38

p A. Rumyantsev

p The “thought” of Mao Tse-tung, proclaimed as the pinnacle of Marxism-Leninism, is currently the ideological foundation of social life in China.

p In order to lay bare the actual content of this “thought” it must be analysed carefully and compared with the principles of Marxism-Leninism and also with the consequences of its implementation in practice. Such an analysis is the sole means of exposing Maoism as a system of ideas running counter to the basic interests of the Chinese people and to socialist construction in China, as an anti-scientific, antiMarxist-Leninist system of ideas raised in fact to the level of religious dogmas forcibly planted in the country and in one way or another poisoning the minds of millions of Chinese. Moreover, such an analysis is necessary because Maoism is seeking to influence the national liberation movement throughout the world and gain control of various of its trends. To a certain extent Maoism exercises a corrupting influence on the world working-class movement, too, chiefly through unstable and mostly extremely adventurist elements. This makes it imperative that Marxists-Leninists should expose the theory and practice of Maoism which is inflicting enormous damage to the cause of the socialist reorganisation of society.

p The development of the present-day world revolutionary process, of which the communist movement is the leading force, closely intertwines with the national liberation, people’s democratic and socialist revolutions. Different social classes, strata and groups are involved in this process. The great teaching of Marx, Engels and Lenin, tested and verified in revolutionary struggle and socialist construction, has become the theoretical, ideological and political weapon of the working people in their struggle for liberation.

p Ever broader non-proletarian strata of working people are being drawn into the revolutionary movement headed by the world proletariat. Of course, the non-proletarian masses enter the revolutionary movement with their own interests and views. Under certain conditions their theorists, 39 while giving verbal recognition to Marxism-Leninism, may become active exponents of non-Marxist views. The world communist movement has time and again encountered phenomena of this kind and given a rebuff to various groups and trends that emerged in its ranks and tried to impose on it either a Right-opportunist policy or Leftist sectarianism and adventurism, in other words, a petty-bourgeois outlook using Marxism as a blind. On many occasions Lenin warned that the "growth of the working-class movement necessarily attracts to its ranks a certain number of petty-bourgeois elements, people who are under the spell of bourgeois ideology, who find it difficult to rid themselves of that ideology and continually lapse back into it”.  [39•* 

p The possibility of Marxist-Leninist theory being distorted or supplanted by non-Marxist maxims is particularly great in cases where a revolutionary struggle is started in countries that are extremely backward economically and politically, where the working class is numerically small and peasants and other petty-bourgeois strata are the main force of the revolution, where for one reason or another no link exists with the international working-class movement and where no proletarian party steeled in class battles exists. These are the conditions that took shape in the revolutionary movement in China during the first half of the present century.

p China was a semi-colonial country almost until the mid20th century. Capitalist relations had already emerged but semi-feudal and feudal relations were still very strong. The country was being rapaciously exploited by foreign capitalists and by the compradore bourgeoisie and landowners. Industrial workers constituted less than one per cent of the gainfully employed population. The bulk of the people (90 per cent) were peasants. In the large towns petty-bourgeois and lumpen-proletarian elements were predominant.

p The Chinese working-class movement was very weak even during the first 25 years of the 20th century. When the Communist Party of China was founded in 1921 it had only a few score of members. Political actions involving seamen, railway workers and some other contingents of the working class took place between 1921 and 1925, but the anti-feudal, 40 anti-imperialist, national liberation movement remained the basic content of the revolutionary process in that country. The Communist Party of China grew, drawing most of its new members from the peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It was under these social conditions that Mao Tse-tung’s ideological and political thinking was moulded.

p Mao Tse-tung was born in a peasant family. As a youth he was mesmerised by the history of Ancient China, and from the very outset his views were influenced by Confucianism. The history of other nations lay outside his field of attention. In school Mao and his fellow pupils memorised books propounding the dogmas of Confucius and also of Mencius, Tzu Ssu and other Confucian scholars. Like many other young people of those days, Mao Tse-tung “rebelled” against Confucian scholasticism, but feudal-monarchist views, particularly the idea of a great China as the overlord of Asia and the whole world, reflecting the traditional view of the Chinese nationalists that China is the centre of the world, remained deeply-rooted in Mao Tse-tung’s mind.

p At the close of 1918 he struck up a close friendship in Peking with some active proponents of anarchism, corresponded with anarchists in other cities and even urged the formation of an anarchist society in Hunan and other provinces.

p Direct testimony of his powerful attraction to anarchism was an article entitled "Broad Alliance of the People”, which he published in the summer of 1919 in the journal Hsiangchiang pinglun. In this article he gave preference to anarchism over Marxism, considering the views of the anarchists "broader and more profound" than the views of the Marxists.

p In 1920 he joined the movement of communist study groups. As his subsequent activity showed, this switch did not make him drop his anarchist outlook. At the 6th Congress of the CPC in 1928 it was pointed out that as a political commissar of the Chinese Red Army Mao Tse-tung had pursued a policy that was "typical mainly of the lumpenproletariat and of the petty bourgeoisie reduced to despair and seeing no way out for itself”. Mao Tse-tung’s anarchist ideas again came to the fore later, particularly during the notorious "cultural revolution”.

