CPI(ML) and MCC. Do you see any similarity with the line of RIM? Did our great martyrs and teachers spend time to find errors of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao?

    Bellow some of the quotes of Avakin from http://revcom.us/bob_avakian/conquerworld/index.htm.

    “To step back for a second, you’ll recall Lenin had not been completely free of some of these same tendencies, that is, the notion that the viability of the proletarian dictatorship—the socialist state—depended on higher technique, a higher productive base than capitalism in general and the imperialist stage in particular. Even though, as noted, Lenin did say “in the final analysis” and so on he nevertheless did have this tendency to make that identification too direct and immediate. Lenin obviously did not live to grapple with the fuller development and implications of this contradiction. And as I mentioned before even in Lenin’s famous response to the Mensheviks, Kautskyites, et al.—why can’t we first seize power and then create the kind of civilization that you say is necessary, though you can’t say exactly what level it is—even this can be seen to have a rather sharp contradiction in it, refuting them on the one hand but accepting certain bases of their orientation on the other. But this became much more pronounced both as the contradiction developed more fully and frankly also under the leadership of people, including Stalin, who were not as thoroughly dialectical nor as thoroughly materialist in their approach to problems and their attempts to resolve problems as Lenin had been. And increasingly from the mid-30s on (again this is noted in the outline presented at the last Central Committee meeting of our Party) wrong lines and policies were increasingly in command in the Soviet Union and in the international communist movement.”
    …………………
    “In fact, a question which I am grappling with and is worth pondering is: if Stalin had succeeded, for example, in forcing on Mao the policy that he attempted to enforce, that is, of killing the Chinese revolution after World War 2 and getting Mao to enter, in a subordinate position, into a coalition government with Chiang Kai-shek, would the U.S. have then turned on the Soviet Union to the same degree that it did? Because in other places where he was able to, Stalin did what he could do (and in some cases it wasn’t insignificant) to kill the revolutionary struggle of the masses in order not to bring down the wrath of U.S. imperialism. I think we have to face up to this in the case of Greece and a number of other places. I don’t claim at this point to have unraveled this muddle, but it’s certainly not so clear-cut as perhaps we have thought in the past and some still want to cling to; and I think that at best it’s a question of Stalin’s muddle and Khrushchev’s resolution.”

    ……………
    “And there is, along with this, a certain tendency recurring in Mao to make a principle out of the policy of making use of contradictions among the enemies, defeating the enemies one by one. For example, this is put forward in a concentrated way in his essay written during the anti-Japanese war, “On Policy.” Making use of the contradictions among the enemy, defeating our enemies one by one, etc., was precisely a correct policy in those concrete conditions and it can be, under many different conditions, a correct policy. But it is wrong to elevate this to the level of a general principle.”

    …………….
    “Returning to the question of Mao: also linked to the general erroneous tendencies in Mao—too much of a country by country perspective, the tendency to see things too much in terms of nations and national struggle—something else that should be reviewed here briefly is confusion and some of Mao’s errors on the question of internal and external, and in particular the internal basis of change and the external conditions of change and how this applies in the relationship between revolutions in particular countries, on the one hand, and the overall world struggle and the world situation, on the other.”

    …………….
    “…even in Mao, despite and in contradiction to his contributions to and development of materialist dialectics, there were some metaphysical tendencies which interpenetrated with nationalist tendencies on this question.”
    ………
    “All this, in turn, is linked with a wrong view of, or a wrong method of dealing with, the question of the development of conjunctures. It’s not that Mao totally failed to grasp the question and the importance of conjunctures shaping up; certainly he grasped this in a certain way in relationship to World War 2, for example, and how that interpenetrated with the Chinese revolution. But we have to understand how Mao’s approach to such historic situations reflected certain errors that go along with what I said earlier about this orientation as set forth in “On Policy,” of attempting to line up all the progressive forces, or all the forces that can be lined up, against one main enemy, especially in the face of a developing conjuncture like that and in particular of a world war.”

    No wonder the followers of RIM line decided to take part in multiparty system in Nepal forgetting proletarian dictatorship, the teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.

  5. Abhay Says:

    Comrades I understand the points you are making, the views expressed in this article are that of the author alone and the author happens to be Mr Harsh Thakor.

    I will ask him to respond to your comments as soon as possible

  6. Abhay Says:

    Comrades I understand the points you are making, the views expressed in this article are that of the author alone and the author happens to be Mr Harsh Thakor.

    I will ask him to respond to your comments as soon as possible

  7. A Says:

    Harsh Thakor’s paper is really a joke, and not just the stupid praise of the phony Bob Avakian. It mixes up all kinds of facts and periods.

    Bob Avakian and the RIM are even worse than the last poster said. The most terrible thing about Conquer The World is that it advocates orthodox Trotskyist permanent revolution and rejects socialism in one country.

  8. A Says:

    Harsh Thakor’s paper is really a joke, and not just the stupid praise of the phony Bob Avakian. It mixes up all kinds of facts and periods.

    Bob Avakian and the RIM are even worse than the last poster said. The most terrible thing about Conquer The World is that it advocates orthodox Trotskyist permanent revolution and rejects socialism in one country.

  9. ebalrkycjm Says:

    ulfywobybmsfwpmvujpo, obvuezzzfn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: