Organ of Alliance Maxist-Leninist (North America) $4.00
Deng
Xiao-Ping
Mao and
Lin Biao
Zhou En Lai
Jiang
Ching
“How Did the Phoenix Deng Xiaoping
Grow His Wings?”
A Book Review by Hari
Kumar.
Deng Xiaoping and the Cultural
Revolution – A Daughter Recalls the
Critical Years; Deng Rong,
otherwise known as Maomao; Translated Sidney
Shapiro; Foreign Languages Press; Beijing; 2002; ISBN: 7-119-03040-X.
Introduction
As everyone knows, the
phoenix is a mythical bird held by earlier times to arise from the
ashes of the
dead.
It is appropriate for this purpose, that Chinese mythology has long
revered this bird. The remarkable career of Deng Xiaoping
[1904-97; Veteran of
the Zunyi Conference. Purged
early in the Cultural Revolution as ‘the number-two person in authority
taking
the capitalist road’, but not expelled from
the party. Rehabilitated in 1973;
but purged again in 1976], can rightly be considered as phoenix-like.
Early on,
he was a member of the secretariat
around Mao
Zedong [1893-1976] in the Wuhan
days of the Communist Party China (CPC), finding himself investigated
in 1933
by Party Officials for
being a supporter of Mao rather than Bo Gu
[1907-46 Part
of the ‘Returned Student’ Faction which had trained in Moscow; de facto
party
leader
1931-1935; but became sidelined at the Zunyi conference; remained in CC
till death].
In the war of liberation against Japanese imperialism, Deng
was in
charge of two million peasant auxiliary fighting corps during the Huaihai
campaign of 1948.
After the founding of the
Peoples Republic of China (PRC) he continued to play important roles in
the
CPC. By 1954, he was promoted to the
Secretary-General of the Central Committee
(CC), and then to the Politburo. By 1956 he had become Party
Vice-Chairman.
Thereafter twice,
in spectacular fashion he was purged during the Cultural
Revolution. Yet – he returned, and led China into the full-blown
capitalist
development
where she stands now. An intriguing question is how did he
survive
the purges? Why did Mao Zedong not destroy him, as he did Liu Shaoqi?
The
complete answers to this question is not yet available, but will throw
considerable light on the nature of Mao’s alliance with the Chinese
capitalist
class.
The book being reviewed was
written by Deng’s daughter, and was obtained in China. We are uncertain
as of
now, whether the book is available
in English outside of China. But as the
title indicates, the book is of more than passing interest. It contains
a
significant amount of as yet
apparently unpublished speeches, conversations and
apparently transcripts from key documents. Unfortunately, these are not
referenced, and
presumably these documents cannot be independently verified;
however they remain of considerable value. It is because of these
considerations,
that we review the book.
Marxist-Leninists today,
remain divided about the interpretation and legacy of the Cultural
Revolution.
Even those remaining loyal to Mao
do not agree as some argue that it was too
late in coming; some argue that it was not continued deep or long
enough; some
argue it was an error.
Other sections of the Marxist-Leninist left, argue that
it was a catastrophe aimed to destroy the Party from outside,
engineered by Mao
and the
so-called Gang of Four to
destroy opposition to his policies. Alliance Marxist-Leninist follows
this
latter analysis, largely following the views of
Comrade Bill Bland. These can
be found at our web-site.
The Main Cast
Being the daughter of Deng
Xiaoping, Rong conveys a special insight into the circumstances
surrounding the
division in the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of China in the years
1966-1972. She gives us fascinating insights into how a tough
politician can
withstand enormous
personal and political crises. In doing so, Rong reveals
details of the battle between the “old” “veterans” of the Chinese
national
democratic
revolution –
Zhou En Lai
[(1898-1976) Vice-Chairman of the CPC Central Committee and premier of
the
State Council of the PRC],
Liu Shaoqi
[(1898-1969) Former Vice-Chairman of the CPC CC and President of the
PRC;
purged as a ‘capitalist roader’ during the
first wave of the Cultural
Revolution; died after physical torture and with-holding of medical
attention
in 1969; rehabilitated by the CC in 1980],
Deng Xiaoping and others, on the one
hand – and the “Gang of Four”.
It is largely accepted by
most Marxist-Leninists that the public face of the Cultural Revolution
was
largely that of the Gang of Four,
led by
Jiang Ching
[(1914-91) Mao’s wife, and nominally chief of the Division of
Cinema, Publicity Dept of the CPC CC; later sentenced to death;
commuted to
life imprisonment, during which she committed suicide];
Kang Sheng
[(1898-1975) former alternate member of the Politburo
& member of the secretariat of the CC of the CPC; then ‘consultant’
to the
Cultural Revolution Group and Vice-Chairman of the CPC CC]; and
Zhang Chunqiao
[(1917- ) member of the
Political Bureau of the CPC CC. Sentenced to death in 1981, but
sentence
commuted]; and
Lin Biao
[(1907-71)
Former Vice-Chairman of the CPC Central Committee and member of the
standing
committee of the Politburo and
Vice-Chairman of the Central Military
Commission. Died fleeing from arrest for conspiracy] to organize a
coup.
Despite the ‘public face’,
most informed observers agree that in reality,
driving the Gang of Four, but staying himself in the background was
Mao.
Therefore the central
thesis
of the author is a little difficult to accept. For both Deng Rong the author
and Sidney Shapiro the
translator present a
complex story. Namely, that Mao
launched the Cultural Revolution for truly revolutionary motives that
differed
from the motives of the Gang of Four,
and of Lin Biao. They assert that Mao was
‘misled’ or duped by the Gang of Four at several points, which led him
to
continue the Cultural Revolution,
beyond any reasonable point. They believe
that Mao tried to halt the disruptions of the Cultural Revolution.
Ultimately,
they present Mao as somehow
a victim of events, rather than as the instigator
of events. Finally, Rong paints a picture of Deng Xiaoping resisting
the
Cultural Revolution purely
because of the chaos that ensued.
It is largely impossible to accept this overall view. In this review we will attempt to show why.
