113

p By making an absolute of the antagonism between two opposed forces, Mao Tse-tung is inevitably led to a misconception of the essence and historical role of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. It is common knowledge that social antagonisms are an important feature of societies based on exploitation. Antagonistic contradictions involve the incompatibility of the basic interests of hostile classes, and their solution is impossible without the abolition of the old social order by means of class struggle and social revolution. A typical example of an antagonistic contradiction in our own day and age is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

p The classics of Marxism-Leninism pointed out the transient nature of antagonistic contradictions. Thus, Marx wrote: "The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production.. . .”  [113•1  and Lenin emphasised that an antagonism is a special kind of 114 contradiction, that "antagonism and contradiction are by no means one and the same thing. When socialism comes, the former will disappear but the latter will remain.”  [114•1  Contradictions in socialist society are non-antagonistic, since private property has been abolished along with the exploitation of man by man, and there no longer exist fundamental differences between the classes.

p Mao Tse-tung expressed the above ideas in "On Contradiction”, where he admitted that contradictions are not universally antagonistic, that antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions exist side by side in a relationship of mutual transition into one another, and that, being different in character, they require a different approach to their solution. This was all stated in the most general terms and there was nothing new in these reflections, nothing that could not be found in Soviet philosophy manuals.

p In later works, Mao departs from this Marxist view, and treats the identity of the opposites of an antagonistic contradiction and their mutual transition and interpenetration as the transition of antagonistic contradictions into non-antagonistic contradictions and vice-versa, and the conflict of contradictory aspects of a non-antagonistic contradiction as the antagonism of two opposed forces.

p Thus, in "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" Mao revises the Marxist doctrine concerning types of social contradictions. He replaces the concept of "antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions" with concepts of "contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and contradictions among the people”. We are not dealing simply with a more precise definition or an innovation. The point is that Mao is treating the contradictions between the workers and peasants, on the one hand, and the national bourgeoisie, on the other, as contradictions among the people. Thus, Mao writes: "The contradictions between ourselves and our enemies are antagonistic ones. Within the ranks of the people, contradictions among the working people are non-antagonistic, whereas contradictions between the exploiters and exploited classes have a non-antagonistic aspect as well as an antagonistic one.... In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie is 115 a contradiction among the people. The class struggle between the working class and the national bourgeoisie in general is a part of the class struggle among the people, because of the dual character of the national bourgeoisie in this country.”  [115•1 

p The assertion that the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie is non-antagonistic is a Right- opportunist, revisionist proposition, and the fact that Mao adds that these contradictions have their antagonistic side as well does not alter the matter in the slightest. In fact, the basic interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie are incompatible, since the building of socialism is by no means in the interests of the latter, which is proved by the whole history of the Chinese People’s Republic. Mao replaces the question of class relations with the question of political blocs and alliances with the class that is fundamentally hostile to the working class, the bourgeoisie. Although such agreements are not to be excluded at certain stages, it is fundamentally wrong to deduce from this that the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie is not antagonistic. The contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie can only be resolved by the elimination of the latter, although, admittedly, in the conditions of socialist construction and the dictatorship of the proletariat the contradiction does not necessarily have to be solved by a leap forward, by an explosion—viz., the liquidation of the kulaks as a class in the Soviet Union. It must be said, however, that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its leaders never regarded the contradiction between the proletariat and the kulaks as non-antagonistic.

p But perhaps Mao Tse-tung’s idea that the contradiction between the proletariat and the big bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people testifies to his creative, original approach to the complex manifold phenomena of reality, to an urge to draw the widest sections of the population of China into the building of the new society? Perhaps it is a proof of his creative solution of theoretical problems and his contribution to Marxist philosophy? This is what Maoist propaganda would have us believe.  [115•2 

116

p It is a well-known fact that it was Lenin who first produced the correct scientific solution to the question of the methods of solving different kinds of contradictions after the triumph of socialist revolution. On the basis of a dialectical understanding of contradictions, Lenin insisted on the need to reveal the possible inner link even between antagonistic opposites at certain stages of development of this or that process. Realising that intensification of the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was inevitable in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, Lenin nevertheless held that it was possible to make use of the method of state capitalism controlled by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and, under the New Economic Policy, to make use of the bourgeoisie to raise and develop the country’s productive forces as long as it was completely subject to state laws, and at the same time was being restricted and gradually ousted. Lenin never ceased to regard the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as an antagonistic contradiction.

