Originally published at: 不学无术、误人子弟、倚老卖老的阳和平——评阳和平在路线和路线斗争问题上的机会主义观点 – 曙光
The aimless, misleading, and old-guard style of Yang Heping—Commentary on Yang Heping's Opportunist Views on Line and Line Struggle
Editorial Board of League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Proletariat
毛主席教导我们：“阶级斗争，一些阶级胜利了，一些阶级消灭了。这就是历史，这就是几千年的文明史。”[1] 今天，无产阶级与资产阶级之间的斗争决定着整个人类文明的命运前途。这场阶级斗争反映在社会的方方面面，也反映在无产阶级为自己和全人类争取解放的国际共产主义运动中。日益接近灭亡的资产阶级不断地将自己的代理人塞入共产党内，让他们拥护、推行错误路线，破坏无产阶级的革命运动；而无产阶级则十分注意党内的阶级斗争，通过坚持正确路线、清洗机会主义分子的方式巩固先锋队，将革命运动推向前进。
毛主席语录
可见，路线和路线斗争问题是国际共产主义运动的根本问题。路线，即思想政治路线，是一定阶级的世界观和利益的集中体现，是制定和执行一切方针、政策的出发点；路线斗争，即两个敌对阶级之间或一个阶级中不同集团之间的重大思想政治斗争。路线和路线斗争问题，归根结底就是要搞马克思主义还是要搞机会主义、修正主义的问题，就是要走社会主义道路还是要走资本主义道路的问题。因此，毛主席向来非常重视路线问题，他指出：“思想上政治上的路线正确与否是决定一切的。党的路线正确就有一切，没有人可以有人，没有枪可以有枪，没有政权可以有政权。路线不正确，有了也可以丢掉。路线是个纲，纲举目张。”
然而，一贯以“马列毛主义者”自居的阳和平，却在路线和路线斗争问题上不断炮制谬论。他极力歪曲毛主席关于正确区分和处理两类不同性质的矛盾的指示，借口“人民内部矛盾是大量的、敌我矛盾是少数的”来抹杀路线和路线斗争的阶级性质，并用马克思主义的词句偷运左圈那套无原则“大团结”、“大联合”的黑货。阳和平最近的一期视频——“争论要区分方向和方法，不能光学列宁的犀利”，正是他机会主义观点的大暴露。
“路线斗争实质上是方法之争”
在这一期视频中，阳和平胡说什么路线斗争的实质是“方法之争”。在他看来，解放前中国共产党内的斗争全都是“从心眼里要革命”的“革命者”之间关于“如何推动进步事业”的“方法之争”。而关于是走社会主义道路还是资本主义道路的“方向之争”（或“道路之争”），只是在解放后才出现的事物。前者是“人民内部矛盾”，而后者才是敌我矛盾。实际上，阳和平在这里玩弄的不过是“阶级斗争熄灭论”的把戏。他企图否认党内的路线斗争始终是你死我活的阶级斗争，认为社会上的阶级斗争是后来才反映到党内的。然而，阳和平的这套谬论和他的老前辈德波林学派的说法一样，是完全站不住脚的。
阳和平先生在路线斗争问题上实行的“变革”
苏联的德波林学派认为，矛盾是在事物发展的中途才出现的，而在事物发展的始初阶段，事物内部只有差异、并无矛盾。这种形而上学的观点与唯物辩证法根本违背的——矛盾是事物发展的动力，它是无时不在、无处不在的。如果一个事物的内部不存在矛盾，那么它又怎能得到发展呢？差异就是矛盾，只不过是还没有激化的矛盾罢了。德波林学派的理论其实际上是服务于苏联当时的富农阶级的。他们说，苏联的富农和一般农民之间也是只有差异、并无矛盾，因而将富农作为剥削阶级消灭的斗争是不必要的。同样的，阳和平这种认为在机会主义者与真正的马克思主义者之间存在的只是“方法”上的差异的观点，也只是在为机会主义效劳。
诚然，中国无产阶级同资产阶级斗争的形势在解放后发生了很大的变化。资产阶级的核心力量转到了共产党内、转为了党内走资本主义道路的当权派，并且党内的路线斗争由于资产阶级千方百计地恢复他们失去的“天堂”而比解放前激烈十倍、百倍。但是，路线斗争是社会上的阶级斗争在共产党内的反映，而社会上的阶级斗争是一直存在的。因此，任何一国的共产党从成立的那一天起，其内部就存在着两条路线的斗争。这两条路线的斗争从一开始也就和社会上的阶级斗争一样是你死我活的，是要革命、坚持革命的人与不要革命、叛卖革命的人之间的斗争，而不是什么要革命的人关于如何革命的斗争。这一点，已经由中国共产党前六次路线斗争的历史所充分证明了。陈独秀、李立三、王明、张国焘等机会主义、修正主义者正是帝、修、反在共产党内的代理人。与阳和平所说的根本不同，他们不是什么“从心眼里要革命”的“革命者”。而以他们为代表的“左”、右倾机会主义路线与以毛主席为代表的马克思主义路线之间的斗争，也不是什么关于“如何推动进步事业”的“方法之争”。
机会主义者、汉奸、卖国贼陈独秀
