33

p Maoist propaganda claims that Mao has safeguarded and developed materialist dialectics, notably, the law of the unity and struggle of opposites.

p Actually, Mao has said much on contradictions and the unity and struggle of opposites, but his view of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites is radically at variance with the Marxist view of it.

p First of all, while recognising the struggle of opposites, Mao has failed to show the true essence of this process. Take his speech at a sitting of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee in Wuchang on December 1, 1958, which the Maoists like to quote. Here is what he said at the time: “Just as duality is a feature of all things and phenomena in the world (this is the essence of the law of the unity of opposites), so duality is also a feature of imperialism and all reactionaries—they are both real and paper tigers. History shows that until taking power and for some time after their takeover, the slaveowners, the feudal landowners and the bourgeoisie were viable, revolutionary and advanced classes, and were real tigers. In the subsequent period, as the slaves, the peasantry and the proletariat—the classes which are their opposites—gradually grew, gained in strength and carried on an ever fiercer struggle against them, the slaveowners, the feudal landowners and the bourgeoisie underwent a reverse transformation: they became reactionary, backward classes, they were transformed into paper tigers and ultimately were or will be overthrown by the people.”

p Leaving aside for the time being Mao’s use of the terms “real” and “paper” tigers (which will be dealt with later) one finds that he does not in essence go beyond a formal recognition of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites, and fails to show the mechanism of its operation. Indeed, in the process of historical development, the slaveowners, 34 the feudal lords and the bourgeoisie do cease to be vehicles of social progress and are gradually supplanted by more advanced classes. But to say this is to say nothing, because a mere statement of the generally known historical facts does not yet add up to scientific dialectics. The Marxist theorist must show the dialectics of the process in which one class is supplanted by another, because a knowledge of the reasons, of the source of motion and the development of antagonistic societies provides the basis for men’s conscious activity in the revolutionary transformation of the world.

p The mutual admission and mutual exclusion of opposites is determined by their dialectical nature. Opposites are in a state of mutual interpenetration. That is why from the very beginning of their existence the slaveowners, the feudal lords and the bourgeoisie are burdened with their opposites —the slaves, the peasants and the proletariat. The unity of these opposites consists in the fact that they mutually imply and mutually exclude each other. If this unity is to be eliminated there is need to destroy the basis which produces these opposites, that is, antagonistic society. Such unities are destroyed in the course of the class struggle and social revolution.

p Mao frequently quotes Lenin about the unity of opposites being temporary and relative and their struggle being absolute. However, he has in fact no correct idea of the process in which contradictions unfold. Because Mao regards the unity of opposites as their mere coexistence in one thing or process, he regards their intertransition, their transformation into each other as no more than a mutual exchange of places.

p Mao fails to understand that Lenin’s formula about the unity of opposites being relative and their struggle being absolute means that the contradiction between opposites inevitably deepens and unfolds. This leads to a resolution of the given contradiction, its “removal” and the emergence of a new contradiction. In the process, there is a qualitative change, the emergence of a new phenomenon. For instance, the proletariat is not transformed into the bourgeoisie and does not change places with it, as one would assume on the strength of Mao’s reasoning; there is here a qualitative transformation in the historical role of the bourgeoisie and of the proletariat as opposite classes of 35 capitalist society: at a definite stage in the unfolding of the contradictions, the bourgeoisie ceases to play a progressive role, and the latter passes to the proletariat. This determines the bourgeoisie’s inevitable defeat and the proletariat’s victory, the struggle between them ultimately results in a break of their intrinsic connections and the elimination of the given unity of opposites, as capitalism gives way to socialism. “When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property."  [35•1 

p Consequently, according to Mao, as a result of the victory of the socialist revolution the proletariat changes places with the bourgeoisie. According to Marx, however, the victory of the socialist revolution results in the elimination of the bourgeoisie (private property in Marx’s terminology), and the elimination of the proletariat. Who is right, Mao or Marx? Of course it is Marx. Indeed, on the one hand, the victory of the socialist revolution results in the elimination of the bourgeoisie, because the expropriation of private capitalist property is the decisive condition for the elimination of this class. Of course, bourgeois ideology continues to exert an influence, but the bourgeoisie itself ceases to exist as a class. On the other hand, the victory of the socialist revolution also results in the elimination of the proletariat of the old bourgeois society, a class deprived of the means and implements of production, a class exploited by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, or to be more precise, the working class of socialist society is a totally new class, directing society, in which the means and instruments of production belong to all the working people and where there is no exploitation of man by man. That is why it is wrong to say, as Mao does, that the victory of the socialist revolution results in the proletariat changing places with the bourgeoisie.

p In contrast to Maoist dialectics, Marxist dialectics clearly shows that under socialism neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat exist in the old sense, because socialism is a qualitatively new social phenomenon, with a unity of opposites proper to it alone.

