Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Revolutionary Communist Party

Revolution and Counter-Revolution
The Revisionist Coup in China and the Struggle in The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA


What does the history of the development of the international communist movement demonstrate?

First, it demonstrates that like everything else, the international working-class movement tends to divide itself in two. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is inevitably reflected in the communist ranks. It is inevitable that opportunism of one kind or another should arise in the course of the development of the communist movement, that opportunists should engage in anti-Marxist-Leninist splitting activities and that Marxist-Leninists should wage struggles against opportunism and splittism. It is precisely through the struggle of opposites that Marxism-Leninism and the international working-class movement have developed. And it is also through this struggle that the international working-class movement has strengthened and consolidated its unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. (From “The Leaders of the CPSU Are the Greatest Splitters of Our Times,” Foreign Languages Press, Peking, p. 11.)

Today these truths stand out sharply. Once more opportunism has arisen in the international working class movement; yet again genuine communists must consolidate a higher level of unity on the basis of determined Marxist struggle against that opportunism.

The documents in this book, written in late 1977 and early 1978, come from the recent struggle in the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA over the stand of communists toward the rightist coup in China that followed the death of Mao Tsetung. But because that question is one of world-historic dimensions, inevitably all the cardinal questions now facing revolutionaries were raised to one degree or another in this struggle. Thus in addition to the main body of the book on China, there is an appendix concerning communist work in the U.S.

The struggle in the RCP, USA happened in the context of a worldwide struggle between Marxism and revisionism. We are publishing the documents from this struggle–which resulted in the defeat of a revisionist headquarters–as an aid to that struggle.

Revisionists Seize Power In China

On September 9, 1976 Mao Tsetung–Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, cherished leader of the international proletariat and oppressed peoples, and the greatest Marxist of the contemporary era–died.

Mao never once retreated from battle. At the very end he gave leadership to the struggle against the counter-revolutionary clique of Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao-ping. Even on his deathbed Mao put principle above an illusory and false unity.

Mao Tsetung closely united in this, as in earlier struggles, with the revolutionary heroes who were later slandered as “the Gang of Four”–Wang Hung-wen, Chang Chun-chiao, Chiang Ching, and Yao Wen-yuan.

The Four had played vanguard roles throughout the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, including in the struggle to smash Lin Piao’s headquarters. Further–upholding the line of Mao–in the years of the early and mid-seventies they continued to base themselves on and apply the theory and practice of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

These struggles came to a head in the last great battle to preserve the gains of the Cultural Revolution, beat back the right-deviationist wind and smash the Hua/Teng headquarters, which had been sponsored and fostered by Chou En-lai.

With Mao’s death, however, the capitalist roaders in the Central Committee were strong enough to make their move. On October 6, these counter-revolutionary hack butchers arrested the heroic Four and many other genuine revolutionaries in a reactionary coup d’etat.

To consolidate their power as a new bourgeoisie these rightists began attacking the line and practice of Mao, and the tempo of these attacks–on fundamental theory as well as line and policies on socialist construction; the target of class struggle under socialism; the international united front against imperialism; education; culture; etc.,–increased with every passing week. (See especially the main paper, “Revisionists Are Revisionists and Must Not Be Supported, Revolutionaries Are Revolutionaries and Must Be Supported” for details.)

Precisely because Mao was the greatest Marxist in the contemporary era and the Chinese revolution had a tremendous international significance, these changes sent shock waves throughout the international working class movement. Correctly summing up the lines coming out of China and the entire march of events following Mao’s death became the most pressing question facing the international working class movement.

Historical Experience Holds Lessons

Such a situation is not unprecedented in the history of the communist movement. In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, N.S. Khrushchev sank into the gutter of slander and character assassination in a vicious attack against the deceased great Marxist-Leninist, Joseph Stalin.

Stalin had for over 30 years upheld the dictatorship of the proletariat and stood for the achievement of communism worldwide. In this sense Stalin came to represent the experience of proletarian dictatorship and the international communist movement. In attacking Stalin, Khrushchev in fact was attacking the Leninist line Stalin upheld and the proletarian dictatorship Stalin defended.

