49

p What are the starting principles of Mao’s outlook? Although his works contain statements that being is primary and consciousness is secondary, and that objective reality is the source of sensation, he takes an essentially metaphysical and idealistic view of the whole complex interconnection of matter and consciousness, of the whole contradictory process of reflection by man’s consciousness of objective things and phenomena.

p Mao quite obviously needed the proposition on the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness in order to appear to be a consistent materialist, for it cannot in any way be squared with Mao’s own “original” view of many philosophical problems reflecting his ideological stand, such as the relationship between the objective laws of social development and men’s conscious activity, society’s economic basis and its political superstructure, social being and social ideas, and so on.

p Viewed from this angle, Maoism is seen to start from the 50 primacy of the subjective factor, “subjective activity”, politics, ideas. This is expressed in such postulates as: the main role in the socialist mode of production belongs to the relations of production and not to the productive forces; politics and not economics is the command force in socialist society; moral and not material incentives are the principal ones in socialist construction.

p All these postulates ultimately boil down to the thesis that under socialism men’s “subjective activity" has the decisive role to play, which essentially means an urge to subordinate the objective laws of socialist construction to the subjective activity of leaders, and to provide a theoretical substantiation for subjectivism, voluntarism and adventurism in domestic and foreign policy.

p A discussion on the relationship between objective laws and subjective activity was started in China in 1958 and 1959, and extensive propaganda of the notorious “theory of subjective activity" was launched at about the same time, with Mao’s role in developing this theory being extolled in every possible way. Here are two pertinent statements from a textbook, Dialectical Materialism, published in Peking in 1961: 1. “Carrying on a resolute struggle against all manner of opportunist elements denying or minimising the role of the subjective activity of the masses, he [Mao—Ed.] made not only a theoretical but also a great practical contribution to the development of the theory of subjective activity. He not only gave a precise scientific definition of subjective activity in the Marxist view, and clearly and concretely showed that in certain conditions subjective activity plays a decisive role, but also made a comprehensive and profound study, on the basis of a close unity of materialism and dialectics, of the existence of dialectical connections between the subjective and the objective, between subjective activity and objective regularities, between revolutionary spirit and scientific approach.”

p 2. “Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s fresh contribution to Marxist philosophy consists not only in the fact that, starting from the contradiction between the subjective and the objective, he gives a clear and positive answer to the question concerning the definitive role of subjective activity in certain conditions, but also in the fact that basing himself on the main spheres of social life and the Party’s practical activity, he 51 gives our Party an even more powerful theoretical instrument for directing the people in the struggle for the grand transformation of the world [emphasis added—V.G.]."

p What leaps to the eye in these quotations is the emphasis on Mao’s services to Marxism in bringing out the “ definitive, decisive role of subjective activity”.

p Marxism does not, of course, deny the importance of the subjective factor in social development under socialism. On the contrary, it stresses its growing role with the successful advance of socialist construction. This is due to the fact that the Communist Party, relying on the knowledge of the objective laws of social development, is able to use them in the interest of society as a whole. This makes men’s activity purposeful and conscious. However, the laws of social development in socialist society are just as determined materially and are as objective as the laws of social development in all other socio-economic formations. Their inadequate consideration—to say nothing of their neglect—of men’s socio-economic activity inevitably has a negative effect on the development of socialist society.

p In contrast to Marxism, the Maoists advocate men’s subjective activity, virtually ignoring the dialectic unity of the objective laws of social development and men’s conscious activity. They call the Marxists mechanicists because, they say, “refusing to recognise man as the decisive factor in the relations between man and things, they lay one-sided stress on the fact that man’s actions are determined by the lifeless schemes of objective laws, and that man can do no more than passively submit to these laws”. Referring to the fact that under socialism the role of the subjective factor is immensely increased, the Maoists metaphysically contrast objective laws and men’s activity, and separate the two.

p However, the main thing is that the Maoists do not regard “subjective activity" as conscious, purposeful activity of the masses, based on a knowledge of the laws of social development, but action in realising any subjectivist propositions of the leaders. That is why the references to Mao’s services in developing the “theory of subjective activity" mean his apology of men’s activity which is not limited by any objective laws, that is, essentially an apology of voluntarism and subjectivism. This is a subjective, idealist standpoint.