p He came into contact with Marxist philosophy and political economy only in 1933, when he read some textbooks on 41 the subject. Generally speaking, he gained his knowledge of Marxism chiefly by reading popular literature, for example, Ali Ssu-chi’s Popular Philosophy, and not by a systematic study of the works of the classics of Marxism- Leninism. This is quite understandable because in the 1920s and the early 1930s, when Mao Tse-tung formed his outlook of the world, the basic works of the classics of Marxism were not published in China. Mao Tse-tung knows no foreign language.

p An analysis of the articles written by Mao Tse-tung shows that many of the Lenin quotations used by him were obtained at second hand in distorted and abridged form. Moreover, it is known that he called those who studied Marx’s Capital "dogmatists uselessly racking their brains”.

p In fact, Mao Tse-tung has never known the basic works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Unquestionably, he has acquainted himself with Marxism, but his knowledge of it is superficial and distorted. Marxism-Leninism as an integral teaching and a harmonious system of dialectical, materialist views has remained a sealed book to him.

p In a number of speeches he claimed that although the petty-bourgeois way of thinking was inculcated in him at school, he rid himself of this psychology when he became a revolutionary. He wrote that he "studied Marxism a little from books and made the first steps in ideological selfre-education, but re-education proceeded chiefly in the course of a long class struggle" (my italics.—A.R.).  [41•* 

p Let us accept the statement that Mao Tse-tung " reeducated himself" in the course of the struggle that was directly linked with his practical work. In other words, let us accept the fact that his theoretical views derived from his practice and were a generalisation of the revolutionary process in which he was directly involved. Then let us put the question generally: Can a modern scientific philosophy be evolved independently by generalising mainly the practice of the anti-feudal, national liberation movement?

p A scientific philosophy such as Marxism-Leninism can in our day be assimilated and mastered by leaders of the anti-feudal, national liberation revolutions, but it cannot be 42 evolved from the practice solely of these revolutions. The philosophy of scientific Marxism presupposes a scientific generalisation of the highest stage of civilisation—large-scale machine industry and world economic relations with all their effects on socio-political relations. Marxism is the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat and its rise and development are indissolubly linked with the struggle waged by that progressive class.

p Having emerged on the soil of the class antagonisms of bourgeois society, Marxism provides the key to understanding pre-capitalist relations as well. That is why it attracts the attention of the leaders of anti-feudal movements and exerts a definite influence on their way of thinking. Today, anti-feudal and national liberation movements inescapably develop into anti-imperialist revolutions closely linked with the entire world revolutionary process, whose motive force is the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie. All this opens the door to the dissemination of Marxism in the countries of the colonial and semi-colonial world and to its assimilation by the leaders of the revolutionary movement in these countries. But it is one thing to master the scientific world outlook and apply it in the course of the anti-feudal, anti-colonial revolutions and another to work out this outlook solely on the basis of the practice of these revolutions.

p Mao Tse-tung’s veiled claim to having independently worked out a scientific philosophy in the course of the class struggle in China is untenable.

p It is indisputable that Marxism has influenced the thinking of many leaders of the modern anti-feudal, national liberation movements. But the very concept of influence implies a wide range of hues and transitional stages—from the assimilation of individual elements of Marxism and attempts to combine them with non-Marxist (including religious) philosophical and political concepts, to an unconditional adoption of scientific communism.

p In backward, colonial and semi-colonial countries, the class composition of the movement leaves an imprint on its course and form. Even if its leaders sincerely strive to be guided by scientific Marxist theory, the practice of the revolutionary movement in such countries is not at once delivered from typically petty-bourgeois limitations and 43 contradictions. In its turn, this cannot help exercising some influence on the world outlook of these leaders. That is why it is so necessary for them to make a successive, systematic and profound study of Marxism-Leninism and the entire experience of the international working-class movement and to assess the achieved results self-critically. The poorer their grounding in theory the more easily they come under the influence of petty-bourgeois psychology and ideology while continuing to regard themselves as Marxists. But it is not a matter of what any leader thinks he is, but of the objective content of his views and practical activity.

p Mao Tse-tung is a case in point. He never mastered Marxism as an integral teaching, but obtained a fragmentary knowledge of it in a truncated and primitive form. As we shall show later, he used "Chinese specifics" as the plea for rejecting the experience of the international working-class movement, while during the class struggle in China he kept coming under the influence of typically petty-bourgeois views and sentiments.

p This was most strikingly illustrated by his stand in the struggle within the Chinese Communist Party, shifting now to the Right, now to the Left of the line objectively dictated by the social reality of China. For instance, at the 3rd Congress of the CPC he adhered to a line combining a Rightwing pessimistic assessment of the proletariat’s " potentialities with a Left-wing adventurist point of view, according to which the development of the Chinese revolution depended directly on a military invasion of China. In 1927 Mao Tse-tung put his stake on the theory of "permanent revolution.” At the same time, he maintained that the socialist revolution was on the agenda in China (“we are standing on the threshold not of 1905 but of 1917”). In April 1929 he suggested a Leftist plan for the seizure of Kiangsi province. In 1930 he sided with Li Li-san, who calculated on involving the USSR in a world war.

p He laid claim to the leadership of the Party, having no use for the Central Committee. A document adopted by the Party committee of Southeast Hunan in December 1930 states: "Wishing to preserve his position, Mao Tse-tung planned the physical destruction of leading cadres of the Party and the Youth League in Kiangsi province and the creation of a party bearing exclusively the hue of the Maoist 44 group in order to use it as a weapon against the Central Committee.” An element of this plan was the destruction in that same year, on instructions from Mao Tse-tung, of the CPC special committee and the provincial government and many leaders of Fukien. The pretext for this monstrosity against innocent people was the accusation that they were members of a counter-revolutionary terrorist organisation. There have been quite a few facts of this sort in Mao Tsetung’s career.

