From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S. | Labor & Workers
Josepg Green Refuted
by al-masakin
Thursday Mar 11th, 2004 4:08 PM
Joseph Green bases his entire thesis that Mao Tse-tung was behind the “three worlds theory” on one quotation attributed to Mao and published one year after Mao’s death in an article published in the Peking Review, November 4, 1977 entitled Chairman Mao's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Theory is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism. Although Green keeps his references secret from the rest of us, and we are left to divine his sources, he asserts:

1. Mao did not fight “capitalist roaders” and when Mao said that he was fighting the capitalist roaders in the Party; Joseph Green asserts that Mao was “not serious”.
2. Those who upheld Mao's political line “incidentally was not the gang of four”.
3. The three worlds theory is Mao's.

This essay will prove, that of Joseph Green's several assertions;

If [2] is wrong then [1] must also be wrong,
If both [1] and [2] are wrong then [3] must also be wrong.
It should now occur to Joseph Green that there is more to Marxist analysis than merely tossing in the word “seriously” from time to time. To assert that those who up-held Mao Tse-tung thought “incidentally was not the ‘gang of four’” is academic fraud. Joseph Green, like Enver Hoxa and Teng Hsiao-ping, continues to put forward the idea that “unity, stability, and national economy”, or Mao Tse-tung's “three directives”, are the “key link” to differentiating between socialist and capitalist political lines, whereas the red fraction took “class struggle as the key link”.

Time and time again the bourgeoisie attempts to fashion a criticism against communism by asserting that capitalist economy is more productive than socialist economy. Socialist frequently defends by asserting “liberation of productive forces” under socialism is a historical and material fact. As true as this may be, socialist cannot allow themselves to be diverted from the fact that socialism main claim is the transformation of social relations which intends to destroy the class structure of the capitalist system--i.e., the elimination of “exploitation of man by man”. The theory of productive forces is a revisionist theory negates taking class struggle as the key link and putting politics in command. Class struggle, therefore, is taken as the “key link” to socialism.

The validity of the socialist programme rests on the fact that when classes are eliminated we will have socialism in practice. Joseph Green, and the Teng-Hoxa tradition, attempt to revise Marx on this issue and maintain that success in production is an authentic gauge to which the success of socialism is compared. “From each according to their work, to each according to their need” is touchstone of the transformation of social relations not a milestone in production. The red fraction, lead by Chiang Ching, understood that class struggle inevitably leads to the elimination of classes, “national economy” and the increase in productive capacity does not.
§Joseph Green Refuted [PDF]
by al-masakin Thursday Mar 11th, 2004 4:08 PM