A Forceful Criticism of Lin Piao’s
Right-Deviationist Pessimism
— Notes on Studying A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire
by Shih Chih-chien
[This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #2, January 11,
1974, pp. 7-9.]
In his report to the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party
of China, Comrade Chou En-lai pointed out: “Lin Piao joined the Communist Party in the early days of China’s
new-democratic revolution. Even at that time he was pessimistic about the future of the Chinese revolution.
Right after the Kutien Meeting held in December 1929, Chairman Mao wrote a long letter ‘A Single Spark Can
Start a Prairie Fire’ to Lin Piao, trying seriously and patiently to educate him.” Dated January 5, 1930,
Chairman Mao’s letter is included in “Selected Works of Mao Tsetung,” Vol. 1.
The following article gives a brief account of the background and basic
idea of the letter and analyses the sources of Lin Piao’s Right-deviationist pessimistic ideas. —Ed.
AFTER the failure of the First Revolutionary Civil War*
in 1927, the Chinese revolution was temporarily at a low ebb. A fierce struggle between the two lines took
place in the Party at that time, centring on how to look at the situation and future of the revolution and
which road the Chinese revolution should follow.
On the one hand, the Right capitulationists represented by Chen Tu-hsiu,
badly frightened by Chiang Kai-shek’s bloody massacres, moved from capitulationism to liquidationism—opposing
the Party leadership over armed struggle and maintaining that the Chinese democratic revolution had been
“completed” and that a “socialist revolution” would be carried out some time in the future when conditions
were ripe.
On the other hand, the “Left” putschists represented by Chu Chiu-pai, while
denying the defeat of the Great Revolution, regarded the revolutionary situation in China as a “permanent
upsurge.” With the big cities as centres, they tried to organize local uprisings which had no prospect of
success.
In the face of such a situation, Chairman Mao, the great leader of the Chinese
people, waged a resolute struggle against the opportunist lines pushed by Chen Tu-hsiu and Chu Chiu-pai,
united with the revolutionary comrades in the Party, vigorously carried on armed struggle and set up
revolutionary bases, thus advancing the Chinese revolution to a new stage.
At this crucial historical juncture, Lin Piao sided completely with the Right
opportunists. Regarding it as hopeless, he felt that “the situation in China and the world as a whole gave
no cause for optimism” and that “the prospects of victory for the revolution were remote,” Pessimistic and
despondent, he raised the question: “How long can we keep the Red Flag flying?” This fully showed that,
intimidated by the counter-revolutionary tide which seemed powerful in appearance, Lin Piao had lost
confidence in the revolution and consequently had become a waverer.
A Diametrically Opposite Appraisal of the Situation
In his famous letter A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire, Chairman
Mao tried seriously and patiently to educate Lin Piao in the light of the latter’s Right-deviationist
pessimistic views. On the question of how to size up the revolutionary situation, Chairman Mao, while
criticizing the “Left” putschism represented by Chu Chiu-pai who regarded the revolutionary situation as
a “permanent upsurge,” emphatically criticized the Right deviationist pessimism represented by Lin Piao.
Chairman Mao pointed out: “Underestimating the subjective forces of the revolution and overestimating
the forces of the counter-revolution would also constitute an improper appraisal and be certain to produce
bad results of another kind.”
Whether there would soon be a revolutionary high tide in China could be
decided only by making a detailed examination to ascertain whether the contradictions leading to such a high
tide were really developing. Precisely by employing the basic principles of dialectical materialism and
historical materialism to scientifically analyse the contradictions in Chinese society and the situation
regarding class struggle at that time, Chairman Mao came to the clear-cut conclusion: “Once we understand
all these contradictions, we shall see in what a desperate situation, in what a chaotic state, China finds
herself.” “All China is littered with dry faggots which will soon be aflame.” “We need only look at the
strikes by the workers, the uprisings by the peasants, the mutinies of soldiers and the strikes of students
which are developing in many places to see that it cannot be long before a ‘spark’ kindles ‘a prairie
fire.’”
