On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie
The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat has long been
the focus of the struggle between Marxism and revisionism. Lenin said:
"Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle
to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat." And it
is for the very purpose of enabling us to go in for Marxism and not
revisionism in both theory and practice that Chairman Mao calls on our
whole nation to get a clear idea of the question of the dictatorship of
the proletariat.
Our country finds itself at an important period of historical
development. After more than two decades of socialist revolution and
socialist construction, particularly after the liquidation of the
bourgeois headquarters of Liu Shao-chi and of Lin Piao in the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution, our dictatorship of the proletariat is
more consolidated than ever, and our socialist cause is thriving. Full of
militancy, the people of the whole country are determined to build China
into a powerful socialist country before the end of the century. In the
course of this effort and in the entire historical period of socialism,
whether we can persevere in the dictatorship of the proletariat through
to the end is a cardinal question that affects the future of our country's
development. Current class struggle, too, makes it necessary for us to get
clear on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chairman
Mao says: "Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism."
It won't do if only a few people grasp the point; "this should be made
known to the whole nation." Success in this study has a current and
far-reaching significance that can never be overestimated.
As early as in 1920, Lenin, basing himself on practical experience in
leading the Great October Socialist Revolution and directing the first
state of proletarian dictatorship, sharply pointed out, "The dictatorship
of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged
by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose
resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one
country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international
capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections
of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of
small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very,
very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism
and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a
mass scale. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is
essential." Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat
is a persistent struggle--bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful,
military and economic, educational and administrative --against the
forces and traditions of the old society, that it is an all-round
dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Lenin time and again stressed that
it is impossible to triumph over the bourgeoisie without exercising a
protracted, all-round dictatorship over it. These words of Lenin's,
especially those he underscored, have been proved by practice in
subsequent years. Sure enough, the new bourgeois have been engendered
in one batch after another, and their representative is none other than
the Khrushchov-Brezhnev renegade clique. These people generally have a
good class background; almost all of them have been brought up under
the red flag; they have joined the Communist Party organizationally,
received college training and become so-called red experts. But they
are new poisonous weeds engendered by the old soil of capitalism. They
have betrayed their own class, usurped Party and state power, restored
capitalism, become chieftains of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
over the proletariat, and accomplished what Hitler had tried but failed
to accomplish. At no time should we forget this historical experience
in which "the satellites went up to the sky while the red flag fell
to the ground," especially at a time when we are determined to build a
powerful country.
We must be soberly aware that there is still the danger for China to turn
revisionist. This is not only because imperialism and social-imperialism
always set their minds on aggression and subversion against us, and the
old landlords and capitalists, unreconciled to their defeat, are still
there, but also because new bourgeois elements are, as Lenin put it, being
engendered daily and hourly. Some comrades argue that Lenin was referring
to the situation before co-operation. This is obviously incorrect. Lenin's
remarks are not out of date. These comrades may look up Chairman Mao's
On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People published
in 1957. There Chairman Mao presents the concrete analysis that, after
basic victory in the socialist transformation of the system of ownership,
which includes the achievement of co-operation, there still exist in China
classes, class contradictions and class struggle, and there still exist
harmony as well as contradiction between the relations of production and
the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic
base. Having summed up the new experience of the dictatorship of the
proletariat after Lenin, Chairman Mao answered in a systematic way
various questions arising after the change in the system of ownership,
set forth the tasks and policies of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
and laid the theoretical basis of the Party's basic line and of continued
revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Practice in the
past 18 years, particularly in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,
has proved that the theory, line and policies advanced by Chairman Mao
are entirely correct.
Chairman Mao pointed out recently: "In a word, China is a socialist
country. Before liberation she was much the same as a capitalist
country. Even now she practices an eight-grade wage system, distribution
according to work and exchange through money, and in all this differs
very little from the old society. What is different is that the system
of ownership has been changed." In order to gain a deeper understanding
of Chairman Mao's instruction, let us take a look at the changes in the
system of o ship in China and the proportions of the various economic
sectors In China's industry, agriculture -and commerce in 1973.
First, industry. Industry under ownership by the whole people accounted
for 97 per cent of the fixed assets of industry as a whole, 63 per cent
of the industrial population, and 86 per cent of the value of total
industrial output. Industry under collective ownership accounted for 3
per cent of the fixed assets, 36.2 per cent of the industrial population,
and 14 per cent of the total output value. Besides these, individual
handicraftsman made up 0.8 per cent of the industrial population.