党内第一次右倾机会主义路线的代表人物陈独秀出身于官僚地主家庭。他始终不是一名真正的马克思主义者，而是一个资产阶级民主主义者；他的政治目标不是实现社会主义、共产主义，而是建立一个资产阶级民主共和国。因此，陈独秀在民主革命的领导权问题上主张所谓“二次革命论”，认为中国革命既然在当时处于资产阶级民主革命阶段，那么便自然应当由资产阶级来领导。并且，革命的结果也只能是建立一个资产阶级共和国，无产阶级只能等到资本主义充分发展起来后再发动社会主义革命。这套不争取民主革命领导权、使无产阶级成为资产阶级的附庸和尾巴的机会主义理论一经出台，就使得以蒋介石为首的国民党右派的反共活动猖狂起来。他们将共产党员排挤出国民党，污蔑共产党要“阴谋暴动”、“破坏革命”，借机收缴工人武装，剥夺共产党人的兵权。面对如此危急的情形，毛主席主张给蒋介石的反革命行径以迎头痛击，而陈独秀却借口什么“防止国民党退出统一战线”不断向蒋介石妥协、让步，将共产党人所掌握的国民革命军第一军拱手让与蒋介石，甚至无耻地向他写信献媚：“在广州阴谋倒蒋，这是何等助长反动势力，这是何等反革命！介石先生，如果中国共产党是这样一个反革命的党，你就应该起来打倒它，为世界革命去掉一个反革命团体，如果是共产党同志中那一个人有这样反革命的阴谋，你就应该枪毙他，丝毫用不着客气。”[2]陈独秀的右倾机会主义路线，最终使蒋介石一伙得以充分准备并悍然发动了四·一二反革命政变。在政变的头三天内，上海遭到逮捕和杀害的共产党员与革命群众达八百余人，流亡失踪者逾五千人。在广东反动派发动的四·一五反革命政变中，黄埔军校和省港罢工委员会的武装被解除，共产党员和革命群众二千一百余人惨遭屠杀。霎时间，人民的鲜血染红了祖国大地……更令人气愤的是，当一个月长沙十万农军在毛主席革命路线的引领下即将对长沙发动总攻、力图挽救革命之时，陈独秀还在恬不知耻地下令“农民不得进行武装斗争”，最终使反革命势力得以纠集力量猖狂反扑，长沙附近一万余名共产党员和革命群众尸横遍野，革命的前途又一次被葬送！这就是阳和平口中“从心眼里要革命”的“革命者”干的勾当！这就是所谓“不同方法”所导致的结果！并且，在被开除出党后，陈独秀还勾结一小撮托洛茨基分子参加国民党特务机构。在抗日战争中，陈独秀一伙更是丧心病狂地接受托洛茨基“不妨碍日本帝国主义占领中国”的指令，领取日本津贴、从事卖国活动，彻底堕落为了无耻的汉奸、卖国贼。
再以党的历史上统治时间最久、流毒最深、给革命造成损失最大的王明“左”倾机会主义路线为例。王明等人实际上根本不了解中国革命的实际情况，然而他们却凭借着自己留苏的政治资本，利用立三路线破产后党内若干“左”倾思想和“左”倾政策尚未得到清算的时机，在暗藏的托派分子共产国际代表米夫的帮助下欺骗了一部分犯了经验主义错误的同志，最终通过改选政治局成员的阴谋手段篡夺了党中央。在第五次反“围剿”中，王明一伙极力反对毛主席的革命军事路线，大喊大叫什么“不放弃根据地的一寸土地”、“进行中国两条道路的决战”，完全忽视敌强我弱的客观情况，大打阵地战、“正规战”的，结果使根据地、红军和党遭受到重大损失——根据地损失了百分之九十、红军由三十万人减到不足三万人、党员由三十万人降到几万人，对革命造成了巨大的损害。在解放后，王明还公然叛国投敌，卖身于苏修社会帝国主义，在苏修报刊上发表各种反华反共反马列主义的黑文，完全堕落为帝、修、反的走狗。
历史的教训告诉我们，历次机会主义路线所造成的破坏之大、所导致的后果之坏，根本不只是一句简单的“方法之争”所能够解释的。实际上，陈独秀、王明等机会主义分子之所以能窃取党的领导权，从根本上是因为小资产阶级知识分子占据了早期中国共产党的大多数。他们未经无产阶级化，身上保留了许多小资产阶级的劣根性和动摇性。于是，当封建军阀、地主买办向革命力量发起猖狂进攻时，小资产阶级由于他们的软弱性，畏惧资产阶级的力量，便成为了投降主义的陈独秀路线的基础；而当革命形势稍有好转时，小资产阶级又由于他们的狂热性——不能正确判断革命形势、希望马上胜利以改变本阶级所处的地位、不愿做艰苦的农村根据地建设工作与发动农民的工作，转而拥护瞿秋白、李立三和王明的“左”倾机会主义路线。可见，历次机会主义路线的产生并不是无来由的，而是有其阶级根源的。中国共产党《关于若干历史问题的决议》指出，由于小资产阶级一方面深受“三座大山”压迫、另一方面作为私有者和小生产者的两面性，这个阶级的思想从根本上来说是“反马克思列宁主义、反无产阶级”的，他们（在无产阶级先进分子没有坚决与之划清界限并进行严肃且耐心的教育和斗争的情况下）往往“力图以他们自己的本来面貌来代替党的无产阶级先进部队的面貌，实行篡党”。[3] 对于小资产阶级而言，情况尚且如此，更何况那些受到资产阶级的收买和指示的伯恩施坦之流呢？可见，无论是理论还是实践，都已经证明了阳和平否认路线斗争的阶级斗争性质的荒谬性。
