Lin Biao excerpt on the theory of the productive forces
Below is an excerpt from chapter 25, ""I Am Not Equal to My Task" : Secret Address to the Eleventh Plenary Session (1966)," of a book on Lin Biao by Martin Ebon. Ebon had a u.$. government and military background. MIWS does not offer here an assessment of Ebon's book as a whole.
As far as the works he left, Lin Biao is most commonly associated with "Long Live the Victory of People's War," the political report he delivered at the CPC Ninth Congress, and some words about Mao Zedong's thought as a new stage of Marxism. Since publishing the below excerpt may seem unusual, MIWS would like to comment.
It is November 2007 as this is being written. The centennial of Lin Biao's birthday is coming up. Birthdays are individualist to begin with. As with "Long Live the Victory of People's War," more important than the biography of someone to whom four-decade-old words are attributed is the content of the writing or speech.
In the rest of Martin Ebon's chapter, not appearing below, Lin Biao talks, among other things that have to do with supporting the struggle against the new bourgeoisie and orienting the forces that will carry on the cultural revolution, about carrying out Mao Zedong's instructions "whether we understand them or not" -- perhaps necessary in a situation where there was a science and knowledge gap that couldn't narrowed in the short term. By contrast, in 2007, there is no choice to be made about Lin Biao or even Mao as an individual leader. Maoists in the 21st century are scientific communists with their own theoretical and concrete understanding, not followers of Mao in the sense of following the leader as if Mao were alive today leading a still-unfolding movement. What scientific communists know of Mao's thought represents the most advanced stage of Marxism, and so they are Maoists, but not exploring the revolution associated with Mao as if only Mao the individual were the correct guide. So, people who bring up Lin's biography, disputed history and the allegations surrounding his death to justify not examining what he said are ridiculous. They make Lin as an individual more important than some scientifically useful things he may have said though Lin is no longer a factor as an individual in any struggle. Those who are overly concerned with the coup allegation and derivative claims about Lin as a secret counterrevolutionary, either for or against the claims about Lin, typically act as if some imminent decision had to be made about Lin as an individual, but Lin is not alive in 2007, and there is nobody analogous to him living today.
What is most interesting about Lin are:
1) things in his writing that are unique, true and universal
If Lin's writing weren't somehow unique, MIWS would not be talking about it. "Long Live the Victory of People's War" is unique relative to other writing in English being distributed. If MIWS hesitated to publish the below Lin Biao excerpt, it is only because there were already articles in Peking Review and other writings in English dealing with the theory of the productive forces and material incentives from the cultural revolution period.
2) the social struggles that Lin's writing reflected
In this context, it wouldn't be particularly relevant if Lin opposed material incentives just to raise the red flag to oppose it. What is important are the surrounding struggles Lin's words reflected. There was a class struggle over material incentives and a class struggle over Liu Shaoqi's ideas, not a struggle between a small number of individuals detached from the masses. During the cultural revolution, there was a class struggle over putting politics in command and a class struggle against the theory of the productive forces. So, if Lin raised the red flag, it is because he had to because class struggle required it. Lin's writing is expressive of a class struggle -- that is the correct way to approach Lin's writing. (Similarly, the mass movement against Confucian thought was more important than Lin as an individual, regardless of the accuracy of the charges appearing in published writing against any one individual. The movement represented a class struggle.) The bourgeoisie looking at the cultural revolution prefers to emphasize a conflict of bureaucratic individuals raising the red flag just to eliminate each other as if there were no class struggle.
In thinking about Lin Biao, a comparison may arise between Lin and Mao, especially among people who are obsessed with the individuals and personalities of revolution. Whether Lin's ideas were more or less correct than Mao's, whether Lin made more or fewer errors than Mao -- these are things that MIWS does not care about, and MIWS sees no reason at this time to focus on any one individual. What is key is Maoist science and relevant writing, such as H. W. Edwards' and Arghiri Emmanuels'. Exploratory investigation of Lin's errors and practice as an individual should be connected to conclusions of universal relevance; otherwise, it is just contemplative research. Any explanation of the counterrevolution, or discussion Lin Biao's role, mistakes, or merits, should offer a lesson that is new or confirm a previous lesson. Most people who talk about Lin's practice as an individual do not connect that discussion to the production of any new, universal knowledge. No lesson is drawn from what Lin supposedly did or thought. On the contrary, often when Lin is not the topic of discussion, Lin is attacked as a way of attacking Maoism on the principal contradiction, people's war, the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations, concrete analysis of class structure and politics in the First World, and even the cultural revolution in some cases. Additionally, the majority of those focused on criticizing Lin, apart from the anti-Confucian campaign and making a point about the existence of a new bourgeoisie in the party, have no social explanation for how the counterrevolutionary restoration came about in China, no scientific analysis of the First World class structure, and no consistent and developed analysis in other areas.
In the below excerpt, Lin identifies the cultural revolution as something that the Soviet Union "did not have." Like Mao and others, Lin recognized that there was no precedent to the cultural revolution in world history. The cultural revolution and mass struggles against the new bourgeoisie in the party were new to Marxism-Leninism. A new bourgeoisie develops in the communist party under socialism and needs to be defeated by the masses. If the masses do not grasp the truth themselves, eventually those with responsibilities in the party will not be able to and will descend into bourgeois ideology. The masses can be an obstacle to the actions of the new bourgeoisie in the party.