Next, agriculture. Among the agricultural means of production, about
90 per cent of the farmland and of the irrigation-drainage machinery
and about 80 per cent of the tractors and draught animals were under
collective ownership. Those under ownership by the whole people made up
a very small proportion. Hence, over 90 per cent of the nation's grain
and various industrial crops came from the collective economy. The
state farms accounted for only a small proportion. Apart from these,
there still remained the small plots farmed by commune members for their
personal needs and limited household side-line production.
Then commerce. State commerce accounted for 92.5 per cent of the total
volume of retail sales, commercial enterprises under collective ownership
for 7.3 per cent, and individual pedlars for 0.2 per cent. Apart from
these, there still remained a sizable amount of trade-conducted at
rural fairs.
The above figures show that socialist ownership by the whole people
and socialist collective ownership by working people have indeed won
great victory in China. The dominant position of ownership by the whole
people has been very much enhanced and there have also been some changes
in the economy of the people's commune as regards the proportions of
ownership at the three levels--the commune, the production brigade and
the production team. On Shanghai's outskirts, for example, income at
the commune level in proportion to total income rose from 28.1 per cent
in 1973 to 30.5 per cent in 1974, that of the brigades rose from 15.2
per cent to17.2 per cent, while that of the teams dropped from 56.7 per
cent to 52.3 per cent. The people's commune has demonstrated ever more
clearly its superiority of being larger in size and having a higher
degree of public ownership. In so far as we have, step by step in the
past 25 years, eliminated ownership by imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalism
and feudalism, transformed ownership by national capitalism and by the
individual labourer and replaced there five kinds of private ownership
with the two kinds of public ownership, we can proudly declare that
the system of ownership in China has changed, that the proletariat and
other working people in China have in the main freed themselves from the
shackles of private ownership, and that China's economic base has been
gradually consolidated and developed. The Constitution adopted by the
Fourth National People's Congress clearly records these great victories
of ours.
However, we must see that the issue has not been entirely settled with
respect to the system of ownership. We often say that the issue of the
system of ownership "has in the main been settled"; this means that it
has not been settled entirely, neither has bourgeois right been totally
abolished in the realm of the system of ownership. Statistics cited
above show that private ownership still exists in part of industry,
agriculture as well as commerce, that socialist public ownership does
not consist purely of ownership by the whole people but includes two
kinds of ownership, and that ownership by the whole people is as yet
rather weak in agriculture, the foundation of the national economy. The
nonexistence of bourgeois right in the realm of the system of ownership
in a socialist society, as conceived by Marx and Lenin, implies the
conversion of all the means of production into common property of the
whole society. Clearly we have not. yet advanced to stage. Neither in
theory nor in practice should we overlook the very arduous tasks that
lie ahead of the dictatorship of the proletariat in this respect.
Moreover, we must see that both ownership by the whole people and
collective ownership involve the question of leadership, that is, the
question of ownership by which class, not just in name but in reality.
Speaking at the First Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee
of the Party on April 28, 1969, Chairman Mao said: "It seems that it
won't do not to carry out the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, for
our foundation is not solid. Judging from my observations, I am afraid
that in a fairly large majority of factories -- I don't mean all or the
overwhelming majority of them --leadership was not in the hands of genuine
Marxists and the masses of workers. Not that there were no good people
among those in charge of the factories. There were. There were good people
among the secretaries, deputy secretaries and members of Party committees
and among Party branch secretaries. But they were following that line of
Liu Shao-chi--simply resorting to material incentives, putting profit
in command and, instead of promoting proletarian politics, handing
out bonuses, and so forth." "But there were indeed bad people in the
factories." "This shows that the revolution remained unfinished." Chairman
Mao's remarks not only explain the necessity of the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution but enable us to see more clearly that on the problem
of the of ownership, as on all other problems, we should pay attention not
only to its form but also to its actual content. It is perfectly correct
for people to attach importance to the decisive role of the system of
ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to attach
no importance to whether the issue of the system of ownership has been
resolved in form or in reality, to the reaction exerted on the system
of ownership by the two other aspects of the relations of production
-- the relations between men and the form of distribution and to the
reaction exerted on the economic base by the superstructure; these two
aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given
conditions. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. The
correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line,
and the control of leadership in the hands of one class or another,
decide which class owns a factory in reality. Comrades may recall how an
enterprise owned by bureaucrat capital or national capital was turned
into a socialist enterprise. Didn't we do the job by sending there
a representative for military control or a state representative to
transform it according to the Party's line and policies? Historically,
every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement
of slave system by feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was
invariably preceded by the seizure of political power which was then
used to change the system of ownership on a big scale and consolidate
and develop the new system of ownership. This is even more so with
socialist public ownership which cannot be brought forth under the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bureaucrat capital which controlled 80
per cent of the industry in old China, could be transformed and placed
under ownership by the whole people only after the People's Liberation
Army had defeated Chiang Kai-shek. Likewise, a capitalist restoration
is inevitably preceded by the seizure of leadership and a change in
the line and policies of the Party. Wasn't this the way Khrushchov and
Brezhnev changed the system of ownership in the Soviet Union? Wasn't
this the way Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao changed the nature of a number
of our factories and other enterprises to varying degrees?
