View of History
p What are the basic tenets of Mao Tse-tung’s outlook? The Marxist propositions that occur with such frequency in Mao’s writings by no means tally with his own “original” interpretations of many philosophical questions in which he expresses his own basic outlook. This applies to problems concerning the relationship between the objective laws of social development and conscious human activity, the economic basis of society and its political superstructure, social being and social ideas. In order to make a correct assessment of the essence of Maoist “philosophy” it is necessary to examine the way it treats the relationship between theory and practice, between spiritual and material activity. It is necessary to see whether the Maoists are guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism in their approach to social phenomena, in their activities and policy-making. In other words, it is necessary to bracket off the Marxist terminology Maoism exploits.
p If we examine Maoism from this point of view, we shall find that it takes its departure from the primacy of the subjective factor: "subjective activity”, politics and ideas. This is expressed in such premises as the following: production relations and not the productive forces play the major role in the socialist mode of production; politics and not economics are the ruling factor in socialist society; moral impulses and not material interest are the main factor in building socialism; men and not weapons decide the outcome of a war.
p In the final analysis, all such premises are reducible to the thesis that subjective activity, falsely interpreted, is the decisive factor in socialist society, which really amounts to 67 an attempt to subject the objective laws of socialist construction to the subjective activities of the leadership and provide a theoretical justification for subjectivism, voluntarism and adventurism in home and foreign policy.
p In 1958 and 1959 the question of subjective activity was being widely debated in China. At about the same time "the theory of subjective activity" began to be extensively propagated, every effort being made to exalt the role of Mao in the development of this theory. The following two quotations are taken from the manual Dialectical Materialism, published in Peking in 1961.
p 1) Waging a resolute struggle with all kinds of opportunist elements who denied or minimised the role of the subjective activity of the masses, Mao Tse-tung made not only a theoretical but also a tremendous political contribution to the development of the theory of subjective activity. He not only gave a precise Marxist definition of subjective activity in the Marxist sense, and showed clearly and concretely how subjective activity plays a decisive role in certain circumstances; he also made a comprehensive and profound study, based on the close unity of materialism and dialectics, of the existence of dialectical links between the subjective and objective, subjective activity and objective laws, revolutionary spirit and the scientific approach.
p 2) Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s new contribution to Marxist philosophy consists not only in the fact that on the basis of the contradiction between subjective and objective he provides a clear and positive answer to the decisive role of subjective activity in certain circumstances, but also in the fact that with reference to the basic spheres of social life and the practical activity of the Party he gives our Party an even more powerful theoretical weapon for guiding the people in the struggle for the grandiose transformation of the world.
p One cannot help being struck by the extravagant claim that Marxism owes a large debt to Mao Tse-tung for his insistence on the "decisive role of subjective activity”. Marxism-Leninism does not deny the importance of the subjective factor in the development of socialist society; on the contrary, it insists that it plays an increasingly important role as socialist construction develops successfully. This is because the communist and workers’ parties, relying on 68 knowledge of the objective laws of social development, can make use of them in the interests of the whole of society, so that people’s activities acquire a purposeful, conscious character.
p Nevertheless, the development of socialist society is as much conditioned by material factors, objective, as the development of any other stage of human society. Failure to take sufficient account of the influence of material factors on people’s socio-economic activity, and especially failure to recognise them altogether, cannot but have a negative effect on the development of socialist society.
p Contrary to Marxism-Leninism, the Maoists overemphasise subjective activity, ignoring the dialectical unity of the objective laws of social development and conscious activity. They call the Marxist-Leninists “mechanists”, since, to quote them, "refusing to recognise that man is the decisive factor in the relationship between men and things, they make a one-sided insistence on man’s activities being determined by dead patterns of objective laws, on man being only able to passively submit to laws". [68•1 On the basis of the fact that the role of the subjective factor increases immeasurably under socialism, the Maoists draw a metaphysical contrast between objective law and human activity, divorcing them from one another.
p The main thing, however, is that the Maoists interpret subjective activity not as the purposeful activity of the masses, based on knowledge of the laws of social development, but as their activity to implement the designs of their leaders. Thus, the talk of Mao Tse-tung’s contribution to the development of the "theory of subjective activity”, is to be understood as an apology for activity that is not subject to any objective laws, or in other words, voluntarism and subjectivism. This is a subjective-idealist viewpoint.
