In 1981, the Sixth Plenum of the 11th Communist Party of China's Central Committee wrote in their Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People's Republic of China that:
The Party, the country and the people suffered from the most serious setbacks and the biggest loss during the 'cultural revolution,' which lasted from May 1966 to October 1976, since the founding of the PRC"The history of the 'cultural revolution' proved that the main argument for comrade Mao Zedong to start the 'cultural revolution' was not in line with Marxism-Leninism nor with the reality of China" It was proved through practice that the 'cultural revolution' was not, and could not possibly be, a revolution or social progress in every sense" (It) was a civil turmoil, which was wrongly started by leaders, was exploited by counter-revolutionary groups, and which brought disastrous consequences to the Party, the country and the people.
For the faction of the global communist movement that defends essentially all of Mao's actions as correct, this was just another piece of evidence supporting their narrative that China's modern Communist Party had betrayed the revolution. But this insistence on crying foul regarding the judgments of the Party, this often vocal series of declarations that the modern CPC and its supporters are liars, is motivated by a desire to push down the truth. This being that Mao, like so many other leaders of the communist movement, has at times been incorrect. And that in order to successfully implement socialism elsewhere, we must recognize those errors and proceed according to the lessons we learn from them.
This kind of objective approach towards analysis will help us recognize two of the most important things for our movement: carry out the full transfer of jurisdiction over the occupied territories back to the indigenous First Nations, and build socialism within these nations while supporting the existing socialist countries. The latter is important not just for the sake of building allyship with these countries, but for not blinding ourselves to the benefits of the approaches they've taken towards building socialism. Then we'll have more flexibility in what we're willing to do to improve the conditions of the masses.
To make the case for both of these ideas, I'll respectively repudiate the narratives from the Maoists, and from the socialists who claim we should uphold U.S. patriotism.
The deeper follies of Maoism
To repudiate the claim from the Mao-aligned dogmatists that we shouldn't support existing socialism, we must examine the mistakes that led to their camp coming into existence. Mao's great error was in being dogmatic, a pitfall that he ironically warned against. His ideological inflexibility led him to help enable (though not directly facilitate) the objectively harmful consequences of the Cultural Revolution, as well as to put forth a view of other socialist countries that continues to lead many within the global communist movement astray.
This is the idea that the Soviet Union had not only devolved into revisionism (an accurate critique), but had become the primary enemy of the liberation of the world's oppressed. As Marxist writer Harry Haywood warned in 1984, this narrative took the critique of the USSR too far, to the effect that an entire bloc of communists was now misdirecting its energy towards needless antagonisms. Haywood described Mao and Maoism's case against the USSR as such:
The question of the Soviet Union is fundamentally a strategic one. This means we must address the first revolutionary question posed by Mao: "Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?" Is the Soviet Union a friend or an enemy of revolution? How we answer this question not only determines our international strategic concept but also shapes our line on a whole series of tactical problems. Throughout the 1970s the Chinese answered this question with the Three Worlds Theory. In its most developed form the Three Worlds Theory argued that the Soviet Union was the "main enemy" of the world's people. It also said that, "Of the two imperialist superpowers, the Soviet Union is the more ferocious, the more reckless, the more treacherous, and the most dangerous source of world war," taking the offensive all over the world.
To explain why the characterization of the USSR as "imperialist" was wrong, Haywood only had to apply a basic analysis of what imperialism is:
History demonstrates that, overall, Soviet foreign policy has been basically defensive and non-aggressive. This fact does not mean that everything the Soviet Union does is correct or that it cannot make serious mistakes or pursue wrong lines. For example, its relations with China and other socialist countries have been marked at times by chauvinism and hegemonism. But these problems do not make the Soviet Union a social imperialist power. Without a monopoly capitalist class and without capitalist relations of production there is no fundamental and compelling logic in the Soviet economy that creates a need to export capital and exploit other countries through trade. As a result it also has no colonies and no empire to sustain.
Because the Maoists adhered to this false narrative about the USSR, they became willing to accept their equally inaccurate current belief that modern China is imperialista belief that can be disproven using the same analytical framework. Due to their belief that anything deviating from Mao's approach is "revisionist," they've come to view China's post-Mao incorporation of marketswhich economics research shows is what's behind the country's record poverty reductionas evidence of counterrevolution. And because Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and the DPRK also don't follow Mao's approach to varying degrees, they've disowned all these other socialist countries as "not truly socialist."
This view comes not from a Marxist approach towards critique, but from the type of critique of socialist states that we often see from anarchistsnamely, taking the presence of any and all class contradictions within these countries, real or imagined, as evidence of their having fallen to the same revisionist fate as the post-Stalin USSR. Given that this view is often based off of the narrative about the USSR having been imperialist (Cuba is viewed by some of these Maoists as having been a colony for "Soviet social imperialism"), the root motive behind it is clear: to make Mao's Cultural Revolution feel vindicated by tearing down the socialist projects that have taken a different route from this dogmatic one. To make it look like the CPC had to have been lying when it admitted to the mistakes of the earlier years, since the CPC is now a "capitalist roader" entity that's building an alleged global empire.
Learning from Mao's errors could particularly be what saves our movement from defeat; when Peruvian Maoist Chairman Gonzalo's refused to learn from them, he led his army into reckless and impractical acts of violence, ironically going against Mao's warning to not go on the offensive before the masses are ready. Consequently, Gonzalo's revolutionary insurgency failed, and he died in the prison of Peru's bourgeois government.
To avoid repeating the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution, and to not be constrained by dogma in our future campaign towards building socialism, we must reject the attempts to discredit existing socialism. Harrywood alluded to this by saying regarding the post-1970s stage of capitalist crisis: "These developments make it all the more urgent for American communists to cast aside outmoded and incorrect political ideas so we can begin to give direction to the trends. Our first step is to begin to seeking a process of unity based around strategic direction that clearly recognizes U.S. imperialism as the center of world reaction, the main threat to world peace and the main enemy of the world's people."
Essential to this will be also rejecting an additional type of dogma that's long afflicted the socialist movement in the United States: colonial chauvinism.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).