然而，我们的阳和平先生并没有到此为止，他又接着兜售起“路线斗争不可知论”，说什么即便解放前果真存在着敌我矛盾，那么也是很难分辨的，最终只能够经过“实践的检验”才能认清修正主义者和反革命分子及其路线的实质。这套说法充分地表明，阳和平在哲学上也是一个形而上学和不可知论者。他认为，人的认识只能落后于客观事物的发展进程，从而完全否认了人们通过掌握一般规律而预见事物发展前途的可能。但是，列宁早就已经在《怎么办？》中指出，“‘思想家’所以配称为思想家，就是因为他走在自发运动的前面，为它指出道路，善于比其他人更先解决运动的‘物质因素’自发地遇到的一切理论的、政治的、策略的和组织的问题。”[4]在中国共产党的历史上，毛主席正是凭借着高超的马列主义水平，在历次错误路线初现端倪时见微知著，正确地识别出了它们并与之进行了坚决的斗争。例如，毛主席之所以写作《中国社会各阶层的分析》一文，便正是为了反对陈独秀认为中国的无产阶级还不成熟而主张由“更有力量”的资产阶级领导民主革命的右倾投降主义观点。总之，“路线斗争不可知吗？上当受骗是注定不可避免的吗？不对。问题在于是否‘认真看书学习，弄通马克思主义’。”
阳和平大搞“路线斗争不可知论”，实际上不过是他不学无术的反映。
“解决路线问题要一团和气、不要严肃批评”
既然路线斗争的本质是“方法之争”，那么这样的分歧应该如何解决呢？为了回答这个问题，阳和平捏造了所谓列宁和毛主席在党内斗争中采取的“不同策略”，并用什么“环境不同”、“任务不同”来解释这种“策略不同”的情况——列宁之所以能够“犀利”地批判机会主义、修正主义，是因为列宁总是作为党的领袖，面临的任务是“提纯”革命队伍；而毛主席之所以提倡惩前毖后、治病救人，是因为当时的中国共产党已经具有了“一致的大方向”。
However, first we must point out two basic historical facts to Yang Heping, who lacks knowledge of the history of the international communist movement: First, Lenin was fundamentally not as he claimed "rarely a minority." At the 1906 Stockholm Congress, the Bolsheviks, represented by Lenin, were in the minority. Before and during World War I, in the international Social Democratic movement, the revolutionary left led by the Russian Bolsheviks was in the minority. During the civil war, in the struggle over the peace treaty with Germany, Lenin, who advocated signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, was also in the minority for a time. The reason why the correct line always eventually gains the majority of the party is precisely because Lenin, each time, promoted the revolutionary spirit of opposing the trend and resolutely fought against wrong lines, rather than implementing unprincipled "unity" simply because he was in the minority, as Stalin said: "Lenin was never a prisoner of the majority"[6]. Second, within the early Chinese Communist Party, it was also not as Yang Heping claims—"the vast majority agree with the revolutionary direction"—but rather there were many petty bourgeois and even bourgeois elements, to the extent that the party's first congress elected the bourgeois radical Chen Duxiu as secretary-general, and successive "left" and right opportunist lines once had significant influence for a period, even causing great damage to the revolutionary prospects. This was inevitable in the early days of the party, in old China where the peasant petty bourgeoisie made