本页主题: Zhang Chunqiao:On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

weihong
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 3193
威望: 3194 点
红花: 31935 朵
贡献值: 1 点
在线时间:286(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-12-31

 Zhang Chunqiao:On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie

管理提醒:
本帖被 wengeadmin 从 文革文献 移动到本区(2009-02-16)
图片:
Chang Chun-chiao (Zhang Chunqiao)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published: Foreign Languages Press, 1975 from an article in Hongqi

Source: booklet

Transcribed/HTML Markup: Mike B. for MIA, January 2007
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quotations from Chairman Mao
Why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? It is essential to get this question clear. Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism. This should be made known to the whole nation.

Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist works.

Lenin said that "small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." They are also engendered among a part of the working class and of the Party membership. Both within the ranks of the proletariat and among the personnel of state and other organs there are people who take to the bourgeois style of life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE question of the dictatorship of the proletariat has long been the focus of the struggle between Marxism and revisionism. Lenin said, "Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat." And it is precisely to enable us to go by Marxism and not revisionism in both theory and practice that Chairman Mao calls on the whole nation to get clear on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Our country is in an important period of its historical development. As a result of more than two decades of socialist revolution and socialist construction, and particularly of the liquidation of the bourgeois headquarters of Liu Shao-chi and of Lin Piao in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, our proletarian dictatorship is more consolidated than ever, and our socialist cause is thriving. Full of militancy, all our people are determined to build China into a powerful socialist country before the end of the century. In the course of this effort and in the entire historical period of socialism, whether we can persevere all the way in the dictatorship of the proletariat is a cardinal issue for China's future development. Current class struggles, too, require that we should get clear on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chairman Mao says, "Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism." it won't do if only a few people grasp the point; it must "be made known to the whole nation." The present and long-range importance of success in this study cannot be overestimated.

As early as 1920, Lenin, basing himself on practical experience in leading the Great October Socialist Revolution and directing the first state of proletarian dictatorship, pointed out sharply, "The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections o the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential." Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society, that it means all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Lenin stressed time and again that it is impossible to triumph over the bourgeoisie without exercising a protracted, all-round dictatorship over it. These words of Lenin's, especially those he underscored, have been confirmed by practice in subsequent years. Sure enough, new bourgeois elements have been engendered batch after batch, and it is precisely the Khrushchov-Brezhnev renegade clique that is their representative. These people generally have a good class background; almost all of them were brought up under the red flag; they have joined the Communist Party organizationally, received college training and become so-called red experts. However, they are new poisonous weeds engendered by the old soil of capitalism. They have betrayed their own class, usurped Party and state power, restored capitalism, become chieftains of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and accomplished what Hitler had tried to do but failed. Never should we forget this experience of history in which "the satellites went up to the sky while the red flag fell to the ground," especially not at this time when we are determined to build a powerful country.

We must be soberly aware that there is still a danger of China turning revisionist. This is not only because imperialism and social-imperialism will never give up aggression and subversion against us, not only because China's old landlords and capitalists are still around and unreconciled to their defeat, but also because new bourgeois elements are being engendered daily and hourly, as Lenin put it. Some comrades argue that Lenin was referring to the situation before collectivization. This is obviously incorrect. Lenin's remarks are not out of date at all. These comrades may look up Chairman Mao's On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People published in 1957. There Chairman Mao shows by concrete analysis that after the basic victory in the socialist transformation of the system of ownership, which includes the achievement of agricultural co-operation, there still exist in China classes, class contradictions and class struggle, and there still exist both harmony and contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base. Having summed up the new experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat after Lenin, Chairman Mao gave systematic answers to various questions arising after the change in the system of ownership, set forth the tasks and policies of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and laid the theoretical basis for the Party's basic line and for continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Practice in the past 18 years, particularly in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, has proved that the theory, line and policies advanced by Chairman Mao are entirely correct.

Chairman Mao pointed out recently, "In a word, China is a socialist country. Before liberation she was much the same as a capitalist country. Even now she practises an eight-grade wage system, distribution according to work and exchange through money, and in all this differs very little from the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has been changed." In order to gain a deeper understanding of Chairman Mao's instruction, let us look at the changes in the system of ownership in China and the proportions of the various economic sectors in China's industry, agriculture and commerce in 1973.

First, industry. Industry under ownership by the whole people covered 97 per cent of the fixed assets of industry as a whole, 63 per cent of the people engaged in industry, and 86 per cent of the value of total industrial output. Industry under collective ownership covered 3 per cent of the fixed assets, 36.2 per cent of the people engaged in industry, and 14 per cent of the total output value. Besides these, individual handicraftsmen made up 0.8 per cent of the people engaged in industry.

Next, agriculture. Among the agricultural means of production, about 90 per cent of the farmland and of the irrigation-drainage machinery and about 80 per cent of the tractors and draught animals were under collective ownership. Here ownership by the whole people made up a very small proportion. Hence, over 90 per cent of the nation's grain and various industrial crops came from the collective economy. The state farms accounted for only a small proportion. Apart from these, there still remained the small plots farmed by commune members for their personal needs, and a limited amount of household side-line production.

Then commerce. State commerce accounted for 92.5 per cent of the total volume of retail sales, collectively owned commercial enterprises for 7.3 per cent, and individual pedlars for 0.2 per cent. Apart from these, there still remained the sizable amount of trade conducted at rural fairs.

