Chapter 57 6. I admit that I am a "productivity-only theory"

The "Gang of Four" has a big stick called "Only Productivity Theory".If anyone does not engage in their class struggle with them, but actively engages in socialist construction, they will say that he engages in "theory of only productive forces."And the "theory of only productive forces" is a manifestation of counter-revolutionary revisionism.So this person was criticized. The term "Only Productivity Theory" was coined during the "Cultural Revolution".In the past, there was a term called "productivity theory", which was first used in the theoretical works of the Soviet Union.It refers to a point of view of Sukhanov written by Lenin in "On Our Revolution": "Russian productive forces have not yet developed to a level sufficient to realize socialism", so he refused to carry out the October Revolution.Lenin criticized Sukhanov for not understanding the truth that "Marx said that there should be great flexibility in the revolutionary period", and that he was "extremely pedantic".If someone also uses the phrase "China's productive forces have not yet developed to a level sufficient to realize socialism" to oppose the Chinese proletariat leading the Chinese people to carry out revolution, we will be like Lenin criticizing Sukhanov.

Lenin opposed Sukhanov, advocating that under the "revolutionary situation created during the first imperialist war", Russia should carry out a revolution to "obtain unusual conditions for the further development of civilization" and make Russia " able to create the fundamental conditions for the development of civilization in a manner different from that of any other country in Western Europe".Our Chinese revolution also won favorable conditions for our country's socialist construction, but when our cadres and the masses took advantage of such conditions to carry out construction, they were criticized by the "Gang of Four", saying that they had the same views as Sukhanov , isn't it ridiculous!However, the "Gang of Four" was not a Marxist in the first place. For them, they just wanted to create a hat to punish people, and they didn't care about anything else.

Although Lenin criticized Sukhanov in "On Our Revolution", he never denied the assertion that the realization of socialism requires a certain level of productivity. He believed that this was an "indisputable point."What he criticized was not this viewpoint of Marxism, but Sukhanov and others "repeated in a thousand tones, and they felt that this was an argument of decisive significance for evaluating our revolution", and criticized them for not understanding world history at all. To show particularity in the form or sequence of development is rather to presuppose it".Productivity is the decisive factor of social development, which is a basic principle of Marxism.Lenin insisted on this principle when he opposed the heroes of the Second International who adopted it as a mantra against the necessary revolution.

Soviet scholars called Sukhanov's viewpoint criticized by Lenin in "On Our Revolution" the "theory of productive forces." This method of naming is not so good in the first place.It is even more inappropriate to raise another "theory of productive forces" during the "Cultural Revolution".In philosophy, if we admit that consciousness is primary, we call it "idealism"; if we admit that matter is primary, we call it "materialism."Admitting that in social life and social development, the development of productive forces plays a decisive role and is of primary importance, so it can be called "the theory of only productive forces" as a matter of course. "The theory of only productive forces" is an important point of view in Marxist historical materialism, which is not bad.

When two comrades and I were researching and writing a book on the counter-criticism of the "Gang of Four"'s criticism of "the theory of only productive forces," I came up with a way to call Sukhanov's view, that is, to call it "vulgar only productive forces." On ", our opinion is that "the theory of only productive forces" is correct, but it is not correct to vulgarize it.Just as materialism is of course correct, but "vulgar materialism" is not.I advocate not to use "productivity theory" or "productivity theory" to refer to Sukhanov's views in the future.

In the early days of liberation, I used the term "Theory of Productive Forces" in the "Study" magazine, which I copied from a Soviet book.That article did not sign my real name, but used the pseudonym Jun Lin.Take this opportunity to explain this matter, and declare that I will no longer use the term "theory of productive forces" used by Soviet scholars in the future. After smashing the "Gang of Four", everyone understood the reactionary nature of the "Gang of Four"'s criticism of "the theory of only productive forces".However, it is still not clear whether "the theory of productive forces" is a good name or a bad one, and it is still used as a derogatory term in articles and even in important documents.Last winter, the second meeting of learning from Dazhai in agriculture was held.I did not participate in the drafting of the document for this meeting, but when I learned that the "theory of productive forces" was still regarded as a wrong viewpoint in this document, I called the comrades who drafted the document and expressed my disagreement with this idea. wording.Because I raised this opinion, several leading comrades came to me and asked me to express my views. At that time, I stated the opinions mentioned above, and also said something like this:

I am a Marxist.I like to call myself a historical materialist.The basic point of historical materialism is not only that productivity is the determinant of social development, but also other basic principles.I think it is best to call myself a historical materialist.But the argument that productivity is the decisive factor for social development is correct, and such an argument can be referred to simply as "the theory of only productivity". I don't agree with using "the theory of only productivity" as a derogatory term. Productivity Theory", no matter how I criticize it, I am against it.I said, in order to express my firmness and courage, "I can admit that I am a 'productivity theory'".

