The Causes of the Victory of the Chinese Communist Party
United Front, in modern Chinese history, either of two coalitions between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang [KMT]). By ENDO Homare, Director, Center of International Relations, Tokyo University of During this four-year period, the KMT and the CPC waged a fierce civil war. To reiterate, the purpose of making contact was to sell military. The diverse causes of the CCP victory over the Kuomintang .. Regarding the relationship between the CCP and the masses—including its relationship to ( For this purpose Mao flew to Chungking to negotiate directly with Chiang, and even.
Because of this, these men survived. The whole point was for Mao Zedong to take power. He did anything to achieve that goal.
So, the author does not presume that Mao Zedong did something wrong or evil. The reason was that these generals did, in fact, collaborate as military advisors, for example, Okamura Yasuji from the former Japanese Imperial Army former general, former commander-in-chief of the China Expeditionary Army established the Paidan White Team to realize the return to mainland China of Chiang Kai-shek who had fled to Taiwan.
And so Mao Zedong tried to recruit Okamura to draw him over to his own side at any cost, but Okamura refused. And so Endo Saburo former Lieutenant General was singled out. Those who knew directly that Mao Zedong had conspired with the Japanese army were no longer around. When Mao Zedong met former members of the Imperial Japanese Army or leftwing Japanese, he said over and over again in many different ways that he was grateful to the Imperial Japanese Army see Mao Zedong on Diplomacy for further details.
On 13 Augustit was decided in writing to make September 3 a day of commemoration. This was just a decision with no action, and Mao Zedong merely sent a congratulatory telegram to Stalin in the Soviet Union on September 2.
Mao Zedong did not even teach Chinese school children about the Nanjing Massacre While Mao Zedong was alive, he was loath to mention the Nanjing Incident Nanjing Massacre and also made no attempt to include it in textbooks.
This is because around 13 December when the Nanjing Massacre occurred, the CPC forces led by Mao Zedong and his supporters had fled so deep into the mountains that they could not be attacked by the Japanese army.
This is because it was feared that any mention of the Nanjing Massacre would risk exposing the fact that the CPC forces did not properly fight against the Japanese army. Accordingly, as long as Mao Zedong was alive, the Nanjing Massacre was basically not mentioned in any school text books.
Today, China is always vehemently demanding that Japan squarely face its history, causing deterioration in Sino-Japanese relations. Not a single Japanese believes that the war waged by Japan was a good war, the Japanese people repeatedly reflect upon the war, and the Japanese Government and government personnel have apologized almost thirty times before to the Chinese Government.
Nonetheless, China continues to thrust the history card at Japan and if they exploit this for political gain, Japanese sentiment towards the Chinese people will worsen and Sino-Japanese relations will deteriorate.
If Mao Zedong truly created the PRC for the people of China or for the innocent people, why after the creation of the PRC when peace was finally restored and the war had ended did he drive so many innocent people to their deaths? At the time, Changchun was enclosed within two lots of barbed wire and I had the experience of sleeping on starved corpses in the void Qia-zi that I crossed to escape from Changchun and losing my memory.
We Marxists react toward events by analyzing the concrete facts of their development with our methods and principles, testing and enriching our principles through this analysis, or if necessary, modifying our principles and formulas, for the truth is always concrete.
We have selected four of the most representative articles in this controversy and translated them into English for reference. So in this report it is not necessary to recount in detail the points of divergence in their discussion. I am simply going to give my personal criticism and explanation of the essential arguments, particularly those of the comrades with oppositional views.
On the basis of our traditional conception of revolution and the experiences of revolutions in modern times—especially the Russian October revolution—they conceive of the revolution only in the sense that huge masses, especially the working class, are mobilized from bottom to top, go beyond the domain of the general democratic struggle to armed rebellion, directly destroy the state apparatus of the ruling class, and proceed to build up a new regime. That we can call the beginning of the victory of a real revolution.
As the facts stand, the CCP relied solely on the military action of the peasant army instead of the revolutionary action of the worker and peasant masses. From this, these comrades asserted that this victory is only the victory of a peasant war, and not the beginning of the third Chinese revolution.
We must admit that the traditional conception of revolution held by these comrades is completely correct, and the facts they enumerate are irrefutable. But they have forgotten a small matter.
That is, that the epoch in which we live is not that of the victory of the October revolution, the time of Lenin and Trotsky. These are the main features of this epoch: On the one hand, the capitalist world, having experienced two world wars, is in utter decay, while the objective revolutionary conditions have gone from ripe to overripe. On the other hand, the Stalin bureaucracy, by dint of the prestige inherited from the October revolution and the material resources of the Soviet Union, has done everything it can to retain its grip on the Communist parties of the world, and through them it attempts to subordinate the revolutionary movements of different countries to its own diplomatic interests.
