MIWS > Document Archive > Economics and Political Economy
Hung Hsueh-ping, "The Essence of "Theory of Productive Forces" Is to Oppose Proletarian Revolution," Peking Review, vol. 12, no. 38, 1969 September 19, pp. 5-8
[ 5 ]
Revolutionary Mass Criticism
The Essence of "Theory of Productive Forces" Is to Oppose Proletarian Revolution
by Hung Hsueh-ping
[Note: This article in Peking Review connects opposing the revisionist theory of the productive forces to upholding the cultural revolution in two ways: by arguing for the necessity of carrying out the cultural revolution to defeat the new bourgeoisie in the Communist Party of China promoting the theory of the productive forces, and by arguing that creating revolutionary public opinion, making revolution in the superstructure, and consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, are prerequisites for the continuing development of the productive forces. This article is packed with many ideas, but poses a stark contrast: between putting politics in command, on the one hand, and tolerating capitalism to catch up with the imperialist countries in the development of productive forces without an idea of the limits to that path -- ignorantly pursuing development while treating the relations of production as secondary. One leads to relentless struggle against the exploiters; the other leads to counterrevolutionary capitalist restoration and capitulation to imperialism. Some important points in this article:
• The theory of the productive forces has been disproved in practice. It has been disproved not only by the revolution in production in China, but, as the article following "Essence" in the same Peking Review issue points out, Lenin said, and the Soviet Union when Stalin was General Secretary proved, that socialist transformation could take place in countries where the forces of production were not highly developed.
• Changing the relations of production causes the forces of production to develop greatly.
• Creating revolutionary public opinion and seizing power are necessary to change the production relations, and changing the production relations is necessary to greatly develop the productive forces.
• Capitalism is moribund, but Marxism and the proletariat's leadership are needed to take the world beyond capitalism. The development of the productive forces does not lead to communism without a class struggle.
• Whether the proletariat can seize power depends on whether there is a revolutionary situation, not on the state of development of the productive forces.
• The theory of the productives emphasizes the instruments of production, more than labor, as a factor of productivity.
• The national bourgeoisie in China could not have developed the productive forces, to the point that the masses with communist leadership developed them to, even if it had been allowed to develop the productive forces. Concrete knowledge of the particular conditions and class forces in a country is important. Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping perverted this principle to justify doing anything to develop the productive forces and try to narrow the gap between China and the imperialist countries under the pretext that China's productive forces were backward and that China was not ready for socialist transformation.
• The struggle in the superstructure can be principal.
• The bourgeoisie calls revolution reactionary, and counterrevolution revolutionary.
• Class struggle exists long after the initial seizure of power by the proletariat.
• Revolution in the superstructure is "an epoch-making development of Marxism-Leninism, a component part of Chairman Mao's great theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat."
• The theory of the productive forces is a problem larger than Liu Shaoqi as an individual. If the masses do not understand why the theory of the productive forces is wrong, other capitalist-roaders will be allowed to hold power, and counterrevolutionary restoration will happen.
The theory of the productive forces exists in a variety of forms and has undergone some mutations. There is the obvious zombie problem in which there are people calling themselves Maoist who can't say anything about what "theory of the productive forces" refers to and who Liu Shaoqi was because they don't remember their leader talking about them, and crudely rely on bourgeois economics in analyzing the economy, production, and income. Then, there are many who can mouth some words against Liu Shaoqi and the theory of the productive forces as it was manifested in the past, but don't actually uphold the lessons of the struggle against the new bourgeoisie in China and the world-wide struggle against revisionism. Lack of clarity on whether First World wealth is due to domestic productive forces or exploitation of foreign workers leads to implementing the theory of the productive forces, because of the objective divorce between practice, on the one hand, and knowledge of the relations of production, on the other, and because of the tendency to, by habit, continue engaging in production without transforming the production relations. Assuming that First World worker so-called productivity is due to different levels of development of productive forces is an expression of the theory of the productive forces, because of the conception of the productive forces in isolation from international economic relations; there is inevitably a resulting underestimation of how decadent imperialism is. Comparing First World living standards and Third World living standards without adequately addressing the role of parasitism in the difference is an expression of the theory of the productive forces, because the aspiration to reach the level of the First World living standards is not connected to correct knowledge of the role of productive forces -- in relation to production relations -- in those living standards. Treating First World workers as if they were more productive than Third World workers, because of technology and training in the First World, is an expression of the theory, because of the assumption that Third World workers could generate the same amount of wealth with the same technology and skills, and because of the frequently held notion that technology produces value or enables workers to create more value. Treating First World parasitism as insignificant while welcoming foreign investment to improve backward productive forces in the Third World is the theory of the productive forces in action, because the overall pattern is one of allowing world imperialism to continue plundering the oppressed nations under the pretext of developing the productive forces to imperialist-country levels. An old related idea since Trotsky pertaining to the theory of the productive forces is that imperialism can equalize its colonies with itself.
