Volume 1, No. 4, June 2000

In 1956 when revisionism ran rampant internationally and class struggle was very acute at home, Liu Shao-chi, in collusion with Chen Po-ta, openly went against Chairman Mao’s directive at the Second Plenary Session of the Party’s Seventh Central Committee and said that the principal contradiction at home was "the contradiction between the advanced socialist system and the backward social productive forces." They shoved this revisionist stuff into the resolution of the Eighth Party Congress behind Chairman Mao’s back. Chairman Mao sternly pointed out at that time that this view was wrong and was against Marxism which holds that, with the development of the productive forces, the relations of production which are not suited to the character of the productive forces will change sooner or later. This is a fundamental principle. Marx pointed out: "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution." (Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.) Engels pointed out: "Their [referring to means of production] deliverance from these bonds is the one precondition for an unbroken, constantly-accelerated development of the productive forces." (Anti-Duhring.) China’s socialist revolution is to transform the old relations of production which seriously hinder the development of the productive forces into socialist relations of production which are suited to the development of the productive forces, so that those forces can be liberated. The socalled contradiction between "backward" productive forces and "advanced" relations of production, cooked up by Liu Shao-chi and his like, was only a refurbished version of the fallacy of "mechanization before co-operation." According to their absurdity, wasn’t it equivalent to saying that socialist revolution has been moving ahead too fast and that China should go back to capitalism? It can be seen clearly that their aim was to create public opinion for restoring capitalism.

The theory of productive forces always has been a broken-down weapon used by the new and old revisionists to oppose socialist revolution. The Second International’s old revisionist Bernstein said that when the productive forces were highly developed, capitalism would peacefully "grow into socialism" and "resort to violent revolution will become an empty, meaningless phrase." Later the renegade Kautsky also jabbered that "only by large-scale development of the productive forces brought about by capitalism" "can socialism — that is, universal welfare under a modern culture — become possible." Therefore, they frantically opposed the Great October Socialist Revolution of Russia, shouting that "Russia has not attained the level of development of productive forces that makes socialism possible." Lenin sharply refuted this absurd theory by pointing out. "You say that civilization is necessary for the building of Socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilisation in our country as the expulsion of the landlords and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving towards Socialism?" (Our Revolution.) This clearly shows that their purpose in advocating the theory of productive forces was to oppose the proletariat seizing political power. Taking over the mantle of the old revisionists, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique also cherishes it as something precious and it has blustered, among other things, that "the main thing is economics and production" and "economics is more important than politics under socialist conditions." Is this really so? Certainy not. They themselves put counter-revolutionary politics first. Their real aim is to substitute the theory of productive forces for the Marxist theory of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, benumb the revolutionary people’s fighting will and cover up their criminal act of restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union in an all-round way.

By repeatedly trumpeting the theory of productive forces, Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao in fact were trying to lead China to take the capitalist road. To take the socialist road or the capitalist road — this is the fundamental question of the two-line struggle in the Party after the victory of the democratic revolution in China. It is crystal clear that the bourgeoisie wants to take the capitalist road. In the Party we want to take the socialist road, but some people thought that China was a very poor country lacking the conditions for developing socialism and therefore it had to take the capitalist road. Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao were representatives of such a revisionist line. They propagated the theory of productive forces and the theory of the dying out of class struggle.

Many people in semi-colonial and semi-feudal old China dreamt for years of developing industry, but all their dreams were shattered. This was because "in the absence of political reforms all the productive forces are being ruined, and this is true both of agriculture and of industry." (Mao Tsetung: On Coalition Government.) The productive forces could be liberated only after the proletariat had seized political power and our Party had led the peasants in carrying out the land reform and had nationalized industry and collectivized agriculture. The basic contradictions under the socialist system are still those between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base, and they find their concentrated expression in the contradiction and struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat will not be able to further consolidate the socialist economic base and rapidly develop the productive forces if it does not grasp class struggle and continue to make revolution with respect to the relations of production and the superstructure. Moreover, the established relations of production conforming to the productive forces, and the established superstructure conforming to the economic base, will be undermined and will collapse. Therefore, Chairman Mao has consistently stressed the necessity to grasp revolution, promote production. This principle gives a correct answer to the question of the relationship between revolution and production, between consciousness and matter, between the superstructure and the economic base and between the relations of production and the productive forces. This principle is diametrically opposed to the theory of productive forces and the theory of the dying out of class struggle spread by Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao.

In criticizing Bukharin’s fallacy of putting politics and economics on an equal footing, Lenin clearly pointed out: "Politics cannot but have precedence over economics. To argue differently means forgetting the A B C of Marxism." He also said: "The only formulation of the issue (which the Marxist standpoint allows) is: without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either." (Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin.) Inheriting and developing the viewpoints of Marx, Engels and Lenin, Chairman Mao often has taught us that a Marxist-Leninist party should pay attention to grasping the superstructure and the line. Chairman Mao has pointed out that politics is the commander, the soul in everything, that "political work is the life-blood of all economic work" and that "the correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything," thereby thoroughly refuting the revisionist trash in both theory and practice.

In class society, class struggle is the great motive force propelling both the progress of society and the development of production. The struggle waged by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie under the conditions of socialism is the great force pushing forward the development of socialist production. It is because we have, under the leadership of Chairman Mao, criticized the revisionist line of Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao adhered to the Party’s basic line and persevered in taking class struggle as the key link that our socialist construction has achieved such splendid successes today. If, on the other hand, we do not firmly grasp the key link of class struggle and if we depart from the Party’s basic line, there will be no correct orientation for production and it will not be able to develop. Abundant experience, both positive and negative, has proved this.

The history of the last 26 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 is one of grasping revolution and promoting production. Led by Chairman Mao and the Party Central Committee, we have carried out a series of political movements, consolidated the dictatorship of the proletariat, established and continuously improved the socialist relations of production and the superstructure of the proletariat, criticized bourgeois and revisionist ideology and transformed those parts of the superstructure not suited to the socialist economic base, thus fully mobilizing the masses’ socialist enthusiasm. Consciousness is transformed into matter and vice versa, and grasping revolution results in the rapid development of production and construction. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is a great political revolution based on Chairman Mao’s, theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and based on the Party’s basic line. This great revolution has shattered the two bourgeois headquarters of Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao, criticized their revisionist line and transformed literature and art, education and other parts of the superstructure not conforming to the socialist economic base. At the same time it has adjusted relations between people and consolidated and developed the socialist economic base. The socialist new things emerging in the Great Cultural Revolution, whether in the relations of production or in the realm of the superstructure, all conform to the needs of the development of the productive forces and of the socialist economic base. The Great Cultural Revolution has powerfully promoted the growth of our socialist construction. This once again proves that revolution is the locomotive of history.

<Top>