282

p We have considered some aspects of Maoism and have tried to show how it looks in theory and practice. Summing up what has been said one could define it as a specific pseudo-revolutionary, chauvinistic trend in the world revolutionary movement.

p As we have tried to show, Maoism consists of conceptions and notions characteristic of non-proletarian social groups in Chinese society: the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, the petty-bourgeois urban sections, and the poor sections of the peasantry. These conceptions and notions are largely determined by the status of their vehicles in the country’s sociohistorical structure and by their cultural and ideological traditions. They contain ideas borrowed from non-socialist thinking abroad. In addition, Maoism also contains a whole range of nominally Marxist propositions which, however, lose their real meaning because they are incorrectly understood or applied.

p It would be wrong to say that Maoism stems directly from non-Marxist ideological trends. It emerged in definite historical conditions and has its own specific features. However, Maoism is akin to other pseudo-revolutionary ideological trends, because those spring from similar-type socio-economic structures.

283

p Thus, for instance, the Maoists, like the Trotskyites, have no faith in the strength of the working class and its capacity to give a lead to the peasantry along the socialist path, although this is expressed in different ways. Trotsky saw the peasantry as a petty-bourgeois mass hostile to socialism, a mass which in Soviet Russia was, sooner or later, to clash with the working class, because the latter was allegedly incapable of establishing a strong alliance with the peasantry. By contrast, Mao believes the peasantry to be the most consistently revolutionary and constructive force, capable of giving China a lead along the way to socialism and communism. However, this discrepancy is more outward, because ultimately the Trotskyites and the Maoists equally ignore the historical mission of the working class and minimise its leading role in society.

p The Trotskyites and the Maoists have also much in common in the methods they advocate for socialist construction, for these are based on subjectivism and voluntarism and lack of any scientific understanding of the laws governing the development of the socialist economy.

p The Trotskyites sought to introduce militarised forms and methods of organising production, and held that such production was to be based on forced labour. They also insisted on the retention of the civil-war methods of strictly regulating distribution of the aggregate social product, with the maintenance of low levels of consumption. Trotsky insisted on a levelling of the working people’s consumption together with the principle of shock-work, that is, utmost mobilisation of efforts by workers and peasants in production. This was categorically rejected by Lenin, who wrote: “It is all wrong. Shock-work is preference, but it is nothing without consumption... . Preference in shock-work implies preference in consumption as well."  [283•1 

p The Maoists have reproduced Trotskyite ideas, and looked to forced labour, the establishment of labour armies, and the use of military methods in the national economy.

p The method of administration by fiat, of orders and the use of force was expressed in Trotsky’s thesis about “ tightening the screws" and “shaking out the trade unions”, a 284 method the Trotskyites wanted to be turned into the basis of the Party’s domestic policy in its relations with the working people. The Chinese leaders have reproduced this method on an extended scale.

p Disbandment of trade unions, abolition of democratic principles in life, “revolutionisation” of industrial enterprises with the aid of military units, and uninterrupted purge campaigns—these are only some of the methods the Maoists have used. Trotsky tried artificially to accelerate the world revolution by means of a world war. Mao has pursued the same aim, but by means of a “people’s war”.

p There is also much in common between Maoism and anarchism. Let us recall that anarchism was the fullest expression of petty-bourgeois revolutionism at the dawn of the proletarian movement, when the proletariat’s struggle was still embryonic and was still dominated by the forms which occur at the initial stages of the proletarian movement. Lenin said: “Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian."  [284•1 

p Among the characteristic features of anarchism is the demand for instant revolution and blind faith in the miraculous power of activity. Its view of the revolution above all as an act of universal destruction goes hand in hand with fairly hazy ideas about constructive activity after the revolution. This makes anarchism akin to Maoism, which sees the revolution and the post-revolutionary period as consisting of nothing but destruction.

p What the Maoists and the Blanquists have in common is that both start from the assumption that a bold revolutionary sally by conspirators (armed uprising, rebel action) can provide the impetus, the spark that will ignite the conflagration—a massive uprising for the triumph of social revolution. Lenin said these Blanquist tactics were a “Blanquist gamble" and “ a game of taking over power”. Both Blanquism and Maoism are characterised by conspiratorial tactics based on action only by the top leadership, without any consideration of objective conditions.

p There is also a great deal that is common to the Maoists 285 and the Narodniks. The assumption that the peasantry is imbued with “socialist instincts”, that the village commune is an embryo of socialism, and that peasant riots will save mankind from capitalism and exploitation—all these Narodnik political propositions have been re-issued in a new version by the Maoists, who have visions of building communism first in the countryside, and who consider the peasantry to be the greatest constructive force. The Maoists regard the urge on the part of the poor section of the Chinese peasants to have egalitarian distribution as signifying a high level of communist awareness.