p Mao Tse-tung’s assertion that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people is at variance with his own earlier statement (at the Second Plenary Meeting of the CPC Central Committee, seventh convocation, in 1949), where he said that the main contradiction in China after the proletariat had seized power throughout the country would be the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie.

p The presence in Maoist “dialectics” of mutually exclusive propositions is determined by their social function. Mao makes philosophy as a whole an instrument of politics in the very worst meaning of the word. He adopts a completely utilitarian approach to philosophy, and is only interested in 117 it in as far as it can be made to serve his great-power ambitions.

p Applied to dialectics, a utilitarian, pragmatic approach really means using it to justify any political actions at all. In this case dialectics must be provided with a collection of theses capable of being used for such ends, irrespective of whether they agree with one another or not. We can indeed observe this in the Maoist “dialectics”.  [117•1  Mao Tse-tung appears to be quite undisturbed by the fact that this approach to dialectics frequently entails insoluble contradictions. An entirely different approach to similar phenomena and deliberate departure from previously declared principles deprives dialectics of every semblance of scientific content and genuine practical value. In fact dialectics cease to be dialectics altogether. But this apparently suits Mao perfectly, for he only needs “dialectics” that will justify the particular strategy and tactics he happens to have chosen at a given time.

p The social function of Maoist “dialectics” is pretty clear from Mao Tse-tung’s interpretation of the concept of "the people”. Thus, he writes: "At this stage of building socialism, all classes, strata and social groups that approve, support, and work for the cause of socialist construction belong to the category of the people, wliile those social forces and groups that resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to and try to wreck socialist construction are enemies of the people"  [117•2 ; ".. .democracy is established among the people and, united by the working class, all those with civil rights, especially the peasants, establish a dictatorship over the reactionary classes, reactionaries and elements that resist the socialist revolution and oppose socialist construction".  [117•3  At first sight this might appear to be a perfectly correct Marxist definition of the concept of "the people": the people is all those who support socialism and help build it, while 118 those who resist the socialist transformation of society are classed as enemies of the people. But in fact, as we shall see, Mao’s definition of the term is subjective and ignores class principles.

p In Marxist sociology the concept of "the people" is based above all on the decisive role of material production in the development of society and the economic position of the various classes, strata and groups in a particular system of social production, since it is this that determines to what extent this or that class, strata or group is objectively interested in and capable of fulfilling the concrete tasks of social development that a given society faces. According to Mao’s definition, however, any social group, even an exploiter group (in this case, the big bourgeoisie) has only to declare its willingness to co-operate in the building of socialism, and participate formally, to automatically qualify for inclusion in "the people”.

p In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the concept of "the people" may certainly include petty and middle bourgeoisie, rural and urban, but there is absolutely no justification under any circumstances for extending the concept to include the powerful capitalists. According to Mao’s definition, namely "all people with civil rights”, such people as the former Vice-President of Kuomintang China, the inveterate reactionary Li Tsung-jen, the economic dictator of Macao, Ho Ying, a member of the People’s Political Consultative Committee of China, and a host of other such figures qualify for inclusion in "the people”.

p Mao’s definition of the class enemies of the proletariat is also un-Marxist. By making the main criterion the attitude to the policy of the present Chinese leadership, replacing the correct Marxist expression "class enemies" with the formula "enemies of the people”, the Maoists deprive the term of its correct sociological meaning and treat it as a political phenomenon which may or may not be connected with adherence to the exploiter classes—and indeed developments in China over the last few years show that it is not. Instead, a person’s class adherence is derived from his political views, and it is not representatives of the exploiter classes who are treated as "enemies of the people" but all those who "resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to socialist construction (read: do not approve of the Mao 119 group’s distortion of the principles of socialist construction) and try to wreck it" (read: struggle against the Mao group).

p This approach makes it possible to declare any person an enemy if he expresses dissatisfaction or disagreement with the methods of socialist construction, irrespective of his social origins and social position or the reasons for his dissatisfaction. He has only to express his disagreement with the political decisions of the Mao group to automatically become "an enemy of the people”.