"Essence" contains a positive reference to Lin Biao, Vice-Chairman of the CPC Central Committee at the time of publication, in connection to the theory of the productive forces. After Lin Biao died, Lin was associated with the theory of the productive forces in various articles in periodicals and in English translations of texts that are available, such as Yao Wenyuan's "On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique" (1975) and A Basic Understanding of the Communist Party of China (1974). So, Lin Biao as a famous individual was used in both positive and negative ways to mobilize the masses to start and continue opposing the theory of the productive forces. From the vantage point of the present day, it is easy to suggest that a more developed mass mobilization against the theory of the productive forces would have helped prevent capitalist restoration. Concrete understanding of history helps prevent vacillation, but it adds nothing new and universal to Marxism to point that out about particular struggles in China in the struggle against the new bourgeoisie. Rather than get down, in an idealist way, to the bottom of the discrepancy in the treatment of Lin Biao in relation to the theory of the productive forces, MIWS would just point out that those who would attack "Lin Biao" today as a way of attacking Maoism typically uphold the theory of the productive forces. In other words, in variegated forms and with sometimes different language, they uphold what Lin Biao was accused of upholding, undermining the substance of the struggles against the ideas associated with Lin. It is possible for opponents of Lin to uphold the theory of the productive forces despite criticisms of Lin on the theory. (In fact, Deng Xiaoping attacked Lin Biao to support the theory of the productive forces and justify capitulation to imperialism, but MIWS is here talking about pseudo-communists who claim to oppose Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, in addition to opposing Lin Biao.) This is especially the case where bringing up Lin is just a scare tactic and there is no genuine scientific struggle over line. Also, the struggle against the theory of the productive forces has gone beyond what was said about Lin. Contemporary struggles against the theory of the productive forces do not revolve around Lin Biao in particular, except for pointing out that there was a struggle involving "Long Live the Victory of People's War" against the theory of the productive forces and the idea that imperialist countries with highly developed productive forces necessarily contained the revolutionary center. Contemporary struggles against the theory of the productive forces deal with versions of the theory that have existed throughout the history of the communist movement and some ideas that weren't dealt with specifically on a large scale during the cultural revolution. The requirements for opposing the theory of the productive forces are different today and should be studied. Knowing some facts about what was said about the theory of the productive forces forty years ago is insufficient. The unproductive sector of the economy and parasitism in general have grown considerably, and the rationalizations of proponents of the theory of the productive forces have changed. By distributing the below article, MIWS does not suggest that people only need to study historical documents.]
THE renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi consistently advocated the reactionary "theory of productive forces." According to this fallacy, socialist revolution is impossible and the socialist road cannot be taken in any country where capitalism is not highly developed and the productive forces have not reached a high level. Before the seizure of political power by the proletariat, he advocated this theory to forbid the proletariat from rising to make revolution and seizing political power. After the seizure of power, he raised it to oppose socialist transformation in a futile effort to lead China on to the road of capitalism. When the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was completed in the main, he continued to advocate this theory in a clandestine attempt to restore capitalism.