36

p Mao’s approach to the law of the unity and struggle of opposites suggests that development is not viewed as a negation of the old by the new, but as a simple repetition of the past, as a circular movement or even as a movement in reverse. Suffice it to say that Mao’s “dialectics” envisages the destruction of mankind and the globe: “There are no things in the world which are not born, which do not develop and die. The monkey was transformed into man, men arose, but ultimately mankind as a whole is bound to perish. It will be transformed into something different, and at that time there will be no globe. The globe is ultimately bound to be destroyed.”

p The content of the Maoist concept of contradiction itself is a mechanical antithesis of external opposites, with Mao using good and bad as the terms to designate these opposites. There are also other pairs like good and evil, hot and cold, etc. Such propositions were to some extent meaningful 20 centuries ago, when the idea that objective being and human thinking were contradictory was being established. But in the 20th century, with the present level of scientific knowledge, that is hardly enough. What is more, to declare these propositions today, under the scientific and technological revolution, as being the summit of scientific dialectics, is to hurl philosophy into the past, and amounts to insisting on the idea of a geocentric Universe.

p Marxist philosophy is never stationary and constantly develops. But it does not develop by returning to ancient philosophical ideas, however true these were in the past, but by generalising the data provided by the latest scientific advances, and analysing the development of theoretical thinking itself. Similarly, Marxist dialectics is not, and cannot be, reduced to a simple mechanical juxtaposition of external and quite obvious opposites. Scientific dialectics must show the internal contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, and the real process of development of things and phenomena consisting of two opposites; in other words, scientific dialectics must analyse their self-movement.

p The Maoist definition of opposites does not give a correct understanding of the complex and contradictory processes of development in nature and society. This is not only because it is meaningless. Mao has been using such opposites to vindicate his distorted interpretation of social processes 37 and to obscure the failures of his political line. He says that counter-revolutionary insurrections in the socialist countries are “good” because they help to strengthen the new social system; equally the death of great numbers of people in social revolutions is good because it brings on the victory of the people; another world war is good, because it will allegedly help to eliminate capitalism, and so on. Such “dialectics” have as much in common with Marxism as alchemy with chemistry.

p In general, a purely mechanical combination of selfevident opposites does not amount to scientific dialectics. On the contrary, it is vulgarisation and distortion of dialectics. Moreover, self-evident opposites do not always constitute the two sides of a unity, whether thing or process. For instance, in some developing countries the bourgeoisie (commercial, compradore, bureaucratic) can exist without the proletariat; in socialist society the proletariat can exist without the bourgeoisie; under feudalism the landowners can exist without tenants, etc.

p This also applies to war and peace. Of course, war and peace are two opposite concepts: when war starts, peace ends, and vice versa. This does not mean, however, that war and peace are phenomena which mutually determine each other. Mao takes the oversimplified, unscientific view of these two phenomena as being outwardly opposite to each other, and regards them as social opposites expressing the essence of social development. It may logically follow from this that the self-movement, the unfolding of the opposite sides of a social organism, inevitably leads to the alternation of war and peace. However, war and peace are not two sides of a unity, but distinct forms of political relations between states. War originates not from the development of a form of relations between states like peace, but from the intrinsically contradictory nature of capitalist society itself. Mao’s “theoretical substantiation" of the alternation of war and peace merely shows up the pathetic nature of his “dialectics”.

p We find him considering the law of the unity and struggle of opposites without analysing the interconnection between the categories of possibility and reality. It is quite obvious, however, that the resolution of any contradiction is closely connected with the transformation of possibility into reality, because the resolution of the contradiction and the point at 38 which possibility is transformed into reality constitute the two sides of one and the same process of development.

p The existence of possibility depends on the intrinsically contradictory nature of phenomena. For instance, in the present conditions there is a possibility of another world war breaking out. However, the existence of such a possibility does not yet mean that it is bound to develop into reality. Possibility is transformed into reality only through the struggle of opposites and the victory of one of them. The victory of one and the defeat of the other depend on the quantitative and qualitative distinctions of the possibilities which contain within themselves the given opposites. For instance, whereas in the past the forces of war possessed much greater possibilities for winning out than the forces of peace, today the situation is fundamentally different.