p An insight of Mao Tse-tung is contained in a document signed by the special CPC committee in Yenan: "Mao Tsetung, as everybody knows, is an extremely cunning and slippery character with a hyper-developed individuality... . His activity shows that he is definitely unsuitable, a criminal to the cause of the class struggle, an enemy of the Bolshevik Party.”

p In the sharp struggle that raged in the Party at the close of the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s the Mao group ousted the internationalist Communists from the leadership and began laying down the Party line.

p As a result of the kaleidoscope of “teachings” in his mind and of his petty-bourgeois nature, Mao Tse-tung wavered under the new conditions, too. For instance, in 1935 and 1936 he made an attempt to employ Leftist tactics that would have undermined the real possibilities of forming a united national front in China.

p He makes wide use of Marxist terminology, which veils the petty-bourgeois substance of his theories. At first glance some of the propositions in his articles seem to be Marxist. This is particularly true of the articles that were reprinted after the Chinese revolution. In the new editions they were carefully edited and this gave them a Marxist aspect. This is what misleads readers.

p Mao Tse-tung did not at once claim world-wide importance for his “thought”. The first stage was the "Sinicisation of Marxism”. This “thought” was very clearly formulated by Mao Tse-tung at the 6th plenary meeting of the CPC Central Committee in October 1938. This is what he said at the plenary meeting: "Before it can be applied Marxism must acquire a national form. The concept of abstract Marxism simply does not exist. There only exists concrete Marxism. What we call concrete Marxism is a Marxism that has 45 acquired national form" (my italics.—A.R.). Further, he sets the task of "Sinicising Marxism" on the "basis of Chinese specifics”.  [45•* 

p While confining Marxism to national boundaries, he calls it an international teaching. But, according to him, it appears that Marxism can exist as an international teaching only as the sum of its national forms, that is as German, British, French, Russian, Chinese Marxism and so on. In the long run this signifies the negation of the class international essence of Marxism as the doctrine of the international proletariat, and the abandonment of the common interests of the proletariat and other working people of all countries. It will be recalled that one of the basic propositions of Marxism, formulated by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party is that the Communists of all countries are agreed that all proletarians have common interests. A feature distinguishing Communists is that in the "struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality" (my italics.—A.R.).  [45•** 

p When one examines Mao Tse-tung’s “thought” on " Sinicised Marxism”, particularly in its new wording (i.e., in the way it is worded in his Selected Works), the first impression is that it does not deviate from Marxism. It may seem that Mao Tse-tung had merely paraphrased or concretised for China Lenin’s words that it is necessary to learn "to apply the general and basic principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to discover, study and predict”.  [45•***  But let us compare what Lenin wrote with what Mao Tse-tung says.

p Lenin spoke of the application of the principles of Marxism that are common and fundamental to all peoples, and said that in applying these principles account must be taken of the given country’s specifics, which it was necessary to learn to discover, study and predict. On the basis of the 46 general principles of Marxism he made an exhaustive study of the development of capitalism in Russia, defined its place in the capitalist world system, showed the alignment of classes and parties in the country and their international relations and, in accordance with his study of reality, gave "conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement”.  [46•*  Lenin discovered and showed the common in the specific, and saw the objective behind the subjective and the international behind the national.

p He applied Marxism to the specifics of Russia, using the experience of the struggle of the international working-class movement instead of disregarding it. The experience gained by the working class of Russia in tackling the common tasks of the proletariat is now part of the treasure-store of the international working-class movement. Lenin’s generalising works, which deal with this experience with its international basis and national specifics, have enriched Marxism as an international teaching and borne out the common and basic principles of that teaching. He did not remake Marxism to fit it into national specifics and did not give it a Russian national form. As Maurice Thorez aptly put it: "It signified the implementation, enrichment and development of Marxism, but by no means the Russification of Marxism. Quite the contrary.”  [46•** 

p By contrast, Mao Tse-tung speaks of the "Sinicisation of Marxism" and uses the argument of national specifics to reject Marxism’s international content. He demands that Marxism should be given a national form a priori before studying reality, before any practical steps have been taken.  [46•***  In one and the same breath he proclaims the "Sinicisation of Marxism" and rejects and discriminates against the general truths of Marxism-Leninism, calling them a "foreign eight-legged essay”, "empty and abstract talk" and “doctrinairism”.

p Instead of concretely applying the general truths of Marxism to Chinese reality, he suggests a preliminary, vulgar “sifting”, taking from Marxism only what is suitable to 47 the pragmatic designs of his group. But this sort of juggling emasculates the substance of Marxism as an integral teaching in which all the components are interrelated and supplement one another. In their cohesion all the components of Marxism give general expression to the real relations in the class struggle taking place in the world and mirror mankind’s historical movement.

p Mao Tse-tung’s immediate associates say that his greatest achievement is that he has evolved a Chinese or Asian brand of Marxism in contrast to its “European” form.