p It is thus not surprising that in China today it is not the capitalists but the communist internationalists who are declared "enemies of the people”.

p Thus, in the view of Mao Tse-tung, present-day Chinese society is divided into “we” and "the enemies”, that is himself and his supporters and those who think differently, those who disagree with his theory and practice. In the newspaper Chung-kuo ching-yan pao for June 23, 1966, we find the following statement: "Whoever opposes the ideas of Mao Tse-tung is a counter-revolutionary.” Mao Tse-tung and his supporters apply the term "enemy of the people" as an excuse for all kinds of reprisals against their ideological opponents, even when the latter have never belonged to the exploiter classes and have given years of faithful service to the Chinese people and the Chinese revolution.

p The "cultural revolution" brought into stark relief the antiMarxist essence of the Maoist interpretations of the concepts of "the people" and "enemies of the people”. The Mao group claims that the aim of this “revolution” has been to prevent a return to the bourgeois system, that they have been waging a struggle against "enemies of the people" (the word enemy having been enriched with such synonyms as “swine”, "members of the black gang”, “insects”, etc.), and against "agents of the bourgeoisie that have crawled into the Party”, "against those who are in power and follow the capitalist path”.

p Naturally the presence of bourgeois turncoats and even class enemies in the Party is not to be excluded, and it is essential to wage a resolute struggle against them. But the struggle must be waged against real agents of the bourgeoisie and not imaginary ones. During the "cultural revolution" in China, however, it was thousands upon thousands of Communists who were declared by the Maoists to be enemies 120 trying to wreck the building of socialism, whereas the representatives of the bourgeoisie were safe from all criticism.

p This “definition” of class enemies is based on a subjective interpretation of the essence of antagonistic and non- antagonistic contradictions under socialism that has nothing at all to do with Marxism-Leninism. Thus, Mao writes: ”. . .the first type of contradiction (antagonistic contradictions.— M.A., V.G.) involves drawing a clear line between ourselves and our enemies, while the second type of contradiction ( nonantagonistic contradictions.—M.A., V.G.) involves drawing a clear line between truth and falsehood. Naturally, the question of the relations between ourselves and our enemies is at the same time, to some extent a question of truth and falsehood. Thus, for example, the question of who is right and who is wrong—we, or such internal and external reactionary forces as imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capital—is also a question of truth and falsehood, but it belongs to an essentially different type of question of truth and falsehood than those among the people.”  [120•1 

p The classification of contradictions is thus deprived of objective content since what do the concepts of truth and falsehood include? And, even more important, who decides what is true and what is false? Apparently this is decided by whoever wields real power in the Party and State at a given moment, so that naturally the truth is always with Mao, and his opponents are always in the wrong.

p Mao Tse-tung turned to Marxism-Leninism in the twenties because he considered it to be the best available means of restoring China’s greatness. In the thirties and forties he needed to use Marxist phraseology to establish his rule in the CPC. Suffice it to remember his own "Decision on Some Questions of the History of the Party" which abounds in references to the need to struggle against doctrinaire attitudes and those who hold them (read, "communist internationalists”). In the fifties and sixties, Mao needed to refer to Marxist theses in order to conceal his betrayal of Marxism- Leninism and the principles of socialist construction, to strengthen his insecure position within the Party and the country, and justify his efforts to disrupt the socialist community and the 121 international communist, workers’ and national liberation movements.

p In the first years after the triumph of the people’s revolution in China, when the Mao group did not yet dare to embark upon overt revision of the principles of socialist construction and break openly with the world socialist system and the international communist movement, when they were forced to adhere to the policy of peaceful coexistence conducted by the Soviet Union, the Maoists still continued to speak of the existence of non-antagonistic contradictions. But as soon as they had altered course and set out on an entirely different path in home and foreign policy, aspiring to hegemony in the world socialist system and the international communist, workers’ and national liberation movements, they began to speak almost exclusively of antagonistic contradictions, thereby attempting to justify the need to "break free" of Marxism-Leninism both at home and abroad. This was the purpose of the broad debate on the law of the unity and conflict of opposites that was launched in China in 1964. In order to make their views appear Marxist, they made use of Lenin’s authority, quoting ad infinitum his famous idea of "the splitting of a single whole”, but interpreting it in their own way.

