A key aspect of this position on nationality was abandoned in June 1969.

A key aspect of this position on nationality was abandoned in June 1969.

From the conclusion on p. 79:

… The so-called “Sino-Soviet dispute” which grew up around the Chinese defense of Stalin and the dictatorship of the proletariat led to the worldwide exposure of Soviet revisionism. The internal debate stirred up within China over this stimulated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) of the 1960s, as Left forces within China began to recognize the same revisionist forces and tendencies in their own country as they saw and attacked in the USSR.

The forces on the right within the Chinese leadership also learned from the Soviet revisionists and imitated them. They dumped the openly Khrushchevite types from the leadership, as Brezhnev and Kosygin had dumped Khrushchev himself. They relied especially on using the “cult of personality” around Mao to mask their subversion of communist principles, as had been done by the right in the USSR.

The Left in the GPCR was defeated, but not before it had involved and affected literally millions of workers and peasants. The recent widespread strike movements in Hangchow and elsewhere show that working-class based left-wing forces are still organizing and fighting internally in China. The sellouts in the leadership have been forced to dump a few of the more extreme rightists (like Teng Shao-ping) temporarily, but are basically becoming more blatant every day. This can only lead to increased left-led struggles.

The Progressive Labor Party was born in struggle against the revisionism of the old CPUSA in the period of Khrushchev. Our party was molded ideologically by the Chinese struggle against revisionism, and sharpened by the successes and failures of the Left in the Cultural Revolution. All this really began with Khrushchev’s “secret speech” of 1956, an attack on Stalin. …

(See Khrushchev’s Phony Communism (1964))

[add list of key quotes from home]

The section directly above quotes part of a first-hand account of the counter-revolution. (See the full Whither China? (1968) (p. 1 summarizes) and Khrushchev’s Phony Communism (1964), the last “by Mao himself” according to Part 1, to address your questions.) The Trotskyism and Maoism comparisons were already broadly addressed. These two articles plus PLP’s analysis of the problem of the 1935 7th Congress of the Comintern (see p. 18) (it massively contributed to fascist victories) is likely a major reason for not adopting a “lesser evil” approach, since this strategy would be even less successful from a weaker position. (No doubt PLP neglected to ask the opposition which way they were leaning.) One interesting detail is that Stalin seems to have disapproved of the “lesser evil” strategy:

The anti-communist historian Medvedev (see article on “Stalinism,” this issue) claims to have evidence that Stalin never agreed with the outcome of the 7th Congress. This may be correct since although it is true that Stalin never publicly expressed disagreement, it is also a fact that he was not present at the proceedings of the 7th Congress. This absence was extraordinary and inexplicable otherwise. [p. 47] [The “Stalinism” article (unavailable online?) likely refers the point made at p. 58: “great man” theory, crude anti-communism, etc.]

Can anyone really read any of this and claim there’s a lack of materialist analysis? For instance, the Mao piece above is particularly chock-full of it. Disagreement is fine if at some point there’s an evidentiary reason for it, but we’ve had sources like that and Whither China? for 50 years. Preferred narratives are often constructed for the left by just not mentioning contradictory evidence.

For an overview of fascism, see China’s Foreign Policy: Alliance with U.S. Imperialism on p. 12.

If China is the great success story of speedy free market development, and is to be the model and inspiration for Tibet’s future, then old feudal Tibet indeed may start looking a lot better than it actually was. (Parenti 2007)

Friend, the placing of military bases does not address the Marxist meaning of imperialism. Summary of Lenin’s definition of imperialism here and two brief quotes:

Imperialism, or the domination of finance capital, is that highest stage of capitalism in which this separation [money capital & productive capital] reaches vast proportions. The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of capital means the predominance of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy; it means that a small number of financially “powerful” states stand out among all the rest. The extent to which this process is going on may be judged from the statistics on emissions, i.e., the issue of all kinds of securities. (Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, p. 238-9)

To Lenin, imperialism is the dominance of finance capital. Specifically, he does not define imperialism as it is generally defined, namely, the building of empires by subjugation of territories [with military bases] and the exploitation of these colonial territories for new materials and as markets. (The Essential Lenin, introductory text to Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism)

Everyone should pick up any book by Xi Jinping: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). And when one sees how evasive he is, probably within a chapter or two, I recommend The Great Leap Backward (1978) (ML analysis) or Is China An Imperialist Country? (2014) which is by a Maoist group but has more updated sources. Also notice how tertiary the evidence is (Pelosi failing to meet an African delegation) in the video linked below. What sort of evidence is all of this? Does it qualify as historical-materialist analysis without further context? No.