Attempting to Divorce Mao from the Chaos of the Cultural Revolution
In his good and brief
Introduction, Shapiro lays out the analysis. Mao was “decisive” in the
victories by which the Peoples Republic of China was
formally established in
October 1949, because Mao had:
What could go wrong with Mao’s leadership? Only it seems Mao’s recklessness:
“He was erratic and
subjective. He pushed ambitious projects without feasibility studies,
with
disastrous results. He saw all problems
in terms of “class struggle”. Other
members of the Party Leadership expressed doubts and opposition, but
Mao simply
over-rode them”
Ibid p. iiii
Shapiro contends that “none
of us, including Mao” were able to foresee that the Cultural Revolution
might
just ‘slip out of control’, and be taken over
by “nefarious persons”:
“The tragedy was that none of
us, including Mao Zedong, was able to see that the Cultural Revolution
would be
taken over and manipulated
by nefarious persons for their own purposes, causing
enormous social and political damage. Mao, when he woke up to the
seriousness
of
the situation, was unable to control it”.
Ibid; pp. iii-iv.
This reviewer believes that
this appears to be an evasion of the facts, for numerous facts show
that Mao
was the font to which the Gang of Four
repeatedly came to receive instructions
on the next step. Basically, nothing happened in the Cultural
Revolution
without the ultimate sanction of
the Boss - barring that is Lin Biao’s
attempted coup. Moreover, Shapiro side-steps Mao’s doctrines, refusing
to
subject these to a Marxist-Leninist
analysis. No mention is made of the
underlying key tenet of Mao’s politics – the New Democratic State.
But this review is not about
Sidney Shapiro, a professional revolutionary. It is about Deng Rong’s account
of her father’s years in the turmoil
of the Cultural Revolution. Now Rong was
not a first line politician – after qualifying as a physician, she
worked as a
consular official in the
USA embassy, but later did hold posts in the executive
of the All-China Women’s Federation. As such, she does not pretend her
goals
are
to write a full history of the period, and nor does she pretend to be a
historian. Her goal is to offer memories of the personal effects of the
turmoil
on the Deng family.
Deng Rong does go further than
Shapiro, in trying to downgrade Mao from deity status. But, she also
wishes to
have her cake and eat it, for her while
she critiques the Great Leader, she
does not want to “unseat him”. She ends up with the same strategy as
Shapiro,
of blaming the Gang of Four and
Lin Biao for subverting Mao’s good intentions.
She continually therefore cycles back-and-forth, first exculpating Mao
for the
mistaken and criminally
stupid policies of the Cultural Revolution; then
attacking him for the effects of his actions. The effect is to nullify
any
meaningful analysis.
As Rong puts it:
“Mao Zedong was a great man
who committed grievous errors in his late years. Deng Xiaoping made a
responsible appraisal of
Mao as an integral whole. At that time, two attitudes
were current.
One, influenced by traditional long-standing concepts, stubbornly
clung to regarding Mao as a deity. The other, while able to break free
of the
old fetters, negated him completely.”
p.451.
The Beginning of the Cultural Revolution
The official launching of the Cultural Revolution coincided with the Circular of the Politburo that became known as the May 16 Circular. Rong calls it:
“The inevitable result of
“leftist” errors within the Party carried to an extreme… After the
Peoples
Republic was established we had more
than 7 years of successful socialist
reform and construction. But then… combined influence of our victories,
inflated self-confidence,
and over-heated brains, engendered within the Party a
kind of joyous arrogance… a number of leftist theories evolved and
finally
found
prominence within the Communist Party”;
Rong Ibid p. 1.
However Rong then critiques
Mao heavily saying:
Ibid p.1-2.
The disguised beginning of
the Cultural Revolution is rehearsed clearly by Rong. It began as an
initial
newspaper critique of a play was
printed in Shanghai newspaper ‘Wen
Wui Bao’,
on November 10 1965. The play was called “Hai Rui is Dismissed From Office”,
and was
written by Yao
Wenyuan. It was alleged that this was an allegorical
complaint about the dismissal of
Marshall Peng
Dehuai [(1898-1974). He had fought with
Mao at Jinggangshan. Was a veteran of Zunyi; commanded the Font in the
anti-Japanese
war of liberation; and was the Chinese Commander in the Korean
War. Former member of the Politburo of CC of CPC, Vice-Premier Defense.
Purged
leading up to the Cultural Revolution for criticizing Mao’s Great Leap
Forward].
Peng’s dismissal from office had occurred after the CP Conference of
Lushan in 1959, when in a letter to Mao, Dehuai had criticized
the
‘Great Leap
Forward’. The allegorical play in question:
“Told of a Ming dynasty
emperor who arbitrarily dismissed a good official named Hai Rui. Mao
believed
that he was being portrayed
as the wicked emperor and Peng Dehuai as the
wronged official”;
Footnote by S. Shapiro p. 2; Ibid.
The critique of the play was
written by
Yao Wenyaun [(1925-
)
Literary critic, who became prominent in the Political Research Section
of the
Shanghai Party Secretariat.
Sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in 1981]
at the
instigation of Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing.
Mao reviewed the earlier drafts three times, and
then approved the article.
Very soon after, in December
1965
Yang Shangkun [(1907-98) alternate member of the CC Secretariat
and Chief
of the Central Committee General Office]
was removed from his positions on
charges of “installing a listening device without the knowledge of the
CC”.
In
fact owing to Mao’s refusal to have secretaries present during
interviews with
foreign visitors, the Central Committee had been made aware
that taping these
meetings was necessary:
“In order for the government to be informed of any casual policy statement he may have made”;
Shapiro, Footnote Ibid p. 4.
Then in December,
Lin Biao in
charge of national military operations, accused
Luo Ruiqing [(1906-78)
Vice-Secretary of the CC Secretariat & Chief of Staff of the PLA],
of
attempting to seize control of the armed forces.
Rong is clear that Deng
Xiaoping intensely disagreed with all these steps, and informs
us that he:
”had always disliked Lin Biao.”
Ibid p. 5.
