The Philosophical Views of Maotse-tung@Lbiz - en - 1971 - pvmt176

@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176:
MAP
<<< THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF MAOTSE-TUNG A @AT LENINIST

CRITICAL ANALYSIS (DOT) BIZ
>>>
<< • >>
<•> INTRODUCTION
5 THE MAOIST MYSTIQUE

TOC
Card
CHAPTER I
Text THE SOCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF MAO TSE-

HTML
29 TUNG’S OUTLOOK
PS
PDF
CHAPTER II
T*
19* ON MARXIST PHRASEOLOGY IN THE WORKS OF MAO
54 TSE-TUNG
###
CHAPTER III
THE IDEALIST ESSENCE OF MAOIST PHILOSOPHY
66 1. Subjective Idealism Instead of the Materialist View of History
79 2. The Idealist Answer to the Basic Question of Philosophy
CHAPTER IV
ECLECTICISM POSING AS DIALECTICS. MAO TSE-

TUNG’S DISTORTION OF THE BASIC LAW OF DIALECTICS
92 [introduction.]
109 The Theory of Balance in Lieu of Materialist Dialectics
113 Antagonism in Lieu of Contradiction
CHAPTER V
MARXIST-LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND MAOIST

“LEAPS” IN THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
131 [introduction.]
135 Practice and the Relationship Between Theory and Practice
144 Mao’s Oversimplified Approach to Theory
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/index.html[2013-03-30 오전 11:43:01]
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176:
148 Mao’s “Discoveries” in the Theory of Knowledge
The Epistemology of Dialectical Materialism and the Empiricism

154 and Subjectivism of Mao Tse-tung
159 CONCLUSION
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/index.html
leninistbiz 1,779 titles in [ en/TAZ ]
Created: 2010 January 22 • Refreshed: 11:43:00 252 e-books currently online
@At Leninist . Biz ... FREE electronic books !
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/index.html[2013-03-30 오전 11:43:01]
Leninist.Biz:
<<<
•
>>>
• English Titles <— Workers of All Countries, Unite!
<< • >> <— ¡Proletarios de todos los países,
<•>
• Títulos Español uníos!
###
English What’s New on <—
eBooks: this site? en/Whatsnew
Español Que Nuevo en <—

eLibros: Este Sito? es/Quenuevo
Email:
webmaster@leninist.biz
Notes:
Wish-list: If you donate or loan these books, we’ll add them to the archive:
Lenin Obras Completas, Akal Editor (Mexico).

• • • Tomos: 1 3 7 9 18 & 45.2
Lenin Obras Completas, Editorial Progreso (Moscu).
• • • Tomos: ALL
Lenin Collected Works, International Publishers (1940’s) (New York).
• • • Tomos: ALL
2010 June 27
http://www.leninist.biz/index.html[2013-03-30 오전 11:43:05]
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 0-The.Maoist.Mystique
MAP

>>>
<< • >> INTRODUCTION 5

<•> THE MAOIST MYSTIQUE
TOC The twentieth century is characterised by the great achievements of the Soviet Union p
Card and other socialist countries in the revolutionary transformation of society, and
tremendous advances in science, the taming of nature and the conquest of space.
Nevertheless, even in this day and age, myths and mystiques can and do make their
Text appearance for various reasons in social life, science and ideology.
HTML
PS One of the most baffling mystiques of our time is undoubtedly the cult of the Mao p
PDF
Tse-tung personality and Maoism. Just as in the Middle Ages philosophy was placed
in the service of theology, so in present-day China philosophy, as part of "the
T*
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”, is made to serve the cult of Mao Tse-tung and the
19*
military-bureaucratic dictatorship he has established. Although this is a relatively
### recent development, Mao Tse-tung has long regarded “ philosophy” as a means of
justifying and providing a theoretical basis for various forms of “practice”.
One of the principal dangers of the Maoist mystique for the cause of socialism is p
the fact that the Maoist pseudophilosophy employs Marxist-Leninist terminology and
even claims to be "The Peak of Marxism-Leninism”. Maoism’s masquerade as
Marxist philosophy is facilitated by the fact that it emerged as an independent
ideological current out of Marxist practice living as a parasite off the complex
theoretical, social, and political problems faced by a Marxist party in the very special
conditions that obtained in China.
By parading in Marxist disguise, Maoist philosophy disorientates and ideologically p

disarms the masses in China and those revolutionaries in other countries who are not
well versed in revolutionary theory and attempt to study the experience of the 6
Chinese revolution without having first mastered the fundamentals of Marxism-
Leninism.
Maoism not only discredits Marxist philosophy, presenting it in a highly primitive, p

grotesque form, but temporarily hinders wide sections of the working masses in
China and other countries from understanding genuine international Marxist-Leninist
doctrine and its philosophy.
Although eclectic in its composition and founded on subjective-idealist principles, p

Maoist philosophy holds up a screen of militant materialism and wages a fierce
struggle against Marxist philosophy, declaring it to be “revisionist”, “metaphysical”
and so on.
Mao’s followers present his philosophy as "contemporary Marxism-Leninism”. p

Mao’s most loyal comrade-in-arms and disciple Lin Piao appraises Mao’s
“contribution” to Marxist-Leninist theory as follows: "Comrade Mao Tse-tung is the
greatest Marxist-Leninist of our time. Brilliantly, creatively and all-embracingly, he
has inherited, upheld and developed Marxism-Leninism, and raised it to a new
stage.”
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/0-The.Maoist.Mystique[2013-03-30 오전 11:43:15]
So much for Mao Tse-tung’s “contribution”. Let us now take a look at what Lin p
Piao has to say of Maoism, dubbed "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”. "The thoughts
of Mao Tsetung are the Marxism-Leninism of the age of the universal collapse of
imperialism and the triumph of socialism throughout the world.” Further on we
would learn many more curious things about the fabrication of myths in our time.
According to Lin Piao, the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are "a powerful ideological
weapon against imperialism, revisionism, and dogmatism”, and "serve the whole
Party, the whole of the army and the whole country as a guideline in any
work". [ 6•1
The above statements by Lin Piao express in a frank, peremptory manner the claims p
of the Maoists to hegemony and their intention to continue masquerading as
Marxists. If we are to believe the Peking publishers (which is unfortunately not
always possible, even as regards the dating of Mao Tse-tung’s works, as we shall
see later), these lines were written by Lin Piao on December 16, 1966.
However, we should be greatly overestimating the modesty of Mao Tse-tung and p

his supporters if we assumed that such statements only began to appear in December 7
1966. Indeed, if this were the case, Lin Piao might well have found himself under
heavy fire during the "cultural revolution" and shared the fate of those honest
Chinese Communists who were slandered, included in the "black gang”, and
submitted to various forms of repressions up to and including physical annihilation.
The fact is that in his introduction to the Quotations from Chairman Mao published p
by the General Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army on the instance
and with the active participation of Lin Piao himself, he was merely repeating
statements he had made at an enlarged meeting of the Military Committee of the
Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in November and December
1960. However, they were only made public as the words of Lin Piao in 1966, on
the eve of the "cultural revolution”.
There are important reasons for the long interval between the time this formula was p
“invented” (1960) and its publication signed not by some obscure author of a history
book or article but by Lin Piao himself.
The main reason is that the ambitious strivings of Mao Tse-tung to definitively p
substitute an eclectic hotch-potch called "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" for genuine
Marxism-Leninism met with stiff resistance within the Chinese Communist Party, not
to mention the fact that the Maoist claims to hegemony were rejected outright by the
fraternal parties and the communist movement as a whole. Even the Albanian
leaders, although eulogising Mao and harping on the significance of his
“contribution” to Marxism-Leninism, refrain in their official statements from
declaring "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" "contemporary Marxism– Leninism of the
highest level”.
Mao’s pretentious claims to be "the greatest Marxist– Leninist of the age" have also p
caused acute embarrassment to several leaders of pro-Maoist renegade groups. Thus,
even such a devoted admirer of the “greatness” of Mao Tse-tung as the Australian
E. P. Hill was reported in the press to have advised the Peking leaders in the spring
of 1968 to curb the zeal of the Hungweipings abroad, since their habit of thrusting
the little red books of quotations and badges of Mao on people was having the
opposite of the desired effect and making the "great teacher" and his “disciples” the 8
object of general ridicule.
Although the doubts of his "close allies" abroad sting the swollen pride of Mao
Tse-tung, he is soothed by longwinded daily reports from the Hsinhua Agency that
"95 per cent of the revolutionary peoples of the world love Chairman Mao" and that
there are even tribes living in the jungles of Africa "willing to go through fire in
order to receive a badge of Chairman Mao”. But the trouble for the Maoists is that
many members of the Chinese Communist Party, and especially those who took part
in the revolution and are familiar with Marxism, have grave doubts about the views
and actions of Mao Tse-tung. During the "cultural revolution" it became known that
many leading Party officials were, as Chiang Ching [ 8•1 put it, "fiercely opposing
the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”.
In 1967, the Group for Cultural Revolution Affairs (Chen Po-ta, Chiang Ching, p
Kang Cheng) gave the Hungweipings access to the Central Committee Archives, and
statements against "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" made by Liu Shao-chi, Chu Teh,
Teng Hsiao-p’ing, Peng Teh-huai, Chen Yun, Ho Lung, Tan Chen-lin and many
others were collected from the minutes and shorthand records of the proceedings of
the rarely called plenums of the Central Committee of the CPC, meetings of the
Politburo and various closed working meetings held by the Secretariat of the Central
Committee.
In February, 1967, a book was published in Peking by the Hungweipings entitled "A p
Hundred Statements of Liu Shao-chi Against the Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”. Its
contents were reprinted in numerous Hungweiping and Tsaofan publications that
circulated semi-officially, and also by a number of special magazines published by
official bodies, such as Nun-ye chi-chi (Agricultural Machinery). Similar collections
of "statements against the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" by many other prominent Party
officials were prepared and published in Peking during 1967 and 1968.
In order to give the reader some idea of the contents of this work and the fine p 9
language in which it is couched, we have thought it worthwhile quoting a few
passages in full. We ask the reader to bear with us, in the belief that his patience
will be rewarded with a fuller understanding of the essence of the Maoist mystique
and its clear departure from Marxism-Leninism.
The first short passage comes from the compilers’ preface. "The reactionary p
revisionist statements of Liu Shaochi are directly opposed to the thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung. In order to show the revisionist snout of Liu Shao-chi we have chosen a
hundred examples from among the revisionist statements of Liu Shao-chi.”
The part entitled "Liu Shao-chi Belittles the Great Significance of the Thoughts of p
Mao Tse-tung" contains such “criminal”, "black revisionist statements" as the
following. "Marxism is essentially the richest teaching in the whole history of the
world; any major problems of principle can be solved with its aid." "Many problems
were solved long ago by Lenin, but as we had not read Two Tactics [ 9•1 the
triumph of the Chinese revolution was held up for twenty years. If the whole Party
had studied Two Tactics in the twenties it would have been possible to prevent the
defeat of the revolution in 1927.”
In 1962, Liu Shao-chi had published an edited version of his book On the Self- p
cultivation of Communist Parly Members, written by him in 1939 in Yenan, and
essentially directed against Lin Piao’s appraisal of Mao’s “ contribution” and the
significance of his “ideas”. The book contains a part entitled "Being Worthy
Disciples of Marx and Engels”. These words absolutely infuriated the Maoists, who
screamed: "Did not the closest comrade-in-arms Lin Piao say: Chairman Mao is far
higher than Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. There is nobody in the world now who
could compare with Chairman Mao and surpass him.”
The following statement by Liu Shao-chi in his hitherto unpublished "Reply to Sung p
Liang" threw the Hungweipings and the Maoists into even greater rage, since they
regard it as casting doubt on the theoretical significance of the works of Mao Tse-
tung.
“The Communist Party of China has .. . one great weakness. This weakness consists p 10
in the fact that with regard to ideology and in the sphere of theoretical education
the Party "is insufficiently prepared and relatively immature.... So far no great,
works have appeared, and in this respect our Party still has a tremendous task
ahead of it.” [ 10•1
In 1964, at the height of the campaign for the study of "the thoughts of Mao Tse- p
tung”, a campaign launched on the instance of Mao himself and Lin Piao, Liu Shao-
chi declared in a letter: "There are many people in the Party now who are making a
dogma of the thoughts of Mao Tsetung.”
In the aforementioned work of Liu Shao-chi On the Selfcultivation of Communist p

Party Members the Maoists discovered the following highly seditious passage, which
was apparently directed against the cult of the personality of Mao Tse-tung.
According to the collection, he ”. .. imagined himself the Chinese Marx and the
Chinese Lenin and considered himself to be Marx and Lenin in the Party. Moreover,
he had no scruples about demanding that the members of our Party accord him the
same respect as Marx and Lenin, support him as the ‘leader’ and nourish loyalty and
love for him.... But can we say with complete certainty that no other such elements
will appear in our Party? No we cannot yet maintain this.”
In order to get the facts in their true historical perspective, we must say a few p
words about the role of Liu Shaochi in the creation of the Mao personality cult and
the propagation of "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”. Liu Shao-chi admitted this
himself in a statement made in 1959. "Hitherto I have been creating the cult of
personality of Chairman Mao, but I am no longer doing so.”
Indeed, until the late forties Liu Shao-chi took an active part in the creation of the p
cult of personality of Mao Tsetung and exalted his ideas. It was he who at the
CPC’s Seventh Congress in 1945 defended and justified Mao’s thesis of the
sinification of Marxism. However, it must be said that under the influence of the
Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and the struggle between two trends within the
CPC leadership—the internationalist and the nationalist—he was among the many 11
prominent Party officials who proposed at the Eighth Congress that the formula "the
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are the guiding ideology of the CPC" be changed. The
final text read: "The Communist Party of China is guided in all its activities by
Marxism-Leninism.”
In the course of the notorious "cultural revolution”, Mao Tse-tung hypocritically p

dubbed Liu Shao-chi’s work “ revisionist”. Naturally it was not really a question of
revisionism, but simply that the article set forth Lenin’s basic ideas on ideological
and organisational work to build up a Marxist party.
An edited version of the pamphlet defended the decisions of the Eighth Congress of p
the CPC on questions of building up the Party. It stressed the importance of
ideological training of Party members in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, and refusal
to tolerate nationalism, chauvinism and cult of personality, explained the need for the
Party to adhere to a proletarian class policy and observe the principles of internal
Party democracy, the need for international solidarity with the fraternal parties, and
pointed out the international significance of the experience of the Soviet Union and
the other socialist countries.
It was these propositions and not the references to Confucius and Mencius—whom p
Mao himself is far more apt to quote than Liu Shao-chi—that so upset the Maoists.
The point was that the dissemination of these principles by Liu Shao-chi was p
creating an obstacle to the attempts of Mao and company to transform the Party into
an instrument of the absolutist military dictatorship of Mao Tsetung.
Many other leading Party members criticised Mao’s views to some extent, either p
openly or in a veiled manner. Peng Teh-huai referred to "the thoughts of Mao Tse-
tung" as primitive and metaphysical. The famous Chinese Marxist philosopher Yang
San-chen criticised Mao’s philosophical works for their vulgar approach to
materialism and "Machist subjectivism”. Several senior Party officials remarked that
Mao’s speeches were full of “truisms” and “verbiage”.
It is worth remembering in this connection that in the twenties and thirties Mao had p
been criticised by Chu Chiupo, Wang Ming, Po Gu and others for "not understanding
Marxism”, the "narrow empiricism" of his views, and his "inclination for military 12
adventurism”, and so on.
In 1961, the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee reported on the p
results of the propaganda campaign that had been launched on orders from Mao
himself and on the suggestion of Lin Piao following the appearance of Volume Four
of Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung in September 1960. As against Lin Piao’s claim
that "the campaign for the study of the ideas of Mao Tse-tung had armed the
workers, peasants and soldiers with a spiritual atom bomb”, the Propaganda
Department concluded that the campaign was nothing more than “oversimplification”
and “vulgarisation” and "typical pragmatism”.
In response to Mao’s demands that his “thoughts” should be made the basis of p
theoretical instruction for all Party cadres, and the works of Marx and Lenin be
relegated to the role of illustrating and supplementing them, a senior Party official
commented: "If in the study of theory we are to take the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung
as the basis and study Marx’s Capital, how can we speak of the thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung as the basis? And did not Lenin say everything there was to say about
imperialism, and are any additions necessary? There is no comparing the thoughts of
Mao Tsetung with Marxism-Leninism.”
Hungweiping publications reported that the famous Chinese revolutionary Yang p

Shan-kun, once a candidate for election to the Secretariat of the CPC Central
Committee, also protested against the forced propagation of "the thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung”. During an inspection of the way Party work was being carried on in the
province of Shansi, Yang Shan-kun met with cases of illiterate or semiliterate people
being forced to learn "the thoughts of Mao”. "This drew a burst of indignation from
Yang Shan-kun,” the Hungweipings wrote. "He made the slanderous claim that the
study of the works of Chairman Mao was an instance of ’social coercion’,
‘formalism’, Vulgarisation’, ’ profanation’. . . . He declared: ’I do not believe that
one can solve a question by reading some work by Chairman Mao.’" Further on they
write: "He even went as far as to say that ’the theoretical level is not high’ in the
Chairman’s works, and that they are only to be studied ’to widen one’s outlook and
for gaining a very general picture’.” In conclusion the Hungweipings quote the 13
following scathingly ironic words of Yang Shan-kun. "Here a triumph of the
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung, there a triumph of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung. If
someone wins at table tennis it is hailed as a triumph of his thoughts. But what if
they lose?”
However, the opposition of the more sober-minded members of the CPC to the p
efforts to substitute the notorious "thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" for real Marxism-
Leninism merely caused the Maoists to adopt more roundabout tactics and proceed
with the propagation of Maoism via the already purged army apparatus, by-passing
the Central Committee.
Mao and his followers embarked on an unprecedented campaign and the cultivation p
of Mao and his thoughts assumed the scale of a nation-wide psychosis. One myth
automatically gave birth to another, as this is the only way a myth can survive. The
result was a whole string of myths based on gross distortion of the history of the
CPC, the Chinese revolution and the spread of Marxist-Leninist ideas in China. As
we have seen, these fabrications centre round the myth of Mao Tse-tung as the
"great leader”, founder of the CPC, father of "Chinese communism”, and even the
claim that he has created an integrated philosophical system.
The serious opinions of Chinese Communists, even those that were not directed p
against "the thoughts of Mao" as such, but merely intended to keep the glorification
of Maoism within the bounds of reason, were ignored. As if in deliberate defiance,
the Maoists began to connect everything under the sun with the "triumph of the
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”, from the sale of water melons to improvements in
hairdressing, from surgical operations to the operations of the night soil department.
A deliberate movement was under way to deify Mao and give his “thoughts” the
status of a Holy Writ. Maoism was gradually becoming a kind of religion.
The aim was to mesmerise a nation of seven hundred million souls with the p
"thoughts of Mao" and turn them all into unthinking robots, "obedient buffaloes”,
"stainless screws”, in contrast to Marxism-Leninism, where the aim is to develop the
creative abilities of the people as a whole and of every individual, giving him a
creative role in shaping his own destiny, and making him responsible for the cause
of the whole people and the whole Party.
The official Chinese historiographers assert that throughout the history of the p 14
Communist Party of China Mao Tse-tung adhered to the singularly true, Marxist
views, while all the other Party leaders made either Right- or “Left”– opportunistic
mistakes. To prove the fact that he was a "faultless wiseacre”, they falsify many of
the facts from the history of the CPC. Moreover, they ascribe many of Mao’s
mistakes to other Party leaders, including Chu Chiu-po, Wang Ming and Liu Shao-
chi. [ 14•1
Before we examine Maoist "philosophical doctrine”, two more aspects of the Maoist p
mystique must be exposed for what they really are: "sinified Marxism" and the
philosophical works of Mao Tse-tung.
Mao Tse-tung and his group regard the creation of an aureole around Mao (the p
"greatest Marxist-Leninist of our age”) and the glorification of his so-called
“thoughts” (“ living Marxism-Leninism of the contemporary age”) as a major
condition for the establishment of Chinese political hegemony in the world. The
Peking leaders’ hegemonic ambitions are patently evident. At a meeting in honour of
Lu Hsin, a representative of the Hungweipings declared: "We young red soldiers of

Chairman Mao.. .will make the sky Mao Tse-tung’s sky, the earth Mao Tse-tung’s
earth, and man a man armed with the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung. We shall hoist
over the whole world the great red banner of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.”
Let us pause here for a moment to glance back at the earlier development of the p
"thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”. If we turn to the history of the CPC and examine
Mao’s past activities, we can immediately see how at every stage of his political
career, even back in the days when he was actually making an effort to study
Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung had an extremely poor, one-sided grasp of the
doctrine. It was not simply that he lacked a proper academic knowledge of all the
works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism; more important was the fact that his
petty-bourgeois background made him perceive the proletarian doctrine through the
prism of Confucianism, nationalism and Sinocentrism.
In a speech made at the Ninth Congress of the CPC, Lin Piao declared that for fifty p 15
years (i.e. from 1919) Mao Tsetung had united the universal truth of Marxism-
Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. In the light of
available historical facts, however, Lin Piao’s claim proves to be totally unfounded.
In his very earliest works Mao Tse-tung was already expounding non-Marxist ideas.
Thus, in A Study of Physical Education, his first work, written in 1917 at the age of
twenty-four, he regards the physical fitness of the nation as a means of achieving the
national rebirth of China. In his second work, the article "The Great Union of the
Popular Masses" (1919), we find no reference to the idea ol working-class leadership
in the revolution and no mention at all of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Mao’s weak grasp of Marxism, his primitive, vulgarised, and distorted understanding p
of Marxist theory is particularly in evidence in his political writings of 1926 to 1930.
In his articles of this period Mao divided society into classes according to the
income of the various groups of the population. He drew no distinction whatsoever
between China’s backward, semi-feudal society and a developed bourgeois society.
In his article "Analysis of All the Classes in Chinese Society" (1926) [ 15•1 he
divided Chinese society into five classes: big capitalists, the middle capitalists, small
capitalists, semiproletariat and proletariat. Militarist feudal lords, landowners, state
bureaucrats and others were all lumped together as big capitalists. According to
Mao’s reckoning there were over 155 million capitalists in China! The semi-
proletariat class, who according to Mao numbered over 200 million, included semi-
independent farmers, tenant farmers, the very poor peasantry, artisans, petty traders
and others.
This analysis of the class structure of Chinese society shows that Mao really adopts p
a petty-bourgeois Leftist standpoint, but includes the petty-bourgeois layers in the
proletariat or semi-proletariat in order to hide the fact and make his views appear to
be proletarian. Mao’s analysis of the Chinese proletariat is very telling in this
connection. He exaggerated their number by more than twenty times, naming the 16
figure of 45 million, at a time when they could hardly have numbered two million at
the outside.
In the same article Mao expresses his opinion on the major forces of revolution in p
China. Mao holds that the poorest class is the most revolutionary. He thus
considered the petty traders to be the main revolutionary force at the time of writing,
followed by the students, urban petty-bourgeois layers, and only then the workers.
Progressively distorting Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung came to regard the p
peasantry as the most revolutionary class, the class which should take power in the
course of the revolution. After the Chinese labour movement had been crushed in the
thirties, Mao Tse-tung completely ignored the working class as the leading
revolutionary force.
In 1939 and 1940 Mao published "The Chinese revolution and the Communist Party p
of China" and "On New Democracy" in which he grossly distorted the principles of
proletarian internationalism. In these works Mao reviews the Marxist doctrine of the
leading role of the working class with reference to the Chinese revolution, paving the
way for revision of a basic tenet of Marxism, that concerning the universal-historical
mission of the working class. Starting with the idea that the peasants are "the main
force in the Chinese revolution" Mao concludes that the main support for the
revolution would be found in the countryside and that the correct revolutionary
strategy was the encirclement of the towns from the countryside. [ 16•1
Mao persisted in this one-sided view, declaring that "... the Chinese revolution is p
virtually the peasants’ revolution. . .” [ 16•2 , and "new-democratic politics is
virtually the granting of power to the peasants". [ 16•3
As soon as he assumed leadership of the Party in 1935, Mao Tse-tung set out to p
replace Marxism-Leninism with a kind of "sinined Marxism”, and later Maoism.
Indeed, Mao put forward his idea for the sinification of Marxism as early as 1938, at
the Plenum of the Party Central Committee. During the ‘rectification’ movement for
the ideological remoulding of the Chinese Communist Party, the substitution of
Maoism for Marxism-Leninism became more or less official policy. In April, 1945, 17
at the Seventh Plenum of the Central Committee, a falsified version of the history of
the Chinese Communist Party was approved which in direct violation of historical
fact presented Mao as the founder of the Party and associated all its victories with
his name.
At the Seventh Plenum nationalistic elements gained the upper hand. The "thoughts p
of Mao Tse-tung" were declared to be "the Party’s guiding ideology”, and Mao
made his first bid to become the ideological mentor of revolutionaries throughout
Asia. In 1949, Mao gave the order for Maoism to be propagated everywhere, and
made the far from modest claim that "five to seven years after the triumph of the
Chinese revolution everyone will accept Maoism, even the Russians”.
Substituting his own theories for true Marxism-Leninism, theories that represented, p
on the one hand, petty-bourgeois illusions about socialism, the "guerrilla habit”,
populism and neo-Trotskyism and, on the other hand, a reiteration of a few general
Marxist theses, Mao Tse-tung posed as a militant opponent of doctrinairism and
subjectivism and champion of the purity of Marxist-Leninist doctrine.
In point of fact, however, Mao was already rejecting Leninism. In this period p
(1938–1945) a marked revision of Marxism-Leninism was evident in his statements,
expressed in his refusal to recognise the leading role of the proletariat in the
revolution and exaggeration of the revolutionary nature of the peasantry and the petty
bourgeoisie. This was accompanied by a growing tendency to maximise the national
features of the Chinese revolution, and contrast it with the Russian Revolution of
1917. At the Plenum held in March 1949, Mao declared: "Leninism is useless for
China. China will follow the road of Maoism and not Leninism.”
In the early years of the Chinese People’s Republic the propagation of the "thoughts p
of Mao Tse-tung" was checked by internationalist opposition in the Party. At the
Eighth Congress of the CPC, a directive about the "thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" was
removed from the Party Rules.
Meanwhile, however, work was in progress to boost Mao’s status as "greatest p

theoretician" and "leader of the revolutionary peoples”. At the beginning of the
fifties, the Selected Works of Mao were published in China. The works had been
carefully pruned for publication, trimmed of all the most clearly nationalist and anti- 18
Marxist statements. The publishers even took care to "cover up their tracks”. An
order went out that all newspapers of the Yenan period containing articles included
in the new “edition” were to be withdrawn, and new copies were put out with the
appropriate alterations.
In order to build up Mao Tse-tung’s reputation among the Chinese people as the p
"greatest Marxist-Leninist”, the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin have been to all
intents and purposes proscribed for study by Communists.
From 1951, the ministers of the cult of Mao have been doing their utmost to create p
an image of their leader as a highly original thinker and philosopher, to represent the
"thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" as the theoretical and ideological basis underlying the
emergence of the CPC and the entire development of the Chinese revolution. The
idea that Mao was already an accomplished Marxist theoretician and a "great
philosopher" back in the mid-thirties occupies an important place in this legend.
Peking claims that in 1935 Marxism entered the third stage of its development, the
stage of "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”.
On March 6, 1968, the Hsinhua Agency informed the world that "Mao Tse-tung is p
the greatest teacher, the most outstanding commander-in-chief and the wisest
helmsman of the Chinese people and the revolutionary peoples of the world”.
“Chairman Mao is the greatest genius in the world, to whom none can compare.... p
He has brilliantly, creatively and all-embracingly inherited, defended and developed
Marxism-Leninism, and raised it to the third great level of its development, to a
completely new stage—the stage of the Thought of Mao Tse-tung. And the world
has entered a new revolutionary age, whose great banner is provided by the Thought
of Mao Tse-tung.”
Mao’s closest follower, the Minister of Defence Lin Piao, went even further. "A p
genius like Chairman Mao only appears once in several centuries in the world and
once in several thousand years in China. He is the greatest genius of all and in all
things.”
In ’The ’fhrce Great Stages in the History of Marxism, a collection of material p

published in Peking after the Eleventh Plenum of the CPC Central Committee (held
in August, I960), the Maoists “hailed” the world’s entry "into the new age of the 19
Thought of Mao Tse-tung”. According to this new Peking version, the history of the
development of Marxism falls into three stages. The first is the Marxist stage proper,
lasting from the appearance of ’The Manifesto of the Communist Party in 1848 to the
“transformation” of Marxism into its opposite, Bernsteinian revisionism, in 1898.
The second stage, the stage of Marxism-Leninism, begins, according to the clever p
calculations of the Peking “ theoreticians”—with the appearance of Leninism. This
period begins with Lenin’s attack on Bernsteinism in 1898, and ends in 1935, the
year in which the Maoists claim Marxism– Leninism began to mark time in the
Soviet Union, Mao Tse-tung became “leader” of the CPC] and "the centre of the
world revolution moved from the Soviet Union to China”.
The third stage began in 1935 and is still with us. In 1935, taking advantage of the p
difficult situation that had arisen in the revolutionary movement in China (schism in
the Central Committee leadership), Mao Tse-tung, with the aid of loyal army units
had the CPC leaders arrested at a meeting in Tsunyi (January, 1935). According to
the Maoists, "the thoughts of Mao" are "the newest Marxism of the age when
imperialism is heading for complete collapse and socialism is on the way to victory
throughout the world”. It was not far from this to the announcement at the Ninth
Congress of the CPC (April, 1969) that Mao Tse-tung "has inherited, upheld and
developed Marxism-Leninism, and raised it to a completely new stage”.
The aforementioned book categorically affirms that Mao Tse-tung’s articles "On p
Practice" and "On Contradiction”, purporting to have been written in 1937, and
Mao’s later works "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People"
(1957) and "Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?" (1963) "are the most all-
embracing, perfect and systematised of all the works of Marxist-Leninist philosophy”.
The above tirade of quotations from the works of the leaders of the "cultural p
revolution" indicate an extremely low cultural level not to mention philosophical
ignorance. But it must be borne in mind that the history of the spread of Marxism-
Leninism in China is not widely known, and that Maoism, by building a wall round
China and isolating the Chinese people ideologically and culturally from the peoples 20
of the other socialist countries, has filled a spiritual and ideological vacuum of its
own creation. This being so, however primitive the philosophy of Maoism may seem,
and however absurd its self-evaluation, all these things must be taken perfectly
seriously and confronted with hard facts that show Maoist conceit to be unfounded
and destroy the thick web of myth and falsehood.
Let us pause then to consider three questions. First, how did Mao himself formerly p
assess the theoretical level of the CPC? Second, how were Mao Tse-tung’s
theoretical works assessed in the CPC, and when did "On Practice" and "On
Contradiction" in fact appear? Third, what relation do the philosophical exercises of
Mao Tse-tung bear to the philosophical traditions of Marxism?
For years now, the Peking propaganda machine has been maintaining that the p
Chinese revolution developed "under the guidance of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”.
The Revolutionary War Museum in Peking contains exhibits showing how the
soldiers of the Chinese People’s Army were studying "the thoughts of Mao Tse-
tung" as early as 1928. Thus, it is implied that by the early thirties Mao had already
written works "which contained theoretical generalisations on the experience of the
Chinese revolution”. This claim arouses serious objections. Insofar as the experience
of the Chinese revolution was generalised at all, it was done by the Chinese
internationalist Communists with considerable help from the Comintern and the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Without trying to belittle the contribution of
the Chinese Communists, it should nevertheless be pointed out that the most
important conclusions are to be found in the works of Lenin, in the decisions of the
Comintern congresses and ECCI (Executive Committee of the Communist
International) plenums and in the documents of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union for the years 1926 to 1928. They designate the major forces at work, the
character of the Chinese revolution and the importance of an alliance between the
workers and the peasantry, the problems the Party faced in applying Marxism-
Leninism in a semi– colonial, semi-feudal, peasant country, such as China was at
that time.
It was the Comintern and the CPSU that helped the young Chinese Communist p 21
Party gain a proper theoretical understanding of the first stages of the Chinese
revolution, and evolve a suitable strategy and tactics of struggle. The fact that the
Chinese revolution suffered reverses at certain stages is explained above all by the
inexperience of the CPC leadership in mobilising and uniting the working masses of
town and country, and frequent Left-sectarian and Rightopportunist mistakes.
An important contribution to the spread of MarxismLeninism in China and the study p

of the peculiarities of the Chinese revolution was made by such prominent members
of the CPC as Li Ta-chao, Peng Pai, Teng Chung-hsia, Chu Chiu-po and Ts’ai Ho-
shen, but they soon fell victims to the Kuomintang butchers. Later Mao Tse-tung
helped himself to many ideas from Comintern documents and the writings of the
Chinese internationalists, without acknowledgement, reinterpreted them to suit himself
and presented them as his own.
One of the outstanding leaders of the CPC in the thirties, Wang Ming, who was his p
Party’s representative in the Comintern and made an important contribution to the
elaboration of strategical and tactical questions for a united front of the CPC and the
Kuomintang, was discredited in the Party by Mao Tse-tung, who proceeded to
ascribe his services to himself.
However, even at the beginning of the forties, if we discount a few works on p

individual problems, the CPC still had no important theoretical works of its own on
the experience of the Chinese revolution, no thorough analysis of the social classes
in China or of the trends of the country’s economic and political development. Mao
Tse-tung himself admitted as much in 1942, when he said: "Our practice with its
rich variety still needs to be raised to its proper theoretical level. We have not yet
examined all the problems, or rather the important ones relating to revolutionary
practice, and raised them to the theoretical plane. Just think, how many of us have,
on China’s economics, politics, military affairs or culture, originated a theory worthy
of the name, which can be considered scientific, comprehensive and not crude or
sketchy?” [ 21•1
Much later, in 1958, Mao Tse-tung again admitted the low theoretical level of the p 22
Party and its cadres, in a speech at the second session of the Eighth Congress of the
CPC. But the solution Mao and his followers suggested for raising the theoretical
level of the Party, which was to study (for the umpteenth time!) the same old
articles of Mao Tsetung, not only failed to raise the level of the Party in Marxist-
Leninist theory, but, on the contrary, led theory off along a false and futile trail.
If, as Maoist “historiography” would have us believe, Mao Tse-tung had already p
produced a profound theoretical study of the problems of the Chinese revolution and
the development of Marxist thought in the thirties, how is it that the Party cadres
after repeated study of the “profound” works of Mao remained on the same low
theoretical level and the theoretical activity of the Party remained as backward as
ever? The answer to that one is no doubt that the Party leadership, and Mao himself,
at one time made a far more sober appraisal of their activities in the field of theory
than was later the case, and did not consider the mere reciting of elementary truths
of the conventional wisdom to constitute a contribution to theory. But this was
before Mao Tse-tung began to aspire to the role of "the greatest theoretician of
Marxism-Leninism”.
The myth of "the greatest theoretician" required the creation of a whole series of p
new myths about his works. Students of the emergence of "the thoughts of Mao
Tsetung" are faced with a remarkable problem considering that the author is still
alive—the problem of the authenticity of the texts they are dealing with.
The fact is that the writings of the period 1926 to 1945 included in the first three p
volumes of the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, published in 1951, had been so
altered as to be sometimes hardly recognisable as the original works.
There would seem to be nothing wrong in the author of works that contain p
weaknesses and mistakes rewriting them a few decades later when life has brought
these shortcomings to light. Generally speaking, this is indeed perfectly alright,
provided the principle of historicism is strictly adhered to, provided it is admitted that
the original works contained errors which have been eliminated in the new edition,
and provided the corrections made correspond to changes in the author’s views. If, 23
however, the later edition purports to be the original, we are dealing with
falsification of history, serving to embroider on the true historical events and exalt
Mao Tse-tung as an infallible genius. A study of the activities of Mao Tse-tung
shows that he deliberately chose a "dual personality”. While retaining his former, on
the whole non-Marxist views, he has allowed his entourage to create a pro-Marxist
hypostasis for his views.
This falsification enables the Maoists to draw the conclusion that appeared in the p
newspaper Jicfangjun pao and which is repeated day after day in China, namely that
"The thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are consistent and have always been wise, great and
correct". [ 23•1 It enables the priests of the Mao personality cult to present him as
the "incarnation of truth”.
The Chinese propaganda machine is trying to convince everybody that "... Mao Tse- p
tung is always, eternally right, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has taken possession of the
truth, he is the incarnation of truth". [ 23•2
We have already referred to the article "Analysis of All the Classes in Chinese p
Society”, which Mao wrote in 1926. The article with the same title included in
Volume One of Selected Works bears absolutely no resemblance to it, and is written
in the spirit of popular Marxist literature. A detailed study of the question of the
authenticity of Mao Tsetung’s articles dealing with the history of the Chinese
revolution and guerrilla warfare lies outside the scope of the present work. Suffice it
to say that research into the subject by specialists has shown that here, too, a
tremendous gap exists between the originals and the versions incorporated in Selected
Works.
Nevertheless, it is essential that we dwell for a short time on the question of the p
authenticity of two articles by Mao Tse-tung, "On Practice" and "On Contradiction”.
According to the introduction by the CPC Central Committee commission for the p
publication of Selected Works, "On Practice" was written in July, 1937, and "On
Contradiction" in August of the same year. Of "On Practice" the foreword states:
"This article was written to expose from the viewpoint of Marxist theory of 24
knowledge such subjectivist mistakes in the Party as doctrinairism and empiricism,
especially doctrinairism.” [ 24•1 A similar claim is made for the other article. It is
also stated that the views developed in these works were expounded by Mao Tse-
tung in lectures delivered in Yenan.
Scholarly writings on the history of the Chinese revolution used to accept the p
Peking dating. However, the hypothesis is now being advanced with ever greater
insistence from many quarters that these works belong to a later period and have
simply been back-dated.
We are dealing with what must have originally been some extremely raw and p
immature material for lectures delivered by Mao Tse-tung at Yenan.
The following facts suggest that the works did not exist at that time. p
1. During the campaign for rectifying style of 1941 to 1945, the political aim of p
which was the physical liquidation or exclusion from Party work of all
internationalist elements, above all those connected with the Comintern, the Party was
“re-educated” on the basis of Mao Tse-tung’s articles. The decision of the Central
Committee of the CPC of July 1, 1941, on the ideological cultivation of Party cadres
and the speeches of Kang Sheng included a long list of articles by Mao Tse-tung,
Kang Sheng and other Party members which were recommended for study by all
members of the CPC to help overcome “doctrinairism” and “ empiricism”. However,
none of these lists include a single “philosophical” work by Mao Tse-tung, although
the two articles in question, as we have seen, were especially written to condemn
these “deviations”.
2. No mention of these works is to be found in the Yenan newspaper Jiefang jih- p

pao.
3. The articles do not figure in the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung published in p
1945 and 1947.
4. Various books on the CPC and Mao Tse-tung were published in connection with p
the celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of the CPC in 1951. The most important
of these were the pamphlets "The Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung —the Union of
Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese Revolution" by Chen Po-ta and "Thirty Years of 25
the Communist Party of China" by Hu Chiao-mu. Although both authors give a
detailed account of the ideological struggle in the CPC and do their utmost to exalt
Mao Tse-tung as a theoretician, curiously enough, neither makes any mention of "the
great philosophical works of Mao Tse-tung”.
It would be wrong, however, to deduce from all this that Mao Tse-tung did not p
write any philosophical works at all. He both wrote and spoke on the subject. But
the fact was that neither he nor his associates took these philosophical exercises of
his at all seriously at the time. Thus, in 1937, Mao delivered lectures on philosophy
at Yenan which were subsequently published in the Shanghai journal Min-chu in
1940 with the title "Dialectical Materialism”. Later, a fuller text of these lectures was
published without the author’s name by the Ta-chung shu-tien firm in Talien. The
year of publication is not indicated, but it was somewhere between 1945 and 1949.
It must be said that when Mao delivered his lectures in Yenan he did not consider p
his material "The Peak" of philosophical thought, but on the contrary, had an
extremely modest opinion of them and wrote that their main purpose was to explain
the dialectic in simple terms for Party cadres. "The dialectic is considered difficult
because there are no good books explaining it,” he wrote. "Of the many books on
the dialectic we have in China some are erroneous while in others it is badly or not
very well expounded. This makes people fight shy of the dialectic. A good book
should explain the dialectic in simple language, in terms of reference that are close
and understandable to all. A book of this sort must definitely appear in the future.
This course of lectures of mine cannot be considered good either, since I myself
have only just begun studying the dialectic and am not capable of writing a good
book.. . .” [ 25•1
Thus, Mao’s claims to have made a contribution to the development of Marxist p

philosophy are totally unfounded. Even before we come to analyse the content of
Mao Tsetung’s philosophical works, it is clear that the Maoists claim that a new
stage in Marxist philosophy began in 1935 is purely a myth.
There is one more question we feel should be answered before we go any further. p 26
Readers who have no special knowledge of China may well be puzzled as to why
the Maoists at the Ninth Congress of the CPC should have rejected the term Maoism
in favour of the unwieldy "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought”.
In order to form any conclusions about the relation Maoism bears to Marxism, it is p
necessary to analyse the social and ideological roots of Mao’s outlook, and examine
Mao Tse-tung’s ideological development and emergence as a “theoretician”.
The substitution of Maoism for Marxism-Leninism was actually effected at the p

Ninth Congress of the CPC, although the fact was camouflaged with the formula
"Marxism– Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s Thought”. This formula was designed to
present the thoughts of Mao, in the words of Lin Piao, as "a completely new stage
in the development of MarxismLeninism”. While expressing the interests and
ideology of the petty-bourgeois nationalist trend in the CPC, Mao Tsetung is forced
to reckon with the tremendous authority of Marxism-Leninism in the revolutionary
movement in the world as a whole and in China in particular. This is why he is at
such pains to make use of the moral, political and scientific authority of the teaching
of Marx, Engels and Lenin in his own interests.
On the other hand, Mao is apparently well aware that his ideological “inventions”, p
which are confined to a relatively narrow, specific field of politics, philosophy and
history, look very slight when compared to the all-embracing quality of Marxism-
Leninism. Maoism in general suffers from an " inferiority complex”, which makes
Mao himself and his supporters try to back up all his “inventions” with references to
the classics of Marxism-Leninism.
Another factor at work here is the Chinese way of thinking, which has been greatly p
influenced by Confucianism, involving an immense respect approaching reverence for
tradition. This Chinese traditionalism means that any proposition, however novel,
must somehow be derived from the "instructions of the great teacher”, Confucius and
his disciples. In the case of Mao, the great “source” has split into two: he has tried
to find support for his ideas in the works of Confucius and Chinese traditions and at
the same time take refuge in quotations from the classics of Marxism– Leninism. 27
This helps explain why the Maoists continue to pose as Marxist-Leninists after p
having rejected Marxism-Leninism for Maoism back in the early sixties.
Having declared "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought" the third stage in the development of p
Marxism-Leninism, the Peking leaders were naturally faced, as the next logical step,
with the task of introducing a new “ism”—“Maoism” or "Mao Tse-tungism”. This is
indeed what the most consistent Maoists have repeatedly tried to do. Mao himself,
however, has always opposed this, preferring that his doctrine be called "the thoughts
of Mao Tse-tung”. Then at the Ninth Congress, in order to emphasise the special
place these “thoughts” occupy as a doctrine at once original and a part of the
Marxist tradition, the term "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s Thought" was
introduced.
Why was it that Mao Tse-tung and his entourage felt obliged to reject the terms p
“Maoism” or "Mao Tse-tungism" in favour of the curious combination "Mao Tse-
tung’s Thought”?
The reasons are as follows. p
1. Mao Tse-tung still strives to back up his views with the authority of Marxism- p
Leninism and appear as an original interpreter and “developer” of the Marxist
tradition. The expression "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s Thought" emphasises
this, and at the same time corresponds to the political aims of the struggle for
hegemony in the revolutionary movement.
2. The terms “Maoism” and "Mao Tse-tungism" sound like foreign borrowings in p
Chinese. In Chinese, “ism” is rendered by a combination of characters pronounced
“chu-yi” which came into use in the nineteenth century for the translation of foreign
words ending in “ism”. By rejecting " chuyi,” which means literally "my own
doctrine" and replacing it with "ssu hsiang"—"thought, interpretation"—which is more
familiar to the Chinese, Mao was at once stressing his originality as a theoretician
and making a concession to the traditional Chinese xenophobia. The more so in that
in traditional Chinese usage, the "ssu hsiang" implies "original thought" combined
with continuity.
Thus, the term they have chosen enabled the Maoists to screen themselves from p 28
criticism and allows them plenty of room for manoeuvre.
3. In choosing a convenient term, the Maoists were probably unable to entirely p

ignore the fact that back in 1955 the Central Committee of the CPC had forbidden
the use of special terminology in referring to the views of Mao Tsetung, insisting
that they be regarded purely as the application of Marxism-Leninism in Chinese
conditions. We have already seen how the Eighth Congress of the CPC (1956) re-
examined the theses of the Seventh Congress (1945) that the "thoughts of Mao Tse-
tung" were "sinified Marxism" and "Chinese communism”, and made no reference in
the documents to "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”.
4. A further reason why the Maoists rejected the term “Maoism” is that as soon as p
the Marxist-Leninist parties grasped the true significance of the "special course" of
the Mao Tse-tung group, they began to insist on its incompatibility with Marxism-
Leninism and named it “Maoism” in order to make the distinction clear. Thus, even
before the Maoists had prepared the way within the country and the Party for the
introduction of the term "Mao chu-yi”, Maoism, the Marxist-Leninists had already
succeeded in their efforts to discredit it and make it synonymous with anti-Marxism,
anti-Sovietism, chauvinism and hegemonic ambitions.
In view of this, the Maoists did not dare to introduce the term “Maoism” in the p
documents of the Ninth Congress, although the matter was discussed. Instead, they
settled for the term "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought”.
After the Ninth Congress, the Mao worshippers tried another trick to emphasise the
originality and unusual qualities of their leader. They changed the way the last two
characters of his name are written. In Peking foreign language publications, his name
now appears as TSETUNG instead of Tse-tung. The point is that when written
together the characters acquire the reading "light of the East”, the idea being to give
his name a symbolic meaning. The trouble with the way they were written before
was that they had the reading "bog east" which can mean "bog of the East”, "boggy
East" or "bogging-down East"—you can take your pick. It is easy to see why Peking
should wish to avoid the implications this coincidence might suggest to many as a
reflection on the activities of their leader.
***
normal
TEXT SIZE
Notes
[ 6•1] Quotations from Mao Tse-tung’i Works (in Russian), Peking, 1966, p 1.
[ 8•1] Chiang Ching, Mao’s fourth wife. A film actress in the thirties; from 1966,
during the "cultural revolution”, she rose to a prominent position in the Peking
hierarchy, and together with Kang Cheng occupied the most extreme Maoist
positions.
[ 9•1] Liu Shao-chi is referring to Lenin’s Two Tactics of Social– Democracy in the
Democratic Revolution.
[ 10•1 ] The cuts were made by the compilers. The emphasis was added by the
present authors.—M.A., U.G.
[ 14•1 ] The same trend is to be seen in joint articles published by Hungchih, Jen-
min jih-pao, and Jiefangjun pao and devoted to the centennial of the Paris Commune
and the 50th anniversary of the Communist Party of China celebrated in March and
June 1971.
[ 15•1 ] Our references to this article are to the original version and not the one that
was specially written in the fifties for inclusion in Selected Works.
[ 16•1 ] Selected Works, Volume Three, p. 85.
[ 16•2 ] Ibid., p. 137.
[ 16•3 ] Ibid., p. 138.
[ 21•1 ] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Four, p. 30.
[ 23•1 ] fiefangjiin j»io, November 13, 1903.
[ 23•2 ] Hsi Tung, Cohesion mid Unity it] I lie Parly (in Chinese), Shanghai, 1961, p.
125.
[ 24•1 ] Mao Tse-tung-, Selected Works. Volume One, p. 282.
[ 25•1 ] Dialectical Materialism (in Chinese), Talien, p. 110 (emphasis added.—M.A.,

V.G.).
< >
<< >>
<<< CHAPTER I -- THE SOCIAL AND >>>

IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF MAO
TSE-TUNG'S OUTLOOK
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/0-The.Maoist.Mystique
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 1-Social-Ideological.Origins.of.Mao.Tse-Tungs.Outlook
MAP

>>>
<< • >> CHAPTER I 29

<•> THE SOCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF
MAO TSE-TUNG’S OUTLOOK
TOC
Card China was a feudal state for nigh on two thousand years. Capitalism did not really p
begin to develop there until the latter half of the nineteenth century, and could still
Text
not be said to predominate in Chinese society at the time of the Russian October
HTML Revolution of 1917. At the turn of the century China remained a semi-feudal
PS country, socially and economically backward.
PDF
In speaking of feudalism in China it must be borne in mind that the system had its p
T* own peculiar features there. Chinese feudalism ensured not only the prevalence of
19* natural economy, combining agriculture with domestic industry, but also excessive
concentration of land in the hands of the landlords and its total expropriation from
### the peasants. The peasant was wholly dependent on the landowner, for he depended
on his lease for his very livelihood, and he had far less rights or freedom than his
European counterpart. This was due to the fact that the peasant was entirely
dependent on the state as well as his landlord, for the latter was generally an official
in the imperial service.
It was in the interests of this feudal bureaucracy to keep the peasantry under their p
constant control. To this end, not only political and economic coercion, but all the
ideological institutions of the feudal state were employed. A tremendous role in the
preservation of feudal production relations was played by Confucianism, which
remained the most influential ideology in China for almost two thousand years.
Confucianism, with its insistence on submission to the Emperor and the aristocracy
and unfailing observance of the feudal code of law and morality was ideally suited
to the purposes of the feudal aristocracy. The cornerstone of Confucianism was 30
unquestioning obedience to one’s seniors in age and position, and of the whole
nation to the Emperor.
Describing the situation in the society of Western Europe in medieval times as a p

result of the political dictatorship of the Church, Engels wrote: "Church dogmas were
also political axioms, and Bible quotations had the validity of law in any court.. ..
This domination of theology over the entire realm of intellectual activity was at the
same time an inevitable consequence of the fact that the Church was the
allembracing synthesis of the most general sanction of the existing feudal
domination.” [ 30•1
A roughly similar situation is to be observed in Chinese medieval feudal society. p

Thus we might say, paraphrasing Engels, that Confucian dogmas were also political
axioms, and the verdict in any court was based on quotations from Confucius.
Confucianism, as the all-pervading, official ideology stifled all creative endeavour
among the masses and prevented the development of science and technology.
The persistence of feudal production relations and the general stagnation of Chinese p
society made China an easy prey for outside interference when it came and she was
unable to withstand the combined onset of the imperialist powers—England, France,
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/1-Social-Ideological.Origins.of.Mao.Tse-Tungs.Outlook[2013-03-30 오전 11:43:26]
Germany, the United States, Japan, Russia and Italy. By the beginning of the present
century, China was held in political and economic bondage by world imperialism.
She was shorn of her vassal states, Burma, Annam, Korea, Nepal, Sikkim and
others, lost the island of Taiwan which had always formed part of her territory, to
Japan, and was carved up into various spheres of influence. Foreign concessions and
settlements were established and foreigners acquired extra-territorial rights and
control over the Chinese exchequer.
Although China’s defeat at the hands of the imperialist powers and the resulting p
inflow of foreign capital accelerated the development of capitalist relations in town
and countryside, Chinese society remained fundamentally unchanged. The result was
merely an extra burden for the exploited masses, in that to the yoke of the Manchu
and Chinese feudal lords the yoke of the foreign capitalists was added.
The Chinese social structure was determined by feudal production relations. The p 31
peasantry still formed the largest class—three-quarters of the total population. The
working class was still numerically small, and even in the twenties did not number
more than about two million. The vast majority of these were unskilled workers who
had only recently migrated from the land. Small enterprises predominated and
vestiges of the guild-type organisation of the pre-capitalist period were still strong.
The special features of China’s socio-economic development naturally meant that the p
revolutionary movement, when it got under way in the latter half of the nineteenth
century and the early years of the present century, also had rather special features.
One of these was that the aims of national and social emancipation went hand in
hand, another that the peasant movement was widespread at a time when the labour
movement was in its infancy and confined entirely to the major coastal cities. The
labour movement and peasant revolts were only tenuously connected.
Political opposition to the ruling Manchu Ch’ing Dynasty came from three p
directions—the peasant-plebeian, the bourgeois-revolutionary and liberal, and the
bourgeois– landowner. The largest outbreaks of peasant revolt were the T’ai P’ing
rebellion (1850–1864) and the Boxer rebellion (1898– 1901), the latter drawing some
response from certain sections of the urban poor. The bourgeois-landowner
opposition was represented by a group of reformers led by Kang Yu-wei and Liang
Chi-chao, while the bourgeois– revolutionary opposition comprised bourgeois
democrats under Sun Yat-sen.
Each of these branches of the opposition movement proposed its own solutions to p
social and national problems. The T’ai P’ing were for setting up a just social order
based on the principle of making all its members equal in the sphere of production
and consumption, i.e., were advocating a variety of "peasant communism”. Sun Yat-
sen’s programme corresponded in many ways to that of the T’ai P’ing. It consisted
of three basic national principles: “nationalism”, or the demand that the foreign
Manchu Dynasty should be overthrown and the rights of the Chinese—Han—nation
restored; "people’s power”, or the setting up of a democratic republic, and "national
welfare”, or the demand for "equal rights to the land”, i.e., the nationalisation of the
land and the transfer of land rents to the state. The demands of the Right wing of 32
the opposition movement were rather more moderate than those of the T’ai P’ing or
Sun Yat-sen, and amounted to the transfer to constitutional monarchy, without
jeopardising the political and economic interests of the Chinese bourgeoisie and the
so-called "enlightened feudal lords" associated with capitalist elements in the towns.
None of these programmes were capable of providing a real solution to the p
problems deriving from China’s historical development, and at best could only have
furthered the transformation of China into a capitalist state. The T’ai P’ing idea of
equal distribution of the land would have led to the abolition of the feudal estates,
but it was combined with the Utopian dream of uniting the peasants in militarised
patriarchal communes based on the principles of " consumer communism”. Sun Yat-
sen’s "three national principles”, although progressive and genuinely democratic,
showed that the great Chinese revolutionary democrat failed to grasp the class nature
of social contradictions and the anti– imperialist and anti-feudal tasks of the
revolution that had matured in the country, and reduced them to an essentially
national conflict between the Chinese (Han) and the Manchurians. Sun Yat-sen’s
programme for agrarian reform, involving nationalisation and equal partitioning of the
land, was described by Lenin as "subjective socialism”, since it did not include the
socialisation of the means of production and was thus objectively bound to lead to
the development of capitalist relations.
Due to the alliance between the bourgeois-landlord camp and the feudal-militarist p
and compradore-bureaucrat reactionaries, the lack of political cohesion in the
revolutionarydemocratic wing of the national bourgeoisie, and especially its failure to
unite with the peasantry, the revolution of 1911 failed to solve the anti-imperialist
and anti-feudal tasks that faced the country. It must also be noted that in their
struggle against the Manchurians for the national revival of China, many members of
the various opposition groups counted on support from the imperialist powers,
harbouring illusions about their long-term aims in China.
The year 1917 saw China still economically backward and politically dependent on p
the imperialist powers. The triumph of the October Revolution in Russia made many
revolutionaries and other progressives in China take a new look at the problems of 33
the social and political emancipation of the Chinese people, and turn to the
experience of the Bolshevik Party and Marxist theory. Mao wrote in 1949: "The
Chinese were introduced to Marxism by the Russians. Before the October Revolution,
the Chinese were not only unaware of Lenin and Stalin but did not even know of
Marx or Engels. The salvoes of the October Revolution brought us Marxism-
Leninism. The October Revolution helped the advanced people of China and of the
whole world to adopt a proletarian world outlook as an instrument for looking into a
nation’s future or for reconsidering one’s own problems. Follow the path of the
Russians—this was the conclusion.” [ 33•1
Thus, even Mao Tse-tung was at one time prepared to admit that Chinese society p
was ignorant of, or at least not very familiar with, Marxism prior to 1917. Many
Chinese participating in political life came to adopt Marxism solely under the
influence of the Russian Revolution, and not as a natural result of their political
activities.
Indeed, Marxism only began to penetrate China after 1917. This is not to say, of p
course, that the Chinese were previously unaware of the existence of Marxism.
Several of Marx and Engels’ works had already been translated into Chinese—
Chapter One of The Manifesto of the Communist Party and Engels’ introduction, part
of Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State and his
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific—while many articles on Marxism had appeared,
including "Short Biographies of the German Revolutionary Socialists" by Sun Yat-
sen’s close associate Chu Chih-hsin which contained biographies of Marx, Engels
and Lassale. However, all this merely served to give the Chinese a rather sketchy
outline of scientific socialism. It was only after the October Revolution that advanced
Chinese intellectuals began to acquire a proper knowledge of Marxism.
It must be realised, however, that many Chinese revolutionaries, including members p

of the Chinese Communist Party, had very hazy notions of Marxism, since they had
often acquired their knowledge of it second-hand. The first translators and 34
popularisers of Marxism were often people with basically bourgeois-democratic
views, like Chu Chihhsin, who in the above-mentioned article criticised several of
Marx’s theses from a petty-bourgeois standpoint. Moreover, many of those who
claimed to be Marxists were merely opportunists using Marxist doctrine as a means
to an end. Seeing the success with which Marxism was being applied in Russia and
other countries, they regarded Marxist ideas as a means of national salvation, as a
means of liberating China from external and internal oppression. Many of those who
embraced Marxism at this period did so in the belief that this was the only ideology
capable of recovering China’s former might. Thus, many of those who called
themselves Marxists in fact remained bourgeois nationalists or at most revolutionary
democrats.
Furthermore, the span of time between the spread of Marxist ideas and the creation p
of a Communist Party was far shorter in China than in Europe. Whereas, in Lenin’s
words, "Russia achieved Marxism through the agony she experienced through half a
century”, the same cannot be said of China. Nor had the ground been prepared for
the founding of the Chinese Communist Party by successes of the labour movement,
as was the case in Russia, for example. On the contrary, the Chinese proletariat was
still in its infancy and had not yet organised itself properly or developed a strong
class consciousness. Indeed, a labour movement as an independent political force was
to all intents and purposes non-existent in China in the first two decades of the
present century.
Lenin insisted that socialist revolution is not merely a workers’ revolution, but a p
revolution of all levels of society that are subject to capitalist exploitation, and that it
comprises not only the revolutionary movement of the working class but also the
mass struggle of the peasantry and other layers. "Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social
revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution
without understanding what revolution is.... The socialist revolution in Europe cannot
be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry
oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections of the petty bourgeoisie and
of the backward workers will participate in it—without such participation, mass 35
struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is possible—and just as inevitably will
they bring into the revolution their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their
weaknesses and errors. But objectively they will attack capital, and the class–
conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this
objective truth of a variegated and discordant, motley and outwardly fragmented,
mass struggle, will be able to unite and direct it, capture power, seize the banks,
expropriate the trusts which all hate (though for different reasons!), and introduce
other dictatorial measures which in their totality will amount to the overthrow of the
bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, which, however, will by no means
immediately ‘purge’ itself of petty-bourgeois slag.” [ 35•1
Although in this appraisal of the objective difficulties in the path of the working- p
class revolutionary movement Lenin had Europe in mind, his words are equally
applicable to China, with appropriate additions. The Chinese workers and their Party
had to conduct their activities from the very outset amid a boundless ocean of
peasant farms and surrounded in the towns by a numerically strong petty bourgeoisie.
The situation was aggravated by the weakness of the working class and its
organisations, and the immaturity of the first working-class revolutionaries. In view
of the widespread interest in Marxism among the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeois
intellectuals after 1917, the working class was often unable to withstand the pressure
of alien views on its ideology. As a result, the Chinese Communist Party, from its
inception (1921), was joined not only by Marxists, but also by large numbers of
bourgeois nationalists, revolutionary democrats, anarchists, supporters of peasant
socialism and so on, who brought with them their prejudices, reactionary fantasies,
weaknesses and errors.
Mao Tse-tung is certainly to be counted among these non-Marxists. Strongly p

influenced in his early days by Confucianism, he perceived Marxist theses through
the prism of the Confucian outlook. Maoist philosophy derives from two sources: the
traditional (Confucian) ideology, whose chief elements are feudal ethics and
chauvinism, and various bourgeois doctrines, both Chinese and European. This 36
explains why Mao Tse-tung’s theoretical baggage is so remarkably lightweight.
“ Marxist philosophy is a revolutionary-critical generalisation of all previous p

philosophical thought. The direct predecessor and source of Marxist philosophy was
German classical philosophy, represented first and foremost by Hegel and Feuerbach.
Hegel’s creation of the system of laws and categories of dialectics, and Feuerbach’s
materialist thesis that nature and man are the only objective realities and his
insistence on practice as the criterion of truth were all major achievements for world
philosophy and testify to the fact that at the time Marx and Engels began their
theoretical work European philosophy had reached a high level of development. If
we take a look at the Chinese philosophy of the same period we shall find that it
presents a very different picture.
Due to a number of historical causes, and above all the persistence of the feudal p
mode of production (in spiritual life this was reflected in the prevalence of effete
neo-Confucian scholasticism) theoretical thought in China in the mid– nineteenth
century lagged far behind that of Europe. Whereas at the dawn of world civilisation
Chinese philosophy had given examples of profound (for the time of course)
penetration into the essence of human nature and relationships and interesting
dialectical conceptions extending to a relatively wide range of problems, and whereas
the names of Confucius, Lao Tzu, Hsiin-Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Mo-tzu and Yang Chu
have a right to a place alongside such Western philosophers of first rank as
Heraclitus, Democritus, Plato and Aristotle, in the Middle Ages, and especialy in
modern times, the position is very different.
This is not to say that these later periods have been totally lacking in great thinkers. p
There were such brilliantly original minds and free-thinkers as Fan Chen (5th
century) and Han Yu (8th-9th c.), the materialists Chow Tun-i (llth c.), Chang Tsai
(12th c.), Wang Fu-ch’i (17th c.) and Tai Chen (18th c.), the original intuitive-
idealist Wang Yang-ming (16th- 17th c.) and the interesting social philosopher
Huang Tsung-hsi (17th c.) and many others. However, in the development of
Chinese philosophy as a whole we can note the following general tendencies. Firstly,
a somewhat narrow range of interest, confined mainly to ethics, treated largely in 37
terms of man’s duty and obligations to (feudal) society, and the subordination of
personal freedom to the authority of the state. Secondly, a schematic, descriptive
approach and an overwhelming tendency to turn to the past in explaining the
phenomena of the external world. Thirdly, excessive preoccupation with traditional
problems and excessive use of time-honoured terms.
The metaphysicism characteristic of European philosophy in the seventeenth and p

eighteenth centuries, although one-sided, nevertheless represented a step forward from
the naive dialectics of the ancient Greeks. It stressed the need for detailed
investigation of material objects and thorough analysis of their characteristics.

Descartes and Spinoza, Leibnitz and La Mettrie, Holbach and Diderot heralded a
jiew age in the history of world philosophy.
Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, never really went through a metaphysical p
stage. The primitive dialectics of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, while undergoing certain
modifications, chiefly in the form of borrowings from the Buddhist dialectics,
continued to hold sway over Chinese thought right up to the beginning of the present
century. [ 37•1
In the middle, and even the latter part of the nineteenth century, Chinese p
philosophers were often still chewing over what had been written and said not only
by their immediate predecessors, but by those who had lived as much as two
thousand years before them. They went on repeating ideas, on the basis of the
traditional concepts of Yin, Yang, Tao, Tai Chi, etc. In 1893, Cheng Huan-ying, an
ideologist of the emergent Chinese bourgeoisie, published a book entitled Bold Talk
in the Age of Florescence (Sheng-shi weiyan), in which he proposed a series of
political reforms to promote the technical and economic modernisation of
China. [ 37•2 In the "Tao Chi”, the part where the author presented the 38
philosophical substantiation of his book, he wrote: "In the Yi Ching, [ 38•1 in the
part ’Hsi Tzu Chuan’, it is written: ’That which has no form is called Tao; that
which has form is called Chi. Tao appeared out of non-being; first it engendered
original matter (Chi) which condensed to become Tai Chi. Then Tai Chi divided into
Yin and Yang.’ " [ 38•2
The sky surrounded the earth, and the earth took a place in the sky; Yin comprised p
Yang, and Yang comprised Yin. This is why it is said that "the interaction of Yin
and Yang is Tao”. Hence "Two engendered three and three engendered all things.”
The things that exist in the world and their names, original matter and its laws are
embraced (Tao). Since there exist odd and even numbers, just as the multiplication
of even numbers by odd numbers produces a variety of different numbers, so the
interaction of Yin and Yang together form the variety of all things. Thus, things
arose out of original matter, or, in other words, concrete objects appear out of Tao”.
This primitive system of naive dialectics based on old treatises (the author seeks p
confirmation of the truth of his conception in the relevant ideas of Lao Tzu and
Confucius) was formulated in 1893, at a time when the law of conservation and
transformation of energy, cell theory and Darwin’s theory of evolution were already
current in Europe. [ 38•3
Although this and similar treatment of cosmological problems is of undoubted value p

in that it helps foster a materialist world view, it nonetheless represents gross
oversimplification. With rare exceptions, Chinese philosophy between the seventeenth
and the nineteenth centuries suffered from serious weaknesses in the treatment of 39
ontological and epistemological problems. [ 39•1
Philosophy invariably develops under the influence of the natural sciences. This p
being so, it is easy to see how the advances in modern European philosophy must be
largely ascribed to the great strides made by Western science in such fields as
medicine, astronomy, biology, physiology, mathematics and mechanics. In China, on
the other hand, in the period we are dealing with, the natural sciences can be said to
have marked time and this was bound to have its reflection in the development of
philosophy.
The great Chinese philosopher Tai Chen (1723–1777) provides a perfect illustration
of this. Tai Chen was a fine scholar with an extensively ranging mind for his age, a
mathematician and an astronomer. Yet it cannot be said that he possessed truly
scientific knowledge in the natural sciences and he cannot be counted among the
foremost scientists of his age. He took the old traditional concepts and theories at
their face value, and was perfectly prepared to accept, for example, that the Sun and
the Moon were made of fire and water, heat and moisture, and moved under the
influence of Yin and Yang.
The chief obstacle to the progress in Chinese philosophy, as we have already p

indicated, was the official feudal ideology of neo-Confucianism. Confucius was a
great thinker who examined many questions of major importance in his teaching, 40
such as the social predestination of man, the conditioning of his actions, the criteria
for judging human behaviour, and the nature of the relationships between different
social groups. But the answers he suggested were not such as to promote the
historical development of Chinese society. Confucian doctrine was backward-looking,
and primarily concerned with what he called a "golden age" in China’s past. He
justified and defended conservative views and outmoded traditions. According to
Confucius, the traditions of the wise rulers of the past embodied "the will of
heaven”, and these traditions, which he called Li ( ceremony, etiquette) should be
preserved and revered.
Jen, meaning humaneness or perfect humanity was a central concept of the p

Confucian doctrine. It would be wrong to interpret this as sympathy, or love and
respect for others. The term had carried clear class implications and had a strictly
defined sphere of application. Only the rulers—- noble men—possessed Jen. "A
noble man may not have Jen, but it is impossible for the ordinary man to have
Jen." [ 40•1 Since Li was the concrete embodiment of the categories of Jen, the
call of Confucius and his disciples, especially Mencius, to follow the way of Jen,
really boiled down to an appeal for obedience and strict conformity to the social
hierarchy. The ideal of Confucius and his followers was that the father should be
paternal, the son filial, the ruler should be lordly, and the official official. Every
man should keep to his appointed station. The society organised according to these
principles should consist of two categories of people, those who work with their
“hearts”, that is their minds, and rule, and those appointed by destiny to physical
labour to feed those who rule.
One of the basic principles upon which the social order propagated by Confucianism p
was based was absolute submission to one’s seniors in age or station. Confucius and
his followers thus attached great importance to the concept of Hsiao, or filial piety,
insisting that "those who honour their parents and respect their elders, rarely fail to
obey their superiors". [ 40•2 Thus, Confucianism tried to make use of clan
patriarchal traditions to educate people in the spirit of dumb submission to their 41
rulers. Confucius made frequent direct statements to this effect. "Simple people,” he
said, "should not reason on affairs of state.” They must be "forced to follow the
leaders, but they must not be allowed to be educated". [ 41•1 Constant submission
and obedience to the ruler (the Son of Heaven), the rule that "the cobbler should
stick to his last”, such are the basic principles of Confucianism.
Although such ideas undoubtedly had a negative effect on the development of p

Chinese thought, for a long time their influence was limited by the fact that Taoism
and Buddhism existed side by side with Confucianism as equally powerful factors.
This state of affairs lasted down to the eleventh or the twelfth century when, largely
due to the efforts of Chu Hsi, neo-Confucianism, representing a combination of
Confucian ethics with certain Taoist and Buddhist tenets was instated as the official
ideology of Chinese feudal society.
Neo-Confucianism established a monopoly over the spiritual life of the people, p

demanding strict observance of accepted ways of thinking and forms of behaviour. It
comprised a system of canons and rules which had to be scrupulously observed and
obeyed. It was taught as dogma in all educational establishments, where every pupil
was required to learn by heart numerous sayings of Confucius and his disciples as
interpreted by Chu Hsi. A purely mechanical knowledge of these sayings served as
the basic entry requirement for scholars to the "civil service”. This learning parrot-
fashion of Confucian dogmas from generation to generation encouraged by the feudal
rulers became a "national tradition”. As a result of such “teaching” methods, every
Chinese was to a certain extent Confucianist, not in the sense that he was familiar
with Confucian ideas but simply in that he accepted the Confucian prescriptions as
something perfectly natural and not to be argued with, as traditions inherited from
his ancestors.
Neo-Confucian scholasticism was bound to exert an important influence on the p

subsequent development of Chinese philosophy. All that was expected of scholars
was completely orthodox commentaries on the works of the great Confucianist sages,
and any ideas contradicting neo– Confucianism were severely criticised. This 42
naturally prevented Chinese thinkers from adopting a creative approach to urgent
problems of Chinese social and intellectual life. Even progressive Chinese
philosophers and socio-political thinkers were forced to resort to the authority of
Confucius in order to justify their ideas. Thus, the late nineteenth– century bourgeois
reformers (Kang Yu-wei, Liang Chi-chao and others) employed theses from
Confucius in propagating the idea of constitutional monarchy.
It was not until the second half of the nineteenth century that European culture and p
philosophy began to filter into China. Since this process took place against the
background of a feudal society, it naturally assumed a rather special character.
Borrowings were mainly in the form of Western technical achievements, certain
political and social institutions, and some ideas from European bourgeois philosophy,
especially positivism, but certainly not Marxism. It must be remembered that China’s
introduction to the achievements of European civilisation coincided with the
beginning of the country’s colonial enslavement, and that the bearers of Western
culture at this period were representatives of imperialist circles, whose interests lay in
importing pro-imperialist ideology.
The prevalence of the traditional approach to the solution of philosophical problems p

and the fact that science was poorly developed meant that the borrowings by Chinese
philosophers of elements of Western civilisation at the end of the last century took
the form of a synthesis of Chinese speculative categories and European scientific
concepts. Thus, Kang Yu-wei, whom we have already mentioned, associated
electricity with Jen, the spiritual principle which the Confucianists regard as being
inherent in all things. Yan Fu, a Right-wing bourgeois reformer, who was one of the
leading translators of European philosophical works, provided his translations with
commentaries in which he attempted to draw parallels between Western socio–
philosophical theories and traditional currents of Chinese ancient and medieval socio-
political thought, above all Confucianism.
Thus, one is probably justified in concluding that the modern Chinese philosophers p
as a whole did not rise above the level of their medieval predecessors. The creation
of modern philosophy, by which we mean philosophy on a level with the latest 43
achievements in theoretical knowledge, could not be expected to produce significant

results immediately, especially since, as we have seen, neo– Confucianism preserved
its dominant role. Chinese philosophy between the seventeenth and the nineteenth
century was essentially a modification of the original form of materialism and naive
dialectics.
It was on such theoretical foundations that Mao Tse-tung’s views took shape. Like p
the rest of his generation, Mao Tsetung received a traditional education, which
consisted mainly in the study of Confucian canons and other ancient texts. [ 43•1
Mao Tse-tung himself admitted in a conversation with the American journalist p