p In our day, the united might of the socialist community, the international working-class and the national liberation movement can force the imperialists to abandon war as a means of settling international disputes. Today, mankind can do away with war as a form of political relations between states. Thus, war and peace are two different phenomena in social life. That is why Mao’s assertion that war must follow upon peace and vice versa, because they alternate, does not show the true essence of these social phenomena. Moreover, the Maoists’ practical activity in the world arena, especially in the recent period, shows very well that Mao’s theoretical exercises over the problem of war and peace are patently political.

p One of the fundamental flaws of Maoist “dialectics” is that it is eclectic and incoherent, and that its separate elements are not logically connected. This is evident, in particular, in Mao’s incorrect view of the peculiar operation of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites under socialism, the substance and historical role of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. On the one hand, he says that the opposites of an antagonistic contradiction are identical, that they penetrate and are transformed into each other, so that antagonistic opposites develop into non-antagonistic ones and back again. On the other hand, he regards the struggle of the opposites of a non-antagonistic contradiction as being the antagonism of two forces running in opposite directions.

39

p On the strength of such methodological principles, Mao in his article “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”, revises the Marxist doctrine on the different types of social contradictions. He substitutes the concepts of “contradictions between ourselves and our enemies, and contradictions within the ranks of the people" for “antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions”. This does not amount to a mere terminological specification or innovation. The point is that the contradiction between the working class and the peasantry, on the one hand, and the national bourgeoisie, on the other, is included among the contradictions within the ranks of the people. 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, while those between the exploiters and the exploited classes have, apart from their antagonistic aspect, a non-antagonistic aspect. ... In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people. The class struggle waged between the two is, by and large, a class struggle within the ranks of the people. This is because of the dual character of the national bourgeoisie in our country."  [39•1 

p The assertion that the contradictions between the working class and the (big) national bourgeoisie in China is nonantagonistic (the reservation that these contradictions also have an antagonistic aspect is immaterial) is Right- opportunist and revisionist, although Mao himself claims to be a fighter against “modern revisionism”. The vital interests of the working class and of the national bourgeoisie in China are irreconcilable, because the latter, like the bourgeoisie of any other country, does not want socialism on any terms, and this is backed up by the whole history of the Chinese People’s Republic. Mao substitutes for the question of class relations the question of the possibility of political agreements and blocs with the bourgeoisie which is fundamentally hostile to the working class. The antagonistic contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie can be resolved only through the elimination of the latter.

40

p But perhaps Mao’s idea that the contradictions between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie fall under the head of contradictions within the ranks of the people is evidence of his creative and unconventional approach to the complex and diverse phenomena of reality itself, of his urge to involve the broadest sections of the population of China in building a new society, and, finally, of a creative solution of the theoretical problems and of a contribution to Marxist philosophy, as Maoist propaganda has claimed?  [40•1 

p Let us recall that it was Lenin who showed the correct and scientific methods for resolving the different contradictions after the triumph of the socialist revolution. On the strength of his dialectical view of contradictions, he required that any possible internal connections even between antagonisms at a definite stage in the development of this or that process should be discovered. Being aware that in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism a fierce class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was inevitable, he believed it possible to use state capitalism, controlled by proletarian dictatorship, to use the bourgeoisie under the New Economic Policy to boost and develop the country’s productive forces, provided the bourgeoisie fully abided by the laws of the state, and provided it was simultaneously being restricted and displaced. Lenin always said that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was an antagonistic one.

p Mao’s assertion that the contradictions between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie are contradictions within the ranks of the people clashes with his own statements at the 2nd Plenary Meeting of the 7th Central Committee in 1949, when he said that once the proletariat took power 41 in the whole of China the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie would become the main one within the country. Maoist dialectics has mutually exclusive propositions because it has a social function. On the whole, Mao has converted philosophy into a handmaid of politics, in the worst sense of the word. His approach to philosophy is purely utilitarian, pragmatic. He has use for philosophy only to the extent it can be applied as an instrument for his ambitious, Great-Power interests.

