ALLIANCE Marxist-Leninist
(North America): July  2000



     ALLIANCE (ML)(North America);
     COMMUNIST LEAGUE (Britain);
    First Published Great Britain March 1996.


    Comrade Martens states that Mao first correctly applied revolutionary strategy in colonial-type countries. For Mao, this strategy involved a . Mao coined this term during the Sino-Japanese War before the Second World War. The CCP formed a UNITED FRONT with all forces claiming to be anti-Japanese.

    To assist this Mao was made the single leader. During the anti-Japanese United Front, latent tensions between factions of the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY (CCP) were submerged. All factions agreed that one leader was necesary. LUI SHAO-QI, then an ally of Mao's, expressed the CP line in an interview with ANNA LOUISE STRONG. This was intended to popularise the CCP in the West. Here he repeats Mao's view that MAO SINIFIED MARXISM :

    But we know that Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin had extensively analysed and studied society, and the revolution in the East !
    The composition of the Anti-Japanese United Front, was a class alliance that joined all classes willing to fight Japanese imperialism. ie. all classes EXCEPT the pro-Japanese comprador class of big bourgeoisie (Capitulationists); and the landlord class, who supported them; and the wavering die-hards :     The Front correctly aimed not to establish socialism; but to rid China of Japanese imperialist occupation. The attitude towards the KMT, still led by Chiang Kai-Shek, was complicated by the previous 1927 betrayal of the KMT. After the defeat in 1927, Stalin had pointed out that the revolutionary role of the KMT was finished :     In fact very shortly thereafter, Chiang Kai-Shek made a private visit to Japan. This was partly to ask the wealthy Madame Soong, for permission to marry her American educated daughter, Soong Mai-Ling. However also, he had talks with the Japanese Prime Minister General Tanaka, with a view to forge an alliance with Japan: General Tanaka intended to assist the KMT and Chiang-Kai-Shek to accomplish their aims, in return for which aid he hoped to obtain the latter's acquiescence in the proposed relations between Japan and Manchuria. For the purpose.. General Tanaka.. Gave his approval of the Northward advance.
(M. Shigemitsu: "Japan and her Destiny"; translated by O.White; London; 1958; p.47).
    Nonetheless, the CCP now made overtures to the KMT. Mao himself recognised that the policy he was proposing had to be justified to the Chinese people:     HOWEVER, to ensure the possibility of the bourgeoisie once again cooperating, Mao gave profound reassurances to the bourgeoisie. This was INCORRECT and relinquished a large degree of the independence of the CCP. Mao strove to convince the national bourgeoisie into the front :     Mao aimed to establish a new-democratic state where ALL the above classes would have POLITICAL POWER. The classes forming this 'new democratic state' comprised all classes in China opposing Japan, including the national bourgeoisie:     This was therefore a new type of democracy: In present day China, the bourgeois-democratic revolution is no longer of the old general type, which is obsolete, but one of a new special type. We call this the new-democratic revolution and it is developing in all other colonial and semi-colonial countries as well as in China. The new-democratic revolution is part of the world-proletarian revolution for it resolutely opposes imperialism. i.e. international capital. Politically it strives for the joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classes over the imperialists, traitors, and reactionaries, and opposes the transformation of Chinese society into a society under bourgeois dictatorship. Economically it aims at the nationalisation of all the big enterprises and capital of the imperialists, traitors and reactionaries and the distribution among the peasants of the land held by the landlords and the distribution among the peasants of the land while preserving private capital enterprise in general.. In the present War of Resistance the anti-Japanese democratic political power of the Anti-Japanese National United Front; this is neither a bourgeois nor a proletarian one-class dictatorship of the revolutionary classes under the leadership of the proletariat. All who stand for resistance to Japan and for democracy are entitled to share in this political power, regardless of their party affiliation.
The new democratic revolution also differs from a socialist revolution in that it overthrows the rule of the imperialists, traitors and reactionaries in China, but does not destroy any section of capitalism which is capable of contributing to the anti-imperialist anti-feudal struggle.
(Mao Tse Tung: "Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party"; Ibid; Volume 2; p. 326-7).
        According to Mao,New Democracy was TRANSITIONAL :     Therefore the new democratic state was NOT SOCIALIST. But it had: An ultimate perspective of not capitalism but socialism or communism, since China's bourgeois-democratic revolution at the present stage is not of the old general type but is a democratic revolution of a special type - a new-democratic revolution... However it is not at all surprising.. That a capitalist economy will develop to a certain extent within Chinese society with the sweeping away of the obstacles to the development of capitalism after the victory of the revolution.. A certain degree of capitalist development will be an inevitable result of the victory of the democratic revolution in economically backward China.
(Mao SW: "Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party"; Vol 2; p.329).
But to ensure a red facade, Mao proclaimed his would have socialist factors: Mao did recognise a second stage - the socialist revolution.

However Mao says its arrival is inevitable. Mao deferred the Socialist revolution to some nebulous future when the necessary conditions are ripe :

The Chinese revolutionary movement led by the CCP embraces the two stages, ie, the democratic and the socialist revolutions which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and that the second process can be carried through only after the first had been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation of the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution.
(Mao SW: "Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party"; Vol 2; p.330-31).
But Marxism-Leninism holds that a state of the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT is necessary to establish socialism: TRANSITION from 'NEW DEMOCRACY' [the joint dictatorship of several classes, including the national bourgeoisie] - to the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT must, involve CLASS STRUGGLE against the resistance of the national bourgeoisie. Maoism rejects this Marxist-Leninist view, holding that the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class can be resolved peacefully : The correct handling which can resolve these contradictions by peaceful means is :     Mao defines this as a policy of the "Ideological remoulding" (Mao SW Ibid; p. 403), of the national bourgeoisie. This is the same theory of the Soviet revisionist NIKOLAI BUHKARIN of the capitalists growing peacefully into socialism:     The New Democratic State was apparently' to differ from all states before. It was the harbinger of ALL STATES TO BE formed from revolutions in colonial and semi-colonial countries (Mao; Ibid; p.351). The state reflected all classes that participated in the revolution.
       What ECONOMIC TASKS will the new democratic state carry out?

    Mao accepts the programme of the Manifesto of the Kuomintang's [KMT] First National Congress held during the period of KMT-Communist cooperation. This incorporated Sun Yat Sen's reinterpreted Three People's Principles. (Mao SW: Vol 2: "On New Democracy"; Vol 2; p.363).

    Accordingly, the economic tasks are akin to a state capitalist nationalisation :

It will own the big banks and the big industrial and commercial enterprises.

Enterprises such as the banks, railways and airlines whether Chinese owned or foreign-owned, which are either monopolistic in character or too big for private management, shall be operated and administered by the state so that private capital cannot dominate the livelihood of the people: this is the main principle of the regulation of capital.