At this same 20th Congress, Khrushchev ran the line that capitalism could be peacefully transformed into socialism and that imperialism could be “peacefully coexisted” out of existence. He was ingratiating himself to the imperialists to buy time while he wrecked socialism and moved to restore capitalism in the USSR.

The communist parties of China, Albania and a number of other countries stood up against tremendous pressure and fought the line of the modern revisionists. But in most parties there was severe demoralization and capitulation to Khrushchev’s revisionism.

These parties all had serious problems in the first place. But Khrushchev’s attack on Leninism lent the revisionists within these parties the prestige to administer the final blow to whatever revolutionary elements existed within them.

In other words, the external conditions of a revisionist coup and capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union brought the internal struggle between Marxism and opportunism going on in the other parties to a head–and pushed most of these parties over the brink into the abyss of counter-revolution. The serious setback in the Soviet Union was compounded by the loss of many formerly communist parties.

The October Revolution in Russia (with the exception of the short-lived victory of the Paris Commune) was the first great triumph in the history of the international working class. To paraphrase Mao, its salvoes brought Marxism-Leninism and the cause of communism to millions upon millions everywhere. Because of all that, defending the gains of the October Revolution and the principles it embodied against the jackals and hyenas attacking it became, with Khrushchev’s betrayal, the crucial question before the international communist movement.

Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution– An Historic Breakthrough

Though the working class had suffered a crushing setback in the Soviet Union, the struggle that followed to sum it up laid the basis to advance the proletarian cause to new heights.

In 1966, Mao Tsetung launched the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, an historic breakthrough in the theory and practice of class struggle under socialism. An article in the October 1, 1976 issue of Revolution, the organ of the Central Committee of the RCP, USA, addressed its significance.

In 1967 Mao summed up the experience of the struggle against revisionism this way: ’In the past we waged struggles in the rural areas, in factories, in the cultural field, and we carried out the socialist education movement. But all this failed to solve the problem because we did not find a form, a method, to arouse the broad masses to expose our dark aspect openly, in an all-round way and from below.’

With this experience in mind, Mao personally kindled the fire of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, a movement unprecedented in history.

The article went on to discuss the international significance of the Cultural Revolution.

A new generation of revolutionaries rising up to battle the old order, and seeing the USSR wrapped in the banner of Marx and Lenin, yet mirroring the same evils of the system of exploitation they saw in their own countries, were prey to those who claimed that Marxism-Leninism was not the science of revolution and that the working class was no longer the revolutionary class.

In the midst of this, Mao Tsetung kindled the sparks of the Cultural Revolution. He showed that the degeneration of the Soviet Union came because that country was no longer under the rule of the working class and had become, in fact, a capitalist power. He developed the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and by rousing the masses in their hundreds of millions demonstrated to the world that the restoration of capitalism could be prevented and that the working class could lead the people in advancing step by step toward the goal of communism.

Just as Mao had written, ’The salvoes of the October Revolution brought Marxism-Leninism to China,’ so it can also be said that the reverberations of Mao’s call, ’It is right to rebel against reactionaries,’ as well as all his other tremendous contributions to Marxism-Leninism and to the struggle of the international proletariat and the world’s peoples, has spread Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought throughout the world and fired revolutionaries on every continent with a faith in the ultimate accomplishment of the goal of communism. (Both quotes from “Cultural Revolution: Breakthrough On the Road to Communism,” pp. S13, S16.)

The Cultural Revolution was a world-historic event on the scale of the Paris Commune and October Revolution. Because of its profound significance and because of the attack going on now in China against what it represented, correctly summing up and struggling against these new revisionists is the chief question of line facing the international communist movement.

Split In RCP

All this set the stage for the line struggle and split in the RCP that this book documents.

For some time previous to the coup in China, two leading members of the RCP–M. Jarvis and L. Bergman–had been promoting a number of revisionist lines concerning revolutionary work in the U.S. These lines have been well-documented in a series of articles in Revolution and stand out glaringly in their papers included in the appendix of this book.

The coup in China meant two things for these Mensheviks.[1] On the one hand, it encouraged them to step up their activities. Here, they thought, was ”revolutionary authority” for their pragmatism, narrowness and downright revisionism.