p Officially the debate centred around the theory of Yang Hsien-chen. In actual fact, however, what was involved was a struggle to replace materialist dialectics in favour of Maoist “dialectics”. The debate was begun on Mao’s initiative and conducted under his auspices, so that although he did not directly express an opinion himself, the views expressed in Hungchih and Jen-rain jih-pao can be safely assumed to represent Mao’s own attitude.  [121•1 

p During the debate, the law of the unity and conflict of opposites was formulated as "the unity of two principles and the dissolution of the entity”, with the Maoists placing the stress on the latter to the total exclusion of the unity of conflicting opposites. The debate revealed Mao’s distorted understanding of the Marxist-Leninist teaching of the core of dialectics as soon as the subject of the trends of social development and the major problems of our time—the factors underlying the development of socialism and the world 122 communist movement—were broached. The Maoists completely distorted the meaning of Lenin’s statement concerning the splitting of a single whole. Following Mao’s example, the “orthodox” philosophers blithely apply the formula " dissolution of the entity" to all phenomena quite indiscriminately, without drawing any distinction at all between capitalist and socialist society.

p The Maoists take the concrete historical situation where "the dissolution of the entity" manifests itself in the form of a rift in exploiter society and its division into classes hostile to one another, and apply it dogmatically to socialism, the world socialist system and the Communist Party and MarxistLeninist theory.

p An article inspired by Mao himself that appeared in the journal Hungchih in 1964 contained the following statement. "The international labour movement, like all things and phenomena in the world, also divides.” The same applies to Marxism: "A revolutionary, scientific doctrine, automatically engenders its opposite in the course of its development, engenders, that is, a counter-revolutionary, unscientific doctrine.”  [122•1  The article stressed that modern (socialist) society also splits, just as society will split "in ten thousand years’ time”. Classes and class struggle are thus perpetuated. It is now perfectly clear what the Maoists were up to with all this: they were creating a theoretical basis for the justification of the destruction of the CPC and the constitutional organs of the Chinese People’s Republic. In this they were demonstrating their real attitude to theory, which is to regard it as an instrument of their irrational, voluntarist practice, called upon to justify post factum what they have already done or happen to be doing. This is also their attitude to the laws of dialectics.

p We have only to take a look at real life to see that these theses are a parody of dialectics. In "On Dialectics”, the work from which the Maoists took the idea of the "dissolution of the entity”, Lenin stresses that the dialectics of bourgeois society where this operates most fully is purely "a particular case”. It is therefore essential to take into account the specific ways in which the general law of dialectics manifests itself in capitalist and socialist society.

123

p How exactly is Mao’s erroneous interpretation of this problem of dialectics manifested? Above all, in the way he denies the special quality of the "dissolution of the entity" in exploiter society where the interests of the hostile classes composing society are diametrically opposed.

p In exploiter society "dissolution of the entity" takes the form of a division of society into two hostile camps with different economic and political interests, a different world outlook and morality. Thus the complete division of this concrete society is both natural and progressive, since through an intensification of class antagonisms it approaches its end and thereby determines the triumph of the new, higher social order.

p In socialist society the interests of the classes and social groups are united on the basic issues of social life. There are no antagonistic contradictions in socialist society. Since contradictions can only arise, and do only arise, over specific, individual issues, these contradictions are entirely nonantagonistic. Such fundamental matters as the relations between classes and social groups do not entail "division of the entity”, for non-antagonistic contradictions do not lead to conflict between social classes and groups, and so do not lead to the division of society, the people as a whole, or opposition between the friendly classes and social groups. This qualitatively new manifestation of dialectics in socialist society is both natural and progressive.

p This is not to say that there are no contradictions in socialist society, but simply that such as there are have passed from the sphere of fundamental interests to the sphere of specific, individual interests. Naturally, difference of interests and contradictions between them occur in many spheres of life in numerous matters, large and small, but such contradictions are always individual, never fundamental. There are thus no insoluble contradictions in socialist society, either within a given socialist country or in the inter-state relations among the socialist countries.

