The Bourgeoisie Is Right Inside the Communist Party

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of The Bourgeoisie Is Right Inside the Communist Party has been prepared and revised for digital publication by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism under the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Switzerland on the basis of the following editions:

• Chairman Mao's Primary Directives, Cultural Revolution Translators, 2022.
• Quotations in Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Vol. 3, Silkroad Press, Honolulu, 2017.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is a summary of a series of talks between Comrade Mao Zedong and Mao Yuanxin and others in Beijing, China between the 27th of September, 1975 and 2nd of March, 1976. First published as Document No. 4 of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the 3rd of March, 1976.

At the end of September 1975, due to briefings by Mao Yuanxin, Comrade Mao Zedong became aware of a plot by Deng Xiaoping, then the person responsible for the daily work of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, to subvert the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, reverse the correct verdict on Liu Shaoqi, and restore capitalism in China through his scheme of so-called «reform», which was then cloaked in the language of the «Four Modernizations». This led Mao Zedong to convene a series of meetings of the Political Bureau of the Party's Central Committee for the purpose of evaluating the Cultural Revolution and prompting Deng to make a self-criticism. However, as time went on, it became clearer and clearer that Deng intended to do no such thing, and once Deng began to work secretly together with his associate Liu Bing at Qinghua University to oppose the proletarian revolution in education, Mao decided to launch an open struggle against Deng — whose name was not yet to be made public — namely, the Movement to Criticize Deng Xiaoping and Beat Back the Right-Deviationist Attempt to Reverse Correct Verdicts.

In a series of talks with Mao Yuanxin between September 1975 and March 1976, Comrade Mao Zedong issued a number of directives concerning the Movement to Criticize Deng Xiaoping and Beat Back the Right-Deviationist Attempt to Reverse Correct Verdicts. At first, the Movement was intended as part of the proletarian revolution in education, but once the counter-revolutionary headquarters around Deng began to spread their activities to other spheres of Chinese society, the Movement broadened in response. This led Mao Zedong to conclude, as part of these directives, that «the bourgeoisie [...] is right inside the Communist Party» — an extremely important contribution to Marxism, particularly to the political economy of socialism. As one pamphlet published in 1976 put it:

The bourgeoisie inside the Party, the capitalist-roaders in power, all do not participate in productive labour. Their wage income under the dictatorship of the proletariat is derived from the redistribution of national income obtained from the stockpile provided by the workers and peasants. They are all supported by the workers and peasants, but do not provide any benefit for the workers and peasants. Their possession of the social wealth created by the workers and peasants is actually the exploitation of the workers and peasants.¹

In other words, during the socialist period, not only do the continued existence of bourgeois right, small-scale production, and the division between mental and manual labour continue to produce new capitalist elements, as Comrades Lenin and Mao Zedong had both previously pointed out; but the socialist State itself, which Lenin called «the bourgeois State — without the bourgeoisie»,² itself contains a new State-monopoly bourgeoisie, consisting of those public functionaries whose income is derived from surplus-value, extracted by the socialist State through taxes and other forms, paid to them for non-productive labour, such as administrative work. In this sense, every public functionary under socialism is a capitalist in the economic sense.

In the light of this understanding, what, then, did Comrade Mao Zedong mean by the bourgeoisie inside the Communist Party? Those capitalist-roaders who, as a result of taking the class standpoint of the bourgeoisie, not only economically, but also ideologically and politically, represent the capitalist class. This is why, under socialism, the point is precisely not which class rules, because every socialist society is a transition period (not an independent social formation) and every socialist State is a bourgeois State (not a «proletarian State» in the economic sense, which cannot exist without, as Engels pointed out, the State losing the character of a State) — rather, the point is which line guides and commands the State — the Red, proletarian line, or the White, capitalist line?

This understanding allows us to grasp why it is that the Communists say that countries like the Council Union and China became capitalist countries «overnight» once certain top leaders died or were ousted in State coups, and not because economic reforms were immediately implemented. It is because only the guidance and command of the correct line prevented the capitalist aspect in these countries from developing further. Once the capitalist aspect in a socialist country is no longer being actively restricted, that socialist country ceases to be socialist, because it is no longer taking the communist road. This also explains why socialist countries like Albania and Vietnam became capitalist even though their top leadership never changed — because people like Enver Hoxha and Le Duan themselves deteriorated ideologically and politically and became revisionists.