52

p One important point needs to be borne in mind in analysing Maoist philosophy. Very frequently the Maoists resort to the following trick to cover up their departure from Marxism. They take a correct Marxist proposition but give it their own interpretation, by variously accentuating one of its aspects, which they happen to need most at the time, and by taking a part out of the context of the whole and turning it into an absolute. But to cover up the sleight of hand they make sure to quote the doctored Marxist proposition in full.

p That is exactly what they have done in this instance. In order to cover up their revision of the Marxist philosophical postulate concerning the dialectical interconnection between the objective laws of social development and men’s conscious activity under socialism, they centre attention on men’s activity while speaking of the need to give consideration to objective laws.

p That is why the Maoists’ distortion of the correct propositions of Marxist philosophy can be discovered not only in a careful study of their theoretical views and a thorough analysis and comparison of all the statements on a given question, but also by establishing when, in which circumstances and on what occasion this or that theoretical proposition is being accentuated. In particular, Mao’s subjective, idealist approach to the use of the objective laws of social development becomes even more obvious when we find that his apology of subjective activity occurred in the period of the “Great Leap Forward" and the people’s communes.

p Maoism also takes an essentially subjective, idealist view of man’s role in material production. Take an article which appeared in 1965 in the journal Hsin Chianshe, organ of the Philosophical and Social Sciences Department of the Academy of Sciences of China. The authors said: “Although the instruments of labour in production, the objects of labour, weapons in war, etc., are indeed of great importance, although they are a considerable factor in production and in war, they occupy a secondary place in comparison to man. Regardless of the area—production struggle or class struggle, it is men and not things that are the factor with the decisive role to play."  [52•1  The point is, the authors add, that man has an active and things a passive place. Man “can think, 53 can work, he possesses subjective activity, he can know and change the world, whereas things do not possess such features. . ."  [53•1 . “Among all things, the instruments of labour in production and weapons in war are the most important. . .. However, detached from human activity, nature cannot supply man with the necessary instruments of labour and weapons. In detachment from human activity the implements and weapons already created are turned into rubbish."  [53•2  Here, as on the question of the relationship between subjective activity and objective laws, the role of the subjective factor is hypertrophied.

p But perhaps this is a stand for man’s active substance, for his activity? If we recall that the abovementioned reasoning appeared just when China’s industrialisation rate had slowed down after the fiasco of the “Great Leap Forward" and the people’s communes, in a period when the role of technical devices and technological progress was being variously played down and ignored, in a period when Mao’s idea of the atomic bomb being a “paper tiger" was being plugged, it will become obvious that it has a patently antiMarxist ring. We find a deliberate exaggeration of man’s role in material production and a playing down of the role of material production itself.

p Marxism has always emphasised man’s decisive role in production. One need merely recall what Lenin said about the working man being the primary productive force of all mankind. But Marxism has never separated man from the other component elements of the productive forces or contrasted him with them. Man is the chief but not the only component of the productive forces. Any neglect of this principle, whether deliberate or otherwise, tends to obliterate the fundamental distinctions between the various modes of production, because every society is characterised by a definite level in the development of the productive forces.

p As man exerts an influence on nature he not only changes it but also changes himself. He becomes more adept in the mode of creating the means of labour, but this depends on the level in the development of the productive forces 54 attained at any given moment. It should be borne in mind that at every given historical epoch man’s power and potentialities are limited by the existing level in the development of material production, the means of labour above all. Hardly anyone will deny that the means of labour are nothing without man. But this does not warrant their reduction to nothing. Man’s power is expressed precisely in the level to which his means of production have been developed. The Maoists preach nihilism with respect to science and technology, and this is reflected in one of their slogans: “Topple the scientific authorities.” Under the current scientific and technological revolution, with science being a direct productive force in society, this attitude is bound to lead to stagnation in scientific research.