p From the very beginning of his acquaintanceship with Marxist-Leninist theory Mao Tse-tung had, in effect, “ retouched” Marxism with various anarchist propositions. In fact, is not his argument that before it can be applied Marxism must be given a purely Chinese national form, a piece of voluntarism, an attempt to impose unrealistic patterns on objective reality? The implication is that it is enough to pick out something “exclusive” without tying it in with what is “common” in the world process, in other words, to pick out a detail and on that basis build up a speculative scheme and thereby have the possibility of “making” history and coming forward as a "maker of history”.

p Maoist theorists often make the claim that the Chinese revolution owes its triumph to the "thought of Mao Tsetung”. Are there any grounds for this?

p History has shown that a people can accomplish an antiimperialist revolution even if its leaders are non-Marxists. But in the given case it would be truer to say that the revolution in China triumphed in spite of the "thought of Mao Tse-tung”. It was consummated on the basis of the general and basic principles of Marxism-Leninism applied to the specific conditions in China in 1945-47, and as a result of mutual assistance and close, fraternal unity between the Chinese people and the world communist movement.

p In 1949 the Maoists declared that their experience was a model for all colonial and dependent countries. After 1958 Mao Tse-tung openly laid claim to the leadership of the entire world communist movement and the role of its supreme theoretician.

p The high priests of the Mao personality cult call him "the great Marxist-Leninist of our times, who brilliantly, creatively and all-sidedly inherited, upheld and developed 48 MarxismLeninism, raising it to a new stage”. In December 1960 Lin Piao called the "thought of Mao Tse-tung" a new phase of the development of Marxist theory, saying that it was the Marxism-Leninism "of the epoch of the downfall of imperialism and the triumph of socialism”. In May 1967 Jenmin Jihpao and Hungchi, the theoretical organ of the CPC Central Committee, wrote: "Marx and Engels laid the foundation of the theory of scientific socialism. Lenin and Stalin enlarged on Marxism, settled a series of problems of the proletarian revolution in the epoch of imperialism and resolved problems of the theory and practice of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country. Comrade Mao Tse-tung has developed Marxism-Leninism, solving a number of problems of the proletarian revolution in the modern epoch, of the theory and practice of accomplishing the revolution and preventing capitalist restoration under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Such are the three great milestones in the history of the development of Marxism.”

p These ideas were echoed in a leaflet devoted to the "Mao stage" of the development of Marxism. It was brought out on June 1, 1967, by the Crimson East hungweiping regiment of School No. 41, Peking, and is headed: Three Great Milestones in the History of Marxism. Its opening words are: "We greet the world upon its entry into the epoch of Mao Tse-tung.”

p The hungweipings, as everybody knows, are directed by the Group for Cultural Revolution Affairs at the CPC Central Committee and by the Army. This leaflet, therefore, cannot be regarded as the work of schoolchildren.

p What works of Mao Tse-tung characterise his “stage” of the development of Marxism-Leninism? It is claimed that his principal theoretical contribution consists of the following essays: On Practice, On Contradiction, The Correct Solution of the Contradictions Within a Nation and Where Do People Get Correct Ideas? The above-mentioned leaflet calls these essays the "most comprehensive, perfect and systematised highest result of all the works on Marxist-Leninist philosophy" (my italics.—A.R.).

p Since the Maoists themselves offer these essays as Mao Tse-tung’s principal contribution to Marxist-Leninist philosophy, it would be useful to ascertain the substance of the ideas propounded in them.

49

p Mao Tse-tung’s main essays—On Practice and On Contradiction—deal with the problem of the unity and struggle of opposites, the problem of contradictions intrinsic in things and phenomena. These essays contain references to works by Marx, Engels and Lenin. In expounding the problem of contradictions he quotes the Philosophical Notebooks, in which Lenin defined dialectics as a teaching of the unity and struggle of opposites, as the study of contradictions in the very substance of things.

p However, a close examination of Mao Tse-tung’s views brings to light the fact that he gives the concept of dialectics a content that has nothing in common with Marxism.

p Indeed, from Mao Tse-tung’s numerous statements it is obvious that he regards contradiction as the relationship between any pair of opposites. For instance, in the essay On Contradiction, to illustrate the thesis that opposites cannot exist in isolation from each other, he writes: "Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would also be no life. Without ‘above’, there would be no ‘below’; without ‘below’, there would also be no ‘above’. Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, there would also be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty; without difficulty, there would also be no facility. Without landlords, there would be no tenantpeasants; without tenant-peasants, there would also be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without a proletariat, there would also be no bourgeoisie.”  [49•* 

p Characteristically, he reduces genuine dialectical opposites (for instance, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) to a purely external, mechanical counterposition of different aspects of a phenomenon (above and below, facility and difficulty, and so on). But these “opposites” have neither been nor can ever be the source of the spontaneous development of things. As Lenin pointed out, the "inner contradictions lead to the replacement of the old content by a new, higher one”.  [49•** 

p Mao Tse-tung treats phenomena superficially, never going into their essence. This is a distinguishing feature of his maxims. The external counterposition of the elements of 50 things does not reveal their specific inner contradictions and links, the unity of their aspects and the struggle between them, or, as Lenin wrote, the unfolding of the mutually determining and mutually penetrating aspects giving rise to the development of a phenomenon independently of the mind. If one finds one or another pair of self-evident opposites it does not mean that one has applied dialectics to a study of reality. The mechanical counterposing of various pairs of qualitative characteristics of a phenomenon or an object which do not reflect its dialectical essence only leads to a simplification and distortion of dialectics. In fact, this may be qualified as philistine vulgarisation.