A chain of rapid events from
January – when Lin Biao convened a full session of all military units
involved
in political work – to March,
was a warning of storms to come. In March, Luo
Ruiqing was dismissed from office, and Mao ordered the release of the
“Highlights on a “forum on Literature and Art in the Armed Forces”
sponsored by
Jiang Qing & Lin Biao. This was the Army’s instructions to
intervene in the
Cultural Revolution.
Still both Deng Xiaoping and Liu
Shaoqi were unaware of the meaning behind these events.
Peng Zhen
[(1902-97)
Led party underground in North China in from 1930- late 1940’s; member
secretariat of the CPC CC; politburo since
1945; First Secretary Beijing
Municipal Party committee & Major of Beijing]
tried to prevent the Beijing
re-publication of the Shanghai attack on Wu Han and his play.
Jiang Qing, Kang Shen and Zhang Chunqiao got
Mao to order that Peng undergo criticism, which ended up being ten
years in
prison.
Although Rong makes it appear that Mao was simply being played by false
vicious people.
But this is simply unbelievable. Mao was very shrewd and could
not be so easily manipulated.
Again Deng did not agree with the criticism and yet, had to swallow any reply because as Rong says:
“Mao’s rage was obviously out
of control. At a time when democracy within the party had reached low
ebb,
high-ranking Communists like my
father, despite their opposition were not able
to state it openly”:
Rong, Ibid; p. 8.
At an enlarged session of the
PB in Beijing from May 4 to May 26, charged Peng Zhen, Luo Ruiqing, Lu
Dingyi
and Yang Shangkun with
“anti-Party activities”. The session adopted a document
known as the “May 16 Circular”, drafted by
Chen Boda
[ 1904-89) Former
alternate member of the Politburo, director of the Political Research
Office of
the CPC Central Committee
and Mao Zedong’s secretary. Head of the Cultural
Revolution Leading Group, working closely with the Gang of Four;
imprisoned
1981
for 18 years; paroled]
and corrected by Mao.
This launched an attack on:
“Reactionary bourgeois
thinking in the fields of academia, education, news media, literature
and art
and publishing, and urged a purging of
the bourgeois leadership” in those
fields... it warned that “representatives of the bourgeoisie” had
wormed their
way into the CP, the
government and armed forces and all aspects of cultural
field. It said that these were counter-revolutionary revisionists” who
when the
time was ripe would seize political power, moving it from the hands of
the
proletariat to the hand of the bourgeoisie”:
Ibid pp. 8-9.
As the movement gathered
pace, in Mao’s absence from Beijing, on May 25th a large poster was put
up on
the campus of the university. It was
the “first Marxist-Leninist Poster”
initiating the real launch of the Cultural Revolution, and it was
instigated by
Kang Shen who got the Philosophy
Department CP secretary Nie Yuanzi to
obtain
signatures. By March 29th, the three Standing members of the Politburo
– Liu
Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai
and Deng Xiaoping decided to send work groups to the
university and to the Peoples Daily, to attempt moderating the storms.
A
telegram to Mao asking for permission was approved (Ibid p. 12). In
retrospect,
it was clearly a trap designed to snare Liu and Deng.
Chen Boda had been placed in
charge of the work team to the Peoples Daily. Unsurprisingly, the paper
promptly endorsed the Nie Yuanzi
poster in an editorial called “Sweep Away all
Ox Demons and Venomous Spirits”, on June 1. Under pressure, the three
man
Standing Committee
of the Politburo met on June 3rd to formulate Eight
Principles to govern participation in the Cultural Revolution. These
were:
“Distinguish between internal
and external matters;
keep confidential matters secret;
do not put up posters
in the streets;
no linking of revolutionary groups in different organizations;
no parades and demonstrations;
no large denunciation meetings;
no surroundings
of the homes of accused persons;
and no beating or vilifications”;
Ibid; p. 13.
Because of a complete
paralysis of schools and academies, they also decided to send urgently
work
brigades to quench the fires.
The Politburo also attended meeting at schools
and Beijing University in person. Temporarily, the storms abated. But
Mao
intervened
saying in a letter to Jiang Qing:
“Complete confusion leads to
complete stability; The task today for the entire Communist Party, for
the
entire nation is to fundamentally
destroy the rightists”;
Cited; Rong Ibid p. 17.
On July 24th Mao signaled his
hidden leadership of the movement, when at the Joint Meeting of the
Politburo
Standing Group and the
Cultural Revolution Group; he attacked the work teams
sent out by Liu, Zhou, and Deng. At the 11th Plenary Session of the 8th
Party
CC of
August 1-12 1966, Mao attacked the work teams. This meant the
“exposure”
and “criticism” of both Liu and Deng. The day after his major c
lash at the
meeting with Liu, Mao publicly called on the Student bodies that
constituted
the Red Guard – to “Bombard the
Headquarters”.
Since Liu and Deng controlled
the Party, Mao knew to get rid of them, it was necessary to destroy the
Party.
It emerges clearly from
Rong’s book, that Mao was determined to unseat Liu Shaoqi and expel him
from
the party, but was careful to draw
a distinction between Liu Shaoqi and Deng
Xiaoping.
This is quite consistent with other accounts, including the most
detailed biography recently published by Philip Short
(“Mao: A Life”; London
1999).
Mao ‘protected’ Deng from expulsion and from complete denigration and
physical danger from the Red Guards.
He was not prepared to do that for Liu.
This is very likely true, although Rong does not show or clearly cite
relevant
documents, that indeed this was what happened.
Accepting the fact this
happened, we should ask why this ‘protection’ of Deng occurred. Really,
Rong
herself gives no real indication of
why this happened.
Mao Differentiates Between Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping
The three Standing members of
the Politburo were largely of a single line of thought.
That is to say – Liu
Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai were in agreement. They believed
strongly
that the prior so-called “Great Leap Forward”,
had brought considerable
economic turmoil to China, and was a serious error.
Of the three, Liu Shaoqi
had been probably the most vociferous and had put himself most
clearly in
logger-head opposition to Mao.
Already in 1951, he had clashed over the pace of
collectivization:
“A dispute had developed over
the pace of the transformation. That year the Finance Minister Bo Yibo,
supported by Liu Shaoqi had
spoken out forcefully against pushing rural
collectivization too fast.”