E. Snow in 1936 during which he recounted his biography that in his youth he had
mainly studied idealist philosophy, Confucian canons.
Nationalist prejudices were strong in the milieu in which Mao Tse-tung conducted p
his early revolutionary activities. Nationalism is extremely deep-rooted in China, and
has an extremely long history.
For centuries it was a basic principle of Chinese policy, home and foreign, to regard p
China as the centre of the world. The Emperor was held to be the Son of Heaven,
and thus Lord of the Celestial Empire—the whole world and of all its peoples.
Accordingly, all the peoples with whom China came into direct contact in one way
or another were regarded as subject to her and vassals of the Emperor of China.
This view was kept alive by the fact that China had extremely limited political,
economic and cultural relations with other countries, and was relatively isolated from
most of the outside world. For centuries the Chinese ruling classes plumed
themselves on the superiority of the Chinese nation and the unique features of
Chinese civilisation, their own special customs and institutions. Such
revolutionarydemocratic intellectuals as Sun Yat-sen and Chen Tienhua remarked on
this tendency in the official ideology of medieval China to present China as the
centre of the world and the Chinese people as a chosen people. Thus, Sun Yatsen 44
wrote: "China thought very highly of her own achievements and looked down on
other states. This became a habit and came to be regarded as perfectly natural. As a
result, China strove to isolate herself. For this reason, in undertaking any reforms the
Chinese relied exclusively on their own experience and means, and made no attempt
to borrow anything from others. China came to resemble a solitary desert island cast
away. Never having known the advantages of mutual international assistance she has
not learnt the art of borrowing the best from others to make up for one’s own
shortcomings. The Chinese regard anything they do not know and are incapable of
doing as altogether impossible.” [ 44•1 As Chen Tien-hua put it: "the Chinese are
always boasting what a civilised and highly moral nation they are". [ 44•2
The general stagnation of Chinese society encouraged the development of an p

ideology of national Sinocentrism, or Chinese nationalism, which we might call
feudal or prebourgeois nationalism. [ 44•3
The official ideology—Confucianism—promoted a spirit of devotion to tradition p

among the Chinese people. The ideologists of Chinese feudalism encouraged
individual submission to one’s social lot, to the State and to the Emperor, who was
represented as fulfilling the noble mission of defending his subjects. These ideologists
often presented their own class interests as those of the nation as a whole, and did
their utmost to foster distrust towards other peoples and ethnic prejudices. The feudal
state used Confucianism as a means of cultivating an exaggerated sense of belonging
to a special ethnic group. This naturally produced ethnic prejudices among the
masses and gave rise to smug belief in the unique position of the Chinese people, its
philosophy and culture, and conformism to the national conservative traditions. 45
The socio-economic conditions in feudal China gave rise to certain stereotypes of p

mass awareness which had the character of ethnic prejudices. A typical example was
the view that the Chinese were the most civilised of peoples, and that all other
ethnic groups were barbarians. The Chinese were convinced that their own customs
and traditions, their own moral taboos, their own concepts of good and evil and their
own cultural values were the best in the world.
When in the latter half of the nineteenth century China was reduced to the status of p
a colony of the imperialist powers and the Chinese people began to experience a
double national yoke, there was a new upsurge of nationalism among various social
strata.
Along with enslavement to European capital, China also found herself having to p
submit to unprecedented violation of her national customs and traditions, which was
“ justified” by reference to the country’s political and social backwardness, and the
spiritual inferiority of the Chinese people. It is not hard to imagine what
psychological shock the Chinese must have suffered on meeting with this attitude
from the European and American colonialists. The Chinese regarded the Europeans
as people from another world, since their customs and traditions, their morality and
concepts of right and wrong, and their cultural values were quite different from their
own. It is not surprising therefore that the hatred of the Chinese towards the
Manchurian conquerors should have been extended to the Europeans, who were
referred to, among other things, as "foreign devils”. Ethnic prejudices provided fertile
soil for the development of nascent bourgeois nationalism.
Chinese intellectuals of various social convictions at the turn of the century based p
their ideas for the national rebirth of China not only on the natural right of every
people to freedom and independence, but also upon references to China’s glorious
past and her unique political and spiritual institutions. While serving the purpose of
awakening national awareness and inspiring patriotism among the masses, such
references to the past promoted the spread of chauvinistic ideas, since a blind was
drawn over the social contradictions which had characterised that past. The Chinese
bourgeois revolutionaries of every persuasion carried on propaganda that embodied a 46
call for the rebirth of Chinese science, as being the most advanced in the world, the
rebirth of Chinese culture, one of the most ancient cultures in the world, the rebirth
of Chinese political institutions, supposedly unsurpassed anywhere, in short the
rebirth of "Great China”, the Celestial Kingdom. [ 46•1
Thus, from the very moment it appeared Chinese bourgeois nationalism had two p
distinct sides to it—the progressive and the reactionary. The former was associated
with the struggle of the masses against Manchurian rule and against the enslavement
of China by the imperialist powers. The latter involved the idea of Chinese
superiority— a spirit of contempt for all things foreign and a sense of moral
superiority over all other countries and peoples. Chinese bourgeois ideologists
regarded the peoples of yellow race to be greater than all others and ascribed a
special role to the Chinese (Hans), who in time were to establish their hegemony
throughout the world.
This was the view, for example, of the ideologists of reform (Liang Chi-chao, Kang p
Yu-wei), who were strongly iniluenced by the social-Darwinist theory of national
and racial struggle for survival. Convinced of the inevitability of racial conflict, they
pressed for the establishment of a pan-Asian union of peoples of the yellow race
capable of withstanding the pressure of the white nations.
The views of the Chinese revolutionary democrats were similar in many respects. p
Chen Tien-hua, for example, ascribed the success of "people of white race" to the
fact that "from birth they feel friendship and love for people of their race and cruelty
and hatred towards the people of other races". [ 46•2
Chen’s associate Tsou Jung expounded the idea of the superiority of the Chinese p
over the other peoples of yellow race. He wrote as follows: "The first race, the Han
race, is quite unique among the peoples of the eastern hemisphere. From China
proper, advancing along the banks of the Hwang Ho, they spread in all directions.
Our Han race was indeed the only civilising agent in the East from earliest times. 47
The Koreans and the Japanese also developed from the Han race.” [ 47•1 Further
on he writes: "Although they had no capital, the Chinese (those who had emigrated
from China.—M.A., V.G.) surpassed the people of other nationalities thanks to their
industriousness. Those who had considerable basic capital began to compete and
struggle on the market with large American and European trading firms, and held
their own with them. Indeed, they have shown that they have the power to extend
the wealth of their people, and can become the masters of the twentieth century and
advance our noble Han people.” [ 47•2
While rightly exposing the rapacious and ruthless policy of the foreign powers p
acting hand in glove with the mercenary Manchu court, and calling upon the people
to oppose them, Chen Tien-hua and Tsou Jung failed to provide a correct
interpretation of the situation and indicate proper methods for effective opposition.
Since they saw all social contradictions through the prism of national and racial
conflicts, they called the people to arms against foreigners in general. Here again we
see the influence of the nationalist psychology, whereby the characteristics of the
exploiter classes of the oppressor nation (aggression, ruthlessness, and so on) are
extended to the whole people, producing a stereotype of that nation. Thus, Tsou Jung
referred to the Manchurians as barbarians and shepherds with bestial instincts, and
tried to whip up hatred for them. "Let us all as one man rush forward and kill these
foreign devils, and kill and take prisoner their families. If the Manchurians help the
foreigners kill us, then we must first of all annihilate the Manchurians. If the
mercenary officials help the foreigners to kill us, then we must first of all annihilate
all these mercenary officials. Let everyone take up swords and only put them down
when they have destroyed our enemies!
“My dear compatriots! Forward, kill! Forward, kill! Forward, kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! p
Kill our age-old enemies within the country, kill the new enemies that have come to
our land, kill our despised traitors, toadying to the foreigners! Kill! Kill! 48
Kill!” [ 48•1 It is hard to see what could possibly come of such an appeal but
senseless brutality.
The revolutionary democrats based their claim for China’s right to freedom and p
independence on the nationalist idea of "Great China”. Tsou Jung wrote: "China has
always possessed qualities of mind embracing the universe and glory that has
resounded throughout the world. She looked down from above upon other states, and
her power held the five continents in awe. She had a territory of two million square
li, four hundred million intelligent, talented people, a history of five thousand years,
and was ruled by two great emperors and three great rulers. Moreover, our country
lies in the temperate zone, the people possess natural intelligence, the land is rich
and the rivers bountiful. No other country in the world can boast what we
have.” [ 48•2 Tsou even goes on to claim that but for the Manchurian invasion it
would probably have been the Chinese and not the Western powers that subdued
India, Poland, Egypt and Turkey.
Even that great son of the Chinese people Sun Yat-sen did not entirely escape the p
influence of bourgeois nationalism. He was unable to transcend his class outlook, and
was wont to stress the uniqueness of the Chinese people.
The reader may feel that we are exaggerating the nationalist errors of the Chinese p
revolutionaries, both bourgeois and petty-bourgeois, and expecting too much of
political leaders who expressed the hopes of social groups which had suffered such
monstrous political, economic and spiritual oppression.
This is by no means the case. It is far from our intention to run down the leaders p
of the Chinese revolutionary movement at the turn of the century and accuse them of
mortal sins. It must be borne in mind that many of the weaknesses from which their
political programmes and views suffered were conditioned socially, politically and
economically, above all by the unprecedented dual national yoke. Even the most
progressive Chinese politicians were unable to free themselves entirely from the
chains of bourgeois ideology, since in order to do so they would first have had to
recognise the role of the working class and align themselves with it. But we must 49
point out their weaknesses if we are to give an accurate objective picture of the level
Chinese social thought was at immediately before the Communist Party came on the
scene as a political factor, and show what underlay the ideology of the Chinese
bourgeois, petty– bourgeois and peasant revolutionaries, who influenced the theory
and practice of many leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and whose followers
joined the Party. And this involves examining the question of Chinese nationalism
and drawing our own conclusions about it, since, as we have seen, it was an
essential element in the ideology of Chinese revolutionaries of various shades and
trends. [ 49•1
We have examined Chinese nationalism at such length for the simple reason that it p
had a tremendous influence on Mao Tse-tung and the evolution of his views. The
question of the role of the great-power ideas propounded by Chinese political leaders
at the turn of the century in shaping Mao’s outlook certainly deserves special
attention. It must be remembered that Liang Chi-chao, Kang Yu-wei and Sun Yatsen
were still alive at the time when Mao began his political activities.
Nationalism and Sinocentrism became an essential feature of Mao Tse-tung’s p

outlook and were later reflected in his theoretical and practical activity. In the
conversations with E. Snow we have already mentioned, Mao Tse-tung said that after
the triumph of the people’s revolution in China, Outer Mongolia, or what is today
the Mongolian People’s Republic, would automatically become a part of a Chinese 50
federation. Mao made frequent similar statements after 1949, too, and this standpoint
has been reflected in the practical solution of the question of China’s national
minorities. In the Chinese People’s Republic the principle of national self-
determination has been replaced with the principle of national administrative
autonomy. In recent years Mao Tse-tung has been reviving the idea of the racial
solidarity of the peoples of Asia and Africa, which even Sun Yat-sen abandoned in
his latter years. Mao appeals in his propaganda to the national sentiment of the
Chinese, attempting to consolidate Chinese unity on the basis of nationalism.
Hostility and distrust towards the national minority groups in China is once more
being fomented. Thus, Chinese propaganda has begun presenting Ulanfu, a
Mongolian who prior to the Ninth Congress was one of the few representatives of
the national minorities in the Central Committee, as a snake cowering beneath the
blows of giants armed with submachine-guns and copies of Quotations from
Chairman Mao. [ 50•1 In this way a sense of national exclusiveness is being
cultivated among the Chinese and a sense of ethnic and national inferiority is being
produced among China’s other nationalities.
Lenin rightly pointed out that "there is nothing resembling ‘sectarianism’ in p

Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which
arose away from the high road of the development of world civilisation". [ 50•2
Maoist “philosophy”, as distinct from Marxism– Leninism arose mainly on a narrow,
national, Chinese basis, separate from the development of world philosophy.
It should be noted that in the first quarter of the present century the works of such p
classics of world philosophy as Bacon, Locke, Holbach, Kant, Hegel and Feuerbach
had not yet been translated into Chinese. It was chiefly with the works of positivists
and pragmatists such as Compte, Spencer, Russell, Dewey and James that the
Chinese public ( including Mao Tse-tung) were able to acquaint themselves through
translations at that time.
In the early years of his revolutionary activities Mao Tsetung was strongly attracted p
to anarchist ideas (especially the works of Bakunin and Kropotkin), and has never 51
really managed to free himself from their influence.
Mao had his first introduction to anarchist ideas while studying at the pedagogical p
institute, and the enthusiasm with which he embraced them was to last a long time.
He continued to be very much under their spell when he went to Peking, and he
admitted to E. Snow that he favoured many of the anarchist proposals at that
time. [ 51•1 Emi Hsiao, a close friend of Mao’s in those days, also mentions that
Mao was at that time "strongly influenced by anarchist ideas”. Mao himself confessed
that in 1919 he had tried to organise a movement in Hunan for the “independence”
of Hunan. With a group of young anarchists from the town of Changsha, he
organised a demonstration with the slogans "For the independence of the individual
provinces from the Peking government" and "For the introduction of democratic
constitutions in every province”. In the case of Mao Tsetung, anarchist views were
combined with elements of the bourgeois-democratic outlook, expressed in the fact
that he wanted autonomous provinces to be incorporated in a federation, in "the idea
of United Autonomous States of China". [ 51•2
It is interesting to note how in organising the Hungweiping movement during the p

"cultural revolution”, Mao Tsetung drew on the anarchist experience of his youth,
although he has rejected some of it today. The anarchist idea of destroying
centralised state authority expressed in the Hungweiping movement as “polycentrism”
and local separatism, no longer suits Mao now, since it threatens to undermine his
own dictatorship. But in his younger days Mao thought otherwise.
Mao Tse-tung was also strongly influenced by the ideology of the peasant p
movements of medieval China, in particular the T’ai P’ing rebellion.
Mao’s favourite heroes were Shih Huang Ti, the founder of the first Chinese Empire p
(3rd. c. B.C.), Liu Pang, founder of the Han Dynasty (3rd. c. B.C.), T’ang Tai
Tsung, the first Emperor of the T’ang Dynasty (7th c. A.D.), Jenghiz Khan (12–13th
c.), and Chu Yiian-chang (14th c.), leader of a peasant revolt and founder of the 52
Ming Dynasty. The figures he admired most in foreign history were Julius Caesar,
Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Napoleon. [ 52•1
These favourite heroes are more than a passing passion of Mao’s youth, they are a p
reflection of his own dictatorial nature. He has frequently referred to them in later
years, and is wont to compare himself to Shih Huang Ti. Thus, in a speech at the
second session of the Eighth Congress of the CPC in May 1958 which was
published by the Hungweipings, Mao declared: "I maintain that we are stronger than
Shih Huang Ti. He sent 460 people to their graves, while we have disposed of
46,000, a hundred times more than Shih Huang Ti. I once had a conversation with
some democrats. They call us Shih Huang Ti, or despots. On the whole we accept
their accusation.. . .”
Here is another example from the same collection of hitherto unpublished speeches p
by Mao Tse-tung. Mao tells his nephew: "If you read a lot of books, you’ll never be
emperor,” and adds, "If you look at history you can see that none of the people who
were famous for their wisdom and knowledge were outstanding figures.”
Siao-yu, Mao’s friend and fellow student at the pedagogical institute in Changsha, p
also testifies to this side of Mao’s character. In his book Mao Tse-tung and I Were
Beggars, he writes that Mao was already dreaming at that time of becoming another
Liu Pang, a peasant who became Emperor. He reports Mao as saying to him: "Liu
Pang was the first commoner in history to become Emperor... a successful
revolutionist who succeeded in overthrowing the Ch’ing despot... he was founder of
the Han Dynasty. ..” and ”. . .should be considered to be a great hero!”
Siao-yu disagreed, arguing that Liu Pang was "a cruel despot. .. treacherous and p
absolutely devoid of human sentiment. ... Remember the friends and generals who
risked their lives fighting for him? When his armies were successful, these men
became famous leaders and he became afraid that one or another of them might try
to usurp his throne; so he had them all killed.”
Mao, however, hotly defended the “honour” of Liu Pang. "But if he had not killed p
them, his throne would have been insecure and he probably wouldn’t have lasted 53
long as Emperor.” [ 53•1
The practice and rituals of the cult of Mao Tse-tung introduced during the "cultural p
revolution" suggest that the Napoleonic dreams of his youth have become the
cornerstone of Mao’s political views.
It is highly significant that whenever he speaks of China’s future or of the services p

of the Chinese revolutionaries, Mao can think of nothing better than to compare their
achievements to the activities of the ancient Chinese emperors Shih Huang Ti, Han
Wu-ti and T’ang Tai Tsung, and Jenghiz Khan the conqueror.
Analysis of Mao Tse-tung’s political views also shows him to be strongly p

influenced by the legist political system, a Chinese brand of Macchiavellianism and
Jesuitism. [ 53•2
Thus, the ideological basis of Maoist philosophy is formed by concepts that are
either anachronistic or reactionary in their socio-political essence.
*** 54
normal
TEXT SIZE
Notes
[ 30•1 ] F. Engels, The Peasant War in Germany, Moscow, 1909, p. 62.
[ 33•1 ] Mao Tse-tung, On People’s Democratic Dictatorship, Peking, 1950, pp. 7-8
(emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.).
[ 35•1 ] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 356.
[ 37•1 ] Some metaphysical ideas were advanced, but not in a systematic manner, as
a philosophical method. This point was noted by participants in a discussion on the
history of Chinese philosophy held in China in the fifties. See Vn{>rosy filosofii
(Questions of Philosophy), 1957, No, 4, pp. 138–41).
[ 37•2 ] Mao Tse-tung read this book in his youth and it left a strong impression on
him. See: E. Snow, Red Star Over C/iina, N.Y., 1939, pp. 127, 129.
[ 38•1 ] Yi Ching (The Book of Changes), one of the earliest Chinese treatises dating
from the seventh or sixth century B. C. "Hsi Tzu Chuan" is a supplement to it,
containing a philosophical interpretation of the main text, written around the fourth
century B.C.
[ 38•2 ] Tai Chi (Great Limit) means the initial stage and cause of the appearance
and development of all things. The earliest known account is contained in the Yi
Ching. Yin and Yang arc two opposite principles in nature, whose interaction the
ancient Chinese regarded as the explanation of all issue and change in the universe.
[ 38•3 ] Another eminent reformer, Rang Yu-wei bases his theory of the origin of
the universe on the concepts of Yuan Chi and Chi, which are to be found in the
works of Confucius.
[ 39•1 ] In view of this, Professor Chu Chien-chi’s claim that Chinese ( Confucian)
philosophy exerted a considerable influence on European philosophy and thus on
Marxism is curious, to say the least.
In an article of his that appeared in the Chinese philosophical journal Chieh-hsiieh

yan-chiu in 1957, we find the following. ”. . .Marxism— dialectical materialism—is,
essentially, connected with European eighteenth-century philosophy, and European
eighteenth-century philosophy is, essentially, connected with Chinese philosophy. This
means that Chinese philosophy penetrated Europe, and directly influenced French
materialist philosophy, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, German idealist
dialectics. And it so happens that materialism and dialectics were important sources
of the development of dialectical materialism by Marx and Engels. If these historical
facts are true, it will be easy for us in future to understand the connection between
Marxism and Chinese philosophy, we shall cease to be unfamiliar, as we were at
one time, with dialectical materialism, and in general we shall find it far easier to
understand Marxist philosophy.” (Chieh-hsiieh yan-chiu, No. 4, 1957, p. 57). The
publication of such articles can only be regarded as a manifestation of hidebound
nationalism.
[ 40•1 ] Lun-yii, “Hsian-wen”, p. 6.
[ 40•2 ] Ibid., “Hsiu-erh”, p. 2.
[ 41•1 ] Ibid., “Tai-po”, p. 9.
[ 43•1 ] Mao Tse-tung attended the primary school in his native village of Shao
Shan, Hunan Province. From there he went on to attend the school at Hsiang-hsiang,
the district centre, and the secondary school and finally the pedagogical institute in
the provincial town of Changsha.
[ 44•1 ] Sun Yat-sen, Selected Works (in Russian), Moscow, 1964, pp. 250–51
(emphasis added.—M.A., V. G.)
[ 44•2 ] Selected Reference Materials on the History of Modern Chinese Ideology (in
Chinese), Peking, 1957, p. 685.
[ 44•3 ] Nationalism is generally associated v/ith the bourgeoisie. However, this view
ignores the fact that the formation of a nation is a long, complicated process, that the
development of nationalism is thus also a process and passes through several stages,
and that bourgeois nationalism arises on a particular ethnic basis.
[ 46•1 ] Even those Chinese bourgeois ideologists who called upon people to learn
from the West were mainly calling for no more than the adoption of the
achievements of Western science and technology.
[ 46•2 ] Selected Reference Materials. .., p. 681.
[ 47•1 ] Ibid., p. 649 (emphasis added.— M.A., V. G.}.
[ 47•2 ] Ibid., p. 650.
[ 48•1 ] Selected Reference Materials..., p. 672.
[ 48•2 ] Ibid., p. 644.
[ 49•1 ] Perhaps we should stress that ethnic prejudice is not the sole “ prerogative”
of the Chinese, but can be a feature, and indeed, as history has shown, is a feature
of people of various nationalities in the age of capitalism, since it is in the interests
of the bourgeoisie to set one national group against another. This can produce a
solid battery of nationalistic propaganda aimed at the masses.
Ethnic prejudices can only be overcome as the result of a long, tortuous process. It
can only be done by the proletariat, which by its very class nature is more inclined
towards integration than any other social group. Only the triumph of socialism
creates real opportunities for the elimination of national prejudice, but whether or not
these opportunities are taken advantage of depends on correct leadership by the
working class and its party. When a party contains strong petty– bourgeois elements,
this greatly slows the process and indeed may promote a revival of ethnic prejudice,
since chauvinism, national egoism and prejudice arc typical petty-bourgeois
characteristics.
[ 50•1 ] Sec Izvestia, March 19, 1968.
[ 51•1 ] E. Snow. Red Slar Over China, pp. 122–39.
[ 51•2 ] Ibid., p. 138.
[ 52•1 ] E. Snow, op. cit, pp. 115–16, 121.
[ 53•1 ] Mao Tse-tung and I Were Beggars by Siao-yu, Syracuse University Press,
1959, pp. 129–30.
[ 53•2 ] One of the champions of legism, Han Fci Tzu, wrote: "The ruler of a
kingdom where order reigns knows how to skilfully suppress crime. . . . But what
means exist lor the eradication ol the most minor evil? (I answer): people must be
forced to keep a careful watch on one another’s sentiments. And how can they be
forced to keep a close watch on one another? The inhabitants ol (lie village must be
forced to denounce one another. The Clnssiciil Hooks, Vol. 5, Han Fci Tzu (in
Chinese), Peking, 1954, p. 307.
< >
<< >>
<<< INTRODUCTION -- THE MAOIST CHAPTER II -- ON MARXIST >>>

MYSTIQUE PHRASEOLOGY IN THE WORKS
OF MAO TSE-TUNG
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/1-Social-
Ideological.Origins.of.Mao.Tse-Tungs.Outlook
1,779titles in [
leninistbiz en/TAZ ]
Created: 2010 January 22 • Refreshed: 11:43:25 252 e-books currently
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 2-On.Marxist.Phraseology.in.the.Works.of.Mao.Tse-Tung
MAP

>>>
<< • >> CHAPTER II 54

<•> ON MARXIST PHRASEOLOGY IN THE WORKS OF MAO TSE-
TUNG
TOC
Card The whole of Maoist “philosophy” is basically set forth in 1) Dialectical p
Materialism, written in Yenan in the late thirties on the basis of lectures given at the
Text
Party School there. A much altered extract was included in the Selected Works
HTML published during the fifties, in the form of two articles entitled "On Practice" and
PS "On Contradiction”. We hope to make clear further on why Mao Tse-tung did not
PDF have the whole text included in Selected Works; 2) the article "On the Correct
Handling of Contradictions Among the People”, published in 1957; 3) the article
T* "Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?" (1963), amounting to four type-
19* written pages; 4) the articles "On New Democracy" and "On People’s Democratic
Dictatorship”; 5) the anti-Soviet editorials of the newspaper Jen-min jih-pao and
### journal Hungchih (1963–1965) [ 54•1 ; 6) statements on philosophical questions
made at various meetings and in connection with philosophical debates. [ 54•2
If we analyse all these articles and statements it becomes patently evident that Mao p
Tse-tung makes use of Marxist phraseology purely as a means to an end, to
camouflage for the time being his real views. At the same time, Mao’s own
interpretation of Marxism shows an extremely limited knowledge of the subject. This
is hardly surprising, since the traditional education Mao received naturally did not
include Marxist theory, while in the process of self– education he was unable to 55
acquire a correct understanding of Marxism since he drew his information mainly
from the works of petty-bourgeois socialists.
In the twenties Mao Tse-tung studied G. Kircupp’s History of Socialism. Failing to p

distinguish between the political views of Lassalle, Rodbertus and Marx, Kircupp
makes a superficial criticism of Marxist doctrine from the standpoint of petty-
bourgeois socialism, and in particular of such important parts as the theory of labour,
the theory of value, surplus value and so on. It would appear that Mao Tsetung’s
negative attitude to Marx’s Capital derives from the bias he acquired from the
"indelible impression" Kircupp’s book made on him.
Kircupp’s book strengthened Mao Tse-tung’s sympathy for anarchism, since Kircupp p
is full of praise for the anarchists, declaring the catechism of Bakunin (sharply
criticised by Marx) and the views of Kropotkin to be revolutionary socialism.
Kircupp rejects Marx’s scientific socialism and preaches his own "moral socialism”,
declaring that socialism in the past frequently showed a tendency to degenerate into a
rigid and sterile orthodoxy which tried to solve all problems with the aid of
restricted and poorly assimilable theories. [ 55•1 Kircupp suggests that socialism
should be purged of materialism and revolutionary orthodoxy. It must be noted that
Mao Tse-tung adopted Kircupp’s concept of "moral socialism”.
Mao Tse-tung could only base his views of MarxismLeninism on translations, since p
he knew no foreign languages. Moreover, in the early forties, and indeed right up to
1949, only a very small part of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism were
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/2-On.Marxist.Phraseology.in.the.Works.of.Mao.Tse-Tung[2013-03-30 오전 11:43:58]
available in Chinese.
In the twenties Mao’s ignorance of Marxism-Leninism did not matter a great deal, p
in view of the generally deficient theoretical knowledge of the CPC leaders. After
Mao usurped power in the CPC in 1935, however, the position was radically altered.
Henceforth, Mao needed a knowledge of Marxist theory in order to strengthen his
position in the Party leadership.
Not until the end of the thirties did Mao read odd chapters and extracts from p
Engels’ Ludwig Feuerbach, Anti-Diihring and Dialectics of Nature, and Lenin’s 56
Materialism and Empirio-criticism and Philosophical Notebooks. At roughly the same
time he read Stalin’s The Foundations of Leninism and On the Foundations of
Leninism which, as we know, did not attempt to present all the wealth of Marxist-
Leninist theory. A textual analysis of Mao’s writings shows that all his quotations
from Marx, Engels and Lenin were derived from these works of Stalin.
Any correct propositions as appear in Mao Tse-tung’s works are simply a rehash of p
the ideas of Stalin and other Marxists, both Soviet and Chinese (the latter including
Li Ta-chao, Chu Chiu-po, Peng Pai, Wang Ming and Ai Szuch’i), while his own
“original” ideas are, as a rule, erroneous.
A close analysis of Mao Tse-tung’s articles makes it clear that he had not read such p
fundamental Marxist works as Capital, The Poverty of Philosophy, The Holy Family
or The German Ideology. Indeed, Mao was wont to refer to those who took the
trouble to study Capital as "doctrinairists, racking their brains to no avail”.
Mao Tse-tung’s attitude to Marx and his works was clearly expressed in quite p
unambiguous terms in a speech at the Second Session of the Eighth Party Congress
in 1958, when he called for "the destruction of blind faith in Marx" and the
indoctrination of the Chinese people with the "Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”. "Marx
had two eyes and two hands, just like the rest of us, but his head was full of
Marxism,” Mao said. "However, there is no need to read everything Marx wrote.
After all, he wrote so much! There is no need at all to read everything. Comrade
Yang Hsienchen, [ 56•1 have you read all of Marx? Yes, you have read everything 57
and you have climbed to the highest storey, whereas I have not and I have not yet
got to the top. I think that those who are at the bottom should on no account be
afraid of those who are at the top....”
How much Mao Tse-tung knows about Marxism can be gauged from the following p
rather self-effacing statement by Mao himself, made during a conversation with
journalists and people from the publishing world on March 10, 1957.
“When somebody or other says that he understands Marxism it must be borne in p

mind that there are different degrees of understanding Marxism. I too have read a
few books by the founders of Marxism. I don’t know how many they wrote, but I
imagine rather less than half have been translated in China. A specialist should read
as much as possible. We have not much free time and can read less" (quoted from
the Hungweiping newspaper Tung fang hung, July 1967).
These views of Mao on the study of the classics of Marxism and the question of p
whether it was indeed at all necessary for the Chinese to study the works of Marx,
Engels and Lenin were developed by Kuo Mo-jo, President of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences. Addressing scholars present at the inaugural meeting of the history
society in the Kwangsi-Chuang autonomous region, Kuo Mo-jo called on the Chinese
to study Marxism-Leninism from the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, which they
should "read thoroughly" and "learn by heart”, since the works of Marx, Engels and
Lenin were “difficult” and “remote” from Chinese life. "Although Chinese
translations exist which we can read, however conscientiously the translation was
made, as soon as you begin reading them relative difficulties in understanding them
arise. Moreover, the practice dealt with in these classic works is so remote from us
that we have not experienced it ourselves and even when you want to look into them
deeply, you are bound to find difficulties arising. The works of Chairman Mao are
written in Chinese, and are moreover written simply, clearly and perfectly.” [ 57•1
Mao’s supporters attempt to justify their scornful attitude towards world socialist p 58
thought and scientific socialism by insisting that socialism developed on a purely
Chinese basis. During the “rectification” movement of 1942 to 1944, at the time
when the Party was being “purged” of the influence of Marxism-Leninism and the
Comintern, Chen Po-ta, now a leading Maoist theoretician, wrote the following,
which conforms perfectly to the spirit of that campaign. " Socialism has been the
dream of the best representatives of our nation for thousands of years. The thinker
Mo-tzu (5th c. B.C.) called this dream ’universal love’, while in the treatise Li Yuan
it is referred to as the ’great union’. ... The ideals of socialism and communism—of
’great union’— in the case of our nation have not been introduced from outside, but
are a historical need inherent in our nation.”
Analysis of bibliographic sources of the published works of Mao Tse-tung shows p

how totally unfounded and absurd are the claims of the sacristans of the Mao cult
that their leader "brilliantly, creatively, and all-embracingly inherited, defended and
developed Marxism-Leninism, raising it to a new stage”.
In all of Mao Tse-tung’s works, if we try to trace his sources we find a p

preponderance of references to, or
•
References to, or quotations from Percentage of references in nil 4 volumes 1.
Confucian and neo-Confucian writings ................ 2. Taoist and Mohist writings . . . .
3. Folklore legends, pure belles lettres. . 4. Other Chinese and foreign writers,
unclassified............ 5. Marx and Engels......... 6. Lenin ............... 7. Stalin .............. 22
12 13 7 4 18 24 TOTAL 100% 59
•
quotations from Confucius, Mencius and other ancient and medieval Chinese sages.
The bourgeois Sinologist V. Holubnychy made a careful textual study of the works
of Mao Tse-tung and drew up the following statistical table of the sources quoted by
Mao in all four volumes of Selected Works. [ 59•1
We checked these figures for ourselves and found them to be basically correct. p
While it naturally cannot be assumed that Mao Tse-tung has only read those authors
he quotes in his works, this table nevertheless serves to give a fair idea of the range
of authors he has studied.
The Soviet film director R. Karmen who spent over a year in China in 1939–1940 p
and met Mao Tse-tung in Yenan on several occasions provides another extremely
convincing testimony to the ideological substratum of Mao’s views. In his A Year in
China, published in 1941, he mentions that in his conversations and speeches Mao
Tse-tung was constantly quoting Confucius. [ 59•2 This is also confirmed by the
memoirs of Otto Braun (Li Te), an outstanding German Communist and
internationalist who was military adviser to the Central Committee of the CPC in the
thirties and was for many years closely acquainted with Mao. [ 59•3
It so happened that thanks to the efforts of Ai Szu-ch’i and other Marxists several p
Soviet philosophy manuals were translated into Chinese in the thirties. Mao Tse-tung
thus had ample opportunity to acquire a correct understanding of the basic principles
of Marxist philosophy, had he so wished. But his “philosophical” works show that
he was either unable or unwilling to take advantage of the information on
MarxistLeninist philosophy contained in Soviet popular philosophy manuals. This is
certainly suggested by the numerous distortions of Marxist theses that are to be
found in Mao Tse-tung’s writings from the forties onwards.
Mao’s first “philosophical” work, as we have already mentioned, was the pamphlet p
Dialectical Materialism. The list of contents reproduced below should give the reader
a good idea of its subject matter.
Chapter I. Idealism and Materialism p 60
I. The war between two armies in philosophy. p

II. The difference between idealism and materialism.
III. The source of the rise and development of idealism.
IV. The origin of the inception and development of materialism.
Chapter II. Dialectical Materialism p
I. Dialectical materialism is the revolutionary arm of the proletariat. p

II. The relationship between the old philosophical heritage and dialectical
materialism.
III. The unity of world view and methodology in dialectical materialism.
IV. The question of the object of materialist dialectics— what
do materialist
dialectics serve to study?
V. On matter.
VI. On movement (on development).
VII. On space and time.
VIII. On awareness.
IX. On reflection.
X. On truth.
XI. On practice (on the connection between cognition and practice, theory
and action, knowledge and action).
Chapter III. Materialist Dialectics p
I. The law of the unity of opposites. p
a) Two views of development. p

b) The formal-logistic law of identity and the dialectical
law of contradiction.
c) The universality of contradiction.

d) The particularity of contradiction.
e) The principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction.
f) Identity and struggle of the aspects of a contradiction.
g) The place of antagonism in the line of contradictions.
A detailed analysis of the text revealed that it was based entirely on two Soviet p
works, the text-book Dialectical Materialism (Moscow 1933, general editor 61
M. Mitin), and the article of the same name published in volume 22 of the first
edition of the Bolshaya Sovietxkaya Entsiklopedia.
Mao Tse-tung’s pamphlet is really no more than a recapitulation of these two p

works. Whole passages have been “lifted” wholesale, with little or no change. This is
especially true of those problems which were never examined at all in traditional
Chinese philosophy, or which were treated at a very low theoretical level and which
required a knowledge of natural science and the historical development of world
philosophy to be properly understood. Such problems include the question of the
material nature of the world, the forms in which matter exists, especially space and
time, and objective, relative and absolute truth.
Yet despite the fact that Mao Tse-tung is merely retelling in Chinese the correct p
theses contained in Soviet works, he nevertheless manages to distort and vulgarise
them.
According to Mao, the basic social cause of idealism is the antithesis between p
intellectual labour and manual labour. ”. . .The earliest manifestation of idealism was
brought about by the superstition and ignorance of primitive, savage man. But with
the development of production, the separation between manual labour and
intellectual labour was responsible for ranking idealism first among currents of
philosophical thought. With the development of the productive forces of society, the
division of labour made its appearance; the further development of the division of
labour saw the emergence of persons devoting themselves entirely and exclusively to
intellectual labour. But when the productive forces are still weak, the division
between the two does not reach the stage of complete separation. Only after classes
and private property appear and exploitation becomes the foundation of the existence
of the ruling class do great changes occur. Intellectual labour then becomes the
exclusive privilege of the ruling class, while manual labour becomes the fate of the
oppressed classes. The ruling class begins to examine the relationship between
themselves and the oppressed classes in an upside-down fashion: It is not the
labourers who provide them with the means for existence, but rather they who
provide the labourers with the means of existence. They therefore despise manual
labour and develop idealist conceptions. The elimination of the differences between 62
manual labour and intellectual labour is one of the preconditions for eliminating
idealist philosophy.” [ 62•1
Mao Tse-tung is quite wrong in identifying the causes of the appearance of the p
illusion about the independent development of ideology with the social roots of
idealism. In actual fact, the division of labour into intellectual and manual work,
while demoralising man and entailing on him special social functions, at the same
time gives a strong impulse to the development of the productive forces, science and
the arts. This can be seen from the first antagonistic class society. As Engels wrote:
"It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour between agriculture
and industry on a larger scale, and thereby also Hellenism, the flowering of the
ancient world. Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science.. .
.” [ 62•2
As for the social roots of idealism, they lie in the division of society into classes p
and the urge of the exploiter classes to retain and strengthen their rule.
Mao Tse-tung’s articles "On Practice" and "On Contradiction" included in the p
Selected Works also contain extensive borrowings from the above-mentioned Soviet
textbook and Bolshaya Sovietskaya Entsiklopedia. [ 62•3 One example is the thesis
of the two views concerning the laws of development of the world: the metaphysical
and the dialectical. Once again, the Marxist theses borrowed from the Soviet works
appear side by side with over-simplified, vulgarised interpretations of numerous
problems and even un-Marxist and anti-Marxist theses. This is particularly evident in
Mao’s treatment of the basic law of dialectics. [ 62•4
The outward resemblance Mao’s two articles bear to genuine Marxist works, as p
regards terminology, added to the fact that they contain such extensive borrowings of
theses from Soviet works, often blinds people to their real content and significance.
This misunderstanding is further increased by the references to A. M. Deborin and 63
the "Menshevikising idealists”. However, in our opinion, the politico– philosophical
errors of the Deborin group could not possibly have any bearing on China, since the
CPC cadres were, for objective reasons, far removed from philosophical debates in
the USSR. The only people who might have some idea of the views of Deborin and
his group were the Chinese students studying in Moscow or CPC representatives in
the Comintern. The majority of these adopted an internationalist standpoint, and on
their return to China represented a serious threat to the nationalist policy of Mao
Tse-tung. It was these people that Mao Tse-tung had in mind when he spoke of the
influence of Deborin’s idealism on certain members of the CPC and of political
errors of a doctrinaire nature. In insisting on the need to combat Deborin and his
group, Mao was pursuing two aims: he was preparing an alibi for the liquidation of
genuine internationalist Communists and at the same time proclaiming his own
“fidelity” to Marxism.
Mao Tse-tung’s articles and statements on philosophy dating from the 1950s and p
1960s (for example, "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”,
1957, and his instructions regarding the debate on the "dissolution of the entity"
1964) show an ever-increasing distortion and vulgarisation of Marxism-Leninism. We
shall be discussing this in detail in another chapter, and shall therefore restrict
ourselves at this stage to one example.
Quotations from Chairman Mao contains the following idea on idealism and p
metaphysics, materialism and dialectics, purporting to date from 1955. "In the world
only idealism and metaphysics require the minimum of effort, for they enable people
to talk all kinds of rubbish without taking objective reality into account and without
testing what they say in real life. Materialism and dialectics, on the contrary, require
effort from people, for they are based on objective reality and are tested in real life.
“Unless one makes an effort it is easy to slide towards idealism and p

metaphysics.” [ 63•1
If in the late thirties Mao Tse-tung was still making some kind of effort to disclose p
the real causes of the appearance of various trends in philosophy, albeit distorting the
Marxist viewpoint, twenty years later he reduces the whole problem to the amount of 64
effort the philosopher, scientist, scholar or practical man expends in his particular
field of activity. Such an attitude begs the conclusion that all industrious people are
materialists and dialecticians while all lazy people are idealists and metaphysicians.
According to this thesis, that great son of the Chinese people Sun Yat-sen clearly
falls into the latter category, since he is well known to have been an idealist in his
philosophical views.
The fact that Mao Tse-tung uses Marxist phraseology in his works and that some of p
the Maoist theses bear a formal resemblance to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism
enables the Maoists to camouflage the true essence of "Mao Tse-tung’s Thoughts”.
Moreover, Mao is fond of quoting Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and makes
frequent "oaths of allegiance" to the Marxist cause and the ideals of Marxism-
Leninism. However, does this really provide grounds for regarding Mao, if not as an
"outstanding Marxist-Leninist”, at least as an ordinary run-of-the-mill Marxist

philosopher, or for blaming Soviet philosophy or Marxism-Leninism in general for
the appearance of Maoism, as bourgeois propagandists are wont to do?
It certainly does not. A detailed analysis of the views of Mao Tse-tung shows that p
anti-Marxist ideas predominate in his theories, so that the borrowed Marxist theses
are really an alien element in his “philosophy”. This is especially clear from those
parts of his writings where he offers his own interpretation of problems treated by
Marxism-Leninism. Mao’s supporters extol him not so much for his repetition of
general truths as for those formulations which represent an essential departure from
the Marxist-Leninist philosophical treatment of such problems as proletarian
revolution, war and peace, class relations and the class struggle under socialism
which we shall be dealing with in later chapters.
The frequent appeals Mao makes in his writings to the authority of Stalin and p
citations from him were also intended simply to create the impression of adherence
to Marxism-Leninism and the communist movement. In actual fact, Mao makes
hypocritical use of Stalin’s name for attacks on the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union. A collection of Mao’s speeches at closed meetings, published by the
Hungweipings, reveals that Mao called Stalin a metaphysician and accused him of 65
being opposed to the Chinese revolution. In "Three Milestones in the Development
of Marxism”, distributed by the Hungweipings, it is claimed that as a result of
Stalin’s theoretical errors, Marxism began to "mark time" in the Soviet Union.
Curiously enough, the date given for the beginning of this "marking time" is 1935,
the year Mao Tse-tung "assumed leadership" of the CPC.
It is quite clear even from this brief examination of the story of Mao Tse-tung’s
acquaintanceship with MarxismLeninism that he never was a Marxist, and that the
Maoist claim that he “inherited”, “defended” and “developed” Marxism-Leninism is
just another myth. It is paradoxical and absurd when a hidebound chauvinist suffering
from megalomania aspires to become a classic of Marxism–
Leninism.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 54•1 ] According to the Hungwciping press all these articles were written on direct
instructions from M;io, under his guidance and with his participation.
[ 54•2 ] As reported by the Chinese, and especially the Mungweiping press,

sometimes verbatim.
[ 55•1 ] See G. Kircupp, History of Socialism, London, 1920, p. 405.
[ 56•1 ] Yang Hsien-chen, famous Chinese Marxist philosopher, member of the CPC
Central Committee, eighth convocation, pro-rector of the Central Committee’s Party
School. He criticised Mao Tse-tung’s voluntarist views, declaring them to be
subjective idealism and neoMachism. A persecution campaign was launched against
him (1959– 1962) under cover of a debate on "the identity of existence and
thought”, and in 1964 he was publicly declared to be a “revisionist”. His views were
“condemned” in the course of a debate on the subject of the "dissolution of the
entity”, which was a prelude to the "cultural revolution”. (We shall return to this
subject in greater detail further on.) During the "cultural revolution" Yang Hsien-
chen was declared ’ideologist of the Black Gang of Liu Shao-chi" and included in
the egory of “counter-revolutionaries” and ”enemies of the Thoughts of Mao Tse-
tung”. His present fate is unknown.
[ 57•1 ] Kwangsi jih-jxio, March 26, 1963, in Chinese.
[ 59•1 ] V. Holubnychy, "Mao Tse-tung’s Materialistic Dialectics”, China Quarterly,

July-September, 1904, No."l9, p. 17.
[ 59•2 ] R. Karmcn, A Year in China (in Russian), Moscow, 1941, p. 111.
[ 59•3 ] Otto Braun, From Shanghai to Yen/in (in German), 19(i9.
[ 62•1 ] Dialectical Materialism, Talien, p. 5 (emphasis added.—M.A., V. G.).
[ 62•2 ] F. Engels, Anti-Duhring, Moscow, 1969, p. 216.
[ 62•3 ] From "The Law of the Unity of Opposites”, the fourth section of the
chapter of the text-book entitled ’flic Laws of Materialist Dialectics, and from the
section "The Law of the Unity of Opposites" and the article "Dialectical Materialism"
in the Bolshaya Sovietskaya Entsiklopedia.
[ 62•4 ] Discussed further on.
[ 63•1 ] Quotations from Mao Tse-tung’s Works (in Russian), pp. 220–21.
< >
<< >>
<<< CHAPTER I -- THE SOCIAL AND CHAPTER III -- THE IDEALIST >>>
IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF MAO ESSENCE OF MAOIST
TSE-TUNG'S OUTLOOK PHILOSOPHY
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/2-
On.Marxist.Phraseology.in.the.Works.of.Mao.Tse-Tung
1,779titles in [
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 3.1-Subjective.Idealism-Not.Materialist.View.of.History
MAP

>>>
<< • >> CHAPTER III 66

<•> THE IDEALIST ESSENCE OF MAOIST PHILOSOPHY
1. Subjective Idealism Instead of the Materialist
TOC
View of History
Card
What are the basic tenets of Mao Tse-tung’s outlook? The Marxist propositions that p
Text occur with such frequency in Mao’s writings by no means tally with his own
HTML “original” interpretations of many philosophical questions in which he expresses his
PS own basic outlook. This applies to problems concerning the relationship between the
PDF
objective laws of social development and conscious human activity, the economic
basis of society and its political superstructure, social being and social ideas. In order
T*
to make a correct assessment of the essence of Maoist “philosophy” it is necessary
19*
to examine the way it treats the relationship between theory and practice, between
### spiritual and material activity. It is necessary to see whether the Maoists are guided
by the principles of Marxism-Leninism in their approach to social phenomena, in
their activities and policy-making. In other words, it is necessary to bracket off the
Marxist terminology Maoism exploits.
If we examine Maoism from this point of view, we shall find that it takes its p
departure from the primacy of the subjective factor: "subjective activity”, politics and
ideas. This is expressed in such premises as the following: production relations and
not the productive forces play the major role in the socialist mode of production;
politics and not economics are the ruling factor in socialist society; moral impulses
and not material interest are the main factor in building socialism; men and not
weapons decide the outcome of a war.
In the final analysis, all such premises are reducible to the thesis that subjective p
activity, falsely interpreted, is the decisive factor in socialist society, which really
amounts to an attempt to subject the objective laws of socialist construction to the 67
subjective activities of the leadership and provide a theoretical justification for
subjectivism, voluntarism and adventurism in home and foreign policy.
In 1958 and 1959 the question of subjective activity was being widely debated in p
China. At about the same time "the theory of subjective activity" began to be
extensively propagated, every effort being made to exalt the role of Mao in the
development of this theory. The following two quotations are taken from the manual
Dialectical Materialism, published in Peking in 1961.
1) Waging a resolute struggle with all kinds of opportunist elements who denied or p
minimised the role of the subjective activity of the masses, Mao Tse-tung made not
only a theoretical but also a tremendous political contribution to the development of
the theory of subjective activity. He not only gave a precise Marxist definition of
subjective activity in the Marxist sense, and showed clearly and concretely how
subjective activity plays a decisive role in certain circumstances; he also made a
comprehensive and profound study, based on the close unity of materialism and
dialectics, of the existence of dialectical links between the subjective and objective,
subjective activity and objective laws, revolutionary spirit and the scientific approach.
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/3.1-Subjective.Idealism-Not.Materialist.View.of.History[2013-03-30 오전 11:44:08]
2) Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s new contribution to Marxist philosophy consists not p

only in the fact that on the basis of the contradiction between subjective and
objective he provides a clear and positive answer to the decisive role of subjective
activity in certain circumstances, but also in the fact that with reference to the basic
spheres of social life and the practical activity of the Party he gives our Party an
even more powerful theoretical weapon for guiding the people in the struggle for the
grandiose transformation of the world.
One cannot help being struck by the extravagant claim that Marxism owes a large p
debt to Mao Tse-tung for his insistence on the "decisive role of subjective activity”.
Marxism-Leninism does not deny the importance of the subjective factor in the
development of socialist society; on the contrary, it insists that it plays an
increasingly important role as socialist construction develops successfully. This is
because the communist and workers’ parties, relying on knowledge of the objective 68
laws of social development, can make use of them in the interests of the whole of
society, so that people’s activities acquire a purposeful, conscious character.
Nevertheless, the development of socialist society is as much conditioned by p

material factors, objective, as the development of any other stage of human society.
Failure to take sufficient account of the influence of material factors on people’s
socio-economic activity, and especially failure to recognise them altogether, cannot
but have a negative effect on the development of socialist society.
Contrary to Marxism-Leninism, the Maoists overemphasise subjective activity, p

ignoring the dialectical unity of the objective laws of social development and
conscious activity. They call the Marxist-Leninists “mechanists”, since, to quote
them, "refusing to recognise that man is the decisive factor in the relationship
between men and things, they make a one-sided insistence on man’s activities being
determined by dead patterns of objective laws, on man being only able to passively
submit to laws". [ 68•1 On the basis of the fact that the role of the subjective factor
increases immeasurably under socialism, the Maoists draw a metaphysical contrast
between objective law and human activity, divorcing them from one another.
The main thing, however, is that the Maoists interpret subjective activity not as the p
purposeful activity of the masses, based on knowledge of the laws of social
development, but as their activity to implement the designs of their leaders. Thus, the
talk of Mao Tse-tung’s contribution to the development of the "theory of subjective
activity”, is to be understood as an apology for activity that is not subject to any
objective laws, or in other words, voluntarism and subjectivism. This is a subjective-
idealist viewpoint.
One very important point must be borne in mind in analysing Maoist “philosophy”. p
In order to mask their departure from Marxism-Leninism, Mao and his supporters
frequently resort to the trick of taking a correct Marxist thesis and interpreting it in
their own way, stressing whatever aspect of it happens to suit their particular
purpose, inflating and absolutising a part of the whole, taking care, however, to
quote the whole proposition in order that their distortion should not be too obvious. 69
Thus, in the case in point, their revision of the Marxist thesis of the dialectical p
interrelationship of objective laws of social development and conscious human
activity in socialist society is carefully masked by placing the emphasis on the latter
while nevertheless mentioning the need to take the former into account.
Maoist distortions of Marxist theses can be discovered not only by making a careful p
study of their theoretical exercises and a thorough analysis and comparison of all
their statements on a given question, but also by finding out when, in what
circumstances, and for what reason, they choose to stress a particular proposition.
Thus, Mao Tse-tung’s subjective-idealist approach to the question of the objective
laws of social development becomes even more appareiit if it is remembered that this
argument in favour of subjective activity was put forward at the time of the Great
Leap Forward and the "people’s communes”.
As a further example of the way the Maoists covertly distort the Marxist theory of p
the relationship between subjective activity and objective laws, let us take a look at a
passage from an article published in 1965 in the review Hsin-chian She, organ of the
department of philosophical and social sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the
Chinese People’s Republic. Once again we are dealing with a subjective-idealist
interpretation of the role of man in material production. ".. .Although the instruments
of labour in production, the objects of labour, weapons in war, etc., are extremely
important, and although they are undoubtedly an important factor in production and
war, nevertheless, they occupy a place of secondary importance compared to man.
Wherever it may be, in the production struggle or in the class struggle, it is man and
not material that plays the decisive role.” [ 69•1 This is because man is active
while material is passive, the authors explain. Man "... can think, can work, has a
subjective activity, can cognise the world, while maferial does not possess these
attributes”. "The most important things are the instruments of labour in production
and weapons in war.... But, apart from human activity, nature cannot provide man 70
with the necessary instruments of labour and weapons. Apart from human activity,
the instruments and weapons that have been produced turn to rubbish.” [ 70•1
But perhaps all this is simply advanced in defence of man’s active essence? We p
have only to remember that the above was written at a time when China’s industrial
development rates had slowed down after the spectacular failure of the Great Leap
and the "people’s communes”, at a time when the role of technology and
technological progress was being disparaged if not ignored, and the idea that "the
atom bomb is a paper tiger" was being churned out non-stop, to realise its clear anti-
Marxist implications, to understand that we have to do with a deliberate attempt to
exaggerate the role of man in material production.
Marxism-Leninism has always stressed the decisive role of man in social p

production. Suffice it to remember Lenin’s words that the worker, the working man
is the prime productive force of all mankind. But Marxism-Leninism has never
separated man from the other elements of the productive forces and set him up in
contrast to them. Man is the chief, but not the only, component of the productive
forces. Unwitting or deliberate failure to recognise this principle blots out the
fundamental distinctions between different modes of production, since every society
is characterised by a certain level of development of the productive forces.
Marxism-Leninism rejects the view that reason plays the decisive role in the p
development of the productive forces and the means of production, in the process of
creating and using the instruments of labour. In exerting an influence on nature, man
changes himself as well as nature, improving himself in the process of improving the
instruments of labour. But this depends on the level of development of the
productive forces at a given point. It must be remembered that man’s powers and
possibilities in a particular historical age are limited by the level of development of
material production, and above all of the instruments of labour.
Naturally, the instruments of labour are worth nothing without man. But this is no p
reason for denying their importance, for man’s powers are manifested in the level of
development of the instruments of labour.
The Maoists, however, contrast man to the other elements of the productive forces, p 71
and even go as far as to deny the role of the instruments of labour in the
development of society. Take, for example, their approach to the material factors in
war. The atom bomb and other modern weapons are described as "paper tigers”, and
the material, technological factor in war is practically dismissed. The following thesis
of Mao Tse-tung is significant in this respect. " Weapons are an important factor in
war but not the decisive one. It is man and not material that counts.” [ 71•1 It is
no accident that in discussing revolution, the Maoists completely ignore objective
factors and accord the decisive role to subjective political factors.
The Maoists preach nihilism with regard to science and technology, as is expressed p
in such slogans as "destroy faith in scientific authorities" and "make every worker
and peasant a scientist”. In the conditions of the modern scientific and technological
revolution when science is becoming a direct productive force of society, such
practice would inevitably lead to the stagnation of scientific research.
In our opinion, this is merely to be regarded as a further example of that typical p

Maoist habit of separating theory from practice and adopting a narrow utilitarian
approach to theory. Mao Tse-tung is hardly unaware of the growing role of the
natural sciences in modern society, since the use of scientific achievements increases
man’s control over nature. That he is not, is borne out by the fact that the majority
of scientific institutions and scientists engaged on the creation of nuclear weapons
were not subjected to criticism during the "cultural revolution”. It was the social
science that bore the brunt of the attack. It seems clear that Mao was making a
bugbear of “pseudo-science” and "worship of scientific authorities" for the purpose
of getting at his political opponents. The Maoists have not questioned the value of
applying the natural sciences in practice, and there is no indication that they intend to
do so in the future.
Mao’s fetishisation of the role of man in production is inseparably linked with his p
misinterpretation of the interrelationship between the productive forces and relations
of production, between the foundation and the superstructure.
The Marxist view on this question is expressed in the following passage by Marx, p 72
which Lenin pointed to as summing up the materialist concept of history. "In the
social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable
and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite
stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these
relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real
foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which
correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of
material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It
is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary,
their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their
development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the
existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same
thing— with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto.
From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their
fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution.... Just as our opinion of an
individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a
period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this
consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from
the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of
production.” [ 72•1
Maoism adopts an entirely different approach to the question of the relationship p

between the productive forces and relations of production. As we have already seen,
Mao Tsetung makes the thesis "Politics takes command" his point of departure.
Moreover, this elevation of politics to the position of command is to be understood
as the subjection of the objective development of the productive forces to arbitrary
decisions. According to Mao Tse-tung, the motive force of social development is not
the development of the productive forces, conditioning the nature of the relations of
production, but the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of
production, class contradictions, and the contradiction between the old and the new, 73
all treated abstractly.
Thus, Mao writes in "On Contradiction": "Changes in society are chiefly due to the p
development of internal contradictions in society, namely, the contradiction between
the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between the
classes, and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of
these contradictions that impels society forward and starts the process of the
supercession of the old society by a new one.” [ 73•1
In a speech in Shanghai in August 1957, Mao Tse-tung attacked the thesis of the p
Eighth Congress of the CPC (1956) that the contradiction between an advanced
social order and backward productive forces was coming more and more to the fore
in China. In his speech Mao declared: "The statement that the advanced social order
in China has entered into contradiction with the backward productive forces is
wrong.” [ 73•2
In contrast to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung ascribes the main role in the p

system of productive forces and relations of production to the latter, regarding the
introduction of new relations of production to be possible independently of the level
of development of the productive forces. Secondly, he regards the introduction of
new relations of production as the result not of objective necessity inherent in the
process of material production but of subjective will. [ 73•3
The Maoists hold that it is possible to improve artificially the relations of p

production in order to solve the tasks of China’s socio-economic development. This
was the aim pursued in the Great Leap Forward and the people’s communes. The
slogan of a rapid transition to communism was advanced at the initial stage of the
building of socialism in China. The people’s communes were widely advertised as
being the first cells of the future communist society. The lamentable results of this
“experiment” are common knowledge.
The artificial improvement of the relations of production, which amounted to p

various kinds of political-organisational reshaping of agriculture and industry, was 74
associated with deliberate intensification of the class struggle, as expressed in a
succession of political campaigns and mass movements, viz., the campaigns against
the “Three-Antis” and “ FiveAntis” (1952–1953), the struggle against "right
opportunist elements" (1957–1958), the movement for the rectification of styles of
work (1958), the campaign for "devotion of the heart to the Party" (1958–1959), the
socialist education movement in the countryside (1962–1963), and, finally, the "Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (1966–1969).
This anti-Marxist, idealist approach has its logical conclusion in the formula "The
power of Mao Tse-tung’s Thought is infinite”.
Debasing Marx’s thesis that theory becomes a material force when it takes hold of p
the masses, the Maoists claim that "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought" can be applied with
great success in the production of atom bombs, complicated surgical operations, the
transplanting of human organs, the sale of melons and even the introduction of good
sanitation in the towns. Lin Piao declared the writings and thoughts of Mao Tse-
tung to be the key to the solution of absolutely any problem, and that "with their aid
it is easy to obtain immediate, tangible results”.
The newspaper Heng-yan jih-pao wrote: "Reading the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung is p
not simply reading but a great task on which the success or defeat of the socialist
revolution and the building of socialism depends.... It is a great task on which the
destiny of mankind depends. One must read them constantly, systematically,
always.” [ 74•1
The army newspaper Jiefangjun pao made equally staggering claims. "Our country’s p
boundless might mainly consists in the fact that we have the powerful, invincible
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.” [ 74•2
The work of the masses and economic construction are quite incidental: Mao Tse- p
tung and his “Thought” are the alpha and the omega. "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought”,
like Hegel’s Absolute, is the source of social development and, becoming a material
force, forms the economic foundation and political superstructure of society.
Moreover, the Maoists ascribe to Mao Tse-tung’s Thought the power to determine p 75
the destiny of the world socialist revolution and the development of all human
society. Thus, the newspaper Jen-min jih-pao writes: "When Mao Tsetung’s Thought
is current throughout the world, when it has been gradually adopted by the
revolutionary peoples of the whole world, it will be able to change the spiritual
profile of the revolutionary peoples of the world and transform a spiritual force into
a powerful material force. Once they have accepted Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, the
revolutionary peoples of the world will smash the old world with tremendous,
irresistible force, completely bury imperialism, modern revisionism and reaction in all
countries and will build on earth an infinitely bright, great new communist world of
unsurpassed beauty, a world without oppression and exploitation.” [ 75•1
As the French publicist J. E. Vidal remarked, Mao Tsetung substitutes subjectivism p

for Marxism-Leninism. "The ideas of Mao Tse-tung will become a ’material force’
from which the condition of the productive forces will depend. This subjective,
idealist concept of history leads to pure voluntarism. The human will can act
independently of objective laws and historical necessity. An unlimited role is ascribed
to the invincible Thought of Mao Tse-tung. Thus, moral education becomes the main
form of activity in the transformation of society.” [ 75•2
Clearly, the Marxist thesis of the relative independence of ideology has been p
interpreted unscientifically in Maoism, and Marx’s thesis that theory becomes a
material force when it takes hold of the masses has been debased.
Marxist-Leninists have always attributed an important role to ideas in social p

development, holding that they can serve to accelerate it, but this is only the case
provided these ideas reflect real life, class relations, the development of science, and
economic progress. The viability and invincibility of Marxist ideas, their accelerating
influence on the social process is due to their scientific nature, the fact that they
correspond to the laws of social development. It is by virtue of this that they become
a material force in the transformation of the world. The “ideas” of Mao are quite 76
devoid of vitalising force, since they are not based on science and do not correspond
to the objective laws of social development, so that their realisation in practice is
only leading to failures in China’s home and foreign policy.
Maoism revises the Marxist-Leninist thesis of the role of the masses and personality p
in history, exaggerating the latter and reviving hero-worship, and regarding the
masses as a faceless herd obedient to the will of their leaders.
This subjective-sociological interpretation of the role of the individual in history is p

clearly expressed in the exaggeration of Mao Tse-tung’s role in the history of the
Chinese revolution, socialist construction, and the world historical process, with
corresponding minimisation of the role of the masses and the communist party. It is
expressed in the personality cult of Mao Tse-tung. The activities of the CPC
throughout its history are identified with the activities of one man, Mao Tse-tung.
Maoist propaganda presents Mao as a kind of superman, a genius such as is only
born once in several centuries, so that unquestioning obedience to him is the
guarantee of success for China. "To always think of Chairman Mao, obey Chairman
Mao in everything, follow Chairman Mao, do everything in the name of Chairman
Mao.” [ 76•1 The Chinese and the peoples of the world are called upon to be
"good warriors”, "obedient buffaloes" and " stainless screws" of Mao Tse-tung.
This is far more than a rebirth or echoing of the populist theory of “heroes” and the p
“crowd”. In the one case it was a question of a plurality of heroes, of the hero in
general. In the other case it is a question of one hero who is able to change or
dispose altogether of the laws of social development as he thinks fit.
The Chinese press is used to deify Mao and glorify his obedient servants. It has no p
interest at all in the masses as such, as the real hero of the historical process and
participant in the revolutionary transformation of society. In Maoist theory and
practice alike, the masses are simply “extras” doing whatever they are ordered by
Mao. According to the logic of Maoist philosophy, the masses are incapable of
conscious, organised activity, but are only able to obey and blindly "follow the 77
leader”, that is, the leader. This is expressed in Mao Tse-tung’s “idea” that the
Chinese people is a clean sheet of paper. "A clean sheet of paper has no blotches,
and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it, the newest and
most beautiful pictures can be painted on it.” [ 77•1 Such a concept of the
respective historical roles of the individual and the masses has nothing at all to do
with Marxism-Leninism. It is but a highly pernicious personality cult of a leader
standing above the people. It is mistrust of the masses, mockery of the masses.
Just how far the Mao Tse-tung personality cult has gone can be gauged from the p
following statement made by Lin Piao at a meeting in November, 1966. "The words
of Chairman Mao are words of the highest order, highly authoritative, possessing
tremendous power, true to the last word; each word is equivalent to ten thousand
words uttered by others.” This excessive veneration for the word of Mao is
somewhat reminiscent of the awe and reverence with which the Bible was once
regarded.
Under the Mao Tse-tung personality cult the Chinese people are being educated in a p
spirit of complete subservience to the leader. Ordinary Chinese are made to repeat
such things as "The concern of Chairman Mao is greater than the earth and sky.
Chairman Mao is closer than father or mother. But for Chairman Mao, I could not
exist... ." [ 77•2 All the writings of Mao Tse-tung are regarded as Holy Writ. "We
must study the works of Mao Tse-tung daily. If we fail to study the works of the
leader for but one day, numerous questions will arise; if we do not study them for
two days we shall slide downhill, and it is quite impossible to live for three days
without the works of the leader.” [ 77•3
Maoism preaches a subjectivist view of history, regarding the political and p

theoretical activity of Mao Tse-tung as the sole cause of social development.
From the Maoist point of view, social development is not an objective historical p
process but a chain of manifestations of the "wise designs" of Mao Tse-tung.
"Without the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung, there would not be the great, glorious, true 78
Communist Party of China [ 78•1 , there would be no triumph of the democratic
revolution and the socialist revolution in this country, there would be no New China,
it would have been impossible to transform our country into a great socialist power
and our people would not have been able to always stand upright in the world,
marching ever forwards.” [ 78•2 According to Maoism, the activity of the classes,
strata and groups is of importance insofar as it coincides with the instructions of the
leader. Today, therefore, the Hungweipings are in the street, tomorrow they are in
the countryside; today all Party cadres are beaten up, tomorrow part of them is
rehabilitated.
Here it is worth reminding the reader of Engels’ vivid words: "All idealists, p
philosophic and religious, ancient and modern, believe in inspirations, in revelations,
saviours, miracle-workers; whether their belief takes a crude religious, or a refined
philosophic, form depends only upon their cultural level, just as the degree of energy
which they possess, their character, their social position, etc., determine whether their
attitude to a belief in miracles is a passive or an active one, i.e., whether they are
shepherds performing miracles or whether they are sheep; they further determine
whether the aims they pursue are theoretical or practical.” [ 78•3
A politician who is not guided in his activity by the thesis that history is made by p
the masses, by the millions of producers, and that social classes play the decisive
role in revolutionary transformation, a politician who is unable, or rather, unwilling
to fuse the actions of the individual and the masses, who bases his theoretical and
practical activity on the principle that heroes make history according to their whim
and fancy, can by no stretch of the imagination be thought of as a Marxist-Leninist.
Thus, Maoist philosophy represents a revision of the materialist view of history, a

step backwards to the views of subjective, including populist philosophy long since
discredited by Marxism-Leninism.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 68•1 ] Dialectical Materialism, Peking, 1961, p. 10.
[ 69•1 ] Hsin-chian She, 1965, No. 7, p. 23.
[ 70•1 ] Hsin-chian She, 1965, No. 7, p. 23.
[ 71•1 ] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 92.
[ 72•1 ] K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works. In three volumes, Moscow, 19b9, Vol.
I, pp. 503–504.
[ 73•2 ] From the Hungwciping newspaper Tung fang /iung, July, 1967.
[ 73•3 ] Maoist reservations, as in the cases we examined above, are simply a

tactical device designed to camouflage their revision of the Marxist view of history.
[ 74•1 ] Heng-yan jih-pao, February 14, 1966.
[ 74•2 ] Jiefangjun pao, March 2, 1966.
[ 75•1 ] Jen-min jih-pao, June 20, 1966.
[ 75•2 ] L’humanite, January 10, 1968.
[ 76•1 ] Kitai (China), 1968, No. 7, p. 18.
[ 77•1 ] Ibid., 19G8, No. 3.
[ 77•2 ] Ibid., No. 7, p. IS.
[ 77•3 ] Ibid., p. 19.
[ 78•1 ] We have already shown how Mao’s ideas have absolutely nothing to do with
the emergence of the CPG, and that it was their substitution for the theoretical
foundations of the Party that led to the tragedy the CPC is experiencing at the
present time.—M.A., V.G.
[ 78•2 ] Jen-min jih-pao, August 15, 1966.
[ 78•3 ] F. Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1964, p. 587.
< >
<< 2. The Idealist Answer to the Basic >>

Question of Philosophy
<<< CHAPTER II -- ON MARXIST CHAPTER IV -- ECLECTICISM >>>

PHRASEOLOGY IN THE WORKS POSING AS DIALECTICS. MAO
OF MAO TSE-TUNG TSE-TUNG'S DISTORTION OF
THE BASIC LAW OF
DIALECTICS
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/3.1-Subjective.Idealism-
Not.Materialist.View.of.History
1,779titles in [
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 3.2-Idealist.Answer.to.the.Basic.Question.of.Philosophy
MAP

>>>
<< • >> 2. The Idealist Answer to the Basic Question 79

<•> of Philosophy
TOC In examining Maoist philosophy we are forced to consider basic question of all p
Card philosophy—the relationship between being and thinking. Marx and Engels, in their
study of the history of philosophy, showed that "the great basic question of all
Text
philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is that concerning the relation of
HTML thinking and being". [ 79•1 Lenin, commenting on Engels’ development of this
PS idea, wrote: "In his Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels declares that the fundamental
PDF philosophical trends are materialism and idealism. Materialism regards nature as
primary and spirit as secondary; it places being first and thought second. Idealism
T* holds the contrary view.” [ 79•2
19*
If we compare Mao Tse-tung’s statements with the statements of the classics of p
### Marxism-Leninism, we might well conclude that Mao simply repeats in his own
words various Marxist-Leninist propositions, i.e., that the only difference lies in the
manner in which they are expressed. Thus, we can find any number of statements in
Mao’s works that appear to adhere to the Marxist interpretation of the basic question
of philosophy. Let us examine two such statements: "The source of all knowledge
lies in the perception through man’s physical sense organs of the objective world
surrounding him... .” [ 79•3 "People’s social being determines their
ideology." [ 79•4
In his Dialectical Materialism, which we have already had occasion to mention, p

Mao Tse-tung repeats, practically word for word, whole passages from Mitin’s
Dialectical and Historical Materialism, published in the USSR in 1933. "The whole
history of philosophy is the history of the struggle and development of two mutually
opposed schools of philosophy, idealism and materialism.” [ 79•5 Although Mao
goes on to misinterpret the causes of idealism, we nonetheless have this direct
admission of the division of philosophy into two camps. He makes an equally open 80
declaration of his support for dialectical materialism. "Wherein lies the main
difference between idealism and materialism? It lies in the opposite answer they give
to the basic question of philosophy, that of the relationship between spirit and matter
( consciousness and being).
“Idealism regards spirit (consciousness, concepts, the subject) as the source of all p
that exists in the world, and matter (nature and society) as secondary and
subordinate. Materialism recognises the independent existence of matter as detached
from spirit and considers spirit as secondary and subordinate. The opposite answers
to this question are the point of departure of the divergence of views on all other
questions.” [ 80•1
Leaving aside Mao’s oversimplification of such a complicated question, it must be p

said that the answer he gives is ostensibly materialist.
If we were to judge the above statements at their face value, we should be bound to p
consider Mao Tse-tung a supporter of dialectical materialism, attribute his errors and
false propositions to inconsistency, making allowance for oversimplification on the
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/3.2-Idealist.Answer.to.the.Basic.Question.of.Philosophy[2013-03-30 오전 11:45:18]
grounds that it is perhaps inevitable when attempting to present the subject in simple
terms that will be comprehensible to all.
In actual fact, however, this is not the case. Maoist philosophy merely masquerades p
as dialectical materialism, borrowing Marxist-Leninist terminology for the purpose.
Mao needed the thesis that matter is primary and spirit secondary, and that the p
objective world is the source of perception in order to add weight to his claim to be
an orthodox Marxist. In fact there is no substance to these empty declarations.
Moreover, by framing his own ideas in the law that "people’s social life determines
their ideas" and materialising them (every Chinese is having it drummed into him,
day in, day out, that Mao Tse-tung’s Thought is the be all and end all, the all-
determining factor) Mao, aided and abetted by his followers, is in fact departing
from the Marxist answer to the basic question of philosophy. It must be said that
Mao’s followers are far more frank in expounding their views than Mao himself.
The text-book Dialectical Materialism, published by the People’s University in p 81

1961, did, it is true, cite Engels’ answer to the basic question of philosophy.
However, the authors immediately substituted the question of the relationship
beIwcen subject and object, between subjective and objective, for the original
question of the relationship between mind and matter. "The basic question of
philosophy is by no means a question of pure theory, it is the basic question of
cognising and transforming the surrounding world. Essentially, it is the question of
the connection between subjective and objective. The process of cognisance of the
world consists in the reilection of being in thinking, in the reflection of the objective
in the subjective; the process of transforming the world involves the application of
thinking to being, in the subjective’s view of the objective.” [ 81•1 Further on they
write: "The question of what is primary—the subjective or the objective—is the only
criterion for differentiation between materialism and idealism; there can be no other
criteria.” [ 81•2
The substitution of object for matter and the replacement of the relationship between p
mind and matter by the relationship between subjective and objective is designed to
mask Mao Tse-tung’s subjective idealism and eclecticism. In this way the authors
erase the distinction between idealism and materialism, for Hegel and the Neo-
Thomists also accept the existence of objective reality outside, and independent of,
the mind. Besides, the concept of object is by no means limited to the sphere of
matter. An object may be of a material or an ideal nature.
This interpretation of the question, no matter how much it is qualified, makes the p
object dependent on, and conditioned by the subject. The Maoists’ revision of the
Marxist interpretation of the basic question of philosophy is the point of departure of
their subjective idealism, their doctrinairism in philosophy and petty-bourgeois
revolutionarism in politics.
The Peking leaders extrapolate from this theory that the transformation of the p
"objective world" is conditional upon the transformation of the "subjective world”, 82
which is a return to pre-Marxian historical idealism. Mao Tse-tung himself is not so
explicit on this point, although he applies it in practice, accepting the primacy of the
ideological– political factor over material, economic factors.
Mao Tse-tung divorces Marx’s thesis that theory can become a material force when p
it takes hold of the masses from its original context and combines it with his own
“thought” that "the Chinese people is a clean sheet of paper”, on which "the newest
and most beautiful words can be written" and "the newest and most beautiful
pictures can be painted". [ 82•1
In "On Contradiction”, Mao tries to conceal his subjectivism by emphasising "the p

reaction of spiritual things on material things”. "... We recognise that in the
development of history as a whole it is material things that determine spiritual things
and social existence that determines social consciousness, at the same time we also
recognise and must recognise the reaction of spiritual things and social consciousness
on social existence, and the reaction of the superstructure on the economic
foundation.” [ 82•2
Note how the assertion of the primacy of material, social existence is related not to p
real present-day existence but to history, to the abstract "development of history as a
whole”, thereby justifying subjectivism in every-day political practice.
Indeed, Mao Tse-tung’s next step in justifying his subjectivism was to refer to the p
thesis that the ideal is frequently the decisive factor of development in concrete
reality. It is as a supplement to this thesis that we have the idea of likening the
consciousness of the masses to tabula rasa which can be used as the leader sees fit.
With their voluntarist interpretation of the thesis that "the material can be p
transformed into the spiritual and the spiritual into the material”, Mao Tse-tung and
his supporters are apparently suggesting that any ideas can be imposed upon society.
Hence the preposterous lengths that are gone to to try and impose "Mao Tse-tung’s
Thought”.
Discussing Mao’s ideas on the role of the subjective factor, the authors of the text- p 83
book Dialectical Materialism adopt a patently subjective-idealist standpoint. Thus, "..
.the transformation of the world involves a double task: the transformation of the
objective world and the transformation of the subjective world". [ 83•1 We are told
that Mao Tse-tung " creatively developed the principle of the transformation of the
subjective world... stressed the tremendous importance of the transformation of the
subjective world, political education and the use of politics as a decisive
force". [ 83•2
“. . .Before transforming the objective world it is necessary to transform the p

subjective world, that is, to transform people’s ability to understand the objective
world, and transform the relations between the subjective world and the objective
world.” [ 83•3 Here the authors are breaking up the compound process of the
transformation of man and society and putting the cart before the horse. They are
suggesting that the transformation of society and the implementation of revolution
must begin with the transformation of man, the transformation of his subjective
world, a view which stands in complete contradiction to the Marxist-Leninist
principles of historical materialism.
Mao Tse-tung is suggesting that the new man must be created outside the historical p
conditions in which he lives, and that then this "new man-idea" will transform all
social relations and subdue nature according to his own ideal model.
The subjective side of man’s activity is absolutised and fetishised, made the main, p
decisive factor, while the objective side of development, the material conditions in
which this process takes place are either declared to be "secondary causes" [ 83•4
or ignored altogether.
Maoism thus regards politics, ideas, subjective activity, to be the decisive factor of p
social development, which means that while paying lip service to dialectical
materialism and formally accepting the thesis of the primacy of matter and social
being, in practice it treats spiritual things, the ideal, etc., as the primary factor,
thereby adopting what is essentially an idealist standpoint. Then, in order to mask
this subjective-idealist approach to the second side of the basic question of 84
philosophy, namely the problem of the relationship between our knowledge of the
world and the objective world, the Maoists substitute the question of the relationship
between subject and object for the question of the relation of mind and matter, and
the identity of subjective and objective for the identity of thinking and being.
Moreover, their treatment of this identity is mechanistic and vulgar. The Maoists are
in fact deducing reality from "Mao Tsetung’s Thought”, attempting to construct
reality according to their own abstract patterns. Lenin’s remark that "People repeat
slogans, words, war cries, but are afraid to analyse objective reality" [ 84•1 fits the
Maoists like a glove.
While on the subject, it would be a pity to overlook two further Maoist p