p For the first time in history progress is achieved in a way that does not involve the division of society into two hostile, conflicting classes, but, on the contrary, is based on the unity of interests of all classes and social groups, a unity that grows and becomes stronger as time goes by.

p While in capitalist society division is resolved by class 124 struggle and revolution, in the case of socialism the contradictions are resolved within the framework of unity by means of social transformations and the improvement of production relations.

p The growing unity of all strata of socialist society is a major condition for the discovery and solution of non- antagonistic contradictions, and provided these are objective, concrete contradictions and not artificially created ones, they can always be resolved.

p In capitalist society, on the other hand, antagonistic contradictions exist over fundamental issues, and can only be resolved by the demise of the social system itself, so that their solution is a protracted business and assumes most acute, serious forms. In socialist society, in the conditions of sociopolitical unity, the solution of concrete contradictions represents a step forward for all those who are struggling for further progress. Mao Tse-tung refuses to notice the special nature of the contradictions found in socialist society and dogmatically applies to it the same "division of the entity”, thereby distorting the nature and motive forces of the development of socialism.

p Socialist society is free from class conflicts and is characterised by unprecedented unity. It is this unity that is the new motive force of socialist society. Marxist-Leninists have never denied the presence of class struggle in countries building socialism. In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism vestiges of the exploiter classes and social groups remain, and there are anti-socialist forces which in certain conditions may resist socialism. But the struggle with such elements does not involve the division of society, but on the contrary signifies its strengthening and further development along the path of socialism.

p Mao Tse-tung resorted to defending class antagonisms in socialist society in order to deny the achievements of the Soviet people, who have built socialism and are successfully building communism.

p It is clear that not only within each socialist country, but in the world socialist system as a whole, "division of the entity" is manifested in such a way as to exclude division and opposition of interests on major, fundamental issues of the life of the various socialist countries.

p The world socialist system is characterised by the fact 125 that the unity of fundamental interests actually grows and is strengthened in this way. Naturally, different levels of economic and political development, different historical and cultural traditions and different geographical situation can, and do, lead to different interpretations of various concrete problems of socialist construction and differences of opinion which are resolved in the course of all-round co-operation between the socialist countries according to the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The communist and workers’ parties that stand at the helm of state in the socialist countries regard it as their duty to conduct a correct Marxist-Leninist policy, combining the interests of each individual country with the interests of the socialist community as a whole and with the interests of the communist and liberation movements, in order to ensure that different approaches to various matters should not disrupt the unity of the socialist camp. Contradictions between the socialist countries are brought to light and resolved in the framework of the basic unity of their fundamental interests.

p The non-antagonistic character of such contradictions requires that Communists, in their practical and theoretical activities, emphasise and draw attention to those factors that unite the socialist countries and make for their solidarity. Since unity here serves as a major condition for the discovery and solution of contradictions, the ability to make proper use of the law of dialectics in question is a way of stressing the role of unity. Mao Tse-tung and his supporters, however, in the pursuit of hegemony, emphasise the opposite.

p According to Mao, "division of the entity" occurs not only in socialist society but in Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The Maoists maintain that the revolutionary doctrine "in its development must engender its opposite, must, that is, engender a counter-revolutionary, unscientific doctrine”, and attempt to substantiate this with references to “opportunism” and “revisionism”.

p Developing as it has in antagonistic class society, revolutionary doctrine has naturally always been under a certain amount of pressure from the ideology of the reactionary classes. It is this that makes the constant struggle against all forms and brands of revisionism and opportunism a law of development of revolutionary theory in exploiter society or 126 societies where survivals of exploiter society are still deeply rooted. But even here, "division of the entity" takes a very special form that must on no account be confused with the “division” of ideology in exploiter society. Marxism- Leninism develops in the struggle with various attempts to distort it, but it cannot, and does not, itself engender its opposite, as the Maoists insist. In this sense there is no "division of the entity" in Marxism-Leninism. It is impossible to see how a revolutionary doctrine can be said to engender a counter-revolutionary doctrine.