In sum, Comrade Mao Zedong's thesis on the bourgeoisie inside the Communist Party is his most significant contribution to Marxism, the justification, in the sphere of political economy, for his theory of uninterrupted revolution and continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the cornerstone of Maoism as the new, third, and higher stage of the ideology of the proletariat.

The following summary of the main directives issued by Comrade Mao Zedong during his talks with Mao Yuanxin was made in March 1976 by the Party's Central Committee and approved for circulation by Mao Zedong. As the minutes of the original talks have not been made public, it has only been possible to make minor additions to complete the talks on the basis of the following summary, which thus largely retains the structure of the March 1976 edition.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#COMMENT ON THE DRAFT SUMMARY

#Mao Zedong

#3rd of March, 1976

#★

Agreed.

#3rd of March

#18:00

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#THE BOURGEOISIE IS RIGHT INSIDE THE COMMUNIST PARTY

#SUMMARY OF TALKS WITH MAO YUANXIN AND OTHERS

#Mao Zedong

#September 1975-March 1976

#★

A letter has arrived from Liu Bing and associates at Qinghua University, containing accusations against Chi Qun and Xie Jingyi.

I believe that the motivation behind this letter is not pure. Its intention is to overthrow Chi Qun and Xie Jingyi. The spearhead of the letter is aimed against me. Deng Xiaoping, Li Xiannian, Wang Dongxing, Wu De, Xie Jingyi, and Chi Qun should hold a meeting and find ways to deal with this problem.

I am in Beijing; why not write directly to me, and why go through Deng Xiaoping? Xiaoping favours Liu Bing. The question involved in Qinghua is not an isolated question, but a reflection of the current two-line struggle.

The recent policies and directives have been fundamentally correct. Comrade Deng Xiaoping should continue to be in charge of the daily work of the Party's Central Committee for now.

Mao Yuanxin should talk with Deng Xiaoping, Wang Dongxing, and Chen Xilian and tell them his opinion — honestly and directly. He needs to help Deng Xiaoping to improve his understanding.

Is there class struggle in socialist society or not? What do you mean, «taking the ‹Three Directives› as the key link»?! Stability and unity do not mean writing off the class struggle; class struggle is the key link and everything else hinges on it. Stalin made a big mistake on this point, but Lenin did not. Lenin said that small-scale production engenders capitalism continuously and daily,³ and he talked about building up a bourgeois State without capitalists to safeguard bourgeois right. We ourselves have built up just such a State, which differs little from the old society. There are ranks and grades, eight grades of wages, distribution according to work, and exchange-value. People need money to buy grain, coal, and vegetables. The same eight grades of wages determine to whom the money is distributed, regardless of whether the recipients need money for many people or a few.

In 1949, it was pointed out that the main contradiction within the country was the one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. 13 years later, the question of the class struggle was reiterated, and mention was also made of the fact that the situation began to turn for the better. What is the Great Cultural Revolution for? To wage class struggle. Liu Shaoqi advocated the theory of the dying out of the class struggle, but he himself never ceased to wage class struggle. He wanted to protect his bunch of renegades and sworn followers. Lin Biao wanted to overthrow the proletariat and attempted a coup. Did the class struggle die out?

Why don't some people clearly see the point of contradictions in socialist society? Don't the old bourgeois still exist? Hasn't everyone seen the great numbers of small bourgeois? Aren't there many unremoulded intellectuals? Isn't the influence of small-scale production, corruption, and speculation everywhere? Aren't the Liu Shaoqi, Lin Biao, and other anti-Party cliques terrifying? The problem is that the people who say these things themselves are small bourgeois, and their thinking easily turns to the Right. The problem is that they themselves represent the bourgeoisie, which is why they say that they cannot see any class contradictions.

The thinking of some comrades, mainly the old comrades, remains «standing still» at the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. They either don't understand, resist, or even oppose the socialist revolution. They have two different attitudes toward the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution: the first is to be dissatisfied, the second is to «settle accounts» with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Why didn't Lenin «stand still»? After the democratic revolution, the workers and the poor and lower-middle peasants did not stand still, they want revolution. On the other hand, a number of Party members do not want to go forward; some have moved backward and opposed the revolution. Why? Because they have become high officials and want to protect the interests of the high officials. They have a good house, a car, a high salary, and attendants; they are worse than the capitalists. With the socialist revolution, they themselves come under fire. At the time of the cooperative transformation of agriculture, there were people in the Party who opposed it, and, when it comes to criticizing bourgeois right, they resent it. You are making the socialist revolution, and yet don't know where the bourgeoisie is. It is right inside the Communist Party — those in power who are taking the capitalist road. The capitalist-roaders are still on the capitalist road.