When the revolution met great difficulties, Chairman Mao went beyond
phenomena to view the essence of the situation, pointing out that “it was actually the time when the
counter-revolutionary tide had begun to ebb and the revolutionary tide to rise again” and the
revolutionary forces’ “growth is not only possible but indeed inevitable.” Showing a high degree of
revolutionary optimism, he rid the revolutionary ranks of pessimistic sentiment and at the same time
organized them, to overcome all difficulties and obstacles on their road of advance, thereby guiding the
Chinese revolution to win new victories. This fully demonstrated a proletarian revolutionary’s steadfast
principled stand and his dauntless spirit of daring to go against the tide.
Why did Lin Plao arrive at a diametrically opposite conclusion regarding
the same revolutionary situation? It was simply because he took the stand of the landlord and capitalist
classes and viewed the revolutionary situation from an idealist and metaphysical world outlook. Directing
his criticism at this world outlook of Lin Piao’s, Chairman Mao pointed out: “When we look at a thing,
we must examine its essence and treat its appearance merely as an usher at the threshold, and once we
cross the threshold, we must grasp the essence of the thing; this is the only reliable and scientific
method of analysis.” Seeing through the appearance to perceive the essence is an important question
in the Marxist theory of knowledge and an important method in using the materialist-dialectical world
outlook to observe and know thjngs.
Shutting his eyes to the social contradictions and the reality of class
struggle in China at that time, Lin Piao reversed the order between the essence and the phenomenon, between
the whole and the parts and between the principal and the secondary aspects, and regarded what was
developing and changing as static and isolated. Only seeing the superficial phenomenon that the enemy was
powerful for the time being and the revolution was temporarily at a low ebb he failed to see that the
enemy would inevitably go from strong to weak and that the revolutionary high tide would surely come. He
did not know in the least that so long as there was a correct political line, a revolutionary “single
spark,” though it appeared to be weak for a time and might continue to suffer from the reactionary classes’
bloody suppression, would sooner or later burst into ever raging flames and finally become a prairie fire
which would consume everything decadent in ashes.
Lin Piao was absolutely ignorant of the objective law of historical
development that new-born things are bound to triumph over the decadent and that the revolutionary forces
are bound to defeat the reactionary forces. When there were some dark clouds, he thought that the sun
would never come out again and everything was finished. A man like Lin Piao who did not care a bit about
the masses and the Party and was chicken-hearted in the face of the enemy invariably overestimated the
enemy’s forces and underestimated the people’s forces. When the revolution suffered set-backs, he always
became pessimistic and wavered and even deserted and betrayed the revolution.
A Different Conclusion Concerning the Revolutionary Road
Different appraisals of the situation invariably lead to different
conclusions as to the road to be taken by the Chinese revolution. Lin Piao did all he could to oppose the
correct course charted by Chairman Mao—the road of setting up revolutionary political power in the rural
areas, deepening the agrarian revolution and expanding the people’s armed forces, so as to speed up the
revolutionary high tide throughout the country. He babbled that it would be lost labour to try to establish
political power by hard work; instead he expected to extend political influence through the easier method
of roving guerrilla actions. He advocated the fallacy that “we must first win over the masses and then
establish political power.”
At a time when the Chinese revolution was at a critical juncture, could
roving guerrilla actions win over the masses and hasten a great nationwide revolution? Absolutely not!
Sharply criticizing Lin-Piao’s “roving guerrilla actions,” Chairman Mao incisively pointed out that “the
policy which merely calls for roving guerrilla actions cannot accomplish the task of accelerating this
nationwide revolutionary high tide” and “their theory that we must first win over the masses on a
country-wide scale and in all regions and then establish political power does not accord with the actual
state of the Chinese revolution.” He added: “The policy of establishing base areas; of systematically
setting up political power; of deepening the agrarian revolution; of expanding the people’s armed forces”
“is undoubtedly correct.”
That Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line is correct is because it is based on
Marxism-Leninism and on a scientific analysis of the contradictions in Chinese society and their
interrelations as well as an analysis of the balance of class forces. Judging from the actual conditions
in China at that time, the landlord class was the main social foundation of the country’s rulers while the
ruthlessly exploited and oppressed peasants were the main force of the Chinese revolution. It follows from
this that to lead the revolution to victory, the proletariat must mobilize and arm the peasants to carry
out the agrarian revolution and overthrow the landlord class. Only in this way could mighty revolutionary
contingents be formed to put an end to the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism in
China. To make the peasantry the main force of the Chinese revolution, it was necessary to set up
revolutionary base areas in the countryside. Moreover, it was only natural that we could not fight decisive
battles in big cities because the powerful imperialists and their allies—the reactionary ruling classes—had
long held the major cities and the emerging revolutionary forces were still not very strong. The only road
was to turn the vast and backward countryside into strong military, political, economic and cultural
revolutionary positions. Only by doing this could we defeat the ferocious enemies and step by step win
complete victory in the revolution through protracted battles.
The historical experience of the Second Revolutionary Civil War (1927-37)
proved that it was only after the revolutionary base areas had been set up that we were able to extend
our political influence, deal the reactionary ruling classes fatal blows, shake and disintegrate the
counter-revolutionary camp, and accumulate the revolutionary strength and develop the people’s armed
forces. Only thus could we hasten the revolutionary high tide. Lin Piao knew nothing about all this and
his empty verbiage such as “winning over the masses,” “extending political influence” and “a great
nationwide revolution” without setting up revolutionary base areas was sheer humbug. If we had followed
his reactionary ideas, the Chinese revolution would have been defeated.
Nearly half a century has elapsed since Chairman Mao wrote A Single
Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire, and Lin Piao was finally swept into the dust-bin of history. This
was the inevitable result of his long persistence in the landlord and bourgeois world outlook and the
Right opportunist line. Though the Party and Chairman Mao patiently and seriously criticized and
educated Lin Piao over a long period of time, he obstinately clung to his bourgeois idealist world
outlook and refused to remould it. At every critical point in the revolution in later years, Lin Piao
always made Right-deviationist mistakes and finally got on the criminal road of betraying the Party and
the state. What was ridiculous was that after the convening of the Ninth Party Congress in 1969 this
clown who went against the tide of history had the effrontery to deck himself out with fine feathers and
brag, “Since I have lofty ideals and firm faith in Marxism-Leninism, why should I doubt that a single
spark can start a prairie fire?” But this was only a futile attempt to reverse the earlier correct
verdict on his Right-deviationist pessimism. He resorted to all kinds of counter-revolutionary
double-dealing tactics to try to deceive the Party and people, but sham is sham and history inexorably
tore away from him all his masks. He together with the lies he spread finally crashed to pieces at
Undur Khan in the People’s Republic of Mongolia, and he, a traitor, will remain for all time
notorious.
_______________
* This was the great revolutionary war fought by the Chinese people
against imperialism and feudalism in 1924-27. After getting the Kuomintang led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen to co-operate
in 1924, the Communist Party of China organized the National Revolutionary Army and brought about a nationwide
revolutionary high tide. Setting out from its base in Kwangtung Province in 1926, the army started the Northern
Expedition to overthrow warlord rule and, in spring 1927, advanced to the Yangtze and Yellow River basins. Just
as the revolutionary situation was rapidly developing, the Right opportunist line represented by Chen Tu-hsiu
became dominant in the Party’s leading organ, and the Kuomintang Rightists headed by Chiang Kai-shek ganged up
with the imperialists in launching a counter-revolutionary coup d’etat. As a result, the Great Revolution ended
in failure and Chiang Kai-shek set up his reactionary rule with imperialist backing. Following this, there was
a temporary low ebb in the Chinese revolution.
Return to Peking Review article list
MASSLINE.ORG Home Page