p Marxism-Leninism naturally contains contradictions, contradictions between certain old, out-of-date scientific theses and new issues advanced by life, contradictions between Marxism-Leninism as a revolutionary doctrine and hostile views and theories that insidiously squirm their way into it. But the appearance of contradictions such as these and their solution represents not the division of the principles of Marxism-Leninism but, on the contrary, the development and enrichment of Marxist-Leninist principles, their growing strength. In short, the Maoists are barking up the wrong tree when they try to find “division” here.

p The Maoists hold that the Party must also “divide” according to dialectics. They regard division within the Party as progress, as a blessing. In actual fact, the progress of the Party is gradual consolidation of its ranks, and division (schism) must be regarded not as progress but as a crisis, since it means that enemies have filtered into its ranks and are destroying it. The strength of the Party lies not in division but in unity of thought and action of all its members, for then contradictions arising within the Party (such as there have been, and will be in the future) are purely specific, individual contradictions, to be solved by all members of the Party, united on the basic points of its programme. The successful solution of contradictions in the form of a battle of opinions helps strengthen the unity of the Party, which in turn is a factor ensuring the further successful solution of such contradictions as may arise. The penetration of bourgeois influences into the Party and the struggle against them is to be regarded not as “division” but rather as the struggle of the Party as a whole against alien elements.

p Naturally a situation can occur where, for various reasons (socio-economic, historical, ideological, etc.) leadership of 127 the Communist Party passes into the hands of non-Marxists, open or covert enemies of Marxism-Leninism—as has occurred in China today. Then "division of entity”, the struggle against them is perfectly justified. But such phenomena constitute the exception not the rule, and do not derive from the nature of the Communist Party or socialism.

p The same applies to the relations between the communist parties of different countries. Here there can be no contradictions on fundamental issues, and hence no “division”; there can only be contradictions on individual matters of a temporary nature, which are resolved on the basis of essential unity, and whose solution indeed requires such unity and not division.

p In short, Maoism emasculates the dialectics depriving them of real live content and transforming it into a collection of sterile formulae. Mao Tse-tung’s thesis that development follows the pattern “unity—struggle—unity”, which is contrary to Lenin’s theory of contradictions, universalises antagonistic contradictions.

p In conclusion it must be said that Marxist dialectics demand a concrete historical approach to social phenomena. They cannot be used as an abstract scheme for the logical deduction of answers to all practical questions, but require that not only general features inherent in a phenomenon at all stages of its development be taken into account, but also the features of contradictory development that characterise a phenomenon at a given stage of its development.

p The contradictory nature of the development of each socialist country and the socialist community as a whole, or each communist party and the world working-class movement as a whole, have their own individual features in addition to the features that are common to social development in general. The unity of opposite aspects is especially important here, and the contradictions are non-antagonistic in character. The various communist parties are working in different conditions, and this gives rise to different approaches to practical matters, and even to disagreements. But community of fundamental interests enables the various detachments of the world army of Communists to overcome whatever difficulties and disagreements arise among them. The participants in the international forum of Communists in Moscow in 1969 expressed their firm belief that differences 128 between the communist and workers’ parties will be successfully resolved. "This belief is based on the fact that the international working class has common long-term objectives and interests, on the striving of each Party to find a solution to existing problems which would meet both national and international interests and the Communists’ revolutionary mission; it is based on the will of Communists for cohesion on an international scale.”  [128•1 

p The Maoists, however, extend the individual concrete cases of "division of the entity" in the form of a division of society into hostile classes to all social phenomena. Is this to be regarded simply as a theoretical error or a doctrinaire mistake? While it is possible that some of the rank-and-file Maoists are simply misguided, in the case of Mao Tse-tung himself we are clearly dealing with a deliberate departure from the ideas of Marxist philosophy, for his distortion of the dialectics and anti-Marxist interpretation of many major questions of our age is the result not of failure to understand, but of a practical policy that is hostile to Marxism-Leninism being pursued by Mao and his group. The Maoists do violence to dialectics in their attempt to prove what cannot be proved and justify their wrong policies.

p Mao Tse-tung’s utilitarian approach to dialectics is plainly seen in the fact that he only applies "division of the entity" selectively, to certain, deliberately chosen phenomena.