p There again we find the characteristic feature of Maoism: the narrowly utilitarian approach to theory, resulting in a divergence between theory and practice. Mao himself cannot but be aware of the ever growing role of the natural sciences in modern society, because the use of their achievements helps man to enhance his power over nature. Evidence of this comes also from the fact that most of the research institutions and scientists engaged in the fabrication of nuclear missiles were spared any criticism during the “cultural revolution”. The blows fell mainly on those working in the social sciences. Mao apparently needed the bogey of “ pseudo-science" and “admiration for scientific authorities" in order to defeat his political opponents. The Maoists have not cast doubt on the importance of the applied natural sciences, and are hardly likely to do so in the future.

p Mao’s exaggeration of man’s role in production is closely connected with his erroneous view of the relationship between the productive forces and the relations of production, between the basis and the superstructure.

p The Marxist view of this question was expressed by the founder of the scientific philosophy in these words: “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely, relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which 55 correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms —with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. . .. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production."  [55•1  Lenin said that these words of Marx expressed the materialist view of history.

p By contrast Mao, first, essentially assigns the main role within the productive forces/relations of production system to the latter component and, second, holds that the establishment of new relations of production does not spring from objective necessity, which is rooted in the process of material production, but from men’s subjective will.  [55•2 

p The Maoists believe it to be possible artificially to “ improve" the relations of production regardless of the development of the productive forces, in order to tackle the tasks of China’s socio-economic development. That was the purpose of the “Great Leap Forward" and the establishment of the people’s communes. With socialist construction in China at its initial stage, they issued a call for the earliest transition to communism. The people’s communes were advertised as the primary cells of the future communist society. The lamentable results of this “experiment” are well known.

p The artificial “improvement” of the relations of 56 production, which boils down to all manner of organisational and political restructuring in agriculture and industry, is designed to sharpen the class struggle, and this has been expressed in the endless succession of political campaigns and mass movements. Let us recall the movement against the “three” and “five” evils (1952 and 1953), the struggle against the “Rightist elements" (1957-1958), the movement for ordering the style of work (1958), the “give the Party your heart" campaign (1958-1959), the movement for socialist education in the countryside (1962-1963) and, finally, the “cultural revolution" (1966-1969).

p This anti-Marxist conception is given a logical capstone in the following formula: “The thought of Mao Tse-tung is an almighty force.” The newspaper Jenmin jihpao wrote: “When the thought of Mao Tse-tung spreads across the whole world, when the revolutionary peoples of the whole world gradually master it, it will be able to change the spiritual face of the revolutionary peoples of the world and to transform spiritual force into a great material force. Having mastered the thought of Mao Tse-tung, the revolutionary peoples of the world will destroy the old world in a powerful, inexorable attack, completely bury imperialism, modern revisionism and reaction in all countries, and build on earth an immensely radiant, unprecedentedly beautiful, great new communist world, a world without oppression and exploitation."  [56•1 

p We find here an unscientific interpretation of the Marxist proposition concerning the relative independence of ideology, and a vulgarisation of Marx’s thesis that ideas become a material force when they take hold of the masses.

p Marxists have always attached much importance to the role of ideas in social development, believing that ideas can help to accelerate its pace, provided only that these ideas reflect real life, the relationship between classes, the advance of science and economic progress. Marxist ideas are viable and invincible and exert an accelerating effect on the social process because they are scientific and accord with the laws of social development. That is why they become a material force transforming the world. The “thought of Mao Tsetung" is deprived of any life-giving power because it is not 57 based on science, and does not accord with the objective laws of social development, which is why its translation into practice has brought defeats for China’s domestic and foreign policies.