At the same time, the rightist takeover also forced their hand. For if the Party were to remain true to its principles as developed in Red Papers 7 (How Capitalism Was Restored in the Soviet Union), the Party Programme and elsewhere, then outright opposition to the “goulash communism” promoted by Hua Kuo-feng was inevitable. Such going against the tide was an anathema to these opportunists.

The Jarvis/Bergman clique pursued their aims through factionalism. Their action basically had three phases to it, and illustrated well that, as Wang Hung-wen said, ”If one practices revisionism . . . one will inevitably go in for splits, intrigues, and conspiracy.”

First the Mensheviks tried to block any decision on the events in China, while they stalled for time to organize for their line outside Party channels. For months they stubbornly opposed convening a Central Committee meeting to deal with the China question. Meanwhile these Mensheviks actively organized for their stand on China everywhere they could and promoted whatever pragmatist trash appeared in Peking Review in 1977. But when this failed and a Central Committee meeting was called, these opportunists shifted tactics.

Comrade Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Central Committee of the RCP, submitted to the CC the draft of “Revisionists Are Revisionists and Must Not Be Supported, Revolutionaries Are Revolutionaries and Must Be Supported.” (See pages 1-138 of this volume for the final version of this paper, enriched through the two-line struggle at the CC, adopted by the CC and subsequently submitted to the Party’s membership. This document was affirmed and adopted by the 2nd Party Congress in 1978.) At the CC Jarvis submitted a short paper that on the one hand preached agnosticism, saying it was too soon to tell what was really going on in China, but on the other hand insisted that the Four were counter-revolutionaries. Bergman for his part accused the Party of “rushing to judgment,” and offered his “full support” for all the revisionism coming out of China.

The Jarvis/Bergman clique gave their “theoretician” the thankless task of concocting a feasible explanation for the wholesale reversals going on in China. Since the Party Center led by Comrade Avakian had succeeded in directing some study around the main line questions at issue, hardly anyone could straight up defend Teng Hsiao-ping, the “Three Poisonous Weeds,”[2] and Hua’s anti-Marxist lines on the target of class struggle under socialism and the relation between revolution and production.

Therefore this scholar declared the lines irrelevant and not concrete enough. Instead he dug through and promoted an incoherent jumble of accusations and rumors. Since it wouldn’t do just to parrot such tall tales straight from the Peking Review, this fellow had an interesting approach: find the same tall tales reprinted in Hong Kong or from Kuomintang sources on Taiwan and–lo!–he had found “proof” of the stories in Peking Review. Mao’s clear ideological and political unity with the Four was not what it seemed, according to his herky-jerky logic, and if one plowed through enough garbage put out by Hong Kong gossips and character assassins in the pay of Teng Hsiao-ping, Hua Kuo-feng, et. al., one could find the real truth.

This mishmash of eclecticism and agnosticism was so thoroughly trashed at the Central Committee meeting where it was presented that by the end of the meeting members of this clique were pleading in tears for someone–anyone!–to explain what had happened in China.

Defeated in ideological struggle, these Mensheviks then threatened to split the Party should the CC adopt Comrade Avakian’s report. When this too was rebuffed, they backpedaled into several days of phoney self-criticisms, hypocritical pleas for unity, and vows to carry out the line of the Party.

It was the decisive victory of the revolutionaries at the CC and the retreat of the Mensheviks that determined the character of the CC report on rectification, reprinted as part of the Appendix of this volume on page 375. In that paper, Jarvis is referred to as a “comrade” and there is no explicit exposure of Bergman. At that time, the orientation was to unite with their expressed desire for unity and to “cure the disease and save the patient,” with no half-stepping in drawing out the severity of the illness. This report (or the points that were later written up into the report) was unanimously approved by the entire CC, Mensheviks included. The report is relatively short since it was decided at the CC meeting that it should only characterize the main points relating to the domestic class struggle, with further elaboration to take place over the course of the Party Rectification campaign which the report called for.

Of course, once out of the meeting these liars set about splitting the Party. They attempted to refine their gobbledygook defense of revisionism in China submitted at the CC, and the product of these labors, “China Advances Along the Socialist Road–The Gang of Four Were Counter-Revolutionaries and Revolutionaries Cannot Support Them” is reprinted in this volume on page 139. They well understood that the basic question of overall line, and a Marxist interpretation of the facts, all pointed to a revisionist coup.

