p Mao Tse-tung and his supporters treat the relationship between theory and practice in oversimplified, mechanistic terms. We have already cited Mao’s statement that theory is derived from practical experience, and that the more the practical experience one has the more theories there will be, and the richer theoretical activity will become. Mao is thereby implying that philosophy and dialectics are extremely easy sciences that anybody can master, even an illiterate person, provided he has experience of production and class struggle.
p This Maoist approach has been reflected in the policy of "the masses study philosophy" and "letting philosophy out of the scholar’s study”. The apparent democratic nature of these slogans conceals unparalleled profanation and debasement of theory, and of the Party’s task, as the vanguard of the working class, of bringing theory to the masses. [144•2
p The slogan "the masses study theory, the masses develop theory" is in fact simply a screen used to conceal an attempt to lead the Party away from real study of Marxist-Leninist theory and the experience of the Soviet Union and other 145 socialist countries, and limit the Party cadres to the study of everyday experience, thereby producing a slide towards creeping empiricism.
p Consider the following. "Practical struggle is the best school, and participation in practical struggle is the best training, since ability to wage the struggle can only be acquired by participation in it.... At first we had no experience of carrying out democratic and social revolution, but by persistent practical study we acquired knowledge and mastery of the objective laws of democratic and social revolution and learned to carry out the revolution. In the same way, if we wish to properly master knowledge and skill in socialist construction we must practice socialist construction and thereby learn it in practice. Only in practicing building can we learn to build.” [145•1
p Here we have clear evidence of the Maoist refusal to take note of the experience acquired by other parties in socialist construction, and their insistence on the theory of “self-reliance”. The statement that the CPC "by persistent practical study (i.e., study of Chinese practice.—M.A., V.G.) acquired knowledge and mastery of the objective laws of democratic and social revolution" reveals a complete disregard for the vast experience of the world revolutionary movement.
p The author completely rejects the experience of former revolutions and international revolutionary experience. One is reminded of Lenin’s thesis that in order to become a Communist one must first enrich one’s mind with knowledge of all the wealth mankind has accumulated, a thesis that became one of the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism. This thesis is quite incompatible with the Maoist endeavours to present their narrow empiricism as the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism and impose it upon the world revolutionary movement.
p It must be said that there were elements in the Chinese Communist Party in the late fifties and early sixties who had the courage to speak out, either openly or indirectly, against the disregard for Marxism-Leninism and the previous accomplishments of Marxist theory, and against the primitive 146 half-baked theories to which the label "contemporary Marxism" was attached. Peng Teh-huai, member of the Politburo of the CPC and Minister of Defence until 1959, was reported in a Hungweiping newspaper as having described "the thoughts of Mao" as follows: "They are outdated and useless. We take the ideas of Chairman Mao and are guided by them in all we do, and we study all his works. And yet these books are becoming outdated and useless.
p “Conditions are different now. These things are absolutely useless. At best, we can use them for references. But by saying that ’the East is red’ and that Mao Tse-tung is the great saviour of the people we are only encouraging idealism.” Liu Shao-chi declared in a speech to Party workers in 1962: "To say that the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are the peak of Marxism-Leninism is not a scientific approach. Surely Marxist-Leninist teaching is not going to cease developing?”
p Ho Ying-chu, an outstanding Chinese philosopher and historian, wrote in 1963: "Some comrades believe that theory is born out of practice and that if they engage in much practical activity they can rest assured that there will be much practical experience and theory will develop as a matter of course. They have failed to make it clear that while theory is undoubtedly born out of practice, it does not equal practice. Unless all questions of the practical implementation of the revolution and other important questions are subjected to thorough analysis and raised to the level of theory, and if limited experience is mistakenly regarded as embodying general truths, then empirical mistakes will inevitably be committed." [146•1
p Ho Ying-chu went on to call for the adoption in China of a policy of socialist construction based on generalisation of Chinese practice, Marxist-Leninist principles and the study of the experience of socialist construction in the fraternal countries. The same tendency was expressed in Liu Shaochi’s appeal in "On the Self-cultivation of Communist Party Members" "to be faithful pupils of Marx and Lenin”. It must be remembered that these declarations were made at the time when the Chinese Communists were pondering over the catastrophic results of Mao’s "three banners" policy, and trying 147 to assess their country’s future prospects. During the bacchanalia of the "cultural revolution" Peng Teh-huai and Ho Ying-chu came under fire from the Hungweipings and were included in the "Black Gang" as opponents of "the thoughts of Mao”. At the so-called Twelfth Plenary Meeting, in flagrant violation of the Rules of the CPC and the Constitution of the Chinese People’s Republic, Liu Shao-chi, Chairman of the Chinese People’s Republic, was "expelled forever from the CPC and removed from all posts inside and outside the Party". [147•1
p An oversimplified, empirical approach to theory such as we have been referring to is thus clearly detrimental to the Party’s role as theoretical vanguard of the working class. The founders of Marxism-Leninism, while pointing out that theory develops from the generalisation of practice, stressed that theory is a special sphere of science, the development of which required a certain level of knowledge and mental preparation.
p Lenin pointed out that by itself the working class was only capable of developing an awareness of its immediate economic requirements, which does not necessarily mean rejection of the capitalist system or bring to light the inner causes of the development of capital and exploitation of the working people, let alone determine the path to be taken in struggle for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a new, socialist order.
p Mao, on the other hand, claims that the masses are capable of understanding the essence of imperialism and exploitation, and the Party must simply "draw from the masses and take to the masses”. Here is what he writes in "On Practice": "Similarly with the Chinese people’s knowledge of imperialism. The first stage was one of superficial, perceptual knowledge, as shown in the indiscriminate anti-foreign struggle of the Movement of the T’ai P’ing Heavenly Kingdom, the Boxer Movement; etc. It was only in the second stage that the Chinese people arrived at rational knowledge, when they saw the internal and external contradictions of imperialism, as well as the essence of the oppression and exploitation of China’s broad masses by imperialism in alliance with China’s 148 compradors and feudal class; such knowledge began only about the time of the May 4 Movement of 1919.” [148•1
The reader who is unaware of the real content of Mao’s views and his attitude to the masses might well be left with the impression that Mao has an extremely high opinion of the abilities of the Chinese people. In actual fact the above assertion really serves the opposite purpose, that of preventing the Party from arming the Chinese working people with the Leninist views of imperialism.
Notes
[144•2] Mao Tse-tung and his group use this theory in an attempt to avoid responsibility for the fact that the CPG has done practically nothing at all since the forties to connect the Chinese working-class movement with scientific communism. The efforts of the communist internationalists to propagate Marxism-Leninism were obstructed by the powerful machinery working to impose the "thoughts of Mao" on Party members. Although the decisions of the Eighth Congress (1956) helped check the advance of Maoism, they were unable to put an end to the chauvinism which had been corrupting the Party for years. It is hardly surprising that the decisions of the Eighth Congress were to all intents and purposes revised only a year later, although the Maoists were unable at that time to crush the opposition of healthy elements. Ten years of fierce struggle, including the notorious "cultural revolution" were necessary before "Mao Tsetung’s Thought" could once more be declared the official basis of the Party’s ideology at the gathering called the "Ninth Congress”.
[145•1] Wu Tseng-yi, "To Raise the Political Level”, Feng-tou, 1962, No. 3.
[146•1] Hsin-hua jih-pao, Nanking, February 13, 1963 (emphasis added.— M.A. V.G.).
[147•1] "Communique of the Twelfth (Enlarged) Plenum of the CPC Central Committee”, Jen-tnin jih-pao, October 31, 1968.
[148•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 289.