Will there be need for revolution 100 years from now? Will there still be need for revolution 1'000 years from now? There is always need for revolution. There are always sections of the people who feel themselves oppressed: junior officials, students, workers, peasants, and soldiers don't like bigshots oppressing them. That's why they want revolution. Will contradictions no longer be seen 10'000 years from now? Why not? They will still be seen.

My view on the Cultural Revolution in general is that it was fundamentally correct, but had some shortcomings. What we should study now is the shortcomings. The ratio is 70:30, that is, 70% achievements and 30% shortcomings, and people do not necessarily have consistent views on it. There were two main shortcomings in the Cultural Revolution: first, overthrowing everything, and, second, all-round civil war. Regarding «overthrowing everything», some of the attacks were correct, such as the attacks on the Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao cliques; some of them were incorrect, such as the attacks on some old comrades. But these people also made mistakes, so it is fine to criticize them. Regarding the «all-round civil war», it has already been ten years since we had the experience of civil war. At that time, the masses seized guns — actually, most of them were handed out to the masses. Armed struggle is a necessary exercise, but to beat people to death and not rescue the wounded is no good.

One shouldn't underestimate old comrades. I am among the oldest. Old comrades still have a bit of use. The old comrades should treat the rebel factions magnanimously, and not tell them to «yield or get lost». Sometimes, the rebel factions make mistakes, but don't we old comrades also make mistakes? Likewise, we also make mistakes. We should pay attention to the «three-in-one» combination of old, middle-aged, and young people in leading bodies. There are some old comrades who have not been active for seven or eight years, and who don't know about many things. «The people of the Peach Blossom Spring know not of the Han, to say nothing of the Wei or the Jin.»

Some people have been the targets of attacks and feel unhappy and angry, and, to some extent, this is understandable. But they mustn't direct this anger against the majority of the people, against the masses, or stand in their way or denounce them. Zhou Rongxin and Liu Bing have wronged many people. They want to reverse the correct verdicts on the revolution in education. But reversing correct verdicts goes against the will of the people — it goes against the will of the more than 20'000 people at Qinghua University. Zhou and Liu are very isolated.

In the past, the things people studied in school did not have much use. If one forgot about these classes afterward, that was a bit useful, as one was at least left with a bit of culture, such as the ability to read books and write characters, and occasionally to write an essay. I only read many books later on. Most scientific knowledge is not learned in the classroom. For example, astronomy, geology, and agronomy. True abilities are not learned in the classroom. Confucius didn't go to university, and neither did Qin Shi Huangdi, Liu Bang, Han Wudi, Cao Cao, or Zhu Yuanzhang. One shouldn't have blind faith in university. Gorkij only attended two years of primary school. Engels only attended secondary school. Lenin was expelled from university before graduating.

There are some people who, after attending university, don't accept having the same status as workers, and want to be part of the labour-aristocracy. However, the common workers and peasants are improving their status day by day. The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are just childish and ignorant, myself included. The tendency is that the lower levels exceed the higher levels, that the masses exceed the leaders, and that the leaders refuse to have the same status as the masses, because they lack practical experience and are divorced from the masses. Don't some people say that labourers are not equal to college students? I say that I myself am inferior to a labourer. Some people take the standpoint of the bourgeois intellectual and oppose the remoulding of bourgeois intellectuals. Don't they need to be remoulded? Everyone needs to be remoulded, myself included, all of you included. The working class needs to incessantly remould itself in the course of struggle, otherwise some people will become bad. That's why the British Labour Party and the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations [AFL-CIO] are reactionary.

At present, the mass debates should be primarily restricted to the schools and a part of the organizational bodies. Fighting detachments shouldn't be formed, and the Party's leadership is the main aspect. Industry, agriculture, commerce, and the military shouldn't be affected. But the movement will spread to those spheres eventually. The level of the masses has risen; they are no longer fighting for anarchy, overthrowing everything, or all-round civil war. Now, Beijing and Qinghua Universities are correcting their course under the leadership of the university and departmental Party committees and of the Party branches. In the past, this was not the case, when we had Kuai Dafu and Nie Yuanzi — they were Anarchists. Now, the situation is more reliable.