p One very important point must be borne in mind in analysing Maoist “philosophy”. In order to mask their departure from Marxism-Leninism, Mao and his supporters frequently resort to the trick of taking a correct Marxist thesis and interpreting it in their own way, stressing whatever aspect of it happens to suit their particular purpose, inflating and absolutising a part of the whole, taking care, however, to 69 quote the whole proposition in order that their distortion should not be too obvious.
p Thus, in the case in point, their revision of the Marxist thesis of the dialectical interrelationship of objective laws of social development and conscious human activity in socialist society is carefully masked by placing the emphasis on the latter while nevertheless mentioning the need to take the former into account.
p Maoist distortions of Marxist theses can be discovered not only by making a careful study of their theoretical exercises and a thorough analysis and comparison of all their statements on a given question, but also by finding out when, in what circumstances, and for what reason, they choose to stress a particular proposition. Thus, Mao Tse-tung’s subjective-idealist approach to the question of the objective laws of social development becomes even more appareiit if it is remembered that this argument in favour of subjective activity was put forward at the time of the Great Leap Forward and the "people’s communes”.
p As a further example of the way the Maoists covertly distort the Marxist theory of the relationship between subjective activity and objective laws, let us take a look at a passage from an article published in 1965 in the review Hsin-chian She, organ of the department of philosophical and social sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the Chinese People’s Republic. Once again we are dealing with a subjective-idealist interpretation of the role of man in material production. ".. .Although the instruments of labour in production, the objects of labour, weapons in war, etc., are extremely important, and although they are undoubtedly an important factor in production and war, nevertheless, they occupy a place of secondary importance compared to man. Wherever it may be, in the production struggle or in the class struggle, it is man and not material that plays the decisive role.” [69•1 This is because man is active while material is passive, the authors explain. Man "... can think, can work, has a subjective activity, can cognise the world, while maferial does not possess these attributes”. "The most important things are the instruments of labour in production and weapons in war.... But, apart from human activity, nature 70 cannot provide man with the necessary instruments of labour and weapons. Apart from human activity, the instruments and weapons that have been produced turn to rubbish.” [70•1
p But perhaps all this is simply advanced in defence of man’s active essence? We have only to remember that the above was written at a time when China’s industrial development rates had slowed down after the spectacular failure of the Great Leap and the "people’s communes”, at a time when the role of technology and technological progress was being disparaged if not ignored, and the idea that "the atom bomb is a paper tiger" was being churned out non-stop, to realise its clear anti-Marxist implications, to understand that we have to do with a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the role of man in material production.
p Marxism-Leninism has always stressed the decisive role of man in social production. Suffice it to remember Lenin’s words that the worker, the working man is the prime productive force of all mankind. But Marxism-Leninism has never separated man from the other elements of the productive forces and set him up in contrast to them. Man is the chief, but not the only, component of the productive forces. Unwitting or deliberate failure to recognise this principle blots out the fundamental distinctions between different modes of production, since every society is characterised by a certain level of development of the productive forces.
p Marxism-Leninism rejects the view that reason plays the decisive role in the development of the productive forces and the means of production, in the process of creating and using the instruments of labour. In exerting an influence on nature, man changes himself as well as nature, improving himself in the process of improving the instruments of labour. But this depends on the level of development of the productive forces at a given point. It must be remembered that man’s powers and possibilities in a particular historical age are limited by the level of development of material production, and above all of the instruments of labour.
p Naturally, the instruments of labour are worth nothing without man. But this is no reason for denying their importance, for man’s powers are manifested in the level of development of the instruments of labour.
71p The Maoists, however, contrast man to the other elements of the productive forces, and even go as far as to deny the role of the instruments of labour in the development of society. Take, for example, their approach to the material factors in war. The atom bomb and other modern weapons are described as "paper tigers”, and the material, technological factor in war is practically dismissed. The following thesis of Mao Tse-tung is significant in this respect. " Weapons are an important factor in war but not the decisive one. It is man and not material that counts.” [71•1 It is no accident that in discussing revolution, the Maoists completely ignore objective factors and accord the decisive role to subjective political factors.
p The Maoists preach nihilism with regard to science and technology, as is expressed in such slogans as "destroy faith in scientific authorities" and "make every worker and peasant a scientist”. In the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution when science is becoming a direct productive force of society, such practice would inevitably lead to the stagnation of scientific research.
p In our opinion, this is merely to be regarded as a further example of that typical Maoist habit of separating theory from practice and adopting a narrow utilitarian approach to theory. Mao Tse-tung is hardly unaware of the growing role of the natural sciences in modern society, since the use of scientific achievements increases man’s control over nature. That he is not, is borne out by the fact that the majority of scientific institutions and scientists engaged on the creation of nuclear weapons were not subjected to criticism during the "cultural revolution”. It was the social science that bore the brunt of the attack. It seems clear that Mao was making a bugbear of “pseudo-science” and "worship of scientific authorities" for the purpose of getting at his political opponents. The Maoists have not questioned the value of applying the natural sciences in practice, and there is no indication that they intend to do so in the future.
p Mao’s fetishisation of the role of man in production is inseparably linked with his misinterpretation of the interrelationship between the productive forces and relations of production, between the foundation and the superstructure.
72p The Marxist view on this question is expressed in the following passage by Marx, which Lenin pointed to as summing up the materialist concept of history. "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing— with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution.... Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.” [72•1
p Maoism adopts an entirely different approach to the question of the relationship between the productive forces and relations of production. As we have already seen, Mao Tsetung makes the thesis "Politics takes command" his point of departure. Moreover, this elevation of politics to the position of command is to be understood as the subjection of the objective development of the productive forces to arbitrary decisions. According to Mao Tse-tung, the motive force of social development is not the development of the productive forces, conditioning the nature of the relations of production, but the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, class contradictions, and the 73 contradiction between the old and the new, all treated abstractly.
p Thus, Mao writes in "On Contradiction": "Changes in society are chiefly due to the development of internal contradictions in society, namely, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between the classes, and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that impels society forward and starts the process of the supercession of the old society by a new one.” [73•1
p In a speech in Shanghai in August 1957, Mao Tse-tung attacked the thesis of the Eighth Congress of the CPC (1956) that the contradiction between an advanced social order and backward productive forces was coming more and more to the fore in China. In his speech Mao declared: "The statement that the advanced social order in China has entered into contradiction with the backward productive forces is wrong.” [73•2
p In contrast to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung ascribes the main role in the system of productive forces and relations of production to the latter, regarding the introduction of new relations of production to be possible independently of the level of development of the productive forces. Secondly, he regards the introduction of new relations of production as the result not of objective necessity inherent in the process of material production but of subjective will. [73•3
p The Maoists hold that it is possible to improve artificially the relations of production in order to solve the tasks of China’s socio-economic development. This was the aim pursued in the Great Leap Forward and the people’s communes. The slogan of a rapid transition to communism was advanced at the initial stage of the building of socialism in China. The people’s communes were widely advertised as being the first cells of the future communist society. The lamentable results of this “experiment” are common knowledge.
p The artificial improvement of the relations of production, which amounted to various kinds of political-organisational 74 reshaping of agriculture and industry, was associated with deliberate intensification of the class struggle, as expressed in a succession of political campaigns and mass movements, viz., the campaigns against the “Three-Antis” and “ FiveAntis” (1952-1953), the struggle against "right opportunist elements" (1957-1958), the movement for the rectification of styles of work (1958), the campaign for "devotion of the heart to the Party" (1958-1959), the socialist education movement in the countryside (1962-1963), and, finally, the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (1966-1969).
p This anti-Marxist, idealist approach has its logical conclusion in the formula "The power of Mao Tse-tung’s Thought is infinite”.
p Debasing Marx’s thesis that theory becomes a material force when it takes hold of the masses, the Maoists claim that "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought" can be applied with great success in the production of atom bombs, complicated surgical operations, the transplanting of human organs, the sale of melons and even the introduction of good sanitation in the towns. Lin Piao declared the writings and thoughts of Mao Tse-tung to be the key to the solution of absolutely any problem, and that "with their aid it is easy to obtain immediate, tangible results”.
p The newspaper Heng-yan jih-pao wrote: "Reading the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung is not simply reading but a great task on which the success or defeat of the socialist revolution and the building of socialism depends.... It is a great task on which the destiny of mankind depends. One must read them constantly, systematically, always.” [74•1
p The army newspaper Jiefangjun pao made equally staggering claims. "Our country’s boundless might mainly consists in the fact that we have the powerful, invincible thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.” [74•2
p The work of the masses and economic construction are quite incidental: Mao Tse-tung and his “Thought” are the alpha and the omega. "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought”, like Hegel’s Absolute, is the source of social development and, becoming a material force, forms the economic foundation and political superstructure of society.
75p Moreover, the Maoists ascribe to Mao Tse-tung’s Thought the power to determine the destiny of the world socialist revolution and the development of all human society. Thus, the newspaper Jen-min jih-pao writes: "When Mao Tsetung’s Thought is current throughout the world, when it has been gradually adopted by the revolutionary peoples of the whole world, it will be able to change the spiritual profile of the revolutionary peoples of the world and transform a spiritual force into a powerful material force. Once they have accepted Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, the revolutionary peoples of the world will smash the old world with tremendous, irresistible force, completely bury imperialism, modern revisionism and reaction in all countries and will build on earth an infinitely bright, great new communist world of unsurpassed beauty, a world without oppression and exploitation.” [75•1
p As the French publicist J. E. Vidal remarked, Mao Tsetung substitutes subjectivism for Marxism-Leninism. "The ideas of Mao Tse-tung will become a ’material force’ from which the condition of the productive forces will depend. This subjective, idealist concept of history leads to pure voluntarism. The human will can act independently of objective laws and historical necessity. An unlimited role is ascribed to the invincible Thought of Mao Tse-tung. Thus, moral education becomes the main form of activity in the transformation of society.” [75•2
p Clearly, the Marxist thesis of the relative independence of ideology has been interpreted unscientifically in Maoism, and Marx’s thesis that theory becomes a material force when it takes hold of the masses has been debased.
p Marxist-Leninists have always attributed an important role to ideas in social development, holding that they can serve to accelerate it, but this is only the case provided these ideas reflect real life, class relations, the development of science, and economic progress. The viability and invincibility of Marxist ideas, their accelerating influence on the social process is due to their scientific nature, the fact that they correspond to the laws of social development. It is by virtue of this that they become a material force in the 76 transformation of the world. The “ideas” of Mao are quite devoid of vitalising force, since they are not based on science and do not correspond to the objective laws of social development, so that their realisation in practice is only leading to failures in China’s home and foreign policy.
p Maoism revises the Marxist-Leninist thesis of the role of the masses and personality in history, exaggerating the latter and reviving hero-worship, and regarding the masses as a faceless herd obedient to the will of their leaders.
p This subjective-sociological interpretation of the role of the individual in history is clearly expressed in the exaggeration of Mao Tse-tung’s role in the history of the Chinese revolution, socialist construction, and the world historical process, with corresponding minimisation of the role of the masses and the communist party. It is expressed in the personality cult of Mao Tse-tung. The activities of the CPC throughout its history are identified with the activities of one man, Mao Tse-tung. Maoist propaganda presents Mao as a kind of superman, a genius such as is only born once in several centuries, so that unquestioning obedience to him is the guarantee of success for China. "To always think of Chairman Mao, obey Chairman Mao in everything, follow Chairman Mao, do everything in the name of Chairman Mao.” [76•1 The Chinese and the peoples of the world are called upon to be "good warriors”, "obedient buffaloes" and " stainless screws" of Mao Tse-tung.
p This is far more than a rebirth or echoing of the populist theory of “heroes” and the “crowd”. In the one case it was a question of a plurality of heroes, of the hero in general. In the other case it is a question of one hero who is able to change or dispose altogether of the laws of social development as he thinks fit.
p The Chinese press is used to deify Mao and glorify his obedient servants. It has no interest at all in the masses as such, as the real hero of the historical process and participant in the revolutionary transformation of society. In Maoist theory and practice alike, the masses are simply “extras” doing whatever they are ordered by Mao. According to the logic of Maoist philosophy, the masses are incapable of conscious, organised activity, but are only able to obey and 77 blindly "follow the leader”, that is, the leader. This is expressed in Mao Tse-tung’s “idea” that the Chinese people is a clean sheet of paper. "A clean sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted on it.” [77•1 Such a concept of the respective historical roles of the individual and the masses has nothing at all to do with Marxism-Leninism. It is but a highly pernicious personality cult of a leader standing above the people. It is mistrust of the masses, mockery of the masses.
p Just how far the Mao Tse-tung personality cult has gone can be gauged from the following statement made by Lin Piao at a meeting in November, 1966. "The words of Chairman Mao are words of the highest order, highly authoritative, possessing tremendous power, true to the last word; each word is equivalent to ten thousand words uttered by others.” This excessive veneration for the word of Mao is somewhat reminiscent of the awe and reverence with which the Bible was once regarded.
p Under the Mao Tse-tung personality cult the Chinese people are being educated in a spirit of complete subservience to the leader. Ordinary Chinese are made to repeat such things as "The concern of Chairman Mao is greater than the earth and sky. Chairman Mao is closer than father or mother. But for Chairman Mao, I could not exist... ." [77•2 All the writings of Mao Tse-tung are regarded as Holy Writ. "We must study the works of Mao Tse-tung daily. If we fail to study the works of the leader for but one day, numerous questions will arise; if we do not study them for two days we shall slide downhill, and it is quite impossible to live for three days without the works of the leader.” [77•3
p Maoism preaches a subjectivist view of history, regarding the political and theoretical activity of Mao Tse-tung as the sole cause of social development.
p From the Maoist point of view, social development is not an objective historical process but a chain of manifestations of the "wise designs" of Mao Tse-tung. "Without the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung, there would not be the great, 78 glorious, true Communist Party of China [78•1 , there would be no triumph of the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution in this country, there would be no New China, it would have been impossible to transform our country into a great socialist power and our people would not have been able to always stand upright in the world, marching ever forwards.” [78•2 According to Maoism, the activity of the classes, strata and groups is of importance insofar as it coincides with the instructions of the leader. Today, therefore, the Hungweipings are in the street, tomorrow they are in the countryside; today all Party cadres are beaten up, tomorrow part of them is rehabilitated.
p Here it is worth reminding the reader of Engels’ vivid words: "All idealists, philosophic and religious, ancient and modern, believe in inspirations, in revelations, saviours, miracle-workers; whether their belief takes a crude religious, or a refined philosophic, form depends only upon their cultural level, just as the degree of energy which they possess, their character, their social position, etc., determine whether their attitude to a belief in miracles is a passive or an active one, i.e., whether they are shepherds performing miracles or whether they are sheep; they further determine whether the aims they pursue are theoretical or practical.” [78•3
p A politician who is not guided in his activity by the thesis that history is made by the masses, by the millions of producers, and that social classes play the decisive role in revolutionary transformation, a politician who is unable, or rather, unwilling to fuse the actions of the individual and the masses, who bases his theoretical and practical activity on the principle that heroes make history according to their whim and fancy, can by no stretch of the imagination be thought of as a Marxist-Leninist.
Thus, Maoist philosophy represents a revision of the materialist view of history, a step backwards to the views of subjective, including populist philosophy long since discredited by Marxism-Leninism.
Notes
[68•1] Dialectical Materialism, Peking, 1961, p. 10.
[69•1] Hsin-chian She, 1965, No. 7, p. 23.
[70•1] Hsin-chian She, 1965, No. 7, p. 23.
[71•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 92.
[72•1] K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works. In three volumes, Moscow, 19b9, Vol. I, pp. 503-504.
[73•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 16.
[73•2] From the Hungwciping newspaper Tung fang /iung, July, 1967.
[73•3] Maoist reservations, as in the cases we examined above, are simply a tactical device designed to camouflage their revision of the Marxist view of history.
[74•1] Heng-yan jih-pao, February 14, 1966.
[74•2] Jiefangjun pao, March 2, 1966.
[75•1] Jen-min jih-pao, June 20, 1966.
[75•2] L’humanite, January 10, 1968.
[76•1] Kitai (China), 1968, No. 7, p. 18.
[77•1] Ibid., 19G8, No. 3.
[77•2] Ibid., No. 7, p. IS.
[77•3] Ibid., p. 19.
[78•1] We have already shown how Mao’s ideas have absolutely nothing to do with the emergence of the CPG, and that it was their substitution for the theoretical foundations of the Party that led to the tragedy the CPC is experiencing at the present time.—M.A., V.G.
[78•2] Jen-min jih-pao, August 15, 1966.
[78•3] F. Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1964, p. 587.