If they could however produce a mass of seemingly contradictory facts, then perhaps they could shake people’s belief in the possibility of comprehending the essence of those facts, their real interconnections and motion and development. At the least, these Mensheviks hoped they could plant a reasonable doubt in people’s minds. And once they could convince people that reality is so complex, that only a “genius” can grasp it, the critical spirit is extinguished and people can only fall back on subjectivity and follow whomever they “trust.”

They also wrote a response to the CC report on rectification as a call to the Party’s “rank and file” to rise up in “rebellion.” This history of the Party from revisionist eyes is characterized by cheap appeals to emotionalism and by its almost astounding lack of substance (except for the careerism and general rightism dripping down the pages). It is reprinted as part of the Appendix on page 393.

Once these splitters pulled what they could, the final phase of their opportunism took shape. Their first papers had called Teng and the Four “opposite poles of the same stupidity,” called out Teng for “revisionist errors,” and warned against taking Peking Review too seriously since the Right had a lot of influence.

Today these pretenses are gone. They have even changed their original papers to try to keep up with their line as it careens from bad to worse. The documents are reprinted here exactly as the Jarvis/Bergman clique originally circulated them at the time they split from the Party. Their latest version of their line–which they opportunistically call, “Red Papers 8”[3]–criticizes their ”earlier antagonistic characterizations of Teng Hsiao-ping, in effect negating the fact that he is a leading figure within the collective leadership of the Chinese Communist Party which is giving correct leadership to the continuing revolution there.”

We should thank our Mensheviks. In this one sentence they have given us more in the way of self-exposure of their pragmatism and opportunism than ten pages of our documents could ever hope to reveal. One of the points made in these documents is that Jarvis/Bergman’s line is straight pragmatism: Hua & Co. won; the “Gang of Four” lost; therefore Hua & Co. are right and we should support them. But this unsolicited Menshevik confession is really too much: Principle be damned! Teng’s got the power!

It is greatly due to the tremendous contributions by Mao and the revolutionary left in China that the RCP.USA was able to weather this onslaught by revisionists in our own ranks. The Jarvis/Bergman clique did not fare well in their plans for a “rank and file” rebellion to reverse the decision of the CC. Over 2/3 of the membership held firm behind a revolutionary line as their ”Revolutionary Workers Headquarters,” as they now call themselves, stumbles down the well worn revisionist road.

In 1978, a Congress of Victory and Unity, the Second Congress of the RCP, USA, was held. The Mensheviks and their line were thoroughly repudiated there, Jarvis and Bergman were expelled and greater unity and clarity was achieved around the proletarian stand on the international situation and our tasks in this country.

Adopted at the Congress were the response to the Jarvis/ Bergman clique’s defense of China’s revisionists, reprinted in this volume on page 265 and “Rectification Is Fine; The Mensheviks’ Answer Is Terrible” (see appendix), a response to their paper on rectification. Amendments passed by the Congress to these papers are so noted in footnotes in this edition. (The papers–together with the Mensheviks’ attacks–were originally circulated to the membership shortly after the split.)

On the Jarvis-Bergman Clique

The revisionism in the Chinese Party brought to a head but did not create the revisionism of Jarvis and Bergman. What then was the source of their revisionism? Both M. Jarvis and L. Bergman were trained for long years in the old Communist Party USA. Bergman left in the mid-fifties; Jarvis joined in the early ’60s and remained a rising star of the CPUSA until sometime in 1969. While both became part of the RCP, neither thoroughly repudiated the revisionist, bourgeois political line and world outlook of the old CPUSA.

Specifically, each retained the pragmatic philosophy and method that permeated the old CP even in its better days. Pragmatism denies the existence of objective laws operating beneath the appearance of events and, of course, denies the possibility of mastering those laws. With such an orientation, immediate experience becomes unmoored from the historical materialist framework necessary to evaluate it and can only be evaluated on immediate, quantitative and inevitably bourgeois terms.

While those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists today cannot openly deny historical materialism and embrace pragmatism, they can objectively do so in any number of ways. For example, members of the Jarvis/Bergman clique were forever opposing efforts to master Marxist theory. They attacked the self study of political economy in the Party begun in 1976 as requiring “genius” and would shake their heads in wondering disapproval at any comrade or party unit that actually “found the time” to study. Lenin’s classic work “What is to Be Done?” was dismissed as irrelevant, or worse, by members of this clique. Instead, old Comintern documents were substituted and uncritically promoted as recipes for this or that area of work.