“contributions” to the basic question of philosophy.
As though aware of their vulnerability in trying to present "Mao Tse-tung’s p

Thought" in materialist garb, the Maoists provide their own “supplement” to the basic
question. They hold that in addition to the sides to the basic question mentioned by
Engels there is yet another side, the question of the relationship between metaphysics
and dialectics. This attempt to supplement the basic question of philosophy was
already implicit in Mao’s course of lectures "Dialectical Materialism”. In the text-
book we have been discussing, however, it is quite explicit. "The opposition of
outlook between materialism and idealism and their differences also comprise the
opposition between dialectics and metaphysics.” [ 84•2
There is nothing wrong with the assertion that philosophical views can be divided p
into metaphysical and dialectical. But it is absurd to suggest that this division
corresponds to the division of philosophy into materialist and idealist schools. History
is full of examples of materialists who were metaphysicians and idealists who were
dialecticians.
The Maoists ignore this. "If we approach this question (the question of opposition p
between metaphysics and dialectics) as the basic question, then rejection of
contradictions, refusal to analyse and resolve contradictions, will inevitably lead to
our being unable to consistently base ourselves on objective reality, gain a correct 85
understanding of the world and transform it, and to completely, scientifically solve
the question of the relationship between thinking and being.” [ 85•1
This “supplement” enables the Maoists to follow the principle of all political p
charlatans. Whoever disagrees with Chairman Mao’s “dialectics” is a metaphysician
and thus automatically an idealist, and hence a counter-revolutionary, a member of
the "black gang”, and it is immediately asked what sort of head he has, a man’s or
a dog’s.
The second Maoist “supplement” to the basic question of philosophy involves the p
concept of philosophy as a specific form of social consciousness and its role in the
general progress of mankind.
Marxism-Leninism regards philosophy in terms of world view, as a science that p

reveals the more general laws of development of nature, society and human
knowledge. The founders of Marxism stressed the connection between Marxist
philosophy and the revolutionary practice of the working class and insisted on the
distinction between philosophy and practice, theory and practice, condemning outright
the mechanistic practice of deducing practical questions from general philosophical
propositions. But this is just what the Maoists do. They try to extract a solution to
all practical problems up to and including the curing of the deaf– anddumb from
general philosophic principles. The French journalist J. E. Vidal, whom we have
already mentioned, wrote that "Maoism is theorising detached from historical reality.
This is not Marxism. Mao Tse-tung, with his abstract outlook, gives directions that
no longer correspond to historical reality. The Chinese cadres, even the most out-
and-out Maoists, at first, when called upon to put the doctrines into practice, and
later when they come up against the hard facts of reality, tend to become anti-
Maoists, because the doctrine is impracticable—- Maoism... is refuted by practice....
Its existence presupposes constant suppression of the opposition which is produced
by its inherent contradiction between theory and practice, utopia and reality.” [ 85•2
Mao Tse-tung began to identify theory with practice back in the forties. "Our p
revolutionary practice,” he wrote, "is a science which is known as social or political 86
science, and unless we understand dialectics we shall not be very
successful.” [ 86•1 Later, Mao tries to "free philosophy and dialectics from
mysticism”. "We also hear it said that dialectics are so profound and difficult as to
be quite beyond the ordinary person. This is also untrue. Dialectics contain laws of
nature, society and thought, so that anybody with some social experience (experience
of production or the class struggle) can understand something of dialectics and the
more social experience he has the better he will understand dialectics." [ 86•2
Identifying direct personal experience with theory, in this case dialectics, the p
Maoists go on to declare that "the basic question of philosophy is at the same time
the basic question of practical work”, [ 86•3 and even go as far as to say that the
basic question is the transformation of the material world. [ 86•4
The "greatest philosopher" of all time, as Mao is described by the Peking p

propaganda machine, shows an understanding of the true nature of philosophy at the
level of those Philistine views which were scorned by Hegel. Mao not only identifies
theory with practice; he even denies theoretical knowledge its true status, reducing it
to the level of common-sense assertions.
The reader is reminded that Hegel, writing in the first half of the nineteenth century, p
came much closer to a scientific understanding of the true essence of philosophical
knowledge than Mao Tse-tung does with his “original” interpretation in the mid-
twentieth century. Hegel wrote: "There is a difference between having such feelings
and notions defined and permeated by thought and having thoughts about them. The
thoughts produced through consideration of these modes of perception are what is
meant by reflection, reasoning and the like, and also philosophy." [ 86•5 Hegel
poked fun at those who are wont to philosophise whenever given the slightest
opportunity. "This science is often so scorned that even those who have never had
anything to do with it imagine that they understand what philosophy is all about 87
without studying it at all, and that having a normal education and drawing especially
on religious feeling they can philosophise and make judgements on philosophy as
they please. In the case of other sciences special knowledge is considered necessary
to know them and only those who have acquired such a knowledge have the right to
judge them. It is also agreed that in order to make a boot it is necessary to have
learnt and practised the cobbler’s trade, although every man has a measure for it in
his foot, and has hands and thanks to them the necessary natural ability for the job.
It is only philosophy that requires no such study, learning and effort. This convenient
attitude has found confirmation in recent times in the teaching on direct knowledge,
knowledge through observation.” [ 87•1
Let us now compare the attitudes of Hegel and Mao Tsetung on the matter of the p
“unintelligibility” of philosophy. Hegel writes: "Philosophy combines views, thoughts,
categories, or to be more precise, concepts. Views can generally be regarded as
metaphors of thoughts and concepts. But having attitudes, we still do not know their
meaning for thought, the thoughts and concepts that underlie them. Conversely, it is
not the same to have thoughts and concepts and to know what attitudes, meditations
and feelings correspond to them. This, partly, is what gives rise to what is called the
unintelligibility of philosophy.” [ 87•2 " The most intelligible are thus considered to
be the writers, preachers and orators, etc., who expound to their listeners things
which the latter already know by heart, which they are used to and which are self-
evident.” [ 87•3 Hegel’s witty remarks are devastatingly applicable to Lin Piao’s
vulgarising statements to the effect that "constant reading of extracts from the works
of Chairman Mao, and even better learning them by heart brings immediate, tangible
results.” In his foreword to Quotations from Chairman Mao, Lin Piao writes:
"Selective study of extracts from the works of Chairman Mao Tsetung in search of
the key to the solution of various problems is an excellent method of studying the
works of Mao Tsetung, with the aid of which it is easy to obtain immediate, tangible 88
results.” [ 88•1 This is simply making a dogma of individual statements by Mao
Tse-tung and attributing them with miraculous powers. All you have to do is pray,
read aloud a quotation, or better, chant it, and you will obtain "immediate, tangible
results”.
What has this got to do with revolutionary, creative Marxism? And how, indeed, p
does it differ from religion, from psalm-singing and so on? The worshippers of "the
greatest and most vital Marxism of our age" who have not even read what they extol
might be reminded of what Engels had to say about Marxism. "Our theory is not a
dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves
successive phases.” [ 88•2 And again: "Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a
dogma to be learnt by heart and to be repeated mechanically.” [ 88•3
Lin Piao’s “idea” of the need to stack quotations from Mao Tse-tung was met with p
mockery even within China on the part of educated people who had derived their
understanding of Marxism-Leninism not from collections of quotations but from
studying the classics of Marxism-Leninism and the experience of the revolutionary
movement in China and other countries, above all the experience of the October
Revolution in Russia. The Rector of Hsian University, Chen Kang, was reported in
the Chinese press to have remarked in connection with the campaign for the study of
Mao’s philosophy: "If I don’t know how to pole-vault, the fact that I am read a few
quotations from the works of Chairman Mao will not make me any more able to do
so.” The Maoists regarded this as a denial of the effectiveness of the thoughts of
Mao and the thesis that they bring "immediate, tangible results”.
When Chinese geologists aided by Hungarian specialists found a large oil deposit at p
Taching, the discovery was hailed as "a great victory of the thoughts of Mao Tse-
tung”. Yang Hsien-chen, whom we have already mentioned, declared that it was
necessary to respect the principles of materialism, that "unless the specialists and
workers had made a careful study of the geological structure of the strata, unless
thorough investigations had been made, the Taching oilmen would not have achieved 89
such remarkable success”.
However, such statements as these, criticising the way the achievements of the p
Chinese people are being ascribed to the "Thoughts of Mao" were given a very
hostile reception by the Maoists, and their authors found themselves excluded from
the political and theoretical life of the Chinese People’s Republic.
As Lenin wrote, "You cannot have a proper understanding of any mistake, let alone p
a political one, unless you dig down to its theoretical roots among the basic premises
of the one who makes it.” [ 89•1 This is an essential principle of Marxism-
Leninism in the investigation of any philosophical system, of any ideological error.
The roots of the theoretical errors of Mao Tse-tung are to be sought above all in p
the absolutisation of the subjective factor and a corresponding depreciation of the
role of material, economic factors in the development of society. This is due to the
limited nature of the ideological-theoretical, philosophical views underlying Mao’s
outlook. Claiming to be the author of a "universal philosophy" of general truths,
Mao misinterprets the experience of the class struggle in China. His talk of
"production struggle" and scientific experiment can be discounted, since we find no
hint in his works of his deductions being even vaguely based on any real facts of
the development of the economy and the productive forces, and no mention at all of
the development of science and recent scientific discoveries.
With their poor grasp of economics and their ignorance of the achievements of p
modern science, it is perhaps only natural that the Maoists should stake all their
hopes for the solution of China’s problems on the subjective factor, understood as
the "thoughts of Mao”.
While accepting the thesis that "thinking is the reflection of being" historically, p
Maoism completely ignores it in practice, on the excuse that "when theory takes hold
of the masses it becomes a material force”, and that the political superstructure has a
strong reverse influence on being, and the economic basis.
The Maoists maintain that great disasters overtake the masses as soon as they depart p
from the designs of Chairman Mao, and that the main source of strength is faith in 90
the "absolute authority of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”.
Maoist philosophy, asserting the decisive role of the subjective factor, has been p
proclaimed the philosophy of " revolutionary enthusiasm”.
The Chinese Marxists spoke out against this philosophy of revolutionary enthusiasm. p
Yang Hsien-chen countered the Maoist thesis of the "identity of thinking and being"
and "the transformation of the ideal into the material" with the thesis of the "unity
of thinking and being”. A Maoist, one Feng Chi, attacked him for this. "At the time
when the enthusiasm of the masses has risen to an unprecedented height, and they
have entered heart and soul into the fire of revolutionary struggle, ‘theoreticians’ are
waving a book at them and fervently propagating the passive theory of reflection. . .
. Yang Hsien-chen, denying the role of subjective activity, stresses so-called ’respect
for the principles of materialism’.” [ 90•1
But Yang Hsien-chen himself maintains that "the premise that matter determines p
mind is recognition of the active role of mind". [ 90•2 In answer to the Maoist
attempt to prove the realism and correctness of their adventurist policy by
dogmatically quoting excerpts from the classics of MarxismLeninism and to Mao
Tse-tung’s statement that "politics is the ruling force" Yang insists that thought, and
politics as one of its forms, "should correspond to the demands of reality.”
Probing the gnoseological roots of Maoist idealism, Yang Hsien-chen writes: "The p
idea of the unity of thinking and being is dialectical materialism, whereas the idea of
the identity of thinking and being is idealism or vulgar materialism.” [ 90•3 He
goes on to explain: "The unity of thinking and being is the demand that thinking
should be a correct reflection of being, that the subjective should accurately reflect
the objective; unity here is to be understood as ’ correspondence’.” [ 90•4
We are bound to agree with Yang Hsien-chen’s criticism of Maoism. As Engels p

wrote: "To attempt to prove the reality of any product of thought by the identity of 91
thinking and being was indeed one of the most absurd delirious phantasies of
Hegel.” [ 91•1
Yet it is "delirious phantasies" such as this that form the underlying methodological p
principles of Maoist philosophy, albeit masked in fine phrases about the role of the
subjective factor, the "philosophy of revolutionary enthusiasm" and so on.
Thus, absolutisation of the subjective factor and an unflexible one-sided

interpretation of the transformation of the spiritual into the material, the practice of
making "the thoughts of Mao" a source of development from which practical policy
is derived, the deification of Mao Tse-tung and the ascribing of magic powers to
him and his statements— such are the gnoseological, theoretical roots of the idealism
and eclecticism of Maoism.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 79•1 ] K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works. In three volumes, Vol. 3, p. 345.
[ 79•3 ] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 288.
[ 79•4 ] Mao Tse-tung, "Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?"
[ 79•5 ] Dialectical Materialism, Talien, p. 1.
[ 80•1 ] Dialectical Materialism, Talicn, p. 3.
[ 81•1 ] Dialectical Materialism, Peking, pp. 48–49 (emphasis added.— M.A..V.G.}.
[ 81•2 ] Ibid., p. 49 (emphasis added.—AM., V.G.).
[ 82•1 ] Mao Tse-tung, "About One Co-operative Society”, Hungchih, 1958, No. 1.
[ 82•2 ] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 41 (emphasis added.—M.A.,

V.G.).
[ 83•1 ] Dialectical Materialism, Peking, p. 227.
[ 83•2 ] Ibid, (emphasis addcd.—M.A.,"V.G.’ ).
[ 83•3 ] Ibid., p. 228.
[ 84•2 ] Dialectical Materialism, Peking, p. 54.
[ 85•1 ] Ibid., p. 55 (emphasis added.— M.A., V.G.).
[ 85•2 ] L’humanite, January 10, 1968 (emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.}.
[ 86•1 ] Dialectical Materialism, Talien, p. 38.
[ 86•2 ] Ibid., p. 39 (emphasis added.— M.A., V.G.).
[ 86•3 ] Ibid., p. 56.
[ 86•4 ] Ibid., p. 48.
[ 86•5 ] See Hegel, Enzyklopadie der philosophischcn Wissenschaftcn im Grundrisse

(1830), Berlin, 1966, pp. 34–35.
[ 87•1 ] Ibid., p. 37.
[ 87•2 ] Ibid.
[ 87•3 ] Ibid.
[ 88•1 ] Quotations from Mao Tse-tung’s Works (in Russian), p. III.
[ 88•2 ] K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 19(i:>, p. 399.
[ 88•3 ] Ibid., p. 400.
[ 90•1 ] Jiefanq jih-fiao, August 30, 1964.
[ 90•2 ] Ibid.
[ 90•3 ] Guang-ming jlh-pao, September 11, 1964.
[ 90•4 ] Ibid.
[ 91•1 ] F. Engels, Anti-Duhring, Moscow, 1969, p. 57.
< >
<< 1. Subjective Idealism Instead of the >>

Materialist View of History
<<< CHAPTER II -- ON MARXIST CHAPTER IV -- ECLECTICISM >>>

PHRASEOLOGY IN THE WORKS POSING AS DIALECTICS. MAO
OF MAO TSE-TUNG TSE-TUNG'S DISTORTION OF
THE BASIC LAW OF
DIALECTICS
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/3.2-
Idealist.Answer.to.the.Basic.Question.of.Philosophy
titles in [
1,779
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 4-Eclecticism.Posing.as.Dialectics
MAP

>>>
<< • >> CHAPTER IV 92

<•> ECLECTICISM POSING AS DIALECTICS.
MAO TSE-TUNG’S DISTORTION OF THE BASIC LAW OF
TOC DIALECTICS
Card
[introduction.]
Text
The Chinese philosophical review Chieh-hsiich yan-chiu describes Mao Tse-tung’s p
HTML
PS
“contribution” to materialist dialectics as follows: "Comrade Mao Tse-tung said that
PDF the law of the unity and struggle of opposites is the basic law of the world.
Developing Lenin’s teaching on the essence of dialectics, Mao Tse-tung proved that
T* the law of the unity and struggle of opposites is the basic law of materialist
19* dialectics. Mao Tse-tung showed the inner relationship between the law of the unity
and struggle of opposites and other laws of dialectical materialism. By creatively and
### comprehensively revealing the essence of the law of the unity and struggle of
opposites, Comrade Mao Tse-tung raised the Marxist– Leninist doctrine to a new
level. This is Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s great contribution to Marxist-Leninist
philosophy.” [ 92•1 The article goes on to declare the Maoist “dialectics” an
instrument of cognition of the world and of revolutionary struggle.
The Maoist claim that Mao was the first to point to the law of the unity and p
struggle of opposites as the basic law of materialist dialectics is completely
unfounded. It is well known that Lenin repeatedly insisted on this point, as for
example in the following statement. "In brief, dialectics can be defined as the
doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics, but it
requires explanations and development.” [ 92•2 "The splitting of a single whole and
the cognition of its contradictory parts... is the essence (one of the “essentials”, one
of the principal, if not the principal characteristics or features) of dialectics.” [ 93•1 93
This idea was to be found in Soviet philosophy manuals of the early thirties. [ 93•2
The Maoist claims that Mao Tse-tung contributed to the development of the law of p
the unity of opposites are likewise totally unwarranted. In actual fact, here as
elsewhere, Mao is simply repeating a Marxist premise, though in a grossly distorted
manner. Here are a couple of quotations from Mao Tse-tung, by way of illustration.
"The interdependence of the contradictory aspects of a thing and the struggle
between them determine the life and impel the development of that thing. There is
nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction there would be no
world.” [ 93•3 " Contradiction is universal, absolute, existing in all processes of the
development of things and running through all processes from beginning to
end.” [ 93•4
The recognition of the fact that contradiction impels development was a basic p
principle of Marxist thought from the outset, and Mao Tse-tung has added nothing
here.
Mao goes on to say that ".. .first, each of the two aspects of every contradiction in p
the process of development of a thing finds the presupposition of its existence in the
other aspect and both aspects coexist in an entity; second, each of the two
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/4-Eclecticism.Posing.as.Dialectics[2013-03-30 오전 11:45:26]
contradictory aspects, according to given conditions, tends to transform itself into the
other.” [ 93•5 This is also discussed quite frequently in the works of the classics of
Marxism-Leninism. [ 93•6
Finally, Mao writes that "the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and p
relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute" [ 93•7 ,
which is a repetition, practically word for word, of a well-known thesis of 94
Lenin’s. [ 94•1
In "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”, published in p

1957, Mao Tse-tung gives the following short exposition of the law of the unity and
conflict of opposites. "Marxist philosophy regards the law of the unity and conflict
of opposites as the basic law of the universe. This law operates universally in nature,
human society and the human mind. The opposite sides of a contradiction coexist in
unity and struggle, and this impels the movement and change of things and
phenomena. Contradictions exist everywhere and the fact that they are different in
character simply depends on the nature of different things and phenomena. The unity
of opposites is conditioned, temporary and transient for every concrete thing
(phenomenon) and hence relative, while the struggle of opposites is absolute. Lenin
spoke very clearly of this law." (Emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.)
None of the above quotations from Mao Tse-tung can be said to contradict Marxist p
theses. But then they are not Mao’s own original statements but simply the repetition
in simplified terms of statements from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, and above
all Lenin. This does not, however, mean that Mao Tse-tung adopts a Marxist
standpoint in his understanding of the laws of materialist dialectics in general, or the
law of the unity and conflict of opposites in particular. In explaining them in simple
terms he frequently expresses non-Marxist views. This is not always immediately
apparent, firstly because they appear in association with well-known correct theses
from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, and secondly because they are phrased in
Marxist language. With regard to the latter, it can be said that there the resemblance
of the Maoist dialectics to Marxism-Leninism ends.
As for Mao’s “development” of materialist dialectics which his supporters harp on p

about, this proves to be nothing more than a reversion to the naive dialectics of the
ancient Chinese, and distortion or outright revision of Marxist dialectics. We have
already mentioned that Mao Tsetung has a very hazy notion of the spiritual and
cultural values of other countries. This explains his nihilistic attitude towards them, 95
his vulgarisation of world philosophical traditions. [ 95•1 Maoist dialectics are a
peculiar Chinese brand of dialectics, for they are based almost entirely on the
national philosophical tradition and ignore many of the finest achievements of world
philosophy.
If we turn to Chinese philosophy we shall see the idea of opposite principles in p

nature and society running through its entire history; moreover, this idea has been
defended by representatives of various ideological trends.
There are references to pairs of opposites and their mutual interpenetration and p
passing into one another in the ancient Taoist treatise Tao Te Ching (The Way of
Life). These views contain dialectical ideas in embryo form. "Transformation of a
thing into its opposite is the movement of the Tao.” "Since there is beauty there is
ugliness too. Man’s goodness is attended by his wickedness. For is and is not come
together. Hard and easy create one another; long and short are relative; high and low
are comparative; pitch and sound make harmony; before and after are a sequence.”
"In order to make a thing yield it is necessary to strengthen it. In order to destroy
something it is necessary to first let it prosper....” A similar view was held, fifteen
centuries later, by the materialist Chang Tsai, who wrote: "Two opposites—the
invisible and the visible, movement and rest, integration and disintegration, clean and
dirty—yet in the long run are all one and the same." [ 95•2 ".. .As a phenomenon
occurs, so its counterpart occurs. The other member of the pair must be its opposite.
As there is opposition, so there is hostility. Hostility inevitably ends in reconciliation,
and thus the hostility is resolved.” [ 95•3
We find the same idea of pairing things in nature and society in the works of p
Chang Tsai’s contemporaries, the Cheng brothers. Thus, Cheng Hao writes: "The
principle inherent in things and phenomena consists in that nothing is isolated but 96
everything is dual; the pairs are not pre-established but occur naturally.... All things
and phenomena without exception have the counterpart—the male and female
principle, good and evil. When the male principle grows the female decreases, when
the (quantity of) good increases, the ( quantity of) evil decreases—this is the
principle.” [ 96•1 Chu Hsi, who reinterpreted Confucianism and raised it to the
level of the official doctrine of the feudal-imperial power in China, also expressed
similar ideas. "East—West, up—down, winter— summer, day—night, birth—death,
all these are pairs of opposites. The phenomena of nature only exist in
pairs.” [ 96•2
The seventeenth-century philosopher Wang Chuang-shan wrote: "The invisible must p

inevitably become visible, the visible contains the invisible, and in the long run it is
all one. When something appears, the invisible is here and the visible there.... And in
the long run it is all one. Gathering is gathering of that which is dispersed, and
dispersal is the dispersal of that which is gathered, and it is all one. That which is
clean can become dirty and that which is dirty always contains clean elements, and it
is all one. Two opposites are used together, creating opposite phenomena. Each
essence has two manifestations. Thus, water has one essence, but turns to ice when it
is cold and to steam when it is hot; the differences between ice and steam are
sufficient to know the definite essence of water.” [ 96•3
The theory of two opposite forces, the Yang and the Yin, representing the masculine p
and feminine principles combined in the Chi, original matter, remained of great
importance in Chinese philosophy right down to modern times.
One of the major materialist philosophers of ancient China, Wang Chung (27–104) p
said: "All things are born of the union of the parts of Chi, heaven and earth, just as
a child is born of the union of the parts of Chi, man and woman." [ 96•4 “The 97
heaven and earth are like unto man and woman." [ 97•1 Chu Hsi held the same
view: "Originally between sky and earth there was only Chi, consisting of the soft
Yin and the hard Yang.” [ 97•2 The relationship between the two opposite forces
expressed in a strict system of mutual engendering and supercession of one another
was regarded as the universal law of existence. Many Chinese philosophers held that
the correlation of the Yang and the Yin was the basis of the mutual engendering and
mutual defining of the five original elements constituting matter, and with the aid of
this dualist system sought to explain the cause of movement and the process of
change and transformation in nature. The theory embodied the view that all things
and phenomena were universally related. This view was an essential part of Chinese
philosophy, and especially materialist trends, right down to the 1920s, and it was
shared by Sun Yat-sen.
These cosmological conceptions also had a strong influence in shaping Mao’s ideas p
at the formative stage, and this explains why he is so fond of backing up various
theories with references to the relationship between the sky and the earth. Suffice it
to recall his expression "The sky will not collapse and fish will go on swimming.”
This also explains why of all the laws of materialist dialectics it was the law of the p
unity and conflict of opposites that attracted Mao’s attention most. This is the source
of his famous "theory of duality" advanced in 1957.
In speaking of materialist dialectics Mao makes frequent references to the ancient p

Chinese philosophers, especially Lao Tzu and the heroes of the novel Water Margin.
But the dialectical ideas developed by the Chinese philosophers of the past were
schematic and naive, and never found expression in a general ontological law. The
Chinese philosophers tend to treat these interpenetrating opposites somewhat
superficially and in isolation. The opposites are essentially separate from one another
in time and space, and their transformation into one another is not so much a
dialectical process as a series of outward, superficial changes and interchanges.
Development is treated as cyclical, the alternation of the Yang and Yin, movement
and rest, and pairs of opposites characterised the supercession of the old by the new. 98
The Chinese philosophers did not go beyond a statement of the fact that opposites p
exist in nature and that they supercede one another. One looks in vain for an
explanation of the causes or content of the process or for theories of the identity of
opposites. Hence their failure to explain the transformation of things into their
opposite. For all his use of Marxist terminology and frequent recourse to quotations
from Lenin, Mao Tse-tung’s understanding of opposites in nature has remained
basically at the level of naive dialectics.
To begin with, while recognising the conflict of opposites, Mao does not reveal the p
true essence of the process. His speech to a meeting of the Politburo of the CPC
Central Committee held in Uchang on December 1, 1958, which the Maoists are so
fond of referring to is worthy of citation in this respect. "Just as all objects and
phenomena in the world have duality (this is the essence of the law of the unity of
opposites), imperialism and all reactionaries also have duality—they are both real and
paper tigers. History shows that before winning power and for a short time after they
had seized it, slave-owners, feudal landlords, and the bourgeoisie were active,
revolutionary, and progressive classes, representing real tigers. Later, as the slaves,
the peasantry and the proletariat—classes representing their opposites—- gradually
grew and waxed in strength and waged an ever fiercer struggle against them, the
slave-owners, the feudal landlords and the bourgeoisie underwent a reaction: they
became reactionary, backward classes, became paper tigers, and in the end were, or
shall be, overthrown by the peopie....”
If we ignore for the time being Mao’s use of the term "real and paper tigers”, it is p
clear that he does not really go beyond a formal acceptance of the law of the unity
and conflict of opposites and does not reveal the inner mechanism by which it
operates. Slave-owners, the feudal landowners and the bourgeoisie did indeed cease
to be the bearers of social progress in the course of historical development, and were
gradually replaced in this role by more progressive classes. But to say this is to say
nothing, for to simply state the facts of socio-historical development falls short of
historical dialectics. The Marxist theoretician—which Mao’s supporters would have 99
us believe Mao to be—must reveal the dialectic of the process by which one class
supercedes another, since knowledge of the causes of movement and development of
antagonistic societies provides the basis for constructive activity for the revolutionary
transformation of the world.
The concomitance and mutual exclusiveness of opposites is determined by their p

dialectical nature. Opposites are interpenetrating, so that the slave-owners, the feudal
lords and the bourgeoisie were pregnant with their opposites—the slaves, the
peasantry and the proletariat—from the outset. The unity of these opposites lies in
the fact that they are concomitant and mutually exclusive and this unity can only be
eliminated by destroying its underlying causes—- antagonistic society. In other
words, this unity is destroyed in the course of the class struggle and social
revolution.
Mao Tse-tung treats contradiction as a mechanistic, outward opposition, as can be p

seen from the following. " 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 tenant-peasants; 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. Without imperialist oppression of
the nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semi-
colonies, there would also be no imperialist oppression of the nations. All opposite
elements are like this.. .". [ 99•1
Even if we ignore the fact that this is practically word for word repetition of one of p
Lao Tzu’s theses, we must still note that Mao is treating contradiction as a
mechanistic contrast between outward opposites. Mao frequently uses such terms as
“good—evil”, “hot—cold” and so on for these opposites, and it must be said that
while such propositions Emacs-File-stamp: 100
"/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/20080525/176.tx" were justified two
thousand years ago when the idea of contradictions of objective being and human
thought was first being advanced, in the twentieth century, in the light of present-day
scientific knowledge, this just is not enough. Scientific dialectics must reveal the
inner contradictions inherent in objects and show the real process of the development
of phenomena consisting of two opposites. In other words, it must analyse the self-
movement of a given phenomenon.
The term “good—bad” applied to these opposites by Mao is insufficient to give a p

correct impression of the complex, contradictory processes by which nature and
society develop. It is not only that these terms cannot be said to have a precise,
invariable meaning. More important is the fact that Mao uses them for the purpose of
reinforcing his distorted interpretation of social processes and covering up his policy
failures. He declares counter-revolutionary disturbances in the socialist countries to be
“good” as serving to strengthen the new social system; likewise the death of a large
number of people in social revolutions, as bringing closer the victory of the people;
or a new world war, since it would, in his opinion, make possible the destruction of
capitalism. This kind of “dialectics” has the same relationship to Marxism-Leninism
as alchemy has to chemistry.
A purely mechanistic unity of obvious contrasts is simply a vulgarisation and p

distortion of scientific dialectics. Nor can all obvious opposites be said to represent
two sides of the same thing, two sides of a single phenomenon or process. For
example, the bourgeoisie (commercial, middleman, bureaucratic) in many developing
countries can exist without a proletariat, the proletariat can exist without the
bourgeoisie in socialist society, and the feudal landowner can exist without the
tenant-farmer.
As Engels wrote: "True, so long as we consider things as at rest and lifeless, each p
one by itself, alongside and after each other, we do not run up against any
contradictions in them. We find certain qualities which are partly common to, partly
different from, and even contradictory to each other, but which in the last-mentioned
case are distributed among different objects and therefore contain no contradiction
within. Inside the limits of this sphere of observation we can get along on the basis
of the usual, metaphysical mode of thought. But the position is quite different as 101
soon as we consider things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal
influence on one another. Then we immediately become involved in
contradictions.” [ 101•1
Mao Tse-tung understands the interdependence and reciprocal influence of opposites p

mechanistically. He writes that opposites are transformed into one another, but he
understands their mutual supercession and interpenetration simply as changing places,
as when the oppressed peasant, for example, takes the place of the landowner when
he triumphs, and the landowner, after the defeat of his class, takes the peasant’s
place. According to Mao, the same thing happens after the triumph of socialist
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. This has already taken place in the Soviet Union and will
take place throughout the world.” [ 101•2
Thus Mao appears to be suggesting that as a result of the triumph of the socialist p
revolution, the exploited (the workers) become the exploiters, and the exploiters (the
capitalists) become the exploited class (“is transferred to the position originally
occupied by its opposite”), which is patently absurd.
Mao is reported by the Hungweiping press to have declared at a meeting that "the p
oppressors and the oppressed are transformed into one another; such is the
relationship between the bourgeoisie and the landowners on the one hand and the
workers and peasants on the other”. He thus exchanges gradual, stage-by-stage
development for a cycle with the repetition of one and the same. One cannot help
being reminded of the cyclic theory of Chinese naive dialectics. [ 101•3
Mao Tse-tung understands the transformation of things and phenomena into their p
opposites perfectly literally. In actual fact, the picture is far more complicated. Each
thing or phenomenon represents the sum and unity of opposites, but one side of the 102
contradiction is always subordinate to the other. The following passage from Marx
examines this point. "Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they form a single
whole. They are both forms of the world of private property. The question is what
place each occupies in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of
a single whole.
“Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and p

thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the
contradiction, self-satisfied private property.
“The proletariat, on the other hand, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and p
thereby its opposite, the condition for its existence, what makes it the proletariat, i.e.,
private property. That is the negative side of the contradiction, its restlessness within
its very self, dissolved and selfdissolving private property....
“Within this antithesis the private property owner is therefore the conservative side, p
the proletarian, the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving
the antithesis, from the latter, that of annihilating it.” [ 102•1
Unlike Mao Tse-tung, Marx goes beyond a mere recognition of the conflict of p
opposites as the cause of development to reveal the mechanism of the conflict. Mao
Tse-tung fails to grasp the main point, the fact that the conflict of opposites
inevitably becomes progressively more acute until it comes to a head and the result
is the solution of the given contradiction, its “removal” and the appearance of a new
one, the old unity of concrete opposites giving way to a new unity of different
concrete opposites. It is a qualitative change that takes place, and not simply a
swapping of places. The proletariat does not become the bourgeoisie, but a
qualitative change occurs in the historical role of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
as opposites. At some point the bourgeoisie loses its progressive role to the
proletariat. This is what makes inevitable the defeat of the bourgeoisie and the
triumph of the proletariat, the struggle between them eventually leading to the
disruption of their inner links and the annihilation of this particular unity of
opposites, with capitalism giving way to socialism.
“When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of p 103
society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the
proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private
property.” [ 103•1
Mao Tse-tung erases the qualitative differences involved. Lenin said that flexibility p
of concepts where applied subjectively was tantamount of eclecticism and sophistry.
By this definition Mao is certainly a sophist. As an example of his sophistry let us
examine his statements that "War is transformed into peace... . Peace is transformed
into war. .. .” [ 103•2 and "War passes into peace and peace passes into war. Peace
is the opposite of war. If there was no war, how could we have the word ‘peace’?
” [ 103•3
War and peace are certainly opposite concepts, and when one starts the other ceases. p
But this does not make them opposites of the same phenomenon, mutually
determining. Mao Tse-tung, on the basis of his over-simplified, Philistine
understanding of these two phenomena as mutually opposed, regards them as social
opposites expressing the essence of social development. According to this logic the
alternation of peace and war is an inevitable result of the selfdevelopment of the
contradictory sides of the social organism. In actual fact, however, war and peace are
not two sides of a single phenomenon but two different forms of political relations
between states. The outbreak of war is determined not by the development of peace
as a form of inter-state relations but by the contradictions inherent in the nature of
capitalist society. Mao’s “explanation” of the transition from war to peace and vice
versa is simply a further demonstration of the poverty of his “dialectics”.
Mao examines the law of the unity and conflict of opposites without reference to p
the relationship between the categories of possibility and reality, whereas in fact the
solution of any contradiction is clearly inseparable from the transformation of the
possible into the actual, since the solution of a contradiction and the transformation
of possibility into reality are two sides of the same process of development. The 104
existence of possibility is determined by the inherent contradictions between objects
and phenomena. A new world war is a possibility in present-day conditions, but the
existence of this possibility does not necessarily mean that it will become a reality.
The possible only becomes actual as the result of the struggle and triumph of one p
opposite over another, and this depends on the quantitative and qualitative differences
between the possibilities of the given opposites. Thus, if at one time the forces of
war had a far greater possibility of triumphing than did those of peace, today the
position has been reversed. The combined strength of the countries of the socialist
community, the international labour and national liberation movements is sufficient to
prevent the imperialists from resorting to war as a means of solving international
disputes, and mankind is in a position to banish war as a form of international
political relations.
Thus, war and peace being two quite different social phenomena, Mao’s assertion p
about the inevitable alternation of war and peace fails to reveal their true essence.
The practical activity of the Maoists in the world arena during the last decade or so p
shows that Mao’s exercises with the problem of war and peace are patently political
in character and are called upon to justify the policy of unleashing a new world war.
Mao Tse-tung evades the question of leaps forward in social development, a p

question that is of great importance. Marxist dialectics hold that the development of
the conflict of opposites eventually leads to a qualitative change in the form of a
leap forward. Thus, the struggle between the landowners and the peasants, and
indeed the whole struggle between exploited and exploiters leads to a leap forward
in social development and the replacement of one social system with another. The
cause of this leap forward is to be sought in the inner contradictions, the conflict of
opposite trends arising in the process of development of a social formation such as
capitalism.
Apart from distorting the law of the unity and conflict of opposites, Mao p
completely ignores two other fundamental laws of dialectics, so that his theory of
development is incomplete and truncated, for it deals only with the cause of 105
development but fails to examine how it operates or its prospects.
At the same time Mao declares contradiction the only form of relationship between p
objects and phenomena. This approach places all the emphasis on the external aspect
of the question, lumps together all kinds of different relations thereby concealing the
real contradictions that determine the inner life, self-movement and development of
an object or phenomenon. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Mao should launch
into an earnest discussion of the problem of the contradictions between a stone and a
chicken, and between a stone and war. "Why can only an egg be transformed into a
chicken but not a stone? Why is there identity between war and peace and none
between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings
but not to anything else?” [ 105•1
Engels had the following to say on this subject. "Two different things always have p
certain qualities (properties of corporeality at least) in common, others differing in
degree, while still others may be entirely absent in one of them. If we consider two
such extremely different things— e.g., a meteorite and a man—in separation, we get
very little out of it, at most that heaviness and other general properties of bodies are
common to both.” [ 105•2
Instead of revealing and analysing real contradictions actually existing in life, Mao p
Tse-tung engages in a sophist game of artificially producing contradictions by
contrasting various phenomena formally. Mao regards dialectics as the sum of
examples often chosen at random. In a speech at a meeting in 1958 he declared:
"Limited things pass into boundless things, and boundless things pass into things
with limits. The dialectics of ancient times passed into medieval metaphysics, and
medieval metaphysics passed into the dialectics of modern times. The world is also
in a process of transition and is not eternal. Capitalism passes into socialism, and
socialism passes into communism. Communist society too will be in a process of
transition, and will have its beginning and an end, and will certainly be divided into
stages, or a new name will be invented for it; it will not remain static and 106
unchanging. To maintain that there will be only quantity and not quality is contrary
to dialectics. There is nothing in the world but that it is born, develops and perishes.
The ape became man and people appeared, but eventually the whole of mankind
must perish. It will turn into something else and the earth will no longer exist. The
earth is bound eventually to perish. The sun is already much cooler than it was in
ancient times. Once every two million years an Ice Age begins, and when it comes
living things will perish en masse.... I am mentioning all this in order to remove the
fetters from our thinking and enable us to think more freely.”
The above passage reflects all the defects of the Maoist dialectics. Firstly, the p
transition of one thing into another is treated simply as a change of places; secondly,
development is understood not as the negation of the old by the new, but simply as
repetition of what has already been, as a circular or regressive movement.
Consequently, there are no grounds for assuming, as the Maoists claim, that Mao
Tse-tung has "shown the inner link between the law of the unity and conflict of
opposites and other laws of dialectical materialism”. In fact Mao fails to grasp the
true essence of the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative
changes, and ignores the law of the negation of a negation, which reveals the
general direction of development.
Mao frequently reduces the problem of contradictions to its everyday and even p
Philistine level, treating the basic law of dialectics in a vulgar, primitive manner, as
in the following statement, reported in the Hungweiping press. "The son becomes the
father, the father becomes a son, woman becomes man and man becomes woman.
Naturally a direct change is impossible here, but after marriage sons and daughters
are born, and is not this a transition?”
Such theoretical exercises do not take us a single step forward in the study of the p
complex interrelationships that exist in nature and society. The dialectic is turned into
a collection of truisms. Take the following passage for example. "We must learn to
take an all-sided view of questions, and not only see the front side of things and
phenomena but also their reverse side. In certain circumstances bad may produce
good results and good may produce had results. Lao Tzu said over two thousand 107
years ago: ’Happiness abides in misfortune, and misfortune abides in
happiness. [ 107•1
There is nothing new in what Mao says here, for it has been known to the Chinese p
peasants for centuries and found expression in all kinds of proverbs and sayings. For
example, after a series of unsuccessful attempts, Chinese peasants find the most
rational way of planting rice. Naturally, the peasants can say that bad (failure) has
led to a good result, thereby expressing their understanding of the various stages of
the labour process. But Mao Tse-tung would have us regard this as a great
achievement of dialectical thought.
Underlying Mao’s vulgarisation of dialectical materialism is a basic p

misunderstanding of the relationship between philosophy and practical activity in
production and the revolutionary struggle, a misinterpretation of the role of
philosophy as a form of social consciousness. Thus, we find in a philosophical
journal: "The workers and peasants have a rich practical experience. They are
spontaneous materialists. Working, they do not doubt the objective existence of

machines, buildings, soil, agricultural implements, and they are also spontaneous
dialecticians for they observe the relationship between various stages of production
and the succession of the various seasons of agricultural work. At the present time
we find that when the workers and peasants read articles written by professional
philosophers they cannot understand them, but they have no difficulty in
understanding the philosophical works of Chairman Mao.” [ 107•2
While accepting the conflict of opposites, Mao fails to understand that the process p
of development of a contradiction is itself contradictory, for not only is each of the
two sides of a contradiction opposed to the other, but itself contains contradictory
sides, so that there is no such thing as “pure” opposition. Thus, if we take the
capitalist class, it is easy to distinguish differences and contradictions between the
big capitalists and the small capitalists, between the various bourgeois parties, etc.
There are also contradictions within the capitalist camp in general, as between the
ruling circles of the USA and France to take a current exampie. This, as Lenin 108
pointed out, is an extremely important factor. It means that at a certain stage of the
political struggle the interests of the proletariat may coincide on some (minor) issues
with the interests of some of the capitalists. It also means that in certain
circumstances the interests of the countries of the socialist community may coincide
on a number of issues with the interests of the ruling circles of some bourgeois
country. In such circumstances, Lenin insisted that it was necessary to urge a
“union”, a “ combination” of opposites. This explains among other things the
struggle of the European communist parties for the creation of anti-monopoly unions
including part of the bourgeoisie, and the conclusion of political agreements between
the Soviet Union and certain capitalist countries, viz., the anti-Hitler coalition during
the Second World War.
There is no room for such “union” and “combination” of opposites in Mao’s version
of the law of the unity and conflict of opposites. The Maoists commit the serious
error of failing to regard contradictions as a process and are thus unable to
understand the dialectics of social development. Significant in this respect is the
Maoist criticism of the theses contained in the Programme of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union concerning the transformation of the dictatorship of the
proletariat into a state of the whole people. The Maoists stress the coercive function
of the dictatorship of the proletariat and insist that it is necessary throughout the
period of the transition from socialism to communism. They treat the dictatorship of
the proletariat as something constant and static; they do not realise that it is a
complex social phenomenon, a unity of opposites, whose reciprocal influence and
conflict makes it a process, in a constant state of flux and change. Lenin emphasised
that "the dictatorship of the proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and
bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative
—against the forces and traditions of the old society". [ 108•1 The dictatorship of
the proletariat, viewed as a real process, is exhausted at some stage of development
and passes into a state of the whole people.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 92•1 ] Chich-hsiich yan-chiu, 1966, No. 2, pp. 1-2.
[ 93•1 ] Ibid., p. 359.
[ 93•2 ] See, for instance, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Part I (“Dialectical
Materialism”), Moscow, 1935, pp. 140, 147 (in Russian).
[ 93•4 ] Ibid., p. 21.
[ 93•5 ] Ibid., p. 42.
[ 93•6 ] For instance, Lenin wrote: " Dialectics is the teaching which shows how
opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical—under
what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another—why the
human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living,
conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." Collected Works, Vol.
38, p. 109.
[ 94•1 ] See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 359.
[ 95•1 ] For one thing Mao identifies mechanistic, metaphysical materialism with
vulgar evolutionism. He paints a completely black picture of metaphysical
materialism, failing to recognise that it represented a step forward in the development
of philosophical knowledge, and was at one time the ideology of the progressive
bourgeoisie. See Selected Works, Volume Two, pp. 13–16.
[ 95•2 ] Wang Chuang-shun, Meditations and Questions (in Chinese), Peking, 1956,
p. 12.
[ 95•3 ] Ibid., p. 14.
[ 96•1 ] Huang Tsung-hsi, Works of Sages of the Sung and Yuan Periods (in
Chinese), Vol. I, part 5, Shanghai, 1933, p. 15.
[ 96•2 ] Yii Tung, Basic Problems of Chinese Philosophy (in Chinese), Peking, 1958,
p. 139.
[ 96•3 ] Wang Chuang-shan, "Comment on Chang Tsai’s Instructions for the

Unenlightened" (in Chinese), Peking, 1956, p. 18.
[ 96•4 ] Anthology of World Philosophy, Vol. I, Part I, Section on Chinese

Philosophy, Mysl Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 244–45 (in Russian).
[ 97•1 ] Ibid., p. 245.
[ 97•2 ] Ibid., p. 256.
[ 99•1 ] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, pp. 43–44.
[ 101•1] F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Moscow, 1966, pp. 232–33.
[ 101•2] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 44.
[ 101•3] Mao Tse-tung criticises Hegel in his works, and yet Hegel presented the
problem of opposites and their transformation into one another far more fully and
profoundly than Mao.
[ 102•1] K. Marx, F. Engels, The Holy Family, Moscow, 1956, p. 51.
[ 103•1] Ibid., p. 52
[ 103•3] From a Hungweiping newspaper.
[ 105•2] F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, pp. 232–33.
[ 107•1] From "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among (he People”, p.
43.
[ 107•2] Chich-hsileh yan-chiu, 1968, No. 7, p. 1.
[ 108•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 44.
< >
<< The Theory of Balance in Lieu of >>

Materialist Dialectics
<<< CHAPTER III -- THE IDEALIST CHAPTER V -- MARXIST- >>>

ESSENCE OF MAOIST LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND
PHILOSOPHY MAOIST ``LEAPS'' IN THEORY
OF KNOWLEDGE
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/4-
Eclecticism.Posing.as.Dialectics
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 4.1-Theory.of.Balance.in.Lieu.of.Materialist.Dialectics
MAP

>>>
<< • >> The Theory of Balance in Lieu of Materialist 109

<•> Dialectics
TOC We have already seen how eclecticism is an essential feature of Mao Tse-tung’s p
Card philosophical views. This is equally the case with his method of cognising the
phenomena of nature and society, which combines naive dialectics with a curious
Text
version of the theory of balance.
HTML
PS
In Marxist dialectics inherent contradictions underlie all processes of development. p
PDF According to the theory of balance, however, it is outward external factors that
determine development, and rest, balance and absence of movement are regarded as
T* the normal state of all existing things and phenomena. One of the authors of this
19* theory, N. Bukharin, held that a phenomenon ceased to be in a state of balance or
rest (which is the same thing) following a change in one of the opposed forces. As
### to how this change comes about, let us turn to Bukharin himself. "It is perfectly
clear that the inner structure of a system (inner balance) must change according to
the relationship that exists between the system and the environment. The relationship
between the system and environment is the decisive factor, for all states of the
system (decline, development, stagnation) are determined by this
relationship.” [ 109•1 In other words, the theory of balance regards opposed
principles within society (the system) as two simple mechanical forces, opposed to
one another outwardly and in a state of balance, which can only be destroyed by the
interference of outside forces. The process of development according to Bukharin is
one of balance, followed by the upsetting of balance, followed again by balance.
The theory of balance bears an outward resemblance to dialectics in that it also p

regards the question of opposites as a question of the struggle between them. But
while materialist dialectics deal with internal contradictions that are concomitant and
mutually exclusive and their correlation and interpenetration, their contradictions, the
mechanistic theory of balance is dealing with the antagonism of mechanically
contiguous opposed forces in a state of balance. And balance cannot be a source of
development without the interference of outside forces.
In "On Practice”, Mao Tse-tung gives an essentially false definition of the concept p 110
“balance-imbalance”. "The movement of all things assumes two forms: the form of
relative rest and the form of conspicuous change. Both forms of movement are
caused by the struggle of the two contradictory factors contained in a thing itself.
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 things 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. Such unity, solidarity, amalgamation, harmony,
balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, stability, equilibrium, coagulation, attraction, as we
see in daily life, are all the appearances of things in the state of quantitative change.
On the other hand, the dissolution of the entity, the breakdown of such solidarity,
amalgamation, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, stability, equilibrium,
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/4.1-Theory.of.Balance.in.Lieu.of.Materialist.Dialectics[2013-03-30 오전 11:45:36]
coagulation and attraction, and the change into their opposite states, are all the
appearances of things in the state of qualitative change during the transformation of
one process into another.” [ 110•1
It is perfectly true that any phenomenon can assume the form of relative rest and p
the form of conspicuous change. But Mao is wrong in regarding the two forms as
consecutive, when in fact they are simultaneous. Mao thus does violence to
materialist dialectics when he speaks of dissolution of the entity taking place only
when the movement of a thing assumes the form of conspicuous change at the point
of the breakdown of balance. No matter what form it assumes, a thing always
contains opposites. Harmony exists together with disharmony, equilibrium with
disequilibrium, attraction with repulsion and so on. Like the ancient Chinese
dialecticians, Mao recognises the existence of opposed principles and the conflict
between them, but regards them as being separate from one another in time and
space.
Admitting that "dissolution of the entity" occurs only in the case of conspicuous p
change, at the stage of qualitative change, Mao denies its occurrence in the state of 111
relative rest, i.e., in quantitative change. According to Mao Tse-tung, things in a
state of relative rest are, as it were, in a state ol balance, which is regarded as their
normal state.
In 1957 Mao Tse-tung “developed” his theory of balance as follows: "An economic p
plan is drawn up in this country every year and a correct balance is established
between accumulation and consumption, in order to achieve a balance between
production and requirements. This balance is a temporary and relative unity of
opposites. By the end of the year this balance is on the whole dissolved by the
struggle of opposites, the entity changes and balance becomes imbalance, the unity
ceases to be and the next year a new balance and unity must be achieved. This is
the advantage of our planned economy. In fact this balance and unity is partly
disrupted every month, and this makes partial adjustment necessary. Sometimes it
happens that subjective adjustment does not correspond to objective reality, so that
contradictions arise and the balance is upset. This is called making a mistake.
Contradictions are constantly cropping up and continually being resolved, and this is
the dialectical law of the development of things and phenomena.” [ 111•1
Here Mao is identifying the appearance of contradictions with the disruption of p

balance and substituting mistakes for contradictions as the source of development,
thereby making balance and the absence of contradictions the normal state of things,
and the disruption of balance and the presence of contradictions an abnormal state.
Mao attributes a general philosophical character to his ideas on balance and
imbalance and uses them to justify his own subjective practical policies.
If in "On Contradiction" dialectical contradictions are regarded as a conspicuous p

contrast between two far-removed opposites, twenty years later Mao implies that they
are anomalies.
The adepts of Maoism openly propagate their leader’s theory of balance. In a recent p
philosophy manual we find the following: "The theory of passive balance is
essentially a manifestation of the stability of the world. It regards balance as absolute
and rejects the idea that imbalance is an inner necessity, inherent in the movement of 112
things, a necessary stage in the development of things. The authors regard every
imbalance as an abnormal phenomenon and reject the law of development ‘balance—
imbalance—balance’.” We need not trouble ourselves with the fact that the authors
speak of absolute and relative balance: the main thing is that they declare the thesis
of the theory of balance, "balance—- imbalance—balance”, the formula of
development, thereby opposing the theory of balance from the standpoint of ... the
theory of balance.
It is known that Mao himself has criticised the theory of balance. But this criticism p
was not the outcome of any serious theoretical reflection. His critical statements
were clearly inserted in "On Contradiction" after he had taken note of the works of
Soviet authors analysing this theory. Thus, in the same article we find Mao criticising
the theory yet at the same time developing ideas in accordance with it. This is no
doubt to be explained by the apparent resemblance the theory of balance bears to
Chinese naive dialectics, to which, as we have seen, Mao subscribes. In naive
dialectics outward, isolated forces are contrasted, while in the theory of balance it is
a question of the antagonism of opposite forces. But in both cases interpenetration
and transition into one another are regarded purely mechanically.
The theory of balance in lieu of the inner process of the emergence, development p
and solution of a dialectical contradiction makes conflict the only means of resolving
the antagonism of opposed forces.
Presenting the dialectical contradiction as a mechanical balance or antagonism p

between two opposed forces that can only be destroyed by the interference of some
outside factor, the theory of balance can and does serve as the theoretical basis for
the ultra-revolutionary, bellicose political harangues of the Maoists. Suffice it to
recall Mao Tse-tung’s approach to the relationship between the two world socio–
economic systems, which totally fails to take into account the complexity of
interaction between these two concrete– historical opposites, and thus leads him to
conclude that it can only be solved by means of war.
We find the same position if we turn to the question of contradictions within the p
capitalist countries. According to Mao and some of his supporters, the balance and
the destruction of that balance in certain countries can only be achieved by the 113
interference of outside forces. Hence the insistence on exporting revolution.
Mao is essentially ascribing the major role to external factors and conditions, p
regarding them as the means of solving a conflict, of solving the antagonism
between opposed forces. Although he speaks of the struggle of opposites as the
cause of development, he does not go beyond a plain admission of this, and is
unable to reveal the mechanism of the conflict, and see the process of development
as a process of ripening, exacerbation, and resolution—“dismissal”—of contradictions.
Basically, the Maoists use the theory of balance as a methodological basis for such
phenomena as the "cultural revolution”. It serves as an external factor helping the
solution of inner contradictions within the Party. As Chou En-lai, speaking in Wuhan
in 1967, declared: "Without disorder, there is no order. Without breaking up the old
there is no creating the new. Where disorders have reached the culminative point,
such disorders have actually disserved the enemy and inured the masses, thereby
enabling problems to be completely resolved.”
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 109•1] N. Bukharin, Theory of Historical Materialism, Moscow, 1925, p. 82 (in
Russian).
[ 110•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 48 (emphasis added.

—M.A., V.G.).
[ 111•1] Mao Tse-tung, "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the
People" (emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.).
< >
<< [introduction.] Antagonism in Lieu of Contradiction >>

OF KNOWLEDGE
Theory.of.Balance.in.Lieu.of.Materialist.Dialectics
titles in [
1,779
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 4.2-Antagonism.in.Lieu.of.Contradiction
MAP

>>>
<< • >> Antagonism in Lieu of Contradiction 113

<•>
By making an absolute of the antagonism between two opposed forces, Mao Tse- p
TOC tung is inevitably led to a misconception of the essence and historical role of
Card antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. It is common knowledge that social
antagonisms are an important feature of societies based on exploitation. Antagonistic
contradictions involve the incompatibility of the basic interests of hostile classes, and
Text their solution is impossible without the abolition of the old social order by means of
HTML
class struggle and social revolution. A typical example of an antagonistic
PS
contradiction in our own day and age is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie
PDF
and the proletariat.
T*
The classics of Marxism-Leninism pointed out the transient nature of antagonistic p
19*
contradictions. Thus, Marx wrote: "The bourgeois relations of production are the last
### antagonistic form of the social process of production.. . .” [ 113•1 and Lenin
emphasised that an antagonism is a special kind of contradiction, that "antagonism 114
and contradiction are by no means one and the same thing. When socialism comes,
the former will disappear but the latter will remain.” [ 114•1 Contradictions in
socialist society are non-antagonistic, since private property has been abolished along
with the exploitation of man by man, and there no longer exist fundamental
differences between the classes.
Mao Tse-tung expressed the above ideas in "On Contradiction”, where he admitted p
that contradictions are not universally antagonistic, that antagonistic and non-
antagonistic contradictions exist side by side in a relationship of mutual transition
into one another, and that, being different in character, they require a different
approach to their solution. This was all stated in the most general terms and there
was nothing new in these reflections, nothing that could not be found in Soviet
philosophy manuals.
In later works, Mao departs from this Marxist view, and treats the identity of the p
opposites of an antagonistic contradiction and their mutual transition and
interpenetration as the transition of antagonistic contradictions into non-antagonistic
contradictions and vice-versa, and the conflict of contradictory aspects of a non-
antagonistic contradiction as the antagonism of two opposed forces.
Thus, in "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" Mao p
revises the Marxist doctrine concerning types of social contradictions. He replaces the
concept of "antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions" with concepts of
"contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and contradictions among the
people”. We are not dealing simply with a more precise definition or an innovation.
The point is that Mao is treating the contradictions between the workers and
peasants, on the one hand, and the national bourgeoisie, on the other, as
contradictions among the people. Thus, Mao writes: "The contradictions between
ourselves and our enemies are antagonistic ones. Within the ranks of the people,
contradictions among the working people are non-antagonistic, whereas contradictions
between the exploiters and exploited classes have a non-antagonistic aspect as well
as an antagonistic one.... In our country, the contradiction between the working class
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/4.2-Antagonism.in.Lieu.of.Contradiction[2013-03-30 오전 11:45:43]
and the national bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people. The class struggle 115
between the working class and the national bourgeoisie in general is a part of the
class struggle among the people, because of the dual character of the national
bourgeoisie in this country.” [ 115•1
The assertion that the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie is p
non-antagonistic is a Right– opportunist, revisionist proposition, and the fact that
Mao adds that these contradictions have their antagonistic side as well does not alter
the matter in the slightest. In fact, the basic interests of the working class and the
bourgeoisie are incompatible, since the building of socialism is by no means in the
interests of the latter, which is proved by the whole history of the Chinese People’s
Republic. Mao replaces the question of class relations with the question of political
blocs and alliances with the class that is fundamentally hostile to the working class,
the bourgeoisie. Although such agreements are not to be excluded at certain stages, it
is fundamentally wrong to deduce from this that the contradiction between the
working class and the bourgeoisie is not antagonistic. The contradiction between the
working class and the bourgeoisie can only be resolved by the elimination of the
latter, although, admittedly, in the conditions of socialist construction and the
dictatorship of the proletariat the contradiction does not necessarily have to be solved
by a leap forward, by an explosion—viz., the liquidation of the kulaks as a class in
the Soviet Union. It must be said, however, that the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union and its leaders never regarded the contradiction between the proletariat and the
kulaks as non-antagonistic.
But perhaps Mao Tse-tung’s idea that the contradiction between the proletariat and p
the big bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people testifies to his creative,
original approach to the complex manifold phenomena of reality, to an urge to draw
the widest sections of the population of China into the building of the new society?
Perhaps it is a proof of his creative solution of theoretical problems and his
contribution to Marxist philosophy? This is what Maoist propaganda would have us
believe. [ 115•2
It is a well-known fact that it was Lenin who first produced the correct scientific p 116
solution to the question of the methods of solving different kinds of contradictions
after the triumph of socialist revolution. On the basis of a dialectical understanding
of contradictions, Lenin insisted on the need to reveal the possible inner link even
between antagonistic opposites at certain stages of development of this or that
process. Realising that intensification of the class struggle between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie was inevitable in the period of transition from capitalism to
socialism, Lenin nevertheless held that it was possible to make use of the method of
state capitalism controlled by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and, under the New
Economic Policy, to make use of the bourgeoisie to raise and develop the country’s
productive forces as long as it was completely subject to state laws, and at the same
time was being restricted and gradually ousted. Lenin never ceased to regard the
contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as an antagonistic
contradiction.
Mao Tse-tung’s assertion that the contradiction between the proletariat and the p
bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people is at variance with his own earlier
statement (at the Second Plenary Meeting of the CPC Central Committee, seventh
convocation, in 1949), where he said that the main contradiction in China after the
proletariat had seized power throughout the country would be the contradiction
between the working class and the bourgeoisie.
The presence in Maoist “dialectics” of mutually exclusive propositions is determined p

by their social function. Mao makes philosophy as a whole an instrument of politics
in the very worst meaning of the word. He adopts a completely utilitarian approach
to philosophy, and is only interested in it in as far as it can be made to serve his 117
great-power ambitions.
Applied to dialectics, a utilitarian, pragmatic approach really means using it to p

justify any political actions at all. In this case dialectics must be provided with a
collection of theses capable of being used for such ends, irrespective of whether they
agree with one another or not. We can indeed observe this in the Maoist
“dialectics”. [ 117•1 Mao Tse-tung appears to be quite undisturbed by the fact that
this approach to dialectics frequently entails insoluble contradictions. An entirely
different approach to similar phenomena and deliberate departure from previously
declared principles deprives dialectics of every semblance of scientific content and
genuine practical value. In fact dialectics cease to be dialectics altogether. But this
apparently suits Mao perfectly, for he only needs “dialectics” that will justify the
particular strategy and tactics he happens to have chosen at a given time.
The social function of Maoist “dialectics” is pretty clear from Mao Tse-tung’s p
interpretation of the concept of "the people”. Thus, he writes: "At this stage of
building socialism, all classes, strata and social groups that approve, support, and
work for the cause of socialist construction belong to the category of the people,
wliile those social forces and groups that resist the socialist revolution and are hostile
to and try to wreck socialist construction are enemies of the people" [ 117•2 ; "..
.democracy is established among the people and, united by the working class, all
those with civil rights, especially the peasants, establish a dictatorship over the
reactionary classes, reactionaries and elements that resist the socialist revolution and
oppose socialist construction". [ 117•3 At first sight this might appear to be a
perfectly correct Marxist definition of the concept of "the people": the people is all
those who support socialism and help build it, while those who resist the socialist 118
transformation of society are classed as enemies of the people. But in fact, as we
shall see, Mao’s definition of the term is subjective and ignores class principles.
In Marxist sociology the concept of "the people" is based above all on the decisive p
role of material production in the development of society and the economic position
of the various classes, strata and groups in a particular system of social production,
since it is this that determines to what extent this or that class, strata or group is
objectively interested in and capable of fulfilling the concrete tasks of social
development that a given society faces. According to Mao’s definition, however, any
social group, even an exploiter group (in this case, the big bourgeoisie) has only to
declare its willingness to co-operate in the building of socialism, and participate
formally, to automatically qualify for inclusion in "the people”.
In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the concept of "the people" p
may certainly include petty and middle bourgeoisie, rural and urban, but there is
absolutely no justification under any circumstances for extending the concept to
include the powerful capitalists. According to Mao’s definition, namely "all people
with civil rights”, such people as the former Vice-President of Kuomintang China,
the inveterate reactionary Li Tsung-jen, the economic dictator of Macao, Ho Ying, a
member of the People’s Political Consultative Committee of China, and a host of
other such figures qualify for inclusion in "the people”.
Mao’s definition of the class enemies of the proletariat is also un-Marxist. By p

making the main criterion the attitude to the policy of the present Chinese leadership,
replacing the correct Marxist expression "class enemies" with the formula "enemies
of the people”, the Maoists deprive the term of its correct sociological meaning and
treat it as a political phenomenon which may or may not be connected with
adherence to the exploiter classes—and indeed developments in China over the last
few years show that it is not. Instead, a person’s class adherence is derived from his
political views, and it is not representatives of the exploiter classes who are treated
as "enemies of the people" but all those who "resist the socialist revolution and are
hostile to socialist construction (read: do not approve of the Mao group’s distortion 119
of the principles of socialist construction) and try to wreck it" (read: struggle against
the Mao group).
This approach makes it possible to declare any person an enemy if he expresses p

dissatisfaction or disagreement with the methods of socialist construction, irrespective
of his social origins and social position or the reasons for his dissatisfaction. He has
only to express his disagreement with the political decisions of the Mao group to
automatically become "an enemy of the people”.
It is thus not surprising that in China today it is not the capitalists but the p
communist internationalists who are declared "enemies of the people”.
Thus, in the view of Mao Tse-tung, present-day Chinese society is divided into p
“we” and "the enemies”, that is himself and his supporters and those who think
differently, those who disagree with his theory and practice. In the newspaper
Chung-kuo ching-yan pao for June 23, 1966, we find the following statement:
"Whoever opposes the ideas of Mao Tse-tung is a counter-revolutionary.” Mao Tse-
tung and his supporters apply the term "enemy of the people" as an excuse for all
kinds of reprisals against their ideological opponents, even when the latter have
never belonged to the exploiter classes and have given years of faithful service to
the Chinese people and the Chinese revolution.
The "cultural revolution" brought into stark relief the antiMarxist essence of the p
Maoist interpretations of the concepts of "the people" and "enemies of the people”.
The Mao group claims that the aim of this “revolution” has been to prevent a return
to the bourgeois system, that they have been waging a struggle against "enemies of
the people" (the word enemy having been enriched with such synonyms as “swine”,
"members of the black gang”, “insects”, etc.), and against "agents of the bourgeoisie
that have crawled into the Party”, "against those who are in power and follow the
capitalist path”.
Naturally the presence of bourgeois turncoats and even class enemies in the Party is p
not to be excluded, and it is essential to wage a resolute struggle against them. But
the struggle must be waged against real agents of the bourgeoisie and not imaginary
ones. During the "cultural revolution" in China, however, it was thousands upon
thousands of Communists who were declared by the Maoists to be enemies trying to 120
wreck the building of socialism, whereas the representatives of the bourgeoisie were
safe from all criticism.
This “definition” of class enemies is based on a subjective interpretation of the p

essence of antagonistic and non– antagonistic contradictions under socialism that has
nothing at all to do with Marxism-Leninism. Thus, Mao writes: ”. . .the first type of
contradiction (antagonistic contradictions.— M.A., V.G.) involves drawing a clear line
between ourselves and our enemies, while the second type of contradiction (
nonantagonistic contradictions.—M.A., V.G.) involves drawing a clear line between
truth and falsehood. Naturally, the question of the relations between ourselves and
our enemies is at the same time, to some extent a question of truth and falsehood.
Thus, for example, the question of who is right and who is wrong—we, or such
internal and external reactionary forces as imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic
capital—is also a question of truth and falsehood, but it belongs to an essentially
different type of question of truth and falsehood than those among the
people.” [ 120•1
The classification of contradictions is thus deprived of objective content since what p

do the concepts of truth and falsehood include? And, even more important, who
decides what is true and what is false? Apparently this is decided by whoever wields
real power in the Party and State at a given moment, so that naturally the truth is
always with Mao, and his opponents are always in the wrong.
Mao Tse-tung turned to Marxism-Leninism in the twenties because he considered it p

to be the best available means of restoring China’s greatness. In the thirties and
forties he needed to use Marxist phraseology to establish his rule in the CPC. Suffice
it to remember his own "Decision on Some Questions of the History of the Party"
which abounds in references to the need to struggle against doctrinaire attitudes and
those who hold them (read, "communist internationalists”). In the fifties and sixties,
Mao needed to refer to Marxist theses in order to conceal his betrayal of Marxism–
Leninism and the principles of socialist construction, to strengthen his insecure
position within the Party and the country, and justify his efforts to disrupt the
socialist community and the international communist, workers’ and national liberation 121
movements.
In the first years after the triumph of the people’s revolution in China, when the p
Mao group did not yet dare to embark upon overt revision of the principles of
socialist construction and break openly with the world socialist system and the
international communist movement, when they were forced to adhere to the policy of
peaceful coexistence conducted by the Soviet Union, the Maoists still continued to
speak of the existence of non-antagonistic contradictions. But as soon as they had
altered course and set out on an entirely different path in home and foreign policy,
aspiring to hegemony in the world socialist system and the international communist,
workers’ and national liberation movements, they began to speak almost exclusively
of antagonistic contradictions, thereby attempting to justify the need to "break free"
of Marxism-Leninism both at home and abroad. This was the purpose of the broad
debate on the law of the unity and conflict of opposites that was launched in China
in 1964. In order to make their views appear Marxist, they made use of Lenin’s
authority, quoting ad infinitum his famous idea of "the splitting of a single whole”,
but interpreting it in their own way.
Officially the debate centred around the theory of Yang Hsien-chen. In actual fact, p
however, what was involved was a struggle to replace materialist dialectics in favour
of Maoist “dialectics”. The debate was begun on Mao’s initiative and conducted
under his auspices, so that although he did not directly express an opinion himself,
the views expressed in Hungchih and Jen-rain jih-pao can be safely assumed to
represent Mao’s own attitude. [ 121•1
During the debate, the law of the unity and conflict of opposites was formulated as p
"the unity of two principles and the dissolution of the entity”, with the Maoists
placing the stress on the latter to the total exclusion of the unity of conflicting
opposites. The debate revealed Mao’s distorted understanding of the Marxist-Leninist
teaching of the core of dialectics as soon as the subject of the trends of social
development and the major problems of our time—the factors underlying the
development of socialism and the world communist movement—were broached. The 122
Maoists completely distorted the meaning of Lenin’s statement concerning the
splitting of a single whole. Following Mao’s example, the “orthodox” philosophers
blithely apply the formula " dissolution of the entity" to all phenomena quite
indiscriminately, without drawing any distinction at all between capitalist and socialist
society.
The Maoists take the concrete historical situation where "the dissolution of the p
entity" manifests itself in the form of a rift in exploiter society and its division into
classes hostile to one another, and apply it dogmatically to socialism, the world
socialist system and the Communist Party and MarxistLeninist theory.
An article inspired by Mao himself that appeared in the journal Hungchih in 1964 p
contained the following statement. "The international labour movement, like all things
and phenomena in the world, also divides.” The same applies to Marxism: "A
revolutionary, scientific doctrine, automatically engenders its opposite in the course
of its development, engenders, that is, a counter-revolutionary, unscientific
doctrine.” [ 122•1 The article stressed that modern (socialist) society also splits, just
as society will split "in ten thousand years’ time”. Classes and class struggle are thus
perpetuated. It is now perfectly clear what the Maoists were up to with all this: they
were creating a theoretical basis for the justification of the destruction of the CPC
and the constitutional organs of the Chinese People’s Republic. In this they were
demonstrating their real attitude to theory, which is to regard it as an instrument of
their irrational, voluntarist practice, called upon to justify post factum what they have
already done or happen to be doing. This is also their attitude to the laws of
dialectics.
We have only to take a look at real life to see that these theses are a parody of p
dialectics. In "On Dialectics”, the work from which the Maoists took the idea of the
"dissolution of the entity”, Lenin stresses that the dialectics of bourgeois society
where this operates most fully is purely "a particular case”. It is therefore essential
to take into account the specific ways in which the general law of dialectics
manifests itself in capitalist and socialist society.
How exactly is Mao’s erroneous interpretation of this problem of dialectics p 123

manifested? Above all, in the way he denies the special quality of the "dissolution of
the entity" in exploiter society where the interests of the hostile classes composing
society are diametrically opposed.
In exploiter society "dissolution of the entity" takes the form of a division of p

society into two hostile camps with different economic and political interests, a
different world outlook and morality. Thus the complete division of this concrete
society is both natural and progressive, since through an intensification of class
antagonisms it approaches its end and thereby determines the triumph of the new,
higher social order.
In socialist society the interests of the classes and social groups are united on the p
basic issues of social life. There are no antagonistic contradictions in socialist
society. Since contradictions can only arise, and do only arise, over specific,
individual issues, these contradictions are entirely nonantagonistic. Such fundamental
matters as the relations between classes and social groups do not entail "division of
the entity”, for non-antagonistic contradictions do not lead to conflict between social
classes and groups, and so do not lead to the division of society, the people as a
whole, or opposition between the friendly classes and social groups. This
qualitatively new manifestation of dialectics in socialist society is both natural and

progressive.
This is not to say that there are no contradictions in socialist society, but simply p
that such as there are have passed from the sphere of fundamental interests to the
sphere of specific, individual interests. Naturally, difference of interests and
contradictions between them occur in many spheres of life in numerous matters, large
and small, but such contradictions are always individual, never fundamental. There
are thus no insoluble contradictions in socialist society, either within a given socialist
country or in the inter-state relations among the socialist countries.
For the first time in history progress is achieved in a way that does not involve the p
division of society into two hostile, conflicting classes, but, on the contrary, is based
on the unity of interests of all classes and social groups, a unity that grows and
becomes stronger as time goes by.
While in capitalist society division is resolved by class struggle and revolution, in p 124
the case of socialism the contradictions are resolved within the framework of unity
by means of social transformations and the improvement of production relations.
The growing unity of all strata of socialist society is a major condition for the p
discovery and solution of non– antagonistic contradictions, and provided these are
objective, concrete contradictions and not artificially created ones, they can always
be resolved.
In capitalist society, on the other hand, antagonistic contradictions exist over p

fundamental issues, and can only be resolved by the demise of the social system
itself, so that their solution is a protracted business and assumes most acute, serious
forms. In socialist society, in the conditions of sociopolitical unity, the solution of
concrete contradictions represents a step forward for all those who are struggling for
further progress. Mao Tse-tung refuses to notice the special nature of the
contradictions found in socialist society and dogmatically applies to it the same
"division of the entity”, thereby distorting the nature and motive forces of the
development of socialism.
Socialist society is free from class conflicts and is characterised by unprecedented p

unity. It is this unity that is the new motive force of socialist society. Marxist-
Leninists have never denied the presence of class struggle in countries building
socialism. In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism vestiges of the
exploiter classes and social groups remain, and there are anti-socialist forces which
in certain conditions may resist socialism. But the struggle with such elements does
not involve the division of society, but on the contrary signifies its strengthening and
further development along the path of socialism.
Mao Tse-tung resorted to defending class antagonisms in socialist society in order p

to deny the achievements of the Soviet people, who have built socialism and are
successfully building communism.
It is clear that not only within each socialist country, but in the world socialist p
system as a whole, "division of the entity" is manifested in such a way as to
exclude division and opposition of interests on major, fundamental issues of the life
of the various socialist countries.
The world socialist system is characterised by the fact that the unity of fundamental p 125
interests actually grows and is strengthened in this way. Naturally, different levels of
economic and political development, different historical and cultural traditions and
different geographical situation can, and do, lead to different interpretations of
various concrete problems of socialist construction and differences of opinion which
are resolved in the course of all-round co-operation between the socialist countries
according to the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
The communist and workers’ parties that stand at the helm of state in the socialist
countries regard it as their duty to conduct a correct Marxist-Leninist policy,
combining the interests of each individual country with the interests of the socialist
community as a whole and with the interests of the communist and liberation
movements, in order to ensure that different approaches to various matters should not
disrupt the unity of the socialist camp. Contradictions between the socialist countries
are brought to light and resolved in the framework of the basic unity of their
fundamental interests.
The non-antagonistic character of such contradictions requires that Communists, in p

their practical and theoretical activities, emphasise and draw attention to those factors
that unite the socialist countries and make for their solidarity. Since unity here serves
as a major condition for the discovery and solution of contradictions, the ability to
make proper use of the law of dialectics in question is a way of stressing the role of
unity. Mao Tse-tung and his supporters, however, in the pursuit of hegemony,
emphasise the opposite.
According to Mao, "division of the entity" occurs not only in socialist society but in p
Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The Maoists maintain that the revolutionary doctrine "in its
development must engender its opposite, must, that is, engender a counter-
revolutionary, unscientific doctrine”, and attempt to substantiate this with references
to “opportunism” and “revisionism”.
Developing as it has in antagonistic class society, revolutionary doctrine has p

naturally always been under a certain amount of pressure from the ideology of the
reactionary classes. It is this that makes the constant struggle against all forms and
brands of revisionism and opportunism a law of development of revolutionary theory
in exploiter society or societies where survivals of exploiter society are still deeply 126
rooted. But even here, "division of the entity" takes a very special form that must on
no account be confused with the “division” of ideology in exploiter society.
Marxism– Leninism develops in the struggle with various attempts to distort it, but it
cannot, and does not, itself engender its opposite, as the Maoists insist. In this sense
there is no "division of the entity" in Marxism-Leninism. It is impossible to see how
a revolutionary doctrine can be said to engender a counter-revolutionary doctrine.
Marxism-Leninism naturally contains contradictions, contradictions between certain p

old, out-of-date scientific theses and new issues advanced by life, contradictions
between Marxism-Leninism as a revolutionary doctrine and hostile views and
theories that insidiously squirm their way into it. But the appearance of contradictions
such as these and their solution represents not the division of the principles of
Marxism-Leninism but, on the contrary, the development and enrichment of Marxist-
Leninist principles, their growing strength. In short, the Maoists are barking up the
wrong tree when they try to find “division” here.
The Maoists hold that the Party must also “divide” according to dialectics. They p
regard division within the Party as progress, as a blessing. In actual fact, the
progress of the Party is gradual consolidation of its ranks, and division (schism)
must be regarded not as progress but as a crisis, since it means that enemies have
filtered into its ranks and are destroying it. The strength of the Party lies not in
division but in unity of thought and action of all its members, for then contradictions
arising within the Party (such as there have been, and will be in the future) are
purely specific, individual contradictions, to be solved by all members of the Party,
united on the basic points of its programme. The successful solution of contradictions
in the form of a battle of opinions helps strengthen the unity of the Party, which in
turn is a factor ensuring the further successful solution of such contradictions as may
arise. The penetration of bourgeois influences into the Party and the struggle against
them is to be regarded not as “division” but rather as the struggle of the Party as a
whole against alien elements.
Naturally a situation can occur where, for various reasons (socio-economic, p

historical, ideological, etc.) leadership of the Communist Party passes into the hands 127
of non-Marxists, open or covert enemies of Marxism-Leninism—as has occurred in
China today. Then "division of entity”, the struggle against them is perfectly
justified. But such phenomena constitute the exception not the rule, and do not
derive from the nature of the Communist Party or socialism.
The same applies to the relations between the communist parties of different p
countries. Here there can be no contradictions on fundamental issues, and hence no
“division”; there can only be contradictions on individual matters of a temporary
nature, which are resolved on the basis of essential unity, and whose solution indeed
requires such unity and not division.
In short, Maoism emasculates the dialectics depriving them of real live content and p
transforming it into a collection of sterile formulae. Mao Tse-tung’s thesis that
development follows the pattern “unity—struggle—unity”, which is contrary to
Lenin’s theory of contradictions, universalises antagonistic contradictions.
In conclusion it must be said that Marxist dialectics demand a concrete historical p

approach to social phenomena. They cannot be used as an abstract scheme for the
logical deduction of answers to all practical questions, but require that not only
general features inherent in a phenomenon at all stages of its development be taken
into account, but also the features of contradictory development that characterise a
phenomenon at a given stage of its development.
The contradictory nature of the development of each socialist country and the p
socialist community as a whole, or each communist party and the world working-
class movement as a whole, have their own individual features in addition to the
features that are common to social development in general. The unity of opposite
aspects is especially important here, and the contradictions are non-antagonistic in
character. The various communist parties are working in different conditions, and this
gives rise to different approaches to practical matters, and even to disagreements.
But community of fundamental interests enables the various detachments of the world
army of Communists to overcome whatever difficulties and disagreements arise
among them. The participants in the international forum of Communists in Moscow
in 1969 expressed their firm belief that differences between the communist and 128
workers’ parties will be successfully resolved. "This belief is based on the fact that
the international working class has common long-term objectives and interests, on the
striving of each Party to find a solution to existing problems which would meet both
national and international interests and the Communists’ revolutionary mission; it is
based on the will of Communists for cohesion on an international scale.” [ 128•1
The Maoists, however, extend the individual concrete cases of "division of the p
entity" in the form of a division of society into hostile classes to all social
phenomena. Is this to be regarded simply as a theoretical error or a doctrinaire

mistake? While it is possible that some of the rank-and-file Maoists are simply
misguided, in the case of Mao Tse-tung himself we are clearly dealing with a
deliberate departure from the ideas of Marxist philosophy, for his distortion of the
dialectics and anti-Marxist interpretation of many major questions of our age is the
result not of failure to understand, but of a practical policy that is hostile to
Marxism-Leninism being pursued by Mao and his group. The Maoists do violence to
dialectics in their attempt to prove what cannot be proved and justify their wrong
policies.
Mao Tse-tung’s utilitarian approach to dialectics is plainly seen in the fact that he p
only applies "division of the entity" selectively, to certain, deliberately chosen
phenomena.
The “division” of the socialist community is declared progressive and inevitable, p

whereas in the case of the “ division” of China into the Chinese People’s Republic
and Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan it becomes a question of the "union of the two into a
single entity”. The “division” of the Chinese Communist Party is declared to be
progressive and inevitable, while with the Chinese bourgeoisie it becomes a question
of the "union of the two into a single entity”. The “division” of the international
labour movement is declared to be progressive and inevitable, but with respect to
renegades expelled from communist parties and direct agents of the bourgeoisie the
principle of "union of the two in a single entity" is proclaimed.
Clearly then, the debate on the basic law of dialectics was the result not of p
academic interests in a major scientific problem but of Mao’s attempt to use the 129
ideas of "division of the entity" to provide theoretical substantiation for his policy of
splitting the world communist movement. This is why he has always been so
irritated by such concepts as “unity”, "identity of contradictions" and the like, and all
words reminding him of the need for a concrete approach to different kinds of
contradictions, antagonistic and nonantagonistic, have been thrown overboard.
Another important point one is struck by in this connection is that while p

maintaining that contradictions between communist parties and between socialist
countries are antagonistic Mao at the same time declares contradictions between the
proletariat and the national bourgeoisie to be a contradiction within the people, and
hence non-antagonistic. This is yet another proof of his utilitarian, pragmatic
approach to dialectics. In the pursuit of his great-power hegemonistic aims Mao is
prepared to cause division (“ dissolution”) of the socialist community and
international communist and working-class movement and unite with their fiercest
enemy, the bourgeoisie.
Mao Tse-tung’s distorted concept of materialist dialectics leads him to draw the p
most paradoxical conclusions: firstly, that contradictions cannot be solved, secondly,
that contradictions must be exacerbated and thirdly, contradictions must be created
where they do not exist. Mao replaces objective dialectics with his own peculiar
brand of "subjective dialectics”, involving the fabrication of contradictions both
within the country and abroad.
Within the country, "subjective dialectics" involve the policy of exacerbating p

contradictions within the Party, within certain classes and social groups and among
them. Hence Mao’s claim that the "cultural revolution" is something desirable and
inevitable, necessary to the proper development of the Party and the country. This
can perhaps be taken as an indication that we can expect further "cultural
revolutions" in the future.
Abroad, Mao’s "subjective dialectics" involve China’s "great resistance" to other p

countries, and a merciless head-on struggle between them with no quarter given.
According to Mao, the absence of such conflict leads to stagnation. Thus, Mao
considers that the war between China and Japan helped China’s development. He
seems to regard the existence of an outside enemy to China as a blessing in general, 130
judging by the way he searched so hard for a new “enemy”, and eventually settled
on the Soviet Union. Now, we must assume, China’s further development is
“ensured”. This is the truly monstrous meaning of Mao’s "subjective dialectics”.
Thus, Mao Tse-tung’s “dialectics” and “philosophy” are used to exalt his p
"philosophical genius”, for the " philosophical substantiation of all his actions and the
defamation of his ideological opponents. Dialectical terminology is employed solely
for the purpose of concealment, now of greatpower chauvinism, now of hide-bound
national egoism.
The Maoists strive to back up whatever policies they happen to be pursuing with
the relevant quotations from the classics of Marxism-Leninism—the "big leap
forward" with the thesis of the idea becoming a material force when it takes hold of
the masses, their splitting policy with Lenin’s ideas on the division of the entity, the
Hungweiping outrages with the Marxist thesis of the need for resolute struggle
against revisionism, and so on and so forth—trying to keep as close as possible to
the Marxist-Leninist terminology, so that correct theoretical formulae are distorted
and misapplied in practice. Apart from some similarity in terminology employed, the
Maoist “dialectics” have nothing at all in common with the Marxist dialectical
method, and upon closer analysis it transpires that they are nothing more than a
modification of the traditional Chinese dialectics whose substance we have already
examined.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 113•1] K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works. In three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 504.
[ 114•1] Lenin Miscellany XI, p. 357 (in Russian).
People" (emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.).
[ 115•2] In a speech to the Ninth Congress of the CPC Lin Piao referred to "On the
Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" as "a great work”. "In this
work . . . Chairman Mao Tse-tung gives an exhaustive treatment of the doctrine of
contradictions, the classes and the class struggle in the conditions of the dictatorship
of the proletariat, the doctrine of the existence in socialist society of two types of
contradictions that are different in character—contradictions between ourselves and
our enemies and contradictions among the people, and a great theory of the
continuation of the revolution during the dictatorship of the proletariat. This great
work, like a bright beacon, has lighted the road of socialist revolution and socialist
construction in our country, and at the same time has laid the theoretical foundations
for the present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.”
[ 117•1] It is interesting to note how in his speech to the Ninth Congress of the
CPC, Lin Piao praised Mao’s thesis that the contradiction between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie is the main contradiction in presentday China, and, in practically the
same breath, the thesis that this is one of the contradictions among the people (?!).
People”, p. 4.
[ 117•3] Ibid., p. 7.
People”, p. 6 (emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.}.
[ 121•1] This was admitted in a January 1967 number of Jen-min jih-pao
[ 122•1] Hungchih, 1964, No. 16.
[ 128•1] International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, Moscow, 1969,