up the majority of the population. Clearly, Chairman Mao did not start activity on a "cleaned-up battlefield." On the contrary, it was through his relentless principled struggle that the Chinese Communist Party gradually matured and ultimately established Mao Zedong Thought as the guiding ideology of the party. The two facts above demonstrate that the kind of "environment" or "conditions" that Yang Heping claims would lead Lenin and Chairman Mao to "adopt different intra-party struggle strategies" simply do not exist.
Secondly, removing opportunists within the revolutionary ranks (which Yang Heping vulgarizes as "purification") is not a special task faced only by Lenin. In this regard, no matter the historical period, the proletarian revolutionary party cannot stop the task of identifying, fighting, and cleansing opportunists at any moment.
"... intra-party struggle gives strength and vitality to the party, whereas the party's vagueness and unclear boundaries are the greatest proof of its weakness; the party is strengthened by purging itself..."[7].
Rectification of the "Three Styles" and the Yan'an Rectification Movement to purge opportunist lines from ideological roots
Finally, regarding the strategy of intra-party struggle itself, Lenin and Chairman Mao’s policies are fundamentally consistent—they correctly distinguish between two types of contradictions of different natures, and accordingly adopt either democratic or dictatorial methods based on the nature of the contradictions, while insisting on principled struggle in any case. Yang Heping’s viewpoint can only show that he fundamentally does not understand the dialectical relationship between unity and struggle—unity and struggle are unified, with the former as the goal and the latter as the means. In Yang Heping’s view, unity and struggle have become disconnected, and the revolutionary principle of "unity—criticism—unity" does not exist, as if revolutionaries, once in leadership or majority position, can carry out brutal struggle and ruthless attacks, but once they lose power, they must abandon principles and positions, deny struggle, and unite unconditionally.