p Mao Tse-tung’s vulgar interpretation of contradictions is all the more glaring because he does not understand that dialectical opposites, which in unity form a whole, occupy diverse places in this unity. Within the framework of unity each opposite plays a different role. Some generate action preserving the given unity, others generate an opposite action. Conformably to capitalist society, Marx wrote: ”. . . the private owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian, the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter, that of annihilating it.”  [50•* 

p No dialectical contradiction exists without these two aspects, in other words, without these two aspects there can be no unity, struggle nor unfolding of opposites and, consequently, the entire phenomenon cannot develop.

p One might get the impression that Mao Tse-tung appreciates the difference between the progressive and conservative aspect of a contradiction, that he only calls these aspects in his own way. "Of the two contradictory aspects,” he writes, "one must be the principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is that which plays the leading role in the contradiction.”  [50•** 

p At first glance it may seem that Mao Tse-tung’s understanding of the relation between the principal and secondary aspects of a contradiction coincide with the dialecticalmaterialist understanding of this problem.

p But in fact Mao Tse-tung builds up his theory on the 51 basis of a mechanistic notion of the relationship of opposites. In the essay On Contradiction he writes that the contradictory aspects of every process always "exclude each other, struggle with each other and are opposed to each other”, nothing more. Further, he notes that such aspects are contained also "in human thought”.  [51•*  This text had been edited and does not at once reveal what he really means. Originally Mao Tse-tung’s view, i.e., the view stated in a lecture delivered at Yenan in 1937, revealed beyond any doubt his mechanistic approach to the contradiction of aspects. "In every process opposites are most antagonistic and irreconcilable. They do not fuse. They are enemies hating each other. In the development of all processes in the world and in human thought, too, there is this kind of hostile contradictions. There are no exceptions to this rule.”

p According to him, the relationship between hostile opposites, between "two enemies hating each other" is what determines which aspect is the principal one.

p On this basis he expounds his understanding of the leading role of the main aspect in a contradiction solely in the spirit of a quantitative, external and, consequently, mechanistic examination of the process. The whole trouble is that he does not have a Marxist understanding of the "principal contradiction”. His is a primitive understanding: the bourgeoisie rules capitalist society, hence it is the principal element. Actually, the principal factor is the proletariat, which gives impetus to the struggle and, consequently to the forces of development. That is why Marx called the proletariat the destructive, and the bourgeoisie the conservative aspect of capitalist society.

p Enlarging on his theory about the principal and nonprincipal aspects of contradiction, Mao Tse-tung offers the following thesis: ".. .the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction transform themselves into each other and the quality of a thing changes accordingly.”  [51•**  This transformation, he says, takes place as a result of the change in the alignment of the forces of the two belligerent sides: "In a certain process or at a certain stage in the development of a contradiction, the principal aspect is A and the non-principal is B; at another stage of development or in 52 another process of development, the roles are reversed—a change determined by the extent of the increase or decrease in the strength with which each of the two aspects struggles against the other in the development of a thing.” Further, he speaks of the "supersession of the old by the new”.

p Mao Tse-tung thus regards the change in the alignment of forces as a quantitative growth or decrease of these forces. He counterposes one aspect to the other as external forces acting against each other. But the old does not wear away, it is not obliterated by the new. The new preserves everything of value in the old. In dialectical contradiction the new and the old are not mechanistically opposed to each other. Growing out of and negating the old, the new unfolds in a spiral, embodying the useful achievements of the old on a higher level.

p The thesis that the principal aspect of a contradiction becomes the non-principal and vice versa is extended by Mao Tse-tung to the assertion that "each of the two contradictory aspects within a thing, because of certain conditions, tends to transform itself into the other, to transfer itself to the opposite position" (my italics.—A.R.).  [52•*  Materialist dialectics speaks, for example, of the transformation of definite quantitative changes into qualitative ones, and also of contradictions being mutually conditioned and also mutually penetrating, without which no contradiction can exist. Mao Tse-tung, on the other hand, says nothing of this. According to him, under certain conditions the aspects of a contradiction change places, in other words, they change their position.

p He tries to back this idea up with a number of examples. Here is one of them, which is repeated in different variations: ”. . .by means of revolution, the proletariat, once the ruled, becomes the ruler, while the bourgeoisie, originally the ruler, becomes the ruled, and is transferred to the position originally occupied by its opposite" (my italics.—A.R.).*

p On the face of it, this example sounds very impressive. Indeed, does not the bourgeoisie lose its dominant position under certain conditions, i.e., as a result of a proletarian revolution? It unquestionably loses that position, and the 53 proletariat becomes the ruling class. All that is true. Also true is that the proletarian revolution resolves the contradictions of capitalist society. But the question is: Does the bourgeoisie in fact go over to the position that was occupied by its opposite, i.e., the proletariat, and does the proletariat take over the position of the bourgeoisie? After contradictions are settled do opposites undergo no transformation, only changing places? The proletariat is a class of exploited hired workers. Does the bourgeoisie become an exploited class "by means of the revolution" of the proletariat, and does the proletariat, as a result, exploit the bourgeoisie? Once this question is put it shows that Mao’s arguments are philosophically untenable and non-dialectical.