.. In the new-democratic republic under the leadership of the proletariat the state enterprises will be of a socialist character and will constitute the leading force in the whole national economy but the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production as does not dominate the livelihood of the people for China's economy is still very backward. The republic will.. Confiscate the land of the landlords and distribute it to those peasants having little or no land, carry out Sun Yat Sen's slogan of Land to the Tiller, abolish feudal relations in the rural areas, and turn the land over to the private ownership of the peasants.. In general socialist agriculture will be established at this stage, though various types of cooperative enterprises developed on the basis of land to the tiller will contain elements of socialism. China's economy must develop along the path of the regulation of capital and the equalization of landownership, and must never be privately owned by a few.. We must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type
(Mao SW: Vol 2: "On New Democracy"; Vol 2; p.353).

    Mao reassures the bourgeoisie that the CCP will :     He brands the Left phrase mongerers, saying they call for One Stage revolution. There is no talk as there is with Lenin, of moving into the Second stage as the bourgeoisie start to desert the first phase of the revolution! (See below). Criticising USSR Mao counterposed a Utopian' approach in China : "The Soviet Union practices the use of high rewards and heavy punishments, emphasising only material incentives. We now practice socialism and have the sprouts of communism. Schools factories and neighbourhoods can establish people's communes. In a few years big communes will be organised to include everyone... Too great a reliance on material rewards with high rewards and heavy punishments won't do. We won't hand out medals from now on. Officers should go down to the ranks to be ordinary soldiers.."
("Secret Speeches of Chairman Mao"; Ibid; p.410. p.408).



    The Japanese had long coveted China and had engineered various provocations in Manchuria. Finally Japan invaded China in 1931. The KMT did initially resist. Chiang kai-Shek sabotaged the anti-Japanese struggle, despite the masses who wished to counter-attack the Japanese invaders :

    Chiang Kai-Shek's mission to General Tanaka has been discussed already. Even the CCP itself was quite late in resisting the Japanese. The Ultra-Leftist strategy of WANG MING and LI LI SAN; who were at this time the leading members of the CC of the CCP; was in part responsible for this delay : "In September 1932 the Provisional Central Committee of the CPC called on the people of China to arm themselves and to resist the aggression of the Japanese imperialists... However under the control of Wang Ming the CC headed by Bo Gu wrongly.. put forward the slogan of "Defend the Soviet Union With Arms. At home it advocated "Down With All". It held that the conditions had been ripe for seizing key cities and waging general strike. Because of these erroneous propositions and slogans the Party lost the opportunity to maintain close contact with the anti-Japanese masses. On the other hand Chiang Kai-Shek took the opportunity to suppress large numbers of party members. They were arrested and killed."
(Deng Mao Mao;" Deng Xiaoping - My Father"; New York; 1995; p.196).
    Meanwhile the Japanese made rapid territorial gains and established a puppet government supported by Chiang Kai-Shek. Meanwhile Chiang Kai-Shek attacked, instead of the Japanese, the CCP. When the Japanese created the "MUKDEN INCIDENT" of September 1931, they created a pretext to invade, from Korea into South Manchuria. The Japanese used the ex-Emperor Puyi as a puppet : "In 1932 the Japanese established the "Manchiko", puppet state under Japanese control.. Chiang Kai-Shek in spite of the strong opposition of Chinese [to the Japanese aggression] launched the fourth campaign.. against the Red Army.. The Red Army.. led by Zhou Enlai and Zhu De won".
(Deng Mao Mao;" Deng Xiaoping - My Father"; New York; 1995; p.210-211).
    But the masses refused to let the KMT policy stand. On December 9, 1935 a huge demonstration in Peking occurred. These "DECEMBER NINTHERS" lit a nation wide demand for anti-Japanese actions. (Spence Ibid; p. 420).

    But the Japanese continued to over-run the KMT. Despite the masses, the KMT cravenly signed the Taggu Truce in May 1933. This ceded Northeastern Hebei to Japan and created a large "Demilitarized Zone" patrolled by "non-hostile Chinese troops".
    Meanwhile Chiang Kai-Shek continued his attacks against the CCP. He forced the "Bandit Suppression Headquarters" to drive into the heart of the JIANXI Soviet. By 1934, the blockade was serious. The CCP withdrew from the situation in a military retreat. This was led by Zhou Enlai, Lin Biao, and Peng Dehuai. This was the famous "LONG MARCH" of October 16th, 1934. The 80,000 strong army broke out of the blockade and went some 6,000 miles in 370 days. (Spence Ibid; p. 404-405).
    The Command of the CCP military had been in the hands of Li Teh (Real name Otto Braun) who had been sent from the Comintern, in 1933.( Deng Mao Mao Ibid; p.228-239). The portrayal of the Maoists is that Li Teh bore the responsibility for the need for the Forced Retreat. This is unlikely. At the same time the Maoists blame Li Teh for :