The creator of the "Six No's" theory—traitor, traitor, and factory spy Liu Shaoqi
Exposing Yang Heping’s entire set of fallacies, we must also reveal the purpose behind these fallacies. Yang Heping, who talks about punishing the past and healing the sick to save people, actually does not understand the meaning of this policy at all, and uses it to smuggle Liu Shaoqi’s "party peace theory." Chairman Mao pointed out in "Rectifying the Party’s Work Style": "First, 'punish the past to prevent future errors'; second, 'treat the disease and save people.' It is necessary to expose past mistakes without sparing feelings, and analyze and criticize the bad things of the past with a scientific attitude."[8]. But Yang Heping claims that punishing the past and healing the sick means believing "those who persist in wrong lines are revolutionary," and he does not talk about criticizing wrong lines at all, which not only negates the fundamental meaning of punishing the past but also distorts healing the sick into unprincipled complacency. This is simply a replica of Liu Shaoqi’s "party peace theory" that party members should be "lenient and tolerant" and "yield and compromise." The reason why Yang Heping’s position is so remarkably similar to Liu Shaoqi’s is because their views on line struggle are consistent— the former says "line struggle is essentially a struggle of methods," and the latter says "because different party members have different ways of viewing problems, their methods of handling issues also differ, leading to disagreements and debates within the party, which causes intra-party struggle."
Yang Heping’s "unity" based on the "party internal peace theory" is also necessarily hypocritical and reactionary. On women’s issues, he absurdly claims that many male chauvinists "are not part of the ruling class," "do not control the state machinery," and "lack repression tools"; therefore, their problems are merely "issues of ideological understanding." Regardless of where Yang Heping’s assertion that most male chauvinists are not bourgeois or wealthy petty bourgeoisie who exploit labor comes from—perhaps from his "statistics around him" and "bullet screen statistics"—even if these male chauvinists are not from the ruling class themselves, when they spy, harass, molest, rape, commit domestic violence, and murder women, are they not oppressors? Isn’t their oppression of women almost always tacitly tolerated, sheltered, and condoned by the ruling class? Perhaps Yang Heping has indeed achieved a "unity" with a small group of male chauvinists in a disgusting mud pit, but where does he place the nearly half of the population who are working women? Clearly, the "unity" Yang Heping speaks of is not unity with the vast majority of oppressed people, but collusion with a handful of opportunists and revisionists!
For denying line struggle and harming revolutionary movement with "Chama Fan"
Why does Yang Heping engage in opportunism on line issues? Certain political stances always reflect certain class interests, and this is also true for him. Yang Heping has always been accustomed to using his set of seemingly plausible, ambiguous, superficially Marxist but actually capitalist vulgar views to cater to various bourgeois and petty bourgeois factions—which is also why his followers are a mixed bag, with various political colors, including some male chauvinists[9].
Yang Heping, who calls himself a "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist," already plays with Marxism and propagates various opportunist fallacies for his own benefit. This has seriously tarnished the reputation of Marxists. Besides selling revisionism on line issues, his predictions about current affairs are also inaccurate, to the extent that his followers joke: "Old Yang is anti-buying, villas by the sea." Moreover, Yang Heping has no spirit of self-criticism—although he often talks about "criticism and self-criticism." The development of objective phenomena repeatedly proves the errors of Yang Heping’s views, yet he always argues that he is concerned with "underlying regularities" and that his views on "regularities" are not wrong. Marxism is not dogma, but a guide to action. If the "laws" that cannot be used to analyze reality and guide practice have any value, what are they? Lowering revolutionary theory to this level is nothing but damaging the reputation of Marxism.