Prague, 1969, p. 38.
< >
<< The Theory of Balance in Lieu of >>

Materialist Dialectics

OF KNOWLEDGE
Antagonism.in.Lieu.of.Contradiction
1,779 titles in [ en/TAZ ]
leninistbiz
252 e-books currently
Created: 2010 January 22 • Refreshed: 11:45:42
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 5-Marxist-Leninist.Epistemology-Maoist.Leaps.in.Theory
MAP

>>>
<< • >> CHAPTER V 131

<•> MARXIST-LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND MAOIST
“LEAPS” IN THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
TOC
[introduction.]
Card
Mao Tse-tung and the ideologues of his cult make staggering claims for Mao’s p
Text contribution as a theoretician to methodology no less than to dialectics.
HTML
PS The authors of "Three Great Milestones" declare: "In ’On Practice’ Chairman Mao p
PDF has creatively developed Lenin’s ideas, pointing out that the transition from
perceptual to rational knowledge represents a leap and that the subsequent return to
T* practice is another leap. Moreover, he says: ’Correct knowledge is acquired after
19*
repeated transition from matter to spirit and spirit to matter, that is, from practice to
### knowledge and knowledge to practice. Such is the Marxist epistemology of
dialectical materialism.’ (Mao Tse-tung, "Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct
Ideas?”) Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin said nothing about all this, but Chairman
Mao generalised numerous new empirical facts and advanced a new theory and new
explanations."
What primaeval ignorance of philosophy this panegyric to the "thoughts of Mao" p

reveals! But perhaps this is the extreme ignorance of a few isolated champions of
Maoism who have failed to make a correct assessment of Mao’s “ contribution”?
Let us take a look at what the diploma’d Maoists have to say, the professional p
philosophers of the Chinese People’s University. They also declare Mao Tse-tung to
have carried Lenin’s doctrine forward and raised it to a new level. "In new historical
conditions, Lenin, struggling against idealism, metaphysics, and especially
revisionism, in philosophy, defended and developed the all-embracing view that 132
practice is the origin of all knowledge and the criterion of truth. Comrade Mao Tse-
tung has always laid special emphasis on practice. Regarding practice as the most
outstanding feature of Marxist philosophy and making it a point of departure, he has
exhaustively developed the active revolutionary theory of reflection, developed the
Marxist view of practice, and developed the thesis of the role of social practice in
the entire process of cognition." [ 132•1
The authors maintain that Mao Tse-tung "developed allsidedly and profoundly the p
epistemology of dialectical materialism". [ 132•2 "Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s view of
the division of human knowledge into perceptual and rational, his exposition of the
features of perceptual and rational knowledge and the qualitative difference and unity
of perceptual and rational knowledge on the basis of practice—this is a major
contribution to Marxist-Leninist epistemology.” [ 132•3
The further we read in the creations of the Maoist theoreticians, the more great p
“contributions” we find ascribed to Mao’s two articles referred to above. Apparently,
Mao not only developed the theory of knowledge, but managed to put it into
practice, "embodies this theory in a number of concrete tasks: raising the awareness
of the worker and peasant masses to the level of the intellectuals, bringing the
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/5-Marxist-Leninist.Epistemology-Maoist.Leaps.in.Theory[2013-03-30 오전 11:45:53]
intellectuals closer to manual labour, the combination of studies with work in

production, the connection between engineers and technicians and the worker and
peasant masses... .” [ 132•4 Even the question of "contacts between Chinese and
foreign specialists" was "given a theoretical explanation" by Chairman Mao.
We must give the authors due credit, however, for drawing attention to the p
following “precept” of Mao Tse-tung. "In studying a problem, we must guard
against subjectivism, one-sidedness and superficiality.” [ 132•5 Having quoted this
incontrovertible premise, the authors rightly remark: " Subjectivism, one-sidedness
and superficiality are the roots of erroneous modes of thinking.” [ 133•1 They 133
regard this thesis, which is a rehash of an idea expressed by Lenin in "On
Dialectics" as yet another “contribution” of Mao Tse-tung. The most remarkable
thing here is that Mao Tse-tung and his champions, while claiming to be the
originators of this idea, completely ignore it in their own theory and practice.
But we have yet to examine the most important of all Mao’s “contributions”. The p
above-mentioned authors write that "Mao was the first to advance on the basis of all-
round development of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism a perfect
and consistent method of work called ’the mass line’.” [ 133•2 At first sight, this
principle looks most attractive: "To draw from the masses and take to the masses.”
This brand-new theory is resumed in the formula: "Practice— knowledge—practice,”
which is reflected in politics in the principle: "Masses—leadership—
masses.” [ 133•3
If we are to believe all the authors have to say in its favour, we can hardly refrain p
from exclaiming after them: "How many great discoveries are to be found in the
works of Chairman Mao!”
It appears that all Lenin’s wealth of ideas on the theory of knowledge can be p
summed up as the "all-embracing view that practice is the basis of knowledge and
the criterion of truth”. Naturally, against the background of this abstract premise
even Mao’s banal reflections on perceptual and rational knowledge and his mental
acrobatics with the formula “practice—knowledge—practice” appear to ill-informed
Chinese readers who have never read a word of Marx, Engels and Lenin (“foreign”
and “irrelevant” to the Chinese situation) to be the height of wisdom and sagacity.
We have deliberately quoted extensively from Chinese sources for the purpose of p
showing how both the young supporters of Mao and the old “specialists” are united
in attaching importance to the “contribution” of Mao Tse-tung. As they see it, Mao’s
contribution consists in the following: 1) the idea of the division of knowledge into
perceptual and rational, the transition from one to the other and then to practice,
called a “leap”; 2) the view that practice is the source and criterion of truth; 3) the
definition of the features of perceptual and rational knowledge; 4) the generalisation 134
of the doctrine of absolute and relative truth; 5) "the theory of knowledge is
embodied in a number of concrete tasks”, "a perfect and consistent method of work
called "the mass line’ ”, "draw from the masses and take to the masses”.
As the Maoists themselves emphasise, the whole “wealth” of Mao Tse-tung’s ideas p
in the field of epistemology is contained in "On Practice”, "On Contradiction”, and
"Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?”
As for the first two, the Maoists claim that they are "the best text-book which p
teaches the people to think correctly, act correctly and learn correctly. They have not
only determined the Marxist-Leninist basis in the education of the Chinese
Communist Party, but are a brilliant contribution to the world Marxist-Leninist

philosophical treasury.” [ 134•1 Let us for the moment take these claims at their
face value and examine briefly Mao’s “contributions” by collating them with the
theories of Marxism-Leninism.
Before we do so, however, one further remark is in order, something that must
always be borne in mind when examining the works of Mao Tse-tung and his
supporters. Developments in China and other countries provided ample evidence to
convince Mao of the tremendous influence of MarxismLeninism. Having failed in his
attempts to compete with Marxism-Leninism, he now tries to graft Marxist-Leninist
teaching to his own conceited hegemonistic pretentions and aspirations for national
resurgence, for restoration of the former greatness of the Celestial Empire. Maoism is
a parasite living off Marxism-Leninism. The Marxist terms employed are like a code
which must be deciphered in order to read the anti-Marxist message his ideas
contain, and this adds to the difficulty of exposing them for what they really are.
This being so, the only effective method of combating Maoist theory is to decipher
the code, thereby revealing the true content. At times it is difficult to find the key to
the code in the works themselves, in which case it is necessary to seek it in Maoist
practice.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 132•1] Dialectical Materialism, p. 182 (emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.).
[ 132•2] Ibid., p. 198.
[ 132•3] Ibid., p. 202.
[ 132•4] Ibid., p. 204.
[ 133•1] Dialectical Materialism, p. 222.
[ 133•2] Ibid., p. 236.
[ 133•3] Ibid., pp. 236–37.
[ 134•1] Wang Shih and others, S/tort History of the Chinese Communist Party,
Shanghai, 1961 (in Chinese), pp. 169–70.
< >
<< Practice and the Relationship >>

Between Theory and Practice
<<< CHAPTER IV -- ECLECTICISM CONCLUSION >>>

POSING AS DIALECTICS. MAO
TSE-TUNG'S DISTORTION OF
THE BASIC LAW OF
DIALECTICS
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/5-Marxist-Leninist.Epistemology-
Maoist.Leaps.in.Theory
1,779titles in [
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 5.1-Practice-Relationship.Between.Theory.and.Practice
MAP

>>>
<< • >> Practice and the Relationship Between 135

<•> Theory and Practice
TOC The word “practice” crops up again and again in Mao’s articles and speeches, and p
Card the call to "combine theory with practice" is one of the "three talismans" which Mao
is supposed to have invented. [ 135•1 "The theory of knowledge of dialectical
Text
materialism raises practice to the first place, holds that human knowledge cannot be
HTML separated the least bit from practice, and repudiates all incorrect theories which deny
PS the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice." [ 135•2 ”. .
PDF .Materialism and dialectics ... need effort. They must be based on and tested by
objective reality.” [ 135•3 However, this insistence on the primacy of practice, on
T* knowledge being inseparable from practice—and one could go on and on quoting
19* statements to this effect—should not be allowed to mislead us into accepting such
statements at their face value, as truly materialist. It all depends on what one means
### by practice, the practice of what class Mao intends to combine knowledge with, the
practice of what class or classes is taken as the criterion of truth. Here we come up
against incredible eclecticism, a mixture of naive and vulgar materialism, empiricism,
and subjective idealism. Although in "On Practice" Mao refers to several forms of
practical activity (in production, the class struggle, politics, science and the arts),
basically he limits practice as the source of knowledge entirely to the sphere of
politics, and all other spheres of social life are examined through the prism of
political practice. Moreover, this political practice derives from the petty-bourgeois
class viewpoint of Mao Tse-tung.
Some may feel there is nothing wrong in this, that Mao is thus adopting a consistent p
class approach and analysing things from a firm class standpoint (especially if we
are to accept it as the proletarian class standpoint). But the point is that we find here 136
the same one-sidedness and superficiality that leads Mao Tse-tung to idealism and
abandonment of class, proletarian, affiliation.
This incorrect approach to the class struggle leads straight to vulgar sociology, the p
incursion of the criterion of class adherence into spheres where it is not directly
manifest, such as the natural sciences and the transformation of nature, etc. This
involves a distortion of the very concept of “practice” as an objective phenomenon
representing the unity of the subjective and objective. The objective, material side of
practice—practice as a process existing outside man and independently of the will of
the individual—drops out, and we are left with the subjective side, where
voluntarism and subjectivism—"the great leap forward”, the "people’s communes”,
and so on—flourish, and the Maoist thesis advanced in 1958 that "Anything that is
conceivable is feasible" comes into its own.
The transference of these theories to the sphere of " subjective practice" results in p
mistakes of a voluntarist, subjective kind: the outcome is "to throw all historical
realism overboard" [ 136•1 and confuse reality with pure fancy.
Practice, as Mao understands it, is the narrow, separate practice of an individual or p

a group of persons viewed abstractly and pragmatically. Furthermore, Mao does not
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/5.1-Practice-Relationship.Between.Theory.and.Practice[2013-03-30 오전 11:46:03]
even deal with this kind of practice in its entirety, but only with such aspects of it
as suit his nationalistic, petty-bourgeois views and may serve to support them. Mao
often transforms essentially correct concepts that fall under circumscribed individual
"common sense" and "naive realism"—concepts of the popular wisdom—into
universal principles with which he tries to define the essence of phenomena
incomparably wider and more complex.
Limiting practice to "personal practice”, Mao proceeds to examine such matters as p

the position of the various classes in society and their role in economic development
and mutual relations not by generalising the vast material on all the various aspects
of their activity but by applying facile empirical methods. "You can’t solve a
problem?" Mao asks. "Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past 137
history. When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to
solve it.” [ 137•1 "Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy,
and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to
solve it.” [ 137•2
But how can the development of society and class struggle be studied by p
investigating isolated phenomena? Chairman Mao prescribes his own special method
of studying society, and you can rest assured that he will not "chase the sparrow
with his eyes closed" or "fish by sense of touch like the blind man”. For Mao has
discovered that "We must guard against subjectivism, one-sidedness and
superficiality.” [ 137•3 He therefore recommends the following: "For those whose
duty is to give guidance and direction, the most essential method of knowing the
conditions is that they should, proceeding according to plan, devote their attention to
a number of cities and villages and make a comprehensive survey of each of them
from the basic viewpoint of Marxism, i.e., by means of class analysis." [ 137•4 He
goes on to say: "A fact-finding conference does not require a large attendance; three
to five, or seven or eight persons will be enough. But ample time must be allowed
and an outline of investigation prepared beforehand and, furthermore, one must
personally put questions to the participants and jot down the answers, and hold
discussions with them.” [ 137•5
Mao has taken good care to omit nothing. He mentions "the basic viewpoint of p
Marxism" and "class analysis”, he remembers the plan, the outline of investigation
and the need to jot down the answers. In other words, he has done his best to
ensure that nobody can accuse him of "narrow empiricism”. Yet the method Mao
recommends as a universal principle of combining knowledge with practice is really
no more than a method of empirical sociology, a method which might be applied in
order to learn the situation in one village, one town, or one province at most, and
even then with great reservations. The method was used in Yenan, where it was
formulated. But it becomes one-sided and superficial as soon as Mao tries to present 138
it as the only way of acquiring knowledge of the world. One is curious to know
exactly how Mao and his supporters applied it in order to arrive at the conclusion
that "ninety per cent of the people of the world long for revolution" by means of
world war. It may be assumed that the conclusion was reached as follows. Chairman
Mao chose three to five, or let us say ten persons among the renegade emigre groups
residing in Peking and questioned them about "world revolution" and "the restoration
of capitalism in the Soviet Union”. Nirie out of ten, or perhaps all ten said that in
their respective countries "a revolutionary situation has matured and the people are
longing for revolution”. From which Mao, having pondered upon what he had heard,
finally drew the conclusion: "Ninety-five per cent of the people of the world long for
revolution.” Those interviewed took the occasion to declare their love for Mao, from
which he deduced: "Ninety-five per cent of the people of the world worship the
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.”
The Maoist approach to practice, to revolutionary experience, as a basis for study of p

reality and the development of a correct scientific policy, is radically opposed to the
Marxist-Leninist approach. The theoretical propositions of Maoism are derived from
the narrow, limited sphere of political practice, to the exclusion of all other kinds of
practice, from class struggle (chiefly of the peasantry) and national experience, with
the inevitable result that they are one-sided and nationalistic.
Lenin emphasised the indivisibility of revolutionary theory and the revolutionary p

experience of all the detachments of the world proletariat and its allies. He insisted
that "theory cannot be thought up. It grows out of the sum total of the revolutionary
thinking of all countries of the world.” [ 138•1
When Lenin set the Marxists of Russia the task of developing Marxian theory to p
devise a programme for their Party, he pointed out that for this to be successfully
achieved it was necessary for the Party to study and generalise the history of
socialism and democracy in Western Europe, the history of the revolutionary
movement and the labour movement in Russia, and connect the conclusions arrived
at with the working-class movement: "to bring definite socialist ideals to the 139
spontaneous working-class movement, to connect this movement with socialist
convictions that should attain the level of contemporary science. .. ". [ 139•1
In view of the international character of the working-class movement it is essential p

to study the experience of every single national detachment of the working class
together with the experience of the general struggle of the working class of all
countries. Generalisation of this experience involves critical study of the past and
present and assessment of future prospects. The Marxist-Leninist approach to the
theoretical generalisation of the revolutionary experience of each detachment involves
studying this experience in connection with the experience of all countries, although
it does provide for a deep-going analysis of all forms and methods of struggle within
the framework of a single nation without exaggeration or universalisation of any
particular form of struggle.
Lenin never universalised any particular form of struggle, armed or peaceful. He p

certainly did not universalise that special form of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare.
In fact, what Lenin had to say about guerrilla warfare completely destroys Mao’s
theory that the experience of guerrilla warfare in China is to be regarded as a
universal law of the world revolutionary movement. Lenin wrote: "The party of the
proletariat can never regard guerrilla warfare as the only, or even as the chief,
method of struggle; it means that this method must be subordinated to other methods,
that it must be commensurate with the chief methods of warfare, and must be
ennobled by the enlightening and organising influence of socialism. And without this
latter condition, all, positively all, methods of struggle in bourgeois society bring the
proletariat into close association with the various nonproletarian strata above and
below it and, if left to the spontaneous course of events, become frayed, corrupted
and prostituted.” [ 139•2
One of the first things we notice about Mao Tse-tung’s approach to the relationship p
between theory and practice is the way he either greatly underestimates or
completely ignores the experience of other countries. On those rare occasions when 140
he does take into account the experience of other countries, he does so in a purely
utilitarian fashion, simply because it happens to suit him at a particular juncture. "We
must absorb whatever we today find useful.-... However, we must treat these foreign
materials as we do our food, which should be chewed in the mouth, submitted to the
working of the stomach and intestines, mixed with saliva, gastric juice and intestinal
secretions, and then separated into essence to be absorbed and waste matter to be
discarded.. . .” [ 140•1 This is the approach Mao Tse-tung advises to Marxism-
Leninism. With his hide-bound nationalistic understanding of revolutionary
experience, he calls for the sinification of Marxism.
Mao Tse-tung also universalises the Chinese experience of revolutionary struggle, p

drawing general conclusions from Chinese practice alone, ignoring the experience of
other detachments of the revolutionary movement, and indeed the basic tenets of
Marxist-Leninist theory. The author of a book on the early period of Mao Tse-tung’s
activities writes: "Mao Tse-tung held that systematic investigation and study of the
surrounding situation is the permanent task of the revolutionary. Therefore, Comrade
Mao Tse-tung did not consider it necessary to send many people abroad, but deemed
it necessary to begin with the study of China and decide the practical questions of
the Chinese revolution on the basis of the real situation in China.” [ 140•2
Mao Tse-tung himself stated at a meeting in the town of Tientsin on March 17, p
1957: "To take, for example, affairs here in China, unless we develop Marxism we
shall not be able to proceed with them successfully. The basic premises and
principles of Marxism in being applied in China must acquire a Chinese colouring
and be resolved in accordance with the concrete situation that obtains here.” (Quoted
from the Hungweiping newspaper Tung-fang hung, August, 1967, "Long Live the
Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung”).
At first sight this statement is perfectly compatible with the Marxist-Leninist p

viewpoint and arouses no serious objections. But the point is that in order to develop
something one must have first mastered what already exists. Otherwise one is simply 141
at best "discovering America" and churning out vague general formulae.
It is all very well to solve practical matters by taking into account the situation in p
China as long as one is dealing exclusively with individual practical questions. But
as soon as one adopts this approach in relation to the working-class movement, the
result is the enclosure of international phenomena within narrow national limits,
empiricism in theory and encouragement of nationalism in politics.
An exaggerated emphasis on the special experience of China was typical of Mao p

Tse-tung, as we have already seen, from the very outset of his career. Later, when
he acquired leadership of the Party, over-emphasis of Chinese experience became the
dominant feature of his views. In the original version of his article "Strategic
Problems of China’s Revolutionary War" (written in 1936) he accused of
doctrinairism those Chinese revolutionaries who criticised his own "narrow
empiricism" and recommended thorough study of the experience of the October
Revolution and "the experience of the revolutionary war in Russia”. Mao could
hardly declare in public that there was no need to study the experience of the
October Revolution, but he does this in so many words in his statements which lay
special emphasis on the national Chinese experience. Thus, he declared: "Although
we must cherish the Soviet experience and even value it somewhat more than
experience of other countries throughout history, because it is the most recent
experience of revolutionary war, we must cherish still more the Chinese experience
of revolutionary war.. . .” [ 141•1 Later, for the publication of Selected Works this
passage was edited in such a way as to give equal weight to Soviet and Chinese
experience. [ 141•2
As for his critics, Mao soon forbade them to express their opinions at all, on the p
grounds that they were only familiar with "foreign models" (i.e., the experience of
the Comintern and the CPSU), "had not studied China" and "the moment they took
office" noisily speechify and criticise, picking faults left and right. Mao rejected the
accusation of "narrow empiricism”, suggesting that the only ones guilty of this were
the practical workers "who lack wisdom, perspective and foresight.” [ 142•1 Mao 142
clearly regarded himself as being possessed of “foresight”, since he had the
“foresight” to insist on the sinification of Marxism and the revival of China’s
grandeur. Thus, Mao approaches the question of practice from the standpoint of
Sinocentrism.
Mao’s petty-bourgeois limitations are also patent in his assessment of Chinese p

revolutionary practice. Mao regards practice as being primarily the practice of
peasant revolution, the practice of the political struggle of the petty-bourgeois and
peasant strata and of the elements declasses who are so numerous in China, and
above all the “practice” of political persecution of his opponents. The working class,
the revolutionary experience of the struggle of the international working-class
movement and the Chinese proletariat, lie outside the practice Mao is so fond of
discussing.
One searches in vain in the works of Mao for generalisations of the experience of p
the working-class struggle. Liu Shao-chi declared in his address to the Seventh
Congress of the CPC in April 1945 that the ideas of Mao Tse-tung were "the theory
and politics of the emancipation of the peasantry". [ 142•2 Liu Shao-chi makes no
mention at all of the place of the working class in the works of Mao Tse-tung, and
this is hardly surprising for Mao completely ignores the most important thing in
Marxism—the study of the universal historical mission of the proletariat. We can
afford to ignore Mao’s references to the working class in "On People’s Democratic
Dictatorship" and his instruction of August 14, 1968, that "the working class is the
leading class”, since they were dictated by circumstance and do not reflect the
essential views of Maoism, which, as Maoist practice shows, deny the leading role
of the working class. Mao may pay lip service to the idea of the "working-class
leadership”, but he interprets it in practice as unquestioning obedience to his own
instructions, as making the workers "the patient buffaloes of Mao”.
Mao treats the struggle of the peasantry and the broad masses in China as being p
quite unrelated to any particular relations of production. He is entirely concerned
with the political or, to be more exact, the anti-feudal and national liberation aspect 143
of the practical struggle of the masses.
Mao advances slogans of struggle without regarding the struggle as the product of a p
certain system of production relations, without reference to the relevant content,
course and conditions of the development of this struggle in all its connections and
conditioning factors. This is to be explained by the fact that the slogans are derived
from abstract postulates, from "the thoughts of Mao”, instead of being the result of
exhaustive study of each form of struggle, each step in the transformation from one
form to another, with careful substantiation of the connection between the given
struggle and the general struggle of the working class of the whole country, its
fusion with the common struggle of the workers of other countries, and assessment
of its place in the international struggle of the working class. This is one of the
most important aspects of the class roots of the pettybourgeois, chauvinistic nature of
Mao and Maoism as a political trend.
From the standpoint of dialectics, Mao Tse-tung has gone astray in the question of p
the relationship between the general, the particular and the individual in the
understanding of revolutionary experience. He declares the individual and particular
to be universal, and proceeds to deduce from this “universal” a new particular and
individual.
The progressive Japanese philosopher Mori Nobushige has the following to say of p
Mao Tse-tung’s understanding of the combination of theory and practice. The
abstract nature of "On Practice”, its chief defect, the author writes, consists in the
fact that while theorising on the unity of theory and practice, it overlooks the
question of unity of world view and method, partyism and scientific substantiation,
class affiliation and universality, which provides the only real basis for concretising
the problem of the unity of theory and practice. [ 143•1
Nobushige rightly notes that Mao Tse-tung’s endless repetition of the formula
“practice—knowledge—practice” expresses absolutely nothing, since it does not
differentiate between materialist concrete reality and positivist individual reality. He
says that dogmatic repetition of various formulae together with this ready-made 144
formula is intended to conceal and compensate for a primitive approach to reality,
theoretical helplessness, and paucity of ideas. Maoist doctrinairism derives from
empiricism, and is its essential precondition and side-product. [ 144•1
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 135•1] "Three Talismans”, a style of work advanced by Mao Tse-tung in the

forties, can be summed up in the following three principles: "the combination of
theory and practice”, "the mass line" and "criticism and self-criticism”. Mao himself
has never observed these ostensibly sensible rules, which were really no more than a
demagogical device for struggle against the Chinese communist internationalists, who
were accused of doctrinairism, divorce from the masses, and conceit.
[ 135•2] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 284.
[ 135•3] Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press, Peking,
1966, p. 212.
[ 137•1] Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, p. 233.
[ 137•2] Ibid., pp. 233–34.
[ 137•4] Ibid., Volume Four, p. 7.
[ 137•5] Ibid., p. 8.
[ 139•2] Ibid., Vol. 11, p. 221.
[ 140•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Three, p. 154.
[ 140•2] Tsai Wei, The Struggle of Marxism Against Anti-Marxist Waves in the
Period of the "Fourth of May Movement" (in Chinese), Shanghai, 1961, p. 127.
[ 141•1] R. Schram, Chinese and Leninist Components in the Personality of Mao

Tsc-tung, Asian Survey, 1963, No. G, pp. 269–70.
[ 141•2] Sec Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 177.
[ 142•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Four, p. 9.
[ 142•2] Liu Shao-chi, On the Party (in Chinese), Peking, 1953, p. 27.
[ 143•1] See Mori Nobushige, Criticism of Mao Use-lungs Works "On Practice" and
"On Contradiction" (in Japanese), Tokyo, 1965.
[ 144•1] Mori Nobushige, op. cit.
< >
<< [introduction.] Mao's Oversimplified Approach to >>

Theory

THE BASIC LAW OF
DIALECTICS
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/5.1-Practice-
Relationship.Between.Theory.and.Practice
1,779titles in [
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 5.2-Maos.Oversimplified.Approach.to.Theory
MAP

>>>
<< • >> Mao’s Oversimplified Approach to Theory 144

<•>
Mao Tse-tung and his supporters treat the relationship between theory and practice p
TOC in oversimplified, mechanistic terms. We have already cited Mao’s statement that
Card theory is derived from practical experience, and that the more the practical
experience one has the more theories there will be, and the richer theoretical activity
will become. Mao is thereby implying that philosophy and dialectics are extremely
Text easy sciences that anybody can master, even an illiterate person, provided he has
HTML
experience of production and class struggle.
PS
PDF
This Maoist approach has been reflected in the policy of "the masses study p
philosophy" and "letting philosophy out of the scholar’s study”. The apparent
T*
democratic nature of these slogans conceals unparalleled profanation and debasement
19*
of theory, and of the Party’s task, as the vanguard of the working class, of bringing
### theory to the masses. [ 144•2
The slogan "the masses study theory, the masses develop theory" is in fact simply a p
screen used to conceal an attempt to lead the Party away from real study of Marxist-
Leninist theory and the experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, 145
and limit the Party cadres to the study of everyday experience, thereby producing a
slide towards creeping empiricism.
Consider the following. "Practical struggle is the best school, and participation in p
practical struggle is the best training, since ability to wage the struggle can only be
acquired by participation in it.... At first we had no experience of carrying out
democratic and social revolution, but by persistent practical study we acquired
knowledge and mastery of the objective laws of democratic and social revolution and
learned to carry out the revolution. In the same way, if we wish to properly master
knowledge and skill in socialist construction we must practice socialist construction
and thereby learn it in practice. Only in practicing building can we learn to
build.” [ 145•1
Here we have clear evidence of the Maoist refusal to take note of the experience p
acquired by other parties in socialist construction, and their insistence on the theory
of “self-reliance”. The statement that the CPC "by persistent practical study (i.e.,
study of Chinese practice.—M.A., V.G.) acquired knowledge and mastery of the
objective laws of democratic and social revolution" reveals a complete disregard for
the vast experience of the world revolutionary movement.
The author completely rejects the experience of former revolutions and international p
revolutionary experience. One is reminded of Lenin’s thesis that in order to become
a Communist one must first enrich one’s mind with knowledge of all the wealth
mankind has accumulated, a thesis that became one of the basic tenets of Marxism-
Leninism. This thesis is quite incompatible with the Maoist endeavours to present
their narrow empiricism as the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism and impose it
upon the world revolutionary movement.
It must be said that there were elements in the Chinese Communist Party in the late p
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/5.2-Maos.Oversimplified.Approach.to.Theory[2013-03-30 오전 11:46:12]
fifties and early sixties who had the courage to speak out, either openly or indirectly,
against the disregard for Marxism-Leninism and the previous accomplishments of
Marxist theory, and against the primitive half-baked theories to which the label 146
"contemporary Marxism" was attached. Peng Teh-huai, member of the Politburo of
the CPC and Minister of Defence until 1959, was reported in a Hungweiping
newspaper as having described "the thoughts of Mao" as follows: "They are outdated
and useless. We take the ideas of Chairman Mao and are guided by them in all we
do, and we study all his works. And yet these books are becoming outdated and
useless.
“Conditions are different now. These things are absolutely useless. At best, we can p
use them for references. But by saying that ’the East is red’ and that Mao Tse-tung
is the great saviour of the people we are only encouraging idealism.” Liu Shao-chi
declared in a speech to Party workers in 1962: "To say that the thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung are the peak of Marxism-Leninism is not a scientific approach. Surely
Marxist-Leninist teaching is not going to cease developing?”
Ho Ying-chu, an outstanding Chinese philosopher and historian, wrote in 1963: p

"Some comrades believe that theory is born out of practice and that if they engage in
much practical activity they can rest assured that there will be much practical
experience and theory will develop as a matter of course. They have failed to make
it clear that while theory is undoubtedly born out of practice, it does not equal
practice. Unless all questions of the practical implementation of the revolution and
other important questions are subjected to thorough analysis and raised to the level
of theory, and if limited experience is mistakenly regarded as embodying general
truths, then empirical mistakes will inevitably be committed." [ 146•1
Ho Ying-chu went on to call for the adoption in China of a policy of socialist p

construction based on generalisation of Chinese practice, Marxist-Leninist principles
and the study of the experience of socialist construction in the fraternal countries.
The same tendency was expressed in Liu Shaochi’s appeal in "On the Self-
cultivation of Communist Party Members" "to be faithful pupils of Marx and Lenin”.
It must be remembered that these declarations were made at the time when the
Chinese Communists were pondering over the catastrophic results of Mao’s "three
banners" policy, and trying to assess their country’s future prospects. During the 147
bacchanalia of the "cultural revolution" Peng Teh-huai and Ho Ying-chu came under
fire from the Hungweipings and were included in the "Black Gang" as opponents of
"the thoughts of Mao”. At the so-called Twelfth Plenary Meeting, in flagrant
violation of the Rules of the CPC and the Constitution of the Chinese People’s
Republic, Liu Shao-chi, Chairman of the Chinese People’s Republic, was "expelled
forever from the CPC and removed from all posts inside and outside the
Party". [ 147•1
An oversimplified, empirical approach to theory such as we have been referring to p

is thus clearly detrimental to the Party’s role as theoretical vanguard of the working
class. The founders of Marxism-Leninism, while pointing out that theory develops
from the generalisation of practice, stressed that theory is a special sphere of science,
the development of which required a certain level of knowledge and mental
preparation.
Lenin pointed out that by itself the working class was only capable of developing p
an awareness of its immediate economic requirements, which does not necessarily
mean rejection of the capitalist system or bring to light the inner causes of the
development of capital and exploitation of the working people, let alone determine
the path to be taken in struggle for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a
new, socialist order.
Mao, on the other hand, claims that the masses are capable of understanding the p
essence of imperialism and exploitation, and the Party must simply "draw from the
masses and take to the masses”. Here is what he writes in "On Practice": "Similarly
with the Chinese people’s knowledge of imperialism. The first stage was one of
superficial, perceptual knowledge, as shown in the indiscriminate anti-foreign struggle
of the Movement of the T’ai P’ing Heavenly Kingdom, the Boxer Movement; etc. It
was only in the second stage that the Chinese people arrived at rational knowledge,
when they saw the internal and external contradictions of imperialism, as well as the
essence of the oppression and exploitation of China’s broad masses by imperialism in
alliance with China’s compradors and feudal class; such knowledge began only about 148
the time of the May 4 Movement of 1919.” [ 148•1
The reader who is unaware of the real content of Mao’s views and his attitude to
the masses might well be left with the impression that Mao has an extremely high
opinion of the abilities of the Chinese people. In actual fact the above assertion
really serves the opposite purpose, that of preventing the Party from arming the
Chinese working people with the Leninist views of imperialism.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 144•2] Mao Tse-tung and his group use this theory in an attempt to avoid
responsibility for the fact that the CPG has done practically nothing at all since the
forties to connect the Chinese working-class movement with scientific communism.
The efforts of the communist internationalists to propagate Marxism-Leninism were
obstructed by the powerful machinery working to impose the "thoughts of Mao" on
Party members. Although the decisions of the Eighth Congress (1956) helped check
the advance of Maoism, they were unable to put an end to the chauvinism which
had been corrupting the Party for years. It is hardly surprising that the decisions of
the Eighth Congress were to all intents and purposes revised only a year later,
although the Maoists were unable at that time to crush the opposition of healthy
elements. Ten years of fierce struggle, including the notorious "cultural revolution"
were necessary before "Mao Tsetung’s Thought" could once more be declared the
official basis of the Party’s ideology at the gathering called the "Ninth Congress”.
[ 145•1] Wu Tseng-yi, "To Raise the Political Level”, Feng-tou, 1962, No. 3.
[ 146•1] Hsin-hua jih-pao, Nanking, February 13, 1963 (emphasis added.— M.A.
V.G.).
[ 147•1] "Communique of the Twelfth (Enlarged) Plenum of the CPC Central

Committee”, Jen-tnin jih-pao, October 31, 1968.
< >
<< Practice and the Relationship Mao's ``Discoveries'' in the Theory >>
Between Theory and Practice of Knowledge

THE BASIC LAW OF
DIALECTICS
Maos.Oversimplified.Approach.to.Theory
1,779 titles in [ en/TAZ ]
leninistbiz
online
@LBiz: en/sitemap
More
Pages:
Sitemap @AT LENINIST
Distributing free eBooks about: Workers of All Countries, (DOT) BIZ
<<<
• Unite!
>>> from books printed during the 20th Century.
<< • >>
<•> Titles (TAZ) The short version: practical.
FAQ
1,700+ The long version.
Why?
By Title: T*
Contents We exchange hyperlinks.
Links
A BCD EFG
H I J K LM N To: webmaster @...
Email
Index O PQ RSTU
Card Donations
V W X Y Z
• Send us an
Formats: By Author: A* email. We
Text A BCD EFG correspond with
PS H I J K LM N each donor
PDF O PQ RSTU individually due
V W X Y Z to low donation
levels.
Other Text index.txt is a model of
Each
Titles: the original book using ASCII X
News
T* plain text. Content-Management System (CMS)
Years: HTML
Webpages are chunked from This website is
19* ASCII text models (see auto-generated
CMS→). from Emacs Lisp
scripts.
### PostScript
Portable Document Format “Your website is a mess!”
MAP Please click & Are you using a
read.... any ideas recent browser
on how to do it? that supports
CSS2?
More...
Project Gutenburg
xyz
Google Books
xyz
http://leninist.biz/en/sitemap
leninistbiz 1,800 • titles in [ en/TAZ ]
Created : 2011 August 06 • Refreshed : 11:46:15 288 • eBooks currently online
leninistbiz FREE electronic books ... @Leninist(dot)Biz leninistbiz
http://www.leninist.biz/en/sitemap[2013-03-30 오전 11:46:19]
@LBiz: en/sitemap
http://www.leninist.biz/en/sitemap[2013-03-30 오전 11:46:19]
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: Card
MAP

>>>
<< • >> TITLE: The Philosophical Views of Mao Tse-Tung: A Critical Analysis
<•> TRANSLATOR(S): ?
UNCLASSIFIED: Altaisky, M. and Georgiyev, V.
TOC PUBLISHER: Progress Publishers
Card First printing 1971
COPYRIGHT:
Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Text BINDING TYPE: book
HTML
PS ALL: > CLICK HERE <
PDF
***
T*
19*
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/index.card
### leninistbiz 1,779 titles in [ en/TAZ ]
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/index.card[2013-03-30 오전 11:46:25]
Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/20080525/099.tx"
Emacs-Time-stamp: "2010-01-22 10:21:51"
__EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz
__OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.05.25)
__WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom
__FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+
__ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+
[BEGIN]
 M.Altaisky, V.Georgiyev
__TITLE__
THE
 PHILOSOPHICAL
VIEWS
 OF
MAOTSE-TUNG
__TEXTFILE_BORN__ 2008-05-25T13:48:27-0700
__TRANSMARKUP__ "Y. Sverdlov"
__SUBTITLE__
A Critical Analysis
 PROGRESS PUBLISHERS

MOSCOW
[1]
 Translated from the Russian by BRYAN BEAN


 Designed by M. SHEVTSOV
 M. AJITAHCKHH, B. rEOPFHEB
 KPHTHKA d>HJlOCO3>CKHX

MAO U33-fl.VHA
 Ha
__COPYRIGHT__
First printing 1971
 Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/index.txt[2013-03-30 오전 11:46:40]
[2]
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction. The Maoist Mystique...........

5
Chapter I. The Social and Ideological Origins of Mao Tsc-tung's
Outlook...................
29
Chapter II. On Marxist Phraseology in the Works of Mao Tse-tung

54
Chapter III. The Idealist Essence of Maoist Philosophy.
Subjective Idealism Instead of the Materialist View of History

66
The Idealist Answer to the Basic Question of Philosophy . .

79
Chapter IV. Eclecticism Posing as Dialectics.
Mao Tse-tung's Distortion of the Basic Law of Dialectics . .

92
The Theory of Balance in Lieu of Materialist Dialectics . .

109
Antagonism in Lieu of Contradiction.........

113
Chapter V. Marxist-Leninist Epistemology and Maoist ``Leaps'' in
Theory of Knowledge..............
131
Practice and the Relationship Between Theory and Practice .

135
Mao's -Oversimplified Approach to Theory........

144
Mao's ``Discoveries'' in the Theory of Knowledge ....

148
The Epistemology of Dialectical Materialism and the
Empiricism and Subjectivism of Mao Tse-tung......
154
Conclusion....................
159
[3]
[4]
__NUMERIC_LVL1__
INTRODUCTION
__ALPHA_LVL1__
THE MAOIST MYSTIQUE
 The twentieth century is characterised by the great

achievements of the Soviet Union and other socialist
countries in the revolutionary transformation of society, and
tremendous advances in science, the taming of nature and
the conquest of space. Nevertheless, even in this day and
age, myths and mystiques can and do make their appearance
for various reasons in social life, science and ideology.
 One of the most baffling mystiques of our time is

undoubtedly the cult of the Mao Tse-tung personality and Maoism.
Just as in the Middle Ages philosophy was placed in the
service of theology, so in present-day China philosophy, as
part of "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung'', is made to serve
the cult of Mao Tse-tung and the military-bureaucratic
dictatorship he has established. Although this is a relatively
recent development, Mao Tse-tung has long regarded ``
philosophy'' as a means of justifying and providing a
theoretical basis for various forms of ``practice''.
 One of the principal dangers of the Maoist mystique for

the cause of socialism is the fact that the Maoist
pseudophilosophy employs Marxist-Leninist terminology and even
claims to be "The Peak of Marxism-Leninism''. Maoism's
masquerade as Marxist philosophy is facilitated by the fact
that it emerged as an independent ideological current out
of Marxist practice living as a parasite off the complex
theoretical, social, and political problems faced by a Marxist
party in the very special conditions that obtained in China.
 By parading in Marxist disguise, Maoist philosophy

disorientates and ideologically disarms the masses in China
and those revolutionaries in other countries who are not
well versed in revolutionary theory and attempt to study
the experience of the Chinese revolution without having

first mastered the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism.
 Maoism not only discredits Marxist philosophy,
presenting it in a highly primitive, grotesque form, but temporarily
hinders wide sections of the working masses in China and
other countries from understanding genuine international
Marxist-Leninist doctrine and its philosophy.
 Although eclectic in its composition and founded on

subjective-idealist principles, Maoist philosophy holds up a
screen of militant materialism and wages a fierce struggle
against Marxist philosophy, declaring it to be ``revisionist'',
``metaphysical'' and so on.
 Mao's followers present his philosophy as "contemporary

Marxism-Leninism''. Mao's most loyal comrade-in-arms and
disciple Lin Piao appraises Mao's ``contribution'' to
Marxist-Leninist theory as follows: "Comrade Mao Tse-tung is
the greatest Marxist-Leninist of our time. Brilliantly,
creatively and all-embracingly, he has inherited, upheld and
developed Marxism-Leninism, and raised it to a new stage.''
 So much for Mao Tse-tung's ``contribution''. Let us now

take a look at what Lin Piao has to say of Maoism, dubbed
"the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. "The thoughts of Mao
Tsetung are the Marxism-Leninism of the age of the universal
collapse of imperialism and the triumph of socialism
throughout the world.'' Further on we would learn many more
curious things about the fabrication of myths in our time.
According to Lin Piao, the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are
"a powerful ideological weapon against imperialism,
revisionism, and dogmatism'', and "serve the whole Party, the
whole of the army and the whole country as a guideline in
any work".^^1^^
 The above statements by Lin Piao express in a frank,

peremptory manner the claims of the Maoists to hegemony
and their intention to continue masquerading as Marxists.
If we are to believe the Peking publishers (which is
unfortunately not always possible, even as regards the dating of
Mao Tse-tung's works, as we shall see later), these lines
were written by Lin Piao on December 16, 1966.
 However, we should be greatly overestimating the

modesty of Mao Tse-tung and his supporters if we assumed
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Quotations from Mao Tse-tung'i Works (in Russian), Peking,

1966, p 1.
that such statements only began to appear in December

1966. Indeed, if this were the case, Lin Piao might well
have found himself under heavy fire during the "cultural
revolution" and shared the fate of those honest Chinese
Communists who were slandered, included in the "black
gang'', and submitted to various forms of repressions up to
and including physical annihilation.
 The fact is that in his introduction to the Quotations from

Chairman Mao published by the General Political
Department of the People's Liberation Army on the instance and
with the active participation of Lin Piao himself, he was
merely repeating statements he had made at an enlarged
meeting of the Military Committee of the Central Committee
of the Chinese Communist Party in November and
December 1960. However, they were only made public as the
words of Lin Piao in 1966, on the eve of the "cultural
revolution''.
 There are important reasons for the long interval

between the time this formula was `ìnvented'' (1960) and its
publication signed not by some obscure author of a history
book or article but by Lin Piao himself.
 The main reason is that the ambitious strivings of Mao

Tse-tung to definitively substitute an eclectic hotch-potch
called "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" for genuine
Marxism-Leninism met with stiff resistance within the Chinese
Communist Party, not to mention the fact that the Maoist
claims to hegemony were rejected outright by the fraternal
parties and the communist movement as a whole. Even the
Albanian leaders, although eulogising Mao and harping on
the significance of his ``contribution'' to Marxism-Leninism,
refrain in their official statements from declaring "the
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" "contemporary Marxism--
Leninism of the highest level''.
 Mao's pretentious claims to be "the greatest Marxist--

Leninist of the age" have also caused acute embarrassment to
several leaders of pro-Maoist renegade groups. Thus, even
such a devoted admirer of the ``greatness'' of Mao Tse-tung
as the Australian E. P. Hill was reported in the press to
have advised the Peking leaders in the spring of 1968 to
curb the zeal of the Hungweipings abroad, since their habit
of thrusting the little red books of quotations and badges of
Mao on people was having the opposite of the desired effect
and making the "great teacher" and his ``disciples'' the

object of general ridicule.
 Although the doubts of his "close allies" abroad sting

the swollen pride of Mao Tse-tung, he is soothed by
longwinded daily reports from the Hsinhua Agency that "95
per cent of the revolutionary peoples of the world love
Chairman Mao" and that there are even tribes living in
the jungles of Africa "willing to go through fire in order
to receive a badge of Chairman Mao''. But the trouble for
the Maoists is that many members of the Chinese
Communist Party, and especially those who took part in the
revolution and are familiar with Marxism, have grave doubts
about the views and actions of Mao Tse-tung. During the
"cultural revolution" it became known that many leading
Party officials were, as Chiang Ching^^1^^ put it, "fiercely
opposing the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''.
 In 1967, the Group for Cultural Revolution Affairs

(Chen Po-ta, Chiang Ching, Kang Cheng) gave the
Hungweipings access to the Central Committee Archives, and
statements against "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" made by
Liu Shao-chi, Chu Teh, Teng Hsiao-p'ing, Peng Teh-huai,
Chen Yun, Ho Lung, Tan Chen-lin and many others were
collected from the minutes and shorthand records of the
proceedings of the rarely called plenums of the Central
Committee of the CPC, meetings of the Politburo and
various closed working meetings held by the Secretariat of
the Central Committee.
 In February, 1967, a book was published in Peking by

the Hungweipings entitled "A Hundred Statements of Liu
Shao-chi Against the Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. Its
contents were reprinted in numerous Hungweiping and
Tsaofan publications that circulated semi-officially, and also by
a number of special magazines published by official
bodies, such as Nun-ye chi-chi (Agricultural Machinery).
Similar collections of "statements against the thoughts
of Mao Tse-tung" by many other prominent Party
officials were prepared and published in Peking during 1967
and 1968.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Chiang Ching, Mao's fourth wife. A film actress in the thirties;
from 1966, during the "cultural revolution'', she rose to a prominent
position in the Peking hierarchy, and together with Kang Cheng occupied
the most extreme Maoist positions.
 In order to give the reader some idea of the contents of

this work and the fine language in which it is couched, we
have thought it worthwhile quoting a few passages in full.
We ask the reader to bear with us, in the belief that his
patience will be rewarded with a fuller understanding of
the essence of the Maoist mystique and its clear departure
from Marxism-Leninism.
 The first short passage comes from the compilers'

preface. "The reactionary revisionist statements of Liu
Shaochi are directly opposed to the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.
In order to show the revisionist snout of Liu Shao-chi we
have chosen a hundred examples from among the
revisionist statements of Liu Shao-chi.''
 The part entitled "Liu Shao-chi Belittles the Great

Significance of the Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" contains such
``criminal'', "black revisionist statements" as the following.
"Marxism is essentially the richest teaching in the whole
history of the world; any major problems of principle can
be solved with its aid." "Many problems were solved long
ago by Lenin, but as we had not read Two Tactics^^1^^ the
triumph of the Chinese revolution was held up for twenty
years. If the whole Party had studied Two Tactics in the
twenties it would have been possible to prevent the defeat
of the revolution in 1927.''
 In 1962, Liu Shao-chi had published an edited version

of his book On the Self-cultivation of Communist Parly
Members, written by him in 1939 in Yenan, and essentially
directed against Lin Piao's appraisal of Mao's ``
contribution'' and the significance of his `ìdeas''. The book contains
a part entitled "Being Worthy Disciples of Marx and
Engels''. These words absolutely infuriated the Maoists, who
screamed: "Did not the closest comrade-in-arms Lin Piao
say: Chairman Mao is far higher than Marx, Engels, Lenin
and Stalin. There is nobody in the world now who could
compare with Chairman Mao and surpass him.''
 The following statement by Liu Shao-chi in his hitherto

unpublished "Reply to Sung Liang" threw the Hungweipings
and the Maoists into even greater rage, since they regard it
as casting doubt on the theoretical significance of the works
of Mao Tse-tung.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Liu Shao-chi is referring to Lenin's Two Tactics of Social--

Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.
 ``The Communist Party of China has .. . one great

weakness. This weakness consists in the fact that with regard to
ideology and in the sphere of theoretical education the
Party "is insufficiently prepared and relatively immature....
So far no great, works have appeared, and in this respect
our Party still has a tremendous task ahead of it.''^^1^^
 In 1964, at the height of the campaign for the study of

"the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung'', a campaign launched on
the instance of Mao himself and Lin Piao, Liu Shao-chi
declared in a letter: "There are many people in the Party
now who are making a dogma of the thoughts of Mao
Tsetung.''
 In the aforementioned work of Liu Shao-chi On the
Selfcultivation of Communist Party Members the Maoists
discovered the following highly seditious passage, which was
apparently directed against the cult of the personality of
Mao Tse-tung. According to the collection, he ''. ..
imagined himself the Chinese Marx and the Chinese Lenin and
considered himself to be Marx and Lenin in the Party.
Moreover, he had no scruples about demanding that the
members of our Party accord him the same respect as Marx
and Lenin, support him as the `leader' and nourish loyalty
and love for him.... But can we say with complete
certainty that no other such elements will appear in our
Party? No we cannot yet maintain this.''
 In order to get the facts in their true historical

perspective, we must say a few words about the role of Liu
Shaochi in the creation of the Mao personality cult and the
propagation of "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. Liu
Shao-chi admitted this himself in a statement made in
1959. "Hitherto I have been creating the cult of personality
of Chairman Mao, but I am no longer doing so.''
 Indeed, until the late forties Liu Shao-chi took an active
part in the creation of the cult of personality of Mao
Tsetung and exalted his ideas. It was he who at the CPC's
Seventh Congress in 1945 defended and justified Mao's
thesis of the sinification of Marxism. However, it must be
said that under the influence of the Twentieth Congress of
the CPSU and the struggle between two trends within the
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ The cuts were made by the compilers. The emphasis was added by
the present authors.---M.A., U.G.
10
CPC leadership---the internationalist and the nationalist---he

was among the many prominent Party officials who proposed
at the Eighth Congress that the formula "the thoughts of
Mao Tse-tung are the guiding ideology of the CPC" be
changed. The final text read: "The Communist Party of
China is guided in all its activities by Marxism-Leninism.''
 In the course of the notorious "cultural revolution'', Mao

Tse-tung hypocritically dubbed Liu Shao-chi's work ``
revisionist''. Naturally it was not really a question of
revisionism, but simply that the article set forth Lenin's basic ideas
on ideological and organisational work to build up a
Marxist party.
 An edited version of the pamphlet defended the decisions

of the Eighth Congress of the CPC on questions of building
up the Party. It stressed the importance of ideological
training of Party members in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism,
and refusal to tolerate nationalism, chauvinism and cult of
personality, explained the need for the Party to adhere to
a proletarian class policy and observe the principles of
internal Party democracy, the need for international solidarity
with the fraternal parties, and pointed out the international
significance of the experience of the Soviet Union and the
other socialist countries.
 It was these propositions and not the references to

Confucius and Mencius---whom Mao himself is far more apt
to quote than Liu Shao-chi---that so upset the Maoists.
 The point was that the dissemination of these principles

by Liu Shao-chi was creating an obstacle to the attempts
of Mao and company to transform the Party into an
instrument of the absolutist military dictatorship of Mao
Tsetung.
 Many other leading Party members criticised Mao's views

to some extent, either openly or in a veiled manner. Peng
Teh-huai referred to "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" as
primitive and metaphysical. The famous Chinese Marxist
philosopher Yang San-chen criticised Mao's philosophical
works for their vulgar approach to materialism and "Machist
subjectivism''. Several senior Party officials remarked that
Mao's speeches were full of ``truisms'' and ``verbiage''.
 It is worth remembering in this connection that in the

twenties and thirties Mao had been criticised by Chu
Chiupo, Wang Ming, Po Gu and others for "not understanding
11
Marxism'', the "narrow empiricism" of his views, and his

"inclination for military adventurism'', and so on.
 In 1961, the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central

Committee reported on the results of the propaganda
campaign that had been launched on orders from Mao himself
and on the suggestion of Lin Piao following the appearance
of Volume Four of Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung in
September 1960. As against Lin Piao's claim that "the
campaign for the study of the ideas of Mao Tse-tung had armed
the workers, peasants and soldiers with a spiritual atom
bomb'', the Propaganda Department concluded that the
campaign was nothing more than `òversimplification'' and
``vulgarisation'' and "typical pragmatism''.
 In response to Mao's demands that his ``thoughts'' should

be made the basis of theoretical instruction for all Party
cadres, and the works of Marx and Lenin be relegated to
the role of illustrating and supplementing them, a senior
Party official commented: "If in the study of theory we are
to take the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung as the basis and study
Marx's Capital, how can we speak of the thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung as the basis? And did not Lenin say everything
there was to say about imperialism, and are any additions
necessary? There is no comparing the thoughts of Mao
Tsetung with Marxism-Leninism.''
 Hungweiping publications reported that the famous

Chinese revolutionary Yang Shan-kun, once a candidate for
election to the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee,
also protested against the forced propagation of "the
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. During an inspection of the
way Party work was being carried on in the province of
Shansi, Yang Shan-kun met with cases of illiterate or
semiliterate people being forced to learn "the thoughts of Mao''.
"This drew a burst of indignation from Yang Shan-kun,''
the Hungweipings wrote. "He made the slanderous claim
that the study of the works of Chairman Mao was an
instance of 'social coercion', `formalism', Vulgarisation', '
profanation'. . . . He declared: 'I do not believe that one can solve
a question by reading some work by Chairman Mao.'"
Further on they write: "He even went as far as to say that
'the theoretical level is not high' in the Chairman's works,
and that they are only to be studied 'to widen one's outlook
and for gaining a very general picture'.'' In conclusion the
12
Hungweipings quote the following scathingly ironic words

of Yang Shan-kun. "Here a triumph of the thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung, there a triumph of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.
If someone wins at table tennis it is hailed as a triumph of
his thoughts. But what if they lose?''
 However, the opposition of the more sober-minded

members of the CPC to the efforts to substitute the notorious
"thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" for real Marxism-Leninism
merely caused the Maoists to adopt more roundabout tactics
and proceed with the propagation of Maoism via the already
purged army apparatus, by-passing the Central Committee.
 Mao and his followers embarked on an unprecedented

campaign and the cultivation of Mao and his thoughts
assumed the scale of a nation-wide psychosis. One myth
automatically gave birth to another, as this is the only way a
myth can survive. The result was a whole string of myths
based on gross distortion of the history of the CPC, the
Chinese revolution and the spread of Marxist-Leninist ideas
in China. As we have seen, these fabrications centre round
the myth of Mao Tse-tung as the "great leader'', founder of
the CPC, father of "Chinese communism'', and even the
claim that he has created an integrated philosophical system.
 The serious opinions of Chinese Communists, even those
that were not directed against "the thoughts of Mao" as
such, but merely intended to keep the glorification of
Maoism within the bounds of reason, were ignored. As if in
deliberate defiance, the Maoists began to connect everything
under the sun with the "triumph of the thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung'', from the sale of water melons to improvements
in hairdressing, from surgical operations to the operations
of the night soil department. A deliberate movement was
under way to deify Mao and give his ``thoughts'' the status
of a Holy Writ. Maoism was gradually becoming a kind of
religion.
 The aim was to mesmerise a nation of seven hundred

million souls with the "thoughts of Mao" and turn them all into
unthinking robots, "obedient buffaloes'', "stainless screws'',
in contrast to Marxism-Leninism, where the aim is to
develop the creative abilities of the people as a whole and of
every individual, giving him a creative role in shaping his
own destiny, and making him responsible for the cause of
the whole people and the whole Party.
13
 The official Chinese historiographers assert that throughout

the history of the Communist Party of China Mao Tse-tung
adhered to the singularly true, Marxist views, while all the
other Party leaders made either Right- or ``Left''--
opportunistic mistakes. To prove the fact that he was a "faultless
wiseacre'', they falsify many of the facts from the history
of the CPC. Moreover, they ascribe many of Mao's mistakes
to other Party leaders, including Chu Chiu-po, Wang Ming
and Liu Shao-chi.^^1^^
 Before we examine Maoist "philosophical doctrine'', two

more aspects of the Maoist mystique must be exposed for
what they really are: "sinified Marxism" and the
philosophical works of Mao Tse-tung.
 Mao Tse-tung and his group regard the creation of an

aureole around Mao (the "greatest Marxist-Leninist of our
age'') and the glorification of his so-called ``thoughts'' (``
living Marxism-Leninism of the contemporary age'') as a major
condition for the establishment of Chinese political
hegemony in the world. The Peking leaders' hegemonic
ambitions are patently evident. At a meeting in honour of Lu
Hsin, a representative of the Hungweipings declared: "We
young red soldiers of Chairman Mao.. .will make the sky
Mao Tse-tung's sky, the earth Mao Tse-tung's earth, and
man a man armed with the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung. We
shall hoist over the whole world the great red banner of
the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.''
 Let us pause here for a moment to glance back at the
earlier development of the "thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. If
we turn to the history of the CPC and examine Mao's past
activities, we can immediately see how at every stage of his
political career, even back in the days when he was actually
making an effort to study Marxism-Leninism, Mao
Tsetung had an extremely poor, one-sided grasp of the doctrine.
It was not simply that he lacked a proper academic
knowledge of all the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism;
more important was the fact that his petty-bourgeois
background made him perceive the proletarian doctrine through
the prism of Confucianism, nationalism and Sinocentrism.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ The same trend is to be seen in joint articles published by Hungchih,

Jen-min jih-pao, and Jiefangjun pao and devoted to the centennial of
the Paris Commune and the 50th anniversary of the Communist Party
of China celebrated in March and June 1971.
14
 In a speech made at the Ninth Congress of the CPC, Lin

Piao declared that for fifty years (i.e. from 1919) Mao
Tsetung had united the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism
with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. In the
light of available historical facts, however, Lin Piao's claim
proves to be totally unfounded. In his very earliest works
Mao Tse-tung was already expounding non-Marxist ideas.
Thus, in A Study of Physical Education, his first work,
written in 1917 at the age of twenty-four, he regards the
physical fitness of the nation as a means of achieving the
national rebirth of China. In his second work, the article
"The Great Union of the Popular Masses" (1919), we find
no reference to the idea ol working-class leadership in the
revolution and no mention at all of the dictatorship of the
proletariat.
 Mao's weak grasp of Marxism, his primitive, vulgarised,

and distorted understanding of Marxist theory is
particularly in evidence in his political writings of 1926 to 1930. In
his articles of this period Mao divided society into classes
according to the income of the various groups of the
population. He drew no distinction whatsoever between China's
backward, semi-feudal society and a developed bourgeois
society. In his article "Analysis of All the Classes in Chinese
Society" (1926)^^1^^ he divided Chinese society into five classes:
big capitalists, the middle capitalists, small capitalists,
semiproletariat and proletariat. Militarist feudal lords,
landowners, state bureaucrats and others were all lumped together as
big capitalists. According to Mao's reckoning there were
over 155 million capitalists in China! The semi-proletariat
class, who according to Mao numbered over 200 million,
included semi-independent farmers, tenant farmers, the very
poor peasantry, artisans, petty traders and others.
 This analysis of the class structure of Chinese society
shows that Mao really adopts a petty-bourgeois Leftist
standpoint, but includes the petty-bourgeois layers in the
proletariat or semi-proletariat in order to hide the fact and make
his views appear to be proletarian. Mao's analysis of the
Chinese proletariat is very telling in this connection. He
exaggerated their number by more than twenty times,
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Our references to this article are to the original version and not
the one that was specially written in the fifties for inclusion in Selected
Works.
15
naming the figure of 45 million, at a time when they could hardly

have numbered two million at the outside.
 In the same article Mao expresses his opinion on the major
forces of revolution in China. Mao holds that the poorest
class is the most revolutionary. He thus considered the petty
traders to be the main revolutionary force at the time of
writing, followed by the students, urban petty-bourgeois
layers, and only then the workers.
 Progressively distorting Marxism-Leninism, Mao

Tsetung came to regard the peasantry as the most revolutionary
class, the class which should take power in the course of
the revolution. After the Chinese labour movement had
been crushed in the thirties, Mao Tse-tung completely
ignored the working class as the leading revolutionary force.
 In 1939 and 1940 Mao published "The Chinese revolution

and the Communist Party of China" and "On New
Democracy" in which he grossly distorted the principles of
proletarian internationalism. In these works Mao reviews the
Marxist doctrine of the leading role of the working class
with reference to the Chinese revolution, paving the way
for revision of a basic tenet of Marxism, that concerning the
universal-historical mission of the working class. Starting
with the idea that the peasants are "the main force in the
Chinese revolution" Mao concludes that the main support
for the revolution would be found in the countryside and
that the correct revolutionary strategy was the encirclement
of the towns from the countryside.^^1^^
 Mao persisted in this one-sided view, declaring that

"... the Chinese revolution is virtually the peasants'
revolution. . .''^^2^^, and "new-democratic politics is virtually the
granting of power to the peasants".^^3^^
 As soon as he assumed leadership of the Party in 1935,
Mao Tse-tung set out to replace Marxism-Leninism with a
kind of "sinined Marxism'', and later Maoism. Indeed, Mao
put forward his idea for the sinification of Marxism as early
as 1938, at the Plenum of the Party Central Committee.
During the `rectification' movement for the ideological
remoulding of the Chinese Communist Party, the substitution
of Maoism for Marxism-Leninism became more or less
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Selected Works, Volume Three, p. 85.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 137.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 138.
16
official policy. In April, 1945, at the Seventh Plenum of the

Central Committee, a falsified version of the history of the
Chinese Communist Party was approved which in direct
violation of historical fact presented Mao as the founder of
the Party and associated all its victories with his name.
 At the Seventh Plenum nationalistic elements gained the

upper hand. The "thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" were declared
to be "the Party's guiding ideology'', and Mao made his
first bid to become the ideological mentor of revolutionaries
throughout Asia. In 1949, Mao gave the order for Maoism
to be propagated everywhere, and made the far from modest
claim that "five to seven years after the triumph of the
Chinese revolution everyone will accept Maoism, even the
Russians''.
 Substituting his own theories for true Marxism-Leninism,

theories that represented, on the one hand, petty-bourgeois
illusions about socialism, the "guerrilla habit'', populism and
neo-Trotskyism and, on the other hand, a reiteration of a
few general Marxist theses, Mao Tse-tung posed as a
militant opponent of doctrinairism and subjectivism and
champion of the purity of Marxist-Leninist doctrine.
 In point of fact, however, Mao was already rejecting

Leninism. In this period (1938--1945) a marked revision of
Marxism-Leninism was evident in his statements, expressed
in his refusal to recognise the leading role of the proletariat
in the revolution and exaggeration of the revolutionary
nature of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. This was
accompanied by a growing tendency to maximise the
national features of the Chinese revolution, and contrast it with
the Russian Revolution of 1917. At the Plenum held in
March 1949, Mao declared: "Leninism is useless for China.
China will follow the road of Maoism and not Leninism.''
 In the early years of the Chinese People's Republic the
propagation of the "thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" was checked
by internationalist opposition in the Party. At the Eighth
Congress of the CPC, a directive about the "thoughts of Mao
Tse-tung" was removed from the Party Rules.
 Meanwhile, however, work was in progress to boost Mao's

status as "greatest theoretician" and "leader of the
revolutionary peoples''. At the beginning of the fifties, the 
Selected Works of Mao were published in China. The works
had been carefully pruned for publication, trimmed of all
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__
2---367
17
the most clearly nationalist and anti-Marxist statements.