Short P: “Mao - A Life”; London 1999; p. 441.
Moreover, far more recently, Liu
again had had the determination to force a criticism of Mao, following
the
debacle of the “Great Leap Forward”.
Peng Dehuai as we noted above, had
challenged Mao on this very same issue. What made the case of Liu
Shaoqi even
more serious for the faction
of the CPC led by Mao was that despite the
‘example’ treatment of the respected Marshall Peng Dehuai, Liu was
prepared to
take the same position
of challenging the Chairman’s leadership and Cult of
Personality.
What had happened to Peng?
Peng Dehuai had been struggling since he had seen the effects of the “Great Leap”. A verse he wrote talks of:
“Scattered millet…. And withered potato plants.”
Short P: Ibid; p. 494.
But he held his criticism for a year because of:
“The sheer difficulty, even
for a man of Peng’s stature, who had been at Mao’s side for three
decades, to
call into question policies with which
the Chairman was so intimately
involved”.
Short Ibid; p. 494.
It was the onset of famines that drove Peng Dehuai to finally act:
“Serious food shortages had
begun to appear. At first they were confined to the cities. Rice
rations were
reduced. Vegetables and cooking oil
disappeared. Then as the government stepped
up procurement to feed the industrial workforce, swollen by the Leap.
The
countryside went short.
The 1958 harvest had not been 370 million tons (as
estimated-Ed)... but only 200 million tons….. In many parts of China
penury set
in…
Peng was better informed than most… Military transport was being used
to
take relief grain to the worst-hit areas, and within the PLA there
were already
ominous rumblings as the overwhelmingly peasant recruits received news
form
home that their families were going hungry”;
Short Ibid; p. 494-5.
And Mao encouraged criticisms, offering ironically in light of later events, the example of Confucian bureaucrat Hai Rui (See above), and saying:
“No one would be punished for ‘making criticisms and offering opinions”:
Short Ibid; p. 495.
Peng came forward saying:
“Everybody is responsible for the mistakes committed during the Great Leap… including Comrade Mao Zedong.”
Short Ibid; p. 495.
Having said this in open forum, Peng wrote a “letter of opinion”, and took aim at the claim by Mao that “politics is the commander”:
“In the view of some
comrades, putting politics in command can take the place of everything
else,
They have forgotten that it is aimed at …
giving full play to the enthusiasm
and creativity of the masses in order to speed up economic
reconstruction. [It]
cannot take the place of
economic principles, still less can it be a substitute
for concrete measures in economic work.”
Cited; Short Ibid; p. 496.
Retribution was swift, and
Mao publicly rebuked Peng. After the Lushan Conference Peng’s case was
heard by
the Politburo, and Peng was replaced
as Defense Minister by Lin Biao. Peng was
placed under house arrest for the next 6 years.
Liu, Deng and Zhou stayed quiet in this period. Yet, Liu soon was to come forward with identical criticisms. After all this was serious matter:
“In 1980, Hu Yaobang… officially... acknowledge(ed) the existence of the famine, putting the death toll at 20 million.”
Short Ibid; p. 505.
Even if this figure is set
slightly high, if one accepts that the Great Leap Forward had been
disastrous
and had led to famine, one can see why
Liu now came forward. While Mao was
still attacking ‘individualism’; in the countryside and strongly
endorsing an
enforced collectivization,
resistance was being offered in the countryside. It
took the form of peasants taking “household” or, individual plots of
land:
“In Anhui and other hard hit
provinces (by famine – editor) cadres began experimenting with
so-called
‘household responsibility systems’,
under which land was contracted out to
families to farm individually.
Marshall Zhu De
[(1886-1976) After an early
career as a revolutionary
nationalist, he joined the CCP; led the Hanchang
Uprising. Was with Mao on Jinggaggshan; and became Commander-in-chief
of the
Red
Army. Remained a Politburo member from 1945 till his death; never
attacked
in the Cultural Revolution on order of Mao - Editor]
on a visit to his native
Sichuan found cases of peasants abandoning the communes to grow crops
on their
own and asked whether,
in the current extremity, such expedients should not be
officially approved since ‘even if you don’t write it in, it will
happen
anyway”.
Short Ibid; p. 509.
Mao tried to shore up his
leftist perspectives by summoning a Central Committee work conference
in
Beijing, and instead of the usual small
number of participants, called more
than 7,000 cadres from county and commune Party Committees of all
China. The
meeting was however
hijacked by Liu, who together with Peng Zhen led an attack
on prior policies:
“Set the tone with a report
which lavished fulsome praise on Mao’s correct guidance ‘at every
critical
moment’ before coming abruptly to
the nub of the matter. ‘It is necessary to
point out’, he acknowledged, ‘that the primary responsibility for the
shortcomings and errors in our
work over these past few years lies with the
Party Center’. That provoked demands from the floor for a precise
attribution
of blame….
A few days later… the North China leader Peng Zhen was more
forthright. The Party Center, he said included Mao, Liu Shaoqi, and the
rest of
the Politburo Standing Committee. To the extent they were responsible
they
should share the blame. Mao himself, Peng went on,
was not immune form
mistakes. It was he who had spoken of the transition to communism in ‘;
three
or five years’, and …
Even if the Chairman had been ‘only one-thousandth part
mistaken’ it would be ‘odious if he did not make a self-criticism’.”
Short Ibid; p. 509-510.
Peng Zhen was well known to
be a close ally of Liu Shaoqi. Even though Mao’s “self-criticism” was
“perfunctory in the extreme (Short Ibid)”, the
significant factor was that Mao
was actually forced to make one. It is not surprising therefore that
the two
people who Mao targeted above all
in the Cultural Revolution were Liu and Peng
Zhen.
Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai
had not exposed themselves to potential obvious counter-attack from
Mao. In
fact Zhou Enlai took a place in
Mao’s close circle, having been outwardly
careful to maintain his confidence. The strategy of the anti-Mao
faction was to
expose themselves
to risk of defeat and capture, only one at a time. But the
biggest weapon given his prestige was Liu Shaoqi. It was his prestige
that gave
Mao
a difficult task in attacking Liu’s character, as Liu:
“Was organization
personified, a remote intimidating man with no real friends, no outside
interests, and little sense of humor, whose
phenomenal energy was channeled
into the service of the Party – which in practice meant making possible
whatever it was that Mao
wanted to happen. He was exacting with himself and his
family; eschewed privilege of any kind; and cultivated a puritanical
public
persona who spoke of 18-hour workday and a code of conduct so absolute
that
when he found out that he was being paid an extra one
Yuan (at the time about
30 pence [about 80 Canadian cents-Editor]) because he worked after
midnight, he
insisted on reimbursing every l
ast penny through deductions from his salary.”
Short Ibid; p. 519.
Moreover, Liu was very prominent in the Party and well known to the masses as an important leader:
“Each May day and National
Day, Liu’s portrait was printed in the 'Peoples Daily', side by side
with Mao,
and of equal size. His writings
were studied alongside Mao’s... and... work
started on preparing an edition of Liu’s “Selected Works”, an honor up
till
then accorded
only to Mao himself. One of Lius’ essays from the 1930’s entitled
“how To be a Good Communist: was reissued as a pamphlet in an
edition of 18
million copies.”
Short; Ibid p. 520.
Of the three standing members
of the Politburo – Liu, Zhou and Deng – each had ‘exposed’ themselves
to
differing degrees.
Zhou in especial was the most outwardly pliant to Mao’s
will.
Deng was in the middle.
Liu was the biggest target for Mao to go against.
Having got rid of Liu in the Cultural Revolution in the most public and
vicious
humiliation, it is very likely that Mao’s hand was stayed against Deng.
The
taking of both Liu and Deng’s scalps would have been too great a step
at once.
The Cultural Revolution took
some 8 years to come to a halt in ignominy. Even then, neither the Gang
of Four
nor Mao himself, were willing to allow
its end. Right up to his own death in
September 1976, Mao insisted upon being the driving force behind the
Cultural
Revolution.
There can be no doubt that Mao knew that Deng was not entirely “his” man. In December 26th 1964, Mao:
“Showed his displeasure at a
banquet in the Great Hall of the People. When, without naming names, he
charged
that Liu’s views were
non-Marxist and that Deng was running the Party
Secretariat as an “independent kingdom”. Two days later. He held up a
copy of
the
Party Constitution and after stating icily that he had as much right to
express an opinion as any other Party member, implied that Deng
was attempting
to stop him from attending leadership meetings and Liu was trying to
stop him
from speaking”.
Short Ibid; p. 525.
That Deng would be attacked
during the Cultural Revolution came no surprise to him. Nonetheless,
Mao
protected him from complete destruction.
Indeed he sent him into exile in the
countryside at Jianxi, where he and his wife worked mornings at a
tractor
repair plant. These years are the
focus of Rong's book. Mao labeled Deng’s case
as a “Contradiction among the people”.
Mao said to the Gang of Four:
“Deng had fought well against
the enemy in wartime, and nothing wrong had been discovered in his
past. He
should be treated differently
from Liu Shaoqi. You all want to kick him out,
said Mao. I’m not keen on the idea”.
Rong Ibid; p. 75.
At the height of the Red
Guard assaults on the Deng family, Mao sent his emissary
Wang Dongxing (Head
of
the Central Committee General Office, and Rong points, out he was close
to Mao
and was his most trusted confidant – Rong Ibid p. 108) to relay three
messages
to Deng:
“1) Be patient, don’t get
excited.
2) Understand that a distinction would be made between Liu and Deng.
3) Write to me directly if you feel it becomes necessary”.
Rong Ibid; p. 37.
Accordingly Deng’s mistreatment was less severe:
“The criticisms of Liu Shaoqi
were loud and vociferous. The criticisms of Deng Xiaoping were clearly
milder.
Liu was the
“biggest capitalist roader”. He obviously had to be overthrown
first. The pressure on him was therefore greater. Mao, moreover, felt
that
a
distinction had to be made between the two men in their disposition of
the
charges against them. Mao’s “proletarian” rage was directed
primarily against
the man he originally had designated as his successor – Liu Shaoqi. “
Rong Ibid; p. 39.
Moreover he was not expelled from the Party:
“At the Enlarged 12th Plenary
Session of the 8th Party Central Committee Mao Zedong ignoring
opposition,
preserved the Party membership
of Deng Xiaoping. This puzzled and disturbed Lin
Biao, Jiang Qing and their cohorts”;
Rong Ibid p. 95.
In a shrewd manner, Deng
profusely admitted errors, insisting upon his rights to direct them
personally
to Chairman Mao, and writing directly
to him (Rong Ibid p. 36; 44).
“Deng Xiaoping’s Letter was
put directly into the hands of Mao... Deng Xiaoping’s attitude surely
made an
impression on Mao Zedong.
First he was willing to criticize himself. Mao
considered this very important. He mentioned it in later statements.
Second it
proved to Mao
that his decision not to expel Deng from the Party was correct.”
Rong Ibid; p. 101.
Mao was clearly in two minds about
what to do about Deng. On the one hand he authorized and abetted the
Red Guard
assaults on Deng and his
family – including the persecution of his son into
attempted suicide, leaving him a paraplegic.
On the other hand, he knew that
Deng was exceptionally capable, and he thought he might need him:
“On July 16, 1967, after Deng
was removed from office, Mao speaking privately, told Wang Li then a
member of
the Cultural Revolution Group:
“If Lin Biao’s health gets worse I intend to
Call Deng back. I’ll make him a member at least of the Stand-in
Committee of
the Politburo”:
Rong Ibid; p. 39.
The case of Zhou Enlai is at
first, also perplexing. Clearly Zhou was ‘looking out for Deng’, and
protected
him during the attacks on him in the
Cultural Revolution (Rong p.109-111). Rong details consistently
how Zhou shielded
Deng from attack. Even though during the early part of
the Cultural Revolution,
Zhou wrote a denunciation of Deng. Deng himself knew this but, Deng:
“Exonerated him on the grounds that he would otherwise have been overthrown, which would have made the situation still worse.”