    But the encirclement was complete and the break through had to be made. Also the manoeuvre had to be completed in as much secrecy as possible. This makes these criticisms invalid. The real problem that the faction around Wang Ming posed for the Maoists, was that they were in favour of a more open recognition of the USSR. Most of them had been trained in the USSR, and they went by the title the "RETURNED BOLSHEVIKS"; or the "28 BOLSHEVIKS". Furthermore and more problematic for Mao, they had criticised the Mao faction for his army tactics and for his favouring of the rich peasantry :     These criticisms are doubtless in part correct. The factions of the CCP around Wang Ming, Li Teh and Bo Gu were now in open enmity with that of Mao. This let the CC of the CCP holding the ZUNYI meeting between January 15th-17th 1935. It was at this meeting that Mao finally established his hold on the very centre of the CCP.
    The forced retreat of the Long March had defeated for now, the KMT attack on the CCP. The KMT came under further considerable pressure to collaborate to defeat The Japanese invaders. The Manchurian war lord, ZHANG XUELIANG kidnapped Chiang Kai-Shek to force the KMT to cooperate with the CCP. In December 1936, Zou EnLai negotiated with Zhang and stated that the leadership should be under Chiang, for a national United Front Government ( Spence; Ibid; p.423). As the Japanese entered to Eastern China as well, pressure mounted for opposition. By July 1937, there was an agreement between the CCP and the KMT to cooperate to resist the Japanese. Given Kai-Shek's attacks, and his hidden relations with the Japanese, this was a doomed enterprise. However, this marked the start of the SINO-JAPANESE WAR. The Red Army was designated the Eighth Route Army (Spence; Ibid; p.460). But it was a fragile alliance.
    Even though the KMT was poorly led, and had links with some pro-Japanese landlords; it was supported by the USA. Initially the KMT refused to join a United Front with the CCP. But in September 1937, after the Japanese assault on Shanghai, an agreement was reached between the KMT and the CCP Red Army at YANAN Northern base area; held by the Eighth Route army. The CPC and KMT pledged cooperation in a united front against Japanese imperialism.
    The basis of the United Front was the "Three Principles of the People" by SUN YAT SEN. Even though it was correct to unite with all forces fighting Japanese imperialism, the CCP incorrectly threw away any semblance of a correct strategy by making major concessions of principle, thereby hampering its independence, as seen in its promises: "The CCP pledged to restrain class struggle; to abolish the autonomous regions of another Soviet [the Shaanxi Soviet]; to renounce the use of armed struggle for soviet formation; and renounce the seizing of landlord holdings."
(Jonathan Spence : "The Search For Modern China"; 1990; New York; p.460).
    As the Sino-Japanese war became part of the Second World War, the situation again changed. Soon the KMT attacked the CCP New Fourth Army, in the Yangzi River area in January 1941. Despite massive losses, the CCP remained in the Front. The decision to stay in The Front even now, reflected the desire of the CCP to achieve an alliance with the USA.
    Both the USSR and USA had aided the KMT Government at CHONGQING, and the USSR aided the CCP at YAN’AN. Following the fall of BURMA, and the loss of KMT troops, Chongqing was waning. After the Japanese attack of 1944, OPERATION ICHIGO ("Number One"), Chongqing weakened.
    At this time the USA began to look to the YAN’AN CCP. From the USA perspective the imperialists had a choice. On the one hand the CCP had fought well against the Japanese, but carried the stigma of the name "Communist". On the other hand the KMT were definitely capitalist, but were corrupt and had not engaged in the fight well.
    General Joseph Stillwell urged support to the CCP, but Chiang Kai-Shek obstructed this. Stillwell was removed in favour of General Albert Wedemeyer, and Ambassador Hurley pulled away from Yangan. The European war was almost won by the Allies. The YALTA Meeting in February 1945 signalled the entry of the USSR into the Asian war. But the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki signalled the USA intent, to deny the USSR a foothold in Asia. The USA and the KMT instructed the Japanese not to surrender to either USSR troops in Manchuria or the CCP. After the Japanese surrender, the KMT installed puppets who had been supporting Japanese fascism. Disillusionment mounted. Mao met Chiang Kai-Shek at Chongqing, escorted by the USA ambassador Hurley in August 1945. But this did not yield any stable compromise. Chiang Kai-Shek openly attacked the CCP in November 1945.
    Ambassador Hurley resigned in November accusing secret USA advisers of CCP sympathy. Indeed some of the USA leaders had understood by now that the CCP was not Communist. But the KMT continued to attack the CCP. GENERAL MARSHALL of the USA tried to mediate a cease fire between the CCP and the KMT; although an initial agreement was reached, it broke down in January 1947.
    Links between Ya’nan and the USA grew during the war. Chiang's greed and corruption as well as the inefficiency and incompetence of the KMT troops alienated the USA :     The situation demanded re-thinking. USA Ambassador Gauss : "It appears that we are to be faced inevitably with the problem of determining whether the Chinese Communists are to be supplied with American arms and equipment in the struggle against Japan.'.. and Stillwell declared "The 8th Group Army (Reds) will be used. There must be no misunderstanding on this point. They can be brought to bear where there will be no conflict with the Central Government (KMT) troops about. They must be accepted as a part of the team during the crisis."
(Tuchman; Ibid; p. 619)
    As the British Communist Alan Winnington noted, Mao courted the USA. Mao was opposed by some of the CCP including PENG DEHUAI, who were much more pro-USSR. Mao however interviewed the American diplomat JOHN S. SERVICE who reported Mao as saying:


As Tuchman notes : "Few believed the Chinese Communists were "real" communists.. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.. in a letter to Captain Carlson (Military Observers Mission said :
"I am hoping and praying for a real working out of the situation with the so-called Communists."
(Tuchman; Ibid; p.621).

Stalin had understood the real desires of Mao regarding the USA. Stalin sent a personal envoy to Mao and China, IVAN V.KOVALEV; former People’s Commissar for Transportation. Kovalev reported only to Stalin. He had the highest entry into CCP circles. His reports to Stalin naturally included the information about the USA, and also CCP responses to the COMINFORM EXPOSURE OF TITO:



    In an obvious attempt to force the pace of USA recognition, as early as 1946, ZHOU EN LAI warned the special US envoy, GENERAL GEORGE C MARSHALL (Chief of Staff of army) that : "We will certainly "lean to one side". However the extent of [our leaning to the Soviet side] depends on your policy to us."
(Cited "Uncertain partners"; Ibid; p 45).

    The CCP actively tried to attach themselves to the USA; but, now, as the war was ended, the USA became cooler. The pro-Mao lobby had been blocked by pressure from the pro-KMT lobby. In the interim therefore, the CCP needed to gain some ground. The CCP now moved Left. The CCP launched a Land Reform; which gained for them the peasantry in Northern Jangsu, Hebei, Shandong. (Spence; Ibid; p.491-493).

    The seizure of the lands of the Japanese and their collaborators, was huge in just Manchuria alone (Spence; Ibid; p.497). This assisted the CCP to gain the masses.

    Manchuria had been ceded by the Yalta Agreement, to USSR occupation. The USSR now assisted the CCP by allowing the CCP and not the KMT to occupy key areas (Sergei N. Goncharov, John W. Lewis, Xue Litai : "Stalin, Mao and the Korean War"; Stanford; 1993; p.11-14).

    Although the KMT did occupy Yan’an, the USSR then assisted the CCP further, with arms and funds. LIN BIAO used this to build the PEOPLES' LIBERATION ARMY (PLA).

    The KMT, in desperation, staved off a crisis by printing money. This provoked a severe inflation and major labour unrest. By 1948, the CCP and PLA launched a conventional frontal war on the KMT. Chiang Kai-Shek retreated to the island of Taiwan, recalling the retreat of the Southern Ming court from the Manchu invasions 500 years earlier.


By 1954 a constitution was enacted by a newly elected NATIONAL PEOPLES' CONGRESS (NPC). The NPC put the FIRST 5-YEAR PLAN (FYP).



The CCP was a class coalition made up of many factions. Even at the proclamation of the PRC, Mao's previous opponents from 1927, were still within the CCP. As MacFarquhar puts it :

i) There were no Marxist-Leninists left in the CC of CCP
    MacFarquhar notes that the one person that Mao did purge, early after the PRC was established was Gao Gang. (MacFarquhar; Ibid; Vol 1: Ibid; p.46).