Also, we must see that what we practise today is a commodity
system. Chairman Mao says: "Our country at present practises a commodity
system, the wage system is unequal, too, as In the eight-grade wage scale,
and so forth. These can only be restricted under the dictatorship of the
proletariat. So if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will
be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system." This state
of affairs which Chairman Mao pinpointed cannot be changed in a short
period. Take for instance the rural people's communes on the outskirts of
Shanghai where the economy at the commune and production brigade levels
has developed at a rather fast pace. The commune accounts for 34.2 per
cent of the fixed assets owned at all three levels, the brigade accounts
for only 15.1 per cent while the production team still accounts for
50.7 per cent. Therefore,, considering the economic conditions in the
commune alone, it will take a fairly-long time to effect the transition
from the team to the brigade and then to the commune functioning as the
basic accounting unit. Even when the commune is made the basic accounting
unit, it will still remain under collective ownership. Thus within a short
period no basic change will take place in the situation in which there are
both ownership by the whole people and collective ownership. So long as
these two kinds of ownership still exist, commodity production, exchange
through money and distribution according to work are inevitable. Since
"these can only be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat,"
the growth of capitalist factors in town and country and the emergence
of new bourgeois elements are likewise inevitable. If these are not
restricted, capitalism and the bourgeoisie will grow faster. Therefore,
on no account should we relax our vigilance just because we have won
great victory in the transformation of the system of ownership and
carried out a Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. We must realize
that our economic base is not yet solid and that bourgeois right,
which has not yet been abolished entirely in the system of ownership,
is still prevalent to a serious extent in the relations between men
and holds a dominant position in distribution. In the various spheres
of the superstructure, some aspects are in fact still controlled by the
bourgeoisie which is predominant there; some are being transformed but
the results are not yet consolidated, and old ideas and the old force
of habit are trying obstinately to hold back the growth of socialist new
things. New bourgeois elements are engendered, group after group, in the
wake of the development of capitalist factors in town and country. The
class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class
struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle
in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very
acute. Even when all the landlords and capitalists of the old generation
have died, such class struggles will by no means come to a stop, and
a bourgeois restoration may still occur if people like Lin Piao come
to power. In his speech The Situation and Our Policy After the
Viciory in the War of Resistance Against Japan, Chairman Mao said that
in 1936 near the site of the Party Central Committee in Pao-an there was
a fortified-village held by a handful of armed counter-revolutionaries
who obstinately refused to surrender until the Red Army stormed into it
to settle the problem. This story has a universal significance, for it
tells us: "Everything reactionary is the same; if you don't hit it, it
won't fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a rule, where the
broom does not reach, the dust never vanishes of itself." Today there
are still many "fortified villages" held by the bourgeoisie; when one is
destroyed, another will spring up, and even when all but one have been
destroyed, this last one will not vanish of itself if the iron broom of
the dictatorship of the proletariat does not reach there. What Lenin
said is entirely correct: "For all these reasons the dictatorship of
the proletariat is essential."