In the working class struggle, the Mensheviks dubbed the economic struggle as “potentially revolutionary.” They opposed the Party’s 1976 campaign to expose the entire trap of bourgeois elections as being too abstract for workers to relate to. They preferred to confine their exposures to what they called “Carter’s Unemployment Offensive” and Carter’s policies generally, carrying on with a long standing revisionist line that reduces the Party to a loyal if sometimes strident opposition to the bourgeoisie.

In work among other strata they tried to focus exclusively on cutbacks. When this line was defeated, they pushed bourgeois liberal mush; a recent glaring example is their main chant at the Philadelphia African Liberation Day rally they led–“Hey Rizzo, Have You Heard, Philly Ain’t Johannesburg.” What an echo of the CP’s demand in its 1940’s drive to organize Ford Motor Company, “Bring Dearborn back into the United States”!

In sum, mired in the revisionism of the CPUSA, they adopted themselves totally to the conditions of a temporary and partial lull in the mass movement during the mid ’70s. Their recent motion is now 100% unvarnished right wing muck and shows where these Mensheviks intended to steer the RCP.

Why, it might be asked, did the split in the RCP.USA occur principally over China’s internal nature, rather than its international line which has been the focus of struggle in parties in many other countries?

Certainly China’s international line today is thoroughly reactionary. Hua Kuo-feng, Teng Hsiao-ping, et. al., are pushing a line which puts China at the center of the universe and advocates that China and revolutionaries worldwide ally with and rely on imperialist powers, including the United States. It is a line that “forgets” the difference between oppressed nations and imperialist countries and which seeks to outlaw revolution. They have dubbed this line the great, strategic “Theory of the Three Worlds” and have had the nerve to try to pawn it off as Mao Tsetung’s theory. This is a lie.

While Mao might perhaps have used the term “three worlds” in a way to describe certain secondary conflicts in the world, and while Mao was not opposed to revolutionaries making use of contradictions in the camp of the enemy, Mao knew the difference between revolution and reaction, between Marxism and imperialism, and he consistently gave support to revolution.

It is not that the ex-RCP opportunists in any way disagreed with the revisionist international strategy of the Three Worlds. In fact they fought to insert important aspects of it into the Party Programme, only to be defeated at the Founding Congress. In addition the RCP and the RU before it had consistently exposed the social-chauvinism of the October League (now the CPML) in the Party press and especially through international conferences in 1976 called expressly to sharpen up line struggle on these questions.

Pragmatists that these Mensheviks were, the international line just wasn’t that important to them because war wasn’t about to break out tomorrow. Being in one of the two superpowers was the material basis that let these opportunists ignore the ramifications of a revolutionary line on the international situation in the short run. (While in the lesser imperialist and underdeveloped countries the impact of superpower contention for domination is more directly felt.)

But beyond that, the cardinal question before the international working class movement is the overall line of the current rulers in China and which class it represents. The international position of the current rulers is an important aspect of their overall revisionist line, but the pivotal event to the international proletariat was not Teng Hsiao-ping’s reactionary “Three Worlds” speech at the United Nations in 1974, but the coup that he helped headquarter in 1976.

On the Documents

As stated earlier, these documents were originally internal ones growing out of a split. While they set the line of the Party and created conditions to deepen that line, they are not intended to be a conclusive summation of the revisionist takeover in China. In that light, several points need to be made.

First, it should be remarked that the RCP papers stand up extremely well. Many points that the papers could only infer at that time have now been confirmed as the revisionist Chinese leadership has proceeded at breakneck speed in attacking Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought and restoring capitalism. Developments in China since these documents were written–including the destruction of the revolutionary committees in the factories, schools and other basic units, the qualitative leap in the promotion of the Three Worlds theory, the rehabilitation of bourgeois figures to full political life (including 100,000 who had been known as counter-revolutionaries), the continued executions of followers of Mao, and the shameless glorification of Tito and Yugoslavia as socialist coupled with big power chauvinism toward Albania have borne out that indeed revisionists have seized power in China. All this has taken place at a pace even faster than anticipated and today China should be characterized as a revisionist country where capitalism is being restored.