The publishers even took care to "cover up their tracks''. An
order went out that all newspapers of the Yenan period
containing articles included in the new `èdition'' were to
be withdrawn, and new copies were put out with the
appropriate alterations.
 In order to build up Mao Tse-tung's reputation among

the Chinese people as the "greatest Marxist-Leninist'', the
works of Marx, Engels and Lenin have been to all intents
and purposes proscribed for study by Communists.
 From 1951, the ministers of the cult of Mao have been
doing their utmost to create an image of their leader as a
highly original thinker and philosopher, to represent the
"thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" as the theoretical and
ideological basis underlying the emergence of the CPC and the
entire development of the Chinese revolution. The idea that
Mao was already an accomplished Marxist theoretician and
a "great philosopher" back in the mid-thirties occupies an
important place in this legend. Peking claims that in 1935
Marxism entered the third stage of its development, the
stage of "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''.
 On March 6, 1968, the Hsinhua Agency informed the

world that "Mao Tse-tung is the greatest teacher, the most
outstanding commander-in-chief and the wisest helmsman
of the Chinese people and the revolutionary peoples of the
world''.
 ``Chairman Mao is the greatest genius in the world, to

whom none can compare.... He has brilliantly, creatively
and all-embracingly inherited, defended and developed
Marxism-Leninism, and raised it to the third great level of its
development, to a completely new stage---the stage of the
Thought of Mao Tse-tung. And the world has entered a
new revolutionary age, whose great banner is provided by
the Thought of Mao Tse-tung.''
 Mao's closest follower, the Minister of Defence Lin Piao,

went even further. "A genius like Chairman Mao only
appears once in several centuries in the world and once in
several thousand years in China. He is the greatest genius
of all and in all things.''
 In 'The 'fhrce Great Stages in the History of Marxism,

a collection of material published in Peking after the
Eleventh Plenum of the CPC Central Committee (held in
18
August, I960), the Maoists ``hailed'' the world's entry "into the
new age of the Thought of Mao Tse-tung''. According to this
new Peking version, the history of the development of
Marxism falls into three stages. The first is the Marxist stage
proper, lasting from the appearance of 'The Manifesto of
the Communist Party in 1848 to the ``transformation'' of
Marxism into its opposite, Bernsteinian revisionism, in 1898.
 The second stage, the stage of Marxism-Leninism, begins,

according to the clever calculations of the Peking ``
theoreticians''---with the appearance of Leninism. This period begins
with Lenin's attack on Bernsteinism in 1898, and ends in
1935, the year in which the Maoists claim Marxism--
Leninism began to mark time in the Soviet Union, Mao Tse-tung
became ``leader'' of the CPC] and "the centre of the world
revolution moved from the Soviet Union to China''.
 The third stage began in 1935 and is still with us. In 1935,
taking advantage of the difficult situation that had arisen
in the revolutionary movement in China (schism in the
Central Committee leadership), Mao Tse-tung, with the aid of
loyal army units had the CPC leaders arrested at a meeting
in Tsunyi (January, 1935). According to the Maoists, "the
thoughts of Mao" are "the newest Marxism of the age when
imperialism is heading for complete collapse and socialism
is on the way to victory throughout the world''. It was not
far from this to the announcement at the Ninth Congress of
the CPC (April, 1969) that Mao Tse-tung "has inherited,
upheld and developed Marxism-Leninism, and raised it to
a completely new stage''.
 The aforementioned book categorically affirms that Mao

Tse-tung's articles "On Practice" and "On Contradiction'',
purporting to have been written in 1937, and Mao's later
works "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among
the People" (1957) and "Whence Does a Man Acquire
Correct Ideas?" (1963) "are the most all-embracing, perfect and
systematised of all the works of Marxist-Leninist
philosophy''.
 The above tirade of quotations from the works of the
leaders of the "cultural revolution" indicate an extremely
low cultural level not to mention philosophical ignorance.
But it must be borne in mind that the history of the spread
of Marxism-Leninism in China is not widely known, and
that Maoism, by building a wall round China and isolating
2*
19
the Chinese people ideologically and culturally from the

peoples of the other socialist countries, has filled a spiritual
and ideological vacuum of its own creation. This being so,
however primitive the philosophy of Maoism may seem, and
however absurd its self-evaluation, all these things must be
taken perfectly seriously and confronted with hard facts
that show Maoist conceit to be unfounded and destroy the
thick web of myth and falsehood.
 Let us pause then to consider three questions. First, how

did Mao himself formerly assess the theoretical level of the
CPC? Second, how were Mao Tse-tung's theoretical works
assessed in the CPC, and when did "On Practice" and "On
Contradiction" in fact appear? Third, what relation do the
philosophical exercises of Mao Tse-tung bear to the
philosophical traditions of Marxism?
 For years now, the Peking propaganda machine has been
maintaining that the Chinese revolution developed "under
the guidance of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. The
Revolutionary War Museum in Peking contains exhibits showing
how the soldiers of the Chinese People's Army were
studying "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" as early as 1928. Thus,
it is implied that by the early thirties Mao had already
written works "which contained theoretical generalisations on
the experience of the Chinese revolution''. This claim arouses
serious objections. Insofar as the experience of the
Chinese revolution was generalised at all, it was done by
the Chinese internationalist Communists with considerable
help from the Comintern and the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union. Without trying to belittle the contribution of
the Chinese Communists, it should nevertheless be pointed
out that the most important conclusions are to be found in
the works of Lenin, in the decisions of the Comintern
congresses and ECCI (Executive Committee of the Communist
International) plenums and in the documents of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the years 1926 to
1928. They designate the major forces at work, the character
of the Chinese revolution and the importance of an alliance
between the workers and the peasantry, the problems the
Party faced in applying Marxism-Leninism in a semi--
colonial, semi-feudal, peasant country, such as China was at
that time.
 It was the Comintern and the CPSU that helped the young
20
Chinese Communist Party gain a proper theoretical

understanding of the first stages of the Chinese revolution, and
evolve a suitable strategy and tactics of struggle. The fact
that the Chinese revolution suffered reverses at certain
stages is explained above all by the inexperience of the CPC
leadership in mobilising and uniting the working masses of
town and country, and frequent Left-sectarian and
Rightopportunist mistakes.
 An important contribution to the spread of

MarxismLeninism in China and the study of the peculiarities of the
Chinese revolution was made by such prominent members
of the CPC as Li Ta-chao, Peng Pai, Teng Chung-hsia,
Chu Chiu-po and Ts'ai Ho-shen, but they soon fell victims
to the Kuomintang butchers. Later Mao Tse-tung helped
himself to many ideas from Comintern documents and the
writings of the Chinese internationalists, without
acknowledgement, reinterpreted them to suit himself and presented
them as his own.
 One of the outstanding leaders of the CPC in the thirties,

Wang Ming, who was his Party's representative in the
Comintern and made an important contribution to the
elaboration of strategical and tactical questions for a united front
of the CPC and the Kuomintang, was discredited in the
Party by Mao Tse-tung, who proceeded to ascribe his
services to himself.
 However, even at the beginning of the forties, if we

discount a few works on individual problems, the CPC still had
no important theoretical works of its own on the experience
of the Chinese revolution, no thorough analysis of the social
classes in China or of the trends of the country's economic
and political development. Mao Tse-tung himself admitted
as much in 1942, when he said: "Our practice with its rich
variety still needs to be raised to its proper theoretical level.
We have not yet examined all the problems, or rather the
important ones relating to revolutionary practice, and raised
them to the theoretical plane. Just think, how many of us
have, on China's economics, politics, military affairs or
culture, originated a theory worthy of the name, which can be
considered scientific, comprehensive and not crude or
sketchy?''^^1^^
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Four, p. 30.
21
 Much later, in 1958, Mao Tse-tung again admitted the

low theoretical level of the Party and its cadres, in a speech
at the second session of the Eighth Congress of the CPC.
But the solution Mao and his followers suggested for
raising the theoretical level of the Party, which was to study
(for the umpteenth time!) the same old articles of Mao
Tsetung, not only failed to raise the level of the Party in
Marxist-Leninist theory, but, on the contrary, led theory off along
a false and futile trail.
 If, as Maoist ``historiography'' would have us believe, Mao

Tse-tung had already produced a profound theoretical study
of the problems of the Chinese revolution and the
development of Marxist thought in the thirties, how is it that the
Party cadres after repeated study of the ``profound'' works
of Mao remained on the same low theoretical level and the
theoretical activity of the Party remained as backward as
ever? The answer to that one is no doubt that the Party
leadership, and Mao himself, at one time made a far more
sober appraisal of their activities in the field of theory than
was later the case, and did not consider the mere reciting of
elementary truths of the conventional wisdom to constitute
a contribution to theory. But this was before Mao Tse-tung
began to aspire to the role of "the greatest theoretician of
Marxism-Leninism''.
 The myth of "the greatest theoretician" required the

creation of a whole series of new myths about his works.
Students of the emergence of "the thoughts of Mao
Tsetung" are faced with a remarkable problem considering that
the author is still alive---the problem of the authenticity of
the texts they are dealing with.
 The fact is that the writings of the period 1926 to 1945
included in the first three volumes of the Selected Works of
Mao Tse-tung, published in 1951, had been so altered as to
be sometimes hardly recognisable as the original works.
 There would seem to be nothing wrong in the author of

works that contain weaknesses and mistakes rewriting them
a few decades later when life has brought these
shortcomings to light. Generally speaking, this is indeed perfectly
alright, provided the principle of historicism is strictly
adhered to, provided it is admitted that the original works
contained errors which have been eliminated in the new
edition, and provided the corrections made correspond to
22
changes in the author's views. If, however, the later edition

purports to be the original, we are dealing with falsification
of history, serving to embroider on the true historical events
and exalt Mao Tse-tung as an infallible genius. A study of
the activities of Mao Tse-tung shows that he deliberately
chose a "dual personality''. While retaining his former, on
the whole non-Marxist views, he has allowed his entourage
to create a pro-Marxist hypostasis for his views.
 This falsification enables the Maoists to draw the

conclusion that appeared in the newspaper Jicfangjun pao and
which is repeated day after day in China, namely that "The
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are consistent and have always
been wise, great and correct".^^1^^ It enables the priests of the
Mao personality cult to present him as the "incarnation
of truth''.
 The Chinese propaganda machine is trying to convince

everybody that "... Mao Tse-tung is always, eternally right,
Comrade Mao Tse-tung has taken possession of the truth, he
is the incarnation of truth".^^2^^
 We have already referred to the article "Analysis of All

the Classes in Chinese Society'', which Mao wrote in 1926. The
article with the same title included in Volume One of 
Selected Works bears absolutely no resemblance to it, and is
written in the spirit of popular Marxist literature. A
detailed study of the question of the authenticity of Mao
Tsetung's articles dealing with the history of the Chinese
revolution and guerrilla warfare lies outside the scope of the
present work. Suffice it to say that research into the subject
by specialists has shown that here, too, a tremendous gap
exists between the originals and the versions incorporated
in Selected Works.
 Nevertheless, it is essential that we dwell for a short time

on the question of the authenticity of two articles by Mao
Tse-tung, "On Practice" and "On Contradiction''.
 According to the introduction by the CPC Central

Committee commission for the publication of Selected Works,
"On Practice" was written in July, 1937, and "On
Contradiction" in August of the same year. Of "On Practice" the
foreword states: "This article was written to expose from
_-_-_
~^^1^^ fiefangjiin j»io, November 13, 1903.
 ^^2^^ Hsi Tung, Cohesion mid Unity it] I lie Parly (in Chinese),
Shanghai, 1961, p. 125.
23
the viewpoint of Marxist theory of knowledge such

subjectivist mistakes in the Party as doctrinairism and empiricism,
especially doctrinairism.''^^1^^ A similar claim is made for the
other article. It is also stated that the views developed in
these works were expounded by Mao Tse-tung in lectures
delivered in Yenan.
 Scholarly writings on the history of the Chinese

revolution used to accept the Peking dating. However, the
hypothesis is now being advanced with ever greater insistence
from many quarters that these works belong to a later period
and have simply been back-dated.
 We are dealing with what must have originally been some
extremely raw and immature material for lectures delivered
by Mao Tse-tung at Yenan.
 The following facts suggest that the works did not exist
at that time.
 1. During the campaign for rectifying style of 1941 to

1945, the political aim of which was the physical liquidation
or exclusion from Party work of all internationalist
elements, above all those connected with the Comintern, the
Party was ``re-educated'' on the basis of Mao Tse-tung's
articles. The decision of the Central Committee of the CPC
of July 1, 1941, on the ideological cultivation of Party
cadres and the speeches of Kang Sheng included a long list
of articles by Mao Tse-tung, Kang Sheng and other Party
members which were recommended for study by all
members of the CPC to help overcome ``doctrinairism'' and ``
empiricism''. However, none of these lists include a single
``philosophical'' work by Mao Tse-tung, although the two
articles in question, as we have seen, were especially written
to condemn these ``deviations''.
 2. No mention of these works is to be found in the Yenan

newspaper Jiefang jih-pao.
 3. The articles do not figure in the Selected Works of

Mao Tse-tung published in 1945 and 1947.
 4. Various books on the CPC and Mao Tse-tung were

published in connection with the celebration of the thirtieth
anniversary of the CPC in 1951. The most important of
these were the pamphlets "The Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung
---the Union of Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung-, Selected Works. Volume One, p. 282.
24
Revolution" by Chen Po-ta and "Thirty Years of the Communist

Party of China" by Hu Chiao-mu. Although both authors
give a detailed account of the ideological struggle in the
CPC and do their utmost to exalt Mao Tse-tung as a
theoretician, curiously enough, neither makes any mention of
"the great philosophical works of Mao Tse-tung''.
 It would be wrong, however, to deduce from all this that

Mao Tse-tung did not write any philosophical works at all.
He both wrote and spoke on the subject. But the fact was
that neither he nor his associates took these philosophical
exercises of his at all seriously at the time. Thus, in 1937, Mao
delivered lectures on philosophy at Yenan which were
subsequently published in the Shanghai journal Min-chu in
1940 with the title "Dialectical Materialism''. Later, a fuller
text of these lectures was published without the author's
name by the Ta-chung shu-tien firm in Talien. The year of
publication is not indicated, but it was somewhere between
1945 and 1949.
 It must be said that when Mao delivered his lectures in

Yenan he did not consider his material "The Peak" of
philosophical thought, but on the contrary, had an extremely
modest opinion of them and wrote that their main purpose
was to explain the dialectic in simple terms for Party cadres.
"The dialectic is considered difficult because there are no
good books explaining it,'' he wrote. "Of the many books on
the dialectic we have in China some are erroneous while in
others it is badly or not very well expounded. This makes
people fight shy of the dialectic. A good book should explain
the dialectic in simple language, in terms of reference that
are close and understandable to all. A book of this sort must
definitely appear in the future. This course of lectures of
mine cannot be considered good either, since I myself have
only just begun studying the dialectic and am not capable
of writing a good book.. . .''^^1^^
 Thus, Mao's claims to have made a contribution to the

development of Marxist philosophy are totally unfounded.
Even before we come to analyse the content of Mao
Tsetung's philosophical works, it is clear that the Maoists claim
that a new stage in Marxist philosophy began in 1935 is
purely a myth.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism (in Chinese), Talien, p. 110 (emphasis

added.---M.A., V.G.).
25
 There is one more question we feel should be answered

before we go any further. Readers who have no special
knowledge of China may well be puzzled as to why the
Maoists at the Ninth Congress of the CPC should have rejected
the term Maoism in favour of the unwieldy "Mao Tse-tung's
Thought''.
 In order to form any conclusions about the relation
Maoism bears to Marxism, it is necessary to analyse the social
and ideological roots of Mao's outlook, and examine Mao
Tse-tung's ideological development and emergence as a
``theoretician''.
 The substitution of Maoism for Marxism-Leninism was

actually effected at the Ninth Congress of the CPC, although
the fact was camouflaged with the formula "Marxism--
Leninism-Mao Tse-tung's Thought''. This formula was designed
to present the thoughts of Mao, in the words of Lin Piao, as
"a completely new stage in the development of
MarxismLeninism''. While expressing the interests and ideology of
the petty-bourgeois nationalist trend in the CPC, Mao
Tsetung is forced to reckon with the tremendous authority of
Marxism-Leninism in the revolutionary movement in the
world as a whole and in China in particular. This is why
he is at such pains to make use of the moral, political and
scientific authority of the teaching of Marx, Engels and
Lenin in his own interests.
 On the other hand, Mao is apparently well aware that his
ideological `ìnventions'', which are confined to a relatively
narrow, specific field of politics, philosophy and history, look
very slight when compared to the all-embracing quality of
Marxism-Leninism. Maoism in general suffers from an "
inferiority complex'', which makes Mao himself and his
supporters try to back up all his `ìnventions'' with references
to the classics of Marxism-Leninism.
 Another factor at work here is the Chinese way of

thinking, which has been greatly influenced by Confucianism,
involving an immense respect approaching reverence for
tradition. This Chinese traditionalism means that any
proposition, however novel, must somehow be derived from the
"instructions of the great teacher'', Confucius and his
disciples. In the case of Mao, the great ``source'' has split into
two: he has tried to find support for his ideas in the works
of Confucius and Chinese traditions and at the same time
26
take refuge in quotations from the classics of Marxism--

Leninism.
 This helps explain why the Maoists continue to pose as

Marxist-Leninists after having rejected Marxism-Leninism
for Maoism back in the early sixties.
 Having declared "Mao Tse-tung's Thought" the third

stage in the development of Marxism-Leninism, the Peking
leaders were naturally faced, as the next logical step, with
the task of introducing a new `ìsm''---``Maoism'' or "Mao
Tse-tungism''. This is indeed what the most consistent
Maoists have repeatedly tried to do. Mao himself, however, has
always opposed this, preferring that his doctrine be called
"the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. Then at the Ninth
Congress, in order to emphasise the special place these ``thoughts''
occupy as a doctrine at once original and a part of the
Marxist tradition, the term "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung's
Thought" was introduced.
 Why was it that Mao Tse-tung and his entourage felt
obliged to reject the terms ``Maoism'' or "Mao Tse-tungism"
in favour of the curious combination "Mao Tse-tung's
Thought''?
 The reasons are as follows.
 1. Mao Tse-tung still strives to back up his views with

the authority of Marxism-Leninism and appear as an
original interpreter and ``developer'' of the Marxist tradition.
The expression "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung's
Thought" emphasises this, and at the same time corresponds
to the political aims of the struggle for hegemony in the
revolutionary movement.
 2. The terms ``Maoism'' and "Mao Tse-tungism" sound

like foreign borrowings in Chinese. In Chinese, `ìsm'' is
rendered by a combination of characters pronounced ``chu-yi''
which came into use in the nineteenth century for the
translation of foreign words ending in `ìsm''. By rejecting "
chuyi,'' which means literally "my own doctrine" and replacing
it with "ssu hsiang"---"thought, interpretation"---which is
more familiar to the Chinese, Mao was at once stressing his
originality as a theoretician and making a concession to the
traditional Chinese xenophobia. The more so in that in
traditional Chinese usage, the "ssu hsiang" implies "original
thought" combined with continuity.
 Thus, the term they have chosen enabled the Maoists to
27
screen themselves from criticism and allows them plenty of

room for manoeuvre.
 3. In choosing a convenient term, the Maoists were

probably unable to entirely ignore the fact that back in 1955 the
Central Committee of the CPC had forbidden the use of
special terminology in referring to the views of Mao
Tsetung, insisting that they be regarded purely as the
application of Marxism-Leninism in Chinese conditions. We have
already seen how the Eighth Congress of the CPC (1956)
re-examined the theses of the Seventh Congress (1945) that
the "thoughts of Mao Tse-tung" were "sinified Marxism"
and "Chinese communism'', and made no reference in the
documents to "the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''.
 4. A further reason why the Maoists rejected the term

``Maoism'' is that as soon as the Marxist-Leninist parties
grasped the true significance of the "special course" of the
Mao Tse-tung group, they began to insist on its
incompatibility with Marxism-Leninism and named it ``Maoism'' in
order to make the distinction clear. Thus, even before the
Maoists had prepared the way within the country and the
Party for the introduction of the term "Mao chu-yi'', Maoism,
the Marxist-Leninists had already succeeded in their efforts
to discredit it and make it synonymous with anti-Marxism,
anti-Sovietism, chauvinism and hegemonic ambitions.
 In view of this, the Maoists did not dare to introduce the
term ``Maoism'' in the documents of the Ninth Congress,
although the matter was discussed. Instead, they settled for
the term "Mao Tse-tung's Thought''.
 After the Ninth Congress, the Mao worshippers tried

another trick to emphasise the originality and unusual
qualities of their leader. They changed the way the last two
characters of his name are written. In Peking foreign
language publications, his name now appears as TSETUNG
instead of Tse-tung. The point is that when written together
the characters acquire the reading "light of the East'', the
idea being to give his name a symbolic meaning. The trouble
with the way they were written before was that they had
the reading "bog east" which can mean "bog of the East'',
"boggy East" or "bogging-down East"---you can take your
pick. It is easy to see why Peking should wish to avoid the
implications this coincidence might suggest to many as a
reflection on the activities of their leader.
[28]
__NUMERIC_LVL1__
CHAPTER I
__ALPHA_LVL1__
THE SOCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF
 MAO TSE-TUNG'S OUTLOOK
 China was a feudal state for nigh on two thousand years.
Capitalism did not really begin to develop there until the
latter half of the nineteenth century, and could still not be
said to predominate in Chinese society at the time of the
Russian October Revolution of 1917. At the turn of the
century China remained a semi-feudal country, socially and
economically backward.
 In speaking of feudalism in China it must be borne in

mind that the system had its own peculiar features there.
Chinese feudalism ensured not only the prevalence of
natural economy, combining agriculture with domestic industry,
but also excessive concentration of land in the hands of the
landlords and its total expropriation from the peasants. The
peasant was wholly dependent on the landowner, for he
depended on his lease for his very livelihood, and he had
far less rights or freedom than his European counterpart.
This was due to the fact that the peasant was entirely
dependent on the state as well as his landlord, for the latter
was generally an official in the imperial service.
 It was in the interests of this feudal bureaucracy to keep

the peasantry under their constant control. To this end, not
only political and economic coercion, but all the ideological
institutions of the feudal state were employed. A
tremendous role in the preservation of feudal production relations
was played by Confucianism, which remained the most
influential ideology in China for almost two thousand years.
Confucianism, with its insistence on submission to the
Emperor and the aristocracy and unfailing observance of the
feudal code of law and morality was ideally suited to the
purposes of the feudal aristocracy. The cornerstone of
29
Confucianism was unquestioning obedience to one's seniors in

age and position, and of the whole nation to the Emperor.
 Describing the situation in the society of Western Europe

in medieval times as a result of the political dictatorship of
the Church, Engels wrote: "Church dogmas were also
political axioms, and Bible quotations had the validity of law
in any court.. .. This domination of theology over the entire
realm of intellectual activity was at the same time an
inevitable consequence of the fact that the Church was the
allembracing synthesis of the most general sanction of the
existing feudal domination.''^^1^^
 A roughly similar situation is to be observed in Chinese

medieval feudal society. Thus we might say, paraphrasing
Engels, that Confucian dogmas were also political axioms,
and the verdict in any court was based on quotations from
Confucius. Confucianism, as the all-pervading, official
ideology stifled all creative endeavour among the masses and
prevented the development of science and technology.
 The persistence of feudal production relations and the

general stagnation of Chinese society made China an easy
prey for outside interference when it came and she was
unable to withstand the combined onset of the imperialist
powers---England, France, Germany, the United States, Japan,
Russia and Italy. By the beginning of the present century,
China was held in political and economic bondage by world
imperialism. She was shorn of her vassal states, Burma,
Annam, Korea, Nepal, Sikkim and others, lost the island of
Taiwan which had always formed part of her territory, to
Japan, and was carved up into various spheres of influence.
Foreign concessions and settlements were established and
foreigners acquired extra-territorial rights and control over
the Chinese exchequer.
 Although China's defeat at the hands of the imperialist

powers and the resulting inflow of foreign capital
accelerated the development of capitalist relations in town and
countryside, Chinese society remained fundamentally unchanged.
The result was merely an extra burden for the exploited
masses, in that to the yoke of the Manchu and Chinese feudal
lords the yoke of the foreign capitalists was added.
 The Chinese social structure was determined by feudal
_-_-_
~^^1^^ F. Engels, The Peasant War in Germany, Moscow, 1909, p. 62.
30
production relations. The peasantry still formed the largest

class---three-quarters of the total population. The working
class was still numerically small, and even in the twenties
did not number more than about two million. The vast
majority of these were unskilled workers who had only
recently migrated from the land. Small enterprises
predominated and vestiges of the guild-type organisation of the
pre-capitalist period were still strong.
 The special features of China's socio-economic

development naturally meant that the revolutionary movement,
when it got under way in the latter half of the nineteenth
century and the early years of the present century, also had
rather special features. One of these was that the aims of
national and social emancipation went hand in hand, another
that the peasant movement was widespread at a time when
the labour movement was in its infancy and confined
entirely to the major coastal cities. The labour movement and
peasant revolts were only tenuously connected.
 Political opposition to the ruling Manchu Ch'ing Dynasty

came from three directions---the peasant-plebeian, the
bourgeois-revolutionary and liberal, and the bourgeois--
landowner. The largest outbreaks of peasant revolt were the T'ai
P'ing rebellion (1850--1864) and the Boxer rebellion (1898--
1901), the latter drawing some response from certain
sections of the urban poor. The bourgeois-landowner
opposition was represented by a group of reformers led by Kang
Yu-wei and Liang Chi-chao, while the bourgeois--
revolutionary opposition comprised bourgeois democrats under Sun
Yat-sen.
 Each of these branches of the opposition movement
proposed its own solutions to social and national problems. The
T'ai P'ing were for setting up a just social order based on
the principle of making all its members equal in the sphere
of production and consumption, i.e., were advocating a
variety of "peasant communism''. Sun Yat-sen's programme
corresponded in many ways to that of the T'ai P'ing. It
consisted of three basic national principles: ``nationalism'', or
the demand that the foreign Manchu Dynasty should be
overthrown and the rights of the Chinese---Han---nation
restored; "people's power'', or the setting up of a democratic
republic, and "national welfare'', or the demand for "equal
rights to the land'', i.e., the nationalisation of the land and
31
the transfer of land rents to the state. The demands of the

Right wing of the opposition movement were rather more
moderate than those of the T'ai P'ing or Sun Yat-sen, and
amounted to the transfer to constitutional monarchy,
without jeopardising the political and economic interests of the
Chinese bourgeoisie and the so-called "enlightened feudal
lords" associated with capitalist elements in the towns.
 None of these programmes were capable of providing a

real solution to the problems deriving from China's
historical development, and at best could only have furthered the
transformation of China into a capitalist state. The T'ai
P'ing idea of equal distribution of the land would have led
to the abolition of the feudal estates, but it was combined
with the Utopian dream of uniting the peasants in
militarised patriarchal communes based on the principles of "
consumer communism''. Sun Yat-sen's "three national
principles'', although progressive and genuinely democratic, showed
that the great Chinese revolutionary democrat failed to grasp
the class nature of social contradictions and the anti--
imperialist and anti-feudal tasks of the revolution that had
matured in the country, and reduced them to an essentially
national conflict between the Chinese (Han) and the
Manchurians. Sun Yat-sen's programme for agrarian reform,
involving nationalisation and equal partitioning of the land,
was described by Lenin as "subjective socialism'', since it
did not include the socialisation of the means of production
and was thus objectively bound to lead to the development
of capitalist relations.
 Due to the alliance between the bourgeois-landlord camp

and the feudal-militarist and compradore-bureaucrat
reactionaries, the lack of political cohesion in the
revolutionarydemocratic wing of the national bourgeoisie, and especially
its failure to unite with the peasantry, the revolution of 1911
failed to solve the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal tasks
that faced the country. It must also be noted that in their
struggle against the Manchurians for the national revival
of China, many members of the various opposition groups
counted on support from the imperialist powers, harbouring
illusions about their long-term aims in China.
 The year 1917 saw China still economically backward and
politically dependent on the imperialist powers. The triumph
of the October Revolution in Russia made many
32
revolutionaries and other progressives in China take a new look at

the problems of the social and political emancipation of the
Chinese people, and turn to the experience of the
Bolshevik Party and Marxist theory. Mao wrote in 1949: "The
Chinese were introduced to Marxism by the Russians.
Before the October Revolution, the Chinese were not only
unaware of Lenin and Stalin but did not even know of Marx
or Engels. The salvoes of the October Revolution brought us
Marxism-Leninism. The October Revolution helped the
advanced people of China and of the whole world to adopt
a proletarian world outlook as an instrument for looking
into a nation's future or for reconsidering one's own
problems. Follow the path of the Russians---this was the
conclusion.''^^1^^
 Thus, even Mao Tse-tung was at one time prepared to

admit that Chinese society was ignorant of, or at least not
very familiar with, Marxism prior to 1917. Many Chinese
participating in political life came to adopt Marxism solely
under the influence of the Russian Revolution, and not as
a natural result of their political activities.
 Indeed, Marxism only began to penetrate China after

1917. This is not to say, of course, that the Chinese were
previously unaware of the existence of Marxism. Several
of Marx and Engels' works had already been translated into
Chinese---Chapter One of The Manifesto of the Communist
Party and Engels' introduction, part of Engels' The Origin
of the Family, Private Property and the State and his 
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific---while many articles on
Marxism had appeared, including "Short Biographies of the
German Revolutionary Socialists" by Sun Yat-sen's close
associate Chu Chih-hsin which contained biographies of
Marx, Engels and Lassale. However, all this merely served
to give the Chinese a rather sketchy outline of scientific
socialism. It was only after the October Revolution that
advanced Chinese intellectuals began to acquire a proper
knowledge of Marxism.
 It must be realised, however, that many Chinese

revolutionaries, including members of the Chinese Communist
Party, had very hazy notions of Marxism, since they had
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, On People's Democratic Dictatorship, Peking, 1950,
pp. 7-8 (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.).
3---367
33
often acquired their knowledge of it second-hand. The first

translators and popularisers of Marxism were often people
with basically bourgeois-democratic views, like Chu
Chihhsin, who in the above-mentioned article criticised several
of Marx's theses from a petty-bourgeois standpoint.
Moreover, many of those who claimed to be Marxists were merely
opportunists using Marxist doctrine as a means to an end.
Seeing the success with which Marxism was being applied in
Russia and other countries, they regarded Marxist ideas as
a means of national salvation, as a means of liberating China
from external and internal oppression. Many of those who
embraced Marxism at this period did so in the belief that
this was the only ideology capable of recovering China's
former might. Thus, many of those who called themselves
Marxists in fact remained bourgeois nationalists or at most
revolutionary democrats.
 Furthermore, the span of time between the spread of

Marxist ideas and the creation of a Communist Party was
far shorter in China than in Europe. Whereas, in Lenin's
words, "Russia achieved Marxism through the agony she
experienced through half a century'', the same cannot be
said of China. Nor had the ground been prepared for the
founding of the Chinese Communist Party by successes of
the labour movement, as was the case in Russia, for example.
On the contrary, the Chinese proletariat was still in its
infancy and had not yet organised itself properly or developed
a strong class consciousness. Indeed, a labour movement as
an independent political force was to all intents and
purposes non-existent in China in the first two decades of the
present century.
 Lenin insisted that socialist revolution is not merely a

workers' revolution, but a revolution of all levels of society
that are subject to capitalist exploitation, and that it
comprises not only the revolutionary movement of the working
class but also the mass struggle of the peasantry and other
layers. "Whoever expects a `pure' social revolution will
never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to
revolution without understanding what revolution is.... The
socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything other than
an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry
oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections of
the petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will
34
participate in it---without such participation, mass struggle is

impossible, without it no revolution is possible---and just as
inevitably will they bring into the revolution their
prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their weaknesses and errors.
But objectively they will attack capital, and the class--
conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat,
expressing this objective truth of a variegated and
discordant, motley and outwardly fragmented, mass struggle, will
be able to unite and direct it, capture power, seize the banks,
expropriate the trusts which all hate (though for different
reasons!), and introduce other dictatorial measures which in
their totality will amount to the overthrow of the
bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, which, however, will by
no means immediately `purge' itself of petty-bourgeois
slag.''^^1^^
 Although in this appraisal of the objective difficulties in

the path of the working-class revolutionary movement Lenin
had Europe in mind, his words are equally applicable to
China, with appropriate additions. The Chinese workers and
their Party had to conduct their activities from the very
outset amid a boundless ocean of peasant farms and surrounded
in the towns by a numerically strong petty bourgeoisie. The
situation was aggravated by the weakness of the working
class and its organisations, and the immaturity of the first
working-class revolutionaries. In view of the widespread
interest in Marxism among the petty bourgeoisie and
bourgeois intellectuals after 1917, the working class was often
unable to withstand the pressure of alien views on its
ideology.
As a result, the Chinese Communist Party, from its
inception (1921), was joined not only by Marxists, but also by
large numbers of bourgeois nationalists, revolutionary
democrats, anarchists, supporters of peasant socialism and so
on, who brought with them their prejudices, reactionary
fantasies, weaknesses and errors.
 Mao Tse-tung is certainly to be counted among these

non-Marxists. Strongly influenced in his early days by
Confucianism, he perceived Marxist theses through the prism of the
Confucian outlook. Maoist philosophy derives from two
sources: the traditional (Confucian) ideology, whose chief
elements are feudal ethics and chauvinism, and various
_-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 356.


3*
35
bourgeois doctrines, both Chinese and European. This

explains why Mao Tse-tung's theoretical baggage is so
remarkably lightweight.
 `` Marxist philosophy is a revolutionary-critical

generalisation of all previous philosophical thought. The direct
predecessor and source of Marxist philosophy was German
classical philosophy, represented first and foremost by Hegel and
Feuerbach. Hegel's creation of the system of laws and
categories of dialectics, and Feuerbach's materialist thesis that
nature and man are the only objective realities and his
insistence on practice as the criterion of truth were all major
achievements for world philosophy and testify to the fact
that at the time Marx and Engels began their theoretical
work European philosophy had reached a high level of
development. If we take a look at the Chinese philosophy of
the same period we shall find that it presents a very
different picture.
 Due to a number of historical causes, and above all the

persistence of the feudal mode of production (in spiritual life
this was reflected in the prevalence of effete neo-Confucian
scholasticism) theoretical thought in China in the mid--
nineteenth century lagged far behind that of Europe. Whereas at
the dawn of world civilisation Chinese philosophy had given
examples of profound (for the time of course) penetration
into the essence of human nature and relationships and
interesting dialectical conceptions extending to a relatively
wide range of problems, and whereas the names of
Confucius, Lao Tzu, Hsiin-Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Mo-tzu and Yang
Chu have a right to a place alongside such Western
philosophers of first rank as Heraclitus, Democritus, Plato and
Aristotle, in the Middle Ages, and especialy in modern
times, the position is very different.
 This is not to say that these later periods have been
totally lacking in great thinkers. There were such brilliantly
original minds and free-thinkers as Fan Chen (5th
century) and Han Yu (8th-9th c.), the materialists Chow Tun-i
(llth c.), Chang Tsai (12th c.), Wang Fu-ch'i (17th c.) and
Tai Chen (18th c.), the original intuitive-idealist Wang
Yang-ming (16th- 17th c.) and the interesting social
philosopher Huang Tsung-hsi (17th c.) and many others.
However, in the development of Chinese philosophy as a whole
we can note the following general tendencies. Firstly, a
36
somewhat narrow range of interest, confined mainly to

ethics, treated largely in terms of man's duty and
obligations to (feudal) society, and the subordination of personal
freedom to the authority of the state. Secondly, a
schematic, descriptive approach and an overwhelming tendency to
turn to the past in explaining the phenomena of the external
world. Thirdly, excessive preoccupation with traditional
problems and excessive use of time-honoured terms.
 The metaphysicism characteristic of European

philosophy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, although
one-sided, nevertheless represented a step forward from the
naive dialectics of the ancient Greeks. It stressed the need
for detailed investigation of material objects and thorough
analysis of their characteristics. Descartes and Spinoza,
Leibnitz and La Mettrie, Holbach and Diderot heralded a jiew
age in the history of world philosophy.
 Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, never really went

through a metaphysical stage. The primitive dialectics of
Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, while undergoing certain
modifications, chiefly in the form of borrowings from the
Buddhist dialectics, continued to hold sway over Chinese thought
right up to the beginning of the present century.^^1^^
 In the middle, and even the latter part of the nineteenth
century, Chinese philosophers were often still chewing over
what had been written and said not only by their
immediate predecessors, but by those who had lived as much as two
thousand years before them. They went on repeating ideas,
on the basis of the traditional concepts of Yin, Yang, Tao,
Tai Chi, etc. In 1893, Cheng Huan-ying, an ideologist of
the emergent Chinese bourgeoisie, published a book
entitled Bold Talk in the Age of Florescence (Sheng-shi
weiyan), in which he proposed a series of political reforms to
promote the technical and economic modernisation of
China.^^2^^ In the "Tao Chi'', the part where the author presented
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Some metaphysical ideas were advanced, but not in a systematic

manner, as a philosophical method. This point was noted by participants
in a discussion on the history of Chinese philosophy held in China in
the fifties. See Vn{>rosy filosofii (Questions of Philosophy), 1957, No, 4,
pp. 138--41).
~^^2^^ Mao Tse-tung read this book in his youth and it left a strong
impression on him. See: E.~Snow, Red Star Over C/iina, N.Y., 1939,
pp. 127, 129.
37
the philosophical substantiation of his book, he wrote: "In

the Yi Ching,^^1^^ in the part 'Hsi Tzu Chuan', it is written:
'That which has no form is called Tao; that which has form
is called Chi. Tao appeared out of non-being; first it
engendered original matter (Chi) which condensed to
become Tai Chi. Then Tai Chi divided into Yin and
Yang.'~"^^2^^
 The sky surrounded the earth, and the earth took a place
in the sky; Yin comprised Yang, and Yang comprised Yin.
This is why it is said that "the interaction of Yin and Yang
is Tao''. Hence "Two engendered three and three
engendered all things.'' The things that exist in the world and
their names, original matter and its laws are embraced
(Tao). Since there exist odd and even numbers, just as the
multiplication of even numbers by odd numbers produces
a variety of different numbers, so the interaction of Yin
and Yang together form the variety of all things. Thus,
things arose out of original matter, or, in other words,
concrete objects appear out of Tao''.
 This primitive system of naive dialectics based on old

treatises (the author seeks confirmation of the truth of his
conception in the relevant ideas of Lao Tzu and Confucius)
was formulated in 1893, at a time when the law of
conservation and transformation of energy, cell theory and
Darwin's theory of evolution were already current in
Europe.^^3^^
 Although this and similar treatment of cosmological

problems is of undoubted value in that it helps foster a
materialist world view, it nonetheless represents gross
oversimplification. With rare exceptions, Chinese philosophy
between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries suffered
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Yi Ching (The Book of Changes), one of the earliest Chinese
treatises dating from the seventh or sixth century B. C. "Hsi Tzu Chuan" is
a supplement to it, containing a philosophical interpretation of the main
text, written around the fourth century B.C.
~^^2^^ Tai Chi (Great Limit) means the initial stage and cause of the
appearance and development of all things. The earliest known account
is contained in the Yi Ching. Yin and Yang arc two opposite principles
in nature, whose interaction the ancient Chinese regarded as the
explanation of all issue and change in the universe.
~^^3^^ Another eminent reformer, Rang Yu-wei bases his theory of the
origin of the universe on the concepts of Yuan Chi and Chi, which are
to be found in the works of Confucius.
38
from serious weaknesses in the treatment of ontological

and epistemological problems.^^1^^
 Philosophy invariably develops under the influence of the

natural sciences. This being so, it is easy to see how the
advances in modern European philosophy must be largely
ascribed to the great strides made by Western science in such
fields as medicine, astronomy, biology, physiology,
mathematics and mechanics. In China, on the other hand, in the
period we are dealing with, the natural sciences can be said
to have marked time and this was bound to have its
reflection in the development of philosophy.
 The great Chinese philosopher Tai Chen (1723--1777)

provides a perfect illustration of this. Tai Chen was a fine
scholar with an extensively ranging mind for his age,
a mathematician and an astronomer. Yet it cannot be said
that he possessed truly scientific knowledge in the natural
sciences and he cannot be counted among the foremost
scientists of his age. He took the old traditional concepts
and theories at their face value, and was perfectly
prepared to accept, for example, that the Sun and the Moon were
made of fire and water, heat and moisture, and moved under
the influence of Yin and Yang.
 The chief obstacle to the progress in Chinese philosophy,

as we have already indicated, was the official feudal
ideology of neo-Confucianism. Confucius was a great thinker
who examined many questions of major importance in his
_-_-_
~^^1^^ In view of this, Professor Chu Chien-chi's claim that Chinese (

Confucian) philosophy exerted a considerable influence on European
philosophy and thus on Marxism is curious, to say the least.
 In an article of his that appeared in the Chinese philosophical journal

Chieh-hsiieh yan-chiu in 1957, we find the following. ''. . .Marxism---
dialectical materialism---is, essentially, connected with European
eighteenth-century philosophy, and European eighteenth-century philosophy
is, essentially, connected with Chinese philosophy. This means that
Chinese philosophy penetrated Europe, and directly influenced French
materialist philosophy, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, German
idealist dialectics. And it so happens that materialism and dialectics were
important sources of the development of dialectical materialism by
Marx and Engels. If these historical facts are true, it will be easy for us
in future to understand the connection between Marxism and Chinese
philosophy, we shall cease to be unfamiliar, as we were at one time,
with dialectical materialism, and in general we shall find it far easier to
understand Marxist philosophy.'' (Chieh-hsiieh yan-chiu, No. 4, 1957,
p. 57). The publication of such articles can only be regarded as a
manifestation of hidebound nationalism.
39
teaching, such as the social predestination of man, the

conditioning of his actions, the criteria for judging human
behaviour, and the nature of the relationships between
different social groups. But the answers he suggested were not
such as to promote the historical development of Chinese
society. Confucian doctrine was backward-looking, and
primarily concerned with what he called a "golden age" in
China's past. He justified and defended conservative views
and outmoded traditions. According to Confucius, the
traditions of the wise rulers of the past embodied "the will of
heaven'', and these traditions, which he called Li (
ceremony, etiquette) should be preserved and revered.
 Jen, meaning humaneness or perfect humanity was a

central concept of the Confucian doctrine. It would be wrong
to interpret this as sympathy, or love and respect for others.
The term had carried clear class implications and had a
strictly defined sphere of application. Only the rulers----
noble men---possessed Jen. "A noble man may not have Jen,
but it is impossible for the ordinary man to have Jen."^^1^^
Since Li was the concrete embodiment of the categories of
Jen, the call of Confucius and his disciples, especially
Mencius, to follow the way of Jen, really boiled down to an
appeal for obedience and strict conformity to the social
hierarchy. The ideal of Confucius and his followers was that
the father should be paternal, the son filial, the ruler should
be lordly, and the official official. Every man should keep
to his appointed station. The society organised according
to these principles should consist of two categories of
people, those who work with their ``hearts'', that is their minds,
and rule, and those appointed by destiny to physical labour
to feed those who rule.
 One of the basic principles upon which the social order
propagated by Confucianism was based was absolute
submission to one's seniors in age or station. Confucius and his
followers thus attached great importance to the concept of
Hsiao, or filial piety, insisting that "those who honour their
parents and respect their elders, rarely fail to obey their
superiors".^^2^^ Thus, Confucianism tried to make use of clan
patriarchal traditions to educate people in the spirit of
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Lun-yii, ``Hsian-wen'', p. 6.
~^^2^^ Ibid., ``Hsiu-erh'', p. 2.
40
dumb submission to their rulers. Confucius made frequent

direct statements to this effect. "Simple people,'' he said,
"should not reason on affairs of state.'' They must be "forced
to follow the leaders, but they must not be allowed to be
educated".^^1^^ Constant submission and obedience to the ruler (the
Son of Heaven), the rule that "the cobbler should stick to
his last'', such are the basic principles of Confucianism.

 Although such ideas undoubtedly had a negative effect
on the development of Chinese thought, for a long time their
influence was limited by the fact that Taoism and
Buddhism existed side by side with Confucianism as equally
powerful factors. This state of affairs lasted down to the
eleventh or the twelfth century when, largely due to the
efforts of Chu Hsi, neo-Confucianism, representing a
combination of Confucian ethics with certain Taoist and
Buddhist tenets was instated as the official ideology of Chinese
feudal society.
 Neo-Confucianism established a monopoly over the

spiritual life of the people, demanding strict observance of
accepted ways of thinking and forms of behaviour. It
comprised a system of canons and rules which had to be
scrupulously observed and obeyed. It was taught as dogma in
all educational establishments, where every pupil was
required to learn by heart numerous sayings of Confucius
and his disciples as interpreted by Chu Hsi. A purely
mechanical knowledge of these sayings served as the basic
entry requirement for scholars to the "civil service''. This
learning parrot-fashion of Confucian dogmas from generation
to generation encouraged by the feudal rulers became a
"national tradition''. As a result of such ``teaching'' methods,
every Chinese was to a certain extent Confucianist, not in
the sense that he was familiar with Confucian ideas but
simply in that he accepted the Confucian prescriptions as
something perfectly natural and not to be argued with, as
traditions inherited from his ancestors.
 Neo-Confucian scholasticism was bound to exert an

important influence on the subsequent development of
Chinese philosophy. All that was expected of scholars was
completely orthodox commentaries on the works of the great
Confucianist sages, and any ideas contradicting neo--
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., ``Tai-po'', p. 9.
41
Confucianism were severely criticised. This naturally

prevented Chinese thinkers from adopting a creative approach to
urgent problems of Chinese social and intellectual life. Even
progressive Chinese philosophers and socio-political
thinkers were forced to resort to the authority of Confucius in
order to justify their ideas. Thus, the late nineteenth--
century bourgeois reformers (Kang Yu-wei, Liang Chi-chao and
others) employed theses from Confucius in propagating the
idea of constitutional monarchy.
 It was not until the second half of the nineteenth

century that European culture and philosophy began to filter
into China. Since this process took place against the
background of a feudal society, it naturally assumed a rather
special character. Borrowings were mainly in the form of
Western technical achievements, certain political and social
institutions, and some ideas from European bourgeois
philosophy, especially positivism, but certainly not Marxism.
It must be remembered that China's introduction to the
achievements of European civilisation coincided with the
beginning of the country's colonial enslavement, and that
the bearers of Western culture at this period were
representatives of imperialist circles, whose interests lay in
importing pro-imperialist ideology.
 The prevalence of the traditional approach to the

solution of philosophical problems and the fact that science was
poorly developed meant that the borrowings by Chinese
philosophers of elements of Western civilisation at the end
of the last century took the form of a synthesis of Chinese
speculative categories and European scientific concepts. Thus,
Kang Yu-wei, whom we have already mentioned,
associated electricity with Jen, the spiritual principle which the
Confucianists regard as being inherent in all things. Yan
Fu, a Right-wing bourgeois reformer, who was one of the
leading translators of European philosophical works,
provided his translations with commentaries in which he
attempted to draw parallels between Western socio--
philosophical theories and traditional currents of Chinese
ancient and medieval socio-political thought, above all
Confucianism.
 Thus, one is probably justified in concluding that the

modern Chinese philosophers as a whole did not rise above
the level of their medieval predecessors. The creation of
42
modern philosophy, by which we mean philosophy on a

level with the latest achievements in theoretical knowledge,
could not be expected to produce significant results
immediately, especially since, as we have seen, neo--
Confucianism preserved its dominant role. Chinese philosophy
between the seventeenth and the nineteenth century was
essentially a modification of the original form of materialism
and naive dialectics.
 It was on such theoretical foundations that Mao Tse-tung's

views took shape. Like the rest of his generation, Mao
Tsetung received a traditional education, which consisted
mainly in the study of Confucian canons and other ancient
texts.^^1^^
 Mao Tse-tung himself admitted in a conversation with

the American journalist E.~Snow in 1936 during which he
recounted his biography that in his youth he had mainly
studied idealist philosophy, Confucian canons.
 Nationalist prejudices were strong in the milieu in which

Mao Tse-tung conducted his early revolutionary activities.
Nationalism is extremely deep-rooted in China, and has an
extremely long history.
 For centuries it was a basic principle of Chinese policy,

home and foreign, to regard China as the centre of the
world. The Emperor was held to be the Son of Heaven,
and thus Lord of the Celestial Empire---the whole world
and of all its peoples. Accordingly, all the peoples with whom
China came into direct contact in one way or another were
regarded as subject to her and vassals of the Emperor of
China. This view was kept alive by the fact that China had
extremely limited political, economic and cultural relations
with other countries, and was relatively isolated from most
of the outside world. For centuries the Chinese ruling classes
plumed themselves on the superiority of the Chinese
nation and the unique features of Chinese civilisation, their
own special customs and institutions. Such
revolutionarydemocratic intellectuals as Sun Yat-sen and Chen
Tienhua remarked on this tendency in the official ideology of
medieval China to present China as the centre of the world
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung attended the primary school in his native village of
Shao Shan, Hunan Province. From there he went on to attend the school
at Hsiang-hsiang, the district centre, and the secondary school and
finally the pedagogical institute in the provincial town of Changsha.
43
and the Chinese people as a chosen people. Thus, Sun

Yatsen wrote: "China thought very highly of her own
achievements and looked down on other states. This became a
habit and came to be regarded as perfectly natural. As a
result, China strove to isolate herself. For this reason, in
undertaking any reforms the Chinese relied exclusively on
their own experience and means, and made no attempt to
borrow anything from others. China came to resemble a
solitary desert island cast away. Never having known the
advantages of mutual international assistance she has not
learnt the art of borrowing the best from others to make
up for one's own shortcomings. The Chinese regard anything
they do not know and are incapable of doing as altogether
impossible.''^^1^^ As Chen Tien-hua put it: "the Chinese are
always boasting what a civilised and highly moral nation
they are".^^2^^
 The general stagnation of Chinese society encouraged the

development of an ideology of national Sinocentrism, or
Chinese nationalism, which we might call feudal or
prebourgeois nationalism.^^3^^
 The official ideology---Confucianism---promoted a spirit

of devotion to tradition among the Chinese people. The
ideologists of Chinese feudalism encouraged individual
submission to one's social lot, to the State and to the Emperor,
who was represented as fulfilling the noble mission of
defending his subjects. These ideologists often presented their
own class interests as those of the nation as a whole, and
did their utmost to foster distrust towards other peoples and
ethnic prejudices. The feudal state used Confucianism as
a means of cultivating an exaggerated sense of belonging to
a special ethnic group. This naturally produced ethnic
prejudices among the masses and gave rise to smug belief in
the unique position of the Chinese people, its philosophy and
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Sun Yat-sen, Selected Works (in Russian), Moscow, 1964, pp.
250--51 (emphasis added.---M.A., V. G.)
~^^2^^ Selected Reference Materials on the History of Modern Chinese

Ideology (in Chinese), Peking, 1957, p. 685.
~^^3^^ Nationalism is generally associated v/ith the bourgeoisie. However,

this view ignores the fact that the formation of a nation is a long,
complicated process, that the development of nationalism is thus also a
process and passes through several stages, and that bourgeois nationalism
arises on a particular ethnic basis.
44
culture, and conformism to the national conservative

traditions.
 The socio-economic conditions in feudal China gave rise

to certain stereotypes of mass awareness which had the
character of ethnic prejudices. A typical example was the view
that the Chinese were the most civilised of peoples, and that
all other ethnic groups were barbarians. The Chinese were
convinced that their own customs and traditions, their own
moral taboos, their own concepts of good and evil and their
own cultural values were the best in the world.
 When in the latter half of the nineteenth century China

was reduced to the status of a colony of the imperialist
powers and the Chinese people began to experience a
double national yoke, there was a new upsurge of nationalism
among various social strata.
 Along with enslavement to European capital, China also

found herself having to submit to unprecedented violation
of her national customs and traditions, which was ``
justified'' by reference to the country's political and social
backwardness, and the spiritual inferiority of the Chinese
people. It is not hard to imagine what psychological shock the
Chinese must have suffered on meeting with this attitude
from the European and American colonialists. The Chinese
regarded the Europeans as people from another world, since
their customs and traditions, their morality and concepts
of right and wrong, and their cultural values were quite
different from their own. It is not surprising therefore that
the hatred of the Chinese towards the Manchurian
conquerors should have been extended to the Europeans, who were
referred to, among other things, as "foreign devils''. Ethnic
prejudices provided fertile soil for the development of
nascent bourgeois nationalism.
 Chinese intellectuals of various social convictions at the

turn of the century based their ideas for the national rebirth
of China not only on the natural right of every people to
freedom and independence, but also upon references to
China's glorious past and her unique political and spiritual
institutions. While serving the purpose of awakening
national awareness and inspiring patriotism among the masses,
such references to the past promoted the spread of
chauvinistic ideas, since a blind was drawn over the social
contradictions which had characterised that past. The Chinese
45
bourgeois revolutionaries of every persuasion carried on

propaganda that embodied a call for the rebirth of Chinese
science, as being the most advanced in the world, the
rebirth of Chinese culture, one of the most ancient cultures
in the world, the rebirth of Chinese political institutions,
supposedly unsurpassed anywhere, in short the rebirth of
"Great China'', the Celestial Kingdom.^^1^^
 Thus, from the very moment it appeared Chinese

bourgeois nationalism had two distinct sides to it---the
progressive and the reactionary. The former was associated with
the struggle of the masses against Manchurian rule and
against the enslavement of China by the imperialist
powers. The latter involved the idea of Chinese superiority---
a spirit of contempt for all things foreign and a sense of
moral superiority over all other countries and peoples.
Chinese bourgeois ideologists regarded the peoples of yellow
race to be greater than all others and ascribed a special
role to the Chinese (Hans), who in time were to establish
their hegemony throughout the world.
 This was the view, for example, of the ideologists of

reform (Liang Chi-chao, Kang Yu-wei), who were strongly
iniluenced by the social-Darwinist theory of national and
racial struggle for survival. Convinced of the inevitability
of racial conflict, they pressed for the establishment of a
pan-Asian union of peoples of the yellow race capable of
withstanding the pressure of the white nations.
 The views of the Chinese revolutionary democrats were

similar in many respects. Chen Tien-hua, for example,
ascribed the success of "people of white race" to the fact that
"from birth they feel friendship and love for people of
their race and cruelty and hatred towards the people of
other races".^^2^^
 Chen's associate Tsou Jung expounded the idea of the

superiority of the Chinese over the other peoples of yellow
race. He wrote as follows: "The first race, the Han race, is
quite unique among the peoples of the eastern hemisphere.
From China proper, advancing along the banks of the
Hwang Ho, they spread in all directions. Our Han race
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Even those Chinese bourgeois ideologists who called upon people
to learn from the West were mainly calling for no more than the
adoption of the achievements of Western science and technology.
 ^^2^^ Selected Reference Materials. .., p. 681.
46
was indeed the only civilising agent in the East from

earliest times. The Koreans and the Japanese also developed
from the Han race.''^^1^^ Further on he writes: "Although they
had no capital, the Chinese (those who had emigrated from
China.---M.A., V.G.) surpassed the people of other
nationalities thanks to their industriousness. Those who had
considerable basic capital began to compete and struggle on
the market with large American and European trading firms,
and held their own with them. Indeed, they have shown
that they have the power to extend the wealth of their
people, and can become the masters of the twentieth
century and advance our noble Han people.''^^2^^
 While rightly exposing the rapacious and ruthless policy

of the foreign powers acting hand in glove with the
mercenary Manchu court, and calling upon the people to
oppose them, Chen Tien-hua and Tsou Jung failed to
provide a correct interpretation of the situation and indicate
proper methods for effective opposition. Since they saw all
social contradictions through the prism of national and
racial conflicts, they called the people to arms against
foreigners in general. Here again we see the influence of
the nationalist psychology, whereby the characteristics of
the exploiter classes of the oppressor nation (aggression,
ruthlessness, and so on) are extended to the whole
people, producing a stereotype of that nation. Thus, Tsou Jung
referred to the Manchurians as barbarians and shepherds
with bestial instincts, and tried to whip up hatred for them.
"Let us all as one man rush forward and kill these foreign
devils, and kill and take prisoner their families. If the
Manchurians help the foreigners kill us, then we must first of
all annihilate the Manchurians. If the mercenary officials
help the foreigners to kill us, then we must first of all
annihilate all these mercenary officials. Let everyone take up
swords and only put them down when they have destroyed
our enemies!
 ``My dear compatriots! Forward, kill! Forward, kill!

Forward, kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill our age-old enemies within
the country, kill the new enemies that have come to our
land, kill our despised traitors, toadying to the foreigners!
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 649 (emphasis added.---M.A., V. G.}.
 ^^2^^ Ibid., p. 650.
47
Kill! Kill! Kill!''^^1^^ It is hard to see what could possibly come

of such an appeal but senseless brutality.
 The revolutionary democrats based their claim for China's

right to freedom and independence on the nationalist idea of
"Great China''. Tsou Jung wrote: "China has always
possessed qualities of mind embracing the universe and glory
that has resounded throughout the world. She looked down
from above upon other states, and her power held the five
continents in awe. She had a territory of two million square
li, four hundred million intelligent, talented people, a history
of five thousand years, and was ruled by two great
emperors and three great rulers. Moreover, our country lies in
the temperate zone, the people possess natural intelligence,
the land is rich and the rivers bountiful. No other country
in the world can boast what we have.''^^2^^ Tsou even goes on
to claim that but for the Manchurian invasion it would
probably have been the Chinese and not the Western
powers that subdued India, Poland, Egypt and Turkey.
 Even that great son of the Chinese people Sun Yat-sen
did not entirely escape the influence of bourgeois
nationalism. He was unable to transcend his class outlook, and was
wont to stress the uniqueness of the Chinese people.
 The reader may feel that we are exaggerating the

nationalist errors of the Chinese revolutionaries, both bourgeois
and petty-bourgeois, and expecting too much of political
leaders who expressed the hopes of social groups which had
suffered such monstrous political, economic and spiritual
oppression.
 This is by no means the case. It is far from our intention
to run down the leaders of the Chinese revolutionary
movement at the turn of the century and accuse them of
mortal sins. It must be borne in mind that many of the
weaknesses from which their political programmes and views
suffered were conditioned socially, politically and
economically, above all by the unprecedented dual national yoke. Even
the most progressive Chinese politicians were unable to free
themselves entirely from the chains of bourgeois ideology,
since in order to do so they would first have had to
recognise the role of the working class and align themselves with
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Selected Reference Materials..., p. 672.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 644.
48
it. But we must point out their weaknesses if we are to

give an accurate objective picture of the level Chinese
social thought was at immediately before the Communist
Party came on the scene as a political factor, and show what
underlay the ideology of the Chinese bourgeois, petty--
bourgeois and peasant revolutionaries, who influenced the
theory and practice of many leaders of the Chinese Communist
Party and whose followers joined the Party. And this
involves examining the question of Chinese nationalism and
drawing our own conclusions about it, since, as we have
seen, it was an essential element in the ideology of Chinese
revolutionaries of various shades and trends.^^1^^
 We have examined Chinese nationalism at such length

for the simple reason that it had a tremendous influence on
Mao Tse-tung and the evolution of his views. The question
of the role of the great-power ideas propounded by Chinese
political leaders at the turn of the century in shaping Mao's
outlook certainly deserves special attention. It must be
remembered that Liang Chi-chao, Kang Yu-wei and Sun
Yatsen were still alive at the time when Mao began his
political activities.
 Nationalism and Sinocentrism became an essential

feature of Mao Tse-tung's outlook and were later reflected in
his theoretical and practical activity. In the conversations
with E.~Snow we have already mentioned, Mao Tse-tung
said that after the triumph of the people's revolution in
China, Outer Mongolia, or what is today the Mongolian
People's Republic, would automatically become a part of
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Perhaps we should stress that ethnic prejudice is not the sole ``
prerogative'' of the Chinese, but can be a feature, and indeed, as history
has shown, is a feature of people of various nationalities in the age
of capitalism, since it is in the interests of the bourgeoisie to set one
national group against another. This can produce a solid battery of
nationalistic propaganda aimed at the masses.
 Ethnic prejudices can only be overcome as the result of a long,

tortuous process. It can only be done by the proletariat, which by its
very class nature is more inclined towards integration than any other
social group. Only the triumph of socialism creates real opportunities
for the elimination of national prejudice, but whether or not these
opportunities are taken advantage of depends on correct leadership by the
working class and its party. When a party contains strong petty--
bourgeois elements, this greatly slows the process and indeed may promote
a revival of ethnic prejudice, since chauvinism, national egoism and
prejudice arc typical petty-bourgeois characteristics.
4---367
49
a Chinese federation. Mao made frequent similar statements

after 1949, too, and this standpoint has been reflected in the
practical solution of the question of China's national
minorities. In the Chinese People's Republic the principle of 
national self-determination has been replaced with the
principle of national administrative autonomy. In recent years
Mao Tse-tung has been reviving the idea of the racial
solidarity of the peoples of Asia and Africa, which even Sun
Yat-sen abandoned in his latter years. Mao appeals in his
propaganda to the national sentiment of the Chinese,
attempting to consolidate Chinese unity on the basis of
nationalism. Hostility and distrust towards the national
minority groups in China is once more being fomented. Thus,
Chinese propaganda has begun presenting Ulanfu, a
Mongolian who prior to the Ninth Congress was one of the few
representatives of the national minorities in the Central
Committee, as a snake cowering beneath the blows of giants
armed with submachine-guns and copies of Quotations from
Chairman Mao.^^1^^ In this way a sense of national
exclusiveness is being cultivated among the Chinese and a sense of
ethnic and national inferiority is being produced among
China's other nationalities.
 Lenin rightly pointed out that "there is nothing

resembling `sectarianism' in Marxism, in the sense of its being a
hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away
from the high road of the development of world
civilisation".^^2^^ Maoist ``philosophy'', as distinct from Marxism--
Leninism arose mainly on a narrow, national, Chinese basis,
separate from the development of world philosophy.
 It should be noted that in the first quarter of the present
century the works of such classics of world philosophy as
Bacon, Locke, Holbach, Kant, Hegel and Feuerbach had
not yet been translated into Chinese. It was chiefly with the
works of positivists and pragmatists such as Compte,
Spencer, Russell, Dewey and James that the Chinese public (
including Mao Tse-tung) were able to acquaint themselves
through translations at that time.
 In the early years of his revolutionary activities Mao

Tsetung was strongly attracted to anarchist ideas (especially
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Sec Izvestia, March 19, 1968.
 ^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 23.
50
the works of Bakunin and Kropotkin), and has never

really managed to free himself from their influence.
 Mao had his first introduction to anarchist ideas while

studying at the pedagogical institute, and the enthusiasm
with which he embraced them was to last a long time. He
continued to be very much under their spell when he went
to Peking, and he admitted to E.~Snow that he favoured
many of the anarchist proposals at that time.^^1^^ Emi Hsiao, a
close friend of Mao's in those days, also mentions that Mao
was at that time "strongly influenced by anarchist ideas''.
Mao himself confessed that in 1919 he had tried to organise
a movement in Hunan for the `ìndependence'' of Hunan.
With a group of young anarchists from the town of
Changsha, he organised a demonstration with the slogans "For
the independence of the individual provinces from the
Peking government" and "For the introduction of democratic
constitutions in every province''. In the case of Mao
Tsetung, anarchist views were combined with elements of the
bourgeois-democratic outlook, expressed in the fact that he
wanted autonomous provinces to be incorporated in a
federation, in "the idea of United Autonomous States of
China".^^2^^
 It is interesting to note how in organising the

Hungweiping movement during the "cultural revolution'', Mao
Tsetung drew on the anarchist experience of his youth, although
he has rejected some of it today. The anarchist idea of
destroying centralised state authority expressed in the
Hungweiping movement as ``polycentrism'' and local
separatism, no longer suits Mao now, since it threatens to
undermine his own dictatorship. But in his younger days Mao
thought otherwise.
 Mao Tse-tung was also strongly influenced by the
ideology of the peasant movements of medieval China, in
particular the T'ai P'ing rebellion.
 Mao's favourite heroes were Shih Huang Ti, the founder
of the first Chinese Empire (3rd. c. B.C.), Liu Pang, founder
of the Han Dynasty (3rd. c. B.C.), T'ang Tai Tsung, the
first Emperor of the T'ang Dynasty (7th c. A.D.), Jenghiz
Khan (12--13th c.), and Chu Yiian-chang (14th c.), leader
_-_-_
~^^1^^ E.~Snow. Red Slar Over China, pp. 122--39.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 138.
51
of a peasant revolt and founder of the Ming Dynasty. The

figures he admired most in foreign history were Julius
Caesar, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Napoleon.^^1^^
 These favourite heroes are more than a passing passion

of Mao's youth, they are a reflection of his own dictatorial
nature. He has frequently referred to them in later years,
and is wont to compare himself to Shih Huang Ti. Thus,
in a speech at the second session of the Eighth Congress of
the CPC in May 1958 which was published by the
Hungweipings, Mao declared: "I maintain that we are stronger
than Shih Huang Ti. He sent 460 people to their graves,
while we have disposed of 46,000, a hundred times more
than Shih Huang Ti. I once had a conversation with some
democrats. They call us Shih Huang Ti, or despots. On the
whole we accept their accusation.. . .''
 Here is another example from the same collection of

hitherto unpublished speeches by Mao Tse-tung. Mao tells
his nephew: "If you read a lot of books, you'll never be
emperor,'' and adds, "If you look at history you can see
that none of the people who were famous for their wisdom
and knowledge were outstanding figures.''
 Siao-yu, Mao's friend and fellow student at the

pedagogical institute in Changsha, also testifies to this side of Mao's
character. In his book Mao Tse-tung and I Were Beggars,
he writes that Mao was already dreaming at that time of
becoming another Liu Pang, a peasant who became
Emperor. He reports Mao as saying to him: "Liu Pang was the
first commoner in history to become Emperor... a
successful revolutionist who succeeded in overthrowing the Ch'ing
despot... he was founder of the Han Dynasty. ..'' and
''. . .should be considered to be a great hero!''
 Siao-yu disagreed, arguing that Liu Pang was "a cruel
despot. .. treacherous and absolutely devoid of human
sentiment. ... Remember the friends and generals who risked
their lives fighting for him? When his armies were
successful, these men became famous leaders and he became afraid
that one or another of them might try to usurp his throne; so
he had them all killed.''
 Mao, however, hotly defended the ``honour'' of Liu Pang.

"But if he had not killed them, his throne would have been
_-_-_
~^^1^^ E.~Snow, op. cit, pp. 115--16, 121.
52
insecure and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as

Emperor.''^^1^^
 The practice and rituals of the cult of Mao Tse-tung

introduced during the "cultural revolution" suggest that the
Napoleonic dreams of his youth have become the
cornerstone of Mao's political views.
 It is highly significant that whenever he speaks of

China's future or of the services of the Chinese revolutionaries,
Mao can think of nothing better than to compare their
achievements to the activities of the ancient Chinese emperors
Shih Huang Ti, Han Wu-ti and T'ang Tai Tsung, and
Jenghiz Khan the conqueror.
 Analysis of Mao Tse-tung's political views also shows

him to be strongly influenced by the legist political system,
a Chinese brand of Macchiavellianism and Jesuitism.^^2^^
 Thus, the ideological basis of Maoist philosophy is formed

by concepts that are either anachronistic or reactionary in
their socio-political essence.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung and I Were Beggars by Siao-yu, Syracuse University

Press, 1959, pp. 129--30.
 ^^2^^ One of the champions of legism, Han Fci Tzu, wrote: "The ruler
of a kingdom where order reigns knows how to skilfully suppress
crime. . . . But what means exist lor the eradication ol the most minor
evil? (I answer): people must be forced to keep a careful watch on one
another's sentiments. And how can they be forced to keep a close watch
on one another? The inhabitants ol (lie village must be forced to
denounce one another. The Clnssiciil Hooks, Vol. 5, Han Fci Tzu (in
Chinese), Peking, 1954, p. 307.
[53]
__NOTE__ Missing "II" in "CHAPTER II" in original
__NUMERIC_LVL1__
CHAPTER II
__ALPHA_LVL1__
ON MARXIST PHRASEOLOGY IN THE WORKS OF MAO TSE-TUNG
 The whole of Maoist ``philosophy'' is basically set forth

in 1) Dialectical Materialism, written in Yenan in the late
thirties on the basis of lectures given at the Party School
there. A much altered extract was included in the Selected
Works published during the fifties, in the form of two
articles entitled "On Practice" and "On Contradiction''. We
hope to make clear further on why Mao Tse-tung did not
have the whole text included in Selected Works; 2) the
article "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among
the People'', published in 1957; 3) the article "Whence
Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?" (1963), amounting to
four type-written pages; 4) the articles "On New
Democracy" and "On People's Democratic Dictatorship''; 5) the
anti-Soviet editorials of the newspaper Jen-min jih-pao
and journal Hungchih (1963--1965)^^1^^; 6) statements on
philosophical questions made at various meetings and in
connection with philosophical debates.^^2^^
 If we analyse all these articles and statements it becomes

patently evident that Mao Tse-tung makes use of
Marxist phraseology purely as a means to an end, to camouflage
for the time being his real views. At the same time, Mao's
own interpretation of Marxism shows an extremely limited
knowledge of the subject. This is hardly surprising, since
the traditional education Mao received naturally did not
include Marxist theory, while in the process of self--
_-_-_
~^^1^^ According to the Hungwciping press all these articles were

written on direct instructions from M;io, under his guidance and with his
participation.
~^^2^^ As reported by the Chinese, and especially the Mungweiping

press, sometimes verbatim.
54
education he was unable to acquire a correct understanding of

Marxism since he drew his information mainly from the
works of petty-bourgeois socialists.
 In the twenties Mao Tse-tung studied G. Kircupp's 

History of Socialism. Failing to distinguish between the
political views of Lassalle, Rodbertus and Marx, Kircupp makes
a superficial criticism of Marxist doctrine from the
standpoint of petty-bourgeois socialism, and in particular of such
important parts as the theory of labour, the theory of value,
surplus value and so on. It would appear that Mao
Tsetung's negative attitude to Marx's Capital derives from the
bias he acquired from the "indelible impression" Kircupp's
book made on him.
 Kircupp's book strengthened Mao Tse-tung's sympathy

for anarchism, since Kircupp is full of praise for the
anarchists, declaring the catechism of Bakunin (sharply criticised
by Marx) and the views of Kropotkin to be
revolutionary socialism. Kircupp rejects Marx's scientific socialism
and preaches his own "moral socialism'', declaring that
socialism in the past frequently showed a tendency to
degenerate into a rigid and sterile orthodoxy which tried to solve
all problems with the aid of restricted and poorly
assimilable theories.^^1^^ Kircupp suggests that socialism should be
purged of materialism and revolutionary orthodoxy. It must be
noted that Mao Tse-tung adopted Kircupp's concept of
"moral socialism''.
 Mao Tse-tung could only base his views of

MarxismLeninism on translations, since he knew no foreign
languages. Moreover, in the early forties, and indeed right up to
1949, only a very small part of the works of the classics
of Marxism-Leninism were available in Chinese.
 In the twenties Mao's ignorance of Marxism-Leninism

did not matter a great deal, in view of the generally
deficient theoretical knowledge of the CPC leaders. After Mao
usurped power in the CPC in 1935, however, the position
was radically altered. Henceforth, Mao needed a
knowledge of Marxist theory in order to strengthen his position in
the Party leadership.
 Not until the end of the thirties did Mao read odd
chapters and extracts from Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach,
_-_-_
~^^1^^ See G. Kircupp, History of Socialism, London, 1920, p. 405.
55
Anti-Diihring and Dialectics of Nature, and Lenin's Materialism

and Empirio-criticism and Philosophical Notebooks. At
roughly the same time he read Stalin's The Foundations
of Leninism and On the Foundations of Leninism which,
as we know, did not attempt to present all the wealth of
Marxist-Leninist theory. A textual analysis of Mao's
writings shows that all his quotations from Marx, Engels and
Lenin were derived from these works of Stalin.
 Any correct propositions as appear in Mao Tse-tung's
works are simply a rehash of the ideas of Stalin and other
Marxists, both Soviet and Chinese (the latter including Li
Ta-chao, Chu Chiu-po, Peng Pai, Wang Ming and Ai
Szuch'i), while his own `òriginal'' ideas are, as a rule,
erroneous.
 A close analysis of Mao Tse-tung's articles makes it clear

that he had not read such fundamental Marxist works as
Capital, The Poverty of Philosophy, The Holy Family or The
German Ideology. Indeed, Mao was wont to refer to those
who took the trouble to study Capital as "doctrinairists,
racking their brains to no avail''.
 Mao Tse-tung's attitude to Marx and his works was

clearly expressed in quite unambiguous terms in a speech
at the Second Session of the Eighth Party Congress in 1958,
when he called for "the destruction of blind faith in Marx"
and the indoctrination of the Chinese people with the
"Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''. "Marx had two eyes and two
hands, just like the rest of us, but his head was full of
Marxism,'' Mao said. "However, there is no need to read
everything Marx wrote. After all, he wrote so much! There
is no need at all to read everything. Comrade Yang
Hsienchen,^^1^^ have you read all of Marx? Yes, you have read
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Yang Hsien-chen, famous Chinese Marxist philosopher, member

of the CPC Central Committee, eighth convocation, pro-rector of the
Central Committee's Party School. He criticised Mao Tse-tung's
voluntarist views, declaring them to be subjective idealism and
neoMachism. A persecution campaign was launched against him (1959--
1962) under cover of a debate on "the identity of existence and
thought'', and in 1964 he was publicly declared to be a ``revisionist''. His
views were ``condemned'' in the course of a debate on the subject of
the "dissolution of the entity'', which was a prelude to the "cultural
revolution''. (We shall return to this subject in greater detail further
on.) During the "cultural revolution" Yang Hsien-chen was declared
'ideologist of the Black Gang of Liu Shao-chi" and included in the
__NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 57.
56
everything and you have climbed to the highest storey,

whereas I have not and I have not yet got to the top. I think
that those who are at the bottom should on no account be
afraid of those who are at the top....''
 How much Mao Tse-tung knows about Marxism can be

gauged from the following rather self-effacing statement
by Mao himself, made during a conversation with
journalists and people from the publishing world on March 10,
1957.
 ``When somebody or other says that he understands
Marxism it must be borne in mind that there are different
degrees of understanding Marxism. I too have read a few
books by the founders of Marxism. I don't know how many
they wrote, but I imagine rather less than half have been
translated in China. A specialist should read as much as
possible. We have not much free time and can read less"
(quoted from the Hungweiping newspaper Tung fang hung,
July 1967).
 These views of Mao on the study of the classics of

Marxism and the question of whether it was indeed at all
necessary for the Chinese to study the works of Marx, Engels
and Lenin were developed by Kuo Mo-jo, President of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences. Addressing scholars present
at the inaugural meeting of the history society in the
Kwangsi-Chuang autonomous region, Kuo Mo-jo called on the
Chinese to study Marxism-Leninism from the Selected
Works of Mao Tse-tung, which they should "read
thoroughly" and "learn by heart'', since the works of Marx, Engels
and Lenin were ``difficult'' and ``remote'' from Chinese life.
"Although Chinese translations exist which we can read,
however conscientiously the translation was made, as soon
as you begin reading them relative difficulties in
understanding them arise. Moreover, the practice dealt with in these
classic works is so remote from us that we have not
experienced it ourselves and even when you want to
look into them deeply, you are bound to find difficulties
arising. The works of Chairman Mao are written in
Chinese, and are moreover written simply, clearly and
perfectly.''^^1^^
_-_-_
__NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 56.
egory of ``counter-revolutionaries'' and ''enemies of the Thoughts of

Mao Tse-tung''. His present fate is unknown.
~^^1^^ Kwangsi jih-jxio, March 26, 1963, in Chinese.
57
 Mao's supporters attempt to justify their scornful

attitude towards world socialist thought and scientific socialism
by insisting that socialism developed on a purely Chinese
basis. During the ``rectification'' movement of 1942 to 1944,
at the time when the Party was being ``purged'' of the
influence of Marxism-Leninism and the Comintern, Chen Po-ta,
now a leading Maoist theoretician, wrote the following,
which conforms perfectly to the spirit of that campaign. "
Socialism has been the dream of the best representatives of
our nation for thousands of years. The thinker Mo-tzu
(5th c. B.C.) called this dream 'universal love', while in
the treatise Li Yuan it is referred to as the 'great union'. ...
The ideals of socialism and communism---of 'great union'---
in the case of our nation have not been introduced from
outside, but are a historical need inherent in our
nation.''
 Analysis of bibliographic sources of the published works

of Mao Tse-tung shows how totally unfounded and absurd
are the claims of the sacristans of the Mao cult that their
leader "brilliantly, creatively, and all-embracingly
inherited, defended and developed Marxism-Leninism, raising it
to a new stage''.
 In all of Mao Tse-tung's works, if we try to trace his

sources we find a preponderance of references to, or
__PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__
References to, or quotations from
Percentage of
references in
nil 4 volumes
1. Confucian and neo-Confucian

writings ................
2. Taoist and Mohist writings . . . .
3. Folklore legends, pure belles lettres. .
4. Other Chinese and foreign writers,

unclassified............
5. Marx and Engels.........
6. Lenin ...............
7. Stalin ..............
22
12
13
7
4
18
24
TOTAL
100%
58
__PARAGRAPH_CONT__
quotations from Confucius, Mencius and other ancient and

medieval Chinese sages. The bourgeois Sinologist V.
Holubnychy made a careful textual study of the works of Mao
Tse-tung and drew up the following statistical table of the
sources quoted by Mao in all four volumes of Selected
Works.~^^1^^
 We checked these figures for ourselves and found them

to be basically correct. While it naturally cannot be
assumed that Mao Tse-tung has only read those authors he
quotes in his works, this table nevertheless serves to give a
fair idea of the range of authors he has studied.
 The Soviet film director R. Karmen who spent over a year
in China in 1939--1940 and met Mao Tse-tung in Yenan on
several occasions provides another extremely convincing
testimony to the ideological substratum of Mao's views. In his
A Year in China, published in 1941, he mentions that in his
conversations and speeches Mao Tse-tung was constantly
quoting Confucius.^^2^^ This is also confirmed by the memoirs
of Otto Braun (Li Te), an outstanding German Communist
and internationalist who was military adviser to the
Central Committee of the CPC in the thirties and was for many
years closely acquainted with Mao.^^3^^
 It so happened that thanks to the efforts of Ai Szu-ch'i

and other Marxists several Soviet philosophy manuals were
translated into Chinese in the thirties. Mao Tse-tung thus
had ample opportunity to acquire a correct understanding of
the basic principles of Marxist philosophy, had he so wished.
But his ``philosophical'' works show that he was either unable
or unwilling to take advantage of the information on
MarxistLeninist philosophy contained in Soviet popular philosophy
manuals. This is certainly suggested by the numerous
distortions of Marxist theses that are to be found in Mao Tse-tung's
writings from the forties onwards.
 Mao's first ``philosophical'' work, as we have already

mentioned, was the pamphlet Dialectical Materialism. The
list of contents reproduced below should give the reader a
good idea of its subject matter.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ V. Holubnychy, "Mao Tse-tung's Materialistic Dialectics'', China

Quarterly, July-September, 1904, No."l9, p. 17.
~^^2^^ R. Karmcn, A Year in China (in Russian), Moscow, 1941, p. 111. 
 ^^3^^ Otto Braun, From Shanghai to Yen/in (in German), 19(i9.
59
 Chapter I. Idealism and Materialism ~
 I. The war between two armies in philosophy.