Regarding my objection to and criticism of the "theory of only productive forces", this is the only one that is readily available, and it is a posthumous account of what happened in early 1977 in 1984.In fact, I spent a lot of time and thought on this matter.At the same time, there are some related things, which are worth writing down, and have not been written down.I would therefore like to take this opportunity to write a postscript to that article. Let me first talk about the situation in early 1977 when three members of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, that is, three vice premiers, came to talk to me.When I wrote the article "I admit that I am a "Only Productivity Theory"", I didn't pay much attention to writing essays, and I didn't pay so much attention to describing specific things.Now that I am striving to be a newcomer in the literary world in the 21st century, I will describe that "summoning" in detail.The three party and state leaders—it seems that they didn’t use that language at that time, and I don’t know when they started to add this title to people of a certain level and position—the place where they summoned me was in Huairen The back hall.I said in the article "I admit that I am a "productivity-only theory"" "When I learned that the 'productivity-only theory' is still a wrong point of view in this document", now I want to be more specific. Specifically, the drafter formally sent me the document and asked me to comment, although I was not formally invited to participate in the drafting work.In the article, it was written that "I made a phone call to the comrade who drafted the document." More specifically, after the phone call, I wrote a two-page letter expressing my objection.

When I was informed to go to Huairen Hall, I didn't know why and who was looking for me.When I arrived, the three deputy prime ministers were there, as if they had said something and were waiting for me to go.At that time, there was a very large conference room in the back hall of Huairen Hall. There were only five of them, three of them and one staff member plus me, so it seemed empty.Executive Vice Premier Ji Dengkui is the keynote speaker, sitting at the head of the conference table.Ji Dengkui said that we have received many comments on the draft document for the conference on learning from Dazhai in agriculture.He gestured with gestures and said that there is such a stack, and only you have the principled opinions, so please come and talk about your opinions in detail.There is nothing wrong with me saying that "the theory of only productivity" is true. I have explained the truth, which is described in my article "I admit to being a "theory of only productivity"".After I finished speaking, Chen Yonggui said a few words.He said that now when the couple quarrels, they accuse each other of being "productivity-only theory". He said that I don't know what "productivity-only theory" is, but now this hat is indeed useful.

His words, of course, support me.At that time, I didn't know much about the relationship between Chen Yonggui and the "Only Productivity Theory".Later, I chatted with Song Zhenming, Minister of Petroleum, and Song Zhenming told me that he once visited Dazhai. People from Daqing received special welcome when they went to Dazhai, and Song Zhenming was allowed to visit many places that ordinary people were not allowed to see.At that time, Chen Yonggui told Song Zhenming a story: Once when Chen Yonggui went to Guangzhou, Xu Shiyou invited Chen Yonggui to a banquet and toasted Chen Yonggui. Xu said that you used to have Xue Rengui in Shanxi, but now you have Chen Yonggui.Chen Yonggui sighed after hearing this, and said how can I compare to Xue Rengui, if I can compare to Xue Rengui, I will not be angry in the central government.After Xu Shiyou heard this, he immediately reported to Mao Zedong that Chen Yonggui said in Guangzhou that he was being angered by the central government.Mao Zedong referred the matter to Premier Zhou Enlai.Zhou Enlai went to Chen Yonggui and asked him who he was angry with in the central government. Chen Yonggui replied that he was angry with Zhang Chunqiao.Zhou Enlai asked Chen why Zhang Chunqiao was angry with you, and Chen replied that I didn't know what "the theory of only productivity" was, but Zhang Chunqiao said that I practiced "theory of only productivity."After Song Zhenming told the story, Chen Yonggui spoke first in Huairen Hall. Chen Yonggui's speech completely matched the story Song Zhenming told.

Li Xiannian did not speak from the beginning to the end.Ji Dengkui did not say anything different from my opinion, but said that he wanted to criticize the "theory of only productive forces" which was clearly written in the report of the Ninth National Congress of the Party.Although this report was made in the name of Lin Biao, Chairman Mao reviewed and agreed to this report. The Learning from Dazhai Conference was just a meeting held by the Central Committee to discuss one aspect of work. We have no right not to write according to the documents of the Congress.After listening to my dissatisfaction, I made a statement that I admit that I am a "productivist only theory", as written in that article. Before this conversation, I had already started writing a book with two comrades to criticize the "Gang of Four" and oppose the "Theory of Productivity". Many points of view were also discussed with those two, and then I put pen to paper.After discussing the title of this book, it was called "Criticism" of the "Gang of Four" on the "Theory of Productivity".Although I did not sign this book, Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang knew that it was written under my auspices. I gave the manuscript of this book to Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang.After Hu Yaobang read the book, he told Deng Xiaoping that the first half of the book was well written, but the latter part was poorly written.We're ready to watch it again ourselves. In August 1977, Deng Xiaoping talked to us once, and mentioned that Li Xin and others still wrote in the report of the 11th National Congress of the Communist Party of China to criticize the "productivity-only theory".Deng Xiaoping also read a paragraph of the report to us, saying that he told Li Xin and other drafters that this way of writing was not acceptable, and told Li Xin and them that he disagreed with writing that "the theory of only productive forces" is a fallacy of revisionism. He also said that from now on, it should be reversed, that is, it should be admitted that the "theory of only productive forces" is correct.Deng Xiaoping said that the development of productive forces should be mentioned. He said that many of our conflicts now depend on the development of productive forces to solve in the final analysis.Speaking of this, he also said, "Criticism of the "Criticism" of the "Gang of Four" and the "Only Productivity Theory" written by you presided over it."It is advocated to revise it. This is a very important issue and can be published. Now I have made such a side note, which can help readers understand the situation of my writing this article.