p By putting into effect the objectively necessary complete socialisation of the means of production, abolishing exploitation of man by man and ultimately eradicating all social distinctions, the proletarian revolution changes the entire social system. Consequently, in the process of its development the proletarian revolution does not turn the bourgeoisie from a ruling to a subordinate class. It liquidates it as a class. Correspondingly, the proletariat becomes the working class of socialist society. The revolution is not a single act, but a process in which the social system is fundamentally reorganised. This reorganisation takes place under the direction of the working class. This is the essence of the leading position occupied in society by the proletariat, which far from perpetuating its rule uses it to abolish the exploiting classes and build a classless society. Consequently, the proletariat does not simply take over from the bourgeoisie, but occupies a position that neither existed nor could exist under the bourgeoisie, which rules the working masses.

p However, ignoring these theoretical propositions of Marxism, propositions that have been borne out by practice, Mao Tse-tung lectured his listeners at the Anti-Japanese MilitaryPolitical University in Yenan in 1937: "Under certain conditions these classes (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.— A. R.) change places, so that the exploiters become the exploited, and the exploited become the exploiters, while capitalist society is transformed into a socialist (!) society" (my italics.—A/?.).

In his philosophising Mao Tse-tung juggles with words, many of which are borrowed from ancient Chinese sources

54 (for instance, "there is no good fortune without misfortune”, "the worse the better”, and so on). On this sort of foundation the Maoists make their political assessments of world developments. In extolling the "thought of the great helmsman”, the Chinese press has frequently argued as follows: the USA attacked Vietnam—all the better because that brings the USA nearer to its doom; Israel attacked the Arab states—all the better because Israel had thereby exposed itself as an aggressor, while the Arabs had learned a useful lesson; if the capitalists begin a thermonuclear war— all the better because as a result of this war socialism will become the only system in the world. The transformation of the aspects of a contradiction into each other is thus a fundamental point in the "thought of Mao Tse-tung”. This thesis is used for political conclusions.

p It is generally known that Mao Tse-tung has never engaged in any scientific elaboration of philosophy. Most of his arguments are pragmatic, being a means of furthering his unscrupulous political aims.

p Here is an example of how Mao Tse-tung “theoretically” justifies his subjectivistic and adventurist policy. The Chinese press frequently quotes Marx’s proposition that an idea becomes a material force when it takes hold of the masses. Using this proposition out of its proper context, the Maoists link it with the "thought of Mao Tse-tung" that the Chinese people are a clean sheet of paper. "There is nothing on a clean sheet of paper,” Mao Tse-tung says, "but on it one can write the newest and most beautiful words, and draw the newest and most beautiful pictures."  [54•*  In other words, the people can be made to accept any idea if they are compelled to learn that idea by heart. This, then, would mean that an "idea has won the masses" and that it had thereby become a material force. One can now do anything one likes in accordance with this imposed “idea”, regardless of the objective trend of development and of the objective material conditions of life. In line with this interpretation, the Maoists evolved their proposition that "politics is the commanding force”, and on this basis they gave effect to their adventurist "big leap" policy in economic development, 55 formed "people’s communes" in villages and towns, pursued the course of skipping necessary stages of the transition to communism. In this way Marx’s scientific propositions were replaced with the subjectivistic concepts of Mao Tse-tung. In Mao Tse-tung’s “philosophy” the role of consciousness is thus voluntaristically hypertrophied, consciousness comes forward as the factor determining social existence despite all the “Marxist” terms camouflaging this proposition.

p Marxism attaches due importance to the subjective activity of people, recognising not arbitrary but scientifically substantiated activity. This is the only subjective activity that yields the proper objective results. Society sets itself and carries out only feasible tasks and advances only objectively realisable ideas. In formulating the proposition on the conversion of ideas into a material force Marx linked it with a fundamental principle of historical materialism, according to which social development is determined not by ideas but by objective historical laws. Once they have captured the minds of people, ideas stimulate the revolutionary activity of the masses, who translate them into reality. However, Mao Tse-tung has no use for objective conditions and the corresponding trend of development. He relies on personal pragmatic wishes, on voluntarism.

p In the Yenan lecture, he noted, speaking of the source of movement: ”. . .it is not enough to recognise that movement is engendered by contradiction; one must clearly picture the state in which a contradiction gives rise to movement.” According to Mao Tse-tung, a contradiction has two states: (1) the state of unity (identity) and (2) the state of split unity. In its first state movement, "in ordinary life, is called rest, immutability, immobility, death, stagnation, deadlock, equilibrium, peace, uniformity, harmony, unity, alliance”. This, he says, is a specific form of movement. A movement enters its usual state, Mao says, when unity is split. This signifies "struggle, life, movement, instability, animation, change, disharmony, disequilibrium, and collision that grows into conflict and war”.

p The initial state of a contradiction, according to this pattern, is unity and equilibrium. But this state is "relative, temporary and conditional”. The next state of a contradiction is split unity and disequilibrium. This, he says, is absolute. The pattern of movement, as he sees it, is: equilibrium 56 —disequilibrium. But how is the transition effected from a state of equilibrium to a state of disequilibrium? In the Yenan lecture he simply postulates that identity, unity, rest, death and other relative states, i.e., equilibrium, are included in the absolute state of struggle, i.e., disequilibrium.