p The “division” of the socialist community is declared progressive and inevitable, whereas in the case of the “ division” of China into the Chinese People’s Republic and Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan it becomes a question of the "union of the two into a single entity”. The “division” of the Chinese Communist Party is declared to be progressive and inevitable, while with the Chinese bourgeoisie it becomes a question of the "union of the two into a single entity”. The “division” of the international labour movement is declared to be progressive and inevitable, but with respect to renegades expelled from communist parties and direct agents of the bourgeoisie the principle of "union of the two in a single entity" is proclaimed.

p Clearly then, the debate on the basic law of dialectics was the result not of academic interests in a major scientific 129 problem but of Mao’s attempt to use the ideas of "division of the entity" to provide theoretical substantiation for his policy of splitting the world communist movement. This is why he has always been so irritated by such concepts as “unity”, "identity of contradictions" and the like, and all words reminding him of the need for a concrete approach to different kinds of contradictions, antagonistic and nonantagonistic, have been thrown overboard.

p Another important point one is struck by in this connection is that while maintaining that contradictions between communist parties and between socialist countries are antagonistic Mao at the same time declares contradictions between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie to be a contradiction within the people, and hence non-antagonistic. This is yet another proof of his utilitarian, pragmatic approach to dialectics. In the pursuit of his great-power hegemonistic aims Mao is prepared to cause division (“ dissolution”) of the socialist community and international communist and working-class movement and unite with their fiercest enemy, the bourgeoisie.

p Mao Tse-tung’s distorted concept of materialist dialectics leads him to draw the most paradoxical conclusions: firstly, that contradictions cannot be solved, secondly, that contradictions must be exacerbated and thirdly, contradictions must be created where they do not exist. Mao replaces objective dialectics with his own peculiar brand of "subjective dialectics”, involving the fabrication of contradictions both within the country and abroad.

p Within the country, "subjective dialectics" involve the policy of exacerbating contradictions within the Party, within certain classes and social groups and among them. Hence Mao’s claim that the "cultural revolution" is something desirable and inevitable, necessary to the proper development of the Party and the country. This can perhaps be taken as an indication that we can expect further "cultural revolutions" in the future.

p Abroad, Mao’s "subjective dialectics" involve China’s "great resistance" to other countries, and a merciless head-on struggle between them with no quarter given. According to Mao, the absence of such conflict leads to stagnation. Thus, Mao considers that the war between China and Japan helped China’s development. He seems to regard the existence of an 130 outside enemy to China as a blessing in general, judging by the way he searched so hard for a new “enemy”, and eventually settled on the Soviet Union. Now, we must assume, China’s further development is “ensured”. This is the truly monstrous meaning of Mao’s "subjective dialectics”.

p Thus, Mao Tse-tung’s “dialectics” and “philosophy” are used to exalt his "philosophical genius”, for the " philosophical substantiation of all his actions and the defamation of his ideological opponents. Dialectical terminology is employed solely for the purpose of concealment, now of greatpower chauvinism, now of hide-bound national egoism.

The Maoists strive to back up whatever policies they happen to be pursuing with the relevant quotations from the classics of Marxism-Leninism—the "big leap forward" with the thesis of the idea becoming a material force when it takes hold of the masses, their splitting policy with Lenin’s ideas on the division of the entity, the Hungweiping outrages with the Marxist thesis of the need for resolute struggle against revisionism, and so on and so forth—trying to keep as close as possible to the Marxist-Leninist terminology, so that correct theoretical formulae are distorted and misapplied in practice. Apart from some similarity in terminology employed, the Maoist “dialectics” have nothing at all in common with the Marxist dialectical method, and upon closer analysis it transpires that they are nothing more than a modification of the traditional Chinese dialectics whose substance we have already examined.

<			>
<<	The Theory of Balance in Lieu of Materialist Dialectics		>>
<<<	CHAPTER III -- THE IDEALIST ESSENCE OF MAOIST PHILOSOPHY	CHAPTER V -- MARXIST-LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND MAOIST ``LEAPS'' IN THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE	>>>

http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/4.2-Antagonism.in.Lieu.of.Contradiction	1,340 titles  •  155 online
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z	Created= 2008 May 25
At@ Leninist . Biz ... we mean Business !	leninistbiz Loaded=