Historical experience shows us that whether the proletariat can triumph
over the bourgeoisie and whether China will turn revisionist hinges
on whether we can persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over
the bourgeoisie in all spheres and at all stages of development in the
revolution. What is all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? The
most succinct generalization is found in a passage from a letter Marx
wrote in 1852 to J. Weydemeyer, which we are all studying. Marx said:
"No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in
modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me
bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this
class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the
classes. What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence
of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the
development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads
to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself
only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and
to a classless society." In this remarkable observation, Lenin said,
Marx succeeded in expressing with striking clarity the chief and radical
difference between his theory on the state and that of the bourgeoisie,
and the essence of his teaching on the state. Here it should be noted
that Marx divided the sentence on the dictatorship of the proletariat
into three points which are nevertheless interrelated and cannot be cut
apart. It is impermissible to accept only one of the three points while
rejecting the other two. For the sentence gives perfect expression to
the entire process of the inception, development and withering away of
the dictatorship of the proletariat and covers the whole task of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and its actual content. In The Class
Struggles in France, 1848-1850, Marx deals in more specific terms with
this dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to
the abolition of all class distinctions, to the abolition of all the
relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all
the social relations that correspond to these relations of production,
to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social
relations. Here Marx says "all," and in all four places! Not a part,
nor a greater part, nor even the greatest part, but all! This is nothing
surprising, for only by emancipating all mankind can the proletariat
achieve its own final emancipation. The only way to attain this goal is
to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the
continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through
to the end, until the above-mentioned four "alls" are abolished on the
earth so that it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie and all other
exploiting classes to exist or for new ones to arise, and we must not
call a halt along the path of transition. In our view, only those who
have such an understanding can grasp the essence of Marx's teaching on the
state. Comrades, please think it over: If the point is not to be grasped
this way, if Marxism is to be limited, curtailed and distorted in theory
and practice, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be turned into
an empty phrase, or all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie rendered
incomplete and exercised only in some but not all spheres, or only at
some stages (for instance, before the transformation of the system of
ownership) but not at all stages, or in other words, if the "fortified
villages" of the bourgeoisie are not all destroyed but some are left to
allow the bourgeoisie to expand its ranks again, doesn't that mean to
prepare the conditions for a bourgeois restoration? Doesn't it mean to
turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into something that protects the
bourgeoisie, particularly the newly engendered bourgeoisie? All workers,
all poor and lower-middle peasants and all other working people who
refuse to suffer once again, all Communists who dedicate their lives to
the struggle for communism and all comrades who do not want China to turn
revisionist, must firmly bear in mind this basic principle of Marxism:
It is imperative to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie,
and it is absolutely impermissible to give it up halfway. There are
undeniably some comrades among us who have joined the Communist Party
organizationally but not ideologically. In their world outlook they
have not yet stepped out of the confines of small production and of
the bourgeoisie. They do approve of the dictatorship of the proletariat
at certain stages and in certain spheres and are pleased with certain
victories of the proletariat, because these will bring them some gains;
once they have secured their gains, they feel it's time to settle down and
feather their cosy nests. As for exercising all-round dictatorship over
the bourgeoisie, as for following up the first step on the 10,000-li long
march, sorry, let others do the job; here is my stop and I must get off
the bus. We would like to offer a piece of advice to these comrades: It's
dangerous to stop half-way! The bourgeoisie is beckoning to you. Catch
up with the ranks and continue the advance!
Historical experience also shows us that, as the dictatorship of the
proletariat wins one victory after another, the bourgeoisie may pretend
on the surface to accept this dictatorship while in reality it continues
to work for the restoration of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This
is exactly what Khrushchov and Brezhnev have done. They changed neither
the name of "Soviet," nor the name of the party of Lenin, nor the name of
"socialist republic," but accepting these names and using them as a cover,
deprived the dictatorship of the proletariat of its actual content and
turned it into a dictatorship of the monopoly capitalist class against the
Soviet, the party of Lenin and the socialist republics. In open betrayal
of Marxism, they put forward the revisionist programme of "the state
of the whole people" and "the party of the entire people." However,
they flaunt the flag of the dictatorship of the proletariat to
suppress the masses of the Soviet people who rise against their fascist
dictatorship. Similar cases have occurred in China. Liu Shao-chi and Lin
Piao did not limit themselves to spreading the theory of the dying out
of class struggle; they, too, flaunted the flag of the dictatorship of
the proletariat when they suppressed the revolution. Didn't Lin Piao
preach his four "never forgets"? One of these was "never forget the
dictatorship of the proletariat." Indeed there was something he "never
forgot," only the words "to overthrow" should be inserted here to make
it "never forget to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat,"
or on the confession of his gang, "wave Chairman Mao's banner to strike
at Chairman Mao's forces." At times they acted "in submission" to the
proletariat and even pretended to be more revolutionary than anyone else,
raising "Left" slogans to create confusion and carry out sabotage, but
they constantly waged a tit-for-tat struggle against the proletariat. You
wanted to carry out socialist transformation? They said the new democratic
order had to be consolidated. You wanted to organize co-operatives and
communes? They said it was too early to do that. When you said literature
and art should be revolutionized, they said it would do no harm to put
on some ghost plays. You wanted to restrict bourgeois right? They said
it was a very good thing indeed and should be extended. They are past
masters at defending old things and, like a swarm of flies, hum all day
long over the "birth marks" and "defects" of the old society as referred
to by Marx. Taking advantage of the inexperience of young people, they
are particularly keen to peddle among the youth the idea that material
incentive, like odd-odour bean curd, smells awful but tastes good. And
they always wave the banner of socialism while committing these acts of
disgrace. Don't some bad eggs engaged in speculation, graft and theft say
that they are going in for socialist co-operation? Don't some abettors
who poison the minds of young people wave the banner of "care and love for
the successors to the cause of communism!'? We must. study their tactics
and sum up our experience so as to exercise all-round dictatorship over
the bourgeoisie in a more effective way.