Second, if anything the RCP papers do not give the Four enough credit. What Marx said about the communards applies well to the Four:

What elasticity, what historical initiative, what a capacity for sacrifice there is in these Parisians! The present uprising in Paris–even if it should be crushed by the wolves, swine and vile dogs of the old society–is the most glorious deed of our party since the June insurrection in Paris. Just compare these Parisians, storming heaven, with those slaves to heaven of the German-Prussian Holy Roman Empire, with its posthumous masquerades reeking of the barracks, the church, the clod-hopping Junkers and above all, of philistinism. . . (“Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann,” Selected Letters, FLP pp. 36-37)

The Four’s contributions in uniting the masses to carry out Mao’s line are contributions that the international proletariat will cherish and build on for the rest of its historic struggle.

Third, while this introduction has drawn some parallels between the revisionist takeover of the USSR and that of China, one very important difference must be emphasized. As was pointed to in the CC Report, today, because of the contributions of Mao and other revolutionary leaders, revolutionaries are much better able to analyze what happened in China. Many are not compounding the setback by sinking into revisionism themselves.

Fourth, since the Central Committee Report was written more evidence of resistance in China has come to light. This includes months of armed struggle in several provinces, resistance on the basic levels to Teng and Hua’s country-wide speedup, and the apparent establishment of a clandestine press. This too is a part of Mao’s legacy and support for it is a task of revolutionaries everywhere.

The struggle in China is not a source of demoralization but a bitter lesson that must arm all with a deeper understanding of the historic mission of the proletariat. In this light it is fitting to end this introduction with the conclusion of a speech given by Comrade Avakian at a memorial meeting for Mao Tsetung in September, 1976, a month before the counter-revolutionary coup:

Yes, there can be temporary setbacks. Until these differences–between mental and manual work, between the more backward countryside and the more developed cities, between the workers in the cities and the working people in the countryside, until these differences and wage differentials–until those things are eliminated; until the political consciousness, knowledge and skill of people in society are raised to a whole new level, and knowledge and skills cannot be monopolized by individuals or small groups of people; until we get society to the point where goods can be produced quickly in great abundance and only a small amount of time has to be spent in producing the basic things that people need to live and providing for further development, and a great part of the time can be spent in education and culture and raising the political consciousness and the grasp of the masses of people of the science that can show them how to change the world; until all that has been accomplished, yes, the possibility of a new class of exploiters arising and turning things back does exist. But it is not inevitable.

What is inevitable is that people will continue to fight back against their oppression and exploitation, that this system of capitalism is not here to stay, or eternal, that it only developed at a certain stage,. . . and that the very development of capitalism. . . [has] drawn together as capitalism’s gravedigger a mighty army from those who were scattered and separated. . .

So when they raise the question, who will be Mao Tsetung’s successors, the working class is ready with its answer: We will be Mao Tsetung’s successors, in our millions and hundreds of millions, and we will continue the cause for which he fought and in which he led us and to which he devoted his entire life, until that great goal of eliminating exploitation and oppression and achieving communism has finally been achieved.

September, 1978


[1] These ex-RCP opportunists have been dubbed Mensheviks because of their striking similarity to a band of renegades who attacked Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the Russian Social Democratic Party at the turn of the century (Mensheviks–Russian for minority). The Jarvis-Bergman headquarters shared a strong brand of right opportunism and a bent toward factionalism with their Russian political ancestors. (See History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) and Revolution, January, 1978 for more on the original Mensheviks.)

[2] The “Three Poisonous Weeds,” concocted by Teng Hsiao-ping, Hua Kuo-feng and other revisionists are “On the General Program for All Work of the Whole Party and the Whole Country” (dubbed the “General Program”), ”Some Problems in Speeding Up Industrial Development” (the “20 Points”) and ”Outline Report on Science and Technology.” These papers were drafted and circulated by the revisionist headquarters in China in the mid to late ’70s and became a focal point of struggle launched by the revolutionary left. The current Chinese leadership upholds all three poisonous weeds.

[3] Red Papers 1-7 were theoretical publications of the Revolutionary Union, which played the key role in the formation of the RCP.USA.