Practice is the criterion for testing truth. The great victories of China's new-democratic revolution, socialist revolution and socialist construction won under the leadership of our great leader Chairman Mao have proclaimed the bankruptcy of the "theory of productive forces" peddled by Liu Shao-chi. Of course, the change in the relations of production is caused by the definite development of productive forces. But enormous development of productive forces always takes place in the wake of a change in the relations of production. Historical experience has proved that only by first creating revolutionary public opinion and seizing political power, and then changing the relations of production, is it possible to greatly develop the productive forces. This is general law of social development.
Opposing Proletarian Seizure of Political Power
Old China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country in which the productive forces were at a very level and had long stagnated. This resulted mainly from cruel oppression and exploitation by imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism. When we have political power we have everything. The decadent and backward relations of production could be fundamentally changed and the productive forces greatly developed only when the masses were armed with Mao Tsetung Thought and when the proletariat (through the Communist Party) led the masses (mainly the peasant masses) in carrying out the revolution, i.e., the new-democratic revolution, against the three main enemies — imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism — to seize political power throughout the country and, following its victory, shifting over to the socialist revolution without letting up.
As far back as the early years of China's new-democratic revolution, however, Liu Shao-chi, following in Chen Tu-hsiu's footsteps, vigorously preached the "theory of productive forces" to oppose the proletariat making revolution and seizing political power. Using the pretext that China was industrially backward and the level of its productive forces was very low, he slanderously described the Chinese proletariat as "infantile" and "seriously lumpen," alleging that the seizure of power by the proletariat was "a thing of the distant future," and that it was utterly "unnecessary to waste much breath discussing it."
To deny the possibility and necessity of seizure of power by the proletariat on the pretext that the level of the productive forces is low is an outright fallacy advocated with an ulterior motive behind it. The question of whether the proletariat is able to seize political power is absolutely not determined by the level of the productive forces, but objectively by whether there is a revolutionary situation, and subjectively by whether there is a Communist Party armed with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, which correctly leads the broad revolutionary masses in a courageous struggle to seize political power. The contradiction between the three main enemies and the Chinese people was extremely acute in old China. The proletariat and the broad masses of peasants were subjected to oppression, the severity and cruelty of which were rare in other countries. They urgently wanted revolution. Though the proletariat was small in number, it had natural ties with the impoverished peasants in their hundreds of millions with whom it could form a close alliance. A revolutionary situation existed in China. Provided the Communist Party of China was armed with Mao Tsetung Thought, it certainly could lead the revolutionary masses in defeating the enemies, step by step,¬
[ 6 ]
and finally seizing political power throughout the country. The great victory of the Chinese revolution has fully proved this point.
Liu Shao-chi's vicious intent in painstakingly advocating the "theory of productive forces" was that the proletariat had to endure oppression and exploitation by the three main enemies, but could not lift a finger against old China's reactionary and decadent political-economic system.
While affirming that the productive forces and the economic base in general play the principal and decisive role in relation to production relations and the superstructure, our great leader Chairman Mao stresses: "When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role," and "when the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive." The "theory of productive forces" hawked by Liu Shao-chi one-sidedly describes the progress of society as the natural outcome of the development of the productive forces, chiefly the instruments of production. It completely denies that, under certain conditions, the superstructure and the relations of production play the principal and decisive role in relation to the economic base and the productive forces; it also denies that the proletariat's consciously making revolution under the guidance of revolutionary theory, seizing political power and changing the relations of production play the decisive role in greatly developing the productive forces and pushing social development ahead. It categorically denies that "the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history" and that "revolutions are the locomotives of history." It uses mechanical materialism to replace dialectical materialism, and vulgar evolutionism to oppose revolutionary dialectics. The "theory of productive forces" is an out-and-out counter-revolutionary fallacy.
Clearing the Way for Developing Capitalism
The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 marked the basic conclusion of the new-democratic revolution and the beginning of the socialist revolution. Firmly responding to Chairman Mao's call to "build China into a great socialist state," the working class and other labouring people were determined to go right into the socialist revolution without stopping. It was precisely at this historical juncture, however, that Liu Shao-chi frantically rushed forth to oppose the socialist road and loudly advocate the capitalist road. His "theoretical" basis remained the counter-revolutionary "theory of productive forces."