"Are you out to stir up a wind of 'communization' "? To fabricate
rumours by posing such a question is a tactic which some persons have
recently resorted to. To this we can answer explicitly: The wind of
"communization" as stirred up by Liu Shao-chi and Chen Po-ta shall never
be allowed to rise again. We have always held that, instead of having
too big a supply of commodities, our country does not yet have a great
abundance of them. So long as the communes cannot yet offer much to be
"communized" with production brigades and teams, and enterprises under
ownership by the whole people cannot offer a great abundance of products
for distribution according to need among our 800 million people, we
will have to continue with commodity production, exchange through money
and distribution according to work. We have taken and will continue
to take proper measures to curb the harm caused by these things. The
dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship by the masses. We are
confident that under the leadership of the Party, the broad masses have
the strength and the ability to fight against the bourgeoisie and finally
vanquish it. Old China was a country submerged in a vast sea of small
production. Conducting socialist education among several hundred million
peasants is always a serious problem and requires the endeavour of several
generations. But the poor and lower-middle peasants form the majority
among the several hundred million peasants, and they know from practice
that the one and only bright path for them is to follow the Communist
Party and advance along the socialist road. Our Party has relied upon
them to unite with the middle peasants for a step-by-step advance from
mutual aid teams to the elementary and advanced agricultural producers'
co-operatives and then to the people's communes, and we can surely lead
them onward.
We would rather call comrades' attention to the fact that it is
another kind of wind which is blowing-- the "bourgeois" wind. This
is the bourgeois style of life Chairman Mao has pointed out, an evil
wind stirred up by those "parts" of the people who have degenerated
into bourgeois elements. The "bourgeois" wind blowing from among those
Communists, particularly leading cadres, who belong to these "parts,"
does the greatest harm to us. Poisoned by this evil wind, some people
are permeated with bourgeois ideas; they scramble for fame and gain and
feel proud instead of ashamed of this. Some have reached the point of
looking at everything as a commodity, including themselves. They join
the Communist Party and do some work for the proletariat merely for the
sake of upgrading themselves as commodities and asking the proletariat
for higher prices. Those who are Communists in name but new bourgeois
elements in reality manifest the features of the decadent and moribund
bourgeoisie as a whole Historically, when the slave-owning, landlord and
capitalist classes were in the ascendancy, they did some good turns for
mankind. The new bourgeois elements today act in diametrical opposition
to their forefathers. They are nothing but a "new" heap of garbage and
can only be destructive to mankind. Among those who spread the rumour
about a wind of "communization" being stirred up, some are new bourgeois
elements who have taken public property into their private possession
and fear that the people would "communize" it again; others are people
who want to seize the opportunity to grab some gains. These people have
a better nose than many of our comrades. Some of our comrades say that
study is a flexible task, whereas those people have sensed by instinct
that the current study is an inflexible task for both classes, the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They may indeed stir up some wind of
"communization" or take over one of our slogans deliberately to confuse
the two different types of contradictions and create some trouble. This
merits our attention.
Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman
Mao, the mighty proletarian revolutionary contingents formed by the
masses in their hundreds of millions in China are striding forward. With
25 years of practical experience in the dictatorship of the proletariat
and the international experience since the Paris Commune, and as long as
the few hundred members of our Party Central Committee and the several
thousand senior cadres take the lead and join the vast numbers of cadres
and masses of people in reading and studying assiduously, conducting
investigation and study and summing up experience, we can certainly
translate Chairman Mao's call into reality, get a clear idea of the
question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and ensure the triumphant
advance of our country along the course charted by Marxism-Leninism-Mao
Tsetung Thought. "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their
chains. They have a world to win." This infinitely bright future will
surely continue to inspire growing numbers of awakened workers and other
working people and their vanguard, the Communists, to keep to the Party's
basic line and persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the
bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of
the proletariat through to the end! The fall of the bourgeoisie and all
other exploiting classes and the victory of communism are inevitable,
certain and independent of man's will.
(A translation of an article in "Hongqi," No. 4, 1975)
[MC5 comments: Zhang Chunqiao, also spelled Chang Chun-chiao was a member
of the "Gang of Four" imprisoned in 1976 by the counterrevolutionary
Hua Guofeng a month after the death of Mao. Removal of Zhang from power
cleared the way for capitalist restoration in China.]