    GAO GANG’s removal in 1953, eliminated one of the few potential remaining Marxist-Leninists. Stalin had tried previously to protect Gang from Mao (See "Uncertain partners" p.68-69). Mao purged him after Gang’s attack upon BO YIBO minister of Finance. Bo Yibo was supported by Mao in being "soft" on capitalists, in the tax reforms proposed at the National Conference On Financial and Economic Work in 1953:

"Since the beginning of 1953 Bo Yibo’s tax reform proposals had created a furore in the leadership.. They were soft on former capitalists and the private sector but also they would alter the balance of fiscal advantage away from the sate sector back to the private sector, and force the former to compete more directly with the latter.. Gao’s comments on Bo were trenchant.. Bo’s defence.. came from Mao."
(D.S.G.Goodman: "Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese revolution. A political biography"; London; 1994; p.52.
ii) The faction of the pro-"Soviet" Russian forces.

    PENG DEHUAI, AND CHEN YUN, represented the small section of the CC of the CCP who still had any allegiance to the USSR. Because by this stage the USSR had fallen into revisionism under Khrushchev, objectively, this faction could not be considered any longer a socialist force. Because the Khrushchev forces had dismantled socialist property relations in the countryside, and because they were busily dismantling socialist property relations and socialist planning in the state as a whole, the state of the USSR had fallen from the control of the workers and peasants of the USSR. (The economic basis of this destruction of socialism has been extensively documented by W.B.Bland in "The Restoration of Capitalism In The Soviet Union"; originally printed 1980; reprinted Alliance Number 14; February 1995; North America).

    This force, objectively represented pro-USSR compradors. The removal of PENG DEHUAI eliminated a major pro-Soviet force in the CCP leadership.

iii) The National Capitalist class.

The question is often asked as to which faction Liu Shaoqi belonged.
LIU SHAOQI was not a Marxist-Leninist. For instance, although during the civil war, the land reform helped to establish CCP power :

    This is hardly the stance of a Marxist-Leninist.

   LIU REPRESENTED THE NATIONAL CAPITALIST CLASS who promoted indigenous industry.

    As seen, Mao also represented an approach initially favourable to national capitalists. However Mao "leaned" to the USA. He DID NOT choose to "lean to the USSR".

    Mao obstructed the moves to expropriate USA based foreign capital. Both the Liu Shaoqi section; and the Peng Dehuai section of the CC of the CCP were fiercely attacked by MAO, AND LIN BIAO. As seen, Mao had previously been in favour of USA over the USSR, in the Second World War as allies. Objectively then, Mao was a pro-USA force within the international communist movement.

    DENG XIAOPING was a close ally of Mao in the struggles of Mao and Deng in 1933 against the "28 BOLSHEVIKS" :

"In 1933.. Deng found himself in opposition to the CCP leadership on almost all counts. In particular he argued that it was necessary to pursue a lenient policy towards the relatively prosperous peasant both to ensure that the CCP had sufficient support to ensure that it could implement land reform and because as a guerilla force the CCP required a sound economic base for its own sustenance.. The CCP leadership attacked Mao.. And Deng".
(Goodman Ibid; p.34-5).
    But increasingly after the Great Leap Forward, Deng came to represent that section of the national capitalist class, who rejected compromising to a large extent with the USA.

    ZHOU EN LAI similarly played a shifting role, at times supporting the Liu faction (eg being against Mao’s attacks on planning); but at critical moments he sided with the Mao faction.

    The CCP was a complex class alliance. As events unfolded, it became clear that it was dominated by political representatives of national capitalist and some national bourgeoisie, prepared to compromise with USA capital.
    The capitalist class had its representatives within the CCP; but in addition they had separate "democratic" political parties.


    If Mao was a Marxist-Leninist the PRC would have gone into the second stage, towards socialism. But Mao built "New Democracy", as he had promised, with the capitalist class.

i) In The Countryside

    Mao and Liu Shaoqi and Zhou En-Lai, all wished to "collectivize". This was acceptable to the CCP CC for some very pragmatic reasons. Firstly, because of the imperative of :

    Secondly, both sectors of the party had no need to placate landlordism. In fact, the CCP had already dealt with landlords in the anti-Japanese United Front. The veneer of "collectivisation" helped to deflect resentment of impoverished peasantry. Mao :     Thirdly, "collectivisation" did not threaten "class harmony". What form did this "Collectivisation" take? The form was Agricultural Producers Cooperative (APC). In these APC, private property relations continued. They were disguised under the term of "dividends" :     A limited form of agricultural improvement, should not divert us from the fact that in essence the second stage of the revolution had not been embarked upon.

The so called "SOCIALIST DEVELOPMENT" put Agriculture before industry.
Mao put it as "Green Leaves Before Red Flowers" :

ii) In The City

    Pro-Japanese capital related ventures were all expropriated immediately. All other imperialist owned properties including USA linked comprador capital was not touched. And national capitalist class capital was not touched. The formerly pro-Japanese property and assets had formed the basis of the state owned sector:

    But as already said, those enterprises owned by imperialist other than the Japanese , and by compradors dependent upon imperialism other than the Japanese, were NOT nationalised : "Enterprises financed by foreign capital were allowed to operate provided they abided by the laws and decrees of the Central People’s Government."
(Liao Kai-lung :"From Yenan to Peking"; Peking; 1954; p.156-156).
    Even during the Korea war of 1950-53, when US and Chinese armed forces were in actual conflict US owned enterprises were only placed under state control and NOT nationalised: By September 1953, Mao equated "socialism" with "STATE CAPITALISM": "The transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state capitalism". (Mao SW: Vol 5; "The Only Road For Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce"; September 1953; p.112.

"State capitalism.. is to be put into practice gradually so as to attain socialist ownership by the whole people."
(Mao SW : Volume 5; 1977: "On the Draft Constitution of the People's Republic of China"; Peking 1954; p.143).

    Liu Shaoqi was in no disagreement, as was enshrined in Article 6 of the Draft Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. (See Report On Constitution by Liu Shaoqi; Peking; 1962; p.66).