Liu Shao-chi repeatedly clamoured: "The question of socialism is a matter for the future. It is too early to raise it now." He also babbled that "capitalism in China today is still in its youth and it is high time to give full play to its historical and positive role and let it make its contribution" and that "the capitalists should exist and develop for decades" without restriction. He insisted that failure to do so would "hinder the raising of productive forces" and was therefore "reactionary." His allegation that agricultural co-operation before mechanization was a "reactionary Utopian concept of agrarian socialism" was a slander. He beat the drum for the development of a rich-peasant economy, and made a big noise that even if a rich peasant hired "one hundred" farm labourers, he "should be protected from any infringement." This long-standing counter-revolutionary had become so cynical that he confused right and wrong and stood truth upside down.
The allegation that New China had to depend on capitalism to develop the productive forces was the outright yapping of bourgeois lap-dogs.
Though the Chinese national bourgeoisie was not the target of the democratic revolution, it was, in Marx's words, "dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt," and it had all along brutally exploited the proletariat. It was very weak politically and economically, and maintained connections with imperialism and feudalism by numerous ties. The Chinese national bourgeoisie, which came on the scene very late and "unpropitiously," grew senile very much before its time. At a time when the world had long entered "an era in which capitalism is unquestionably dying and socialism is unquestionably prospering," and when the proletariat had seized political power in New China, the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie became the principal contradiction at home. If the policy of utilization, restriction and transformation had not been carried out with regard to capitalist industry and commerce, and if capitalist industry and commerce had been allowed unlimited expansion as Liu Shao-chi had preached, the productive forces could not be greatly developed and, furthermore, the political power already seized by the proletariat would change colour.
The assertion that the building of socialism was "Utopian" and "reactionary" was exactly the language of renegades to the proletariat.
The great Lenin pointed out long ago that whether the bourgeois democratic revolution, following its victory, would change into the socialist revolution without let-up depended on "the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants." The seizure of political power by the working class following the founding of the People's Republic of China was the most important political preparedness; the confiscation of bureaucrat-capital, which "will enable the people's republic to control the economic lifelines of the country and will enable the state-owned economy to become the leading sector of the entire national economy," was the most important economic preparedness. The worker-peasant alliance in China became very powerful and consolidated after the protracted struggle in the democratic revolution. The working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants¬
[ 7 ]
"have a potentially inexhaustible enthusiasm for socialism" because they suffered bitter exploitation in the old society. Right after the Land Reform, the poor and lower-middle peasants urgently wanted to get organized and take the road of agricultural co-operation. Only thus could a new polarization in the Chinese countryside be averted and the mechanization of agriculture be gradually achieved. Preliminary but successful experience had been gained in promoting mutual help and co-operation in the old Liberated Areas among individual peasants who were guided by Chairman Mao's great call "Get organized." Guided by Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line after the founding of New China, the Chinese Communist Party led the worker and peasant masses in carrying out the socialist transformation of the national economy through proper terms and measures. This represented the general trend and the aspirations of the people and it fully conformed with the objective law of development. Only by doing so could the enthusiasm of the workers and peasants in their hundreds of millions for revolution and production be brought into full play and the productive forces be developed enormously.
Liu Shao-chi's aim in so fanatically peddling the "theory of productive forces" was to urge the working class and all other labouring people to respectfully hand over the fruits of their victory in revolution to the bourgeoisie. If this scheme had succeeded, the workers and peasants in their hundreds of millions would have been once again thrown into the abyss of misery.
The great leader Chairman Mao pointed out long ago: It was "sheer fantasy" to establish in China a capitalist society under bourgeois dictatorship after the victory of the new-democratic revolution. Because of its extreme weakness, the Chinese national bourgeoisie had to capitulate to imperialism if it attempted to oppose socialism. To put it bluntly, Liu Shao-chi's reactionary programme for developing capitalism was impossible for China, as Chairman Mao had taught us: "In fact this road is impossible, and in fact, therefore, they are ready to capitulate to imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism." The "theory of productive forces" preached by Liu Shao-chi not only showed that he was the chief representative of the bourgeoisie, but exposed his true features as the running dog of imperialism.