p Maoism also reveals some Bonapartist features, like its reliance on the militarists and its tacking between classes and social groups. The Maoists have borrowed a great deal from Confucius and his followers. Confucius believed that man’s moral improvement was the best means of doing away with social injustice in society. This Confucian dogma was adopted by Mao, who holds that if the Chinese studied his articles—“Serve the People”, “In Memory of N. Bethune" and “Yui Kung Has Moved the Mountains"—all their vital problems would be solved. Like Confucius, Mao has visions of a “society of justice" which is to be set up by educating the Chinese people in a spirit of asceticism and privation, instead of tackling economic problems.

p We believe these are the characteristic features of Maoism:

p First, eclecticism. This is natural because, as we have said, Maoism consists of different, sometimes mutually exclusive, concepts and propositions.

p Second, primitivism and oversimplification, verging on distortion of various propositions of scientific theory.

p Third, a demagogically utilitarian and pragmatic approach to theoretical propositions. Maoism regards philosophy as a narrowly utilitarian instrument to be used for the achievement of definite aims, instead of a methodological basis for working out correct strategy and tactics, policy and slogans.

p When considering the eclecticism, primitivism and utilitarianism of Maoism the following points should be borne in mind. Maoism exists on two “levels”: one is for the broad masses, and the other for a narrower group of persons, for the military-bureaucratic elite; there are two “truths”: one is for general consumption, for the Party rank-and-file, the 286 masses of workers and peasants, and the other, for Mao’s entourage. The second “truth” is a fairly coherent system of views concerning the functioning and structure of social power, the principles of economic policy, and the rules governing relations in society and the Party, and so on.

p Fourth, Great-Han chauvinism. Many Maoist propositions are of a clearly chauvinistic tenor and are designed to back up the universal importance of Chinese experience and, in consequence, China’s messianic role in the world revolutionary process and in the whole of world history, and to justify the political practices of the present Chinese leadership. Theoretically, their chauvinism is substantiated, the Maoists argue, by the shift of the centre of the world revolutionary movement to China. One newspaper declared: “China is the centre of world revolution. In the past, the centre of history lay entirely in the West, but now it has shifted to China. China has become not only the political and economic centre, but also the cultural centre. It is unique in the whole world. In future the centre of science and technology will also shift to China. . . . People’s China, armed with the thought of Mao Tse-tung, will inevitably become the political, economic, cultural, scientific and technological centre."  [286•1 

p Brezhnev’s speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Moscow in June 1969, specifically drew attention to the connection between the hegemonism of the present Chinese leadership and its Great-Power aspirations.

p Great-Han chauvinism is indissolubly connected with anti-Sovietism. It is expressed above all in the fierce attacks on Lenin’s Party, which, according to the Mao group, stands in the way of their hegemonistic aspirations. Here is how the Maoists’ logic runs: in order to impose their doctrines on the international revolutionary movement and to subordinate all countries and peoples to their political and ideological diktat, there is need to “crush” the CPSU. For that purpose, the most incredible, slanderous inventions have been circulated about the “aggressiveness of the USSR" and a “Soviet-American deal”.

287

Brezhnev’s report on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Lenin said: “The enemies of socialism are the only ones who benefit by the virulent anti-Soviet campaign that has been conducted in China during the past few years. Lately it has been carried on under the screen of an alleged threat from the Soviet Union. By their actions against the country of Lenin and against the world communist movement the initiators of this campaign expose themselves before the masses as apostates of the revolutionary cause of Lenin."  [287•1 

p The emergence of an ideological trend like Maoism inevitably poses the question of the future of Marxism in oncebackward countries, including China. The ideologists of the bourgeoisie have recently been drumming in the idea that Marxist theory is inapplicable to countries with a precapitalist social structure, and have referred to the experience of the Chinese revolution, the activity of Mao and his followers, and the conceptual formalisation of Maoism.

p We believe these assertions to be groundless. The spread of Marxist-Leninist ideas across the world is naturally promoted by the growth of the world revolutionary process, as it involves many millions of working people in oncebackward countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It would, of course, be wrong to assume that the process runs smoothly and painlessly. The experience of the past few decades shows that the spread of Marxism in breadth has far from always been accompanied by a correct understanding and application of its principles. Lenin wrote: “One of the most profound causes that periodically give rise to differences over tactics is the very growth of the labour movement. If this movement is not measured by the criterion of some fantastic ideal, but is regarded as the practical movement of ordinary people, it will be clear that the enlistment of larger and larger numbers of new ‘recruits’, the attraction of new sections of the working people must inevitably be accompanied by waverings in the sphere of 288 theory and tactics, by repetitions of old mistakes, by a temporary reversion to antiquated views and antiquated methods, and so forth. The labour movement of every country periodically spends a varying amount of energy, attention and time on the ‘training’ of recruits."  [288•1 

p This warning of Lenin’s is of special importance for the working-class movement in the developing countries. It is common knowledge that the social structure of these countries is marked by a slight class differentiation, the prevalence of peasants among the population, and a weak working class (or no working class to speak of in some countries). All of this, quite naturally, confronts Marxists in these countries with much more difficult tasks than those that have ever faced Marxists in the developed capitalist countries.