Cited Short P; Ibid; p. 587.
Again the same strategy was
being played, of staying in the shadows to save the fight in the long
term. But
why did Mao not rid himself of Zhou -
another man who had been at various key
points sided with Liu and Deng’s general anti-Mao line? A very strong
element
of pragmatism was
always present in Mao:
“One thing was clear in Mao’s
mind: It wouldn’t do to bring down all the old leaders – including Zhou
Enlai.
Some had to be retained.
There was still use for them. Mao therefore ordered that,
although a strategic exodus was to be carried out, special
consideration should
be given to the veteran comrades. He directed Zhou Enlai to take
charge, for he
knew that Zhou was the only man who could do the job…
He said that he still
needed them that he couldn’t do without them. He said they were useful,
that he
would soon be calling for them”:
Rong Ibid; p. 118.
This was brought home to Mao
Zedong even more, by the sudden flight of Lin Biao from China on a
plane flown
by his son, which crashed.
This was a momentous change in the capacity at the leadership level:
“Lin Biao’s self-destruction
was the most shaking political event since the inception of the
Cultural
Revolution. Five days after it happened
the Central Committee with the approval
of Mao Zedong, notified the members of Lin Biao’s treacherous flight.
Ten days
alter military
leaders of departmental and divisional rank was also informed.
On October 6 the CC issued a document regarding the criminal activities
of the
Lin Biao clique.”
Rong Ibid p. 182.
Deng heard the news at a special reading of party documents at his tractor repair factory. He knew that this was an opportunity to be grasped:
“Now, with Lin Biao gone, his
goal was clearer. He should grasp every opportunity to make a
comeback…. Although
Lin Biao had died,
China’s political scene remained confused. Opposition to the
old revolutionaries returning to office was still very strong. It would
be a
tough struggle. Mao had to rethink his strategy and placement of
personnel. It
was an important time, an opportunity not to be missed.”
Rong Ibid; p. 185.
In the meantime, Zhou Enlai had been keeping the flag of the old-timers, including Deng, still flying:
“(in 1972) thanks to Zhou
Enlai,, well over a dozen of China’s top veteran Communist leaders
again
appeared in public or were released from
prison, or were admitted to hospitals
for treatment. Their release sparked the release of restoration to
their posts
of many more high-and
middle ranking Communists on the Central Committee or
local levels. “
Rong Ibid; p. 208.
Deng knew that his moment had
come & again wrote to Mao, stating his own errors, and supporting
the
Central Committee’s actions regarding
Lin Biao. He again requested that he be
put back to more meaningful work. This time, being coaxed by Zhou
Enlai, he
agreed:
“Papa (Deng- Editor) knew
that Mao was waiting to learn his attitude, including his own attitude
to the
criticism of Lin Biao, and toward the
criticism of his own “errors”. Papa
believed that Mao would see his letter.
On August 14 1972, Mao wrote the
following instruction to Zhou Enlai:
“After you have read this
Premier, have Wang Dongxing print and circulate it among all comrades
on the
Central Committee.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping committed serious mistakes, but he is
different from Liu Shaoqi.
(1) He was attacked in the Central Soviet days as
one of the four offenders – Deng, Mao, Xie and Gu – and as leaders of
the
so-called Mao faction. The materials against him were described
in only two
books: Since the Sixth party Congress and Two Lines.
(2) He has no question in
his past. He never surrendered to the enemy.
(3) He gave valuable support to
Comrade Liu Bocheng in battle and won distinction. Moreover, after we
came into
the cities,
he did quite a few good things, such as leading the delegation to
the Moscow talks and not giving in to Soviet revisionist pressure.”
Rong Ibid; p. 209-10
Deng was brought back into
the Politburo by stages from the end of 1973 on. But that his return
was
complete is indicated by the fact that he was
by end 1974 re-appointed as a
Standing member of the Politburo and a Vice-Chairman of the party
Central
Committee. Already by end 1973
Deng was placed in both the politburo and head
of the State Council responsible for the army (together with Zhou
Enlai) giving
direction to the
armed forces under Ye Jianying
and Deng Xiaoping (Rong Ibid p.
260). The Gang of Four tried to object. But Zhou Enlai had done his
work well,
and the power of the ‘old’ cadre was re-invigorated, almost to its old
strength. The Mao and Gang of Four
faction had once more, been forced to
retreat – key positions were again in the
hands of their enemies. This time, not only the party was under its’
control,
but this time the Army was
also under their control.
The Old Guard vigorously started its “rectification”. In response the Gang of Four launched a counter attack:
“They launched an “Oppose Lin
and Confucius Campaign”. Actually their real target was neither Lin
Biao nor
Confucius.
It was Zhou Enlai”;
Rong Ibid, p. 261
But they could not prevail.
At the Fourth National Peoples Congress, Zhou although dying of cancer,
delivered the Government Report as drafted
by Deng. He said he had asked
Chairman Mao for a slogan:
Rong Ibid; p. 288.
But the speech stressed:
“the modernization of
agriculture, industry, the armed forces and science and technology
before the
end of the century, thus moving China into
the first ranks of the world
economically”:
Rong Ibid; p. 289.
This was a repudiation of the
attack on the intelligentsia offered by the Cultural Revolution. During
the
Chaos of the Cultural revolution, production
had fallen, and:
“The overall economy was in the red”:
Rong Ibid; p. 295.
Deng was characteristically
business-like in his efforts to reverse the effects of the Cultural
Revolution
on industry and agriculture. But now, he was
more and more open in his
phrasing. At a meeting from February 25 to March 8 1975, of all Party
Secretaries responsible for industry in all of China,
the theme was the crucial
problem of getting the railway working properly again. Deng was blunt
in his
attack on “factionalists” in the leadership,
who were hampering efforts to
“promote production”. All they wanted to do was to “make revolution”.