We have previously analyzed that Yang Heping’s set of propositions is nothing more than a form of theory wrapped around the left circle’s unprincipled "unity" view. This view has an extremely harmful effect on actual revolutionary movements. Lenin in "What Is To Be Done?" mentioned that the third stage of the development of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was a "period of chaos, dispersion, and wavering"[10], and our current situation is very similar! The left circle in China is truly an "Ogyas cattle pen," with An, Tuo, Xi, and Xiud especially rampant under the banner of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." They have invented countless new "lines"—whether "integrated worker line" or "political newspaper line"—which are actually just theoretical justifications for their refusal to study theory, engage in ideological struggle, form cliques, and opportunistically defend revolution. The question is, can we really believe their verbal claims of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," consider them "revolutionaries from the bottom of their hearts," and treat their disputes with genuine Marxists as mere "method" differences? Certainly, to strengthen revolutionary forces, we must practice unity, but there are two issues—first, with whom to unite, and second, how to unite. Our answer to the former is to unite those in the left circle who are temporarily deceived and willing to transform their worldview, willing to connect with the working masses, and never implement "alliance at any cost." For the latter, our answer is that to achieve unity, thorough ideological and theoretical struggle is necessary.
"Without ideological unity, organizational unity is meaningless"[11]. The reason why the left circle still has not achieved the "unity" they verbally call for, but instead is split into countless sects and factions fighting each other, is precisely because they do not seriously conduct theoretical and ideological struggle based on Marxism, but instead are extremely hostile to genuine revolutionary unity based on Marxism.Long-term lack of serious theoretical study, detachment from the broad masses and fiery class struggle[12] has already led Yang Heping onto the opportunist path, causing serious damage to the revolution. The broad masses and Marxists who truly want revolution must recognize Yang Heping’s true face of misleading people, being useless, and relying on old tricks. In the process of criticizing such pseudo-Marxists, the true Marxist ideas can be promoted.
- Mao Zedong: "Drop the Illusions, Prepare for Struggle," "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," Vol. 1, People's Publishing House, 1967. ↑
- Quoted from the Political Teaching and Research Office of Hubei Normal University: "Chen Duxiu is a thorough surrenderist," "Hebei Normal University," 1975, Issue 6. ↑
- Central Committee of the Communist Party of China: "Resolution on Several Historical Issues," quoted from "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," Vol. 1, People's Publishing House, 1967. ↑
- Lenin: "What Is To Be Done?", "Collected Works of Lenin," Vol. 5, People's Publishing House, 1959. ↑
- Editorial Board of "People's Daily": "The Masses Are the True Heroes," May 29, 1976, "People's Daily." ↑
- Stalin: "On Lenin," "Memoirs of Lenin," China Youth Publishing House, 1957. ↑
- Quoted from Lenin: "What Is To Be Done?", "Collected Works of Lenin," Vol. 5, People's Publishing House, 1959. ↑
- Mao Zedong: "Rectify the Party’s Work Style," "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," Vol. 1, People's Publishing House, 1967. ↑
- In the comments section of Yang Heping’s video on women’s issues, many male chauvinists lament that "Old Yang" has "fallen behind the times" due to "lack of understanding" and "backwardness," and have even concluded that "Chinese society is a male chauvinist society." ↑
- Lenin: "What Is To Be Done?", "Collected Works of Lenin," Vol. 5, People's Publishing House, 1959. ↑
- Lenin: "The Congress of the International Socialist Organization of Russia," "Collected Works of Lenin," Vol. 5, People's Publishing House, 1959. ↑
- We have already mentioned this in "Yang’s Foolishness Can Still Be Taught, and the Evil of the Cultivator," (First Issue of "Dawn" magazine). Although Yang Heping repeatedly claims that opponents do not understand his "revolutionary practice," he has not been able to clarify what exactly his "revolutionary practice" is. ↑