The above figures show that socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective ownership by working people have indeed won a great victory in China. The dominant position of ownership by the whole people has been greatly enhanced and there have also been some changes in the economy of the people's communes as regards the proportions of ownership at the three levels- commune, production brigade and production team. On Shanghai's outskirts, for example, income at the commune level in proportion to total income rose from 28.1 per cent in 1973 to 30.5 per cent in 1974, that of the brigades rose from 15.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent, while the proportion going to the teams dropped from 56.7 per cent to 52.3 per cent. The people's commune has demonstrated ever more clearly its superiority, consisting in its larger size and higher degree of public ownership. In so far as we have, step by step in the past 25 years, eliminated ownership by imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalism and feudalism, transformed ownership by national capitalism and by individual labourers and replaced these five kinds of private ownership with the two kinds of socialist public ownership, we can proudly declare that the system of ownership in China has changed, that the proletariat and other working people in China have in the main freed themselves from the shackles of private ownership, and that China's socialist economic base has been gradually consolidated and developed. The Constitution adopted by the Fourth National People's Congress specifically records these great victories of ours.

However, we must see that with respect to the system of ownership the issue is not yet fully settled. We often say that the issue of ownership "has in the main been settled"; this means that it has not been settled entirely, and also that bourgeois right has not been totally abolished in this realm. The statistics cited above show that private ownership still exists partially in industry, agriculture and commerce, that socialist public ownership does not consist entirely of ownership by the whole people but includes two kinds of ownership, and that ownership by the whole people is still rather weak in agriculture, which is the foundation of the national economy. The disappearance of bourgeois right in the realm of the system of ownership in a socialist society, as conceived by Marx and Lenin, implies the conversion of all the means of production into the common property of the whole of society. Clearly we have not yel reached that stage. Neither in theory nor in practice should we overlook the very arduous tasks tha lie ahead for the dictatorship of the proletariat ir this respect.

Moreover, we must see that both ownership b the whole people and collective ownership involve the question of leadership, that is, the question of which class holds the ownership in fact and no just in name.

Speaking at the First Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party on April 28 1969, Chairman Mao said, "Apparently, we couldn't do without the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, for our base was not solid. From m observations, I am afraid that in a fairly large majority of factories — I don't mean all or the overwhelming majority — leadership was not in the hands of real Marxists and the masses of workers. Not that there were no good people in the leadership of the factories. There were. There were good people among the secretaries, deputy secretaries and members of Party committees and among the Party branch secretaries. But they followed that line of Liu Shao-chi's, just resorting to material incentive, putting profit in command, and instead of promoting proletarian politics, handing out bonuses, and so forth." "But there are indeed bad people in the factories." "This shows that the revolution is still unfinished." Chairman Mao's remarks not only explain the necessity for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution but also help us be more aware that in the problem of the system of ownership, as in all others, we should pay attention not only to its form but also to its actual content. It is perfectly correct for people to give full weight to the decisive role of the system of ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to give no weight to whether the issue of ownership has been resolved merely in form or in actual fact, to the reaction upon the system of ownership exerted by the two other aspects of the relations of production — the relations among people and the form of distribution — and to the reaction upon the economic base exerted by the superstructure; these two aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. Whether the ideological and political line is correct or incorrect, and which class holds the leadership, decides which class owns those factories in actual fact. Comrades may recall how we turned any enterprise owned by bureaucrat capital or national capital into a socialist enterprise. Didn't we do the job by sending a military-control representative or a state representative there to transform it according to the Party's line and policies? Historically, every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement of slavery by the feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was invariably preceded by the seizure of political power, which was then used to effect large-scale change in the system of ownership and consolidate and develop the new system. Even more is this the case with socialist public ownership which cannot be born under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bureaucrat capital, which controlled 80 per cent of the industry in old China, could be transformed and placed under ownership by the whole people only after the People's Liberation Army had defeated Chiang Kai-shek. Similarly, a capitalist restoration is inevitably preceded by the seizure of leadership and a change in the line and policies of the Party. Wasn't this the way Khrushchov and Brezhnev changed the system of ownership in the Soviet Union? Wasn't this the way Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao changed the nature of a number of our factories and other enterprises to varying degrees?

Also, we must see that what we are practising today is a commodity system. Chairman Mao says, "Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system." This state of affairs which Chairman Mao pinpointed cannot be changed in a short period. For instance, in the rural people's communes on the outskirts of Shanghai where the economy at the commune and production brigade levels has developed at a rather fast pace, commune ownership accounts for 34.2 per cent of the fixed assets owned at all three levels, and brigade ownership accounts for only 15.1 per cent, while ownership by the production teams still occupies 50.7 per cent of the whole. Therefore, even if we take economic conditions in the communes alone, it will require a fairly long time to effect the transition from the team as the basic accounting unit to the brigade and then to the commune. Moreover, even when the commune becomes the basic accounting unit, the ownership will still be collective. Thus, in the short term, there will be no basic change in the situation in which ownership by the whole people and collective ownership co-exist. So long as we still have these two kinds of ownership, commodity production, exchange through money and distribution according to work are inevitable. And since "under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted," the growth of capitalist factors in town and country and the emergence of new bourgeois elements are likewise inevitable. If such things are not restricted, capitalism and the bourgeoisie will grow more rapidly. Therefore, on no account should we relax our vigilance just because we have won a great victory in the transformation of the system of ownership and carried out one Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. We must realize that our economic base is not yet solid, that bourgeois right has not yet been abolished entirely in the system of ownership, and that it still exists to a serious extent in the relations among people and holds a dominant position in distribution. In the various spheres of the superstructure, some areas are in fact still controlled by the bourgeoisie which has the upper hand there; some are being transformed but the results are not yet consolidated, and old ideas and the old force of habit are still stubbornly obstructing the growth of socialist new things. New bourgeois elements are engendered, batch after batch, in the wake of the development of capitalist factors in town and country. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. Even when all the landlords and capitalists of the old generation have died, such class struggles will by no means come to a stop, and a bourgeois restoration may still occur if people like Lin Piao come to power. In his speech The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan, Chairman Mao described how in 1936, near the site of the Party Central Committee in Pao-an, there was a fortified village held by a handful of armed counter-revolutionaries who obstinately refused to surrender until the Red Army stormed into it to settle the problem. This story has a universal significance, for it tells us: "Everything reactionary is the same; if you don't hit it, it won't fall. It is like sweeping the floor; where the broom does not reach, the dust never vanishes of itself." Today there are still many "fortified villages" held by the bourgeoisie; when one is destroyed, another will spring up, and even if all have been destroyed except one, it will not vanish of itself if the iron broom of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not reach it. Lenin was entirely correct in saying, "For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential."