 II. The difference between idealism and materialism.
 III. The source of the rise and development of idealism.
 IV. The origin of the inception and development of
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ materialism.
 Chapter II. Dialectical Materialism ~
 I. Dialectical materialism is the revolutionary arm of the

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ proletariat.
 II. The relationship between the old philosophical
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ heritage and dialectical materialism.
 III. The unity of world view and methodology in
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dialectical materialism.
 IV. The question of the object of materialist dialectics---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ what do materialist dialectics serve to study?
 V. On matter.
 VI. On movement (on development).
 VII. On space and time.
 VIII. On awareness.
 IX. On reflection.
 X. On truth.
 XI. On practice (on the connection between cognition
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and practice, theory and action, knowledge and action).
 Chapter III. Materialist Dialectics ~
 I. The law of the unity of opposites.
 a) Two views of development.

 b) The formal-logistic law of identity and the
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dialectical law of contradiction.
 c) The universality of contradiction.
 d) The particularity of contradiction.
 e) The principal contradiction and the principal
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aspect of a contradiction.
 f) Identity and struggle of the aspects of a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ contradiction.
 g) The place of antagonism in the line of
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ contradictions.
 A detailed analysis of the text revealed that it was

based entirely on two Soviet works, the text-book Dialectical
60
Materialism (Moscow 1933, general editor M.~Mitin), and

the article of the same name published in volume 22 of the
first edition of the Bolshaya Sovietxkaya Entsiklopedia.
 Mao Tse-tung's pamphlet is really no more than a

recapitulation of these two works. Whole passages have been
``lifted'' wholesale, with little or no change. This is
especially true of those problems which were never examined
at all in traditional Chinese philosophy, or which were
treated at a very low theoretical level and which required a
knowledge of natural science and the historical
development of world philosophy to be properly understood. Such
problems include the question of the material nature of
the world, the forms in which matter exists, especially space
and time, and objective, relative and absolute truth.
 Yet despite the fact that Mao Tse-tung is merely

retelling in Chinese the correct theses contained in Soviet works,
he nevertheless manages to distort and vulgarise them.
 According to Mao, the basic social cause of idealism is

the antithesis between intellectual labour and manual
labour. ''. . .The earliest manifestation of idealism was brought
about by the superstition and ignorance of primitive,
savage man. But with the development of production, the
separation between manual labour and intellectual labour was
responsible for ranking idealism first among currents of
philosophical thought. With the development of the
productive forces of society, the division of labour made its
appearance; the further development of the division of labour
saw the emergence of persons devoting themselves entirely
and exclusively to intellectual labour. But when the
productive forces are still weak, the division between the two
does not reach the stage of complete separation. Only after
classes and private property appear and exploitation
becomes the foundation of the existence of the ruling class do
great changes occur. Intellectual labour then becomes the
exclusive privilege of the ruling class, while manual labour
becomes the fate of the oppressed classes. The ruling class
begins to examine the relationship between themselves and
the oppressed classes in an upside-down fashion: It is not
the labourers who provide them with the means for
existence, but rather they who provide the labourers with the means
of existence. They therefore despise manual labour and
develop idealist conceptions. The elimination of the differences
61
between manual labour and intellectual labour is one of the

preconditions for eliminating idealist philosophy.''^^1^^
 Mao Tse-tung is quite wrong in identifying the causes

of the appearance of the illusion about the independent
development of ideology with the social roots of idealism.
In actual fact, the division of labour into intellectual and
manual work, while demoralising man and entailing on
him special social functions, at the same time gives a strong
impulse to the development of the productive forces,
science and the arts. This can be seen from the first antagonistic
class society. As Engels wrote: "It was slavery that first
made possible the division of labour between agriculture
and industry on a larger scale, and thereby also Hellenism,
the flowering of the ancient world. Without slavery, no
Greek state, no Greek art and science.. . .''^^2^^
 As for the social roots of idealism, they lie in the

division of society into classes and the urge of the exploiter
classes to retain and strengthen their rule.
 Mao Tse-tung's articles "On Practice" and "On

Contradiction" included in the Selected Works also contain
extensive borrowings from the above-mentioned Soviet
textbook and Bolshaya Sovietskaya Entsiklopedia.^^3^^ One example
is the thesis of the two views concerning the laws of
development of the world: the metaphysical and the dialectical.
Once again, the Marxist theses borrowed from the Soviet
works appear side by side with over-simplified, vulgarised
interpretations of numerous problems and even un-Marxist
and anti-Marxist theses. This is particularly evident in
Mao's treatment of the basic law of dialectics.^^4^^
 The outward resemblance Mao's two articles bear to

genuine Marxist works, as regards terminology, added to the
fact that they contain such extensive borrowings of theses
from Soviet works, often blinds people to their real content
and significance. This misunderstanding is further increased
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, Talien, p. 5 (emphasis added.---M.A.,

V. G.).
~^^2^^ F. Engels, Anti-Duhring, Moscow, 1969, p. 216.
~^^3^^ From "The Law of the Unity of Opposites'', the fourth section of
the chapter of the text-book entitled 'flic Laws of Materialist
Dialectics, and from the section "The Law of the Unity of Opposites" and
the article "Dialectical Materialism" in the Bolshaya Sovietskaya
Entsiklopedia.
 ^^4^^ Discussed further on.
62
by the references to A. M. Deborin and the "Menshevikising

idealists''. However, in our opinion, the politico--
philosophical errors of the Deborin group could not possibly have any
bearing on China, since the CPC cadres were, for objective
reasons, far removed from philosophical debates in the USSR.
The only people who might have some idea of the views of
Deborin and his group were the Chinese students studying
in Moscow or CPC representatives in the Comintern. The
majority of these adopted an internationalist standpoint, and
on their return to China represented a serious threat to the
nationalist policy of Mao Tse-tung. It was these people that
Mao Tse-tung had in mind when he spoke of the influence
of Deborin's idealism on certain members of the CPC and
of political errors of a doctrinaire nature. In insisting on the
need to combat Deborin and his group, Mao was pursuing
two aims: he was preparing an alibi for the liquidation of
genuine internationalist Communists and at the same time
proclaiming his own ``fidelity'' to Marxism.
 Mao Tse-tung's articles and statements on philosophy

dating from the 1950s and 1960s (for example, "On the Correct
Handling of Contradictions Among the People'', 1957, and
his instructions regarding the debate on the "dissolution of
the entity" 1964) show an ever-increasing distortion and
vulgarisation of Marxism-Leninism. We shall be discussing
this in detail in another chapter, and shall therefore restrict
ourselves at this stage to one example.
 Quotations from Chairman Mao contains the following

idea on idealism and metaphysics, materialism and
dialectics, purporting to date from 1955. "In the world only
idealism and metaphysics require the minimum of effort, for they
enable people to talk all kinds of rubbish without taking
objective reality into account and without testing what they
say in real life. Materialism and dialectics, on the contrary,
require effort from people, for they are based on objective
reality and are tested in real life.
 `Ùnless one makes an effort it is easy to slide towards

idealism and metaphysics.''^^1^^
 If in the late thirties Mao Tse-tung was still making some
kind of effort to disclose the real causes of the appearance
of various trends in philosophy, albeit distorting the Marxist
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Quotations from Mao Tse-tung's Works (in Russian), pp. 220--21.
63
viewpoint, twenty years later he reduces the whole problem

to the amount of effort the philosopher, scientist, scholar or
practical man expends in his particular field of activity.
Such an attitude begs the conclusion that all industrious
people are materialists and dialecticians while all lazy people
are idealists and metaphysicians. According to this thesis,
that great son of the Chinese people Sun Yat-sen clearly
falls into the latter category, since he is well known to have
been an idealist in his philosophical views.
 The fact that Mao Tse-tung uses Marxist phraseology in
his works and that some of the Maoist theses bear a formal
resemblance to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism enables the
Maoists to camouflage the true essence of "Mao Tse-tung's
Thoughts''. Moreover, Mao is fond of quoting Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin, and makes frequent "oaths of allegiance"
to the Marxist cause and the ideals of Marxism-Leninism.
However, does this really provide grounds for regarding
Mao, if not as an "outstanding Marxist-Leninist'', at least
as an ordinary run-of-the-mill Marxist philosopher, or for
blaming Soviet philosophy or Marxism-Leninism in general
for the appearance of Maoism, as bourgeois propagandists
are wont to do?
 It certainly does not. A detailed analysis of the views of

Mao Tse-tung shows that anti-Marxist ideas predominate
in his theories, so that the borrowed Marxist theses are really
an alien element in his ``philosophy''. This is especially clear
from those parts of his writings where he offers his own
interpretation of problems treated by Marxism-Leninism.
Mao's supporters extol him not so much for his repetition of
general truths as for those formulations which represent an
essential departure from the Marxist-Leninist philosophical
treatment of such problems as proletarian revolution, war
and peace, class relations and the class struggle under
socialism which we shall be dealing with in later chapters.
 The frequent appeals Mao makes in his writings to the

authority of Stalin and citations from him were also
intended simply to create the impression of adherence to
Marxism-Leninism and the communist movement. In actual
fact, Mao makes hypocritical use of Stalin's name for attacks
on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. A collection
of Mao's speeches at closed meetings, published by the
Hungweipings, reveals that Mao called Stalin a
64
metaphysician and accused him of being opposed to the Chinese

revolution. In "Three Milestones in the Development of
Marxism'', distributed by the Hungweipings, it is claimed that as
a result of Stalin's theoretical errors, Marxism began to
"mark time" in the Soviet Union. Curiously enough, the
date given for the beginning of this "marking time" is 1935,
the year Mao Tse-tung "assumed leadership" of the CPC.

 It is quite clear even from this brief examination of the

story of Mao Tse-tung's acquaintanceship with
MarxismLeninism that he never was a Marxist, and that the Maoist
claim that he `ìnherited'', ``defended'' and ``developed''
Marxism-Leninism is just another myth. It is paradoxical
and absurd when a hidebound chauvinist suffering from
megalomania aspires to become a classic of Marxism--
 Leninism.
[65]
__NUMERIC_LVL1__
CHAPTER III
__ALPHA_LVL1__
THE IDEALIST ESSENCE OF MAOIST PHILOSOPHY
__ALPHA_LVL2__
1. Subjective Idealism Instead of the Materialist
 View of History
 What are the basic tenets of Mao Tse-tung's outlook? The
Marxist propositions that occur with such frequency in
Mao's writings by no means tally with his own `òriginal''
interpretations of many philosophical questions in which he
expresses his own basic outlook. This applies to problems
concerning the relationship between the objective laws of
social development and conscious human activity, the
economic basis of society and its political superstructure, social
being and social ideas. In order to make a correct assessment
of the essence of Maoist ``philosophy'' it is necessary to
examine the way it treats the relationship between theory
and practice, between spiritual and material activity. It is
necessary to see whether the Maoists are guided by the
principles of Marxism-Leninism in their approach to social
phenomena, in their activities and policy-making. In other words,
it is necessary to bracket off the Marxist terminology
Maoism exploits.
 If we examine Maoism from this point of view, we shall

find that it takes its departure from the primacy of the
subjective factor: "subjective activity'', politics and ideas.
This is expressed in such premises as the following:
production relations and not the productive forces play the
major role in the socialist mode of production; politics and
not economics are the ruling factor in socialist society;
moral impulses and not material interest are the main
factor in building socialism; men and not weapons decide
the outcome of a war.
 In the final analysis, all such premises are reducible to

the thesis that subjective activity, falsely interpreted, is the
decisive factor in socialist society, which really amounts to
66
an attempt to subject the objective laws of socialist

construction to the subjective activities of the leadership and provide
a theoretical justification for subjectivism, voluntarism and
adventurism in home and foreign policy.
 In 1958 and 1959 the question of subjective activity was
being widely debated in China. At about the same time "the
theory of subjective activity" began to be extensively
propagated, every effort being made to exalt the role of Mao
in the development of this theory. The following two
quotations are taken from the manual Dialectical Materialism,
published in Peking in 1961.
 1) Waging a resolute struggle with all kinds of opportunist

elements who denied or minimised the role of the subjective
activity of the masses, Mao Tse-tung made not only a
theoretical but also a tremendous political contribution to the
development of the theory of subjective activity. He not
only gave a precise Marxist definition of subjective activity
in the Marxist sense, and showed clearly and concretely
how subjective activity plays a decisive role in certain
circumstances; he also made a comprehensive and profound
study, based on the close unity of materialism and dialectics,
of the existence of dialectical links between the subjective
and objective, subjective activity and objective laws,
revolutionary spirit and the scientific approach.
 2) Comrade Mao Tse-tung's new contribution to Marxist

philosophy consists not only in the fact that on the basis of
the contradiction between subjective and objective he
provides a clear and positive answer to the decisive role of
subjective activity in certain circumstances, but also in the
fact that with reference to the basic spheres of social life
and the practical activity of the Party he gives our Party an
even more powerful theoretical weapon for guiding the
people in the struggle for the grandiose transformation of
the world.
 One cannot help being struck by the extravagant claim

that Marxism owes a large debt to Mao Tse-tung for his
insistence on the "decisive role of subjective activity''.
Marxism-Leninism does not deny the importance of the
subjective factor in the development of socialist society; on the
contrary, it insists that it plays an increasingly important
role as socialist construction develops successfully. This is
because the communist and workers' parties, relying on
6*
67
knowledge of the objective laws of social development, can

make use of them in the interests of the whole of society, so
that people's activities acquire a purposeful, conscious
character.
 Nevertheless, the development of socialist society is as
much conditioned by material factors, objective, as the
development of any other stage of human society. Failure to
take sufficient account of the influence of material factors
on people's socio-economic activity, and especially failure to
recognise them altogether, cannot but have a negative effect
on the development of socialist society.
 Contrary to Marxism-Leninism, the Maoists

overemphasise subjective activity, ignoring the dialectical unity of the
objective laws of social development and conscious activity.
They call the Marxist-Leninists ``mechanists'', since, to quote
them, "refusing to recognise that man is the decisive factor
in the relationship between men and things, they make a
one-sided insistence on man's activities being determined
by dead patterns of objective laws, on man being only able
to passively submit to laws".^^1^^ On the basis of the fact that
the role of the subjective factor increases immeasurably
under socialism, the Maoists draw a metaphysical contrast
between objective law and human activity, divorcing them
from one another.
 The main thing, however, is that the Maoists interpret

subjective activity not as the purposeful activity of the masses,
based on knowledge of the laws of social development,
but as their activity to implement the designs of their
leaders. Thus, the talk of Mao Tse-tung's contribution to the
development of the "theory of subjective activity'', is to be
understood as an apology for activity that is not subject to
any objective laws, or in other words, voluntarism and
subjectivism. This is a subjective-idealist viewpoint.
 One very important point must be borne in mind in

analysing Maoist ``philosophy''. In order to mask their departure
from Marxism-Leninism, Mao and his supporters frequently
resort to the trick of taking a correct Marxist thesis and
interpreting it in their own way, stressing whatever aspect of
it happens to suit their particular purpose, inflating and
absolutising a part of the whole, taking care, however, to
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, Peking, 1961, p. 10.
68
quote the whole proposition in order that their distortion

should not be too obvious.
 Thus, in the case in point, their revision of the Marxist

thesis of the dialectical interrelationship of objective laws
of social development and conscious human activity in
socialist society is carefully masked by placing the emphasis
on the latter while nevertheless mentioning the need to take
the former into account.
 Maoist distortions of Marxist theses can be discovered not
only by making a careful study of their theoretical exercises
and a thorough analysis and comparison of all their
statements on a given question, but also by finding out when, in
what circumstances, and for what reason, they choose to
stress a particular proposition. Thus, Mao Tse-tung's
subjective-idealist approach to the question of the objective
laws of social development becomes even more appareiit if
it is remembered that this argument in favour of subjective
activity was put forward at the time of the Great Leap
Forward and the "people's communes''.
 As a further example of the way the Maoists covertly

distort the Marxist theory of the relationship between
subjective activity and objective laws, let us take a look at a
passage from an article published in 1965 in the review
Hsin-chian She, organ of the department of philosophical
and social sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the Chinese
People's Republic. Once again we are dealing with a
subjective-idealist interpretation of the role of man in material
production. ".. .Although the instruments of labour in
production, the objects of labour, weapons in war, etc., are
extremely important, and although they are undoubtedly an
important factor in production and war, nevertheless, they
occupy a place of secondary importance compared to man.
Wherever it may be, in the production struggle or in the
class struggle, it is man and not material that plays the
decisive role.''^^1^^ This is because man is active while material is
passive, the authors explain. Man "... can think, can work,
has a subjective activity, can cognise the world, while
maferial does not possess these attributes''. "The most
important things are the instruments of labour in production and
weapons in war.... But, apart from human activity, nature
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Hsin-chian She, 1965, No. 7, p. 23.
69
cannot provide man with the necessary instruments of labour

and weapons. Apart from human activity, the instruments
and weapons that have been produced turn to rubbish.''^^1^^
 But perhaps all this is simply advanced in defence of

man's active essence? We have only to remember that the
above was written at a time when China's industrial
development rates had slowed down after the spectacular failure
of the Great Leap and the "people's communes'', at a time
when the role of technology and technological progress was
being disparaged if not ignored, and the idea that "the atom
bomb is a paper tiger" was being churned out non-stop, to
realise its clear anti-Marxist implications, to understand that
we have to do with a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the
role of man in material production.
 Marxism-Leninism has always stressed the decisive role

of man in social production. Suffice it to remember Lenin's
words that the worker, the working man is the prime
productive force of all mankind. But Marxism-Leninism has
never separated man from the other elements of the
productive forces and set him up in contrast to them. Man is the
chief, but not the only, component of the productive forces.
Unwitting or deliberate failure to recognise this principle
blots out the fundamental distinctions between different
modes of production, since every society is characterised by
a certain level of development of the productive forces.
 Marxism-Leninism rejects the view that reason plays the

decisive role in the development of the productive forces
and the means of production, in the process of creating and
using the instruments of labour. In exerting an influence on
nature, man changes himself as well as nature, improving
himself in the process of improving the instruments of
labour. But this depends on the level of development of the
productive forces at a given point. It must be remembered
that man's powers and possibilities in a particular historical
age are limited by the level of development of material
production, and above all of the instruments of labour.
 Naturally, the instruments of labour are worth nothing

without man. But this is no reason for denying their
importance, for man's powers are manifested in the level of
development of the instruments of labour.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Hsin-chian She, 1965, No. 7, p. 23.
70
 The Maoists, however, contrast man to the other elements

of the productive forces, and even go as far as to deny the
role of the instruments of labour in the development of
society. Take, for example, their approach to the material
factors in war. The atom bomb and other modern weapons
are described as "paper tigers'', and the material,
technological factor in war is practically dismissed. The following
thesis of Mao Tse-tung is significant in this respect. "
Weapons are an important factor in war but not the decisive one.
It is man and not material that counts.''^^1^^ It is no accident
that in discussing revolution, the Maoists completely ignore
objective factors and accord the decisive role to subjective
political factors.
 The Maoists preach nihilism with regard to science and

technology, as is expressed in such slogans as "destroy faith
in scientific authorities" and "make every worker and
peasant a scientist''. In the conditions of the modern scientific
and technological revolution when science is becoming a
direct productive force of society, such practice would
inevitably lead to the stagnation of scientific research.
 In our opinion, this is merely to be regarded as a further

example of that typical Maoist habit of separating theory
from practice and adopting a narrow utilitarian approach
to theory. Mao Tse-tung is hardly unaware of the growing
role of the natural sciences in modern society, since the use
of scientific achievements increases man's control over
nature. That he is not, is borne out by the fact that the
majority of scientific institutions and scientists engaged on the
creation of nuclear weapons were not subjected to criticism
during the "cultural revolution''. It was the social science
that bore the brunt of the attack. It seems clear that Mao
was making a bugbear of ``pseudo-science'' and "worship of
scientific authorities" for the purpose of getting at his
political opponents. The Maoists have not questioned the value
of applying the natural sciences in practice, and there is no
indication that they intend to do so in the future.
 Mao's fetishisation of the role of man in production is

inseparably linked with his misinterpretation of the
interrelationship between the productive forces and relations of
production, between the foundation and the superstructure.
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 92.
71
 The Marxist view on this question is expressed in the

following passage by Marx, which Lenin pointed to as
summing up the materialist concept of history. "In the social
production of their life, men enter into definite relations that
are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of
production which correspond to a definite stage of
development of their material productive forces. The sum total of
these relations of production constitutes the economic
structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal
and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of
material life conditions the social, political and intellectual
life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men
that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social
being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage
of their development, the material productive forces of
society come in conflict with the existing relations of
production, or---what is but a legal expression for the same thing---
with the property relations within which they have been at
work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive
forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an
epoch of social revolution.... Just as our opinion of an
individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can
we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own
consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be
explained rather from the contradictions of material life,
from the existing conflict between the social productive
forces and the relations of production.''^^1^^
 Maoism adopts an entirely different approach to the

question of the relationship between the productive forces and
relations of production. As we have already seen, Mao
Tsetung makes the thesis "Politics takes command" his point of
departure. Moreover, this elevation of politics to the
position of command is to be understood as the subjection of the
objective development of the productive forces to arbitrary
decisions. According to Mao Tse-tung, the motive force of
social development is not the development of the productive
forces, conditioning the nature of the relations of
production, but the contradiction between the productive forces and
the relations of production, class contradictions, and the
_-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works. In three volumes, Moscow,

19b9, Vol. I, pp. 503--504.
72
contradiction between the old and the new, all treated

abstractly.
 Thus, Mao writes in "On Contradiction": "Changes in

society are chiefly due to the development of internal
contradictions in society, namely, the contradiction between the
productive forces and the relations of production, the
contradiction between the classes, and the contradiction between
the old and the new; it is the development of these
contradictions that impels society forward and starts the process
of the supercession of the old society by a new one.''^^1^^
 In a speech in Shanghai in August 1957, Mao Tse-tung

attacked the thesis of the Eighth Congress of the CPC (1956)
that the contradiction between an advanced social order and
backward productive forces was coming more and more to
the fore in China. In his speech Mao declared: "The
statement that the advanced social order in China has entered
into contradiction with the backward productive forces is
wrong.''^^2^^
 In contrast to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung ascribes

the main role in the system of productive forces and
relations of production to the latter, regarding the introduction
of new relations of production to be possible independently
of the level of development of the productive forces.
Secondly, he regards the introduction of new relations of
production as the result not of objective necessity inherent in
the process of material production but of subjective will.^^3^^
 The Maoists hold that it is possible to improve artificially

the relations of production in order to solve the tasks of
China's socio-economic development. This was the aim
pursued in the Great Leap Forward and the people's communes.
The slogan of a rapid transition to communism was advanced
at the initial stage of the building of socialism in China.
The people's communes were widely advertised as being the
first cells of the future communist society. The lamentable
results of this `èxperiment'' are common knowledge.
 The artificial improvement of the relations of production,

which amounted to various kinds of political-organisational
_-_-_
~^^2^^ From the Hungwciping newspaper Tung fang /iung, July, 1967.
~^^3^^ Maoist reservations, as in the cases we examined above, are simply

a tactical device designed to camouflage their revision of the Marxist
view of history.
73
reshaping of agriculture and industry, was associated with

deliberate intensification of the class struggle, as expressed
in a succession of political campaigns and mass movements,
viz., the campaigns against the ``Three-Antis'' and ``
FiveAntis'' (1952--1953), the struggle against "right
opportunist elements" (1957--1958), the movement for the
rectification of styles of work (1958), the campaign for "devotion of
the heart to the Party" (1958--1959), the socialist education
movement in the countryside (1962--1963), and, finally, the
"Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (1966--1969).
 This anti-Marxist, idealist approach has its logical

conclusion in the formula "The power of Mao Tse-tung's
Thought is infinite''.
 Debasing Marx's thesis that theory becomes a material

force when it takes hold of the masses, the Maoists claim
that "Mao Tse-tung's Thought" can be applied with great
success in the production of atom bombs, complicated
surgical operations, the transplanting of human organs, the
sale of melons and even the introduction of good sanitation
in the towns. Lin Piao declared the writings and thoughts
of Mao Tse-tung to be the key to the solution of absolutely
any problem, and that "with their aid it is easy to obtain
immediate, tangible results''.
 The newspaper Heng-yan jih-pao wrote: "Reading the

thoughts of Mao Tse-tung is not simply reading but a great
task on which the success or defeat of the socialist
revolution and the building of socialism depends.... It is a great
task on which the destiny of mankind depends. One must
read them constantly, systematically, always.''^^1^^
 The army newspaper Jiefangjun pao made equally

staggering claims. "Our country's boundless might mainly
consists in the fact that we have the powerful, invincible
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.''^^2^^
 The work of the masses and economic construction are

quite incidental: Mao Tse-tung and his ``Thought'' are the
alpha and the omega. "Mao Tse-tung's Thought'', like
Hegel's Absolute, is the source of social development and,
becoming a material force, forms the economic foundation and
political superstructure of society.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Heng-yan jih-pao, February 14, 1966.
~^^2^^ Jiefangjun pao, March 2, 1966.
74
 Moreover, the Maoists ascribe to Mao Tse-tung's Thought

the power to determine the destiny of the world socialist
revolution and the development of all human society. Thus,
the newspaper Jen-min jih-pao writes: "When Mao
Tsetung's Thought is current throughout the world, when it has
been gradually adopted by the revolutionary peoples of the
whole world, it will be able to change the spiritual profile of
the revolutionary peoples of the world and transform a
spiritual force into a powerful material force. Once they
have accepted Mao Tse-tung's Thought, the revolutionary
peoples of the world will smash the old world with
tremendous, irresistible force, completely bury imperialism, modern
revisionism and reaction in all countries and will build on
earth an infinitely bright, great new communist world of
unsurpassed beauty, a world without oppression and
exploitation.''^^1^^
 As the French publicist J. E. Vidal remarked, Mao

Tsetung substitutes subjectivism for Marxism-Leninism. "The
ideas of Mao Tse-tung will become a 'material force' from
which the condition of the productive forces will depend.
This subjective, idealist concept of history leads to pure
voluntarism. The human will can act independently of
objective laws and historical necessity. An unlimited role is
ascribed to the invincible Thought of Mao Tse-tung. Thus,
moral education becomes the main form of activity in the
transformation of society.''^^2^^
 Clearly, the Marxist thesis of the relative independence

of ideology has been interpreted unscientifically in Maoism,
and Marx's thesis that theory becomes a material force when
it takes hold of the masses has been debased.
 Marxist-Leninists have always attributed an important

role to ideas in social development, holding that they can
serve to accelerate it, but this is only the case provided these
ideas reflect real life, class relations, the development of
science, and economic progress. The viability and
invincibility of Marxist ideas, their accelerating influence on the
social process is due to their scientific nature, the fact that
they correspond to the laws of social development. It is by
virtue of this that they become a material force in the
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Jen-min jih-pao, June 20, 1966.
~^^2^^ L'humanite, January 10, 1968.
75
transformation of the world. The `ìdeas'' of Mao are quite devoid

of vitalising force, since they are not based on science and
do not correspond to the objective laws of social
development, so that their realisation in practice is only leading to
failures in China's home and foreign policy.
 Maoism revises the Marxist-Leninist thesis of the role of

the masses and personality in history, exaggerating the latter
and reviving hero-worship, and regarding the masses as a
faceless herd obedient to the will of their leaders.
 This subjective-sociological interpretation of the role of

the individual in history is clearly expressed in the
exaggeration of Mao Tse-tung's role in the history of the Chinese
revolution, socialist construction, and the world historical
process, with corresponding minimisation of the role of the
masses and the communist party. It is expressed in the
personality cult of Mao Tse-tung. The activities of the CPC
throughout its history are identified with the activities of
one man, Mao Tse-tung. Maoist propaganda presents Mao
as a kind of superman, a genius such as is only born once
in several centuries, so that unquestioning obedience to him
is the guarantee of success for China. "To always think of
Chairman Mao, obey Chairman Mao in everything, follow
Chairman Mao, do everything in the name of Chairman
Mao.''^^1^^ The Chinese and the peoples of the world are called
upon to be "good warriors'', "obedient buffaloes" and "
stainless screws" of Mao Tse-tung.
 This is far more than a rebirth or echoing of the populist
theory of ``heroes'' and the ``crowd''. In the one case it was
a question of a plurality of heroes, of the hero in general.
In the other case it is a question of one hero who is able to
change or dispose altogether of the laws of social
development as he thinks fit.
 The Chinese press is used to deify Mao and glorify his
obedient servants. It has no interest at all in the masses as
such, as the real hero of the historical process and
participant in the revolutionary transformation of society. In
Maoist theory and practice alike, the masses are simply `èxtras''
doing whatever they are ordered by Mao. According to the
logic of Maoist philosophy, the masses are incapable of
conscious, organised activity, but are only able to obey and
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Kitai (China), 1968, No. 7, p. 18.
76
blindly "follow the leader'', that is, the leader. This is

expressed in Mao Tse-tung's `ìdea'' that the Chinese people
is a clean sheet of paper. "A clean sheet of paper has no
blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be
written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be
painted on it.''^^1^^ Such a concept of the respective historical
roles of the individual and the masses has nothing at all to
do with Marxism-Leninism. It is but a highly pernicious
personality cult of a leader standing above the people. It
is mistrust of the masses, mockery of the masses.
 Just how far the Mao Tse-tung personality cult has gone
can be gauged from the following statement made by Lin
Piao at a meeting in November, 1966. "The words of
Chairman Mao are words of the highest order, highly
authoritative, possessing tremendous power, true to the last word;
each word is equivalent to ten thousand words uttered by
others.'' This excessive veneration for the word of Mao is
somewhat reminiscent of the awe and reverence with which
the Bible was once regarded.
 Under the Mao Tse-tung personality cult the Chinese

people are being educated in a spirit of complete
subservience to the leader. Ordinary Chinese are made to repeat
such things as "The concern of Chairman Mao is greater
than the earth and sky. Chairman Mao is closer than father
or mother. But for Chairman Mao, I could not exist... ."^^2^^
All the writings of Mao Tse-tung are regarded as Holy
Writ. "We must study the works of Mao Tse-tung daily. If
we fail to study the works of the leader for but one day,
numerous questions will arise; if we do not study them for
two days we shall slide downhill, and it is quite impossible
to live for three days without the works of the leader.''^^3^^
 Maoism preaches a subjectivist view of history, regarding

the political and theoretical activity of Mao Tse-tung as the
sole cause of social development.
 From the Maoist point of view, social development is not

an objective historical process but a chain of manifestations
of the "wise designs" of Mao Tse-tung. "Without the
thoughts of Mao Tse-tung, there would not be the great,
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., 19G8, No. 3.


 ^^2^^ Ibid., No. 7, p. IS.


 ~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 19.
77
glorious, true Communist Party of China^^1^^, there would be

no triumph of the democratic revolution and the socialist
revolution in this country, there would be no New China, it
would have been impossible to transform our country into a
great socialist power and our people would not have been
able to always stand upright in the world, marching ever
forwards.''^^2^^ According to Maoism, the activity of the classes,
strata and groups is of importance insofar as it coincides with
the instructions of the leader. Today, therefore, the
Hungweipings are in the street, tomorrow they are in the
countryside; today all Party cadres are beaten up, tomorrow part
of them is rehabilitated.
 Here it is worth reminding the reader of Engels' vivid

words: "All idealists, philosophic and religious, ancient and
modern, believe in inspirations, in revelations, saviours,
miracle-workers; whether their belief takes a crude
religious, or a refined philosophic, form depends only upon their
cultural level, just as the degree of energy which they
possess, their character, their social position, etc., determine
whether their attitude to a belief in miracles is a passive or
an active one, i.e., whether they are shepherds performing
miracles or whether they are sheep; they further determine
whether the aims they pursue are theoretical or practical.''^^3^^
 A politician who is not guided in his activity by the thesis

that history is made by the masses, by the millions of
producers, and that social classes play the decisive role in
revolutionary transformation, a politician who is unable, or
rather, unwilling to fuse the actions of the individual and
the masses, who bases his theoretical and practical activity
on the principle that heroes make history according to their
whim and fancy, can by no stretch of the imagination be
thought of as a Marxist-Leninist.
 Thus, Maoist philosophy represents a revision of the

materialist view of history, a step backwards to the views
of subjective, including populist philosophy long since
discredited by Marxism-Leninism.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ We have already shown how Mao's ideas have absolutely nothing
to do with the emergence of the CPG, and that it was their substitution
for the theoretical foundations of the Party that led to the tragedy the
CPC is experiencing at the present time.---M.A., V.G.
~^^2^^ Jen-min jih-pao, August 15, 1966.
~^^3^^ F. Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1964, p. 587.
78
__ALPHA_LVL2__
2. The Idealist Answer to the Basic Question
 of Philosophy
 In examining Maoist philosophy we are forced to consider

basic question of all philosophy---the relationship between
being and thinking. Marx and Engels, in their study of the
history of philosophy, showed that "the great basic question
of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is
that concerning the relation of thinking and being".^^1^^ Lenin,
commenting on Engels' development of this idea, wrote:
"In his Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels declares that the
fundamental philosophical trends are materialism and idealism.
Materialism regards nature as primary and spirit as
secondary; it places being first and thought second. Idealism holds
the contrary view.''^^2^^
 If we compare Mao Tse-tung's statements with the

statements of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, we might well
conclude that Mao simply repeats in his own words various
Marxist-Leninist propositions, i.e., that the only difference
lies in the manner in which they are expressed. Thus, we can
find any number of statements in Mao's works that appear
to adhere to the Marxist interpretation of the basic question
of philosophy. Let us examine two such statements:
"The source of all knowledge lies in the perception through
man's physical sense organs of the objective world
surrounding him... .''^^3^^ "People's social being determines
their ideology."^^4^^
 In his Dialectical Materialism, which we have already had
occasion to mention, Mao Tse-tung repeats, practically word
for word, whole passages from Mitin's Dialectical and
Historical Materialism, published in the USSR in 1933. "The
whole history of philosophy is the history of the struggle and
development of two mutually opposed schools of philosophy,
idealism and materialism.''^^5^^ Although Mao goes on to
misinterpret the causes of idealism, we nonetheless have this
direct admission of the division of philosophy into two
_-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works. In three volumes, Vol. 3, p.

345.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 99.
~^^3^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 288.
~^^4^^ Mao Tse-tung, "Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?" 
 ^^5^^ Dialectical Materialism, Talien, p. 1.
79
camps. He makes an equally open declaration of his support

for dialectical materialism. "Wherein lies the main
difference between idealism and materialism? It lies in the
opposite answer they give to the basic question of philosophy,
that of the relationship between spirit and matter (
consciousness and being).
 `Ìdealism regards spirit (consciousness, concepts, the

subject) as the source of all that exists in the world, and matter
(nature and society) as secondary and subordinate.
Materialism recognises the independent existence of matter as
detached from spirit and considers spirit as secondary and
subordinate. The opposite answers to this question are the
point of departure of the divergence of views on all other
questions.''^^1^^
 Leaving aside Mao's oversimplification of such a

complicated question, it must be said that the answer he gives is
ostensibly materialist.
 If we were to judge the above statements at their face

value, we should be bound to consider Mao Tse-tung a
supporter of dialectical materialism, attribute his errors and
false propositions to inconsistency, making allowance for
oversimplification on the grounds that it is perhaps
inevitable when attempting to present the subject in simple terms
that will be comprehensible to all.
 In actual fact, however, this is not the case. Maoist

philosophy merely masquerades as dialectical materialism,
borrowing Marxist-Leninist terminology for the purpose.
 Mao needed the thesis that matter is primary and spirit
secondary, and that the objective world is the source of
perception in order to add weight to his claim to be an
orthodox Marxist. In fact there is no substance to these
empty declarations. Moreover, by framing his own ideas in
the law that "people's social life determines their ideas"
and materialising them (every Chinese is having it drummed
into him, day in, day out, that Mao Tse-tung's Thought is
the be all and end all, the all-determining factor) Mao, aided
and abetted by his followers, is in fact departing from the
Marxist answer to the basic question of philosophy. It must
be said that Mao's followers are far more frank in
expounding their views than Mao himself.
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, Talicn, p. 3.
80
 The text-book Dialectical Materialism, published by the

People's University in 1961, did, it is true, cite Engels' answer
to the basic question of philosophy. However, the authors
immediately substituted the question of the relationship
beIwcen subject and object, between subjective and objective,
for the original question of the relationship between mind
and matter. "The basic question of philosophy is by no
means a question of pure theory, it is the basic question of
cognising and transforming the surrounding world.
Essentially, it is the question of the connection between subjective
and objective. The process of cognisance of the world
consists in the reilection of being in thinking, in the reflection of
the objective in the subjective; the process of transforming
the world involves the application of thinking to being, in
the subjective's view of the objective.''^^1^^ Further on they
write: "The question of what is primary---the subjective or
the objective---is the only criterion for differentiation
between materialism and idealism; there can be no other
criteria.''^^2^^
 The substitution of object for matter and the replacement

of the relationship between mind and matter by the
relationship between subjective and objective is designed to mask
Mao Tse-tung's subjective idealism and eclecticism. In this
way the authors erase the distinction between idealism and
materialism, for Hegel and the Neo-Thomists also accept
the existence of objective reality outside, and independent
of, the mind. Besides, the concept of object is by no means
limited to the sphere of matter. An object may be of a
material or an ideal nature.
 This interpretation of the question, no matter how much
it is qualified, makes the object dependent on, and
conditioned by the subject. The Maoists' revision of the Marxist
interpretation of the basic question of philosophy is the point
of departure of their subjective idealism, their doctrinairism
in philosophy and petty-bourgeois revolutionarism in
politics.
 The Peking leaders extrapolate from this theory that the
transformation of the "objective world" is conditional upon
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, Peking, pp. 48--49 (emphasis added.---

M.A..V.G.}.
 ^^2^^ Ibid., p. 49 (emphasis added.---AM., V.G.).
6---367
81
the transformation of the "subjective world'', which is a

return to pre-Marxian historical idealism. Mao Tse-tung
himself is not so explicit on this point, although he applies
it in practice, accepting the primacy of the ideological--
political factor over material, economic factors.
 Mao Tse-tung divorces Marx's thesis that theory can

become a material force when it takes hold of the masses from
its original context and combines it with his own ``thought''
that "the Chinese people is a clean sheet of paper'', on which
"the newest and most beautiful words can be written" and
"the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted".^^1^^
 In "On Contradiction'', Mao tries to conceal his

subjectivism by emphasising "the reaction of spiritual things on
material things''. "... We recognise that in the development of
history as a whole it is material things that determine
spiritual things and social existence that determines social
consciousness, at the same time we also recognise and must
recognise the reaction of spiritual things and social
consciousness on social existence, and the reaction of the
superstructure on the economic foundation.''^^2^^
 Note how the assertion of the primacy of material, social

existence is related not to real present-day existence but to
history, to the abstract "development of history as a whole'',
thereby justifying subjectivism in every-day political
practice.
 Indeed, Mao Tse-tung's next step in justifying his

subjectivism was to refer to the thesis that the ideal is
frequently the decisive factor of development in concrete reality.
It is as a supplement to this thesis that we have the idea of
likening the consciousness of the masses to tabula rasa which
can be used as the leader sees fit.
 With their voluntarist interpretation of the thesis that

"the material can be transformed into the spiritual and the
spiritual into the material'', Mao Tse-tung and his
supporters are apparently suggesting that any ideas can be imposed
upon society. Hence the preposterous lengths that are gone
to to try and impose "Mao Tse-tung's Thought''.
 Discussing Mao's ideas on the role of the subjective factor,
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, "About One Co-operative Society'', Hungchih, 1958,

No. 1.
~^^2^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 41 (emphasis

82
the authors of the text-book Dialectical Materialism adopt a

patently subjective-idealist standpoint. Thus, ".. .the
transformation of the world involves a double task: the
transformation of the objective world and the transformation of the
subjective world".^^1^^ We are told that Mao Tse-tung "
creatively developed the principle of the transformation of the
subjective world... stressed the tremendous importance of
the transformation of the subjective world, political
education and the use of politics as a decisive force".^^2^^
 ``. . .Before transforming the objective world it is

necessary to transform the subjective world, that is, to transform
people's ability to understand the objective world, and
transform the relations between the subjective world and the
objective world.''^^3^^ Here the authors are breaking up the
compound process of the transformation of man and society
and putting the cart before the horse. They are suggesting
that the transformation of society and the implementation
of revolution must begin with the transformation of man, the
transformation of his subjective world, a view which stands
in complete contradiction to the Marxist-Leninist principles
of historical materialism.
 Mao Tse-tung is suggesting that the new man must be

created outside the historical conditions in which he lives,
and that then this "new man-idea" will transform all social
relations and subdue nature according to his own ideal
model.
 The subjective side of man's activity is absolutised and

fetishised, made the main, decisive factor, while the
objective side of development, the material conditions in which
this process takes place are either declared to be "secondary
causes"^^4^^ or ignored altogether.
 Maoism thus regards politics, ideas, subjective activity, to

be the decisive factor of social development, which means
that while paying lip service to dialectical materialism and
formally accepting the thesis of the primacy of matter and
social being, in practice it treats spiritual things, the ideal,
etc., as the primary factor, thereby adopting what is
essentially an idealist standpoint. Then, in order to mask this
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, Peking, p. 227.
 ^^2^^ Ibid, (emphasis addcd.---M.A.,"V.G.').
 ^^3^^ Ibid., p. 228.
6*
83
subjective-idealist approach to the second side of the basic

question of philosophy, namely the problem of the
relationship between our knowledge of the world and the objective
world, the Maoists substitute the question of the relationship
between subject and object for the question of the relation
of mind and matter, and the identity of subjective and
objective for the identity of thinking and being. Moreover,
their treatment of this identity is mechanistic and vulgar.
The Maoists are in fact deducing reality from "Mao
Tsetung's Thought'', attempting to construct reality according
to their own abstract patterns. Lenin's remark that "People
repeat slogans, words, war cries, but are afraid to analyse
objective reality"^^1^^ fits the Maoists like a glove.
 While on the subject, it would be a pity to overlook two

further Maoist ``contributions'' to the basic question of
philosophy.
 As though aware of their vulnerability in trying to present

"Mao Tse-tung's Thought" in materialist garb, the Maoists
provide their own ``supplement'' to the basic question. They
hold that in addition to the sides to the basic question
mentioned by Engels there is yet another side, the question
of the relationship between metaphysics and dialectics. This
attempt to supplement the basic question of philosophy was
already implicit in Mao's course of lectures "Dialectical
Materialism''. In the text-book we have been discussing,
however, it is quite explicit. "The opposition of outlook between
materialism and idealism and their differences also comprise
the opposition between dialectics and metaphysics.''^^2^^
 There is nothing wrong with the assertion that

philosophical views can be divided into metaphysical and dialectical.
But it is absurd to suggest that this division corresponds to
the division of philosophy into materialist and idealist
schools. History is full of examples of materialists who were
metaphysicians and idealists who were dialecticians.
 The Maoists ignore this. "If we approach this question

(the question of opposition between metaphysics and
dialectics) as the basic question, then rejection of contradictions,
refusal to analyse and resolve contradictions, will inevitably
lead to our being unable to consistently base ourselves on
_-_-_
~^^2^^ Dialectical Materialism, Peking, p. 54.
84
objective reality, gain a correct understanding of the world

and transform it, and to completely, scientifically solve the
question of the relationship between thinking and being.''^^1^^
 This ``supplement'' enables the Maoists to follow the

principle of all political charlatans. Whoever disagrees with
Chairman Mao's ``dialectics'' is a metaphysician and thus
automatically an idealist, and hence a counter-revolutionary,
a member of the "black gang'', and it is immediately asked
what sort of head he has, a man's or a dog's.
 The second Maoist ``supplement'' to the basic question of

philosophy involves the concept of philosophy as a specific
form of social consciousness and its role in the general
progress of mankind.
 Marxism-Leninism regards philosophy in terms of world

view, as a science that reveals the more general laws of
development of nature, society and human knowledge. The
founders of Marxism stressed the connection between
Marxist philosophy and the revolutionary practice of the working
class and insisted on the distinction between philosophy and
practice, theory and practice, condemning outright the
mechanistic practice of deducing practical questions from
general philosophical propositions. But this is just what the
Maoists do. They try to extract a solution to all practical
problems up to and including the curing of the deaf--
anddumb from general philosophic principles. The French
journalist J. E. Vidal, whom we have already mentioned, wrote
that "Maoism is theorising detached from historical reality.
This is not Marxism. Mao Tse-tung, with his abstract
outlook, gives directions that no longer correspond to historical
reality. The Chinese cadres, even the most out-and-out
Maoists, at first, when called upon to put the doctrines into
practice, and later when they come up against the hard facts of
reality, tend to become anti-Maoists, because the doctrine is
impracticable---- Maoism... is refuted by practice.... Its
existence presupposes constant suppression of the opposition
which is produced by its inherent contradiction between
theory and practice, utopia and reality.''^^2^^
 Mao Tse-tung began to identify theory with practice back

in the forties. "Our revolutionary practice,'' he wrote, "is a
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 55 (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.).
~^^2^^ L'humanite, January 10, 1968 (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.}.
85
science which is known as social or political science, and

unless we understand dialectics we shall not be very
successful.''^^1^^ Later, Mao tries to "free philosophy and dialectics
from mysticism''. "We also hear it said that dialectics are so
profound and difficult as to be quite beyond the ordinary
person. This is also untrue. Dialectics contain laws of
nature, society and thought, so that anybody with some social
experience (experience of production or the class struggle)
can understand something of dialectics and the more social
experience he has the better he will understand dialectics."^^2^^
 Identifying direct personal experience with theory, in this

case dialectics, the Maoists go on to declare that "the basic
question of philosophy is at the same time the basic question
of practical work'',^^3^^ and even go as far as to say that
the basic question is the transformation of the material
world.^^4^^
 The "greatest philosopher" of all time, as Mao is

described by the Peking propaganda machine, shows an
understanding of the true nature of philosophy at the level of those
Philistine views which were scorned by Hegel. Mao not
only identifies theory with practice; he even denies
theoretical knowledge its true status, reducing it to the level of
common-sense assertions.
 The reader is reminded that Hegel, writing in the first

half of the nineteenth century, came much closer to a
scientific understanding of the true essence of philosophical
knowledge than Mao Tse-tung does with his `òriginal''
interpretation in the mid-twentieth century. Hegel wrote:
"There is a difference between having such feelings and
notions defined and permeated by thought and having
thoughts about them. The thoughts produced through 
consideration of these modes of perception are what is meant by
reflection, reasoning and the like, and also philosophy."^^5^^
Hegel poked fun at those who are wont to philosophise
whenever given the slightest opportunity. "This science is
often so scorned that even those who have never had
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, Talien, p. 38.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 39 (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.).
 ^^3^^ Ibid., p. 56.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 48.
~^^5^^ See Hegel, Enzyklopadie der philosophischcn Wissenschaftcn im

Grundrisse (1830), Berlin, 1966, pp. 34--35.
86
anything to do with it imagine that they understand what

philosophy is all about without studying it at all, and that
having a normal education and drawing especially on religious
feeling they can philosophise and make judgements on
philosophy as they please. In the case of other sciences
special knowledge is considered necessary to know them and
only those who have acquired such a knowledge have the
right to judge them. It is also agreed that in order to make
a boot it is necessary to have learnt and practised the
cobbler's trade, although every man has a measure for it in his
foot, and has hands and thanks to them the necessary natural
ability for the job. It is only philosophy that requires no such
study, learning and effort. This convenient attitude has
found confirmation in recent times in the teaching on direct
knowledge, knowledge through observation.''^^1^^
 Let us now compare the attitudes of Hegel and Mao

Tsetung on the matter of the `ùnintelligibility'' of philosophy.
Hegel writes: "Philosophy combines views, thoughts,
categories, or to be more precise, concepts. Views can generally
be regarded as metaphors of thoughts and concepts. But
having attitudes, we still do not know their meaning for
thought, the thoughts and concepts that underlie them.
Conversely, it is not the same to have thoughts and concepts
and to know what attitudes, meditations and feelings
correspond to them. This, partly, is what gives rise to what is
called the unintelligibility of philosophy.''^^2^^ "The most
intelligible are thus considered to be the writers, preachers
and orators, etc., who expound to their listeners things which
the latter already know by heart, which they are used to and
which are self-evident.''^^3^^ Hegel's witty remarks are
devastatingly applicable to Lin Piao's vulgarising statements to
the effect that "constant reading of extracts from the works
of Chairman Mao, and even better learning them by heart
brings immediate, tangible results.'' In his foreword to 
Quotations from Chairman Mao, Lin Piao writes: "Selective
study of extracts from the works of Chairman Mao
Tsetung in search of the key to the solution of various problems
is an excellent method of studying the works of Mao
Tsetung, with the aid of which it is easy to obtain immediate,
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 37.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
~^^3^^ Ibid.
87
tangible results.''^^1^^ This is simply making a dogma of

individual statements by Mao Tse-tung and attributing them
with miraculous powers. All you have to do is pray, read
aloud a quotation, or better, chant it, and you will obtain
"immediate, tangible results''.
 What has this got to do with revolutionary, creative

Marxism? And how, indeed, does it differ from religion, from
psalm-singing and so on? The worshippers of "the greatest
and most vital Marxism of our age" who have not even read
what they extol might be reminded of what Engels had to
say about Marxism. "Our theory is not a dogma but the
exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves
successive phases.''^^2^^ And again: "Our theory is a theory of
evolution, not a dogma to be learnt by heart and to be
repeated mechanically.''^^3^^
 Lin Piao's `ìdea'' of the need to stack quotations from

Mao Tse-tung was met with mockery even within China on
the part of educated people who had derived their
understanding of Marxism-Leninism not from collections of
quotations but from studying the classics of Marxism-Leninism
and the experience of the revolutionary movement in China
and other countries, above all the experience of the October
Revolution in Russia. The Rector of Hsian University, Chen
Kang, was reported in the Chinese press to have remarked
in connection with the campaign for the study of Mao's
philosophy: "If I don't know how to pole-vault, the fact
that I am read a few quotations from the works of Chairman
Mao will not make me any more able to do so.'' The Maoists
regarded this as a denial of the effectiveness of the thoughts
of Mao and the thesis that they bring "immediate, tangible
results''.
 When Chinese geologists aided by Hungarian specialists
found a large oil deposit at Taching, the discovery was hailed
as "a great victory of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''.
Yang Hsien-chen, whom we have already mentioned,
declared that it was necessary to respect the principles of
materialism, that "unless the specialists and workers had made
a careful study of the geological structure of the strata,
unless thorough investigations had been made, the Taching
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Quotations from Mao Tse-tung's Works (in Russian), p. III.
~^^2^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 19(i:>, p. 399.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 400.
88
oilmen would not have achieved such remarkable success''.
 However, such statements as these, criticising the way the

achievements of the Chinese people are being ascribed to the
"Thoughts of Mao" were given a very hostile reception by
the Maoists, and their authors found themselves excluded
from the political and theoretical life of the Chinese
People's Republic.
 As Lenin wrote, "You cannot have a proper

understanding of any mistake, let alone a political one, unless you dig
down to its theoretical roots among the basic premises of
the one who makes it.''^^1^^ This is an essential principle of
Marxism-Leninism in the investigation of any philosophical
system, of any ideological error.
 The roots of the theoretical errors of Mao Tse-tung are

to be sought above all in the absolutisation of the subjective
factor and a corresponding depreciation of the role of
material, economic factors in the development of society. This
is due to the limited nature of the ideological-theoretical,
philosophical views underlying Mao's outlook. Claiming to
be the author of a "universal philosophy" of general truths,
Mao misinterprets the experience of the class struggle in
China. His talk of "production struggle" and scientific
experiment can be discounted, since we find no hint in his
works of his deductions being even vaguely based on any
real facts of the development of the economy and the
productive forces, and no mention at all of the development of
science and recent scientific discoveries.
 With their poor grasp of economics and their ignorance

of the achievements of modern science, it is perhaps only
natural that the Maoists should stake all their hopes for the
solution of China's problems on the subjective factor,
understood as the "thoughts of Mao''.
 While accepting the thesis that "thinking is the reflection

of being" historically, Maoism completely ignores it in
practice, on the excuse that "when theory takes hold of the masses
it becomes a material force'', and that the political
superstructure has a strong reverse influence on being, and the
economic basis.
 The Maoists maintain that great disasters overtake the

masses as soon as they depart from the designs of Chairman
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 90.
89
Mao, and that the main source of strength is faith in the

"absolute authority of the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung''.
 Maoist philosophy, asserting the decisive role of the

subjective factor, has been proclaimed the philosophy of "
revolutionary enthusiasm''.
 The Chinese Marxists spoke out against this philosophy

of revolutionary enthusiasm. Yang Hsien-chen countered the
Maoist thesis of the "identity of thinking and being" and
"the transformation of the ideal into the material" with the
thesis of the "unity of thinking and being''. A Maoist, one
Feng Chi, attacked him for this. "At the time when the
enthusiasm of the masses has risen to an unprecedented
height, and they have entered heart and soul into the fire of
revolutionary struggle, `theoreticians' are waving a book at
them and fervently propagating the passive theory of
reflection. . . . Yang Hsien-chen, denying the role of subjective
activity, stresses so-called 'respect for the principles of
materialism'.''^^1^^
 But Yang Hsien-chen himself maintains that "the premise

that matter determines mind is recognition of the active role
of mind".^^2^^ In answer to the Maoist attempt to prove the
realism and correctness of their adventurist policy by
dogmatically quoting excerpts from the classics of
MarxismLeninism and to Mao Tse-tung's statement that "politics is
the ruling force" Yang insists that thought, and politics as
one of its forms, "should correspond to the demands of
reality.''
 Probing the gnoseological roots of Maoist idealism, Yang

Hsien-chen writes: "The idea of the unity of thinking and
being is dialectical materialism, whereas the idea of the
identity of thinking and being is idealism or vulgar
materialism.''^^3^^ He goes on to explain: "The unity of thinking and
being is the demand that thinking should be a correct
reflection of being, that the subjective should accurately reflect
the objective; unity here is to be understood as '
correspondence'.''^^4^^
 We are bound to agree with Yang Hsien-chen's criticism

of Maoism. As Engels wrote: "To attempt to prove the
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Jiefanq jih-fiao, August 30, 1964.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
 ^^3^^ Guang-ming jlh-pao, September 11, 1964.
~^^4^^ Ibid.
90
reality of any product of thought by the identity of thinking and

being was indeed one of the most absurd delirious
phantasies of Hegel.''^^1^^
 Yet it is "delirious phantasies" such as this that form the

underlying methodological principles of Maoist philosophy,
albeit masked in fine phrases about the role of the subjective
factor, the "philosophy of revolutionary enthusiasm" and
so on.
 Thus, absolutisation of the subjective factor and an

unflexible one-sided interpretation of the transformation of
the spiritual into the material, the practice of making "the
thoughts of Mao" a source of development from which
practical policy is derived, the deification of Mao Tse-tung and
the ascribing of magic powers to him and his statements---
such are the gnoseological, theoretical roots of the idealism
and eclecticism of Maoism.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ F. Engels, Anti-Duhring, Moscow, 1969, p. 57.
[91]
__NUMERIC_LVL1__
CHAPTER IV
__ALPHA_LVL1__
ECLECTICISM POSING AS DIALECTICS.
 MAO TSE-TUNG'S DISTORTION OF THE BASIC LAW OF DIALECTICS
__ALPHA_LVL2__
[introduction.]
 The Chinese philosophical review Chieh-hsiich yan-chiu

describes Mao Tse-tung's ``contribution'' to materialist
dialectics as follows: "Comrade Mao Tse-tung said that the law
of the unity and struggle of opposites is the basic law of the
world. Developing Lenin's teaching on the essence of
dialectics, Mao Tse-tung proved that the law of the unity and
struggle of opposites is the basic law of materialist dialectics.
Mao Tse-tung showed the inner relationship between the
law of the unity and struggle of opposites and other laws of
dialectical materialism. By creatively and comprehensively
revealing the essence of the law of the unity and struggle of
opposites, Comrade Mao Tse-tung raised the Marxist--
Leninist doctrine to a new level. This is Comrade Mao Tse-tung's
great contribution to Marxist-Leninist philosophy.''^^1^^ The
article goes on to declare the Maoist ``dialectics'' an
instrument of cognition of the world and of revolutionary
struggle.
 The Maoist claim that Mao was the first to point to the
law of the unity and struggle of opposites as the basic law
of materialist dialectics is completely unfounded. It is well
known that Lenin repeatedly insisted on this point, as for
example in the following statement. "In brief, dialectics can
be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This
embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations
and development.''^^2^^ "The splitting of a single whole and
the cognition of its contradictory parts... is the essence (one
of the `èssentials'', one of the principal, if not the principal
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Chich-hsiich yan-chiu, 1966, No. 2, pp. 1-2.
92
characteristics or features) of dialectics.''^^1^^ This idea was

to be found in Soviet philosophy manuals of the early
thirties.^^2^^
 The Maoist claims that Mao Tse-tung contributed to the

development of the law of the unity of opposites are likewise
totally unwarranted. In actual fact, here as elsewhere, Mao
is simply repeating a Marxist premise, though in a grossly
distorted manner. Here are a couple of quotations from Mao
Tse-tung, by way of illustration. "The interdependence of
the contradictory aspects of a thing and the struggle between
them determine the life and impel the development of that
thing. There is nothing that does not contain contradiction;
without contradiction there would be no world.''^^3^^ "
Contradiction is universal, absolute, existing in all processes of the
development of things and running through all processes
from beginning to end.''^^4^^
 The recognition of the fact that contradiction impels

development was a basic principle of Marxist thought from
the outset, and Mao Tse-tung has added nothing here.
 Mao goes on to say that ".. .first, each of the two aspects
of every contradiction in the process of development of a
thing finds the presupposition of its existence in the other
aspect and both aspects coexist in an entity; second, each of
the two contradictory aspects, according to given conditions,
tends to transform itself into the other.''^^5^^ This is also
discussed quite frequently in the works of the classics of
Marxism-Leninism.^^6^^
 Finally, Mao writes that "the unity of opposites is

conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of
mutually exclusive opposites is absolute"^^7^^, which is a repetition,
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 359.
~^^2^^ See, for instance, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Part I

(``Dialectical Materialism''), Moscow, 1935, pp. 140, 147 (in Russian).
~^^3^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 19.


 ^^4^^ Ibid., p. 21.
~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 42.
~^^6^^ For instance, Lenin wrote: "Dialectics is the teaching which shows
how opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become)
identical---under what conditions they are identical, becoming
transformed into one another---why the human mind should grasp these
opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming
transformed into one another." Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 109.
~^^7^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 48.
93
practically word for word, of a well-known thesis of

Lenin's.^^1^^
 In "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among

the People'', published in 1957, Mao Tse-tung gives the
following short exposition of the law of the unity and
conflict of opposites. "Marxist philosophy regards the law of
the unity and conflict of opposites as the basic law of the
universe. This law operates universally in nature, human
society and the human mind. The opposite sides of a
contradiction coexist in unity and struggle, and this impels the
movement and change of things and phenomena.
Contradictions exist everywhere and the fact that they are different
in character simply depends on the nature of different things
and phenomena. The unity of opposites is conditioned,
temporary and transient for every concrete thing (phenomenon)
and hence relative, while the struggle of opposites is
absolute. Lenin spoke very clearly of this law." (Emphasis
added.---M.A., V.G.)
 None of the above quotations from Mao Tse-tung can be

said to contradict Marxist theses. But then they are not
Mao's own original statements but simply the repetition
in simplified terms of statements from the classics of
Marxism-Leninism, and above all Lenin. This does not,
however, mean that Mao Tse-tung adopts a Marxist standpoint
in his understanding of the laws of materialist dialectics in
general, or the law of the unity and conflict of opposites
in particular. In explaining them in simple terms he
frequently expresses non-Marxist views. This is not always
immediately apparent, firstly because they appear in
association with well-known correct theses from the classics of
Marxism-Leninism, and secondly because they are phrased
in Marxist language. With regard to the latter, it can be
said that there the resemblance of the Maoist dialectics to
Marxism-Leninism ends.
 As for Mao's ``development'' of materialist dialectics

which his supporters harp on about, this proves to be
nothing more than a reversion to the naive dialectics of the
ancient Chinese, and distortion or outright revision of
Marxist dialectics. We have already mentioned that Mao
Tsetung has a very hazy notion of the spiritual and cultural
_-_-_
~^^1^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 359.
94
values of other countries. This explains his nihilistic

attitude towards them, his vulgarisation of world philosophical
traditions.^^1^^ Maoist dialectics are a peculiar Chinese brand
of dialectics, for they are based almost entirely on the
national philosophical tradition and ignore many of the finest
achievements of world philosophy.
 If we turn to Chinese philosophy we shall see the idea of

opposite principles in nature and society running through
its entire history; moreover, this idea has been defended by
representatives of various ideological trends.
 There are references to pairs of opposites and their
mutual interpenetration and passing into one another in the
ancient Taoist treatise Tao Te Ching (The Way of Life).
These views contain dialectical ideas in embryo form.
"Transformation of a thing into its opposite is the
movement of the Tao.'' "Since there is beauty there is ugliness
too. Man's goodness is attended by his wickedness. For is
and is not come together. Hard and easy create one
another; long and short are relative; high and low are
comparative; pitch and sound make harmony; before and after
are a sequence.'' "In order to make a thing yield it is
necessary to strengthen it. In order to destroy something it
is necessary to first let it prosper....'' A similar view was
held, fifteen centuries later, by the materialist Chang Tsai,
who wrote: "Two opposites---the invisible and the visible,
movement and rest, integration and disintegration, clean
and dirty---yet in the long run are all one and the same."^^2^^
".. .As a phenomenon occurs, so its counterpart occurs. The
other member of the pair must be its opposite. As there is
opposition, so there is hostility. Hostility inevitably ends in
reconciliation, and thus the hostility is resolved.''^^3^^
 We find the same idea of pairing things in nature and

society in the works of Chang Tsai's contemporaries, the Cheng
brothers. Thus, Cheng Hao writes: "The principle inherent
_-_-_
~^^1^^ For one thing Mao identifies mechanistic, metaphysical materialism

with vulgar evolutionism. He paints a completely black picture of
metaphysical materialism, failing to recognise that it represented a step
forward in the development of philosophical knowledge, and was at one
time the ideology of the progressive bourgeoisie. See Selected Works,
Volume Two, pp. 13--16.
~^^2^^ Wang Chuang-shun, Meditations and Questions (in Chinese),

Peking, 1956, p. 12.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 14.
95
in things and phenomena consists in that nothing is isolated

but everything is dual; the pairs are not pre-established but
occur naturally.... All things and phenomena without
exception have the counterpart---the male and female
principle, good and evil. When the male principle grows the female
decreases, when the (quantity of) good increases, the (
quantity of) evil decreases---this is the principle.''^^1^^ Chu Hsi, who
reinterpreted Confucianism and raised it to the level of the
official doctrine of the feudal-imperial power in China, also
expressed similar ideas. "East---West, up---down, winter---
summer, day---night, birth---death, all these are pairs of
opposites. The phenomena of nature only exist in pairs.''^^2^^
 The seventeenth-century philosopher Wang Chuang-shan
wrote: "The invisible must inevitably become visible, the
visible contains the invisible, and in the long run it is all one.
When something appears, the invisible is here and the visible
there.... And in the long run it is all one. Gathering is
gathering of that which is dispersed, and dispersal is the
dispersal of that which is gathered, and it is all one. That which
is clean can become dirty and that which is dirty always
contains clean elements, and it is all one. Two opposites are
used together, creating opposite phenomena. Each essence
has two manifestations. Thus, water has one essence, but
turns to ice when it is cold and to steam when it is hot; the
differences between ice and steam are sufficient to know the
definite essence of water.''^^3^^
 The theory of two opposite forces, the Yang and the Yin,
representing the masculine and feminine principles combined
in the Chi, original matter, remained of great importance in
Chinese philosophy right down to modern times.
 One of the major materialist philosophers of ancient China,

Wang Chung (27--104) said: "All things are born of the
union of the parts of Chi, heaven and earth, just as a child
is born of the union of the parts of Chi, man and woman."^^4^^
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Huang Tsung-hsi, Works of Sages of the Sung and Yuan Periods
(in Chinese), Vol. I, part 5, Shanghai, 1933, p. 15.
~^^2^^ Yii Tung, Basic Problems of Chinese Philosophy (in Chinese),

Peking, 1958, p. 139.
~^^3^^ Wang Chuang-shan, "Comment on Chang Tsai's Instructions for the

Unenlightened" (in Chinese), Peking, 1956, p. 18.
~^^4^^ Anthology of World Philosophy, Vol. I, Part I, Section on Chinese

Philosophy, Mysl Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 244--45 (in Russian).
96
``The heaven and earth are like unto man and woman."^^1^^
Chu Hsi held the same view: "Originally between sky and
earth there was only Chi, consisting of the soft Yin and the
hard Yang.''^^2^^ The relationship between the two opposite
forces expressed in a strict system of mutual engendering
and supercession of one another was regarded as the
universal law of existence. Many Chinese philosophers held
that the correlation of the Yang and the Yin was the basis
of the mutual engendering and mutual defining of the five
original elements constituting matter, and with the aid of
this dualist system sought to explain the cause of movement
and the process of change and transformation in nature.
The theory embodied the view that all things and
phenomena were universally related. This view was an essential
part of Chinese philosophy, and especially materialist trends,
right down to the 1920s, and it was shared by Sun Yat-sen.
 These cosmological conceptions also had a strong

influence in shaping Mao's ideas at the formative stage, and
this explains why he is so fond of backing up various
theories with references to the relationship between the sky and
the earth. Suffice it to recall his expression "The sky will
not collapse and fish will go on swimming.''
 This also explains why of all the laws of materialist

dialectics it was the law of the unity and conflict of opposites
that attracted Mao's attention most. This is the source of
his famous "theory of duality" advanced in 1957.
 In speaking of materialist dialectics Mao makes frequent

references to the ancient Chinese philosophers, especially
Lao Tzu and the heroes of the novel Water Margin. But
the dialectical ideas developed by the Chinese philosophers
of the past were schematic and naive, and never found
expression in a general ontological law. The Chinese
philosophers tend to treat these interpenetrating opposites
somewhat superficially and in isolation. The opposites are
essentially separate from one another in time and space, and
their transformation into one another is not so much a
dialectical process as a series of outward, superficial changes
and interchanges. Development is treated as cyclical, the
alternation of the Yang and Yin, movement and rest, and
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 245.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 256.
7--367
97
pairs of opposites characterised the supercession of the old

by the new.
 The Chinese philosophers did not go beyond a statement

of the fact that opposites exist in nature and that they
supercede one another. One looks in vain for an explanation
of the causes or content of the process or for theories of the
identity of opposites. Hence their failure to explain the
transformation of things into their opposite. For all his use
of Marxist terminology and frequent recourse to quotations
from Lenin, Mao Tse-tung's understanding of opposites in
nature has remained basically at the level of naive
dialectics.
 To begin with, while recognising the conflict of opposites,
Mao does not reveal the true essence of the process. His
speech to a meeting of the Politburo of the CPC Central
Committee held in Uchang on December 1, 1958, which the
Maoists are so fond of referring to is worthy of citation in
this respect. "Just as all objects and phenomena in the world
have duality (this is the essence of the law of the unity of
opposites), imperialism and all reactionaries also have
duality---they are both real and paper tigers. History shows that
before winning power and for a short time after they had
seized it, slave-owners, feudal landlords, and the
bourgeoisie were active, revolutionary, and progressive classes,
representing real tigers. Later, as the slaves, the peasantry and
the proletariat---classes representing their opposites----
gradually grew and waxed in strength and waged an ever fiercer
struggle against them, the slave-owners, the feudal
landlords and the bourgeoisie underwent a reaction: they
became reactionary, backward classes, became paper tigers,
and in the end were, or shall be, overthrown by the
peopie....''
 If we ignore for the time being Mao's use of the term
"real and paper tigers'', it is clear that he does not really go
beyond a formal acceptance of the law of the unity and
conflict of opposites and does not reveal the inner
mechanism by which it operates. Slave-owners, the feudal
landowners and the bourgeoisie did indeed cease to be the bearers
of social progress in the course of historical development,
and were gradually replaced in this role by more
progressive classes. But to say this is to say nothing, for to simply
state the facts of socio-historical development falls short of
98
historical dialectics. The Marxist theoretician---which Mao's

supporters would have us believe Mao to be---must reveal
the dialectic of the process by which one class supercedes
another, since knowledge of the causes of movement and
development of antagonistic societies provides the basis for
constructive activity for the revolutionary transformation of
the world.
 The concomitance and mutual exclusiveness of opposites

is determined by their dialectical nature. Opposites are
interpenetrating, so that the slave-owners, the feudal lords
and the bourgeoisie were pregnant with their opposites---the
slaves, the peasantry and the proletariat---from the outset.
The unity of these opposites lies in the fact that they are
concomitant and mutually exclusive and this unity can only
be eliminated by destroying its underlying causes----
antagonistic society. In other words, this unity is destroyed in
the course of the class struggle and social revolution.
 Mao Tse-tung treats contradiction as a mechanistic,
outward opposition, as can be seen from the following. "
Without life, there would be no death; without death there
would also be no life. Without àbove', there would be no
`below', without `below' there would also be no àbove'.
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 tenant-peasants; 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. Without imperialist oppression of
the nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies;
without colonies or semi-colonies, there would also be no
imperialist oppression of the nations. All opposite elements
are like this.. .".^^1^^
 Even if we ignore the fact that this is practically word

for word repetition of one of Lao Tzu's theses, we must
still note that Mao is treating contradiction as a mechanistic
contrast between outward opposites. Mao frequently uses
such terms as ``good---evil'', ``hot---cold'' and so on for these
opposites, and it must be said that while such propositions
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, pp. 43--44.
99
Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/20080525/176.tx"
__EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz
__OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.05.25)
__WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom
__FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+
__ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+
were justified two thousand years ago when the idea of

contradictions of objective being and human thought was
first being advanced, in the twentieth century, in the light
of present-day scientific knowledge, this just is not enough.
Scientific dialectics must reveal the inner contradictions
inherent in objects and show the real process of the
development of phenomena consisting of two opposites. In other
words, it must analyse the self-movement of a given
phenomenon.
 The term ``good---bad'' applied to these opposites by Mao
is insufficient to give a correct impression of the complex,
contradictory processes by which nature and society
develop. It is not only that these terms cannot be said to have
a precise, invariable meaning. More important is the fact
that Mao uses them for the purpose of reinforcing his
distorted interpretation of social processes and covering up his
policy failures. He declares counter-revolutionary
disturbances in the socialist countries to be ``good'' as serving to
strengthen the new social system; likewise the death of a
large number of people in social revolutions, as bringing
closer the victory of the people; or a new world war, since
it would, in his opinion, make possible the destruction of
capitalism. This kind of ``dialectics'' has the same
relationship to Marxism-Leninism as alchemy has to chemistry.
 A purely mechanistic unity of obvious contrasts is simply

a vulgarisation and distortion of scientific dialectics. Nor
can all obvious opposites be said to represent two sides of
the same thing, two sides of a single phenomenon or
process. For example, the bourgeoisie (commercial,
middleman, bureaucratic) in many developing countries can exist
without a proletariat, the proletariat can exist without the
bourgeoisie in socialist society, and the feudal landowner
can exist without the tenant-farmer.
 As Engels wrote: "True, so long as we consider things

as at rest and lifeless, each one by itself, alongside and
after each other, we do not run up against any
contradictions in them. We find certain qualities which are partly
common to, partly different from, and even contradictory
to each other, but which in the last-mentioned case are
distributed among different objects and therefore contain no
contradiction within. Inside the limits of this sphere of
observation we can get along on the basis of the usual,
100
metaphysical mode of thought. But the position is quite different

as soon as we consider things in their motion, their change,
their life, their reciprocal influence on one another. Then
we immediately become involved in contradictions.''^^1^^
 Mao Tse-tung understands the interdependence and

reciprocal influence of opposites mechanistically. He writes
that opposites are transformed into one another, but he
understands their mutual supercession and interpenetration
simply as changing places, as when the oppressed peasant,
for example, takes the place of the landowner when he
triumphs, and the landowner, after the defeat of his class,
takes the peasant's place. According to Mao, the same thing
happens after the triumph of socialist 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.
This has already taken place in the Soviet Union and will
take place throughout the world.''^^2^^
 Thus Mao appears to be suggesting that as a result of

the triumph of the socialist revolution, the exploited (the
workers) become the exploiters, and the exploiters (the
capitalists) become the exploited class (`ìs transferred to the
position originally occupied by its opposite''), which is
patently absurd.
 Mao is reported by the Hungweiping press to have

declared at a meeting that "the oppressors and the oppressed
are transformed into one another; such is the relationship
between the bourgeoisie and the landowners on the one hand
and the workers and peasants on the other''. He thus
exchanges gradual, stage-by-stage development for a cycle
with the repetition of one and the same. One cannot help
being reminded of the cyclic theory of Chinese naive
dialectics.^^3^^
 Mao Tse-tung understands the transformation of things

and phenomena into their opposites perfectly literally. In
actual fact, the picture is far more complicated. Each thing
or phenomenon represents the sum and unity of opposites,
_-_-_
~^^1^^ F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Moscow, 1966, pp. 232--33.
~^^3^^ Mao Tse-tung criticises Hegel in his works, and yet Hegel
presented the problem of opposites and their transformation into one
another far more fully and profoundly than Mao.
101
but one side of the contradiction is always subordinate to

the other. The following passage from Marx examines this
point. "Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they
form a single whole. They are both forms of the world of
private property. The question is what place each occupies
in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two
sides of a single whole.
 ``Private property as private property, as wealth, is

compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the
proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the
contradiction, self-satisfied private property.
 ``The proletariat, on the other hand, is compelled as

proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, the
condition for its existence, what makes it the proletariat, i.e.,
private property. That is the negative side of the
contradiction, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and
selfdissolving private property....
 ``Within this antithesis the private property 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.''^^1^^
 Unlike Mao Tse-tung, Marx goes beyond a mere

recognition of the conflict of opposites as the cause of development
to reveal the mechanism of the conflict. Mao Tse-tung fails
to grasp the main point, the fact that the conflict of
opposites inevitably becomes progressively more acute until it
comes to a head and the result is the solution of the given
contradiction, its ``removal'' and the appearance of a new
one, the old unity of concrete opposites giving way to a
new unity of different concrete opposites. It is a qualitative
change that takes place, and not simply a swapping of
places. The proletariat does not become the bourgeoisie, but
a qualitative change occurs in the historical role of the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat as opposites. At some point
the bourgeoisie loses its progressive role to the proletariat.
This is what makes inevitable the defeat of the bourgeoisie
and the triumph of the proletariat, the struggle between
them eventually leading to the disruption of their inner
links and the annihilation of this particular unity of
opposites, with capitalism giving way to socialism.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, The Holy Family, Moscow, 1956, p. 51.
102
 ``When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means

becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only
by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat
disappears as well as the opposite which determines it,
private property.''^^1^^
 Mao Tse-tung erases the qualitative differences involved.