p Maoism revises the Marxist proposition concerning the role of the masses and the individual in history: the role of the individual is exaggerated, the cult of heroes is revived, and the masses are treated as a faceless mob bent to the will of the leaders.

p The unscientific and subjectivist view of the role of the individual in history is clearly expressed in the build-up of Mao’s personality cult, and in the exaggeration of his role, with a simultaneous playing down of the role of the people and the Communist Party in the history of the Chinese revolution. The whole activity of the CPC at every period of its history is identified with the activity of one man—Mao Tsetung—“a personality of the highest order”, “a genius”, according to Maoist propaganda, who is born into the midst of men once in a few centuries, which is why unquestioning obedience to him is a guarantee of China’s successes. “ Always think of Chairman Mao, obey Chairman Mao in everything, consistently follow Chairman Mao, do everything for the sake of Chairman Mao."  [57•1 

p We have here something that goes beyond the mere revival or rehearsal of the Narodist theory of the “heroes” and the “crowd”. The Narodniks held up more than one hero, and enshrined the hero as an ideal. In Mao’s case we have one “hero” who has the capacity, at will, to change or even abolish the laws of social development.

p The official press helps to deify Mao and praise the Maoists who are obedient to him. The official press is not interested in the people as such, as the maker of history, as a participant in the revolutionary transformation of society. In the theory and practice of Maoism, the people is assigned the role of extra, who walks on the stage when bidden ta do so and blindly carries out the orders of Mao Tse-tung. According to the logic of Maoist philosophy, the masses are incapable of taking conscious and organised action, and can merely submit to and blindly follow the “hero”. This is substantiated by “Mao’s thought" that the Chinese people is a 58 clean sheet of paper on which there is nothing, but on which one is able to write “the newest, the most beautiful characters, on which one can produce the newest, the most beautiful drawings".  [58•1  This view of the role of the individual and the masses in history has nothing in common with Marxism. It adds up to a pernicious cult of the personality of a leader who stands over and above the people. It amounts to mistrust of the people and abuse of them.

p The sway of Mao’s personality cult fosters in the Chinese people a spirit of slavish adulation of the leader. Ordinary Chinese are quoted as saying: “Chairman Mao’s concern is vaster than the heavens and the earth, Chairman Mao is dearer than father and mother. But for Chairman Mao, I would not have existed."  [58•2  All of Mao’s writings are regarded as sacred; therefore “Mao Tse-tung’s works must be studied every day. If you fail to study the leader’s works for one day, a host of questions will arise; if you fail to study them for two days, you will begin to slide down; and it is altogether impossible to live without the leader’s works for three days."  [58•3 

p Subjectivism is a feature of Mao’s view of history. The Maoists regard Mao’s political and theoretical activity as being the only cause behind social development. Action by social classes, sections and groups is meaningful only in so far as it coincides with the leader’s prescriptions. That is why today the Hungweipings are ordered out into the streets, and tomorrow are sent into the countryside; today all the Party cadres are persecuted and tomorrow some of them are rehabilitated.

p No political leader can regard himself as a Marxist unless he is guided in his activity by the tenet that history is made by the masses, by millions of producers, and that the decisive role in revolutionary transformation belongs to social classes, unless he is able, or to be more precise, willing to connect in a single whole the individual and the masses, and to cease theoretically and practically to act on the principle that history is made by heroes at whim.