Historical experience shows us that whether the proletariat can triumph over the bourgeoisie and whether China will turn revisionist hinges on whether we can persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie in all spheres and at all stages of development of the revolution. What is all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? The most succinct generalization is found in a passage from a letter Marx wrote in 1852 to J. Weydemeyer, which we are all studying. Marx said, "...no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle of the classes, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes, What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." In this splendid observation, Lenin said, Marx succeeded in expressing with striking clarity the chief and radical difference between his theory on the state and that of the bourgeoisie, and the essence of his teaching on the state. Here it should be noted that Marx divided the sentence on the dictatorship of the proletariat into three points, which are interrelated and cannot be cut apart. It is impermissible to accept only one of the three points while rejecting the other two. For the sentence gives complete expression to the entire process of the inception, development and withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat and covers the whole task of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its actual content. In The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, Marx deals in more specific terms with this dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, and to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations. In all the four cases, Marx means all. Not a part, a greater part, or even the greatest part, but all! This is nothing surprising, for only by emancipating all mankind can the proletariat achieve its own final emancipation. The only way to attain this goal is to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through to the end, until the above-mentioned four alls are banished from the earth so that it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes to exist or for new ones to arise; we definitely must not call a halt along the path of the transition. In our view, only those who understand the matter this way can be deemed to have grasped the essence of Marx's teaching on the state. Comrades, please think it over: If the matter is not understood in this way, if Marxism is limited, curtailed and distorted in theory and practice, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is turned into an empty phrase, or all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie is crippled by amputation and exercised only in some spheres but not in all, or only at a certain stage (for instance, before the transformation of the system of ownership) but not at all stages, or in other words, if not all of the "fortified villages" of the bourgeoisie are destroyed but some are left, allowing the bourgeoisie to expand again, doesn't this mean preparing the conditions for bourgeois restoration? Doesn't it mean turning the dictatorship of the proletariat into a thing that protects the bourgeoisie, particularly the newly engendered bourgeoisie? All workers, all poor and lower-middle peasants and other working people who refuse to be plunged back into suffering and woe, all Communists who have dedicated their lives to the struggle for communism, and all comrades who do not want China to turn revisionist, must firmly bear in mind this basic principle of Marxism: It is imperative to exercise all- round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, and absolutely impermissible to give it up half-way. There are undeniably some comrades among us who have joined the Communist Party organizationally but not ideologically. In their world outlook they have not yet over-stepped the bounds of small production and of the bourgeoisie. They do approve of the dictatorship of the proletariat at a certain stage and within a certain sphere and are pleased with certain victories of the proletariat, because these will bring them some gains; once they have secured their gains, they feel it's time to settle down and feather their cosy nests. As for exercising all- round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, as for going on after the first step on the 10,000-li long march, sorry, let others do the job; here is my stop and I must get off the bus. We would like to offer a piece of advice to these comrades: It's dangerous to stop half-way! The bourgeoisie is beckoning to you. Catch up with the ranks and continue to advance!

Historical experience also teaches us that, as the dictatorship of the proletariat wins one victory after another, the bourgeoisie may pretend on the surface to accept this dictatorship while in reality it continues to work to restore the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This is exactly what Khrushchov and Brezhnev have done. They changed neither the name "Soviet," nor the name of the party of Lenin, nor the name "socialist republics." But, accepting these names and using them as a cover, they have gutted the dictatorship of the proletariat of its actual content and turned it into a dictatorship of the monopoly capitalist class that is anti- Soviet, opposed to the party of Lenin and opposed to the socialist republics. They put forward the revisionist programme of "the state of the whole people" and "party of the entire people," which is an open betrayal of Marxism. But when the Soviet people stand up against their fascist dictatorship, they hoist the flag of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to suppress the masses. Similar things have happened in China. Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao did not limit themselves to spreading the theory of the dying out of class struggle; they, too, flaunted the flag of the dictatorship of the proletariat while suppressing the revolution. Didn't Lin Piao preach his four "never forgets"? One of them was "never forget the dictatorship of the proletariat." Indeed that was something he "never forgot," only the words "to overthrow" need inserting to make it into "never forget to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat," or as confessed by his own gang, "wave Chairman Mao's banner to strike at Chairman Mao's forces." At times they trimmed their sails to the proletariat and even pretended to be more revolutionary than anyone else, raising "Left" slogans to create confusion and carry out sabotage, but they were usually waging a direct counter-struggle against the proletariat. You wanted to carry out socialist transformation? They said the new democratic order had to be consolidated. You wanted to organize co-operatives and communes? They said it was too early to do that. When you said literature and art should be revolutionized, they said it would do no harm to stage a few plays about ghosts. You wanted to restrict bourgeois right? They said it was an excellent thing indeed and should be extended. They are a bunch of past masters at defending old things and, like a swarm of flies, buzz all day long over the "birth marks" and "defects" of the old society referred to by Marx. They are particularly keen on taking advantage of the inexperience of our young people to boost material incentive to them, saying that like strong bean-curd cheese, it stinks but tastes fine. And they invariably wave the banner of socialism while carrying on these dirty tricks. Aren't there some scoundrels who, engaging in speculation, graft and theft, say that they are promoting socialist co-operation? Don't some instigators of crime who poison the minds of young people hoist the banner of "care and love for the successors to the cause of communism"? We must study their tactics and sum up our experience so as to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie more effectively.