Lenin said that flexibility of concepts where applied
subjectively was tantamount of eclecticism and sophistry. By
this definition Mao is certainly a sophist. As an example of
his sophistry let us examine his statements that "War is
transformed into peace... . Peace is transformed into
war. .. .''^^2^^ and "War passes into peace and peace passes into
war. Peace is the opposite of war. If there was no war, how
could we have the word `peace'?''^^3^^
 War and peace are certainly opposite concepts, and when
one starts the other ceases. But this does not make them
opposites of the same phenomenon, mutually determining.
Mao Tse-tung, on the basis of his over-simplified,
Philistine understanding of these two phenomena as mutually
opposed, regards them as social opposites expressing the
essence of social development. According to this logic the
alternation of peace and war is an inevitable result of the
selfdevelopment of the contradictory sides of the social organism.
In actual fact, however, war and peace are not two sides of
a single phenomenon but two different forms of political
relations between states. The outbreak of war is determined not
by the development of peace as a form of inter-state
relations but by the contradictions inherent in the nature of
capitalist society. Mao's `èxplanation'' of the transition from
war to peace and vice versa is simply a further
demonstration of the poverty of his ``dialectics''.
 Mao examines the law of the unity and conflict of

opposites without reference to the relationship between the
categories of possibility and reality, whereas in fact the
solution of any contradiction is clearly inseparable from the
transformation of the possible into the actual, since the
solution of a contradiction and the transformation of
possibility into reality are two sides of the same process of
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Ibid., p. 52 
 ^^2^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 45.


 ^^3^^ From a Hungweiping newspaper.
103
development. The existence of possibility is determined by

the inherent contradictions between objects and phenomena.
A new world war is a possibility in present-day conditions,
but the existence of this possibility does not necessarily mean
that it will become a reality.
 The possible only becomes actual as the result of the

struggle and triumph of one opposite over another, and this
depends on the quantitative and qualitative differences
between the possibilities of the given opposites. Thus, if at
one time the forces of war had a far greater possibility of
triumphing than did those of peace, today the position has
been reversed. The combined strength of the countries of
the socialist community, the international labour and
national liberation movements is sufficient to prevent
the imperialists from resorting to war as a means of
solving international disputes, and mankind is in a
position to banish war as a form of international political
relations.
 Thus, war and peace being two quite different social
phenomena, Mao's assertion about the inevitable alternation
of war and peace fails to reveal their true essence.
 The practical activity of the Maoists in the world arena

during the last decade or so shows that Mao's exercises with
the problem of war and peace are patently political in
character and are called upon to justify the policy of
unleashing a new world war.
 Mao Tse-tung evades the question of leaps forward in

social development, a question that is of great importance.
Marxist dialectics hold that the development of the
conflict of opposites eventually leads to a qualitative change
in the form of a leap forward. Thus, the struggle between
the landowners and the peasants, and indeed the whole
struggle between exploited and exploiters leads to a leap
forward in social development and the replacement of one
social system with another. The cause of this leap forward
is to be sought in the inner contradictions, the conflict of
opposite trends arising in the process of development of a
social formation such as capitalism.
 Apart from distorting the law of the unity and conflict
of opposites, Mao completely ignores two other fundamental
laws of dialectics, so that his theory of development is
incomplete and truncated, for it deals only with the cause
104
of development but fails to examine how it operates or its

prospects.
 At the same time Mao declares contradiction the only

form of relationship between objects and phenomena. This
approach places all the emphasis on the external aspect of
the question, lumps together all kinds of different relations
thereby concealing the real contradictions that determine
the inner life, self-movement and development of an object
or phenomenon. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Mao
should launch into an earnest discussion of the problem of
the contradictions between a stone and a chicken, and
between a stone and war. "Why can only an egg be
transformed into a chicken but not a stone? Why is there identity
between war and peace and none between war and a stone?
Why can human beings give birth only to human beings but
not to anything else?''^^1^^
 Engels had the following to say on this subject. "Two

different things always have certain qualities (properties
of corporeality at least) in common, others differing in
degree, while still others may be entirely absent in one of
them. If we consider two such extremely different things---
e.g., a meteorite and a man---in separation, we get very
little out of it, at most that heaviness and other general
properties of bodies are common to both.''^^2^^
 Instead of revealing and analysing real contradictions

actually existing in life, Mao Tse-tung engages in a sophist
game of artificially producing contradictions by
contrasting various phenomena formally. Mao regards dialectics
as the sum of examples often chosen at random. In a speech
at a meeting in 1958 he declared: "Limited things pass into
boundless things, and boundless things pass into things with
limits. The dialectics of ancient times passed into medieval
metaphysics, and medieval metaphysics passed into the
dialectics of modern times. The world is also in a process
of transition and is not eternal. Capitalism passes into
socialism, and socialism passes into communism. Communist
society too will be in a process of transition, and will have
its beginning and an end, and will certainly be divided
into stages, or a new name will be invented for it; it will
_-_-_
~^^2^^ F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, pp. 232--33.
105
not remain static and unchanging. To maintain that there

will be only quantity and not quality is contrary to
dialectics. There is nothing in the world but that it is born,
develops and perishes. The ape became man and people
appeared, but eventually the whole of mankind must perish.
It will turn into something else and the earth will no
longer exist. The earth is bound eventually to perish. The sun
is already much cooler than it was in ancient times. Once
every two million years an Ice Age begins, and when it
comes living things will perish en masse.... I am
mentioning all this in order to remove the fetters from our thinking
and enable us to think more freely.''
 The above passage reflects all the defects of the Maoist
dialectics. Firstly, the transition of one thing into another
is treated simply as a change of places; secondly,
development is understood not as the negation of the old by the
new, but simply as repetition of what has already been,
as a circular or regressive movement. Consequently, there
are no grounds for assuming, as the Maoists claim, that Mao
Tse-tung has "shown the inner link between the law of
the unity and conflict of opposites and other laws of
dialectical materialism''. In fact Mao fails to grasp the true
essence of the law of the transition of quantitative changes
into qualitative changes, and ignores the law of the
negation of a negation, which reveals the general direction of
development.
 Mao frequently reduces the problem of contradictions to
its everyday and even Philistine level, treating the basic
law of dialectics in a vulgar, primitive manner, as in the
following statement, reported in the Hungweiping press.
"The son becomes the father, the father becomes a son,
woman becomes man and man becomes woman. Naturally
a direct change is impossible here, but after marriage sons
and daughters are born, and is not this a transition?''
 Such theoretical exercises do not take us a single step

forward in the study of the complex interrelationships that
exist in nature and society. The dialectic is turned into a
collection of truisms. Take the following passage for
example. "We must learn to take an all-sided view of questions,
and not only see the front side of things and phenomena but
also their reverse side. In certain circumstances bad may
produce good results and good may produce had results.
106
Lao Tzu said over two thousand years ago: 'Happiness

abides in misfortune, and misfortune abides in
happiness.~^^1^^
 There is nothing new in what Mao says here, for it has
been known to the Chinese peasants for centuries and found
expression in all kinds of proverbs and sayings. For
example, after a series of unsuccessful attempts, Chinese peasants
find the most rational way of planting rice. Naturally, the
peasants can say that bad (failure) has led to a good result,
thereby expressing their understanding of the various stages
of the labour process. But Mao Tse-tung would have us
regard this as a great achievement of dialectical thought.
 Underlying Mao's vulgarisation of dialectical materialism

is a basic misunderstanding of the relationship between
philosophy and practical activity in production and the
revolutionary struggle, a misinterpretation of the role of
philosophy as a form of social consciousness. Thus, we find in
a philosophical journal: "The workers and peasants have a
rich practical experience. They are spontaneous materialists.
Working, they do not doubt the objective existence of
machines, buildings, soil, agricultural implements, and they
are also spontaneous dialecticians for they observe the
relationship between various stages of production and the
succession of the various seasons of agricultural work. At the
present time we find that when the workers and peasants
read articles written by professional philosophers they
cannot understand them, but they have no difficulty in
understanding the philosophical works of Chairman Mao.''^^2^^
 While accepting the conflict of opposites, Mao fails to

understand that the process of development of a
contradiction is itself contradictory, for not only is each of the two
sides of a contradiction opposed to the other, but itself
contains contradictory sides, so that there is no such thing
as ``pure'' opposition. Thus, if we take the capitalist class,
it is easy to distinguish differences and contradictions
between the big capitalists and the small capitalists, between
the various bourgeois parties, etc. There are also
contradictions within the capitalist camp in general, as between the
ruling circles of the USA and France to take a current
_-_-_
~^^1^^ From "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among (he

People'', p. 43.
 ^^2^^ Chich-hsileh yan-chiu, 1968, No. 7, p. 1.
107
exampie. This, as Lenin pointed out, is an extremely important

factor. It means that at a certain stage of the political
struggle the interests of the proletariat may coincide on some
(minor) issues with the interests of some of the capitalists.
It also means that in certain circumstances the interests of
the countries of the socialist community may coincide on a
number of issues with the interests of the ruling circles of
some bourgeois country. In such circumstances, Lenin
insisted that it was necessary to urge a `ùnion'', a ``
combination'' of opposites. This explains among other things the
struggle of the European communist parties for the
creation of anti-monopoly unions including part of the
bourgeoisie, and the conclusion of political agreements
between the Soviet Union and certain capitalist countries,
viz., the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World
War.
 There is no room for such `ùnion'' and ``combination''

of opposites in Mao's version of the law of the unity and
conflict of opposites. The Maoists commit the serious error
of failing to regard contradictions as a process and are thus
unable to understand the dialectics of social development.
Significant in this respect is the Maoist criticism of the
theses contained in the Programme of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union concerning the transformation of the
dictatorship of the proletariat into a state of the whole people.
The Maoists stress the coercive function of the dictatorship
of the proletariat and insist that it is necessary throughout
the period of the transition from socialism to communism.
They treat the dictatorship of the proletariat as something
constant and static; they do not realise that it is a complex
social phenomenon, a unity of opposites, whose reciprocal
influence and conflict makes it a process, in a constant state
of flux and change. Lenin emphasised that "the dictatorship
of the proletariat means a persistent struggle---bloody and
bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic,
educational and administrative---against the forces and
traditions of the old society".^^1^^ The dictatorship of the proletariat,
viewed as a real process, is exhausted at some stage
of development and passes into a state of the whole
people.
_-_-_
108
__ALPHA_LVL2__
The Theory of Balance in Lieu of Materialist
 Dialectics
 We have already seen how eclecticism is an essential

feature of Mao Tse-tung's philosophical views. This is equally
the case with his method of cognising the phenomena of
nature and society, which combines naive dialectics with a
curious version of the theory of balance.
 In Marxist dialectics inherent contradictions underlie all

processes of development. According to the theory of
balance, however, it is outward external factors that determine
development, and rest, balance and absence of movement are
regarded as the normal state of all existing things and
phenomena. One of the authors of this theory, N. Bukharin, held
that a phenomenon ceased to be in a state of balance or rest
(which is the same thing) following a change in one of the
opposed forces. As to how this change comes about, let us
turn to Bukharin himself. "It is perfectly clear that the inner
structure of a system (inner balance) must change according
to the relationship that exists between the system and the
environment. The relationship between the system and 
environment is the decisive factor, for all states of the system
(decline, development, stagnation) are determined by this
relationship.''^^1^^ In other words, the theory of balance regards
opposed principles within society (the system) as two simple
mechanical forces, opposed to one another outwardly and in
a state of balance, which can only be destroyed by the
interference of outside forces. The process of development
according to Bukharin is one of balance, followed by the upsetting
of balance, followed again by balance.
 The theory of balance bears an outward resemblance to

dialectics in that it also regards the question of opposites as
a question of the struggle between them. But while
materialist dialectics deal with internal contradictions that are
concomitant and mutually exclusive and their correlation and
interpenetration, their contradictions, the mechanistic theory
of balance is dealing with the antagonism of mechanically
contiguous opposed forces in a state of balance. And balance
cannot be a source of development without the interference
of outside forces.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ N. Bukharin, Theory of Historical Materialism, Moscow, 1925, p. 82

(in Russian).
109
 In "On Practice'', Mao Tse-tung gives an essentially false

definition of the concept ``balance-imbalance''. "The
movement of all things assumes two forms: the form of relative
rest and the form of conspicuous change. Both forms of
movement are caused by the struggle of the two contradictory
factors contained in a thing itself. 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 things 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. Such unity,
solidarity, amalgamation, harmony, balance, stalemate,
deadlock, rest, stability, equilibrium, coagulation, attraction, as
we see in daily life, are all the appearances of things in the
state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the
dissolution of the entity, the breakdown of such solidarity,
amalgamation, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest,
stability, equilibrium, coagulation and attraction, and the
change into their opposite states, are all the appearances of
things in the state of qualitative change during the
transformation of one process into another.''^^1^^
 It is perfectly true that any phenomenon can assume the

form of relative rest and the form of conspicuous change.
But Mao is wrong in regarding the two forms as consecutive,
when in fact they are simultaneous. Mao thus does violence
to materialist dialectics when he speaks of dissolution of the
entity taking place only when the movement of a thing
assumes the form of conspicuous change at the point of the
breakdown of balance. No matter what form it assumes, a thing
always contains opposites. Harmony exists together with
disharmony, equilibrium with disequilibrium, attraction with
repulsion and so on. Like the ancient Chinese dialecticians,
Mao recognises the existence of opposed principles and the
conflict between them, but regards them as being separate
from one another in time and space.
 Admitting that "dissolution of the entity" occurs only in

the case of conspicuous change, at the stage of qualitative
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Two, p. 48 (emphasis
110
change, Mao denies its occurrence in the state of relative

rest, i.e., in quantitative change. According to Mao Tse-tung,
things in a state of relative rest are, as it were, in a state ol
balance, which is regarded as their normal state.
 In 1957 Mao Tse-tung ``developed'' his theory of balance

as follows: "An economic plan is drawn up in this country
every year and a correct balance is established between
accumulation and consumption, in order to achieve a balance
between production and requirements. This balance is a
temporary and relative unity of opposites. By the end of the year
this balance is on the whole dissolved by the struggle of
opposites, the entity changes and balance becomes
imbalance, the unity ceases to be and the next year a new balance
and unity must be achieved. This is the advantage of our
planned economy. In fact this balance and unity is partly
disrupted every month, and this makes partial adjustment
necessary. Sometimes it happens that subjective adjustment
does not correspond to objective reality, so that
contradictions arise and the balance is upset. This is called making a
mistake. Contradictions are constantly cropping up and
continually being resolved, and this is the dialectical law of the
development of things and phenomena.''^^1^^
 Here Mao is identifying the appearance of contradictions

with the disruption of balance and substituting mistakes for
contradictions as the source of development, thereby making
balance and the absence of contradictions the normal state
of things, and the disruption of balance and the presence
of contradictions an abnormal state. Mao attributes a general
philosophical character to his ideas on balance and imbalance
and uses them to justify his own subjective practical policies.
 If in "On Contradiction" dialectical contradictions are

regarded as a conspicuous contrast between two far-removed
opposites, twenty years later Mao implies that they are
anomalies.
 The adepts of Maoism openly propagate their leader's

theory of balance. In a recent philosophy manual we find the
following: "The theory of passive balance is essentially a
manifestation of the stability of the world. It regards balance
as absolute and rejects the idea that imbalance is an inner
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among

the People" (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.).
111
necessity, inherent in the movement of things, a necessary
stage in the development of things. The authors regard every
imbalance as an abnormal phenomenon and reject the law
of development `balance---imbalance---balance'.'' We need
not trouble ourselves with the fact that the authors speak
of absolute and relative balance: the main thing is that they
declare the thesis of the theory of balance, "balance----
imbalance---balance'', the formula of development, thereby
opposing the theory of balance from the standpoint of ...
the theory of balance.
 It is known that Mao himself has criticised the theory of

balance. But this criticism was not the outcome of any
serious theoretical reflection. His critical statements were
clearly inserted in "On Contradiction" after he had taken note
of the works of Soviet authors analysing this theory. Thus,
in the same article we find Mao criticising the theory yet
at the same time developing ideas in accordance with it.
This is no doubt to be explained by the apparent resemblance
the theory of balance bears to Chinese naive dialectics, to
which, as we have seen, Mao subscribes. In naive dialectics
outward, isolated forces are contrasted, while in the theory
of balance it is a question of the antagonism of opposite
forces. But in both cases interpenetration and transition into
one another are regarded purely mechanically.
 The theory of balance in lieu of the inner process of the

emergence, development and solution of a dialectical
contradiction makes conflict the only means of resolving the
antagonism of opposed forces.
 Presenting the dialectical contradiction as a mechanical

balance or antagonism between two opposed forces that can
only be destroyed by the interference of some outside factor,
the theory of balance can and does serve as the theoretical
basis for the ultra-revolutionary, bellicose political
harangues of the Maoists. Suffice it to recall Mao Tse-tung's
approach to the relationship between the two world socio--
economic systems, which totally fails to take into account the
complexity of interaction between these two concrete--
historical opposites, and thus leads him to conclude that it can
only be solved by means of war.
 We find the same position if we turn to the question of

contradictions within the capitalist countries. According
to Mao and some of his supporters, the balance and the
112
destruction of that balance in certain countries can only be

achieved by the interference of outside forces. Hence the
insistence on exporting revolution.
 Mao is essentially ascribing the major role to external
factors and conditions, regarding them as the means of
solving a conflict, of solving the antagonism between opposed
forces. Although he speaks of the struggle of opposites as the
cause of development, he does not go beyond a plain admission
of this, and is unable to reveal the mechanism of the conflict,
and see the process of development as a process of ripening,
exacerbation, and resolution---``dismissal''---of contradictions.
 Basically, the Maoists use the theory of balance as a

methodological basis for such phenomena as the "cultural
revolution''. It serves as an external factor helping the solution of
inner contradictions within the Party. As Chou En-lai,
speaking in Wuhan in 1967, declared: "Without disorder, there
is no order. Without breaking up the old there is no creating
the new. Where disorders have reached the culminative point,
such disorders have actually disserved the enemy and inured
the masses, thereby enabling problems to be completely
resolved.''
__ALPHA_LVL2__
Antagonism in Lieu of Contradiction
 By making an absolute of the antagonism between two

opposed forces, Mao Tse-tung is inevitably led to a
misconception of the essence and historical role of antagonistic and
non-antagonistic contradictions. It is common knowledge that
social antagonisms are an important feature of societies based
on exploitation. Antagonistic contradictions involve the
incompatibility of the basic interests of hostile classes, and
their solution is impossible without the abolition of the old
social order by means of class struggle and social revolution.
A typical example of an antagonistic contradiction in our
own day and age is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat.
 The classics of Marxism-Leninism pointed out the transient

nature of antagonistic contradictions. Thus, Marx wrote: "The
bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic
form of the social process of production.. . .''^^1^^ and Lenin
emphasised that an antagonism is a special kind of
_-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works. In three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 504.
8---367
113
contradiction, that "antagonism and contradiction are by no means

one and the same thing. When socialism comes, the former
will disappear but the latter will remain.''^^1^^ Contradictions in
socialist society are non-antagonistic, since private property
has been abolished along with the exploitation of man by
man, and there no longer exist fundamental differences
between the classes.
 Mao Tse-tung expressed the above ideas in "On

Contradiction'', where he admitted that contradictions are not
universally antagonistic, that antagonistic and non-antagonistic
contradictions exist side by side in a relationship of mutual
transition into one another, and that, being different in
character, they require a different approach to their solution.
This was all stated in the most general terms and there
was nothing new in these reflections, nothing that could not
be found in Soviet philosophy manuals.
 In later works, Mao departs from this Marxist view, and
treats the identity of the opposites of an antagonistic
contradiction and their mutual transition and
interpenetration as the transition of antagonistic contradictions into
non-antagonistic contradictions and vice-versa, and the
conflict of contradictory aspects of a non-antagonistic
contradiction as the antagonism of two opposed forces.
 Thus, in "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions

Among the People" Mao revises the Marxist doctrine
concerning types of social contradictions. He replaces the concept
of "antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions" with
concepts of "contradictions between ourselves and the enemy
and contradictions among the people''. We are not dealing
simply with a more precise definition or an innovation. The
point is that Mao is treating the contradictions between the
workers and peasants, on the one hand, and the national
bourgeoisie, on the other, as contradictions among the
people. Thus, Mao writes: "The contradictions between ourselves
and our enemies are antagonistic ones. Within the ranks of
the people, contradictions among the working people are
non-antagonistic, whereas contradictions between the
exploiters and exploited classes have a non-antagonistic aspect as
well as an antagonistic one.... In our country, the
contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie is
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin Miscellany XI, p. 357 (in Russian).
114
a contradiction among the people. The class struggle between

the working class and the national bourgeoisie in general is a
part of the class struggle among the people, because of the
dual character of the national bourgeoisie in this country.''^^1^^
 The assertion that the contradiction between the working

class and the bourgeoisie is non-antagonistic is a Right--
opportunist, revisionist proposition, and the fact that Mao adds
that these contradictions have their antagonistic side as well
does not alter the matter in the slightest. In fact, the basic
interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie are
incompatible, since the building of socialism is by no means in the
interests of the latter, which is proved by the whole history
of the Chinese People's Republic. Mao replaces the question
of class relations with the question of political blocs and
alliances with the class that is fundamentally hostile to the
working class, the bourgeoisie. Although such agreements
are not to be excluded at certain stages, it is fundamentally
wrong to deduce from this that the contradiction between
the working class and the bourgeoisie is not antagonistic.
The contradiction between the working class and the
bourgeoisie can only be resolved by the elimination of the latter,
although, admittedly, in the conditions of socialist
construction and the dictatorship of the proletariat the
contradiction does not necessarily have to be solved by a leap
forward, by an explosion---viz., the liquidation of the kulaks
as a class in the Soviet Union. It must be said, however, that
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its leaders
never regarded the contradiction between the proletariat and
the kulaks as non-antagonistic.
 But perhaps Mao Tse-tung's idea that the contradiction

between the proletariat and the big bourgeoisie is a
contradiction among the people testifies to his creative, original
approach to the complex manifold phenomena of reality, to
an urge to draw the widest sections of the population of
China into the building of the new society? Perhaps it is a
proof of his creative solution of theoretical problems and his
contribution to Marxist philosophy? This is what Maoist
propaganda would have us believe.^^2^^
_-_-_

the People" (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.).
 ^^2^^ In a speech to the Ninth Congress of the CPC Lin Piao referred
to "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" as "a
__NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 116.
8*
115
 It is a well-known fact that it was Lenin who first

produced the correct scientific solution to the question of the
methods of solving different kinds of contradictions after
the triumph of socialist revolution. On the basis of a
dialectical understanding of contradictions, Lenin insisted on the
need to reveal the possible inner link even between
antagonistic opposites at certain stages of development of this or
that process. Realising that intensification of the class
struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was
inevitable in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism,
Lenin nevertheless held that it was possible to make use of
the method of state capitalism controlled by the dictatorship
of the proletariat, and, under the New Economic Policy, to
make use of the bourgeoisie to raise and develop the country's
productive forces as long as it was completely subject to
state laws, and at the same time was being restricted and
gradually ousted. Lenin never ceased to regard the
contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as an
antagonistic contradiction.
 Mao Tse-tung's assertion that the contradiction between

the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a contradiction among
the people is at variance with his own earlier statement (at the
Second Plenary Meeting of the CPC Central Committee,
seventh convocation, in 1949), where he said that the main
contradiction in China after the proletariat had seized power
throughout the country would be the contradiction between
the working class and the bourgeoisie.
 The presence in Maoist ``dialectics'' of mutually exclusive

propositions is determined by their social function. Mao
makes philosophy as a whole an instrument of politics in the
very worst meaning of the word. He adopts a completely
utilitarian approach to philosophy, and is only interested in
_-_-_
__NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 115.
great work''. "In this work . . . Chairman Mao Tse-tung gives an

exhaustive treatment of the doctrine of contradictions, the classes and the class
struggle in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the
doctrine of the existence in socialist society of two types of contradictions
that are different in character---contradictions between ourselves and our
enemies and contradictions among the people, and a great theory of the
continuation of the revolution during the dictatorship of the proletariat.
This great work, like a bright beacon, has lighted the road of socialist
revolution and socialist construction in our country, and at the same
time has laid the theoretical foundations for the present Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution.''
116
it in as far as it can be made to serve his great-power

ambitions.
 Applied to dialectics, a utilitarian, pragmatic approach

really means using it to justify any political actions at all.
In this case dialectics must be provided with a collection
of theses capable of being used for such ends, irrespective
of whether they agree with one another or not. We can
indeed observe this in the Maoist ``dialectics''.^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung
appears to be quite undisturbed by the fact that this approach
to dialectics frequently entails insoluble contradictions. An
entirely different approach to similar phenomena and
deliberate departure from previously declared principles deprives
dialectics of every semblance of scientific content and
genuine practical value. In fact dialectics cease to be
dialectics altogether. But this apparently suits Mao perfectly, for
he only needs ``dialectics'' that will justify the particular
strategy and tactics he happens to have chosen at a given
time.
 The social function of Maoist ``dialectics'' is pretty clear

from Mao Tse-tung's interpretation of the concept of "the
people''. Thus, he writes: "At this stage of building socialism,
all classes, strata and social groups that approve, support,
and work for the cause of socialist construction belong to
the category of the people, wliile those social forces and
groups that resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to
and try to wreck socialist construction are enemies of the
people"^^2^^; ".. .democracy is established among the people
and, united by the working class, all those with civil rights,
especially the peasants, establish a dictatorship over the
reactionary classes, reactionaries and elements that resist
the socialist revolution and oppose socialist construction".^^3^^
At first sight this might appear to be a perfectly correct
Marxist definition of the concept of "the people": the people
is all those who support socialism and help build it, while
_-_-_
~^^1^^ It is interesting to note how in his speech to the Ninth Congress of

the CPC, Lin Piao praised Mao's thesis that the contradiction between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is the main contradiction in
presentday China, and, in practically the same breath, the thesis that this is one
of the contradictions among the people (?!).

the People'', p. 4.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 7.
117
those who resist the socialist transformation of society are

classed as enemies of the people. But in fact, as we shall
see, Mao's definition of the term is subjective and ignores
class principles.
 In Marxist sociology the concept of "the people" is based

above all on the decisive role of material production in the
development of society and the economic position of the
various classes, strata and groups in a particular system of
social production, since it is this that determines to what
extent this or that class, strata or group is objectively
interested in and capable of fulfilling the concrete tasks of social
development that a given society faces. According to Mao's
definition, however, any social group, even an exploiter group
(in this case, the big bourgeoisie) has only to declare its
willingness to co-operate in the building of socialism, and
participate formally, to automatically qualify for inclusion
in "the people''.
 In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism

the concept of "the people" may certainly include petty and
middle bourgeoisie, rural and urban, but there is absolutely
no justification under any circumstances for extending the
concept to include the powerful capitalists. According to
Mao's definition, namely "all people with civil rights'', such
people as the former Vice-President of Kuomintang China,
the inveterate reactionary Li Tsung-jen, the economic
dictator of Macao, Ho Ying, a member of the People's Political
Consultative Committee of China, and a host of other such
figures qualify for inclusion in "the people''.
 Mao's definition of the class enemies of the proletariat

is also un-Marxist. By making the main criterion the
attitude to the policy of the present Chinese leadership,
replacing the correct Marxist expression "class enemies" with the
formula "enemies of the people'', the Maoists deprive the
term of its correct sociological meaning and treat it as a
political phenomenon which may or may not be connected
with adherence to the exploiter classes---and indeed
developments in China over the last few years show that it is
not. Instead, a person's class adherence is derived from his
political views, and it is not representatives of the exploiter
classes who are treated as "enemies of the people" but all
those who "resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to
socialist construction (read: do not approve of the Mao
118
group's distortion of the principles of socialist construction)

and try to wreck it" (read: struggle against the Mao group).
 This approach makes it possible to declare any person an

enemy if he expresses dissatisfaction or disagreement with
the methods of socialist construction, irrespective of his social
origins and social position or the reasons for his
dissatisfaction. He has only to express his disagreement with the
political decisions of the Mao group to automatically become "an
enemy of the people''.
 It is thus not surprising that in China today it is not the

capitalists but the communist internationalists who are
declared "enemies of the people''.
 Thus, in the view of Mao Tse-tung, present-day Chinese
society is divided into ``we'' and "the enemies'', that is
himself and his supporters and those who think differently, those
who disagree with his theory and practice. In the newspaper
Chung-kuo ching-yan pao for June 23, 1966, we find the
following statement: "Whoever opposes the ideas of Mao
Tse-tung is a counter-revolutionary.'' Mao Tse-tung and his
supporters apply the term "enemy of the people" as an
excuse for all kinds of reprisals against their ideological
opponents, even when the latter have never belonged to the
exploiter classes and have given years of faithful service to
the Chinese people and the Chinese revolution.
 The "cultural revolution" brought into stark relief the

antiMarxist essence of the Maoist interpretations of the concepts
of "the people" and "enemies of the people''. The Mao group
claims that the aim of this ``revolution'' has been to prevent
a return to the bourgeois system, that they have been waging
a struggle against "enemies of the people" (the word enemy
having been enriched with such synonyms as ``swine'',
"members of the black gang'', `ìnsects'', etc.), and against
"agents of the bourgeoisie that have crawled into the Party'',
"against those who are in power and follow the capitalist
path''.
 Naturally the presence of bourgeois turncoats and even

class enemies in the Party is not to be excluded, and it is
essential to wage a resolute struggle against them. But the
struggle must be waged against real agents of the bourgeoisie
and not imaginary ones. During the "cultural revolution" in
China, however, it was thousands upon thousands of
Communists who were declared by the Maoists to be enemies
119
trying to wreck the building of socialism, whereas the

representatives of the bourgeoisie were safe from all criticism.
 This ``definition'' of class enemies is based on a subjective

interpretation of the essence of antagonistic and non--
antagonistic contradictions under socialism that has nothing at all
to do with Marxism-Leninism. Thus, Mao writes: ''. . .the
first type of contradiction (antagonistic contradictions.---
M.A., V.G.) involves drawing a clear line between ourselves
and our enemies, while the second type of contradiction (
nonantagonistic contradictions.---M.A., V.G.) involves drawing
a clear line between truth and falsehood. Naturally, the
question of the relations between ourselves and our enemies
is at the same time, to some extent a question of truth and
falsehood. Thus, for example, the question of who is right
and who is wrong---we, or such internal and external
reactionary forces as imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic
capital---is also a question of truth and falsehood, but it
belongs to an essentially different type of question of truth
and falsehood than those among the people.''^^1^^
 The classification of contradictions is thus deprived of

objective content since what do the concepts of truth and
falsehood include? And, even more important, who decides what
is true and what is false? Apparently this is decided by
whoever wields real power in the Party and State at a given
moment, so that naturally the truth is always with Mao, and
his opponents are always in the wrong.
 Mao Tse-tung turned to Marxism-Leninism in the

twenties because he considered it to be the best available means
of restoring China's greatness. In the thirties and forties he
needed to use Marxist phraseology to establish his rule in
the CPC. Suffice it to remember his own "Decision on Some
Questions of the History of the Party" which abounds in
references to the need to struggle against doctrinaire attitudes
and those who hold them (read, "communist
internationalists''). In the fifties and sixties, Mao needed to refer to
Marxist theses in order to conceal his betrayal of Marxism--
Leninism and the principles of socialist construction, to strengthen
his insecure position within the Party and the country, and
justify his efforts to disrupt the socialist community and the
_-_-_

the People'', p. 6 (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.}.
120
international communist, workers' and national liberation

movements.
 In the first years after the triumph of the people's

revolution in China, when the Mao group did not yet dare to
embark upon overt revision of the principles of socialist
construction and break openly with the world socialist system
and the international communist movement, when they were
forced to adhere to the policy of peaceful coexistence
conducted by the Soviet Union, the Maoists still continued to
speak of the existence of non-antagonistic contradictions.
But as soon as they had altered course and set out on an
entirely different path in home and foreign policy, aspiring to
hegemony in the world socialist system and the international
communist, workers' and national liberation movements, they
began to speak almost exclusively of antagonistic
contradictions, thereby attempting to justify the need to "break
free" of Marxism-Leninism both at home and abroad. This
was the purpose of the broad debate on the law of the
unity and conflict of opposites that was launched in China
in 1964. In order to make their views appear Marxist, they
made use of Lenin's authority, quoting ad infinitum his
famous idea of "the splitting of a single whole'', but
interpreting it in their own way.
 Officially the debate centred around the theory of Yang

Hsien-chen. In actual fact, however, what was involved was
a struggle to replace materialist dialectics in favour of
Maoist ``dialectics''. The debate was begun on Mao's initiative
and conducted under his auspices, so that although he did not
directly express an opinion himself, the views expressed in
Hungchih and Jen-rain jih-pao can be safely assumed to
represent Mao's own attitude.^^1^^
 During the debate, the law of the unity and conflict of
opposites was formulated as "the unity of two principles
and the dissolution of the entity'', with the Maoists placing
the stress on the latter to the total exclusion of the unity of
conflicting opposites. The debate revealed Mao's distorted
understanding of the Marxist-Leninist teaching of the core
of dialectics as soon as the subject of the trends of social
development and the major problems of our time---the factors
underlying the development of socialism and the world
_-_-_
~^^1^^ This was admitted in a January 1967 number of Jen-min jih-pao
121
communist movement---were broached. The Maoists

completely distorted the meaning of Lenin's statement concerning
the splitting of a single whole. Following Mao's example, the
`òrthodox'' philosophers blithely apply the formula "
dissolution of the entity" to all phenomena quite indiscriminately,
without drawing any distinction at all between capitalist and
socialist society.
 The Maoists take the concrete historical situation where

"the dissolution of the entity" manifests itself in the form of
a rift in exploiter society and its division into classes hostile
to one another, and apply it dogmatically to socialism, the
world socialist system and the Communist Party and
MarxistLeninist theory.
 An article inspired by Mao himself that appeared in the

journal Hungchih in 1964 contained the following statement.
"The international labour movement, like all things and
phenomena in the world, also divides.'' The same applies to
Marxism: "A revolutionary, scientific doctrine, automatically
engenders its opposite in the course of its development,
engenders, that is, a counter-revolutionary, unscientific
doctrine.''^^1^^ The article stressed that modern (socialist) society
also splits, just as society will split "in ten thousand years'
time''. Classes and class struggle are thus perpetuated. It is
now perfectly clear what the Maoists were up to with all
this: they were creating a theoretical basis for the
justification of the destruction of the CPC and the constitutional
organs of the Chinese People's Republic. In this they were
demonstrating their real attitude to theory, which is to regard
it as an instrument of their irrational, voluntarist practice,
called upon to justify post factum what they have already
done or happen to be doing. This is also their attitude to the
laws of dialectics.
 We have only to take a look at real life to see that these
theses are a parody of dialectics. In "On Dialectics'', the work
from which the Maoists took the idea of the "dissolution of the
entity'', Lenin stresses that the dialectics of bourgeois society
where this operates most fully is purely "a particular case''.
It is therefore essential to take into account the specific ways
in which the general law of dialectics manifests itself in
capitalist and socialist society.
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Hungchih, 1964, No. 16.
122
 How exactly is Mao's erroneous interpretation of this

problem of dialectics manifested? Above all, in the way he
denies the special quality of the "dissolution of the entity"
in exploiter society where the interests of the hostile classes
composing society are diametrically opposed.
 In exploiter society "dissolution of the entity" takes the

form of a division of society into two hostile camps with
different economic and political interests, a different world
outlook and morality. Thus the complete division of this
concrete society is both natural and progressive, since
through an intensification of class antagonisms it approaches
its end and thereby determines the triumph of the new,
higher social order.
 In socialist society the interests of the classes and social

groups are united on the basic issues of social life. There are
no antagonistic contradictions in socialist society. Since
contradictions can only arise, and do only arise, over specific,
individual issues, these contradictions are entirely
nonantagonistic. Such fundamental matters as the relations
between classes and social groups do not entail "division of
the entity'', for non-antagonistic contradictions do not lead
to conflict between social classes and groups, and so do not
lead to the division of society, the people as a whole, or
opposition between the friendly classes and social groups. This
qualitatively new manifestation of dialectics in socialist
society is both natural and progressive.
 This is not to say that there are no contradictions in
socialist society, but simply that such as there are have passed
from the sphere of fundamental interests to the sphere of
specific, individual interests. Naturally, difference of interests
and contradictions between them occur in many spheres
of life in numerous matters, large and small, but such
contradictions are always individual, never fundamental. There are
thus no insoluble contradictions in socialist society, either
within a given socialist country or in the inter-state relations
among the socialist countries.
 For the first time in history progress is achieved in a way

that does not involve the division of society into two hostile,
conflicting classes, but, on the contrary, is based on the unity
of interests of all classes and social groups, a unity that
grows and becomes stronger as time goes by.
 While in capitalist society division is resolved by class
123
struggle and revolution, in the case of socialism the

contradictions are resolved within the framework of unity by
means of social transformations and the improvement of
production relations.
 The growing unity of all strata of socialist society is a

major condition for the discovery and solution of non--
antagonistic contradictions, and provided these are objective,
concrete contradictions and not artificially created ones,
they can always be resolved.
 In capitalist society, on the other hand, antagonistic

contradictions exist over fundamental issues, and can only be
resolved by the demise of the social system itself, so that
their solution is a protracted business and assumes most acute,
serious forms. In socialist society, in the conditions of
sociopolitical unity, the solution of concrete contradictions
represents a step forward for all those who are struggling for
further progress. Mao Tse-tung refuses to notice the special
nature of the contradictions found in socialist society and
dogmatically applies to it the same "division of the entity'',
thereby distorting the nature and motive forces of the
development of socialism.
 Socialist society is free from class conflicts and is

characterised by unprecedented unity. It is this unity that is the
new motive force of socialist society. Marxist-Leninists have
never denied the presence of class struggle in countries
building socialism. In the period of transition from capitalism
to socialism vestiges of the exploiter classes and social groups
remain, and there are anti-socialist forces which in certain
conditions may resist socialism. But the struggle with such
elements does not involve the division of society, but on the
contrary signifies its strengthening and further development
along the path of socialism.
 Mao Tse-tung resorted to defending class antagonisms in

socialist society in order to deny the achievements of the
Soviet people, who have built socialism and are successfully
building communism.
 It is clear that not only within each socialist country, but
in the world socialist system as a whole, "division of the
entity" is manifested in such a way as to exclude division
and opposition of interests on major, fundamental issues of
the life of the various socialist countries.
 The world socialist system is characterised by the fact
124
that the unity of fundamental interests actually grows and

is strengthened in this way. Naturally, different levels of
economic and political development, different historical and
cultural traditions and different geographical situation can,
and do, lead to different interpretations of various concrete
problems of socialist construction and differences of opinion
which are resolved in the course of all-round co-operation
between the socialist countries according to the principles
of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The
communist and workers' parties that stand at the helm of
state in the socialist countries regard it as their duty to
conduct a correct Marxist-Leninist policy, combining the
interests of each individual country with the interests of the
socialist community as a whole and with the interests of
the communist and liberation movements, in order to ensure
that different approaches to various matters should not
disrupt the unity of the socialist camp. Contradictions between
the socialist countries are brought to light and resolved in
the framework of the basic unity of their fundamental
interests.
 The non-antagonistic character of such contradictions

requires that Communists, in their practical and theoretical
activities, emphasise and draw attention to those factors
that unite the socialist countries and make for their
solidarity. Since unity here serves as a major condition for the
discovery and solution of contradictions, the ability to make
proper use of the law of dialectics in question is a way of
stressing the role of unity. Mao Tse-tung and his supporters,
however, in the pursuit of hegemony, emphasise the opposite.
 According to Mao, "division of the entity" occurs not only

in socialist society but in Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The
Maoists maintain that the revolutionary doctrine "in its
development must engender its opposite, must, that is,
engender a counter-revolutionary, unscientific doctrine'', and
attempt to substantiate this with references to `òpportunism''
and ``revisionism''.
 Developing as it has in antagonistic class society,

revolutionary doctrine has naturally always been under a certain
amount of pressure from the ideology of the reactionary
classes. It is this that makes the constant struggle against all
forms and brands of revisionism and opportunism a law of
development of revolutionary theory in exploiter society or
125
societies where survivals of exploiter society are still deeply

rooted. But even here, "division of the entity" takes a very
special form that must on no account be confused with the
``division'' of ideology in exploiter society. Marxism--
Leninism develops in the struggle with various attempts to distort
it, but it cannot, and does not, itself engender its opposite,
as the Maoists insist. In this sense there is no "division of
the entity" in Marxism-Leninism. It is impossible to see
how a revolutionary doctrine can be said to engender a
counter-revolutionary doctrine.
 Marxism-Leninism naturally contains contradictions,

contradictions between certain old, out-of-date scientific theses
and new issues advanced by life, contradictions between
Marxism-Leninism as a revolutionary doctrine and hostile
views and theories that insidiously squirm their way into it.
But the appearance of contradictions such as these and their
solution represents not the division of the principles of
Marxism-Leninism but, on the contrary, the development
and enrichment of Marxist-Leninist principles, their
growing strength. In short, the Maoists are barking up the wrong
tree when they try to find ``division'' here.
 The Maoists hold that the Party must also ``divide''
according to dialectics. They regard division within the Party
as progress, as a blessing. In actual fact, the progress of
the Party is gradual consolidation of its ranks, and division
(schism) must be regarded not as progress but as a crisis,
since it means that enemies have filtered into its ranks and
are destroying it. The strength of the Party lies not in
division but in unity of thought and action of all its members,
for then contradictions arising within the Party (such as
there have been, and will be in the future) are purely
specific, individual contradictions, to be solved by all members
of the Party, united on the basic points of its programme.
The successful solution of contradictions in the form of a
battle of opinions helps strengthen the unity of the Party,
which in turn is a factor ensuring the further successful
solution of such contradictions as may arise. The penetration
of bourgeois influences into the Party and the struggle against
them is to be regarded not as ``division'' but rather as the
struggle of the Party as a whole against alien elements.
 Naturally a situation can occur where, for various reasons
(socio-economic, historical, ideological, etc.) leadership of
126
the Communist Party passes into the hands of non-Marxists,

open or covert enemies of Marxism-Leninism---as has
occurred in China today. Then "division of entity'', the struggle
against them is perfectly justified. But such phenomena
constitute the exception not the rule, and do not derive from
the nature of the Communist Party or socialism.
 The same applies to the relations between the communist

parties of different countries. Here there can be no
contradictions on fundamental issues, and hence no ``division'';
there can only be contradictions on individual matters of
a temporary nature, which are resolved on the basis of
essential unity, and whose solution indeed requires such unity
and not division.
 In short, Maoism emasculates the dialectics depriving them

of real live content and transforming it into a collection
of sterile formulae. Mao Tse-tung's thesis that development
follows the pattern `ùnity---struggle---unity'', which is
contrary to Lenin's theory of contradictions, universalises
antagonistic contradictions.
 In conclusion it must be said that Marxist dialectics demand

a concrete historical approach to social phenomena. They
cannot be used as an abstract scheme for the logical
deduction of answers to all practical questions, but require that
not only general features inherent in a phenomenon at all
stages of its development be taken into account, but also the
features of contradictory development that characterise a
phenomenon at a given stage of its development.
 The contradictory nature of the development of each

socialist country and the socialist community as a whole, or
each communist party and the world working-class
movement as a whole, have their own individual features in
addition to the features that are common to social
development in general. The unity of opposite aspects is especially
important here, and the contradictions are non-antagonistic
in character. The various communist parties are working in
different conditions, and this gives rise to different approaches
to practical matters, and even to disagreements. But
community of fundamental interests enables the various
detachments of the world army of Communists to overcome
whatever difficulties and disagreements arise among them. The
participants in the international forum of Communists in
Moscow in 1969 expressed their firm belief that differences
127
between the communist and workers' parties will be
successfully resolved. "This belief is based on the fact that the
international working class has common long-term objectives
and interests, on the striving of each Party to find a solution
to existing problems which would meet both national and
international interests and the Communists' revolutionary
mission; it is based on the will of Communists for cohesion
on an international scale.''^^1^^
 The Maoists, however, extend the individual concrete cases

of "division of the entity" in the form of a division
of society into hostile classes to all social phenomena. Is this
to be regarded simply as a theoretical error or a doctrinaire
mistake? While it is possible that some of the rank-and-file
Maoists are simply misguided, in the case of Mao Tse-tung
himself we are clearly dealing with a deliberate departure
from the ideas of Marxist philosophy, for his distortion of the
dialectics and anti-Marxist interpretation of many major
questions of our age is the result not of failure to understand,
but of a practical policy that is hostile to Marxism-Leninism
being pursued by Mao and his group. The Maoists do
violence to dialectics in their attempt to prove what cannot be
proved and justify their wrong policies.
 Mao Tse-tung's utilitarian approach to dialectics is plainly

seen in the fact that he only applies "division of the entity"
selectively, to certain, deliberately chosen phenomena.
 The ``division'' of the socialist community is declared

progressive and inevitable, whereas in the case of the ``
division'' of China into the Chinese People's Republic and
Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan it becomes a question of the
"union of the two into a single entity''. The ``division'' of
the Chinese Communist Party is declared to be progressive
and inevitable, while with the Chinese bourgeoisie it becomes
a question of the "union of the two into a single entity''. The
``division'' of the international labour movement is declared
to be progressive and inevitable, but with respect to
renegades expelled from communist parties and direct agents
of the bourgeoisie the principle of "union of the two in a
single entity" is proclaimed.
 Clearly then, the debate on the basic law of dialectics

was the result not of academic interests in a major scientific
_-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow,

1969, Prague, 1969, p. 38.
128
problem but of Mao's attempt to use the ideas of "division

of the entity" to provide theoretical substantiation for his
policy of splitting the world communist movement. This is
why he has always been so irritated by such concepts as
`ùnity'', "identity of contradictions" and the like, and all
words reminding him of the need for a concrete approach to
different kinds of contradictions, antagonistic and
nonantagonistic, have been thrown overboard.
 Another important point one is struck by in this

connection is that while maintaining that contradictions between
communist parties and between socialist countries are
antagonistic Mao at the same time declares contradictions
between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie to be a
contradiction within the people, and hence non-antagonistic.
This is yet another proof of his utilitarian, pragmatic
approach to dialectics. In the pursuit of his great-power
hegemonistic aims Mao is prepared to cause division (``
dissolution'') of the socialist community and international communist
and working-class movement and unite with their fiercest
enemy, the bourgeoisie.
 Mao Tse-tung's distorted concept of materialist dialectics

leads him to draw the most paradoxical conclusions: firstly,
that contradictions cannot be solved, secondly, that
contradictions must be exacerbated and thirdly, contradictions must
be created where they do not exist. Mao replaces objective
dialectics with his own peculiar brand of "subjective
dialectics'', involving the fabrication of contradictions both
within the country and abroad.
 Within the country, "subjective dialectics" involve the

policy of exacerbating contradictions within the Party,
within certain classes and social groups and among them.
Hence Mao's claim that the "cultural revolution" is
something desirable and inevitable, necessary to the proper
development of the Party and the country. This can perhaps
be taken as an indication that we can expect further "cultural
revolutions" in the future.
 Abroad, Mao's "subjective dialectics" involve China's

"great resistance" to other countries, and a merciless head-on
struggle between them with no quarter given. According to
Mao, the absence of such conflict leads to stagnation. Thus,
Mao considers that the war between China and Japan helped
China's development. He seems to regard the existence of an
9---367
129
outside enemy to China as a blessing in general, judging by

the way he searched so hard for a new `ènemy'', and
eventually settled on the Soviet Union. Now, we must assume,
China's further development is `ènsured''. This is the truly
monstrous meaning of Mao's "subjective dialectics''.
 Thus, Mao Tse-tung's ``dialectics'' and ``philosophy'' are

used to exalt his "philosophical genius'', for the "
philosophical substantiation of all his actions and the defamation
of his ideological opponents. Dialectical terminology is
employed solely for the purpose of concealment, now of
greatpower chauvinism, now of hide-bound national egoism.
 The Maoists strive to back up whatever policies they

happen to be pursuing with the relevant quotations from the
classics of Marxism-Leninism---the "big leap forward" with
the thesis of the idea becoming a material force when it
takes hold of the masses, their splitting policy with Lenin's
ideas on the division of the entity, the Hungweiping
outrages with the Marxist thesis of the need for resolute
struggle against revisionism, and so on and so forth---trying to
keep as close as possible to the Marxist-Leninist terminology,
so that correct theoretical formulae are distorted and
misapplied in practice. Apart from some similarity in
terminology employed, the Maoist ``dialectics'' have nothing at all
in common with the Marxist dialectical method, and upon
closer analysis it transpires that they are nothing more than
a modification of the traditional Chinese dialectics whose
substance we have already examined.
[130]
__NUMERIC_LVL1__
CHAPTER V
__ALPHA_LVL1__
MARXIST-LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND MAOIST
 ``LEAPS'' IN THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
__ALPHA_LVL2__
[introduction.]
 Mao Tse-tung and the ideologues of his cult make

staggering claims for Mao's contribution as a theoretician to
methodology no less than to dialectics.
 The authors of "Three Great Milestones" declare: "In

'On Practice' Chairman Mao has creatively developed Lenin's
ideas, pointing out that the transition from perceptual to
rational knowledge represents a leap and that the subsequent
return to practice is another leap. Moreover, he says: 'Correct
knowledge is acquired after repeated transition from matter
to spirit and spirit to matter, that is, from practice to
knowledge and knowledge to practice. Such is the Marxist
epistemology of dialectical materialism.' (Mao Tse-tung, "Whence
Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?'') Marx, Engels, Lenin
and Stalin said nothing about all this, but Chairman Mao
generalised numerous new empirical facts and advanced
a new theory and new explanations."
 What primaeval ignorance of philosophy this panegyric

to the "thoughts of Mao" reveals! But perhaps this is the
extreme ignorance of a few isolated champions of Maoism
who have failed to make a correct assessment of Mao's ``
contribution''?
 Let us take a look at what the diploma'd Maoists have to

say, the professional philosophers of the Chinese People's
University. They also declare Mao Tse-tung to have carried
Lenin's doctrine forward and raised it to a new level. "In
new historical conditions, Lenin, struggling against idealism,
metaphysics, and especially revisionism, in philosophy,
9*
131
defended and developed the all-embracing view that practice

is the origin of all knowledge and the criterion of truth.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung has always laid special emphasis on
practice. Regarding practice as the most outstanding feature
of Marxist philosophy and making it a point of departure,
he has exhaustively developed the active revolutionary theory
of reflection, developed the Marxist view of practice, and
developed the thesis of the role of social practice in the
entire process of cognition."^^1^^
 The authors maintain that Mao Tse-tung "developed

allsidedly and profoundly the epistemology of dialectical
materialism".^^2^^ "Comrade Mao Tse-tung's view of the
division of human knowledge into perceptual and rational,
his exposition of the features of perceptual and rational
knowledge and the qualitative difference and unity of
perceptual and rational knowledge on the basis of
practice---this is a major contribution to Marxist-Leninist
epistemology.''^^3^^
 The further we read in the creations of the Maoist

theoreticians, the more great ``contributions'' we find ascribed to
Mao's two articles referred to above. Apparently, Mao not
only developed the theory of knowledge, but managed to
put it into practice, "embodies this theory in a number of
concrete tasks: raising the awareness of the worker and
peasant masses to the level of the intellectuals, bringing the
intellectuals closer to manual labour, the combination of
studies with work in production, the connection between
engineers and technicians and the worker and peasant
masses... .''^^4^^ Even the question of "contacts between Chinese
and foreign specialists" was "given a theoretical
explanation" by Chairman Mao.
 We must give the authors due credit, however, for drawing
attention to the following ``precept'' of Mao Tse-tung. "In
studying a problem, we must guard against subjectivism,
one-sidedness and superficiality.''^^5^^ Having quoted this
incontrovertible premise, the authors rightly remark: "
Subjectivism, one-sidedness and superficiality are the roots of
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, p. 182 (emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.).
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 198.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 202. 
 ~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 204.
132
erroneous modes of thinking.''^^1^^ They regard this thesis, which is

a rehash of an idea expressed by Lenin in "On Dialectics"
as yet another ``contribution'' of Mao Tse-tung. The most
remarkable thing here is that Mao Tse-tung and his
champions, while claiming to be the originators of this idea,
completely ignore it in their own theory and practice.
 But we have yet to examine the most important of all

Mao's ``contributions''. The above-mentioned authors write
that "Mao was the first to advance on the basis of all-round
development of the theory of knowledge of dialectical
materialism a perfect and consistent method of work called 'the
mass line'.''^^2^^ At first sight, this principle looks most
attractive: "To draw from the masses and take to the masses.'' This
brand-new theory is resumed in the formula: "Practice---
knowledge---practice,'' which is reflected in politics in the
principle: "Masses---leadership---masses.''^^3^^
 If we are to believe all the authors have to say in its

favour, we can hardly refrain from exclaiming after them:
"How many great discoveries are to be found in the works
of Chairman Mao!''
 It appears that all Lenin's wealth of ideas on the theory

of knowledge can be summed up as the "all-embracing view
that practice is the basis of knowledge and the criterion of
truth''. Naturally, against the background of this abstract
premise even Mao's banal reflections on perceptual and
rational knowledge and his mental acrobatics with the formula
``practice---knowledge---practice'' appear to ill-informed
Chinese readers who have never read a word of Marx,
Engels and Lenin (``foreign'' and `ìrrelevant'' to the Chinese
situation) to be the height of wisdom and sagacity.
 We have deliberately quoted extensively from Chinese
sources for the purpose of showing how both the young
supporters of Mao and the old ``specialists'' are united in
attaching importance to the ``contribution'' of Mao Tse-tung. As
they see it, Mao's contribution consists in the following: 1)
the idea of the division of knowledge into perceptual and
rational, the transition from one to the other and then to
practice, called a ``leap''; 2) the view that practice is the
source and criterion of truth; 3) the definition of the features
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Dialectical Materialism, p. 222.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 236.
 ^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 236--37.
133
of perceptual and rational knowledge; 4) the generalisation

of the doctrine of absolute and relative truth; 5) "the
theory of knowledge is embodied in a number of concrete
tasks'', "a perfect and consistent method of work called
"the mass line' '', "draw from the masses and take to the
masses''.
 As the Maoists themselves emphasise, the whole ``wealth''

of Mao Tse-tung's ideas in the field of epistemology is
contained in "On Practice'', "On Contradiction'', and
"Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?''
 As for the first two, the Maoists claim that they are "the
best text-book which teaches the people to think correctly, act
correctly and learn correctly. They have not only determined
the Marxist-Leninist basis in the education of the Chinese
Communist Party, but are a brilliant contribution to the
world Marxist-Leninist philosophical treasury.''^^1^^ Let us for
the moment take these claims at their face value and
examine briefly Mao's ``contributions'' by collating them with
the theories of Marxism-Leninism.
 Before we do so, however, one further remark is in order,

something that must always be borne in mind when
examining the works of Mao Tse-tung and his supporters.
Developments in China and other countries provided ample evidence
to convince Mao of the tremendous influence of
MarxismLeninism. Having failed in his attempts to compete with
Marxism-Leninism, he now tries to graft Marxist-Leninist
teaching to his own conceited hegemonistic pretentions and
aspirations for national resurgence, for restoration of the
former greatness of the Celestial Empire. Maoism is a parasite
living off Marxism-Leninism. The Marxist terms employed
are like a code which must be deciphered in order to read
the anti-Marxist message his ideas contain, and this adds
to the difficulty of exposing them for what they really are.
This being so, the only effective method of combating
Maoist theory is to decipher the code, thereby revealing the true
content. At times it is difficult to find the key to the code
in the works themselves, in which case it is necessary to seek
it in Maoist practice.
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Wang Shih and others, S/tort History of the Chinese Communist
Party, Shanghai, 1961 (in Chinese), pp. 169--70.
134
__ALPHA_LVL2__
Practice and the Relationship Between
 Theory and Practice
 The word ``practice'' crops up again and again in Mao's

articles and speeches, and the call to "combine theory with
practice" is one of the "three talismans" which Mao is
supposed to have invented.^^1^^ "The theory of knowledge of
dialectical materialism raises practice to the first place, holds that
human knowledge cannot be separated the least bit from
practice, and repudiates all incorrect theories which deny the
importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice."^^2^^
''. . .Materialism and dialectics ... need effort. They must be
based on and tested by objective reality.''^^3^^ However, this
insistence on the primacy of practice, on knowledge being
inseparable from practice---and one could go on and on
quoting statements to this effect---should not be allowed to
mislead us into accepting such statements at their face value,
as truly materialist. It all depends on what one means by
practice, the practice of what class Mao intends to combine
knowledge with, the practice of what class or classes is taken
as the criterion of truth. Here we come up against
incredible eclecticism, a mixture of naive and vulgar materialism,
empiricism, and subjective idealism. Although in "On
Practice" Mao refers to several forms of practical activity (in
production, the class struggle, politics, science and the arts),
basically he limits practice as the source of knowledge entirely to
the sphere of politics, and all other spheres of social life
are examined through the prism of political practice.
Moreover, this political practice derives from the petty-bourgeois
class viewpoint of Mao Tse-tung.
 Some may feel there is nothing wrong in this, that Mao
is thus adopting a consistent class approach and analysing
things from a firm class standpoint (especially if we are to
_-_-_
~^^1^^ "Three Talismans'', a style of work advanced by Mao Tse-tung in
the forties, can be summed up in the following three principles: "the
combination of theory and practice'', "the mass line" and "criticism and
self-criticism''. Mao himself has never observed these ostensibly
sensible rules, which were really no more than a demagogical device for
struggle against the Chinese communist internationalists, who were
accused of doctrinairism, divorce from the masses, and conceit.
~^^3^^ Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages

Press, Peking, 1966, p. 212.
135
accept it as the proletarian class standpoint). But the point

is that we find here the same one-sidedness and superficiality
that leads Mao Tse-tung to idealism and abandonment of
class, proletarian, affiliation.
 This incorrect approach to the class struggle leads straight

to vulgar sociology, the incursion of the criterion of class
adherence into spheres where it is not directly manifest, such
as the natural sciences and the transformation of nature, etc.
This involves a distortion of the very concept of ``practice''
as an objective phenomenon representing the unity of the
subjective and objective. The objective, material side of
practice---practice as a process existing outside man and
independently of the will of the individual---drops out, and
we are left with the subjective side, where voluntarism and
subjectivism---"the great leap forward'', the "people's
communes'', and so on---flourish, and the Maoist thesis advanced
in 1958 that "Anything that is conceivable is feasible" comes
into its own.
 The transference of these theories to the sphere of "

subjective practice" results in mistakes of a voluntarist,
subjective kind: the outcome is "to throw all historical realism
overboard"^^1^^ and confuse reality with pure fancy.
 Practice, as Mao understands it, is the narrow, separate

practice of an individual or a group of persons viewed
abstractly and pragmatically. Furthermore, Mao does not even
deal with this kind of practice in its entirety, but only with
such aspects of it as suit his nationalistic, petty-bourgeois
views and may serve to support them. Mao often transforms
essentially correct concepts that fall under circumscribed
individual "common sense" and "naive realism"---concepts
of the popular wisdom---into universal principles with which
he tries to define the essence of phenomena incomparably
wider and more complex.
 Limiting practice to "personal practice'', Mao proceeds

to examine such matters as the position of the various classes
in society and their role in economic development and mutual
relations not by generalising the vast material on all the
various aspects of their activity but by applying facile
empirical methods. "You can't solve a problem?" Mao asks.
"Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its
_-_-_
136
past history. When you have investigated the problem

thoroughly, you will know how to solve it.''^^1^^ "Investigation
may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving
a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is,
indeed, to solve it.''^^2^^
 But how can the development of society and class struggle
be studied by investigating isolated phenomena? Chairman
Mao prescribes his own special method of studying society,
and you can rest assured that he will not "chase the sparrow
with his eyes closed" or "fish by sense of touch like the blind
man''. For Mao has discovered that "We must guard against
subjectivism, one-sidedness and superficiality.''^^3^^ He therefore
recommends the following: "For those whose duty is to give
guidance and direction, the most essential method of knowing
the conditions is that they should, proceeding according to
plan, devote their attention to a number of cities and villages
and make a comprehensive survey of each of them from the
basic viewpoint of Marxism, i.e., by means of class analysis."^^4^^
He goes on to say: "A fact-finding conference does not
require a large attendance; three to five, or seven or eight
persons will be enough. But ample time must be allowed
and an outline of investigation prepared beforehand and,
furthermore, one must personally put questions to the
participants and jot down the answers, and hold discussions with
them.''^^5^^
 Mao has taken good care to omit nothing. He mentions

"the basic viewpoint of Marxism" and "class analysis'', he
remembers the plan, the outline of investigation and the need
to jot down the answers. In other words, he has done his best
to ensure that nobody can accuse him of "narrow empiricism''.
Yet the method Mao recommends as a universal principle of
combining knowledge with practice is really no more than
a method of empirical sociology, a method which might be
applied in order to learn the situation in one village, one
town, or one province at most, and even then with great
reservations. The method was used in Yenan, where it was
formulated. But it becomes one-sided and superficial as soon
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, p. 233.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 233--34.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Volume Four, p. 7.
~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 8.
137
as Mao tries to present it as the only way of acquiring

knowledge of the world. One is curious to know exactly how Mao
and his supporters applied it in order to arrive at the
conclusion that "ninety per cent of the people of the world long
for revolution" by means of world war. It may be assumed
that the conclusion was reached as follows. Chairman Mao
chose three to five, or let us say ten persons among the
renegade emigre groups residing in Peking and questioned
them about "world revolution" and "the restoration of
capitalism in the Soviet Union''. Nirie out of ten, or perhaps all
ten said that in their respective countries "a revolutionary
situation has matured and the people are longing for
revolution''. From which Mao, having pondered upon what he had
heard, finally drew the conclusion: "Ninety-five per cent of
the people of the world long for revolution.'' Those
interviewed took the occasion to declare their love for Mao, from
which he deduced: "Ninety-five per cent of the people of
the world worship the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung.''
 The Maoist approach to practice, to revolutionary

experience, as a basis for study of reality and the development
of a correct scientific policy, is radically opposed to the
Marxist-Leninist approach. The theoretical propositions of
Maoism are derived from the narrow, limited sphere of
political practice, to the exclusion of all other kinds of practice,
from class struggle (chiefly of the peasantry) and national
experience, with the inevitable result that they are one-sided
and nationalistic.
 Lenin emphasised the indivisibility of revolutionary theory

and the revolutionary experience of all the detachments
of the world proletariat and its allies. He insisted that
"theory cannot be thought up. It grows out of the sum
total of the revolutionary thinking of all countries of the
world.''^^1^^
 When Lenin set the Marxists of Russia the task of

developing Marxian theory to devise a programme for their Party,
he pointed out that for this to be successfully achieved it was
necessary for the Party to study and generalise the history of
socialism and democracy in Western Europe, the history of
the revolutionary movement and the labour movement in
Russia, and connect the conclusions arrived at with the
_-_-_
138
working-class movement: "to bring definite socialist ideals to the

spontaneous working-class movement, to connect this
movement with socialist convictions that should attain the level of
contemporary science. .. ".^^1^^
 In view of the international character of the working-class

movement it is essential to study the experience of every
single national detachment of the working class together with
the experience of the general struggle of the working class
of all countries. Generalisation of this experience involves
critical study of the past and present and assessment of future
prospects. The Marxist-Leninist approach to the theoretical
generalisation of the revolutionary experience of each
detachment involves studying this experience in connection with
the experience of all countries, although it does provide for a
deep-going analysis of all forms and methods of struggle
within the framework of a single nation without exaggeration
or universalisation of any particular form of struggle.
 Lenin never universalised any particular form of struggle,

armed or peaceful. He certainly did not universalise that
special form of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare. In fact,
what Lenin had to say about guerrilla warfare completely
destroys Mao's theory that the experience of guerrilla
warfare in China is to be regarded as a universal law of the
world revolutionary movement. Lenin wrote: "The party of
the proletariat can never regard guerrilla warfare as the
only, or even as the chief, method of struggle; it means that
this method must be subordinated to other methods, that it
must be commensurate with the chief methods of warfare,
and must be ennobled by the enlightening and organising
influence of socialism. And without this latter condition, all,
positively all, methods of struggle in bourgeois society bring
the proletariat into close association with the various
nonproletarian strata above and below it and, if left to the
spontaneous course of events, become frayed, corrupted and
prostituted.''^^2^^
 One of the first things we notice about Mao Tse-tung's

approach to the relationship between theory and practice is
the way he either greatly underestimates or completely ignores
the experience of other countries. On those rare occasions
_-_-_
 ^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 11, p. 221.
139
when he does take into account the experience of other

countries, he does so in a purely utilitarian fashion, simply because
it happens to suit him at a particular juncture. "We must
absorb whatever we today find useful.-... However, we must
treat these foreign materials as we do our food, which should
be chewed in the mouth, submitted to the working of the
stomach and intestines, mixed with saliva, gastric juice and
intestinal secretions, and then separated into essence to be
absorbed and waste matter to be discarded.. . .''^^1^^ This is the
approach Mao Tse-tung advises to Marxism-Leninism. With
his hide-bound nationalistic understanding of revolutionary
experience, he calls for the sinification of Marxism.
 Mao Tse-tung also universalises the Chinese experience

of revolutionary struggle, drawing general conclusions from
Chinese practice alone, ignoring the experience of other
detachments of the revolutionary movement, and indeed the
basic tenets of Marxist-Leninist theory. The author of a book
on the early period of Mao Tse-tung's activities writes: "Mao
Tse-tung held that systematic investigation and study of the
surrounding situation is the permanent task of the
revolutionary. Therefore, Comrade Mao Tse-tung did not consider
it necessary to send many people abroad, but deemed it
necessary to begin with the study of China and decide the practical
questions of the Chinese revolution on the basis of the real
situation in China.''^^2^^
 Mao Tse-tung himself stated at a meeting in the town of

Tientsin on March 17, 1957: "To take, for example, affairs
here in China, unless we develop Marxism we shall not be
able to proceed with them successfully. The basic premises
and principles of Marxism in being applied in China must
acquire a Chinese colouring and be resolved in accordance
with the concrete situation that obtains here.'' (Quoted from
the Hungweiping newspaper Tung-fang hung, August, 1967,
"Long Live the Thoughts of Mao Tse-tung'').
 At first sight this statement is perfectly compatible with

the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and arouses no serious
objections. But the point is that in order to develop something one
must have first mastered what already exists. Otherwise one
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Three, p. 154.
~^^2^^ Tsai Wei, The Struggle of Marxism Against Anti-Marxist Waves

in the Period of the "Fourth of May Movement" (in Chinese), Shanghai,
1961, p. 127.
140
is simply at best "discovering America" and churning out

vague general formulae.
 It is all very well to solve practical matters by taking into

account the situation in China as long as one is dealing
exclusively with individual practical questions. But as soon
as one adopts this approach in relation to the working-class
movement, the result is the enclosure of international
phenomena within narrow national limits, empiricism in theory and
encouragement of nationalism in politics.
 An exaggerated emphasis on the special experience of

China was typical of Mao Tse-tung, as we have already seen,
from the very outset of his career. Later, when he acquired
leadership of the Party, over-emphasis of Chinese experience
became the dominant feature of his views. In the original
version of his article "Strategic Problems of China's
Revolutionary War" (written in 1936) he accused of doctrinairism
those Chinese revolutionaries who criticised his own "narrow
empiricism" and recommended thorough study of the
experience of the October Revolution and "the experience of the
revolutionary war in Russia''. Mao could hardly declare in
public that there was no need to study the experience of the
October Revolution, but he does this in so many words in his
statements which lay special emphasis on the national Chinese
experience. Thus, he declared: "Although we must cherish
the Soviet experience and even value it somewhat more than
experience of other countries throughout history, because it
is the most recent experience of revolutionary war, we must
cherish still more the Chinese experience of revolutionary
war.. . .''^^1^^ Later, for the publication of Selected Works this
passage was edited in such a way as to give equal weight to
Soviet and Chinese experience.^^2^^
 As for his critics, Mao soon forbade them to express their
opinions at all, on the grounds that they were only familiar
with "foreign models" (i.e., the experience of the Comintern
and the CPSU), "had not studied China" and "the moment
they took office" noisily speechify and criticise, picking faults
left and right. Mao rejected the accusation of "narrow
empiricism'', suggesting that the only ones guilty of this were
_-_-_
~^^1^^ R. Schram, Chinese and Leninist Components in the Personality

of Mao Tsc-tung, Asian Survey, 1963, No. G, pp. 269--70.
 ^^2^^ Sec Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 177.
141
the practical workers "who lack wisdom, perspective and
foresight.''^^1^^ Mao clearly regarded himself as being possessed
of ``foresight'', since he had the ``foresight'' to insist on the
sinification of Marxism and the revival of China's grandeur.
Thus, Mao approaches the question of practice from the
standpoint of Sinocentrism.
 Mao's petty-bourgeois limitations are also patent in his

assessment of Chinese revolutionary practice. Mao regards
practice as being primarily the practice of peasant revolution,
the practice of the political struggle of the petty-bourgeois
and peasant strata and of the elements declasses who are so
numerous in China, and above all the ``practice'' of political
persecution of his opponents. The working class, the
revolutionary experience of the struggle of the international
working-class movement and the Chinese proletariat, lie outside
the practice Mao is so fond of discussing.
 One searches in vain in the works of Mao for

generalisations of the experience of the working-class struggle. Liu
Shao-chi declared in his address to the Seventh Congress
of the CPC in April 1945 that the ideas of Mao Tse-tung
were "the theory and politics of the emancipation of the
peasantry".^^2^^ Liu Shao-chi makes no mention at all of the
place of the working class in the works of Mao Tse-tung, and
this is hardly surprising for Mao completely ignores the
most important thing in Marxism---the study of the universal
historical mission of the proletariat. We can afford to ignore
Mao's references to the working class in "On People's
Democratic Dictatorship" and his instruction of August 14, 1968,
that "the working class is the leading class'', since they were
dictated by circumstance and do not reflect the essential
views of Maoism, which, as Maoist practice shows, deny the
leading role of the working class. Mao may pay lip service
to the idea of the "working-class leadership'', but he
interprets it in practice as unquestioning obedience to his own
instructions, as making the workers "the patient buffaloes of
Mao''.
 Mao treats the struggle of the peasantry and the broad
masses in China as being quite unrelated to any particular
relations of production. He is entirely concerned with the
_-_-_
~^^2^^ Liu Shao-chi, On the Party (in Chinese), Peking, 1953, p. 27.
142
political or, to be more exact, the anti-feudal and national

liberation aspect of the practical struggle of the masses.
 Mao advances slogans of struggle without regarding the
struggle as the product of a certain system of production
relations, without reference to the relevant content, course
and conditions of the development of this struggle in all its
connections and conditioning factors. This is to be explained
by the fact that the slogans are derived from abstract
postulates, from "the thoughts of Mao'', instead of being the
result of exhaustive study of each form of struggle, each
step in the transformation from one form to another, with
careful substantiation of the connection between the given
struggle and the general struggle of the working class of the
whole country, its fusion with the common struggle of the
workers of other countries, and assessment of its place in the
international struggle of the working class. This is one of
the most important aspects of the class roots of the
pettybourgeois, chauvinistic nature of Mao and Maoism as a
political trend.
 From the standpoint of dialectics, Mao Tse-tung has gone

astray in the question of the relationship between the general,
the particular and the individual in the understanding of
revolutionary experience. He declares the individual and
particular to be universal, and proceeds to deduce from this
`ùniversal'' a new particular and individual.
 The progressive Japanese philosopher Mori Nobushige

has the following to say of Mao Tse-tung's understanding of
the combination of theory and practice. The abstract nature
of "On Practice'', its chief defect, the author writes, consists in
the fact that while theorising on the unity of theory and
practice, it overlooks the question of unity of world view and
method, partyism and scientific substantiation, class affiliation
and universality, which provides the only real basis for
concretising the problem of the unity of theory and practice.^^1^^
 Nobushige rightly notes that Mao Tse-tung's endless

repetition of the formula ``practice---knowledge---practice''
expresses absolutely nothing, since it does not differentiate
between materialist concrete reality and positivist individual
reality. He says that dogmatic repetition of various formulae
_-_-_
~^^1^^ See Mori Nobushige, Criticism of Mao Use-lungs Works "On

