The charge that the “gang of four” disrupted production in the name of revolution is a central theme in criticism of them. As we have seen in the sections on industry and agriculture, the capitalist-roaders have their own methods of “increasing production.’’ They always attack class struggle as disrupting production and choose to put production itself in command instead of proletarian politics. This would lead to the consolidation of capitalist relations and the ultimate stagnation of the economy.
The only way to truly liberate the productive forces is through continual revolutionary change in the relations of production, deepening collective consciousness and proletarian revolutionary spirit. The principle of “Grasp Revolution, Promote Production” is central in furthering socialist revolution and socialist construction.
The 16 points formulated by the Central Committee of the CCP to guide the Cultural Revolution includes the following declaration:
The aim of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is to revolutionize peoples’ ideology and as a consequence to achieve greater, faster, better and more economical results in all fields of work. If the masses are fully aroused and proper arrangements are made, it is possible to carry on both the Cultural Revolution and production without one hampering the other, while guaranteeing high quality in all our work.
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is a powerful motive force for the development of the social productive forces in our country. Any idea of counter-posing the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to the development of production is incorrect.
This statement shows that revolution is not opposed to production but is its motive force in a socialist society. Any Right or “Left” attempts to counterpose the two are incorrect. This does not mean that in some instances production may not be delayed to hold meetings or reorganize, but that this should not seriously disrupt production and, more importantly, that revolution should not be put down on the pretext of “promoting production.” Chairman Mao has said:
Ideological work and political work are the guarantee for accomplishing economic and technical work and serve the economic base. Ideology and politics are the commander, the soul in everything. Economic and technical work are bound to go wrong if we in the least slacken our ideological and political work. (from PR #51, 52, 1969)
Chairman Mao has emphasized many times that only by taking class struggle as the key link, deepening the criticism of revisionism and capitalism, and continually solving the question of line and which road to follow can socialist production develop in the right section and with greater impetus; only in this way can all production problems, including equipment, techniques, and quality be solved in the correct way and only in this way can industry be developed with greater, faster, better and more economical results, rapidly establishing an independent and comprehensive industrial system and realizing the modernization of socialist industry and agriculture.
Opposing the taking of class struggle as the key link, Teng Hsiao-ping stuck to the theme of “it doesn’t matter if it’s a white cat or a block cat; any cat that catches mice is a good cat,” and made no distinction between Marxism and imperialism. This would inevitably lead to the capitalist road and undermine socialist production.
The current leaders are quick to repeat the entire correct line on revolution and production. But they go on to say:
We are opposed to the ’theory of productive forces’ at all times, past, present and future. But this must not be construed to mean that we are opposed to promoting production. The ’gang of four’ deliberately confused the two different concepts and equated the ’theory of productive forces’ with efforts to promote production. . With ulterior motives, they set revolution against production, politics against economics, class struggle against the struggle for production, and the dictatorship of the proletariat against socialist construction. They were against promoting production and construction. (PR #48, 1976, p. 12)
Such repeated accusations are not directed only at the “gang of four” but at the entire struggle to beat back the Right deviationist trend which they say seriously disrupted China’s production. However, the Chinese press during that period tells a much differs story. A central theme in every article we have read about the movement to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping and beat back the Right deviationist trend was that the criticism led to greater production. Every article about industry or agriculture refers to the struggle as an inspiration to greater productive achievement. An article, “Criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping Spurs Vigorous Development of China’s Industry, Communication, and Transport” (PR #19, 1976) states:
The criticism of Teng Hsiao-ping and the anti-Right deviationist struggle are powerful motive forces in promoting the development of production. The output of crude oil, coal, electric power, chemical fertilizer, steel, iron, non-ferrous metals, cement, and other products, the total output value in the machine building and electronics industries and the volume of passengers and freight handled by railway and waterways in the first quarter all registered an increase upwards 12 percent compared with the same period of last year. The output of 13 major products in support of agriculture increased by a big margin. Of the 29 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions, 28 have increased industrial output big increases in a number of cases. During this three month period, an annual production capacity of close to two million tons of crude oil and 900 million cubic metres of natural gas has been added; new oil pipelines are being rapidly extended. Fourteen newly built coal pits and four new sugar refineries have gone into production. Work on 977 kilometers has been done on double tracking the 1,100 kilometres Tientsin-Pukow railway.
Chinese steel workers and shipbuilders used deeds to criticize the revisionist fallacies put forward by Teng Hsiao-ping such as servility to things foreign and relying on specialists to run factories. They have displayed the spirit of independence and self-reliance in turning out more and better steel and building and better vessels. .
The national output of coal dressed coal, tunnelling footage and the newly added production capacity have all surpassed one-fourth of the annual plan in the first quarter. After liberation such an all-around leap forward in the first quarter has rarely taken place. More than 60 major coal mines, including Kailan and Tatung, have made outstanding achievements. The petroleum industry, which has always put proletarian politics in command and developed at high speed, is advancing in giant strides in the anti-Right deviationist struggle. The Taching Oilfield has fulfilled state production plans every month since the beginning of the year and hit an all-time high in every one of its major economic and technical quotas. . . Workers in several steel plants have shown revolutionary daring in producing industrial parts and equipment which formerly had to be imported. These included oil pipes, high-pressure boiler tubes, alloy steel for hydraulic supporting tubes and steel plates for shipbuilding.