    All capital that was not fully expropriated, was converted into JOINT STOCK VENTURES WITH THE STATE however. This did allow a veneer of not being "private". Profit termed "bonuses", was now paid to "managers" not "owners". The enterprises were operated jointly by the state and private capital :

"The advanced form of state capitalism in China is called a state-private enterprise. This is the principle way through which the transition of capitalist industry and commerce into socialist enterprises is being effected.. A joint state-private enterprise is one in which the state invests and to which it assigns personnel to share in management with the capitalists.. A fixed rate of interest was paid by the state for the total investment of the capitalists in the joint state-private enterprises.. The interest is fixed at a rate of 5% per annum".
(Kuan Ta-Tung:"The Socialist Transformation of capitalist industry and Commerce in China"; Peking; 1960; pp. 75, 84, 86-87).
    The Chinese national capitalist class not only had no objection to Mao’s 'socialism’, in which the state invested in their enterprises and guaranteed their profits, they welcomed it:     By 1954 Mao was claiming that :     Yet even by 1957, Mao was still drumming up business! "In December 1957, Mao visited Shanghai where Major Ch'en Yi arranged for him to meet 80 city's leading business men:
"Mao began by praising the great contribution the 'national capitalist friends' had made in the past. "Now I have come from Peking to seek our advice,' he went on. Many businessmen he said, had been requesting that the socialist transformation of private enterprise should be hastened, 'lest the national bourgeoisie lag behind in the progress towards socialism.' "I don't think that I can agree with that', he informed us. 'But I am not well informed on the subject. I want to listen to your opinions. I have brought only my two ears to this meeting, and if you expect more from me, you will be disappointed."
(MacFarquhar: "Origins of Cultural Revolution" Ibid; Vol 1; p.22).
    The remaining cautious capitalists who had delayed, were convinced enough, to be taken over into Joint Stock ventures with the state, by 1957. Initially "The People's Daily" on 3 January in an editorial said:     However under pressure by the capitalists, this time frame for so called "socialist transformation", was rapidly shortened.
    By the 15 th January under the direction of the mayor of Peking P'ENG ZHEN, "socialist transformation" was completed. This was possible using the simple expedient of : C) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FACTIONS

    That both Mao and Liu were not Marxist-Leninists is by now clear. Liu Shaoqi’s faction disagreed with Mao over several issues. These were whether to strengthen China’s industrial base and how; whether the Cult of Mao should be continued; and the role of the CCP. The major disagreement however was how much to woo and support the USA. It is these disagreements that overlie and explain the public responses of the CCP to the CPSU.


    During the class alliance forged during the anti-Japanese war, the Cult of Mao was useful to all factions of the CCP. But even then, the extent of the cult was a problem for some factions. Even in 1942, Liu Shaoqi had apparently disapproved of Mao's assumption of the title 'Chairman' and remarked to some colleagues:

    Liu accepted Mao as a leader, as it made sense during a war to have one leader. But he resisted the Cult erected by Mao: "Even after Liu Shao Ch'i began eulogising Mao as leader and theoretician possibly in return for being made No.2 in the party, he did not put Mao on a pedestal.. In 1947 Liu told a conference:
"There is no perfect leader in the world. This was true of the past as it is of the present, in China and in other countries. If there is now, he only pretends to be such, just like inserting an onion in a pig's nose to make it look like an elephant."
(Liu Selected Editions; Cited MacFarquhar R: "Origins of Cultural Revolution" Vol 1. p.7).
    After the PRC was established the struggle between the factions naturally focused on the Cult of Mao. In 1953, The Constitution of the Young Communist League removed its references to Mao Ze Dong Thought. (Goodman; Ibid; p.55).

    As the struggle between the Mao and the Liu faction intensified, during the Great leap Forward, Liu Shaoqi:

"Warned against the attribution of everything to Mao's works and also ordered that the phrase the 'Thought of Mao Tse-Tung' should not be used in propaganda abroad. P'eng Chen adopted a similarly deflationary attitude when enthusiasts in his local party hailed Mao as the greatest Marxist-Leninist theorist of the age and the teacher of world revolution, and he suggested that after Marx and Lenin there was no need for further discussion of political economy and the theory of imperialism. Lu Ting-yi explained why Mao’s's thought could not be said to surpass Marxism-Leninism."
(Roderick MacFarquhar: "The Origins of the Cultural Revolution: Volume 2: The Great Leap Forward 1958-1960"; Oxford 1983; p. 319).
    Liu’s faction intended this to lead to the disintegration of the Cult of Mao.
    Deng Xiaoping, Liu Shaoqi and Peng Dehuai pushed to remove reference of Mao Ze Dong Thought from the Constitution. They took this step at the 8TH CCP CONGRESS of 15 September 1956.     Mao then professed that he was "retiring" to the "second front". But doubtless his resignation from the Head of State, was forced from him by the National capitalist class. Liu Shaoqi:
became the acknowledged Head of State. But as a compromise the hand-over was due to start in 1959. As a further compromise, Mao was to be made an Honorary Chairman of the Central Committee. It was at this 8th Congress also that Deng Xiao Ping was to switch sides from supporting Mao, to supporting Liu. He was now placed on the newly-created 6 man Politburo Standing Committee; and given the title of General Secretary.


To defend his position, Mao would attack the authority of the party itself, the CCP. Liu’s opposition to Mao, would now take the form of a defence of the CCP. The first indication of this was to be the campaign launched by Mao in April 1956 called:

    On Mao’s insistence, a total liberalism in the arts and ideology and press was promoted. This was meant to reassure the bourgeoisie, that the New Democratic State belonged to them also. The campaign targeted CCP official behaviour.

    Initially the Liu Shaoqi faction was in favour of the campaign. In support of this line they asserted that the ‘class struggle was dying down’ :

"Comparing this year with last year the class struggle is not getting fiercer and sharper but is ameliorating. The landlords and rich peasants hold the common good and obey the laws (feng-kung shou-fa), the bourgeoisie has accepted the transformation, even the counter-revolutionaries are sincere.. In general the situation has changed, the rich peasants had been deprived of their weapons and over half of the bourgeoisie have entered state - private enterprises.. Let me repeat that it is no longer true to say that the class struggle is getting sharper."
(MacFarquhar; Ibid; vol 1; p.80).
    Liu hoped the 100 Flowers campaign would limit the Mao Cult :     But Liu tried to safeguard the future rights of the CCP to:     Therefore initially Liu supported the "100 Flowers Campaign". But the Liu Shaoqi faction, soon recognised that the "100 Flowers Campaign" was an invitation to the petit bourgeois and the bourgeoisie to openly attack the CCP. The Liu Faction saw a further need of the "cover", of the "Red Facade" of the CCP. They therefore opposed this decision, even though they were pro-capitalist.     During the 5 weeks of the "blooming" a total challenge was offered to the CCP authority. As the party cadre rejected the virulent attacks, Mao was forced to humiliatingly withdraw.
    At the same time Mao continued to foster other attacks, that took the forms of "rectification" campaigns aimed at party cadre (p.191; 196;). These attacks were justified by the article "Internal Contradictions Among the People", a speech of 27 February 1957, where Mao explained :     For all these reasons Mao counter-attacked, and asked for an :     Both P’eng Chen and Liu Shaoqi strongly objected to these attacks. Liu Shaoqi boycotted the Contradictions speech to the Supreme State Conference (ibid; p.191). Liu did reply though : "Contradictions within the ranks of the people.. some cadre held that.. the methods of rectification would prove more effective than more persuasive education. Some went further and suggested the 'dual measure of persuasion and force', that is to say, in addition to the formula 'unity-criticism-unity' there should be added some 'pressure'".
(MacFarquhar; Vol 1 Ibid; p.198).
    Later, during the "Great Leap Forward" (see below), a surreptitious attack on the party was launched by the "elevation of the masses". Party cadre who resisted were labelled as Right Obstructionist, and this also assisted the destruction of the influence of the party. As the Liu faction gained control, and used the failure of the Great Leap Forward to oust Mao, Mao turned to the Army.
    First he removed PENG DEHUAI from control of the MAC of the PLA. In his place he put LIN BIAO, a loyal acolyte. Biao now pushed further the cult of Mao. It was at this time that the printing of the "Little Red Book" became established.
    Peng Dehuai counter-attacked. At the July 1957 LUSHAN CCP Party Conference, Peng Dehuai openly attacked Mao. The grounds for attack were the severe disruption of the economic and political life created by the "Great Leap Forward". Peng charged that the myths of economic success were fabrications by party cadre who were forced to manufacture "successes" or be purged as "right obstructionist." However Mao’s vigorous defence and humilation of Peng Dehuai succeeded as none of the national capitalists supported him. There is evidence that Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi as well as even Zhou En Lai supported the correctness of the charges laid by Peng. (See Goodman :"Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese Revolution"; Ibid; p.61)