p China is a striking example of the extreme backwardness, illiteracy and ignorance of millions of people in the past. But there are different kinds of backwardness. Russia, too, was once very backward, but both this backwardness and the need for change had already been recognised among the leading sections of the intelligentsia as early as the end of the 18th century. Russia had a rich and historically rooted revolutionary tradition of social thinking and social action. In China, such a tradition began to take shape only in the 20th century. The country did not have any serious chance of “experiencing” the various theories of revolutionary thought, before it found itself faced with the need of expressing its attitude to full-fledged socialist trends, notably, Marxism.

p This brings up the fundamental methodological question about applying general Marxist propositions to concrete (national) conditions, specifically in backward countries which include China. It would be wrong to deny the need to consider national specifics as Marxism is joined with the revolutionary movement in this or that country. Marxism is not “applied” to some abstract social organism, but to a definite socio-historical soil. Marxism is not joined with a working-class movement in general, but with the political movement of the working class and the other exploited sections in the given country. Marxism is not 289 adopted by abstract men, but real individuals with definite and fairly stable conceptions, traditions and habits which have been shaped under the influence of their social milieu.

p Lenin was fully aware of this and of the great difficulties facing Marxists in the backward countries. He required that they should display skill in tackling the complex problems of reality, and taking account of national specifics in applying Marxism in the conditions of backward countries.

p Consequently, the spread and assimilation of Marxist ideas in socio-economically backward countries cannot be quite identical, at any rate not at the initial stage, to similar processes taking place in the advanced countries.

p All of this has a direct bearing on China. Marxism can be successfully adapted to China’s conditions only if the men directing this process take account of the socioeconomic conditions, of China’s historical past, of the level of scientific development and scientific thinking, including philosophy, and of the Chinese national traditions.

p However, the transfer of Marxism to national, in this instance Chinese, soil should not be accompanied with departures from its cardinal principles. Marxists resolutely oppose any stereotyped application of general truths and the imposition of abstract schemes without considering the specifics of each country. However, consideration of national specifics cannot and must not be accompanied with departures from the general principles of Marxism, with direct betrayal of these principles and a substitution of a hostile ideology for Marxism. At this point, exceptional importance attaches to the subjective moment, meaning who directs the process of joining Marxism with the revolutionary movement of the exploited masses in each country. Because since the 1930s this process in China was headed mainly by inconsistent Marxists or anti-Marxists (Mao and his followers) this has resulted in the emergence of an ideological trend like Maoism, which is hostile to Marxism.

p Marxists insist on the creative development of the theory of scientific socialism. “Communists regard it as their task firmly to uphold the revolutionary principles of MarxismLeninism and proletarian internationalism in the struggle against all enemies, steadfastly to make them a living 290 reality, constantly to develop Marxist-Leninist theory and enrich it on the basis of present experience of waging the class struggle and building socialist society."  [290•1 

p The Maoists have distorted the idea of the creative approach to the development of Marxism-Leninism. Referring to the specifics of the Chinese revolution, Mao has tried to create a methodology of his own, which is different from Marxist-Leninist methodology, clothing it in “Chinese” national form. He wrote: “Marxism can be translated into life only through a national form. There is no abstract Marxism, there is only concrete Marxism. Concrete Marxism is Marxism that is embodied in national form, that is, Marxism which is applied in concrete struggle, in the concrete conditions of Chinese reality, and not Marxism which is applied abstractly. If the Communists, who constitute a part of the great nation, who are an organic part of this nation, treat Marxism outside the context of China’s specifics, that will be abstract, empty Marxism."  [290•2 

p Indeed, Marxism needs to be applied in the light of the concrete situation in any country, including China. But Mao is wrong in saying that there is only “concrete Marxism”. This is a denial of the international character of Marxism, and its “quartering” at the various “national premises”.

p It is also wrong in itself to contrast “abstract” and “ concrete" Marxism, because Marxism is a coherent doctrine of the international working class.

p Creative application of Marxism in accordance with each country’s conditions does not amount to its “ nationalisation”, which is why it is wrong to speak of a “Russified”, “Germanised” or “Sinified” Marxism. But Mao believes the application of Marxism in the concrete conditions of Chinese reality is a “Sinification” of Marxism, which in effect amounts to a distortion and vulgarisation of Marxism and its supplanting by the “thought of Mao Tse-tung”.

p The emergence of Maoism, and its subsequent establishment as the official doctrine of the CPC, has never been inevitable. The experience of revolution and socialist construction in countries neighbouring on China, the history of the 291 revolutionary movement in China herself, and finally, the practice of the first ten years of the people’s power in China show that Marxist-Leninist ideas are universally meaningful, both for countries in the West and for countries in the East.

There is no doubt at all that the fundamental stand taken by the CPSU and the other fraternal Parties on the antiLeninist and anti-socialist propositions of the present Chinese leadership, and the well-argumented scientific critique of its theoretical conceptions will help to enhance the influence of Marxist ideology among the Chinese people.