p A utilitarian, pragmatic approach to dialectics means that it is used to justify any political action. In that case, dialectics must contain a set of propositions which could be used for such purposes, regardless of whether or not these square with one another. That is precisely what we find in Maoist “dialectics”.  [41•1  Naturally enough, at every given moment the propositions of Maoist “dialectics” which best serve the current tactical aims of Mao’s group are brought to the fore.

p The social function of Maoist “dialectics” is most clearly revealed in Mao’s interpretation of the concept of people. He writes: “On this stage of building socialism, all classes, strata and social groups which approve, support and work for the cause of socialist construction belong to the category of the people, while those social forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution, and arc hostile to and try to wreck socialist construction, are enemies of the people."  [41•2  “That is to say, democracy operates within the ranks of the people, while the working class, uniting with all those enjoying civil rights, the peasantry in the first place, enforces dictatorship over the reactionary classes and elements and all those who resist socialist transformation and oppose socialist construction."  [41•3  It may appear at first sight that this is a correct Marxist definition of the concept of people. The people are all those who stand for socialism and build it; 42 those who hamper the socialist reconstruction of society are classed among the enemies of the people. However, a closer examination of the Maoist concept of people shows that class principles are forgotten and that subjectivism takes over.

p In defining the concept of people Marxist sociology starts primarily from the decisive role of material production in social development, and from the economic status of various classes, sections and groups within a given system of social production, because that is exactly what determines the extent to which the various classes, sections and groups have an objective interest and capacity for tackling the concrete tasks facing society in progressive social development. The point is, however, that the Maoist definition of the concept of people lacks the first and basic criterion by which social classes, sections and groups are included in this concept, and this leaves room for subjectivism in defining its framework. All a social group, even an exploiting one (in this case the bourgeoisie), needs to do to be included in the concept of people is to announce its desire to build socialism and take a formal part in its construction.

p In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the concept of people may include the petty and even the middle urban and rural bourgeoisie, but there is no ground at all for putting a broad interpretation on the concept by including the big capitalists as well. However, according to Mao’s view, the people include, and have included, “all those enjoying civil rights”, which means therefore men like one-time Vice-President of Kuomintang China, the diehard reactionary Li Tsung-jen, the economic dictator of Macao Huo Ying, who was a member of the People’s Political Consultative Council of China, and many other leaders of this stripe.

p Mao also takes an anti-Marxist approach to the definition of the proletariat’s class enemies. His main criterion here is attitude to the political line of the present Chinese leadership. According to the Maoist interpretation, “enemy of the people" ceases to be a sociological characteristic and becomes a political phenomenon, which may not be—and as developments in China in the last few years indicate, is not in fact —connected with membership of an exploiting class. On the contrary, a man’s membership of a class is derived from his political stand. Those who are classified as “enemies of the 43 people" are not members of exploiting classes, but all those who “resist the socialist revolution, and are hostile to socialist construction (meaning, refuse to approve the distortion of the principles of socialist construction by the Maoists) and try to wreck socialist construction (meaning, fight against the Mao group)”.

p This approach makes it possible to declare anyone an enemy if, for instance, he happens to express his dissatisfaction or disagreement with the Maoist foreign-policy line. No account is taken of a man’s social origin or social status, or the motives of his discontent. All he needs do to be automatically classed with the “enemies of the people" is to express his disagreement with Mao’s political propositions. It is not surprising, therefore, that in China internationalist Communists are now being branded as “enemies of the people”.

p Thus, according to Mao’s views, present-day Chinese society is divided into “us” and the “enemies”, the former meaning Mao himself and his followers, and the latter not only, and not so much, the bourgeoisie, as all those who think differently and disagree with Mao’s theory and practices. On June 23, 1966, the newspaper Chungkuo chingnien pao wrote: “Those who oppose the thought of Mao Tse-tung are counter-revolutionaries.” Consequently, all one needs do to be branded as an “enemy” is to doubt some Maoist proposition or express his own views. That is why Mao and his followers have been using the “enemy of the people" concept to cover up any arbitrary treatment of their ideological opponents, even those who have never belonged to the exploiting classes and have honestly served the Chinese people and the Chinese revolution.

p The anti-Marxist essence of Maoist exercises on the subject of “people” and “enemies of the people" has been further laid bare by the practices of the “cultural revolution”. The Mao group claims that the aim of this “revolution” is to prevent China’s return to the bourgeois order, and that they are fighting the “enemies of the people" (the word “enemy” has now been enriched with such synonyms as “scum”, “bandit”, “scoundrel”, etc.) and against the “agents of the bourgeoisie who have infiltrated the Party”, “against those who are in power and take the capitalist way”.