    The reason for this was that Peng Dehuai promoted further links with the USSR. In particular Peng hoped to use USSR aid to further develop the PLA, and potentially to get atomic weaponry. The Liu Shaoqi faction saw that Peng objectively supported the former USSR. They therefore turned a blind eye to his fate.

    From now on the PLA would be the instrument of the attacks of Mao on the CCP. It would be the weapon turned against the CCP during the so called "Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution".


    The underlying economic differences between the factions became clear with the ‘GREAT LEAP FORWARD’, launched from the 3rd Plenum of the 8th Central Committee in September 1957.
    By this time Mao had been forced to accept that he would be removed from the position of Head of state, in favour of Liu Shaoqi from 1959. The counter-strike he chose was one of economic and huge political sabotage by the method of an adventurist and ultra-leftist step.
    Mao proposed a ‘substitution of capital in investment by labour". This substituted for expertise and skilled labour - enthusiasm ("Better Red Than Expert"). Mao’s slogan was : "More Better faster and more economical". It replaced planning with emphasis on decentralised and uncontrolled mass activity. This was exemplified in the backyard furnaces development. Here in a crazy notion furnaces to produce "steel" were set up in backyards and any scrap tea pot was used to produce "steel". The resulting unusable steel was one side effect, but a more serious one was the misguided energy spent by the peasantry and workers in this fruitless enterprise. Crops lay waste and true productive work was neglected.
    Furthermore Mao attacked the very notion of Planning. Thus he attacked various components of the Five Year Plan. Especially those that touched on the promotion of Heavy over light industry. This put him in a major conflict with Liu Shaoqi whose allies were in control of the Five Year Plans. (MacFarquhar; Ibid; Vol 1; p.57-74).
    Naturally the national capitalist class would be in favour of a policy that promoted heavy industry. Naturally also, the comprador capitalist class would be uninterested in this.
    It was the Minister of Finance Li Hsien-nien, an ally of the faction representing the National Capitalist class who attacked Mao’s economic objectives first, even before Mao had launched the "Great Leap Forward", during the so called "Little Leap". The Peoples’ Daily quoted Li Hsien-nien’s speech :

The end results of the so-called "Great Leap Forward" were economic misery, starvation and great disillusion among the masses with the potential for progressive change of the CCP :     Only with great difficulty was Mao forced to recant the line. In recanting he lost much prestige. His response would be to launch the so called "Cultural Revolution"; a war against the faction of Lui Shaoqi. But before that the CCP was to break with the USSR. By now, the leading faction in the PRC was the national capitalist class.


    Comrade Martens agrees that the initial response of the CCP, to the 20 th party CPSU Congress was poor. But the change between the inintal and the later response, is not fully explained by him. The internal situation of the CCP is not considered by Martens.
    In February 1956, the infamous 20 th Party Congress of the CPSU (B), was held, and took two main political positions :

    As Comrade Martens points out, the CCP bowed to the traitorous statements by Khrushchev. Deng Xiaoping, Liu Shaoqi, and Hu Ch'iao-mu drafted the 5th April reply, that was published in the "Peoples' Daily" -"On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Mao agreed to this text. (MacFarquhar; Ibid; Vol 1 : Ibid; p.43).
    Martens notes :     Martens recites CCP accusations against Stalin in "On the Historic Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" : But why did the 1956 CCP support the attack of Khrushchev against Stalin?

    Firstly there was an initial agreement on attack on the "Cult Of Stalin"

    All factions agreed with attacks on Stalin. Mao agreed also, but this might allow attacks on the Mao Cult of Personality. The compromise CCP solution then was to simply object to the "complete negation of Stalin". But later as the Mao faction was engaged in struggle with the Liu Shaoqi faction, the issue of "The Cult of Mao’s Personality" became embroiled in a larger issue. Peng Zhen and Liu Shaoqi had resisted both the Mao cult, and had also been openly anti-Stalin. The two were explicitly linked in a threat to Mao:

 Secondly, there was Agreement On "Class harmony".

    Amongst all factions of the CCP, there was agreement with the Khruschevites on the issue of "World Peace". After all the CCP had been cultivating the worlds' "progressive bourgeoisie" at the AFRO-ASIAN BANDUNG CONFERENCE in Indonesia, in April 1955.



The "Proposal for the General Line of the International Communist Movent"; was dated June 14th, 1963. It was the work of Deng Xiaoping's secretariat, but Chen Boda [Mao's political secretary] later found it expedient to claim that the final version was Mao's. (Uli Franz "Deng Xiaoping"; New York; 1988; p.168). As Martens appreciates, even this document does not attack Trotskyite and Buhkarinist assumptions of Khrushchev (Martens, Ibid; p.13). In fact "The Proposal" also accepts that:

    Clearly even now, the CCP did not definitely want a rupture even in 1963. The Chinese proposed to Mikhail Suslov, a : IN FACT, THE CCP WAS VYING WITH THE CPSU TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE INTERNATIONAL REVISIONIST COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

    But "Proposal of General Line" did signify a rupture with Soviet revisionism. Why? A number of factors had changed :

    Firstly, by 1963, the pro-USSR forces had been purged. Mao Ze Dong attacked Peng Dehuai after the Lushan Congress of 1959.

    Secondly the historic role of the Party of Labour of Albania in attacking Khrushchev openly, forced the hand of the CCP to the step of : "A Proposal For the General Line Concerning the International Communist Movement."

    Thirdly, Mao recognised that the attack on Stalin’s "Cult" justified an attack on him. This has been discussed above. But a side effect of this was to diminish the authority of the CCP. Thus paradoxically, the pro- Liu national capitalist class was forced to concede that they had to "resurrect" the "Cult of Mao" to some extent in order to build up the country after the recent economic disasters of the Great Leap.

