Louis T. Sigel and `Two-Line Struggle' Analysis: The Myth of the `Objective Standard of Socialism'

Abstract

During the 1970s many Western analysts of Chinese socialism employed the Communist Party of China's (CPC) notion of a struggle between two lines to describe two distinctive and opposite models of development: the 'Maoist' model designed to continue socialist transition and the 'Liuist' model designed to restore capitalism. Though relying closely on the CPC's own official formulations, this method of analysis marked a significant step forward in our understanding of Chinese socialism. It focussed attention firmly on the theoretical and policy conflicts brought into the open by the Cultural Revolution. But the post-Mao leadership's negation of the Cultural Revolution has cast serious doubt on the accuracy of conclusions arising out of 'two-line stuggle' analysis, and on the validity of the analysis itself. Western analysts have had to rethink their positions. Thus in recent times the limitations of 'two-line struggle' analysis have been pointed out. First, the theoretical and policy conflicts characteristic of Chinese socialism are not amenable to a simple 'two-line struggle' classification, and while attention is focussed on conflict, strong elements of continuity are often ignored. Secondly, this oversimplification of issues is also apparent in the reduction of disagreement to questions of line struggle, ignoring questions of functional and organisational differences in policy formulation and implementation.' Thirdly, a number of conclusions about different periods of revolutionary history are either misleading or wrong, especially the claim that Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi always opposed each other.2 Finally, 'two-line struggle' analysis quickly became an ideological construct. It was used to obscure rather than clarify theoretical and policy disputes, especially when employed in China as an instrument of political abuse. It also rests to a large extent on the belief in a 'correct' socialist road in opposition to an 'incorrect' capitalist road; or more specifically, Mao's socialist road and Liu's capitalist road. This belief cannot be accepted