"Are you out to stir up a wind of 'communization'?" To fabricate rumours by posing such a question is a tactic which some persons have resorted to recently. We can give a definite answer: The wind of "communization" as stirred up by Liu Shao-chi and Chen Po-ta shall never be allowed to blow again. We have always held that, instead of having too much in the way of commodities, our country has not yet a sufficient abundance of them. So long as the communes cannot yet offer 'Much to be "communized" along with what the production brigades and teams would bring in, and enterprises under ownership by the whole people cannot offer a great abundance of products for distribution to each according to his needs among our 800 million people, we will have to continue practising commodity production, exchange through money and distribution according to work. We have taken and will continue to take proper measures to curb the harm caused by these things. The dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship by the masses. We are confident that under the leadership of the Party, the broad masses have the strength and the ability to fight against the bourgeoisie and finally vanquish it. Old China was a vast sea of small production. Conducting socialist education among several hundred million peasants is a serious question at all times and requires the endeavour of several generations. But among the several hundred million peasants, the poor and lower-middle peasants form the majority, and they know from practice that the only path to the bright future for them is to follow the Communist Party and keep on along the socialist road. Our Party has relied upon them to forge unity with the middle peasants for the step-by-step advance from mutual- aid teams to the elementary and advanced agricultural producers' co-operatives and then to the people's communes, and we can surely lead them in further advance.

We would rather call the attention of comrades to the fact that it is another kind of wind that is now blowing — the "bourgeois wind." This is the bourgeois style of life Chairman Mao has pointed to, an evil wind stirred up by those "parts" of the people who have degenerated into bourgeois elements. The "bourgeois wind" blowing from among those Communists, particularly leading cadres, who belong to these "parts," does us the greatest of harm. Poisoned by this evil wind, some people have got their heads full of bourgeois ideas; they scramble for position and gain and feel proud of this, instead of being ashamed. Some have sunk to the point of looking at everything as a commodity, themselves included. They join the Communist Party and go to work for the proletariat merely for the sake of upgrading themselves as commodities and asking the proletariat for a higher price. Those who are Communists in name but new bourgeois elements in reality exhibit the features of the decadent and moribund bourgeoisie as a whole. Historically, when the slave-owning, landlord and capitalist classes were in the ascendancy, they did some things of benefit to mankind. But today's new bourgeois elements are heading in the opposite direction to their forefathers. They are nothing but a heap of "new" garbage that can only harm mankind. Among the rumour-mongers about a wind of "communization" being stirred up, some are new bourgeois elements who have taken public property into their private possession and fear that the people will "communize" it again; others want to use the chance to grab something for themselves. These people have a better nose than many of our comrades. Some of our comrades say that study is an "elastic" task that can yield precedence to others, whereas these people have sensed by instinct that the present study is an "inelastic" matter gravely confronting both classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Indeed they themselves may deliberately stir up some wind of "communization," or take over one of our own slogans in order to confuse the two different types of contradictions and play some unexpected trick. This is worth watching.

Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, the mighty army of the proletarian revolution formed by China's masses in their hundreds of millions is striding vigorously forward. We have 25 years of practical experience in exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as all the international experience since the Paris Commune, and so long as the few hundred members of our Party Central Committee and the several thousand senior cadres take the lead and join the vast numbers of other cadres and the masses in reading and studying assiduously, carrying on investigation and analysis and summing up experience, we can certainly translate Chairman Mao's call into reality, gain clarity on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and ensure our country's triumphant advance along the course charted by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." This infinitely bright prospect will surely continue to inspire growing numbers of awakened workers and other working people and their vanguard, the Communists, to keep to the Party's basic line, persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through to the end! The extinction of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and the victory of communism are inevitable, certain and independent of man's will.