p When Mao Tse-tung rewrote this part of the lecture into an essay for his Selected Works, he sought to make it sound scientifically tenable by using pseudo-Marxist terminology. Instead of contradictions in a state of unity and split unity, he wrote of two states of a thing in their movement: the state of relative rest and the state of absolute change. His explanation of the transition of a thing from one state to another is: "When the movement of a thing assumes the first form, it only undergoes a quantitative but not a qualitative change and consequently appears in a state of seeming rest. When the movement of a thing assumes the second form it has already reached a certain culminating point of the quantitative change of the first form, caused the dissolution of the entity, produced a qualitative change, and consequently appears as conspicuous change.”  [56•*  Thus, according to Mao Tse-tung, a “dismemberment” or a “split” of the entity occurs when a thing is in a state of qualitative change, in a leap, as a result of the disturbance of the equilibrium inherent in the first state.

p By disturbing this equilibrium, Mao Tse-tung argues, the second state thereby resolves the contradiction, i.e., it determines the appearance of a new phenomenon and, consequently, of a new equilibrium. His "theory of disequilibrium" thus acquires the following pattern: "equilibrium—disturbance of equilibrium, or disequilibrium—new equilibrium”. In a textbook Dialectical Materialism, published in Peking, Mao Tse-tung’s "theory of disequilibrium" is formulated as follows: equilibrium—disequilibrium—restoration of equilibrium.

p This does not in any way differ from the mechanistic "theory of equilibrium”. When we examine the similarities and differences between the "theory of equilibrium" and the "theory of disequilibrium”, it must be noted that abstract, formal identity is the point of departure in both theories. "Split unity" appears subsequently, at the moment of a leap, at the moment equilibrium is disturbed. The 57 dialectical contradiction is not the impulse of development but the final moment, the result, stemming not as the immanent stimulus of development but as the result of the external causes upsetting the equilibrium. A change of quality restores the equilibrium and so on ad infinitum.

p The "theory of equilibrium" is not something new encountered by Marxism-Leninism; this theory had long ago been criticised by Marxists as untenable and incompatible with materialist dialectics. It will be recalled that Nikolai Bukharin, an exponent of the "theory of equilibrium" and one of the most active adversaries of Marxist dialectics, distinguished a stable and an unstable equilibrium in every existing system. A system is stable when its opposite aspects are in a state of equilibrium. It becomes unstable when the equilibrium of the aspects is upset (the Maoist state of disequilibrium). The restoration of equilibrium ensures the new stability of the system (compare with Mao Tse-tung’s: "it is necessary to secure equilibrium and unity”).

p In a book entitled The Philosophy of Living Experience Alexander Bogdanov, a zealous proponent of the "theory of equilibrium”, wrote: "From equilibrium through the struggle of two forces disturbing it to new equilibrium."  [57•*  Earlier, in the 19th century, the same argument was offered by Herbert Spencer in First Principles, from which Bogdanov drew his knowledge. But this is exactly the pattern of Mao Tse-tung’s equilibrium—disequilibrium—new equilibrium. Mao Tsetung has thus reduced dialectics to the mechanistic theory of equilibrium, only giving it a new name.

p His "theory of disequilibrium" rests on his metaphysical method—empiricism and bare analysis. In a speech on propaganda at the National Conference of the CPC on March 12, 1957, he identified the analytical with the dialectical method. "The analytical method,” he declared, "is the dialectical method.”  [57•** 

p However, the method of scientific cognition is much more complex than a simple analysis. Dialectics is inconceivable without unity between analysis and synthesis. It presupposes the analytical dismemberment of the concrete whole into its 58 elements and the subsequent synthesising activity of cognition, in the course of which the concrete whole is reproduced and the contradictions intrinsic to it are brought to light.

p Progressive dialectical development from the lower to the higher is accomplished through the spontaneous emergence and settlement of contradictions. However, the Maoist "theory of disequilibrium" with its cyclic pattern of “ equilibrium—disequilibrium—equilibrium” creates only the appearance of a progressive movement in accordance with the law of negation of the negation. Actually, it is a theory of viciously infinite rotation, of two alternating states of a phenomenon, whatever reservations Mao Tse-tung cares to make. Rotation does not settle contradiction.

p The vicious infinity of alternating states of things is expressed by Mao Tse-tung in a number of formulas. For instance, he writes: "Practice, knowledge, more practice, more knowledge; the cyclical repetition of this pattern to infinity.”  [58•*  The analogous pattern “unity—criticism—unity” likewise rests on the endless rotation of the same forms. The same pattern is seen in the triad: summing up of experience —taking it to the masses—new summing up of experience. Or the formula of the development of knowledge: specific— general—specific, and so on.  [58•** 

p Here and there Mao Tse-tung states that development follows an ascending curve. But these are only words, because the formula of cyclical repetition does not express an ascent. Dialectical movement is accomplished not along a circle but along a spiral. In the Philosophical Notebooks Lenin stressed that a return to the old is a return to the "seemingly old”, and not a reproduction of the old. Dialectics gives the formula of progress, while the theory of equilibrium or disequilibrium offers the formula of a viciously infinite rotation along one and the same circle.

p Mao Tse-tung regards the settlement of a contradiction as the eradication of the “bad” and the leaving of the “good”. Marx, it will be remembered, criticised a similar assertion by Proudhon. "The very setting of the problem of eliminating the bad side,” he wrote, "cuts short the dialectic movement.”  [58•***  When a contradiction is settled, both its sides 59 disappear, and a new phenomenon arises with its own new contradictions. Mao Tse-tung does not understand the dialectical nature of opposites, and he is, therefore, unable to understand their unity, unfolding or struggle.