p Of course, it is quite possible for bourgeois degenerates and even downright agents of the class enemy to exist in the 44 Communist Party, and there is need for a resolute struggle against them. However, it is the real and not imaginary enemies that must be resolutely fought. Meanwhile, the facts show that during the “cultural revolution" thousands upon thousands of Communists were branded as “enemies of China" because, according to the Maoists, they were agents of the bourgeoisie, which seeks to undermine the cause of socialist construction in China. On the other hand, the real representatives of the bourgeoisie have been spared any criticism.

p Mao seeks to back up his subjectivist interpretation of contradictions under socialism, an interpretation which has nothing in common with Marxism, by references to MarxistLeninist philosophy.

p As has been said, Mao turned to Marxism in the 1920s because he felt that it was the best means of helping to return China to her old grandeur. In the 1930s and 1940s, he used Marxist terminology to assert his leadership in the CPC. Evidence of this comes from the “Decision on Some Questions of the Party’s History”, which he himself drew up, and which abounds with reminders of the need to fight dogmatism and the dogmatists (meaning the internationalist Communists). Mao’s references to Marxist propositions in the 1950s and 1960s were used to cover up his betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, of the principles of socialist construction, to prop up his shaken power in the Party and the country, and to justify the splitting activity in the socialist community and the international communist, working-class and national liberation movement.

p In the first few years after the people’s revolution in China, when Mao and his followers did not yet dare openly to revise the principles of socialist construction and break with the world socialist system and the international communist movement, and when they were forced in the world arena to support the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence, they still referred to the existence of non-antagonistic contradictions. Once the Maoists executed their radical turn about in domestic and foreign policy and laid their claims to hegemony in the world socialist system, and the international communist, working-class and national liberation movement, they began to speak mainly of antagonistic contradictions, which they sought to use to justify the need to 45 draw a “line of demarcation" from the Marxists-Leninists both in China and elsewhere. That was the very purpose of the broad discussion on the law of the unity and struggle of opposites which was started in China in 1964. To make their approach appear Marxist, the Maoists used the authority of Lenin, and put their own gloss on Lenin’s well-known idea of the “dichotomy of unity”.

p Marxist dialectics requires a concrete historical approach to social phenomena. It cannot serve as an abstract scheme from which answers to all the concrete questions of practice are spun out in a purely logical manner. Apart from the general features inherent in the development of social phenomena this dialectics takes into account the contradictory nature of social phenomena at their specific stage of development. In addition to the general features the development in each socialist country, in the socialist community as a whole, in each Communist Party, in the world workingclass movement as a whole, has its own specific features, with the unity of opposites having a specific role to play, because the contradictions are non-antagonistic. For instance, the Communist and Workers’ Parties have to work in different conditions, and this produces different approaches to practical matters and even differences between the Parties. However, their common vital interests provide a basis for overcoming the difficulties and differences between the various contingents of the world army of Communists. The participants in the international communist forum in 1969 expressed their firm conviction that the differences between the Communist and Workers’ Parties would be successfully overcome. They declared: “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."  [45•1 

p The Maoists apply to all social phenomena, including socialist society, the concrete instances in which the “ dichotomy of unity" appears in the form of a division of society 46 into hostile classes. They say that to deny the existence of social antagonisms in socialist society is, in particular, to deny the struggle of opposites as a source of development.

p However, this approach is fundamentally wrong because it does not accord with the propositions of Marxist dialectics and is not warranted by socialist reality itself.

p Obviously, the law of the unity and struggle of opposites is universal, which is why the struggle of opposites is a source of development even under socialism, but this struggle of opposites proceeds within the framework of nonantagonistic contradictions and not social antagonisms. Lenin said that antagonism and contradiction are not the same thing, that under socialism antagonism disappears but contradictions remain. The new system has no struggle of antagonistic classes which leads to a substitution of one socioeconomic formation by another. Socialist society develops on the basis of a resolution of the contradictions which spring from the nature of socialism, otherwise it would be impossible to advance. But these contradictions are not antagonistic.