The excerpt also has to do specifically with the revisionist theory of the productive forces, which the new bourgeoisie in the Communist Party of China supported. One aspect of the theory of the productive forces is the idea that nations have to catch up with the most advanced, and the most parasitic, imperialist countries in economic development before moving toward communism. This idea is expressed, especially today, in the idea that technology and technical aspects are the main thing determining the wealth and living standards gap between nations, and that the improvement of technology and production techniques can enable an upward equalization so that oppressed nations reach the level of imperialist nations without the imperialist nations' moving lower in their level. The corresponding general idea is that concerns about relations of production can be subordinated to the productive forces, which are seen as primary, and that economic development can and should take place without transformation of production relations and class struggle. Another aspect of the theory of the productive forces is that wage differentials are acceptable as long as development occurs. The theory is called "revisionist" when it is upheld as Marxist. Ultimately, the revisionists rely not only on material incentives and income differentiation, but also on profit incentives, without putting politics in command. In oppressed nations, the theory of the productive forces is a "Marxist" part of the ideology sustaining neo-colonialism, obscuring international exploitation and the relations of the production that exist in the world economy.
On the one hand, technology is labor-saving. Also, transfers of value due to workers' using different technology constitute a non-equivalent exchange as Karl Marx showed in Capital, and this would also apply in the international economy. So, technological improvement may be considered desirable. Technological improvement may improve a nation's position in international economic relations, with downward, not upward equalization. On the other hand, it is incorrect to make the assumption that technology is the most important factor influencing economic conditions in a nation or advancement toward communism. International wage differences also play a role and, as Arghiri Emmanuel showed, may play a larger role than technology itself in the relative wealth of different nations. Ignoring the impact of international economic relations on the national economy leads to pragmatism in the Third World nation's economic policy and in trying to attain the living standards of the First World. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the emphasis was on putting politics in command in general. The greater challenge faced by the oppressed in advancing toward communism was not a lack of technology, but a lack of political development.
As Lin Biao mentions, labor is the primary aspect in productivity, compared with technology. Within a broader sense, this means labor explains observed differences in economic conditions between nations. The economic conditions of the First World reflect an appropriation of Third World labor, not wealth stemming from the use of technology itself. Lin Biao emphasizes in the below excerpt the political development of the masses as a crucial factor in preventing counterrevolutionary restoration. This is actually relevant to international disparity and the international appropriation of labor. Like Mao and other Maoists during the cultural revolution and within the framework of the movement to overthrow the top capitalist-roaders, in the party, working to restore capitalism, Lin held that material incentives at the time had a negative impact on the outlook of the masses -- as relatively small as those incentives were by international comparison. Today, social-imperialists in the making calling themselves Maoists are working for living standards for the parasitic imperialist nation so-called working class and middle class higher than the living standards Liu Shaoqi would have dreamed of being possible through material incentives. There is no revolutionary upsurge in the First World; yet, the labor bureaucrats and petty-bourgeois pseudo-communists who never really studied Marxist economics and the labor theory of value prop up a wage distribution in which average First World people receive incomes several times greater than even the highest typical wages of Third World workers.
Excerpt
Bracketed text and ellipses are in the original in Martin Ebon's book.
Source: Martin Ebon, Lin Piao: The Life and Writings of China's New Ruler, New York, Stein and Day, 1970, pp. 272-273
Excerpt from ""I Am Not Equal to My Task" : Secret Address to the Eleventh Plenary Session (1966)":
[Turning to the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group:] Your work was beset with difficulties. The movement was started in a vigorous manner, but then cold water was poured on it. The Chairman has reversed the situation. Otherwise, the Cultural Revolution would have been cut short, the bourgeoisie would have gained the upper hand, and we would have suffered defeat. We must destroy the bourgeois ideas, . . . wipe out old ideas. . . . On the one hand, we must begin with the material aspect by developing production and improving technology; on the other hand, we must begin with the spiritual aspect by reforming man's thinking. The important factor of productivity is man, and we must develop the human factor, change ideas and concepts and raise our sense of responsibility to society. This is easier said than done. There are to be reversals, and we can reform man only through numerous struggles, criticisms, and commendations and a major struggle on the ideological front as a whole.
The struggle is to advance from many lower states to the higher stages on the two fronts, the material and spiritual fronts. Our Cultural Revolution Group takes care of the spiritual front, but we advance simultaneously along the two fronts. The thought of Mao Tse-tung is the locomotive for our advance along both fronts. We must advance like a train along two tracks. We must not promote material incentives as the revisionists are doing, or we are bound to revert to the old rule and revisionism is bound to appear. In doing everything, we must put the thought of Mao Tse-tung in the lead, and we must firmly grasp the thought of Mao Tse-tung as a spiritual weapon and fight this battle through to the end. If we win in our minds, we shall win the war against material incentives. You comrades have played a part in the recent several months . . . I hope that you will play a bigger part. Of course, we do not allow pouring of cold water, and the Chairman will see that the situation is reversed. . . .
The Great Cultural Revolution is an undertaking that has never been attempted before. The Soviet Union does not have it. . . .
Now fish eyes are confused with pearls, and we must separate them. We must hand the pearls over to the masses of workers and peasants so that the people may have culture and see the bright future ahead of them. If fish eyes are mixed with pearls, we ourselves will have difficulty in selecting the pearls. We must now tell them that the thought of Mao Tse-tung is the pearl, and we must all bear responsibilities.