This was
“utterly wrong” said Deng:
“Chairman Mao has said that
it is necessary to make revolution, promote production and other work
and
ensure preparedness in the
event of war. I am told that some comrades only dare
to make revolution but not to promote production. They say the former
is safe
but the
latter dangerous. This is utterly wrong... In agriculture...
per-capita
yield is only 304.5 kilograms, grain reserves are small and the income
of
the
peasants is pretty low. As for industry, its existing capacity is not
fully
utilized, and its output last year was inadequate. This is the final
year of
the Fourth Five-Year Plan, and if production doesn’t increase we are
sure to
have difficulties in carrying out the Fifth year Plan...
The Central Committee
is determined to solve this problem. The decision of the CC also
includes
constructions on factionalism. Factionalism
now seriously jeopardizes our
overall interest…Persons engaging in factional activities should be
re-educated
and their leaders opposed.
Generally speaking such leader scan be divided into
groups. One category consists of persons who are obsessed by
factionalism, have
engaged in factional activities for several years and have lost their
sense of right
and wrong. Form them Marxism, Mao Zedong Thought
and the Communist Party have
all disappeared. If they correct their mistakes we will let bygones be
bygones,
but if they refuse to mend
their ways, they will be sternly dealt with. The
second category consists of a few bad elements. .. They fish in
troubled waters
by capitalizing
on factionalism and undermining socialist public order and
economic construction. Something must be done about such people…””
Rong Ibid; p. 296-7.
In this assault on the Group of Four, Deng was making public his views on the Cultural Revolution. In Rong’s words:
“Deng’s speech was a manifesto against the leftist: errors of the Cultural Revolution. It was a declaration of full-scale war”;
Rong; Ibid p. 298.
The Gang of Four again went
on the attack, this time against Deng, Zhou and Ye Jinying – labeling
them as
“empiricist”. But Mao was in no
position to seriously fight as well – his own
health was failing, at the age of 83. Mao actually had to give ground,
and he
criticized the
Gang of Four at this time. Zhou and Deng seized this opportunity
and increased the pressure. They attacked the factional struggles in
the
Army –
saying that the army had:
“Been plagued with problems that Deng summed up in five words: “Bloating, laxity, conceit extravagance and inertia”;
Rong Ibid p. 316.
Marshall Ye met with the top generals and relayed Mao’s criticism of the Gang of Four, whom:
“He said, Mao had called the “Shanghai Mafia”:
Rong Ibid; p. 317.
But Rong clearly cannot bring
herself to say that Mao was not going along with this fully. It seems
that
Mao’s temporary retreat at this time, blinds
her to Mao’s ultimate faith to the Cultural
Revolution principles that he had started. Thus while for the moment he
endorsed the rectification in the
arts (see Rong p. 319-321) he was waiting his
time.
When the State Planning
Commission produced a draft of the thrust of rectification being put
forward by
Deng, it endorsed his main points that
were made to a State Council meeting and
summarized as:
“1. Confirm that agriculture
is the foundation of the national economy. Industry must support it and
speed
up its modernization. Bring in
new technology and equipment form other
countries, expand imports and exports. In return for more exports,
obtain
technology and equipment
of the highest quality.
2. Speed up the reform of
industrial technology and raise labor productivity.
3. Strengthen scientific
research in State enterprises.
4. Bring order to the industrial management.
5.
Stress product quality.
6. Restore and improve rules and regulations.
7.
Enforce pay according to work, an extremely important principle in the
period
of socialist construction”;
Rong Ibid p. 326.
However, this document never
saw formal circulation owing to Mao’s intervention. Moreover, another
report
termed:
“A Report on Several Problems Concerning Scientific and
Technological
Work”, was also denied Mao’s approval (Rong Ibid; p. 329).
Unsurprising – since
it completely negated the attacks on teachers, professors, and
scientists
undertaken during the Cultural Revolution.
Deng continued to attack the
“Factionalists”, and pushed the rectification of all fields. In doing
so, he
never neglected to quote Chairman Mao,
using the great Personality Cult for his
own ends.
This prompted the Gang of Four to attack Deng as having adopted the
tactics described in “Outlaws of the Marsh”,
a famous Chinese
classic of the
Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). In this, a warrior named Song Jiang took a
citadel by
“making a figurehead of the leader Chao Gai”.
Jiang Qing accused Deng of doing
that to Mao (Rong Ibid p. 337).
Rong writes that initially Mao dismissed Qing’s complaints as:
“Dog farts! Utter nonsense”
Rong Ibid p. 338.
But for once Qing was
correct; Deng was actually using the Mao Cult for fostering a new
critical approach
to Maoist doctrine.
Deng said:
“I always feel that there is
a big problem we have to solve: How should we spread Mao Zedong
Thought?
Comrade Luo Ronghuan was the
first to express his disapproval of Lin Biao’s
vulgarization of Mao Zedong Thought. He said that when we study
Chairman Mao’s
works we
must study their essence. …Lin Biao urged people only to study the
“three constantly read articles”… This was a way of fragmenting
Mao Zedong
Thought. .. We must study it (i.e. Mao
Zedong Thought – Editor) in its totality and not base our conclusions
on a
partial
understanding or an erroneous interpretation by others”;
Cited Rong Ibid p. 339-340.
Of course this was an
invitation to critique versions of Mao Zedong Thought.
As Zhou’s health
worsened and he came closer to death, Mao had a temporary resurgence
following
surgery for cataracts, which enabled
him to read again.
He now took up the
theme of the “Outlaws Marsh that had been raised by Jiang Qing before –
which
he had rebuked her for earlier!
As Deng got more powerful, it was imperative to try to
halt him. Mao allowed Yao Wenyuan to use his sayings on this classic to
circulate a
series of articles. Published in peoples Daily on August 31 to
September 4 1975.
These lit a new campaign.
It was clear the targets were Deng and Zhou:
“Zhou said on September 15th:
“They the Gang of Four really go too far. It's very clear who they are
aiming
at in their criticism of ‘Outlaws’ and
the ‘surrender faction’.”
Rong Ibid p. 345.
Despite 14 major and minor
operations, Zhou Enlai died of cancer on January 8th 1976.
The death was
mourned by many of the people.
