Who rules China Ñ and why?

---

See the Lev Navrozov Archive By Lev Navrozov SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.

To answer this question is no easier than it was to say why Stalin (and not Trotsky), or Khrushchev (and not Beria), and so on, ruled Russia since 1917 and up to 1991.

Under hereditary absolutism, the power was inherited by the ruler's eldest child (primogeniture). It took some eight centuries for the post-Roman West to create the alternative: general elections of heads of government, with universal suffrage and secret ballot. John Stuart Mill drew attention way back in 1859 to the negative side of this arrangement: the more voters elect a head of government, the lower is their average mental level and hence the mental level of the statesman they elect. But even Mill himself could not suggest anything better than universal suffrage. In his time women were disenfranchised (deprived of the right to vote) as mentally inferior to men. But Mill asserted that his wife was more intelligent than he was.

However, for the society envisioned by Marx, ANY government was coercive, tyrannical, and obsolete, just as were ANY police, prisons, or armed forces. The Communist Party of Russia took power in 1917, and the Chinese Communist Party originated in 1921 and took powr in 1949.

At first the solution was easy. Of course, no government or any other obsolete coercive institutions! But the population was not ready for Communism. No government, no police, no armed forces? My God, the country will become a robbers' den. Criminals will rob, rape, and kill with impunityÑwell, everyone will kill not to be killed, and the country will consist of gangs or mafias at war with one another.

Fortunately, in contrast to Marx, Lenin and Mao lived in the age of Òpolitical parties,Ó and so they were the leaders of Communist parties.

Hence Lenin in post-1917 Russia became the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, and Mao in post-1949 China, the Chairman of the Central People's Council of the People's Republic of China. Before Mussolini became the dictator in Italy in 1922, the word ÒdictatorÓ was not bad, and Lenin was not against calling himself a Òdictator.Ó

You see, Marx was against ANY government in a Communist world, but he said nothing about a dictator. In fact, he spoke about the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to defeat the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which called itself democracy. And Lenin argued that it is a superfluous hairsplitting to distinguish between the dictatorship of the working class and the dictatorship of one individual like Lenin (a son of a high-ranking official under Nicholas II and a lawyer by education), for he can express the interests of the working class better than the class itself.

In 1949 the word ÒdictatorÓ had become so obnoxious (after Hitler!) that Mao never tried to apply it to himself.

So far, so good. The best, most progressive, and strictly Marxist form of government without government had been found: here was the dictator, who should not, after 1922, be called the dictator.

The trouble was that Lenin became sick (he had been shot at by a Social-Revolutionary) and died in 1924, while Mao was 83 years old in 1976 and also died. True, Marx had claimed that man can become immortal under Communism when science, and in particular medicine, will develop so tremendously that they will solve this problem as well. Indeed, our country house neighbor Olga Lepeshinskaya was expected to obtain a medicine ensuring immortality for Stalin. Yet Stalin died. As did Lenin and Mao.

The question was: who was to be the dictator (without being called the dictator) after Lenin's death in 1924 and Mao's in 1976?

To answer this question was impossible as it is to say who ought to be the Godfather of a certain mafia.

Many were sure that the successor to Lenin should and/or would be Trotsky. In fact, it was not clear why he had not been the dictator instead of Lenin. He was a better public speaker than Lenin, and he was versatile, knowledgeable, and even witty, while Lenin was humorless, dull, and narrow-minded. But when Lenin became sick, Stalin began to intrigue WITH Trotsky to prevent Lenin's return to power and, after Lenin's death, Stalin intrigued AGAINST Trotsky to deprive him of his succession to Lenin. Then Stalin murdered both Trotsky and all those who intrigued with Stalin AGAINST Trotsky.

Universal suffrage? The leaders of Communist parties did not want it because they would not be elected by a majority: Lenin's party received in free elections only 25percent. of the seats in the Constituent Assembly. Ironically, Stalin established in the mid-1930s general elections with universal suffrage and secret ballot. He received over 99.9percent. of the votes cast: so afraid the voters were to vote against him. I did, but the desperados like myself accounted for a fraction of 0.1 percent.

As of today, China has not yet reached Stalin's general elections with universal suffrage and secret ballot. On Sept. 15, 2004, Hu Jintao, China's dictator, who is called east or west not the dictator, but the President, said on the anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China that democracy is a Òblind alley.Ó My source? ÒThe People's DailyÓ of the Chinese Communist Party.

In the last 15 years of his dictatorship, Stalin played at democracy, and said that his dictatorship was a true democracy, whereas democracy in the West was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Hu is afraid even to play at democracy in 2004 as Stalin and his successors in Soviet Russia did from 1936 to 1991.

Otherwise, politically, post-1949 China seems to be Stalin's Chinese-speaking Russia. No wonder! One example is especially memorable.

I hated the Soviet propaganda-contaminated humanities, and after school I joined the Moscow Energy Institute. Studying at the Institute were Chinese orthodox Stalinists. One of them, Li Peng, arrived even before Mao came to power, graduated from the Institute and left Russia for China about the time the Soviet tanks crushed Hungary's attempt at independence. Many Russians were enraged by the Soviet invasionÑthe mood that led to the fall of the Soviet dictatorship in 1991.

When the Chinese students were invited to join the protest against the Soviet invasion, they said: ÒComrade Mao has sent us here to study, and not to protest. Besides, why should Hungary be independent if all countries are to become under Communism one world?Ó

Yes, Li Peng was one of those who transferred Stalin's Russia to China.

In 1981 he became in China the minister of the ministry of energy, and he climbed to the top of power, where he declared martial law to crush the Tiananmen Square movement. What helped his climb to the top was the fact that he was the adopted son of Ògreat Zhou Enlai,Ó Mao's right hand. Nepotism is rife at the power top in ChinaÑthe result is a kind of family mafia, aware of its interests, and in particular of the need to establish world domination in order to preserve its omnipotence.

Li Peng was instrumental in the dismissal and arrest of Zhao Ziyang, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. But about a decade later, in 1998, Li Peng was kicked out of his top post, just as he had kicked out (and had arrested!) the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Zhao Ziyang.

In Communism, there will be no violence, and hence no need for the government, the police, or the armed forces. This is why Communism will have to be global, according to Marx, or bourgeois countries will conquer Communist countries having no armed forces.

When Communists use the word ÒCommunismÓ they mean Òworld Communism.Ó To establish it requires a global effort, such as a molecular nano strike. This is why the flag is red, the color of blood. And the five-pronged star? When it was designed, it was believed that there are five continents (Europe, Asia, Africa, and two Americas) to be united under Communism. Certainly in world Communism there will be no government or police. Only the General Secretary of the World Communist Party and the Ministry of World Security.

The cause for which Li Peng lived in Stalin's Russia, studied at the Moscow Energy Institute, and later proclaimed martial law to crush the Tiananmen movement has not been lost, but, on the contrary, has been advancing to its global realization. On December 26, 2003 (the 110th anniversary of Mao's birth), the Daily of the People's Liberation Army published his effigy against the red banners with the inscription ÒMao Zedong: Great ForeverÓ and offered his selected military works.

The creed is ÒMarxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.Ó Yes, Marx, Lenin, and Mao envisioned Communism as the future of all mankind.

* * * * *

For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org

To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a Ònano Manhattan Project,Ó go to crnano.org.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.