(A translation of an article
in "Hongqi," No. 4, 1975)
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2007-02-10 04:20 | [楼 主]
wengeadmin
级别: 总坛主


精华: 0
发帖: 4896
威望: 4066 点
红花: 43784 朵
贡献值: 0 点
在线时间:4141(小时)
注册时间:2005-07-30
最后登录:2017-08-09

 

张春桥:论对资产阶级的全面专政

(《红旗》杂志一九七五年第四期)

无产阶级专政问题,是长期以来马克思主义同修正主义斗争的焦点。列宁说:“只有承认阶级斗争、同时也承认无产阶级专政的人,才是马克思主义者。”毛主席号召全国搞清楚无产阶级专政问题,也正是为了使我们在理论和实践上都搞马克思主义,不搞修正主义。
  我们的国家正处在一个重要的历史发展时期。经过二十多年的社会主义革命和社会主义建设,特别是经过无产阶级文化大革命,摧毁了刘少奇、林彪两个资产阶级司令部,我们的无产阶级专政空前巩固,社会主义事业欣欣向荣。当前,全国人民斗志昂扬,下定决心,要在本世纪内把我国建设成为社会主义强国。在这个过程中,以及在整个社会主义历史阶段中,能不能始终坚持无产阶级专政,是关系我国发展前途的头等大事。现实的阶级斗争也要求我们搞清楚无产阶级专政问题。毛主席说:“这个问题不搞清楚,就会变修正主义。”少数人搞清楚不行,一定“要使全国知道”。搞好这次学习的现实的和长远的意义,怎样估计也不会过高。
  早在一九二○年,列宁根据领导伟大十月社会主义革命和第一个无产阶级专政国家的实践经验,尖锐地指出,“无产阶级专政是新阶级对更强大的敌人,对资产阶级进行的最奋勇和最无情的战争,资产阶级的反抗,因为自己被推翻(哪怕是在一个国家内)而凶猛十倍。它的强大不仅在于国际资本的力量,不仅在于它的各种国际联系牢固有力,而且还在于习惯的力量,小生产的力量。因为,现在世界上还有很多很多小生产,而小生产是经常地、每日每时地、自发地和大批地产生着资本主义和资产阶级的。由于这一切原因,无产阶级专政是必要的”。列宁指出,这个专政是对旧社会的势力和传统进行的顽强斗争,流血的和不流血的,暴力的和和平的,军事的和经济的,教育的和行政的斗争,是对资产阶级的全面专政。列宁反复地强调说,不对资产阶级实行长期的全面的专政,便不能战胜资产阶级。列宁的这些话,特别是列宁自己加了着重号的那些话,已经为后来的实践所证实。新的资产阶级果然一批又一批地产生出来了。他们的代表人物就是赫鲁晓夫、勃列日涅夫叛徒集团。这些人的出身一般都很好,几乎都是在红旗下长大的,在组织上加入了共产党,又经过大学培养,成了所谓红色专家。但是,他们是资本主义旧土壤产生出来的新毒草,他们背叛了自己的阶级,篡夺了党和国家的权力,复辟了资本主义,成了资产阶级对无产阶级专政的头目,做了希特勒想做而没有做到的事。这个“卫星上天、红旗落地”的历史经验,我们任何时候都不要忘记,在决心建设强大国家的时候特别不能忘记。
  应当清醒地看到,中国仍然存在变修的危险。因为不但帝国主义、社会帝国主义念念不忘侵略和颠覆我们,不但老的地主资产阶级人还在,心不死,而且新的资产阶级分子正象列宁讲的那样每日每时地在产生着。有些同志说:列宁讲的是合作化以前的情况。这显然是不对的。列宁的话并没有过时。这些同志可以读一读毛主席一九五七年发表的《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》。毛主席在这部著作中,具体地分析了我国包括合作化在内的社会主义改造在所有制方面取得基本胜利以后,仍然存在着阶级、阶级矛盾和阶级斗争,仍然存在着生产关系和生产力之间、上层建筑和经济基础之间又相适应又相矛盾的情况。毛主席总结了列宁以后无产阶级专政的新经验,系统地回答了所有制改变以后出现的各种问题,规定了无产阶级专政的任务和政策,奠定了党的基本路线和无产阶级专政下继续革命的理论基础。十八年来的实践,特别是无产阶级文化大革命的实践,证明了毛主席提出的理论、路线和政策是完全正确的。
  毛主席最近指出:“总而言之,中国属于社会主义国家。解放前跟资本主义差不多。现在还实行八级工资制,按劳分配,货币交换,这些跟旧社会没有多少差别。所不同的是所有制变更了。”为了加深对毛主席指示的理解,让我们看一看我国所有制变更的情况,看一看一九七三年各种经济成份在我国工、农、商业中的比重。
  先说工业。全民所有制工业占全部工业固定资产的百分之九十七,工业人数的百分之六十三,工业总产值的百分之八十六。集体所有制工业占固定资产的百分之三;人数的百分之三十六点二,总产值的百分之十四。此外,还有人数占百分之零点八的个体手工工业。
  再说农业。在农业生产资料中,耕地、排灌机械的百分之九十左右,拖拉机、大牲畜的百分之八十左右是集体所有的。全民所有制的比重很小。因此,全国的粮食和各种经济作物,百分之九十以上是集体经济生产的。国营农场所占比重很小。此外,还保留着少量的社员自留地和家庭副业。