Deng gave the oration.
However, the death of
Zhou enabled Mao to launch a new and major counter-attack.
Yet again the
faction led by the Old three Stalwarts – Liu, Deng and Zhou – were on
the
defensive.
Already before Zhou’s death, the Gang of Four had arranged through
Mao’s nephew Mao
Yuanxin – a new personal pipeline into
Mao’s thinking (Rong
Ibid p. 350-1).
Mao needed no real convincing that Deng was undermining the
Cultural Revolution goals. He insisted upon confirming the Cultural
Revolution,
saying:
“The general consensus is
that the Cultural Revolution has been 70 percent right and 30 percent
wrong.
It
made two mistakes: Calling for down with everything and causing all-out
internal warfare”.
Rong Ibid p. 355.
Mao’s statement was widely circulated. Deng came against under criticism. The strange situation was exemplified by Deng’s memory:
“The (Politburo) meetings
criticizing Deng Xiaoping were chaired by none other than Deng
Xiaoping.
As
Papa later recalled:
Rong Ibid p. 367.
Although Mao was determined to get an affirmation of the Cultural Revolution (Rong Ibid p. 363) Deng was now equally determined to not bend on principles. The difference between now and prior years was that the Chairman was:
“Too old, too weary”.
Rong Ibid p. 363.
Hence Deng’s new uncompromising stand:
“Deng offered what he called
a “few small points of clarification”.
Firstly regarding what Mao referred to as
the “three correct attitudes”
that is correct attitudes toward the Cultural
Revolution, toward the masses, and toward oneself.
Secondly Deng continued
Rong Ibid p. 364.
After Zhou’s death, the Gang
of Four used the pretence that Deng had fomented mass grieving and
disturbances
in Tiananmen Square
as rebellious acts. Gatherings of people in the Square were
banned and mourners killed by stooges of the Gang of Four. Yet mourners
continued
to come as a political act of mourning, but also as an act of
defiance to the Gang of Four – subtly and carefully supported by the
pro-Rectification
wing of the party.
Once more under fire from the Gang fo Four, Deng now simply demanded
resignation from office.
Mao was faced with a threat of withdrawal of labor, and attempted
conciliation:
“”It is still a contradiction
among the people If (Deng) is guided well, it needn’t become a hostile
one, as
it was with Liu Shaoqi and
Lin Biao. Deng is different. He’s willing to
criticize himself. Those two absolutely refused.”
Rong Ibid p, 382.
But the gang of Four insisted
on his removal from office, which duly occurred in 1976. That this
occurred
with the approval of Mao is obvious
from the issuance of “Important
Instructions From Mao Zedong” on March 3rd by the CC with Mao’s
permission.
In
part this read:
“That fellow Xiaoping doesn’t
put much stock in class struggle, He’s always been like that. For him
it’s a
matter of ‘Black cat, white cat’,
he doesn’t care if its imperialism or
Marxism. Xiaoping’s case in an internal one among the people. If he’s
guided
well he may not turn hostile,
as it did with Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao. .. He
should be criticized. But don’t strike him down with a single blow”.
p. 385-6.
So Deng was removed, and many
of the pro-rectification leaders in the CC were also removed – such as
Hu
Yaobang.
It was now the turn of the Old cadre to launch a “spontaneous mass
movement”.
They initiated the “Great April 5th
Movement” – where supposedly:
“The sparks of the people's
anger ignited in February and March. On February 23 a poster appeared
in East
China’s Fujian Province listing the
crimes of the Gang of Four, “
Rong Ibid p. 390.
The pro-rectification leaders
had learned the lessons of the Cultural Revolution and its
“spontaneous”
manipulations well.
On the “Pure Brightness day” of April 4 1976, two million
people came to Tiananmen Square to mourn Zhou Enlai. The gathering was
crushed
by force.
Yet the Gang of Four was not
victorious as Deng was still in the party, and Mao did not expel him.
While
Deng was in house arrest Mao Zedong died on September 9th 1976.
Before dying he
had made Hua
Guofeng General Secretary.
He and the remaining old veterans rapidly
arrested the Gang of Four using various subterfuges to lure them
to meetings.
The lead role was taken by Marshall Ye Jianying.
The formal announcement of the
“smashing of the Gang of Four was made on October 16 1976,
by the party CC. In
July 1977 Deng Xiaoping was restored to office. This time, the Phoenix
did not
have to square off against Mao.
Conclusion:
This book contains some very useful information and certainly conveys
the favor
of the times. But Rong is too misled by statements such as this by Mao:
”It is still a contradiction
among the people If (Deng) is guided well, it needn’t become a hostile
one, as
it was with Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao.
Deng is different. He’s willing to
criticize himself. Those two absolutely refused.”
Rong Ibid p, 382.
Of course it is true that
Deng was always aware that the Chairman needed to be led into thinking
that he
(Mao)had prevailed.
And that was the role allotted to
Deng by the Old three Standing
Members of the Politburo after the Great Leap Forward. Someone had to
be in the
wings.
To stay in the wings, it was necessary to “apologize”.
Deng Xiaoping
could do that well. And therein was how the Phoenix Deng Xiaoping grew
the wings
of a phoenix.
The book being reviewed still
does not answer the questions of the underlying forces ranged against
each
other in the Cultural Revolution.
Were these purely personality conflicts? Or
was there an economic under-pinning?
This question is yet to be answered with
materials from the archives.
We look forward to future documents being
released. .
In passing, it is worth
commenting on an additional point of significance.
It concerns the description
of the introduction of the “Three Worlds Theory”.
While it has been known that
this was presented by Deng Xiaoping, the degree to which Mao’s views
were in
accord with this, has been somewhat
uncertain. Rong puts it unequivocally:
“On April 10 1974,
Vice-Premier of the State Council of the Peoples Republic of China,
Deng
Xiaoping, addressed the Sixth
Special Session of the United Nations. To an
intently listening audience had articulated the “Three Worlds” thesis
of Mao
Zedong and
the principles of China’s foreign policy.”
Rong Ibid; p. 267.
It can definitely be said
that this book is well worth obtaining.