p Filling materialist dialectics with terms alien to its content, the Mao group uses “Marxist” phraseology as a screen for its divisive activities in the world communist movement. After starting subversive activities in the socialist camp and the world communist movement, the Maoists held a philosophical discussion on the law of unity and the struggle of opposites in 1962. At this discussion the "unity of opposites”, "split unity" and other concepts were interpreted in a spirit calculated to create the “theoretical” justification of their divisive activities. This was candidly stated by Hungchi, the Maoist theoretical journal: "Under the present conditions of the class struggle in the world and in the country, the CPC Central Committee and Comrade Mao Tse-tung emphasise that use must be made of the concept of ’split unity’ and the Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle against modern revisionism"’,  [59•*  meaning, above all, the activity of the CPSU. Accordingly, the Maoists began tailoring many propositions of Marxism and falsifying them.

p Every philosophical problem of Marxism has been distorted in the "thought of Mao Tse-tung”. For instance, he replaces the problem of the main link in a chain of phenomena with the problem of the main contradictions in the mass of contradictions inherent in a given phenomenon. Moreover, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the principal contradiction of modern times, is played down in favour of the contradiction between the metropolises and the colonies. According to Mao Tse-tung, the national liberation movement is the principal movement of our day, while the working-class movement is secondary.  [59•** 

p This sort of substitution is distinctly traceable in the "thought of Mao Tse-tung" on the predominant significance of the "world village”, and on the "world city" being surrounded by the "world village”. This “thought” clashes with the proposition, formulated at international meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties, that the principal contradiction of our epoch is between socialism (the proletariat) and 60 capitalism (the bourgeoisie). The "thought of Mao Tse-tung" on the "world village" was clearly set forth by Lin Piao in Hungchi: "If one takes the whole world, then North America and Western Europe may be called the ’world city’, while Asia, Africa and Latin America may be called the ’world village’. Since the Second World War the revolutionary proletarian movement has been on the downgrade in the capitalist countries of North America and Western Europe, while the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America has unfolded on an unprecedented scale. In this sense, the modern world revolution presents a picture of the towns being surrounded by the village" (my italics.—A.R.)  [60•* 

p To further his political designs Mao Tse-tung deliberately misrepresents also the problem of antagonistic and nonantagonistic contradictions. He links the settlement of antagonistic contradictions with external forces, saying, for example: "A bomb, before the explosion, is an entity in which contradictory things temporarily coexist because of certain conditions. The explosion takes place only when a new condition (ignition) is present.”  [60•**  Consequently, in order to make a bomb explode, its content has to be influenced from without. Thus, there is no spontaneous development, no real settlement of contradictions (if the “bomb” is the symbol of the unity of opposites). This interpretation of the settlement of contradictions serves as the theoretical foundation for the "export of revolution”.

p In the works of Mao Tse-tung the distinction between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions is, in effect, reduced to how a contradiction is settled—peacefully or nonpeacefully. The distinction, therefore, lies not in the relations of exploitation, which give social relations an antagonistic character, but in the way the contradiction is solved.

p It must be borne in mind that the possibility of resolving antagonistic contradictions peacefully does not change the social nature of an antagonistic contradiction. As regards the conversion of non-antagonistic into antagonistic contradictions, Mao Tse-tung again reduces this to a problem of how the contradiction is resolved.

61

p The same concerns the Maoist interpretation of other key propositions of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The law of the transition from quantity to quality is replaced with a voluntaristic concept that a leap can be accomplished regardless of whether the material and social prerequisites have matured for society’s transition to a new and higher stage of development (the theory and practice of the "big leap”, the mass production of metal by primitive methods, and so on).

p Maoism totally ignores the dialectical law of negation of the negation, according to which development, progress and the appearance of the new presuppose the preservation of everything of value accumulated at preceding stages of social development. This was demonstrated with striking clarity during the "cultural revolution”. In spite of the teaching of the classics of Marxism-Leninism that all the achievements of human culture of all the preceding ages must be mastered, the Maoists proclaimed that they were building a new, proletarian communist culture on the ruins of the old culture, of all that mankind had accumulated in the course of its development. It may be said that the "thought of Mao Tsetung" has come into a most acute contradiction with the national, human foundations of Chinese culture, destroying them along with the long-established norms of behaviour and morals of the Chinese people. Maoism encourages the desecration of the graves of progressive Chinese leaders, for instance, the grave of Chu Chiu-po, the defamation of the memory of militant democrats who died in the revolution, popular writers (Lao She and others), and prominent figures in science and art (Chi Pai-shih and others). This is profoundly inimical to the feelings of the Chinese people.

p The "thought of Mao Tse-tung”, which is a set of philistine and in most cases eclectic ideas of an anarchist and idealistic order, has nothing in common with Marxist- Leninist philosophy. It is widely used by the Mao group as the theoretical foundation for its assault on all adversaries with the purpose of strengthening its hold on the country.

p This “thought” is fundamentally at variance with the very principles of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and the mission of remoulding society along socialist lines, a mission which history has assigned to the proletariat, heading the working masses.

Kommunist, No. 2, 1969, pp. 91-106