    Fourthly and related to this, the ex-USSR had withdrawn all its aid in 1960. This was a blow to the CCP. Khrushchev had retaliated for the purging of Peng Dehuai, and the challenge that the CCP posed at a world level, to the authority of the ex-USSR as the "senior party".

    Fifthly, Mao had seen a possibility to dissolve the Red Facade. But disagreeing with this, Liu’s faction had attacked the general policy of "class harmony".

    For example, members of the CHINA PEASANTS AND WORKERS DEMOCRATIC PARTY (CPWDP), were attacked at the May 1957 National People’s Congress. At this meeting (held after the "Let a 100 Flowers and a 100 Schools Contend" campaign) Mao was attacked for weakening the CCP, under pretexts that China was "unified" and the bourgeoisie was "transformed". WU HAN who was a deputy major for Peng Zhen, led the attack :

    This signalled the attack by the Liu Shaoqi faction on the policy of "Long term co-existence and mutual supervision between the Communists and the democratic parties, at the 1957 session of the National Peoples Congress". (R.MacFarquhar; Ibid; Vol 1; p. 276).

    Sixthly: The USA supported the revisionists of the USSR in their attacks launched at the 20th party congress. As long as Mao was still dominating the ruling circles of the CCP, a guarded support for the Khrushchev forces was appropriate. Both Mao and Khrushchev, after all were objectively linked to the USA. Now that the resolutely national bourgeoisie under Liu Shaoqi had asserted their dominance, kow-towing to the USA was not desired by Liu’s faction. As the CCP said after it had dealt with Mao temporarily :

"In complete disregard of the common conclusion of the 1957 declaration that US imperialism is the enemy of all the people of the world, the leadership of the CPSU passionately sought collaboration with US imperialism.. Particularly around the time of the Camp David Talks in September 1959, Khrushchev lauded Eisenhower to the skies." ("The Origin and Development of the Differences Between the Leadership of the CPSU and Ourselves."; Peking; 1963; p.24).      It would take Mao’s supposed "Cultural Proletarian Revolution" to again change the Chinese line toward support of the USA.
    Thus the alliance of forces favoured the open launch by the CCP, of a full attack on the Khrushchev forces. The national capitalist class was forced to build up its industrial base without any aid from the ex-USSR. The pro-USA section of the Chinese capitalist class was forced to accept the temporary victory of the anti-USA national bourgeois. They were to resort to the anti-CCP anti-Party strategy of the so called "Cultural Revolution", to win back power. Only then would Mao openly ally the CPC with the USA. This was signalled by Nixon’s pompous visit to China.


    This aimed to support the same USA forces who had once seen that Mao was a "radish communist". The support took the form of three main thrusts :

    The First under the guise of a spurious theory of "Three worlds" would force the proletariat to ally with their enemies;

    The Second under the supposed theory of an ‘encirclement’, would put the world’s peasantry at the leadership of the world’s progressives; thereby denying the proletariat’s leading role;

    The Third was simply to endorse wherever needed the puppets placed into power by the USA around the world.

    Maoist revisionist foreign policy vastly compounded the enormous disruption to the world proletariat, after Stalin’s death.



    This pseudo theory was pronounced by the "rehabilitated" Deng Xiaoping, representing Mao himself, following the "cultural counter -revolution". Deng presented this ‘theory’ to the United Nation in April 1974. (See ‘Politics of China" Ed R.MacFarquhar; Ibid; p. 291).

    The Albanian Marxist-Leninist, Enver Hoxha pointed out that after the October Revolution Lenin and Stalin had said :

    Clearly Lenin and Stalin’s views are in dire contradiction with the Maoist dictum of Three Worlds. In Mao’s Atheory" :
    The "First World" was the "super imperialists"; the USA and the former USSR; the "Second World" was formed by those lower rank capitalists countries like the European capitalists states;
    and "The Third World" was the so called spear head of revolution; in the impoverished colonial and semi-colonial world.

    The problems of this analysis; one that is not even based on any factual data, are manifest. The Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha has exposed these problems well:

    The practical consequences of this "theory" has been the formation of unprincipled alliances with the most unsavoury fascist elements world wide, justified because they are in the so called "Third World". This is described below : "Social imperialist China too is making great efforts to penetrate in both former colonial and semi-colonial countries. A example.. is provided by Zaire, a country ruled by the clique around Mobutu, the wealthiest and most bloodthirsty clique on the African continent. In the fighting.. recently in Morocco.. the Sherifian Kingdom of Morocco, the French Air Force and China all rushed to the aid of Mobutu the murderer of Patrice Lumumba.. What do the Chinese revisionists want in ..Zaire?... The Chinese social-imperialists are interfering in the affairs not only of that country, but also of other peoples and countries of Africa and other continents.. Even the USA dare not assist Pinochet the fascist hangman of Chile so openly as China is doing.. Under the guise of Marxism-Leninism, China is trying to show it is allegedly exporting the idea of revolution.. But China is exporting the idea of the counter-revolution.."
(Enver Hoxha Ibid; p. 516).
Indeed many of the states supported by China have not any shred of a claim to being even progressive : "Many of the states which the Chinese leadership includes in the '3rd World', are not opposed to American imperialism and Soviet social imperialism. To call such states "the main force of the revolution and the struggle against imperialism" as Mao Ze Dong advocates is a glaring mistake."
(Enver Hoxha Ibid; p. 557).
    The problems of this so called theory as applied to the "Second World", are obvious. The Maoists "marginalise" the metropolitan countries’ proletariat struggle, by pointing to the "Third World" as the important struggle. The theory even justifies the nonsensical theory of the super-profits being used to benefit the proletariat of the metropolitan countries. This lie makes the proletariat of the metropolitan countries, supposedly the accomplices of the ruling class in the rape and exploitation of the semi-colonial world. This is untrue.
    As Hoxha points out, the result in the so called "Second World" of this "theory" of Mao is a rejection of proletarian consciousness : "Where the big capitalist bourgeoisie and the big imperialist of yesterday, who are still imperialist are ruling. In the countries of the so called Asecond world", there is a large and powerful proletariat which is exploited to the bone, which is kept down by crushing laws, the army, the police, the trade unions, by all those weapons of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.. the Chinese revisionists ignore the proletariat."
(Enver Hoxha Ibid; p. 557).
    In contrast to Mao, Hoxha took the position of the leaders - Lenin and Stalin. In his address to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour Of Albania held in Tirana in November 1976, Fist Secretary Hoxha referred to : II) THE "THEORY" OF THE ENCIRCLEMENT OF THE CITIES BY THE COUNTRYSIDE     This took up the "theory" first expounded in Mao’s works such as the "Establishment of Base Areas" in Volume ii of the selected Works, (Peking 1965; p.93-102) under the heading "Problems of strategy in guerrilla war against Japan". This was extended to become a world wide application. As Lin Biao put it :     Of course, Lin Biao was the head gardener of the weed of "Mao Ze Dong Thought". Also we discussed the period when the "theory" of base encirclement arose. But we did not emphasise at the time that in fact, the "Long March" was a forced retreat. It was not a master stroke of military all-knowing genius that underlay it, it was simply put a retreat. This elevation of a retreat to a theory begins to explain the disastrous results of this "theory". In India it decimated a whole generation of valiant fighters who forsook the proletarian masses in the cities to go into the countryside to launch "revolution in the rural areas". They were wiped out by the Indian army. The Maoist CPI(ML) still grapples with the legacy of the Naxalbari adventurist Risings.
    This "theory" is linked to the "Theory of the Three Worlds". Both emphasise the peasantry and place the proletariat far behind. Whatever else this is, this is not Marxism-Leninism. Mao had long been a proponent of the peasant over the proletariat; reflecting his refusal to accept Marxism-Leninism.
    Indeed his famous report of February 1927; "Report on an Investigation of the Peasant movement in Hunan", was explicitly written to draw attention to the peasant. But as he did this he placed them above the workers. In the report as it was originally written, Mao allotted 70% of the achievements of the national democratic revolution to the peasantry : "To give credits where they are due; if we allot ten points of the accomplishments of the democratic revolution, then the achievements of the urban dwellers and the military units rate only three points while the remaining seven points go to the peasants in the rural revolution."
(Mao Report A In AMao Tse Tung hsuan-chi (Sel Work) Vol 1;Edition Of 1948; p.22).
    This passage was significantly amended to make it more ‘acceptable’ in the 1951 edition. Appropriately, for this type of mentality, in this same article, Mao originally allots the "leading force" to the peasants :     Again, by the time of the 1951 edition, this version was altered. Now it reads that the leading role belongs to the Communist Party!
    Mao knew the "formulae" of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, but clearly did not either believe them or enact them.