These exceptional circumstances have not led universally to the frustration and defeat of revolutionary movements in various countries; in some countries the revolutionary movements have only been deformed. The victory of the movement led by the CCP is a prominent example of this deformation of its revolution.
Further, it marks a great dividing line in modern Chinese history. The destruction of the bloody twenty-year rule of Chiang Kai-shek and the blow dealt to the imperialist powers who have trodden on the Chinese people for centuries are quite sufficient to prove that this event can stack up with the first Chinese revolution Inasmuch as a sizable general land reform has been carried out no matter how incompletethe feudal remnants that have persisted for thousands of years are for the first time being shoveled away on a wide scale.
And since this work is still being carried on, should we still insist that it is not an epoch-making revolutionary movement? The comrades in opposition contend that they have completely acknowledged the progressive aspects of this movement, but nevertheless, they are by no means identical with the initial triumph of a real revolution, or the beginning of the third revolution, since they have been achieved by military and bureaucratic means.
In order to obtain a more precise understanding of this question of deformed revolution, let us recall the discussions on the nature of the states in the buffer countries of Eastern Europe.
In these buffer countries, with the exception of Yugoslavia, the dispossession of the bourgeoisie from power, the land reform procedures, and the nationalizations of industry, banks, and means of transport and exchange were either not at all or only to a small degree carried out through the revolutionary action of the worker and peasant masses. The statized properties and enterprises of the new regime have never been placed under the supervision and control of the masses, but are, under occupation by the Soviet army, operated and monopolized by the Communist bureaucrats of the Kremlin order.
As the property relations in these countries have been fundamentally changed, i. But while maintaining this assertion, the International has not overlooked the detestable way the bureaucrats of the Soviet Union and the Communist parties of these countries are monopolizing all economic and administrative power and the way the police and the GPU are strangling the freedom and initiative of the masses.
But the CCP has not mobilized the worker masses.The Chinese Civil War - Blood for Unity l HISTORY OF CHINA
It has not pushed the revolution forward through the agency of the working class leading the peasant masses. In other words, because it substituted the military-bureaucratic methods of Stalinism for the Bolshevik revolutionary methods of mobilizing the masses, this revolution has been gravely distorted and injured, and its features are misshapen to such an extent that they are hardly recognizable.
However, we Marxists judge all things and events not by their appearance, but by the essence concealed under the appearance. We must understand that our epoch is a transitional one, lying between capitalism and socialism, the most consequential and complex epoch in the history of humanity. Hence, many of the events and movements, under the influence of diverse factors, develop out of accord with the normal procedures of our logical thinking that are derived from historical experience or principles.
These people have nothing in common with Marxists. We Trotskyists must bear the responsibility for the coming revolution. And we must carry on an untiring fight in face of this situation to alter it in the course of the struggle and turn it toward our goal. The whole movement has been placed under its. This is an absolute reality, although distorted and contrary to our ideals. But unless we accept the reality of this movement, penetrate it, and actively join in all mass struggles, all our criticisms will be futile as well as harmful.
This task is, of course, extremely difficult and it will not necessarily proceed in tune with our efforts. But at least by participating in this movement we can lay down a basis for future work. Then, when we are faced with a more favorable situation, we shall be able to intervene and even to lead the movement. We would then quit the movement and the masses and finally, inevitably withdraw from all practical political struggles and be swept away by the historical current.
I must also point out that our oppositional comrades have committed another mechanical error by maintaining that the CCP-led movement was purely a peasant war and for that reason denying the significance of its mass character. But even more, behind it stands the great mass of the peasantry. Historical experience has shown us that once the peasant movement erupts, it is often involved in armed struggle.
This has become almost a law of the peasant movement. We must also note that the present army differs greatly from any former peasant army. It has been systematically organized and trained by the Stalinist party. It has been endowed with a nationwide and up-to-date program of democratic reform as the general direction of the struggle, no matter how opportunist this program has been.
It is for this reason that we cannot call this movement simply a peasant war but an abnormal revolutionary movement, and only this designation is true to the facts and to dialectic logic.
Truth of Mao Zedong’s Collusion with the Japanese Army (1)
They exaggerate or even misinterpret the facts. This is just as harmful. This is not only mechanical, but is entirely contradictory to the actual facts, as I have indicated above. Moreover, Comrade Ma says: Here I would like to emphasize one point. In the second Chinese revolution, the majority of the working class was organized in such groups as the Canton-Hong Kong Strike Committee and the Shanghai General Labor Union which were then functioning practically as Soviets.
The workers were mobilized, and occupied the leading position in the nationwide movement, launching a number of general strikes and giant demonstrations.