Workers of the Shanghai Hutung Shipyard went all out in building the 25,000-ton ocean-going freighter Fuzhou which was launched at the end of March. The Talien Hungchi Shipyard built two 24,000-ton oil tankers in the first quarter. It recently completed and launched ahead of schedule an oil tanker of more than 20,000 tons. During this period the shipyard also produced China’s first 18,000 h. p. main engine for a vessel of the 50,000-ton class, thus eloquently refuting Teng Hsiao-ping’s servility to things foreign and capitualationism. An atmosphere of great purposefulness prevails along the railway lines extending over several thousand kilometres under the Peking, Harbin, and Sian and other railway bureaus. Working in the communist style and as masters of the country, railway workers fulfilled the state transport plan ahead of schedule and set a new record for the first quarter. The masses are the real heroes and the motive force in propelling history forward. Not long ago, the arch unrepentant capitalist-roader in the Party Teng Hsiao-ping claimed he was an expert who “knows how to do economic work” and he decked himself out as a “saviour” claiming that nothing could be done without him. This is of course ridiculous. In the first quarter of this year, the situation in China’s industrial production was excellent.
This iron clad evidence shows that Teng Hsiao-ping was far from “capable” of ”knowing how to do economic work” and refutes outright his lie that China’s economic front was ”in a complete mess”. The arch unrepentant capitalist-reader in the Party Teng Hsiao-ping once declared: ’Let’s not have any more criticism of the theory of productive forces. If criticism goes on, production will not go up.’ In Teng Hsiao-ping’s view, the Chinese people criticize the ’theory of productive forces’ as if they do not want to boost production and regard anyone who makes an effort to develop production as practicing the ’theory of productive forces.’ Here, Teng Hsiao-ping was deliberately creating confusion and calling white black and black white.
Does the criticism of the ’theory of productive forces’ mean there is no need to develop production? This is Teng Hsiao-ping’s trick of muddling the waters to achieve his treacherous purpose. Our Party has always paid great attention to economic work and the development of productive forces. Since the founding of New China, Chairman Mao has formulated for us the great principle of Grasping Revolution and Promoting Production and drawn up a series of concrete lines and policies for developing production which have helped us to win great victories in socialist economic construction. To build China into a powerful modern socialist country before the end of the century is a blueprint drawn up for us by Chairman Mao, and hundreds of millions of people are now working hard to achieve that goal, who whipped up the Right deviationist attempt to reverse correct verdicts were talking through their hat and viciously attacking our Party saying, ’It only talks about politics but not economics, it only talks about revolution but not production.’ This is an outrageous lie!
. . The aim of criticizing the ’theory of productive forces’ is precisely for developing China’s socialist productive forces and consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat. The difference between us and Teng Hsiao-ping is not whether or not we should develop production and achieve the four modernizations (of agriculture, industry, national defense and science and technology) but which orientation and line we are to follow to achieve this. In essence, the question is whether the four modernizations to be achieved will be socialist or capitalist in nature.
An article in China’s Foreign Trade (published in Peking) of the 4th quarter of 1976 gave further concrete evidence that the struggle to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping stimulated instead of harmed production during the first half of 1976 (complete figures are not yet available for the second half). Total value of industrial production during the first half of 1976 increased 7%, as compared with the same period of 1975. Of the 80 main industrial products, 63 made a substantial increase. The output of crude oil, coal, and electric power surpassed the figures set in the state plan of the first half of 1976. The harvest of summer crops and spring rice hit an all-time high.
An article in Peking Review #3, 1977 (p. 7) gives more up-to-date 1976 achievements in the energy industry. It says the 1976 state plans for production of crude oil, gas, and other major petro-chemicals were all overfulfilled, oil and gas production outstripping 1975 levels by 13% and 11% respectively, with new exploration, drilling, and construction moving swiftly ahead. Coal miners also overfulfilled state production plans and the state plans for new capital construction and tunnelage for 1976.
Another article, in Peking Review #7, 1977, stated that 1976 saw the carrying out of farmland capital construction on an unprecedented scale and that total grain output surpassed all previous years despite the earthquakes, draught, and early frost.
The present leaders now talk out of two sides of their mouths, claiming first that the “gang of four” and their “excesses” in the struggle to beat back the Right deviationist trend sabotaged production, but at the same time stating that harvests and industrial production in general increased substantially in 1976. So we are faced with two different stories, one presented before the purge, claiming that the campaign to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping stimulated production, and the other, since the purge began, claiming that the anti-Right campaign sabotaged production. The objective facts show that production increased in every sector of the Chinese economy.
The current leaders’ clamouring about “setting revolution against production” is nothing new . . it’s the same garbage as has been used all along to fight against putting revolution and the proletariat in command. Going back to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, we see that they were using the same tactic:
At the beginning of the movement, they used the pretext of ’taking firm hold of production’ to repress the revolution and oppose taking firm hold of revolution. When we workers of the revolutionary rebel groups wanted to rise up in revolution, they . . tagged us with the label of ’sabotaging production’. Did they really want to ’take firm hold of production’? No, they just wanted to defend their positions and attempted to obstruct our revolution. We exposed their schemes and rose up bravely in rebellion. (from the January 11, 1967, Declaration of the Workers’ Rebel Headquarters in Shanghai endorsed by the Central Committee of the CCP)