Smokescreen for Restoring Capitalism
Under the wise leadership of our great leader Chairman Mao, China had by 1956 basically completed the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means production and this greatly promoted the development of the productive forces. However, there is contradiction as well as harmony between the relations of production and the productive forces and between superstructure and the economic base. Class struggle is far from over and the question of political power remains the focus of the struggle. Chairman Mao teaches: "Socialist society covers a considerably long historical period. In the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, and there is the danger of capitalist restoration." In these circumstances, "by itself the socialist revolution on the economic front (in the ownership of the means of production) is insufficient and cannot be consolidated. There must also be a thoroughgoing socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts." This is an epoch-making development of Marxism-Leninism, an important component part of Chairman Mao's great theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and a beacon light guiding the proletariat and the revolutionary people to continue the revolution.
It was precisely at this crucial moment of whether the socialist revolution could be carried forward that Liu Shao-chi came out for the painstaking creation of counter-revolutionary public opinion. He clamoured everywhere: "In our country, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, has now been settled," "class struggle is over" and "now, the main task of the Chinese people and our Party is to develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible." All these fallacies were merely a new form of the "theory of productive forces."
According to his absurd theory, the relations of production were no longer in contradiction with the productive forces, and the socialist revolution on the economic front had ended; the superstructure was no longer in contradiction with the economic base, and socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts was entirely unnecessary; classes were eliminated, the bourgeoisie no longer existed, class struggle was over, and it was quite enough for the working class and other labouring people simply to immerse themselves in production and professional work.
The great leader Chairman Mao incisively pointed out: "To overthrow a political power, it is always necessary first of all to create public opinion, to do work in the ideological sphere. This is true for the revolutionary class as well as for the counter-revolutionary class." Liu Shao-chi made a great show in crying out for developing the productive forces while actually trying to restore capitalism. The counter-revolutionary view that "production is everything" that he brought into being was a smokescreen. He wanted to use it to dull our revolutionary vigilance so that he could recruit turncoats, take in renegades and set up cliques for selfish interests, and push ahead wildly with his counter-revolutionary revisionist line on all fronts, make the dictatorship of the proletariat degenerate into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and transform the socialist economy into a capitalist economy. If we had been taken in by him, if we had forgotten the necessity of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, if we had not waged class struggle, made revolution in the realm of the superstructure, given¬
[ 8 ]
prominence to proletarian politics, completely shattered the bourgeois headquarters headed by Liu Shao-chi and consolidated the leadership of the proletariat, and if we had become engrossed in production, "concerned ourselves solely with the production of grain, cotton and edible oil, and made no distinction between our enemies, our friends and ourselves," if we had gone in only for mechanization and not for revolutionization, then it would not have been long before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a national scale would have inevitably occurred, and we would have been decapitated without knowing why.
Lenin pointed out: "Politics cannot but have precedence over economics," "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." The great leader Chairman Mao has greatly developed the brilliant thought of Lenin. Chairman Mao teaches us over and over again: Politics is the commander, the soul in everything, "political work is the life-blood of all economic work." Vice-Chairman Lin points out: "'Grasp revolution, promote production' — this principle is absolutely correct. It correctly explains 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." While taking part in socialist construction we must never forget to continue the revolution under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. At all times, we must give prominence to proletarian politics and put revolution in command of production and use it to promote and lead production. We should go in for mechanization, still more should we go in for revolutionization, with the latter guiding the former. Only thus can we consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, adhere to the orientation of socialism and develop the productive forces by leaps and bounds.
Liu Shao-chi is now a political corpse, but the pernicious influence of the "theory of productive forces" he spread has not yet been eliminated. We should arm ourselves further with Chairman Mao's great theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, thoroughly criticize the "theory of productive forces," and firmly grasp revolution and energetically promote production so as to be doubly successful in revolution and production.
[ . . . ]