p What kind of contradictions are they? Some of them are class distinctions between workers and peasants, essential distinctions between town and country, between workers by brain and workers by hand, etc., which are inherited from the earlier formations. After all, according to the founders of Marxism-Leninism, socialism has just emerged “into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism" and therefore “is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society".  [46•1  Characterising the social gains of socialism, Lenin wrote: “The first phase of communism ... cannot yet provide justice and equality: differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production—the factories, machines, land, etc.—and make them private property."  [46•2 

p In addition, as socialism develops it produces other contradictions, which are different from those inherent in capitalism. Among these are, for instance, the following: disparity between the rapidly growing material requirements of the 47 population and the inadequate level of development of production, between the interests of citizens and separate collectives, between the collective and society as a whole, between science and production, when production either lags behind scientific achievements, or when science fails to satisfy the needs of production. Among the contradictions which arise as socialism develops are also a certain unevenness in the territorial location of industry, the lag of agriculture behind industry, and bureaucratic practices in some institutions and among some officials.

p All these contradictions in socialist society are of a specific, non-antagonistic character, but they still continue to be contradictions which determine the advance of society.

p Such is the Marxist view of the question of the specific operation of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites under socialism. It is on the basis of this view that the Communist Parties have been scoring their successes in practical activity.

p It would be wrong to assume that the Maoists’ approach to contradictions under socialism is due to their theoretical mistakes or misconceptions. This may be so for rank- andfile Maoists, but for Mao himself it is a deliberate retreat from the ideas of Marxist philosophy. The thesis concerning the “dichotomy” of socialist society serves as the theoretical justification for the slander and lies directed against the Soviet Union. The Maoists have been shouting about the class stratification of Soviet society, claiming that there are irreconcilable contradictions between the broad masses of the working people and some kind of privileged section, which has allegedly usurped power and is appropriating the fruits of the Soviet people’s labour. The struggle against some anti-social elements, like thieves, embezzlers of socialist property, hooligans and idlers is also set up as a social antagonism.  [47•1 

48

p Evidence of Mao’s utilitarian approach to dialectics also comes from the fact that the “dichotomy of .unity" is proclaimed only with respect to some handpicked social phenomena. The “dichotomy” of the socialist community is declared to be progressive and inevitable, but the “dichotomy” of China into the CPR and Taiwan, which is occupied by the Chiang Kai-shek clique, happens to be a “unification of two in a unity”.

p The “dichotomy” of the Communist Party of China is declared to be progressive and inevitable. But when it comes to the Chinese bourgeoisie, then this is said to be “ unification of two in a unity”. The “dichotomy” of the international working-class movement is declared to be progressive and inevitable. Simultaneously, the principle of “unification of two in a unity" is proclaimed with respect to the renegades expelled from the Communist Parties and patent agents of the bourgeoisie.

p The nihilistic attitude to the cultural legacy practised in the course of the “cultural revolution" offers another example of the use of theory to justify practical political expedients.

p This will be dealt with in detail in Chapter Seven. Let us merely stress at this point that the attacks on Chinese and world culture are justified by the Maoists on the plea that there is need to eradicate the old (feudal and bourgeois) views, traditions, morals, customs and habits, which hamper the assimilation of Marxist (meaning Maoist) ideology. But it would be wrong to draw the conclusion on the strength of this that Mao is opposed to any cultural legacy as such. The destruction of the Chinese people’s cultural values, carried out on his initiative, is, we believe, determined by tactical considerations. The “great helmsman" has attacked the cultural heritage in recent years, first, because this heritage is an obstacle in the way of duping the millions of Chinese; second, because it is being used by the political and ideological opponents of Maoism; and third, because in the light of the world’s cultural and philosophic values the “thought of Mao Tse-tung" stands out in its mediocrity.

p However, it is quite possible that, as conditions change, Mao may well take a stand for some elements of the old culture. The thing to bear in mind is his traditional education, his great love of calligraphy and versification in the 49 old Chinese manner, and his interest in Confucianism and Buddhism.  [49•1 

The Maoists seek to substantiate their political acts with quotations from the Marxist-Leninist classics: the “Great Leap Forward"—with quotations on the transformation of an idea into a material force when it takes hold of the masses; their splitting policies—with quotations on Lenin’s idea concerning the dichotomy of unity; the lawlessness of the Hungweipings—with references to the Marxist proposition on the need for resolute struggle against revisionism, etc. The result is a vulgarisation and gross distortion of Marxist dialectics. Apart from some outward terminological similarity, Maoist “dialectics” has nothing in common with the Marxist dialectical method, and when put to the test turns out to be a peculiar modification of traditional Chinese dialectics as described above.