We must reach out to a number of the old comrades and help them, otherwise they will commit new mistakes. In the beginning of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Henan Provincial Party Committee reached out to the secretaries of the prefectural and county Party committees under its leadership in order to correct their reception of the Cultural Revolution. As a result, 80% of the secretaries of the prefectural and county Party committees in Henan were not overthrown. We realize that we have to reach out to and work with people. Every provincial Party committee should have three groups of people — the old, the middle-aged, and the young, a «three-in-one» combination in the leading bodies — but the young comrades have to be good people, not people like Kuai Dafu or Nie Yuanzi. We must also reach out to the youth, otherwise the youth will also commit mistakes.

I recommend that everyone should study a bit of philosophy and of Lu Xun's works in the next year or two. People can read Yang Rongguo's History of Ancient Chinese Thought and A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy. These two books concern Chinese philosophy. We must continue to criticize Confucius. There are some people who don't understand what the problem is with Confucius. They can read Feng Youlan's Confucianism and Feng Tianyu's A Critique of Confucian Educational Thought. Feng Tianyu's book is better than Feng Youlan's. They can also read the section on Confucianism and Legalism in Guo Moruo's Ten Critical Books.

Deng Xiaoping has put forward the idea of «taking the ‹Three Directives› as the key link». This he did not research together with the Political Bureau, nor did he discuss it with the State Council, nor did he report it to me. He just said it as though it were a fact. This person does not grasp the class struggle; he has never referred to this key link. Still his theme of «white cat, black cat», making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism. He says: «Whenever there is a mass movement, it tends to harm the old workers and the experienced cadres.» So, was it harmful to oppose Chen Duxiu, Qu Qiubai, Li Lisan, Luo Zhanglong, Wang Ming, Zhang Guotao, Gao Gang, Peng Dehuai, Liu Shaoqi, and Lin Biao? He says: «There is a crisis in education. The students are not studying.» He himself has not studied. He knows nothing of Marxism-Leninism; he represents the bourgeoisie. He said that he would «never reverse the verdict». It can't be counted on. Xiaoping never speaks honestly, so other people fear him and don't dare talk to him. He also doesn't listen to the opinions of the masses. Because he serves as a director, his style of work is a big problem. However, his problem is still a contradiction among the people. If he is guided well, it is possible to prevent the contradiction from becoming antagonistic, unlike with people like Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao. Deng is a little bit different than Liu and Lin. Deng is willing to make a self-criticism, something that Liu and Lin were fundamentally not willing to do. We should help him, that is to say, we should criticize him; to go along with him would be bad. He must be criticized, but he shouldn't be beaten to death. Our Party has long had a policy toward people who have made mistakes or who have shortcomings, namely, to «learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones» and to «cure the sickness to save the patient». We should learn from one another, correct our mistakes, strengthen our unity, and improve our work.⁴

Let Hua Guofeng lead the State Council, even though he himself thinks that he has little political talent. Let Deng Xiaoping take charge of foreign affairs. He's ambitious, but not ambitious enough to try to usurp my post. Deng was recommended by Ye Jianying, so it's hardly strange that Ye should be on his side. They have similar ideological and political views; how could they not be friendly and sympathetic to one another? When one has many supporters, one can rule; when one has few supporters, one can be ruled. Therefore, a wise ruler strives to win supporters. Qin Shi Huangdi set up a centralized government on the advice of Han Fei. The Party should learn from Qin Shi Huangdi by firmly grasping political power.

Hua Guofeng should be Acting Premier of the State Council and take charge of the daily work of the Party's Central Committee. He is solemn and wise. He should be publicized throughout the country so that the masses will get to know him. Chen Xilian should take charge of the Military Commission of the Party's Central Committee, Deng Xiaoping and Ye Jianying should both be put on leave from their posts, and their reports and speeches at the July 1975 Enlarged Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Party's Central Committee on rectifying the style of work in the People's Liberation Army should no longer be applied.

More people from Qinghua and Beijing Universities should be invited to participate and encouraged to talk at the meetings of the Political Bureau on the movement at the universities, so that stereotyped thinking in the Political Bureau can be swept away.