  再说商业。国营商业占商品零售总额的百分之九十二点五,集体所有制商业占百分之七点三,个体商贩占百分之零点二。此外,在农村还保留着相当数量的集市贸易。
  以上数字可以说明,社会主义的全民所有制和劳动群众的集体所有制,在我国确实已经取得了伟大胜利。不但全民所有制的优势有很大的增长,而且在人民公社经济中,公社、大队、生产队三级所有的比重也有一些变化。以上海市郊区为例,一九七四年公社一级收入占总收入的比重,由上一年的百分之二十八点一,上升为三十点五,大队由百分之十五点二,上升为十七点二,生产队由百分之五十六点七,下降为五十二点三,人民公社一大二公的优越性越来越明显。由于这二十五年来,我们逐步地消灭了帝国主义所有制、官僚资本主义所有制和封建主义所有制,逐步地改造了民族资本主义所有制和个体劳动者所有制,社会主义的两种公有制逐步地代替了这五种私有制,可以自豪地说,我国的所有制已经变更,我国无产阶级和劳动人民已经基本上挣脱了私有制的锁链,我国社会主义的经济基础已经逐步地巩固和发展起来。四届人大通过的宪法,已经明确地记载了我们取得的这些伟大胜利。
  但是,我们必须看到,在所有制方面,问题还没有完全解决。我们常说所有制“基本解决”,也就是说还没有完全解决,资产阶级法权在所有制范围内,也没有完全取消。从以上数字就可以看出,在工、农、商业中都还有部分的私有制,社会主义的公有制并不都是全民所有制,而是两种所有制;全民所有制在作为国民经济基础的农业方面还很薄弱。马克思、列宁所设想的在社会主义社会资产阶级法权在所有制范围内已经不存在了,是指的全部生产资料已经归整个社会所有。我们显然还没有走到这一步。我们在理论上和实践上都不要忽视无产阶级专政在这方面还有很艰难的任务。
  我们还必须看到,不论是全民所有制,还是集体所有制,都有一个领导权问题,就是说,不是名义上而是实际上归哪个阶级所有的问题。
  毛主席一九六九年四月二十八日在党的九届一中全会上说过:“看来,无产阶级文化大革命不搞是不行的,我们这个基础不稳固。据我观察,不讲全体,也不讲绝大多数,恐怕是相当大的一个多数的工厂里头,领导权不在真正的马克思主义者、不在工人群众手里。过去领导工厂的,不是没有好人。有好人,党委书记、副书记、委员,都有好人,支部书记有好人。但是,他是跟着过去刘少奇那种路线走,无非是搞什么物质刺激,利润挂帅,不提倡无产阶级政治,搞什么奖金,等等。” “但是,工厂里确有坏人。”“就是说明革命没有完”。毛主席的这段话;不仅说明了无产阶级文化大革命的必要性,而且使我们比较清醒地认识到,所有制问题,如同其他问题一样,不能只看它的形式,还要看它的实际内容。人们重视所有制在生产关系中起决定作用,这是完全对的。但是,如果不重视所有制是形式上还是实际上解决了,不重视生产关系的另外两个方面,即人们的相互关系和分配形式又反作用于所有制,上层建筑也反作用于经济基础,而且它们在一定条件下起决定作用,则是不对的。政治是经济的集中表现。思想上政治上的路线是否正确,领导权掌握在哪个阶级手里,决定了这些工厂实际上归哪个阶级所有。同志们可以回想一下,一个官僚资本或者民族资本的企业,怎样变成社会主义企业的呢?还不是我们派了一个军管代表或者公方代表到那里,按照党的路线和政策加以改造?历史上任何一种所有制的大变更,不论是封建制代替奴隶制,还是资本主义代替封建主义,都是先夺取政权,再运用政权的力量大规模地改变所有制,巩固和发展新的所有制。社会主义公有制不可能在资产阶级专政下产生,更是只能如此。占旧中国工业百分之八十的官僚资本,只有在人民解放军打败了蒋介石以后,才可能加以改造,归全民所有。同样,资本主义的复辟,也必然是先夺取领导权,改变党的路线和政策。赫鲁晓夫、勃列日涅夫不就是这样改变了苏联的所有制吗?刘少奇、林彪不就是这样程度不同地改变了我们一批工厂企业的性质吗?
  还必须看到,我们现在实行的是商品制度。毛主席说:“我国现在实行的是商品制度,工资制度也不平等,有八级工资制,等等。这只能在无产阶级专政下加以限制。所以,林彪一类如上台,搞资本主义制度很容易。”毛主席指出的这种情况,短期内还改变不了。以公社、大队两级经济发展较快的上海郊区人民公社为例,就三级所有的固定资产来看,公社占百分之三十四点二,大队只占百分之十五点一,生产队仍占百分之五十点七。因此,由生产队为基本核算单位过渡到以大队为核算单位,再过渡到以公社为核算单位,单就公社本身的经济条件来说,还需要相当长的时间。就是过渡到以公社为核算单位,也仍然是集体所有制。因此,在短时间内,全民所有制和集体所有制这两种所有制并存的局面不会有根本改变。而只要有这两种所有制,商品生产,货币交换,按劳分配就是不可避免的。由于“这只能在无产阶级专政下加以限制”,城乡资本主义因素的发展,新资产阶级分子的出现,也就是不可避免的。如果不加限制,资本主义和资产阶级就会更快地发展起来。因此,我们决不能因为我们在所有制改造方面取得了伟大胜利,决不能因为进行了一次无产阶级文化大革命,而放松警惕。