Consequently, Mao’s philosophy constitutes a revision of 59 the materialist view of history, and marks a retreat to subjective, including Narodist, sociology, whose propositions have long since been refuted by Marxism.

p Summing up some of the results of the examination of Maoist philosophy, we can draw the conclusion that Mao and his ideological followers do not take the stand of dialectical materialism. Their Marxist terminology merely serves to cover up the eclectic mixture of subjective idealism and some propositions of pre-Marxian materialism and naive dialectics.

p Mao is essentially a traditional Chinese thinker, but one who has to act in the 20th century, and who has for that reason adopted as his instrument (naturally, modified) the elements of modern theoretical thinking which he needs and is able in any way to sort out.

p Let us note that Mao’s apologists, when building up the myth that he is the greatest Marxist philosopher of our day and age, deliberately accentuate only those problems which are dealt with in Mao’s works, thereby creating the impression that these are at the centre of modern philosophy. The problems Mao fails to “elaborate” or even to mention are deliberately dropped as philosophical problems, thereby artificially narrowing down the sphere of philosophical knowledge and impoverishing philosophy itself as a science. At the same time, the Maoists deliberately ignore the fact that the solution of the problems Mao considers was given by philosophers before Marx, while the most general propositions are borrowed from the Marxist-Leninist classics to help Mao appear as a classic himself. The Maoists’ “works” do not give the slightest hint that modern Marxist thinking has been elaborating any philosophical problems.

p Here is Mao’s version of the process of cognition: “Often, correct knowledge can be arrived at only after many repetitions of the process leading from matter to consciousness and then back to matter, that is, leading from practice to knowledge and then back to practice. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge, the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge."  [59•1  The ways, stages and forms of cognition are 60 known to be an important element of Marxist epistemology, which emphasises the dialectical essence of the process of cognition, makes a detailed study of the logic of forms and laws of thinking, especially of conceptions, judgements and deductions, and shows the role of theory and hypotheses in the attainment of the truth.

p Mao confines himself to rehashing the ideas about the two stages of knowledge and their sequence, something that has been known since the period of antiquity and ancient Oriental philosophy. Maoist epistemology altogether fails to show the dialectical connection between consciousness and matter, to show the role of labour and other types of human activity in the origination and development of consciousness. The theory of knowledge of Maoist philosophy is not connected with the materialist theory of reflection. It fails to analyse the dialectics of objective, relative and absolute truth, or their contradictory unity and transition into each other, and has absolutely nothing to say about the logical and historical ascent from the abstract to the concrete in the comprehension of the substance of things and phenomena.

p Moreover, Mao directly revises the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge. First of all, he breaks up the process of cognition into independent, discrete processes alternating with each other. Furthermore, he takes a vulgar, mechanistic view of the connection between the process of cognition and the process of formulating practical policy, and confuses the problem of the source of knowledge and the process of cognition itself, which, let us bear in mind, is based on a definite store of knowledge. Mao rejects mediated experience; he holds that “theories, directives, plans, measures" have to be taken through all the stages of knowledge afresh. This approach of Mao’s is also confirmed by his neglect of the experience of his predecessors, whose knowledge, he says, is “bookish”. While taking an oversimplified and vulgar view of the connection between theory and practice, Mao also has an idealistic concept of “practice” itself, in which the materialist substance of the Marxist theory of knowledge— “recognition of the external world and its reflection in the human mind" (Lenin)—altogether disappears. While not denying this fundamental materialist principle in so many words, Mao considers the objective external world with all its laws and in all its diversity in absolutely abstract terms, 61 as a “sheet of clean paper" designed for voluntarist “ creative" acts by the “genius”. Mao regards the Chinese people as just such a sheet of clean paper on which one can “ produce the newest, the most beautiful drawings”.

p Because Mao’s “practice” does not rest on concrete and diverse living reality it loses its principal property, that of being the criterion of the truth. Hence, his pragmatic conclusion that only that is correct which leads to success.

Finally, Mao contrasts sensual and rational knowledge, and theory and practice, and connects practice only with purely sensual knowledge, with “experience”, thereby depriving practice of its rational character, and refusing to recognise it as rational activity in the process of cognition. In the light of this view of the connection between rational and sensual knowledge, and theory and practice, the whole of social life—the practice of millions upon millions of working people becomes blind, unconscious activity, each of these being no more than a “little cog" in a gigantic machine run by the hand of the “great genius”.