Kuomintang - Wikipedia
In addition, the working class engaged in several victorious armed revolts, such as the case of the worker masses in Hangkow and Chiuchiang, who seized the British settlements, and in Shanghai where they occupied the entire city with the exception of the foreign concessions. But in this movement of the CCP, from its beginning to the conquest of power, there has neither been the rising of the working masses in any city to the point of general strikes or insurrections, nor even a small-scale strike or demonstration.
Most of the workers were passive and inert, or at most showed a certain hopeful, attitude toward this movement. This is an indisputable fact. How can we compare this present movement with the revolutionary movement of the second Chinese revolution? This idealization of events will not only foster illusions but will objectively lead to wrong judgments. Both will be dangerous, because illusions are always the origin of disappointment or discouragement, while wrong judgments will inevitably become the root of erroneous policies.
We should never overlook the extremely serious dangers implicit in the deformation of the third Chinese revolution fostered by the CCP: All these dangerous factors combined preclude any overoptimism in regard to the development and perspective of the third Chinese revolution that is now underway. They will make it extremely difficult for Trotskyists to work in this movement. Despite all these circumstances we should never adopt a sectarian or pessimistic attitude, nor give up our efforts and our revolutionary responsibility to try to push this movement forward or transform it.
At the same time we must also reject all naive ultraoptimism, which always tends to disregard the difficulties in the movement and the hardships in our work. At the beginning, ultraoptimists might throw themselves into the movement with great zeal.
But when they encounter the severe difficulties in the course of their work, they will become disheartened and shrink back.
However, with the entire perspective of our movement in sight, we Trotskyists always hold firm to our unbending faith and revolutionary optimism. In other words, we profoundly believe that the victory of the proletarian revolution in the whole world and the reconstruction of human society can be accomplished only under the banner and the program of Trotskyism, the most enriched and deepened Marxism-Leninism of modern times.
United Front | Chinese history  | porkostournaments.info
Yet we should not overlook the formidable roadblocks on the way from the present period to the eventual victory, particularly the obstacles laid down by Stalinism. We must first of all bring to light these obstacles, then overcome them with the most precise program, correct methods, and utmost patience and perseverance.
The sectarians find their excuses in the fact that the movement does not conform to their preconceived norms and they attempt to flee from it in advance. The naive optimists idealize the movement. But as soon as they discover that the movement does not follow the track of their idealization, they leave it. Revolutionary optimists have nothing in common with these two sorts of people. Since we have the strongest faith in the victory of the revolution, since we understand the enormous difficulties lying on the road to this victory, we cut our path through the thorniest thickets only with revolutionary methods and absolute persistence to reach the ultimate goal.
These controversies have produced certain unhealthy effects on the party. Though it is not possible for me to dwell in detail on a description and criticism of these controversial opinions, I should express my fundamental attitude toward this discussion especially since many Chinese comrades have asked me to do so. It is altogether reasonable that a political organization, on the morrow of a great event, should examine and discuss its past policy carefully in order to readjust its political line.
Therefore I do not agree with some comrades who object to this discussion. But I should also insist that we must proceed with the discussion in a fully responsible way, both for the revolutionary tasks and for our party, and in a circumspect, exact, and precise manner. The experience of history has already taught us that a political party is most susceptible to centrifugal tendencies under the pressure of a great event, especially in face of growing difficulties in its conditions of work.
Unfortunately, some of our comrades are not prudent enough in their criticisms of the policy we adopted in the past period. In reality, our party has maintained and struggled over long years for the traditional line of Trotskyism, the line of the permanent revolution.
This presentation is not only exaggerated and a distortion of the facts, but it is actually an insult to the party. Therefore it naturally has stirred up vehement indignation, outrage, and protests, and even, to a certain extent, confusion and vacillations among the comrades.
It was with the premonition of such consequences that I forewarned our comrades not to be too hasty in making a degree turn. I have already pointed out that our party did not envisage the victorious conquest of power by the CCP. From this major error in estimating the whole event flows a series of mistakes on the evaluation of events in the course of their development, and certain tactical errors in our propaganda to the outside world. These errors in estimation have affected our attitude to the entire event, which more or less tended to passive criticism and an underestimation of its objective revolutionary significance.
This is what we seriously admit and must correct. But, as I have said above, these are mistakes in estimating the events rather than mistakes of principles, and therefore can be easily redressed.
Marxism is the most effective scientific method of predicting social phenomena. But it has not yet reached such exactness as meteorology in foretelling the weather or astronomy in astral phenomena, since social phenomena are far more complicated than those of nature. So Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky also made mistakes in their evaluation of events.