必须看到,我们的经济基础还不稳固,资产阶级法权在所有制方面还没有完全取消,在人们的相互关系方面还严重存在,在分配方面还占统治地位。在上层建筑的各个领域,有些方面实际上仍然被资产阶级把持着,资产阶级还占着优势,有些正在改革,改革的成果也并不巩固,旧思想、旧习惯势力还顽强地阻碍着社会主义新生事物的生长。随着城乡资本主义因素的发展,新资产阶级分子一批又一批地产生,无产阶级和资产阶级之间的阶级斗争,各派政治力量之间的阶级斗争,无产阶级和资产阶级之间在意识形态方面的阶级斗争还是长期的,曲折的,有时甚至还是很激烈的。就是老一代的地主资产阶级都死光了,这种阶级斗争也决不会停止,林彪一类人物上台,资产阶级的复辟,仍然可能发生。毛主席在《抗日战争胜利后的时局和我们的方针》这篇讲话中说过,一九三六年,党中央所在地保安附近,有一个土围子,里面住着一小股反革命武装,就是死不投降,直到红军打进去才解决了问题。这个故事具有普遍意义,它告诉我们,“凡是反动的东西,你不打,他就不倒。这也和扫地一样,扫帚不到,灰尘照例不会自己跑掉。”现在,资产阶级的土围子还很多,打掉一个还会长出一个,就是将来被消灭得只剩一个了,无产阶级专政的铁扫帚不到,它也不会自己跑掉。列宁说得完全对:“由于这一切原因,无产阶级专政是必要的”。
  历史经验告诉我们,无产阶级能不能战胜资产阶级,中国会不会变修正主义,关键在于我们能不能在一切领域、在革命发展的一切阶段始终坚持对资产阶级的全面专政。什么是对资产阶级的全面专政?最简单的概括,就是我们大家正在学习的马克思一八五二年给魏德迈信中的那段话。马克思说:“无论是发现现代社会中有阶级存在或发现各阶级间的斗争,都不是我的功劳。在我以前很久,资产阶级的历史学家就已叙述过阶级斗争的历史发展,资产阶级的经济学家也已对各个阶级作过经济上的分析。我的新贡献就是证明了下列几点:(1)阶级的存在仅仅同生产发展的一定历史阶段相联系;(2)阶级斗争必然要导致无产阶级专政;(3)这个专政不过是达到消灭一切阶级和进入无阶级社会的过渡。”列宁说,马克思的这一段精彩论述,极其鲜明地表达了马克思的国家学说同资产阶级的国家学说之间的主要的和根本的区别,表达了马克思国家学说的实质。这里,应当注意,马克思把关于无产阶级专政的那句话分了三点,这三点是互相联系的,不能割裂的。不能只要其中的一点,不要其他两点。因为这句话完整地表达了无产阶级专政发生、发展和消亡的全过程,包括了无产阶级专政的全部任务和实际内容。在《一八四八年至一八五○年的法兰西阶级斗争》一书中,马克思更具体地说,这种专政是达到消灭一切阶级差别,达到消灭这些差别所产生的一切生产关系,达到消灭和这些生产关系相适应的一切社会关系,达到改变由这些社会关系产生出来的一切观念的必然的过渡阶段。在这里,马克思讲的是一切,四个都是一切!不是一部分,不是大部分,也不是绝大部分,而是全部!这也没有什么奇怪,无产阶级只有解放全人类才能最后解放自己。要做到达一点,就只有对资产阶级全面专政,把无产阶级专政下的继续革命进行到底,直到在地球上消灭这四个一切,使资产阶级和一切剥削阶级既不能存在,也不能再产生,决不能在过渡的路上停下来。我们认为,只有这样理解,才算领会了马克思国家学说的实质;请同志们想一想,如果不是这样理解,如果在理论和实践上限制、割裂、歪曲马克思主义,把无产阶级专政变成一句空话,把对资产阶级的全面专政变成残缺不全,只在某些领域专政,不在一切领域专政,只在某个阶段(比如所有制改造以前)专政,不在一切阶段专政,也就是说,不是全部地打掉资产阶级的一切土围子,而是留下一些,让它再扩大队伍,那岂不是为资产阶级复辟准备条件吗?那岂不是把无产阶级专政变成保护资产阶级特别是保护新产生的资产阶级的东西了吗?一切不愿吃两遍苦、受二茬罪的工人、贫农、下中农和其他劳动人民,一切决心为实现共产主义奋斗终身的共产党员,一切不愿中国变修的同志们,都要牢记马克思主义的这条基本原理:必须对资产阶级实行全面专政,决不能半途而废。不能否认,我们有些同志组织上加入了共产党,思想上并没有入党。他们的世界观,还没有跳出小生产的圈子,还没有跳出资产阶级的圈子。他们对于无产阶级在某个阶段、某个领域的专政是赞成的,对于无产阶级的某些胜利是高兴的,因为这可以给他带来某种利益,而只要这种利益到手,他就觉得可以安营扎寨,经营经营他的安乐窝了。什么对资产阶级全面专政,什么万里长征第一步,对不起,让别人去干吧,我已经到站了,该下车了。我们劝这些同志:半路上停下来,危险!资产阶级在向你招手,还是跟上大队,继续前进吧!