    After the victory of Mao in the "cultural revolution" the rapprochement with the USA did not take very long. From 1969 a visible change took place. On February 25th, 1971, US President Richard Nixon told Congress of the USA :

In his First speech in Peking during his visit of February 21st to 28th, President Nixon made matters clear:     From now on, the PRC established close links with the US dominated bloc such as Pakistan and Romania; with fascist Spain in 1973; and with other unsavoury regimes : General Ne Win of Burma (visited PRC in August 1971); Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia (visited in October 1971); General Sese Mobutu of Zaire ( visited in January 1973); and Tun Abdul Razak of Malaysia (visited in 1974). The PRC supported the regime of Yahya Khan who attempted to destroy the legitimate national liberation struggle taking place in Bangla Desh.

The final break with the former USSR on the part of the CCP was far from a principled Marxist-Leninist step. It was a step of convenience. Furthermore Mao was not in the vanguard of the split. If anyone in China was, it was the semi-reluctant National capitalist class.

The whole history of our movement after the death of Stalin requires much thought and analysis.



"The Communist International: 1919-1943: Documents", Theses on the Eastern Question, 4th Congress CI, (ed) J.Degras Volume 1; London; 1971

Franz, Uli : "Deng Xiaoping"; New York; 1988

Goodman, D.S.G. : "Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese Revolution, a political Biography"; London; 1994.

Goncharov, Sergei N.; and Lewis, John W; and Xue Litai : "Stalin, Mao and the Korean War -Uncertain partners"; Stanford; 1993.

Ho-sen, Tsia: "Istoriia opportunizma v Kommunisticheskoi Partii Kitaia" (An account of Opportunism In the Chinese Communist Party) In :"Problemy Kitaia" (Chinese Problems); No. 1, 1929.
Kang, Hua : "Chung-kuo Ta Ko-Ming-shi" ("History of the Great Chinese Revolution"); 1932

Lenin, V.I.: Preliminary Draft of Theses on National and Colonial Questions, 2nd Cong. CI in "Selected Works", Volume 10, London, 1946
Lenin, V.I.: Collected Works, Moscow 1977;

MacFarquhar, Roderick :"Origins of the Cultural Revolution"; Volume 1 : Contradictions Among People 1956-57"; Oxford; 1974.

MacFarquhar, Roderick : "Origins of the Cultural Revolution: Vol 2: "The Great Leap Forward"; Oxford 1983.

Mao Mao, Deng: "Deng Xiaoping-My Father"; New York; 1995

Mao Ze Dong : In "Chung -Yang tung-hsin (Central Newsletter) No.3; August 30th 1927

Mao Ze Dong "Summary of a Talk With the Representatives of Press and Publishing Circles."; 10 March 1957; In :"The Secret Speeches of Chairman Mao-From 100 Flowers to GLF"; Ed. R.MacFarquhar, T.Cheek and Eugene Wu. Harvard, 1989.

Mao Tse Tung ASelected Works"; 1960, Peking.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick : 'Collected Works’ ; Moscow, 1976 North R.C. and X.J.Eudin:"M.N.Roy's Mission to China: The Communist-KMT Split 1927"; Berkeley; 1963

M.N.Roy: Draft Supplementary Theses On the National and Colonial Question, 2nd Congress CI, Cited in G.Adhikari(Ed); "Documents of the History of the Communist Party of India", Vol 1; Delhi; 1971

Shao-chi'i, Liu : Interview Anna Louise Strong; "The Thought of Mao Ze-Dong," Amerasia, 6, June 1947, p.161. : Cited Donald S Zagoria: The Sino-Soviet Conflict 1956-61"; New York; 1966

Shigemitsu M. : "Japan and her Destiny"; translated by O.White; London; 1958

Snow, Edgar; "Red Star Over China"; London; 1937

Spence, Jonathan : "The Search For Modern China"; 1990; New York

Stalin, J.V. AWorks" Moscow; 1954:

Ta-Tung, Kuan :"The Socialist Transformation of capitalist industry and Commerce in China"; Peking; 1960

Teiwes, F.C.: "The Establishment and Consolidation of the new Regime 1949-1957. In R.MacFarquhar: "Politics of China 1949-1989" Cambridge; 1993.

Tuchman, Barbara : "Sand against the Wind. Stillwell and the American Experience in China 1911-1945."; London; 1985.

Tu-hsiu, Chen : Telegram to ECCI; June 15th 1927; In M.N.Roy :"Revolution and Counter revolution in China"; Calcutta; 1946.

Winnington, Alan :"Breakfast With Mao - Memoirs of a Foreign Correspondent"; London; 1986.

ML Review     |     Alliance ML     |   WB Bland Archive    |    Albania Society