What distinguished them was not infallibility in estimating any and all events, but their constant, cautious, and exact observation of the objective process of events. And once they realized that the development of events did not conform to their original estimates or that their estimates were wrong, they immediately readjusted or reestimated them.
This is the attitude of a real Marxist, and is the example we should try to follow. The class nature of the CCP and the new regime Though there has not been much discussion among the Chinese comrades on this question, some opinions exist among the comrades of the International that tend to deviate from the Marxist line.
I therefore consider it necessary to raise this question for serious discussion and to make a definite appraisal that can serve as the premise in determining our position in relation to the CCP and its new regime. About the nature of the CCP, virtually all the Chinese comrades have declared it to be a petty-bourgeois party based on the peasantry. This has been a traditional conception of the Chinese Trotskyists for the past twenty years, and is one defined by Trotsky himself.
The main reason for this judgment was as follows: It threw its whole strength into village guerrilla fighting and therefore absorbed into the party a great number of peasants.
Furthermore during the prolonged period of living in the countryside they also assimilated the peasant outlook into their ideology, little by little. Not only has there been no fundamental change, but the petty-bourgeois composition represented by peasants and intellectuals has, on the contrary, been strengthened. The unprecedented growth of the CCP during and after the Resistance War was almost completely due to an influx of peasants and petty-bourgeois intellectuals.
Before its conquest of power, the party claimed about 3. Of this total number, the worker element was very weak and at most was not more than 5 percent including manual laborers. We can therefore confirm that up to the time it came to power the CCP still remained petty bourgeois in composition. Song Jiaoren was assassinated in Shanghai in Members of the Nationalists led by Sun Yat-sen suspected that Yuan was behind the plot and thus staged the Second Revolution in Julya poorly planned and ill-supported armed rising to overthrow Yuan, and failed.
Yuan, claiming subversiveness and betrayal, expelled adherents of the KMT from the parliament. Yuan Shikai proclaimed himself emperor in December While exiled in Japan inSun established the Chinese Revolutionary Party on 8 Julybut many of his old revolutionary comrades, including Huang Xing, Wang JingweiHu Hanmin and Chen Jiongmingrefused to join him or support his efforts in inciting armed uprising against Yuan.
In order to join the Revolutionary Party, members had to take an oath of personal loyalty to Sun, which many old revolutionaries regarded as undemocratic and contrary to the spirit of the revolution. As a result, he became largely sidelined within the Republican movement during this period.
Sun returned to China in to establish a military junta at Cantonin order to oppose the Beiyang governmentbut was soon forced out of office and exiled to Shanghai. Inthe KMT and its Canton government accepted aid from the Soviet Union after being denied recognition by the western powers. Soviet advisers - the most prominent of whom was Mikhail Borodinan agent of the Comintern — arrived in China in to aid in the reorganization and consolidation of the KMT along the lines of the Communist Party of the Soviet Unionestablishing a Leninist party structure that lasted into the s.
The Communist Party of China CPC was under Comintern instructions to cooperate with the KMT, and its members were encouraged to join while maintaining their separate party identities, forming the First United Front between the two parties.
Venue of the 1st National Congress of Kuomintang in Soviet advisers also helped the KMT to set up a political institute to train propagandists in mass mobilization techniques, and in Chiang Kai-shekone of Sun's lieutenants from the Tongmenghui days, was sent to Moscow for several months' military and political study. At the first party congress in in KwangchowKwangtungGuanzhou, Guangdong which included non-KMT delegates such as members of the CPC, they adopted Sun's political theory, which included the Three Principles of the People - nationalism, democracy and people's livelihood.
KMT flag displayed in Lhasa, Tibet in The real power, however, was in the hands of Chiang Kai-shek, who, as the superintendent of the Whampoa Military Academywas in near complete control of the military. With their military superiority, KMT confirmed their rule on Canton, the provincial capital of Kwangtung.
The Guangxi warlords pledged loyalty to the KMT.
- First United Front
The KMT now became a rival government in opposition to the warlord Beiyang government based in Peking. Unlike Sun Yat-sen, whom he admired greatly, and who forged all his political, economic and revolutionary ideas primarily from what he had learned in Hawaii and indirectly through British Hong Kong and Empire of Japan under Meiji RestorationChiang knew relatively little about the West.
He also studied in Japan, but he was firmly rooted in his ancient Han Chinese identity and was steeped in Chinese culture. As his life progressed, he became increasingly attached to ancient Chinese culture and traditions. His few trips to the West confirmed his pro-ancient Chinese outlook and he studied the ancient Chinese classics and ancient Chinese history assiduously.
Chiang met Leon Trotsky and other Soviet leaders, but quickly came to the conclusion that the Soviet communistMarxist and socialist model of government was not suitable for China. This laid the beginning of his lifelong antagonism against communism.