  历史经验又告诉我们,随着无产阶级专政取得一个又一个的胜利,资产阶级表面上也会装作承认无产阶级专政,而实际上干的仍然是复辟资产阶级专政。赫鲁晓夫、勃列日涅夫就是这样干的。他们一不改变苏维埃的名字,二不改变列宁党的名字,三不改变社会主义共和国的名字,而是用承认这些名字作掩护,把无产阶级专政的实际内容改掉,使它变成反苏维埃的、反列宁党的、反社会主义共和国的垄断资产阶级专政。他们提出了全民国家、全民党这样的公开地背叛马克思主义的修正主义纲领,但是,当着苏联人民起来反抗他们的法西斯专政的时候,他们又打起无产阶级专政的旗号来镇压群众。在我们中国,也有类似的情况。刘少奇、林彪不只是宣传阶级斗争熄灭论,当他们镇压革命的时候,也是打着无产阶级专政的旗号。林彪不是有四个“念念不忘”吗?其中之一就是“念念不忘无产阶级专政”。他确实念念不忘,只是要加“推翻”两个字,叫作“念念不忘推翻无产阶级专政”,用他们自己的供词,就是“打着毛主席的旗号打击毛主席的力量”。他们有时候 “顺”着无产阶级,甚至装得比谁都革命,提一些“左”的口号,制造混乱,进行破坏,经常地则是针锋相对地同无产阶级斗。你要搞社会主义改造吗?他说要巩固新民主主义秩序。你要搞合作化、公社化吗?他说太早了。你说文艺要革命,他说演点鬼戏也无害。你要限制资产阶级法权吗?他说这可是好东西,应当扩大。他们是一批维护旧事物的专家,象一群苍蝇,一天围着马克思说的那个旧社会的“痕迹”和“弊病”嗡嗡叫。他们特别热心于利用我们的青少年没有经验,向孩子们鼓吹什么物质刺激象臭豆腐,闻闻很臭,吃起来很香。而他们干这些丑事的时候,又总是打着社会主义旗号。有些搞投机倒把、贪污盗窃的坏蛋,不是说他在搞社会主义协作吗?有些毒害青少年的教唆犯不是打着关心爱护共产主义接班人的旗号吗?我们必须研究他们的策略,总结我们的经验,以便更有效地对资产阶级实行全面专政。
  “你们要刮‘共产’风吗?”用提出这种问题的方式制造谣言,是某些人最近使用的一种策略。我们可以明确回答:刘少奇、陈伯达刮的那种“共产”风,决不允许再刮。我们从来认为,我们国家的商品不是多了,而是不够丰富。只要公社还没有多少东西可以拿出来同生产大队、生产队“共产”,全民所有制也拿不出极为丰富的产品来对八亿人口实行按需分配,就只能继续搞商品生产、货币交换、按劳分配。对它带来的危害,我们已经采取了并将继续采取适当办法加以限制。无产阶级专政是群众的专政。我们相信,广大群众在党的领导下是有力量、有本领同资产阶级进行斗争,并且最后地战胜他们的。旧中国是一个小生产象汪洋大海一样的国家。对几亿农民进行社会主义教育始终是一个严重问题,需要几代人的努力。但是,这几亿农民中,贫下中农占多数,他们从实践中知道,只有跟着共产党,走社会主义道路,才是他们的光明大道。我们党依靠他们团结中农,一步一步地从互助组、初级社、高级社走到人民公社,我们也一定能够引导他们继续前进。
  我们倒是请同志们注意,现在刮的是另一种风,叫“资产”风。就是毛主席指出的资产阶级生活作风,就是那几个“一部分”变成资产阶级分子的妖风。在这几个 “一部分”中,共产党员特别是领导干部中刮的“资产”风,对我们的危害最大。受这种妖风的毒害,有的人满脑子资产阶级思想,争名于朝,争利于市,不以为耻,反以为荣。有的人已经发展到把一切都当作商品,包括他们自己在内。他们加入共产党,为无产阶级办事,不过是为了抬高自己这个商品的等级,不过是为了向无产阶级卖高价。那种名曰共产党员,实际上是新资产阶级分子的人,表现了整个资产阶级处于腐朽垂死状态的特点。在历史上,当奴隶主阶级、地主阶级、资产阶级处于上升时期的时候,他们还为人类作些好事。现在这种新资产阶级分子,完全走向他们祖宗的反面,对人类只有破坏作用,完全是一堆“新”垃圾。那种造谣要刮“共产”风的人,其中就有一些是把公共财产占为私有,怕人民再“共”这些“产”的新资产阶级分子或者想乘机捞一把的人。这种人比我们许多同志敏感。我们有的同志说学习是软任务,他们却本能地感觉到了这次学习对无产阶级和资产阶级两个阶级都是硬任务。他们也可能真的刮点“共产”风,或者接过我们的某一个口号,故意地混淆两类不同性质的矛盾,搞点什么名堂,这是值得我们注意的。
  在以毛主席为首的党中央领导下,我国亿万群众组成的无产阶级革命大军正在迈动着前进的步伐。我们有了二十五年无产阶级专政的实践经验,又有巴黎公社以来的国际经验,只要我们几百个中央委员、几千个高级干部带头,同广大干部群众一起认真读书学习,调查研究,总结经验,我们一定能够实现毛主席的号召,搞清楚无产阶级专政问题,保证我们的国家沿着马克思主义、列宁主义、毛泽东思想指引的道路胜利前进。“无产者在这个革命中失去的只是锁链。他们获得的将是整个世界。”这个无限光明的远景必将继续鼓舞越来越多的觉悟的工人、劳动人民和他们的先锋队共产党人,坚持党的基本路线,坚持对资产阶级的全面专政,把无产阶级专政下的继续革命进行到底!资产阶级和一切剥削阶级的灭亡,共产主义的胜利,是不可避免的,必然的,不以人们的意志为转移的。

(《红旗》杂志一九七五年第四期)
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-09-21 09:17 | 1 楼
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR DOCUMENTS
 
 

Total 0.023369(s) query 4, Time now is:12-18 05:37, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk