Dialectics
p We have already seen how eclecticism is an essential feature of Mao Tse-tung’s philosophical views. This is equally the case with his method of cognising the phenomena of nature and society, which combines naive dialectics with a curious version of the theory of balance.
p In Marxist dialectics inherent contradictions underlie all processes of development. According to the theory of balance, however, it is outward external factors that determine development, and rest, balance and absence of movement are regarded as the normal state of all existing things and phenomena. One of the authors of this theory, N. Bukharin, held that a phenomenon ceased to be in a state of balance or rest (which is the same thing) following a change in one of the opposed forces. As to how this change comes about, let us turn to Bukharin himself. "It is perfectly clear that the inner structure of a system (inner balance) must change according to the relationship that exists between the system and the environment. The relationship between the system and environment is the decisive factor, for all states of the system (decline, development, stagnation) are determined by this relationship.” [109•1 In other words, the theory of balance regards opposed principles within society (the system) as two simple mechanical forces, opposed to one another outwardly and in a state of balance, which can only be destroyed by the interference of outside forces. The process of development according to Bukharin is one of balance, followed by the upsetting of balance, followed again by balance.
p The theory of balance bears an outward resemblance to dialectics in that it also regards the question of opposites as a question of the struggle between them. But while materialist dialectics deal with internal contradictions that are concomitant and mutually exclusive and their correlation and interpenetration, their contradictions, the mechanistic theory of balance is dealing with the antagonism of mechanically contiguous opposed forces in a state of balance. And balance cannot be a source of development without the interference of outside forces.
110p In "On Practice”, Mao Tse-tung gives an essentially false definition of the concept “balance-imbalance”. "The movement of all things assumes two forms: the form of relative rest and the form of conspicuous change. Both forms of movement are caused by the struggle of the two contradictory factors contained in a thing itself. When the movement of a thing assumes the first form, it only undergoes a quantitative but not a qualitative change and consequently appears in a state of seeming rest. When the movement of things assumes the second form, it has already reached a certain culminating point of the quantitative change of the first form, caused the dissolution of the entity, produced a qualitative change, and consequently appears as conspicuous change. Such unity, solidarity, amalgamation, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, stability, equilibrium, coagulation, attraction, as we see in daily life, are all the appearances of things in the state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the dissolution of the entity, the breakdown of such solidarity, amalgamation, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, stability, equilibrium, coagulation and attraction, and the change into their opposite states, are all the appearances of things in the state of qualitative change during the transformation of one process into another.” [110•1
p It is perfectly true that any phenomenon can assume the form of relative rest and the form of conspicuous change. But Mao is wrong in regarding the two forms as consecutive, when in fact they are simultaneous. Mao thus does violence to materialist dialectics when he speaks of dissolution of the entity taking place only when the movement of a thing assumes the form of conspicuous change at the point of the breakdown of balance. No matter what form it assumes, a thing always contains opposites. Harmony exists together with disharmony, equilibrium with disequilibrium, attraction with repulsion and so on. Like the ancient Chinese dialecticians, Mao recognises the existence of opposed principles and the conflict between them, but regards them as being separate from one another in time and space.
p Admitting that "dissolution of the entity" occurs only in the case of conspicuous change, at the stage of qualitative 111 change, Mao denies its occurrence in the state of relative rest, i.e., in quantitative change. According to Mao Tse-tung, things in a state of relative rest are, as it were, in a state ol balance, which is regarded as their normal state.
p In 1957 Mao Tse-tung “developed” his theory of balance as follows: "An economic plan is drawn up in this country every year and a correct balance is established between accumulation and consumption, in order to achieve a balance between production and requirements. This balance is a temporary and relative unity of opposites. By the end of the year this balance is on the whole dissolved by the struggle of opposites, the entity changes and balance becomes imbalance, the unity ceases to be and the next year a new balance and unity must be achieved. This is the advantage of our planned economy. In fact this balance and unity is partly disrupted every month, and this makes partial adjustment necessary. Sometimes it happens that subjective adjustment does not correspond to objective reality, so that contradictions arise and the balance is upset. This is called making a mistake. Contradictions are constantly cropping up and continually being resolved, and this is the dialectical law of the development of things and phenomena.” [111•1
p Here Mao is identifying the appearance of contradictions with the disruption of balance and substituting mistakes for contradictions as the source of development, thereby making balance and the absence of contradictions the normal state of things, and the disruption of balance and the presence of contradictions an abnormal state. Mao attributes a general philosophical character to his ideas on balance and imbalance and uses them to justify his own subjective practical policies.
p If in "On Contradiction" dialectical contradictions are regarded as a conspicuous contrast between two far-removed opposites, twenty years later Mao implies that they are anomalies.
p The adepts of Maoism openly propagate their leader’s theory of balance. In a recent philosophy manual we find the following: "The theory of passive balance is essentially a manifestation of the stability of the world. It regards balance as absolute and rejects the idea that imbalance is an inner 112 necessity, inherent in the movement of things, a necessary stage in the development of things. The authors regard every imbalance as an abnormal phenomenon and reject the law of development ‘balance—imbalance—balance’.” We need not trouble ourselves with the fact that the authors speak of absolute and relative balance: the main thing is that they declare the thesis of the theory of balance, "balance—- imbalance—balance”, the formula of development, thereby opposing the theory of balance from the standpoint of ... the theory of balance.
p It is known that Mao himself has criticised the theory of balance. But this criticism was not the outcome of any serious theoretical reflection. His critical statements were clearly inserted in "On Contradiction" after he had taken note of the works of Soviet authors analysing this theory. Thus, in the same article we find Mao criticising the theory yet at the same time developing ideas in accordance with it. This is no doubt to be explained by the apparent resemblance the theory of balance bears to Chinese naive dialectics, to which, as we have seen, Mao subscribes. In naive dialectics outward, isolated forces are contrasted, while in the theory of balance it is a question of the antagonism of opposite forces. But in both cases interpenetration and transition into one another are regarded purely mechanically.
p The theory of balance in lieu of the inner process of the emergence, development and solution of a dialectical contradiction makes conflict the only means of resolving the antagonism of opposed forces.
p Presenting the dialectical contradiction as a mechanical balance or antagonism between two opposed forces that can only be destroyed by the interference of some outside factor, the theory of balance can and does serve as the theoretical basis for the ultra-revolutionary, bellicose political harangues of the Maoists. Suffice it to recall Mao Tse-tung’s approach to the relationship between the two world socio- economic systems, which totally fails to take into account the complexity of interaction between these two concrete- historical opposites, and thus leads him to conclude that it can only be solved by means of war.
p We find the same position if we turn to the question of contradictions within the capitalist countries. According to Mao and some of his supporters, the balance and the 113 destruction of that balance in certain countries can only be achieved by the interference of outside forces. Hence the insistence on exporting revolution.
p Mao is essentially ascribing the major role to external factors and conditions, regarding them as the means of solving a conflict, of solving the antagonism between opposed forces. Although he speaks of the struggle of opposites as the cause of development, he does not go beyond a plain admission of this, and is unable to reveal the mechanism of the conflict, and see the process of development as a process of ripening, exacerbation, and resolution—“dismissal”—of contradictions.
Basically, the Maoists use the theory of balance as a methodological basis for such phenomena as the "cultural revolution”. It serves as an external factor helping the solution of inner contradictions within the Party. As Chou En-lai, speaking in Wuhan in 1967, declared: "Without disorder, there is no order. Without breaking up the old there is no creating the new. Where disorders have reached the culminative point, such disorders have actually disserved the enemy and inured the masses, thereby enabling problems to be completely resolved.”
Notes
[109•1] N. Bukharin, Theory of Historical Materialism, Moscow, 1925, p. 82 (in Russian).
[110•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 48 (emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.).
[111•1] Mao Tse-tung, "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" (emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.).