Practice" and "On Contradiction" (in Japanese), Tokyo, 1965.
143
together with this ready-made formula is intended to conceal

and compensate for a primitive approach to reality,
theoretical helplessness, and paucity of ideas. Maoist doctrinairism
derives from empiricism, and is its essential precondition and
side-product.^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__
Mao's Oversimplified Approach to Theory
 Mao Tse-tung and his supporters treat the relationship

between theory and practice in oversimplified, mechanistic
terms. We have already cited Mao's statement that theory is
derived from practical experience, and that the more the
practical experience one has the more theories there will be,
and the richer theoretical activity will become. Mao is
thereby implying that philosophy and dialectics are extremely
easy sciences that anybody can master, even an illiterate
person, provided he has experience of production and class
struggle.
 This Maoist approach has been reflected in the policy of

"the masses study philosophy" and "letting philosophy out of
the scholar's study''. The apparent democratic nature of these
slogans conceals unparalleled profanation and debasement
of theory, and of the Party's task, as the vanguard of the
working class, of bringing theory to the masses.^^2^^
 The slogan "the masses study theory, the masses develop
theory" is in fact simply a screen used to conceal an attempt
to lead the Party away from real study of Marxist-Leninist
theory and the experience of the Soviet Union and other
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mori Nobushige, op. cit.
~^^2^^ Mao Tse-tung and his group use this theory in an attempt to avoid
responsibility for the fact that the CPG has done practically nothing at
all since the forties to connect the Chinese working-class movement with
scientific communism. The efforts of the communist internationalists to
propagate Marxism-Leninism were obstructed by the powerful machinery
working to impose the "thoughts of Mao" on Party members. Although
the decisions of the Eighth Congress (1956) helped check the advance of
Maoism, they were unable to put an end to the chauvinism which had
been corrupting the Party for years. It is hardly surprising that the
decisions of the Eighth Congress were to all intents and purposes revised
only a year later, although the Maoists were unable at that time to crush
the opposition of healthy elements. Ten years of fierce struggle,
including the notorious "cultural revolution" were necessary before "Mao
Tsetung's Thought" could once more be declared the official basis of the
Party's ideology at the gathering called the "Ninth Congress''.
144
socialist countries, and limit the Party cadres to the study

of everyday experience, thereby producing a slide towards
creeping empiricism.
 Consider the following. "Practical struggle is the best

school, and participation in practical struggle is the best
training, since ability to wage the struggle can only be acquired
by participation in it.... At first we had no experience of
carrying out democratic and social revolution, but by
persistent practical study we acquired knowledge and mastery of
the objective laws of democratic and social revolution and
learned to carry out the revolution. In the same way, if we
wish to properly master knowledge and skill in socialist
construction we must practice socialist construction and thereby
learn it in practice. Only in practicing building can we learn
to build.''^^1^^
 Here we have clear evidence of the Maoist refusal to

take note of the experience acquired by other parties in
socialist construction, and their insistence on the theory of
``self-reliance''. The statement that the CPC "by persistent
practical study (i.e., study of Chinese practice.---M.A., V.G.)
acquired knowledge and mastery of the objective laws of
democratic and social revolution" reveals a complete
disregard for the vast experience of the world revolutionary
movement.
 The author completely rejects the experience of former

revolutions and international revolutionary experience. One
is reminded of Lenin's thesis that in order to become a
Communist one must first enrich one's mind with knowledge
of all the wealth mankind has accumulated, a thesis that
became one of the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism. This
thesis is quite incompatible with the Maoist endeavours to
present their narrow empiricism as the universal truth of
Marxism-Leninism and impose it upon the world
revolutionary movement.
 It must be said that there were elements in the Chinese

Communist Party in the late fifties and early sixties who had
the courage to speak out, either openly or indirectly, against
the disregard for Marxism-Leninism and the previous
accomplishments of Marxist theory, and against the primitive
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Wu Tseng-yi, "To Raise the Political Level'', Feng-tou, 1962,

No. 3.
145
half-baked theories to which the label "contemporary

Marxism" was attached. Peng Teh-huai, member of the Politburo
of the CPC and Minister of Defence until 1959, was reported
in a Hungweiping newspaper as having described "the
thoughts of Mao" as follows: "They are outdated and useless.
We take the ideas of Chairman Mao and are guided by them
in all we do, and we study all his works. And yet these books
are becoming outdated and useless.
 ``Conditions are different now. These things are absolutely
useless. At best, we can use them for references. But by saying
that 'the East is red' and that Mao Tse-tung is the great
saviour of the people we are only encouraging idealism.'' Liu
Shao-chi declared in a speech to Party workers in 1962: "To
say that the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are the peak of
Marxism-Leninism is not a scientific approach. Surely
Marxist-Leninist teaching is not going to cease developing?''
 Ho Ying-chu, an outstanding Chinese philosopher and

historian, wrote in 1963: "Some comrades believe that theory
is born out of practice and that if they engage in much
practical activity they can rest assured that there will be much
practical experience and theory will develop as a matter of
course. They have failed to make it clear that while theory
is undoubtedly born out of practice, it does not equal practice.
Unless all questions of the practical implementation of the
revolution and other important questions are subjected to
thorough analysis and raised to the level of theory, and if
limited experience is mistakenly regarded as embodying
general truths, then empirical mistakes will inevitably be
committed."^^1^^
 Ho Ying-chu went on to call for the adoption in China of

a policy of socialist construction based on generalisation of
Chinese practice, Marxist-Leninist principles and the study
of the experience of socialist construction in the fraternal
countries. The same tendency was expressed in Liu
Shaochi's appeal in "On the Self-cultivation of Communist Party
Members" "to be faithful pupils of Marx and Lenin''. It must
be remembered that these declarations were made at the time
when the Chinese Communists were pondering over the
catastrophic results of Mao's "three banners" policy, and trying
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Hsin-hua jih-pao, Nanking, February 13, 1963 (emphasis added.---
M.A. V.G.).
146
to assess their country's future prospects. During the

bacchanalia of the "cultural revolution" Peng Teh-huai and Ho
Ying-chu came under fire from the Hungweipings and were
included in the "Black Gang" as opponents of "the thoughts
of Mao''. At the so-called Twelfth Plenary Meeting, in
flagrant violation of the Rules of the CPC and the
Constitution of the Chinese People's Republic, Liu Shao-chi,
Chairman of the Chinese People's Republic, was "expelled
forever from the CPC and removed from all posts inside and
outside the Party".^^1^^
 An oversimplified, empirical approach to theory such as

we have been referring to is thus clearly detrimental to the
Party's role as theoretical vanguard of the working class.
The founders of Marxism-Leninism, while pointing out that
theory develops from the generalisation of practice, stressed
that theory is a special sphere of science, the development
of which required a certain level of knowledge and mental
preparation.
 Lenin pointed out that by itself the working class was only
capable of developing an awareness of its immediate
economic requirements, which does not necessarily mean rejection
of the capitalist system or bring to light the inner causes
of the development of capital and exploitation of the
working people, let alone determine the path to be taken in
struggle for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a new,
socialist order.
 Mao, on the other hand, claims that the masses are capable
of understanding the essence of imperialism and exploitation,
and the Party must simply "draw from the masses and take
to the masses''. Here is what he writes in "On Practice":
"Similarly with the Chinese people's knowledge of
imperialism. The first stage was one of superficial, perceptual
knowledge, as shown in the indiscriminate anti-foreign struggle
of the Movement of the T'ai P'ing Heavenly Kingdom, the
Boxer Movement; etc. It was only in the second stage that
the Chinese people arrived at rational knowledge, when they
saw the internal and external contradictions of imperialism,
as well as the essence of the oppression and exploitation of
China's broad masses by imperialism in alliance with China's
_-_-_
~^^1^^ "Communique of the Twelfth (Enlarged) Plenum of the CPC

Central Committee'', Jen-tnin jih-pao, October 31, 1968.
10*
147
compradors and feudal class; such knowledge began only

about the time of the May 4 Movement of 1919.''^^1^^
 The reader who is unaware of the real content of Mao's

views and his attitude to the masses might well be left with
the impression that Mao has an extremely high opinion of
the abilities of the Chinese people. In actual fact the above
assertion really serves the opposite purpose, that of
preventing the Party from arming the Chinese working people with
the Leninist views of imperialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__
Mao's ``Discoveries'' in the Theory of Knowledge
 The Maoists claim that Mao made a great contribution
to the development of the theory of knowledge with the
thesis of the transition from perceptual to rational knowledge
and then to practice as the result of a ``leap''. He is,
moreover, given the credit for having advanced these views for the
first time. Just how much truth, if any, is there in all this?
 The question of the existence of perceptual and logical

(or as Mao calls it, ``rational'') stages in the single process
of cognition was posed and answered by philosophers in
ancient times. Thus, the Chinese sage Mo-tzu regarded that
basic knowledge was that acquired through the "five senses'',
while understanding perfectly well that such knowledge only
provided an image of a thing without answering the question
"why is it so?''. Man acquires knowledge of the causes of
things by "rational thought'', beginning with "description and
denomination of objects'', and going on to "thought on
objects''. Mo-tzu and his followers regarded understanding
of the causes of things as the "highest complete knowledge"
---``wisdom''. Thus, Mo-tzu wrote: "Thought is the method
of achieving true knowledge.'' In the chapter entitled
``Canon'' of Mo-tzu's book we find the following: "Reason is
the understanding of the essence of things. Reason, based on
perceptual knowledge explains the causes of things and
thereby attains clarity and lucidity, as if the thing were
before one's very eyes.''^^2^^
 Mo-tzu and his followers divided knowledge into three

categories according to type and provenance: "direct
knowledge acquired through personal observations''; "
_-_-_
~^^2^^ Mo-tzu (in Chinese), Peking, 1956, p. 204.
148
indirect" or ``reported'' knowledge "acquired from other people'',

and finally, rational or reflective-verbal knowledge, which is
the result of the fusion of the above two forms in one, and
which is acquired through thought.
 To turn to European philosophy, we know that ancient

Greek and Roman philosophers divided knowledge into two
basic categories: the ``dark'', perceptual, and the bright, lucid
rational. The difference between the materialists and the
idealists was that the latter (Plato, for example) denied the
importance of perceptual knowledge, and even considered it
a hindrance to the attainment of true knowledge, while the
former insisted on the importance of perceptual images as the
objective basis of knowledge, often indeed underestimating
the importance of abstract logic. Thus, according to
Democritus, reason "possessing the most subtle organ of knowledge
in thought" derives its evidence from sensations arising as a
result of the influence on the sense organs of objects in the
outside world, consisting of atoms. What Mao claims to have
been his own ``discovery'' was already known to, and
expounded by, Mo-tzu and his followers in China and by the
materialists in Ancient Greece.
 Later on, both idealists and materialists accepted the

division of knowledge into perceptual and rational. We meet
this division frequently in the English materialist
philosophers, Spinoza, and the French materialists. Francis Bacon,
with his materialist theory of knowledge, regarded experience
as the first stage of knowledge and reason, the rational
processing of perceptual experience, as the second. Moreover,
Bacon rejected the extremes of both empiricism and
rationalism. The Dutch philosopher Spinoza differentiated three
kinds of knowledge: perceptual knowledge, giving a
superficial understanding of individual things, rational knowledge,
and intuitive knowledge as its highest form, the ability to
perceive a thing "through its essence or through knowledge
of its immediate causes''.
 The French materialists also divided cognition into two

stages---the perceptual and the logical. La Mettrie and
Diderot, for example, considered sensations to be the basis of
thought as the essence of logical deduction. French
materialism, being contemplative, was based on the mechanical
reflection of objects in the external world on the "screen of
the mind''.
149
 Kant and Hegel, the classics of German philosophy, also

accepted the relationship between perceptual and rational
knowledge. Hegel's objective idealism stressed the
importance of experience and relating our knowledge to reality,
regarded by him as a unity of existence (phenomena) and
self-contained existence (substance), i.e., as necessary
essence.
 Hegel wrote as follows of the relationship between the

perceptual and the logical: "The content that fills our
consciousness, of whatever kind it be, constitutes the actual
substance of the feelings, views, images, notions, aims, duties,
etc. and of the thoughts and concepts. Feeling, view, image
etc. are thus the forms of such content, which remains one
and the same whether felt, viewed, pictured or desired,
whether it is only felt, felt, viewed, etc. with a mixture of
thought, or only thought. In any one of these forms, or in a
mixture of several, the content is the object (Gegenstand) of
the consciousness.''^^1^^
 Thus, the claims of Mao and his followers to have ``
discovered'' the division of the cognitative process into
perceptual and rational is wholly unfounded. It is worth noting
that the founders of Marxism-Leninism did not regard this
division as a distinguishing feature of Marxist epistemology,
but treated it as something self-evident, already demonstrated
in philosophy.
 Lenin made a profound and exhaustive analysis of the

Marxist version of the process of cognition as combining two
stages in his brilliant work Materialism and Empiric-criticism.
The problem has since been developed by Marxist
philosophers taking into account developments in the natural
sciences, psychology and physiology. The Marxist-Leninist
theory of reflection was most fully discussed in the thirties
by the Bulgarian Marxist T. Pavlov, and in the books,
manuals and articles of the Soviet philosophers V. V.
Adoratsky, P. F. Yudin, M. B. Mitin, F. I. Khaskhachick and
others.
 It should be realised that the various correct propositions

that are undoubtedly to be found in "On Practice" are really
borrowings from Soviet sources. However, Mao interprets
them in his own way, according to his distorted view of the
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Hegel, op. cit, p. 35.
150
major problems of Marxist epistemology, as is evident

among other things in his approach to the stages of
cognition and their relationship to reality. To begin with, Mao
treats each stage as entirely separate: first we have
perceptual knowledge, then a ``leap'' into rational knowledge,
followed by a further ``leap'' into practice. This mechanistic
division of the integrated process of cognition is apparent
in the following statement of Mao's: "Practice, knowledge,
more practice, more knowledge; the cyclical repetition of
this pattern to infinity, and with each cycle, the elevation
of the content of practice and knowledge to a higher level.''^^1^^
 In "Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?" Mao

Tsetung presents these stages of knowledge as a sequence of
separate "processes of cognition''. "Countless phenomena of
the objective external world are reflected in a man's brain
through his five sense organs---the organs of sight, hearing,
smell, taste and touch. At first, knowledge is perceptual.^^2^^ The
leap to conceptual knowledge, i.e., to ideas, occurs when
sufficient perceptual knowledge is accumulated. This is one
process in cognition. It is the first stage in the whole process
of cognition. . . . Then comes the second stage in the progress
of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back to
matter, from ideas back to existence, in which the knowledge
gained in the first stage is applied in social practice to
ascertain whether the theories, policies, plans or measures meet
with the anticipated success. Generally speaking, those that
succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect. . . Man's
knowledge makes another leap through the test of practice.
This leap is more important than the previous one.''^^3^^
 To begin with, Mao splits the process of knowledge into

a series of separate, individual stages. He then goes on to
transfer questions of epistemology into the sphere of practical
political decisions in a simplified, mechanistic manner. In so
doing, he confuses the source of knowledge with the actual
process of knowing which is based on specific accumulated
material. Mao completely dismisses the question of continuity,
the adoption of the experience of others. Every one of the
_-_-_
~^^2^^ It is worth remembering in this connection that Hegel, in the last

century, held that reason, thought, is present in perception, since a
certain level of generalisation is already underway.
~^^3^^ Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, pp. 207--08.
151
``theories, directions, plans, schemes" has to go through all

the processes of knowledge and every proposition has to be
tested anew in direct individual experience. Likewise, Mao
completely disregards the experience of his predecessors. He
dismisses all borrowed, indirect experience as ``bookish'',
and simply ignores it.
 Mao Tse-tung is a nihilist as regards the application to

practice of the knowledge of former generations. In his
opinion, this knowledge is perfectly useless, or at best,
requires testing anew against the conditions of Maoist practice.
"All comparatively complete knowledge is acquired through
two stages, first the stage of perceptual knowledge and
secondly the stage of rational knowledge... . What sort of
knowledge is the bookish information of the students? Granted
that their information is entirely true knowledge ...
something which has been verified by others but not yet by
themselves.''^^1^^
 Mao thus regards the knowledge acquired from studying

the experience of past generations or other peoples, from
written sources, as harmful ``bookishness'' and a source of
doctrinairism. It was in accordance with this attitude that
Mao advised his cousin: "If you read a lot of books, you'll
never become emperor.''
 This nihilistic attitude to the human treasury of knowledge
is in direct contradiction to Marxism-Leninism, which insists
on continuity in the development of knowledge. It is
anachronistic in our age to regard knowledge, as Mao does, simply
as the result of direct personal experience. Engels, writing
in the last century, noted that: "By recognising the
inheritance of acquired characters, it (modern natural science.
---Ed.) extends the subject of experience from the individual
to the genus; the single individual that must have experience
is no longer necessary, its individual experience can be
replaced to a certain extent by the results of the experience of
a number of its ancestors... .''^^2^^
 A further major weakness of Maoist theory is the

metaphysical understanding of practice as the criterion of truth.
Mao Tse-tung is highly inconsistent in this matter. While
speaking of an endless cycle of "practice---knowledge---
practice'', ``matter---spirit---matter'', he regards the
_-_-_
~^^2^^ F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, p. 267.
152
verification of knowledge in concrete-historical conditions as a single

act, and not as a dialectical process. Thus, according to Mao,
the truth of knowledge is confirmed by the success of a single
attempt to apply it in practice. He does, it is true, make an
exception for social phenomena, but this is simply the
exception that proves the rule.
 Moreover, Mao understands "the success of practice'', as

indeed practice itself, purely pragmatically, as "suiting the
purpose''. In "On Practice" he declares "class nature'', and
``practicality'' to be the "two outstanding characteristics"
of Marxist philosophy completely ignoring that inalienable
feature, its scientific nature. This pragmatism in the Maoist
approach is expressed in the fact that theory itself is
regarded not as a science but as guidance for action, the
methodological basis for developing the most suitable
strategy and tactics, policies and slogans, and in a purely
utilitarian manner, as a means to certain ends, as an ``
instrument''. According to Mao, Marxism-Leninism is an arrow
shot straight to the target of the Chinese revolution. The
implication is that Marxism-Leninism and revolution are
quite separate things, success or failure depending entirely
on the skill of the archer.
 The chief mistake of Maoism here is that it destroys the

organic relationship between revolutionary practice and
revolutionary theory, and between the objective and
subjective factors of their development. Theory, as an
instrument---an `àrrow''---is reduced to a convenient list of useful
rules, a collection of tactical ideas, directions, orders, etc. At
the same time, universalisation of direct experience and a
complete disregard for knowledge acquired in the past and
all non-personal experience, reduces theory to a collection of
individual generalisations of narrow empirical experience
rendering impossible the development and enrichment of
theory and giving rise to doctrinairism, metaphysics and
subjectivism.
 Mao's empiricism in his treatment of the question of the

relationship between theory and practice, knowledge and
experience, is clearly seen in the following statement.
"Knowledge starts with experience---this is the materialism
of the theory of knowledge.''^^1^^ Moreover, in treating
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 291.
153
experience as the starting point of knowledge, Mao fails to see the

difference between materialism and idealism. The thesis that
"knowledge begins with experience" was typical of
materialism prior to Marx, while today it is highly popular among
various trends of subjective idealism, from the Berkleyans
to the neo-Kantian agnostics. Despite all his protestations of
fidelity to class and Party principles, in practice Mao
renounces all commitment to proletarian class and Party
principles. Mao Tse-tung's analysis fails to recognise the fact that
a man's experience and the way it is reflected in his mind is
determined by his social, class position and is quite
independent of his will.
 When Mao goes on to supplement his thesis that "

knowledge begins with experience" with the pragmatist assertion
that "generally speaking, what is crowned with success is
right and what is unsuccessful is wrong'', he is adopting a
purely positivist view of practice that is subjective and
voluntarist.
 Professor Nobushige writes of Mao's un-Marxist approach

to the question of experience that these "thoughts of Mao"
can be used to justify the practice of any forces at all, even
the most reactionary. After all, according to this logic, in
the period when developing fascism was winning ``victories'',
this could even serve as proof that it was =
__ERROR__ Footnote number 1 is "2" in original.
``right''.^^1^^
 There is thus clearly nothing new in the Maoist "theory
of knowledge''. While claiming to be the originator of his
theory, Mao is in fact either repeating the most elementary
truths of pre-Marxian materialism or expounding his own
eclectical brand of subjective idealism combined with vulgar,
mechanistic materialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__
The Epistemology of Dialectical Materialism and the
 Empiricism and Subjectivism of Mao Tse-tung
 The chief features of the epistemology of dialectical

materialism (the list is far from exhaustive) are as follows:
 a) the object and reality are regarded as man's "objective

activity'', i.e., Marxism associates the process of knowledge
_-_-_
~^^1^^ See Mori Nobushige, op. cit.
154
as the reflection of the objective world with man's

revolutionary, practical-critical activity;
 b) Marxism holds that: "Dialectics is the theory of

knowledge of (Hegel and) Marxism. This is the àspect' of the
matter (it is not 'an aspect' but the essence of the matter)
to which Plekhanov, not to speak of other Marxists, paid no
attention.''^^1^^;
 c) Marxism demands that "each proposition should be

considered (a) only historically, (P) only in connection with
others, (i) only in connection with the concrete experience of
history.''^^2^^;
 d) Marxism has adopted and develops the materialist

theory of reflection. "From living perception to abstract
thought, and from this to practice---such is the dialectical
path of the cognition of truth, of the cognition of objective
reality.''^^3^^ Lenin emphasised that dialectics understood as
epistemology reveals the history of knowledge and the inner
laws of the transition from ignorance to knowledge.
 On the basis of this fundamental premise the theory of

knowledge of dialectical materialism examines a wide range
of general methodological problems concerning the
relationship between mind and matter, thereby revealing the
dialectical link between mind and matter, the role of labour and
other forms of human activity in the emergence and
development of consciousness, the active role of language in
expressing consciousness and in the accumulation and transmission
of knowledge. Marxism-Leninism also examines the reverse
process---the influence of man as a thinking being on the
world.
 Marxist epistemology is largely concerned with exploring

the paths of knowledge, its forms and stages. Great stress is
placed on the dialectical essence of the process of cognition,
and careful study is made of the various forms of logic, the
laws of thought, the nature of concepts, judgements, views,
conclusions and the role of theories and hypotheses in the
discovery of truth.
 A basic premise of Marxism-Leninism is that the truth

is a process of the movement of knowledge from subjective
_-_-_
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 250.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 38, p. 171.
155
ideas to objective truth via practice (and technology). This

was noted by Lenin. The aim is to reveal the relationship
between theory and practice and demostrate the active role
of this relationship in man's efforts to transform the world.
 In order to acquire a correct understanding of Marxist

epistemology it is essential to examine the materialist theory
of reflection in close association with the dialectics of
absolute, relative and objective truth, bringing out their
contradictory unity, their mutual transition into one another,
the spiral nature of the process of cognition of truth, the
relationship between the historical and the logical, the
importance of the principle of elevation from the abstract to
the concrete in understanding the essence of things in their
dialectical concretion and many aspects, their
interpenetration and mutual transition.
 Another major question of Marxist epistemology is the

problem of dialectical logic, the study of categories as forms
of cognition of the essence of the objective world, analysis
of the laws and features of the dialectical process of
cognition of nature, society and thought.
 We have no intention of expounding in detail the theory

of knowledge of dialectical materialism. However, a brief
look at the basic problems of Marxist epistemology and a
comparison with the way they are treated in the articles of
Mao Tse-tung, shows the absurdity of the claims that
vulgarised repetition of a few elementary premises from manuals
of Marxist philosophy constitute "the very best generalisation
of the basic content of the theory of knowledge of dialectical
materialism''. The ``profound'' content of the Maoist "theory
of knowledge" can be summed up in the following statement.
"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.''^^1^^
 In "On Practice" Mao repeats and chews over the basically
correct idea that practice is the source of knowledge, but
in so doing he vulgarises and distorts it, identifying practice
with experience and making direct personal experience the
_-_-_
 ^^1^^ Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, pp. 208--09.
156
source of all knowledge. Thus, he writes: "Anyone who

wants to know a thing has no way of doing so except by
coming into contact with it, i.e., by living (practising) in its
surroundings.... If you want to gain knowledge, you must
participate in the practice of changing reality.... If you want
to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must
participate in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates
from direct experience.''^^1^^ Or again: ''. . .Marxism teaches that
in our approach to a problem we should start not from
abstract definitions but from objective facts and, by
analysing these facts, determine the way we shall go, our policies
and methods.''^^2^^ A reader who is unaware that Mao identifies
practice with subjective perceptual experience and reduces
objective reality as necessary being to the sum of facts (the
insertion of the word `òbjective'' makes no real difference)
might well be duped into regarding the above statements as
correct Marxist theses. Mori Nobushige points out that Mao
fails to draw a distinction between materialist, and positivist
individual, concretion and that the former is dissolved in the
latter, so that Mao's references to "specific essence" and
"specific contradictions" can contain nothing but
pragmatism. Nobushige notes how Mao, in both theory and practice,
confuses the concepts of ``reality'' and `àctuality''. This
represents a failure to draw a distinction between phenomena
in their totality and empirical facts as simple actual being,
on the one hand, and reality as the manifestation of what is
essential and fundamental in the development of nature,
society and knowledge, on the other.
 Since Maoist epistemology does not distinguish between

the logical and the historical in the development of the
process of knowledge and ignores the method of elevation
from the abstract to the concrete, Mao Tse-tung's conclusions
are abstract postulates, devoid of the wealth of concrete
reality. Mao's vague general formulae, although "derived
from analysis" of certain "objective facts'', remain lifeless,
incomplete, one-sided postulates, since they are not enriched
with concrete content in the course of collation with practice,
with experience. In contrast to Maoism, Marxism-Leninism
reviews practice as the sum practice of the working class of
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, pp. 286, 288.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Volume Four, p. 69.
157
a given country and the practice of the working class of all

other countries taken together, as national and international
experience (in the case of social experience) in their entirety,
as the sum of the scientific experience of past and present,
the experience derived from experiments in a given science
and allied sciences (in the case of knowledge in the social
sciences).
 Marx wrote that the method of elevatoin from the abstract
to the concrete is simply a method by means of which thought
takes hold of the concrete and reproduces it as the spiritually
concrete, and that it is never under any circumstances the
process of emergence of the concrete itself. Since Mao
Tsetung's concepts and deductions never go through the stage
of taking hold of the concrete, with Mao the combination of
theory with practice is frequently achieved by postulating
reality from abstract definitions. In this case theory simply
becomes an apology for subjectivist practice.
[158]
__ALPHA_LVL1__
CONCLUSION
 For years the name of Mao Tse-tung was associated in the
minds of many people in various countries with the
revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people and the activity of the
Communist Party of China. This impression, promoted by
the Maoist claims that Mao has brilliantly applied the
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism to Chinese conditions,
makes it especially hard for some people to understand the
present nationalist and anti-Soviet policy of the Mao group.
At the same time, they tend to regard Mao Tse-tung's
departure from Marxism-Leninism as a recent phenomenon, an
accidental zig-zag, and feel that it is only a question of
appealing to his reason and conscience and he will think better
of it, and everything will return to normal. But this is simply
an infantile illusion, and a very dangerous one at that, since
it disarms the Communists in the face of the splitting
activity of the Maoists, enabling them to continue their
corruption of the communist movement from within.
 Many Marxist works have been published in the Soviet

Union and other countries recently, analysing the historical
roots of Mao Tse-tung's anti-Marxist views, and removing
the mask to show Mao's policies as they really are, the stand
he took at all the main stages of the Chinese revolution.
Worthy of special mention are the book by Wang Ming
(Chen Shao-yu), prominent member of the CPC, member
of the CPC Central Committee of the sixth, seventh and
eighth convocations, On the Events in China, published by
the Soviet publishing house Politicheskaya literatura in 1969,
and the memoirs of the German Communist internationalist
Otto Braun published in several numbers of the weekly
Horizon (GDR) and later in the Soviet weekly Za Rubezhom
159
in 1969 and 1970. The pamphlet Pages from the Political

Biography of Mao Tse-tung by O. Vladimirov and V.
Ryazanstev contains valuable factual material on the nationalist,
anti-Marxist views and anti-Party activities of Mao. The
above-mentioned material proves conclusively that Mao
Tsetung never was a genuine Marxist or a real Communist
but simply joined the communist movement because it was
the movement with the most authority, that Mao's aims were
only consonant with those of the communist movement at the
stage of the national revolutionary struggle for the liberation
of China from foreign capital and feudalism.
 Yet there are still people with rather hazy notions of
Marxism-Leninism who under the influence of Maoist and
imperialist propaganda continue to regard Mao as a "lost
sheep" who can be returned to the fold, as a ``seeking''
Marxist.
 Certain Maoist theses seem attractive to some politicians

and revolutionaries in the Afro-Asian countries who lack the
reliable information necessary to form a correct concept of
their essence. If they actually visit China they are surrounded
by so much false propaganda and agitation that they are
quite unable to gain any real insight into what is going on
and simply have to take at its face value everything that is
foisted upon them and whatever they are ``shown''.
 These revolutionaries from Asia and Africa accept the

outward propaganda aspect of Maoism as its true essence.
Thus, some Arab freedom fighters believe Mao's declarations
of support for them, little suspecting that while publicly
announcing their support for the Arab struggle, including
the struggle of the Palestinian Arabs, the Maoists are doing
everything in their power "behind the scenes" to prolong the
struggle. In this connection we cannot do better than quote
from a speech made by Mao Tse-tung at a meeting in
Pehtaiho as long ago as August 17, 1958, which was reported
in the Hungweiping journal Tung-fang hung in July 1967.
 `Ìt is best to work from the premise that tension is more
to our advantage and less to the advantage of the West.
Tension is advantageous to the West in that it permits them
to expand arms production and it is to our advantage in that
it can set in motion all active factors. ... Let the Americans
and the English stay in the Lebanon and Jordan as long as
possible. We must not help the Americans appear in a good
160
light. Every extra day they stay there helps us by giving

us material for articles exposing them, makes the American
imperialists remain the object of universal condemnation.
But when we are making propaganda we should not talk in
this manner; we should say that they must get out
immediately" (Emphasis added.---M.A., V.G.) This is what Mao's
``support'' is really worth!
 Hundreds of thousands of Chinese are herded to meetings

in Peking and representatives from Asia, Africa and Latin
America are invited. Mao publishes a declaration demanding
that "the American paper tigers" clear out of Vietnam,
Cambodia, Laos, Africa and Latin America. Yet, all the efforts
of Peking, working through secret diplomatic channels, are
directed towards keeping the Americans as long as possible
in the places where the Maoists themselves are not yet in a
position to set up their own rule. Mao speculates on the
discontent of peoples with the aggressive actions of the
Americans. He demonstrates his "revolutionary ardour" in an orgy
of hypocrisy, in words but not in deeds, and tries to influence
public opinion in these countries and the members of the
liberation movement there in the spirit of Maoism.
 It requires tremendous lucidity and sober-mindedness on

the part of revolutionaries to understand what lies behind the
``revolutionary'' phrases and declarations of Mao and his
entourage. Here we have the extremely dangerous situation
when the general position of the struggle in several areas
of the world makes revolutionaries fall an easy prey to the
influence of revolutionary phrases, which leads to the defeat
of the revolution and the destruction of the revolutionaries
themselves. Lenin, the great master of revolution, warned
revolutionaries of this danger.
 The tragic experience of the revolutionary movements

in a number of Afro-Asian and Latin American countries in
the last decade reveals the danger all too plainly. Surely
the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian
Communists after the events of September 30, 1965, serves as a
severe enough warning of the dangers of following the
advice of Mao Tse-tung and his emissaries. Here is surely
ample evidence that we are not dealing with the mistakes and
errors of a Marxist but with an attempt to make use of the
authority of Marxism-Leninism and use the world
revolutionary cause for the furtherence of the great-power
11---367
161
chauvinist plans of the Maoist leadership in Peking and their

appetite for hegemony.
 The myth of Mao being a man who is trying to inspire

the younger generation with revolutionary ardour and
challenge bureaucracy and stagnation has gained wide currency
among Left-wing youth in Europe and America. Some
student groups at the Sorbonne and Rome University hold
demonstrations demanding social transformations and democratic
reforms in the education system at which they carry portraits
not only of Marx and Lenin but also of Mao Tse-tung. They
have heard, and read in the bulletins distributed by Chinese
embassies and missions in millions of copies, that Mao called
the young people of China to revolt. They are impressed by
Mao's thesis "Revolt is a just cause''. They have heard that
Mao called for the destruction of the "old patterns" and "the
bourgeois education system''. These young people seem to
believe these "thoughts of Mao" correspond to their own
sentiments. They do not realise what it was that Mao really
called upon the young people of China, blinded by
fanaticism, to revolt against. The "Little Red Book" and Chinese
propaganda material does not mention the fact that Mao
was really making use of the young people as a blind tool
for the destruction of the very gains, of the very system,
that give young people real freedom, develop their creative
ability and make them real masters. The "Little Red Book"
and other Chinese propaganda pamphlets do not tell how the
very same young people whom Mao called to revolt are now
being driven by Chinese army units from the towns into wild
mountain regions and deserts to be used to carry out acts of
provocation against China's neighbours, and herded into
military settlements on the borders of the Soviet Union,
Mongolia, India, Vietnam and Burma.
 These little red-covered pocket books and pamphlets

printed on excellent fine paper, naturally make no mention of
the fact that over seventy million Chinese children are unable
to receive an education as a result of this ``revolt'', and that
hundreds of thousands of former students will be unable to
complete their studies at university and institute. Mao
himself declared in November, 1968, "The sky will not fall down
if enrolment to the higher educational institutions is
suspended for two or three years!''
 These little books, red in colour, but black-brown in
162
content, do not quote such statements of Mao as those he made

in 1964, on the eve of the "cultural revolution": "Schools are
little vaults, emitting evil everywhere, and shallow ponds
teeming with turtles''; "A science course can be cut in half.
Confucius taught only six arts: ceremony, music, archery,
charioteering, the holy writings and arithmetic. If you read
a lot of books, you'll never become an emperor... . The
trouble now is, first that there are too many subjects and
second that there are too many books.''
 As a warning to those who still associate the red colour

of the Maoist pamphlets distributed outside China with
revolution and communism, we quote the words of several
prominent Chinese Communists who emerged from the crucible
of the Chinese revolution only to fall victims to arbitrary
Maoist persecution in the course of the "cultural revolution''.
Sun Yeh-fang, director of the Institute of Economics of
the Chinese Academy of Sciences: "To follow the thoughts
of Mao Tse-tung in life is the same as wearing dark glasses
on a dark night.''
 Wang Jen-chung, member of the CPC Central Committee

of the eighth convocation, until 1966 Secretary of the
CentralSouth Bureau of the Central Committee (reported in the
Chinese press in June 1966 as having swum with Mao during
his fantastic record swim that summer): "The thoughts of
Mao Tse-tung are an insipid rice dish, to which one must add
one's own oil and salt in order to make it edible.''
 Tao Chu, member of the CPC Central Committee up to

1967, and once an ardent champion of the "thoughts of
Mao": "Reflections on the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are
like a fountain without water''; "Chairman Mao's ideas of
socialism are the socialism of poverty and agony''; "The
'three banners' policy is a suicidal policy''; "The Great Leap
Forward is solving tasks by the method of the despot Shih
Huang Ti: 'kill the duck to obtain the egg'.''^^1^^
 One could go on and on quoting such views, which it must

be remembered were expressed by people who for years
were close to Mao Tse-tung, propagated his ideas and
believed the Mao myth. It was only when they came to put
_-_-_
~^^1^^ All these statements were published as evidence of the ``

counterrevolutionary'' views of these people in the Hungweiping press, in
articles about their conviction by the Hungweipings.
11*
163
these ``thoughts'' into practice that they became convinced

of how unfeasible and far-removed from reality they were.
Thus the Soviet magazine Kommunist (No. 3, 1969) was
perfectly correct in its characterisation of Maoism as an
anti-Marxist trend in its editorial "The Features of the
Situation in China and the Position of the CPC at the Present
Stage''. "The Maoist programme on questions of social
construction is extremely `radical' and `Left-wing' in form,
but reactionary and Utopian in content. The programme is
the outcome of a total rejection of the Leninist principles
of socialist construction and an inability to find correct,
effective methods of solving the complicated problems in
an extremely backward peasant country.''
 Unbiased analysis of "the thoughts of Mao'', of his

philosophical and political views, shows that the theory and
practice of Mao Tse-tung and his followers has nothing at
all in common with Marxism-Leninism and scientific
communism, except for a certain terminological similarity. But
the great danger of this ideology is that with its subtle
methods of disguising itself as revolutionary Marxism and
attempts to speak in the name of socialism and world
revolution it is sowing confusion in minds of some sections of
the revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement, especially
among young revolutionaries. Moreover, Maoism thereby
creates highly favourable conditions for anti-communist
ideological propaganda against revolution, Marxism--
Leninism, and scientific socialism.
 It is significant that imperialist propaganda has been

altering its sights in recent years. Whereas at one time tons
of paper were used to discredit the revolutionary struggle
of the Chinese people and its Communist Party, today
alongside attempts to capitalise on the difficulties of
political and economic development that have arisen from the
policy of the Mao group, there is a growing tendency to
express a kind of respect for the present Chinese leaders
and present them as people with a concern for their
country's interests and national grandeur.
 Anti-communist centres in the USA, Britain and the

Federal Republic of Germany hold wide symposia and ``
scientific'' conferences at which many distinguished Sinologists
make zealous attempts to detect ``Marxist'', ``Leninist'',
``Stalinist'', etc, elements in the views of Mao Tse-tung and
164
try to gain acceptance for Mao's "Chinese model of
communism''. Thus, at a symposium held in the USA in 1966 on
the subject "What Is Maoism?'', material from which
appeared in the journal Problems of Communism,^^1^^ such
outstanding Sinologists and Sovietologists as S. R. Schram,
R. Cohen and B. Schwarz tried very hard to prove that Mao
Tse-tung is an adherent of Marxism-Leninism, that he has
shown "concern for preserving the spirit of revolutionary
struggle'', that he is "a Leninist revolutionary and an
AfroAsian nationalist''.
 Apart from the various symposia and numerous articles

published in both scholarly and popular journals and
magazines, many American and West European Sinologists have
devoted monographs to Mao Tse-tung and his ``thoughts'',
in which the abundant factual material is often interpreted
in such a way as to present Mao as the founder of a new
model of socialism. Thus, Professor Robert North of
Standford University (California) named his book Chinese
Communism. It is as though Professor North were trying to lend
support to Chen Po-ta's thesis that "the ideals of socialism
and communism.. . have not been introduced from outside''.
It is significant that many of these authors ``
conscientiously'' repeat the anti-Soviet inventions of Maoist propaganda.
Although they are in possession of the facts about the history
of the CPC, they are nevertheless equally ``conscientious''
about repeating many Maoist fabrications concerning the
history of the Chinese revolution and the CPC that are
designed to discredit the Comintern and the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union and minimise the importance of the help
China received from the international communist movement
and the socialist countries.
 Some bourgeois propaganda agents insist that Mao is a

"true Marxist'', that Mao and his group and not the
communist parties criticising them are right from the standpoint
of Marxist theory. Such ``concern'' for the revolution and the
purity of Marxist theory from its most inveterate enemies has
far-reaching aims---the discrediting of the ideals of socialism
and communism.
 It is no accident that the leaders of the Trotskyite Fourth
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Sec Problems of Communism, Vol. XV, No. 5 (Washington,

September-October, 19G6), pp. 1-30.
12--367
165
International have been increasingly active champions and
``volunteer'' propagandists of "the thoughts of Mao" in
various countries over the last few years. Maoist and
Trotskyite views coincide on many points. The present-day
Trotskyites are quite correct when they claim priority for
invention of numerous theoretical propositions of Mao
Tsetung, such as the theory of "permanent revolution'', the
"thesis of the continuation of the revolution during the
dictatorship of the proletariat'', the thesis of "the restoration
of capitalism in the USSR" and a host of other anti-Soviet
concoctions. They are equally justified in claiming that the
"cultural revolution" in China is the realisation of Trotsky's
ideas of struggle against "bureaucratisation of the Party'',
etc.
 Several foreign publicists write articles and make

statements in which they attempt to justify the anti-socialist,
anti-Marxist views and practice of Mao Tse-tung taking a
"broad view'', repeating what are essentially Maoist theses,
such as "the experience of the October Revolution is no use
to China'', and the idea that Mao has created a special "
Chinese brand of socialism''. Thus, the editor-in-chief of the
Yugoslav journal International Politics even tries to ascribe
to Mao "creative development of the Marxist-Leninist
doctrine of socialist revolution''. Without knowing anything of
China and the real practice of Mao Tse-tung during the last
few years, he tries to present the "cultural revolution" as
enriching the theory of socialism and even as the passage
from "the period of etatisation and bureaucratisation of
socialist society in China" to the period of "democratisation
and humanisation of social relations''. It is difficult to find
a greater misapprehension of the real situation in China
than this.
 These authors, having no real knowledge of the essence

of the events in China or of Mao's real policy, see just what
they wish to see in the theory and practice of Maoism.
 The development of events in China and the policy of the

Peking leadership cannot but arouse genuine concern and
alarm among all honest men throughout the world, among
all revolutionaries and progressives, and all genuine friends
of the Chinese people.
 This is why in exposing the disruptive, anti-Soviet

activities of the Maoist leadership it is essential to analyse and
166
criticise the theoretical roots of Maoism, its class and

ideological basis.
 The present work has been an attempt at a critical

analysis of one of the components of Maoism, its philosophy.
This analysis shows beyond doubt that the theoretical errors
of Mao Tse-tung can on no account be considered temporary,
chance phenomena, but that they derive inevitably from his
outlook.
 Mao Tse-tung has never been a Marxist in his

philosophical views. Firstly, he treats the basic question of philosophy
from a subjective-idealist, and not a materialist, standpoint,
regarding ideas, subjective activity, as the determinant of
social development and substituting the question of the
relationship between subject and object for the question of the
relationship between mind and matter.
 Secondly, Mao distorts the concept of ``practice'',

reducing it to the practice of the class struggle of the Chinese
peasantry. Mao combines universalisation of this practice
with an empirical approach to theory.
 Thirdly, Mao Tse-tung has reduced the rich content of the
laws of the dialectics to one single law, the law of the unity
and conflict of opposites, distorting it, refurbishing it with
naive dialectical ideas and the theory of the antagonism of
two opposed forces (the theory of balance).
 Fourthly, Mao Tse-tung treats the process of knowledge

as a purely mechanistic relationship between the perceptual
and rational stages.
 Fifthly, Maoist philosophy ignores the concrete-historical

approach to analysis of the phenomena and processes of the
objective world. In other words, it does not contain the
feature that distinguishes Marxist philosophy from all other
philosophies.
 Sixthly---and this is extremely important---Mao Tse-tung

regards various philosophical problems from the standpoint
of nationalism and Sinocentrism.
 Mao simply borrows Marxist-Leninist formulae and

nomenclature wholesale. But the presentation of a few general
premises of Marxist philosophy in popular, vulgarised form
can be ignored since it does not constitute an organic part of
Mao Tse-tung's philosophical views.
 The claims that Maoist philosophy represents a new stage

in the development of Marxist philosophy are thus quite
12*
167
unfounded. On the contrary, it really takes several steps

backwards in the history of world philosophy.
 It emerges clearly from analysis of the works of Mao that
he never properly understood Marxism-Leninism, but while
capitalising on Marxist revolutionary terminology
continued to adhere to the views of peasant revolutionary
democracy combined with militant great-Han chauvinism.
Mao Tse-tung never advanced beyond the Chinese bourgeois
and petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, and this applies not
only to his philosophical views.
 In political economy Mao's only ``contributions'' have

been the idea of a Great Leap Forward and the "people's
communes'', "the law of saddle-like development of the
economy'', and more recently, the creation of isolated
seminatural, economic units in the towns, the countryside and the
army. Moreover, when applied in practice, these ideas
eventually led to the economic stagnation and political crisis
which China is at present experiencing.
 Therefore, regarded from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint,

the theoretical works of Mao Tse-tung and the Maoist claims
that Mao's ideas contained in articles written twenty to thirty
years ago and the anti-Soviet articles of recent years
represent "the Marxism-Leninism of the contemporary age"
only raise a smile.
 The so-called ``thoughts'' of Mao on theory and practice

are an eclectical jumble of petty-bourgeois revolutionarism,
sinified social-chauvinism, Confucianism and Utopian
egalitarian socialism with a sprinkling of Marxist-Leninist theses
in a vulgar, simplified interpretation.
 Maoism does not represent an integrated system

ideologically and the only things that it systematically justifies and
substantiates are nationalism, hegemony and anti-Sovietism.
 In creating this eclectical ideological concoction, Mao

Tse-tung and his group base themselves on the idea that the
broad masses of people participating in the revolution have
no time to go into the finer points of doctrine and are
attracted by short snappy slogans, the idea that attractive
slogans can make the doctrine attractive even if it is little
understood.
 In the case of China, the spread of myths and legends

about Mao Tse-tung and his ``thoughts'' is favoured by the
fact that almost half the population are illiterate, by the fact
168
that the majority of Party members and the working class

are, for historical reasons, ill-prepared as regards general
education and training in theory, and also the fact that the
population live in complete ignorance of what is going on
at home and abroad, in total isolation from the outside
world.
 In the international field, the extremely abstract

character of the ostensibly radical theses of Maoism favours its
mythicisation, enabling the Maoists to conceal their real
aims and foreign revolutionaries to imbue the Maoist theses
with whatever concent they please, according to their own
sentiments and aims, which have nothing at all to do with
the real aims of Maoism. The weaving of myths around
China and Mao Tse-tung is also promoted by the fact that
Mao and his followers prevent the spread of real
documentary information about China, the history of the Chinese
revolution and the present situation in the country, but instead
propagandise the "Little Red Book" and disseminate
various panegyrics to the wisdom of the ``thoughts'' of Mao.
 Maoism is not, and cannot be a form of creative

development of Marxism-Leninism applied to Chinese
conditions, since, if examined soberly, Mao's works of the 1930s
and 1940s deal mainly with various stages of guerrilla
warfare and universalise specific features of the Chinese
revolution and not the revolutionary experience of the Chinese
people over the last forty to fifty years.
 The Chinese revolution is a complicated phenomenon,

containing much that is original and unique in the world
revolutionary process, and therefore to pick certain
individual features, however important, and present them as
universal truths---dogmas that must be accepted by all
countries and peoples---is to distort the experience of the
Chinese revolution and the history of the revolutionary process
as a whole. As Lenin pointed out: ".. . any truth, if '
overdone' (as Dietzgen Senior put it), if exaggerated, or if carried
beyond the limits of its actual applicability, can be reduced
to an absurdity, and is even bound to become an absurdity
under these conditions.''^^1^^ This is what has happened to the
works of Mao Tse-tung. Therefore, all the attempts of the
Maoists to impose Maoism on the Chinese people and the
_-_-_
169
world revolutionary movement as a whole in place of

Marxism-Leninism are doomed to failure.
 At the Ninth Congress of the CPC, Maoism was declared

the basic ideology of the new regime. After the Ninth
Congress, the process of Maoism's break with Marxism-Leninism
can be considered completed. Words borrowed from the
Marxist lexicon are all that remain of Marxism-Leninism in
the official views of Peking on all major questions of
philosophy, political economy and the theory of Communism.
 The chief difference between Maoism and Marxism is that

while the latter is a science, the former has evolved into a
kind of religion with its own Church.
 Afraid to risk allowing their views to face the test of

aware, informed criticism, the Maoists try to limit as far as
possible all knowledge that could rival the dogma they are
enforcing from above. What Mao Tse-tung and his
supporters really need is ignorant, spiritual paupers, and they would
like to limit the knowledge of every working person to the
most primitive minimum necessary for him to fulfil his labour
function.
 Identifying Marxism-Leninism with religion, the Maoists

also tried at the Ninth Congress to present their leader as the
successor to Marx and Lenin, as a theorist who has made a
notable contribution to the development of Marxist-Leninist
thought.
 The frequent verbal references to Marxism-Leninism at

the Congress and in other CPC documents makes it necessary
to begin by carefully examining the slogans and theses
borrowed from Marxism-Leninism as a cover for the real views
and instructions that underlie the present policy of the
Mao group, and secondly---and this is especially important---
to carefully distinguish between the words and slogans of
the Mao group and their practical policy.
 At least two points of ideology draw attention to

themselves in the material of the Ninth Congress. Firstly, an
attempt was made to use the Marxist-Leninist banner that is
sacred to all socialists to cover a grotesque parody of socialism
and betrayal of proletarian revolutionary theory.
 The most typical feature of the policy proclaimed by the

Ninth Congress was that it shifts the centre of gravity in
the Party and the entire activity of the state from questions
of developing the economy and socialist construction to
170
foreign policy aims, the struggle for the assertion of the

nationalistic aspirations of the Mao group. Basically, all the
directions of the Ninth Congress are aimed at creating a
militarist-bureaucratic state capable of conducting an
adventurist great-power policy in international affairs,
spearheaded against the socialist countries and the world
communist movement. The Maoists try to justify this volte-face
with the old Trotskyite idea of the impossibility of the
revolution triumphing in one country without the triumph of the
world revolution. Lin Piao made the following statement in
his speech, citing Mao Tse-tung: "From the Leninist
viewpoint ultimate victory in one socialist country does not only
depend on the efforts of the proletariat and broad popular
masses of that country: it depends on the triumph of the
world revolution and the abolition of the exploitation of
man by man throughout the world, leading to the
emancipation of all mankind.''
 Surely no special evidence is required to show that this

thesis has nothing at all in common with Leninism. The
Communists of the Soviet Union, and the Communists of
other countries too, realise perfectly well, as they have for
a long time, that this was the thesis with which the
Trotskyites attacked Leninism, tried to turn the CPSU aside from
the solution of the tasks of economic and social development
and urge the Soviet Union along the slippery path of
adventures and provocations in the international field.
 Now this thesis is being made full use of by the Maoists. It
is serving the same ends as it did in the past---attacking
Leninism and justifying an adventurist, expansionist foreign policy.
 Today, the Chinese people are being informed of "the

great strategy" of Mao Tse-tung---"preparation for the
event of war, preparation for the event of natural disasters,
all for the people''. They are being told: "We cannot speak
of final victory yet. Nor shall we be able to speak of it in
the next decade.''
 The Maoists had recourse to this theory in order to

forestall criticism and evade responsibility for the deterioration
of the people's living conditions, the ruination of the
national economy and their adventures abroad.
 The aim pursued in advancing the thesis of the

permanent threat of restoration of capitalism as the central
guiding principle of the whole political and ideological activity
171
of the leadership for the whole period of socialism is

intended to create an atmosphere of "imminent crisis'', general
political tension which the Maoists can use for the purpose
of tightening their control. It serves them as an excuse to
organise permanent persecution of progressive forces, of all
who disagree with the reactionary Maoist policy. In fact, it
is this that leads to the realisation of the possibility of social
degeneration and a counter-revolutionary restoration of the
worst forms of anti-popular, bureaucratic dictatorship, which
bears a remarkable resemblance to the regime of Chiang
Kai-shek and similar regimes.
 What, one wonders, is the Maoist "new order"? Lin Piao's
speech formulates and makes public in a more or less
complete form Mao's principles of the organisation of society.
The new state machinery is roughly as follows.
 The Army is declared to be the main decisive element of

the whole social structure, and is regarded as the main
bulwark of the new regime, "the main element of the state''.

 For Mao the Army is the main organisational bulwark of

the present regime. Its main function is to keep the whole
population subject to "the thoughts of Mao''. As a result, the
Army is torn away from its social basis and ceases to be an
army of workers and peasants to become the instrument of
the military-bureaucratic dictatorship of the Mao group. In
these conditions the social contradictions of Chinese society
are not reduced but increased, and the very fact that the
Army is used for coercion of the masses speaks of the
corruptness of the regime and the inability of the Mao group
to retain power without daily resorting to armed force.
 Mao Tse-tung draws extensively on the experience of

Chiang Kai-shek, and it is no accident that he has
repeatedly referred to him as his teacher. Chiang Kai-shek's main
support and organisational strength lay in the Army, which
controlled all the higher organs of power. Military men are
in the majority in the new CPC Central Committee and
Politburo. All the so-called revolutionary committees that
have replaced the constitutional organs of power and the
Party committees are controlled by the military. The leaders
of twenty-four out of twenty-nine "provincial revolutionary
committees" and committees in the cities that come under
central authority are military men.
The Chinese working class, disunited and disorganised, is
172
actually no more than an object of politics, and the most

widely proclaimed slogan "The working class directs
everything" is simply the fig-leaf of the regime of personal power
of Mao Tse-tung and his entourage. This was once more
confirmed and strengthened by the Ninth Congress in its
unprecedented resolutions on the ``permanent'' nature of the
leadership, the naming of successor, etc.
 The Ninth Congress was, in fact, the culminating point of

the efforts of Mao and his followers to turn the CPC into
an organisation on an army model, with strict discipline
entirely adapted to suit the requirements of the military--
bureaucratic dictatorship and its anti-popular policy. The
decisions of the Congress show that in the protracted struggle
of the internationalist forces in the CPC against adventurist,
anti-Marxist policy of Mao Tse-tung the scales have, for the
time being, tipped in favour of the Maoists.
 The Ninth Congress fundamentally revised the political,
organisational and ideological principles of the Party. The
new Rules formally declaring the CPC to be "the political
organisation of the proletariat" in fact serve to turn the
Party into the obedient tool of the military-bureaucratic
dictatorship.
 Mao Tse-tung s policy in Party construction also

represents a revival of the militarist, monarchist principles of
Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang. At one time the Chinese
revolutionaries condemned the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek
regime for demanding that the whole country "must bow
to one leader wielding absolute power'', and "only accept
what the leader says as right''. In the Kuomintang it was
the practice to take the "oath of loyalty" to the leader, and
there existed the principle "faith in the leader must extend
to superstition, obedience to the leader must be blind
submission''. It is difficult to see where the difference lies
between the Kuomintang ``rules'' and the instruction of Mao
Tse-tung and Lin Piao on taking the oath to the three
loyalties to Mao Tse-tung instituted by Mao, or such Maoist
thesis as "we must carry out the instructions of Chairman Mao
irrespective of whether we have understood their
importance or not'',^^1^^ or again that "devotion to Chairman Mao is
the chief criterion of the transformation of outlook".^^2^^
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Jen-min jih-pao, July 18, 1967.
~^^2^^ Jen-min jih-pao, November 27, 1967.
173
 In order to ensure that Mao has a completely free hand in

the Party, its leading organs have been made into a family
patrimony. The Politburo includes wives, a son-in-law, a
former bodyguard, Mao's private secretary and Lin Piao's
wife.
 During the Chinese revolution the Chinese Communists

called the usurpation of power in Kuomintang China by four
families "the shame and misfortune of the Chinese people''.
Today China is once more ruled by an anti-popular group
that strengthens its grip of the country by violence, terror
and unbridled demagogy.
 Social relations are made to conform with Mao's idea of

"the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship
of the proletariat''. Lin Piao says: "Chairman Mao Tse-tung,
for the first time in the theory and practice of the
international communist movement, put forward the clear doctrine
that after the basic completion of socialist transformation of
ownership of the means of production, classes and the class
struggle continue to exist, and the proletariat must continue
to carry on the revolution.''
 The laws of class struggle and the dictatorship of the

proletariat are major principles of Marxism-Leninism.
Lenin's doctrine of the inevitability of struggle between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie during the period of
transition from capitalism to socialism is one of the major
weapons in the arsenal of the proletarian parties and has been
confirmed and reconfirmed by the experience of socialist
revolution.
 The Maoists take these ideas, amputate them from their
historical context and try to place them, thus distorted and
mutilated, in the service of their ignoble aims.
 Lenin pointed out that the question of "who beats whom"
is decided at the stage of transition from capitalism to
socialism; the Maoists insist that the issue remains in the balance
throughout the period of communist construction. Lenin
pointed out that the class struggle between the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie is waged at the stage when socialism has
not yet been built and, consequently, when hostile classes
continue to exist within society: the Maoists assert that the
class struggle continues after the triumph of socialism, in
socialist society. Lenin pointed out that the culminating point
in the class struggle is the socialist revolution, the seizing of
174
power by the proletariat: the Maoists maintain that the class

struggle becomes more and more fiercer as society advances
from capitalism to communism. Most important of all, Lenin
demonstrated the inevitability of struggle between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie resisting the revolution, and the
struggle between proletarian and bourgeois ideology, whereas
the Maoists aim not at struggle against the bourgeoisie but at
struggle with Party and state workers, the Communists, the
advanced workers, peasants and intellectuals who have
opposed or refused to give active support to the personal regime
of Mao Tse-tung. This is hardly the "class struggle of the
proletariat'', or "the continuation of the revolution''. It is
simply a group struggle for power, for personal influence.
This ``revolution'' has all the features of counter-revolution.
 The real purpose of the ideological theses and political

slogans advanced at the Ninth Congress of the CPC and
officially named "Mao Tse-tung's Thought" is seen when we
compare the theory of the Maoists with their practice. Such
comparison immediately reveals that the thesis of "
strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat" is simply a cover
for the struggle to affirm the dictatorship of Mao Tse-tung
and his entourage, that the slogan "continuation of the
revolution during the dictatorship of the proletariat" really
stands for the destruction of all the political institutions of
worker and peasant government as the result of a
reactionary take-over, that the slogan "purge the Party of people
who are following the capitalist path" means liquidation of
the opponents of the personal dictatorship of Mao Tse-tung
and Maoism, that the slogan "strengthen the role of the
working class" is simply called upon to conceal the Maoists'
reliance on special army units, isolated from the masses and
set up in opposition to them, and on the petty-bourgeois
strata corrupted by chauvinism, and, finally, that the slogan
"defence of the purity of Marxism-Leninism" really means
the implantation of Maoism and the "sinification of
socialchauvinism''.
 A society built according to the principles of the "thoughts

of Mao" is the antithesis of scientific socialism. In economics
it means labour organised on army principles according to
the triple union system "worker, peasant and soldier'', the
curbing of consumption, "conducting a policy of rationally
low wages'', "food for three people must be eaten by five'',
175
the concentration of all accumulated wealth for the needs

of "preparation for war" and the creation of a nuclear
missile force. In social life it means the forced levelling of
society and the reduction of every individual to the position
of "a stainless screw'', an "obedient buffalo'', a ``soldier'' of
Chairman Mao. In ideology it means preservation of the
cultural backwardness of the bulk of the population, the
forced indoctrination of the whole people in the spirit of the
"Mao Tse-tung's Thoughts'', and complete isolation from
advanced world culture. In politics it is the complete
abolition of the institutions of socialist democracy, the
dictatorial regime of a narrow group of people led by Mao
Tsetung, the violation of all legality, the militarisation of the
whole political structure of society, and systematic purges of
``heretics'' in the form of "cultural revolutions''.
 Such are the inevitable pernicious consequences of the

"Mao Tse-tung's Thoughts'', of the anti-humanitarian
philosophy and policy of Mao Tse-tung. Such is the reactionary
Utopia anti-Communists are trying to present as a creative
combination of Marxism-Leninism with Chinese conditions, a
"new brand of socialism'', a "creative contribution" and
which the Maoists are trying to put into practice.
 It is patently evident that Maoism is incompatible with

Leninism. At the International Meeting held in 1969, the
Communist and Workers' parties subjected the Maoist
ideology to principled and scathing criticism. Maoism is a
pettybourgeois ideological and political trend, fundamentally alien
to Marxism-Leninism, living parasitically at the expense of
the principles of scientific socialism, and adroitly exploiting
the strivings of the Chinese people to achieve socialism. It
is a militaristic variety of social-chauvinism, its purposes
being at variance with those of the world communist and
liberation movements.
 As Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU

Central Committee, emphasised in the CC report to the 24th
Party Congress, ".. .the Chinese leaders have put forward an
ideological-political platform of their own, which is
incompatible with Leninism on the key questions of international
life and the world communist movement, and have demanded
that we should abandon the line of the 20th Congress and
the Programme of the CPSU''.
 For this reason the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
176
and its Central Committee have resolutely opposed the

attempts to distort the Marxist-Leninist teaching, and to split
the international communist movement and the ranks of the
anti-imperialist fighters.
 The 24th Party Congress approved this line of the CPSU
Central Committee. The Congress resolution notes that the
"CC CPSU had taken the only correct stand---a stand of
consistently defending the principles of Marxism-Leninism,
utmost strengthening of the unity of the world communist
movement, and protection of the interests of our socialist
Motherland''. This position of the Leninist Party is firmly
supported and approved by most of the Communists
throughout the world, by the progressives fighting against
imperialism, for peace, democracy and socialism.
[177]
__ALPHA_LVL0__
The End.
[END]
[178]
request to readers ...
[179]
__BACK_MATTER__
 In this review of the origin and

essence of Mao Tse-tung's
philosophical views, the authors show how Mao's
outlook was shaped by Chinese feudal
ideology, above all Confucianism, and
other non-Marxist doctrines in which
Sinocentrism was an important
element. The book destroys the Maoist
propaganda myth about the time Mao
composed his article On Practice and
On Contradiction and their content.
 Analysing the essential principles

underlying Mao Tse-tung's outlook,
his "dialectical method" and theory of
knowledge, the authors show that Mao
never adopted a dialectical materialist
standpoint and has never really
advanced beyond Chinese
nineteenthcentury philosophy. Examining the
nature and aims of Mao's references to
Marxist-Leninist philosophy, they
conclude that Marxism-Leninism is an
extraneous element in his system of
philosophical views. Combining a
scientific approach with a popular
form of presentation, this work should
be of value not merely to
philosophers but to all who are interested in
the contemporary ideological struggle,
[180]
@LBiz: en/HTML
More
Pages:
Hyper-text Markup Language (HTML) @AT LENINIST
(DOT) BIZ
<<<
•
>>>
The web pages listed below are auto-generated from ASCII text. If you link to a
<< • >> book’s index.html , please send an email to webmaster@ ... about your link. Click
<•> “ T*” at left to get a list of all titles including ones not online (yet—donations
needed).
Main Trends in Philosophy: A theoretical analysis of the history of

Contents 1988 HTML
philosophy., The
U.S. Two-Party System: Past and present:, The View by Soviet
Index 1988 HTML
historians., A
Card
1988 HTML Capitalism at the End of the Century
Formats: 1988 HTML Felix Dzerzhinsky: A biography.

Text
PS 1988 Classes and the Class Struggle in the USSR, 1920s–1930s
HTML
PDF Problem of the Ideal: The nature of mind and its relationship to the
1988 HTML
brain and social medium, The
1988 HTML Teaching: Calling and skills.
Other
Titles: 1968 HTML Soviet Socialist Democracy
T*
1968 HTML Dynamic Twentieth Century, The
Years:
19* 1968 Marx • Engels • Marxism [Lenin]
HTML
Peaceful Coexistence: Contemporary international law of peaceful
1968 HTML
coexistence
###
1974 HTML October Storm and After:, The Stories and Reminiscences.
MAP
1974 HTML Lenin’s Ideas and Modern International Relations
1974 HTML Short History of the World in Two Volumes, A Volume II.
1974 HTML Short History of the World in Two Volumes, A Volume I.
1974 HTML Soviet Youth and Socialism.
1974 HTML Riddles of Three Oceans, The
1974 HTML Socialism and the Newly Independent Nations
1974 HTML New Scramble for Africa, The
1974 HTML Usa: Militarism and the Economy
2011 HTML Abc’s of Communism–Bolshevism 2012
1973 HTML Problems of the History of Philosophy.
1973 Neocolonialism: Methods and manoeuvres.
HTML
Future of Society:, The Critique of modern bourgeois philosophical
1973 HTML
and socio-political conceptions., A
1973 HTML U.S. Budget and Economic Policy.
http://www.leninist.biz/en/HTML[2013-03-30 오전 11:47:11]
@LBiz: en/HTML
1973 HTML State of Israel: A Historical, Economic and Political Study , The
1973 HTML Soviet Court, The
1973 HTML World Communist Movement: An outline of strategy and tactics, The
1973 HTML Sholokhov: A critical appreciation
1973 HTML People’s Control in Socialist Society
1973 HTML Where Are Trotskyites Leading the Youth?
1973 HTML At the Bidding of the Heart: Essays, sketches, speeches, papers.
1973 HTML U.S. Labour Unions Today: Basic problems and trends.
1973 Soviet Peace Efforts on the Eve of World War II
HTML
War of Ideas in Contemporary International Relations:, The
1973 HTML Imperialist doctrine, methods and organisation of foreign political
propaganda., The
1973 HTML History of Realism, A
1982 HTML In the Grip of Terror

1982 HTML One Is Not Born a Personality.
1982 Diplomatic Battles Before World War II
HTML
Dialectical Materialism and the History of Philosophy Essays on the
1982 HTML
history of philosophy
1982 HTML Trade Among Capitalist Countries
1982 HTML Global Problems and the Future of Mankind

1982 HTML Soviet Legislation on Children’s Rights.
1982 HTML Right of the Accused to Defence in the USSR, The
1982 Correction of the Convicted: Law, theory, practice
HTML
Socialist Internationalism: Theory and practice of international
1982 HTML
relations of a new type
1982 HTML State and Nations in the USSR, The
1982 HTML Cia Target: The USSR

1982 HTML Basics of Marxist-Leninist Theory
History of the USSR in three parts: PART III: From the Beginning
1982 HTML
of the Great Patriotic War to the Present Day.
1982 HTML State-Monopoly Capitalism and the Labour Theory of Value.
World Capitalist Economy: Structural changes:, The Trends and
1982 HTML
problems.
1980 HTML Agony of a Dictatorship: Nicaraguan Chronicle, The
1980 Where Human Rights Are Real.
HTML
Ussr and Countries of Africa (Friendship, Cooperation, Support for
1980 HTML
the Anti-Imperialist Struggle)
1980 HTML Marxist Philosophy
1980 HTML Of Human Values: Soviet literature today
@LBiz: en/HTML
1980 HTML Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (1980)

1980 HTML Truth About Afghanistan:, The Documents, Facts, Eyewitness Reports
1980 What Is Democratic Socialism?
HTML
Landmarks in History: The Marxist Doctrine of Socio-Economic
1980 HTML
Formations
1980 HTML Crisis of Capitalism and the Conditions of the Working People., The
1980 HTML Peking Reaches Out: A Study of Chinese Expansionism

1980 HTML Lenin: The Revolutionary.
1980 Fundamentals of Political Economy (1980)
HTML
International Working-Class Movement, Volume 1: The Origins of
1980 HTML the Proletariat and Its Evolution as a Revolutionary Class, The
Problems of History and Theory in Seven [sic] Volumes:
Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume IV): In
1980 HTML
Five Volumes
1980 HTML History of Old Russian Literature, A
1980 HTML Komsomol: Questions and Answers, The

1980 HTML Working Class and its Allies, The
1980 Development of the Monist View of History., The
HTML
International Working-Class Movement, Volume 6: The Working-
Class Movement in the Developed Capitalist Countries After the
1987 HTML
Second World War (1945–1979), The Problems of History and
Theory in Seven [sic] Volumes:
1987 HTML U.S. Policy in Latin America: Postwar to present.
1987 HTML Communist Response to the Challenge of Our Time, The

1987 HTML What Is Historical Materialism? (ABC #7)
1987 HTML Looking Into the Future
1987 HTML Soviet Union and Africa, The
1987 What Is Dialectical Materialism? (ABC #6)
HTML
Marx’s Theory of Commodity and Surplus-Value: Formalised
1987 HTML
exposition
1987 HTML Concise Psychological Dictionary, A
1966 HTML Psychological Research in USSR: Volume 1

1979 HTML Semantic Philosophy of Art
1979 HTML Kampuchea: From Tragedy to Rebirth
1979 After 14,000 Wars
HTML
Usa: Imperialists and Anti-Imperialists: The great foreign policy
1979 HTML
debate at the turn of the Century
1979 HTML Dialectics in Modern Physics
Recent History of the Labor Movement in the United States 1939–
1979 HTML
1965
@LBiz: en/HTML
1979 HTML Nations and Internationalism

1978 HTML Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (1978)
1978 HTML Socialist Revolution [MarxEngels], The
1978 HTML Man and Sea Warfare Training of Soviet Navy Personnel), The
1978 HTML Lenin Talks to America.
1978 HTML European Security and Co-Operation: Premises, problems, prospects
1978 HTML Triumph of Lenin’s Ideas: Proceedings of Plenary Session
1978 HTML Theory of Population: Essays in Marxist research., The
1986 HTML What Is The Working People’s Power? (ABC #19)
1986 HTML Political Thought of Ancient Greece
1986 HTML U.S. War Machine and Politics, The
1986 HTML Soviet Constitution: A dictionary, The
1970 HTML Soviet Literature: Problems and People
1970 HTML Leninist Theory of Revolution and Social Psychology
1970 HTML Lenin: The Great Theoretician.
1970 HTML Communism and Freedom
1970 HTML Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union., A
1970 HTML Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionism (Anarchism, Trotskyism and Maoism)
1970 HTML Leninism and the Revolutionary Process
1970 Maoism Through the Eyes of Communists
HTML
Georgi Dimitrov Selected Works (Volume 3) Selected Works in
0000 HTML
Three Volumes
0000 HTML By: JASON W. SMITH
0000 Monism and Pluralism in Ideology and in Politics (Abridged).

HTML
Revolutionary COMMUNIST PARTY, USA Document Archive
0000 HTML
(Incomplete)
0000 HTML The POLICY OF NON-ALIGNMENT
0000 HTML By: ANNA LOUISE STRONG

1972 HTML Marxism-Leninism on War and Army
1972 HTML Critique of Mao Tse-Tung’s Theoretical Conceptions., A
1972 On The Art and Craft of Writing
HTML
Leninism and Contemporary Problems of the Transition from
1972 HTML
Capitalism to Socialism.
1972 HTML Leninism and the Battle of Ideas.
1972 World Socialist System:, The Main problems, states of development.

HTML
Scientific and Technological Revolution: Social Effects and
1972 HTML
Prospects, The
@LBiz: en/HTML
Problems of War and Peace: A critical analysis of bourgeois

1972 HTML
theories.
1972 HTML Economic Geography of the World Popular Outline), A
Destructive Policy, A This is a collection of articles from the Soviet
press, exposing the policy of the Chinese leadership for what it is—a
1972 HTML
policy harmful to the cause of socialism, and the world revolutionary
and liberation movements.
1972 HTML Maoism Unmasked: Collection of Soviet Press Articles
1972 HTML Profession of the Stage-Director, The

1972 HTML Health Protection in the USSR.
1972 On Historical Materialism • A Collection [Marx-Engels-Lenin]
HTML
At the Turning Points of History: Some lessons of the struggle
1972 HTML
against revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement
1972 HTML Following Lenin’s Course: Speeches and articles
1972 HTML Secrets of the Second World War.

1972 HTML Lenin About the Press
1972 HTML Our Course: Peace and Socialism
1972 HTML Leninism and Modern China’s Problems
1972 HTML Humanism: Its Philosophical, Ethical and Sociological Aspects.
1926 HTML Moscow Diary, A
This Nation and Socialism Are One Selected writings of Le Duan,
1976 HTML
First Secretary, Central Committee, Vietnam Workers Party
Leninism and the World Revolutionary Working-Class Movement
1976 HTML (1976): Problems of the stuggle for the unity of the proletariat, of all
anti-imperialist forces.
1976 HTML 20th Century American Literature: A Soviet view.
Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume II): In Five
1976 HTML
Volumes
1976 HTML History of the USA Since World War I
1976 HTML Contemporary Anti-Communism: Policy and ideology.
1976 HTML Life and Work of Walt Whitman: A Soviet view
Hague Congress of the First International, September 2–7, 1872:, The
1976 HTML
Minutes and Documents
Cp of China :: THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF
1976 HTML
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT
1976 HTML Theory and Practice of Proletarian Internationalism, The
Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume III): In
1976 HTML
Five Volumes
1976 HTML Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics and Life: Collection of articles, A
1976 HTML Humanism of Art., The
1976 HTML Right-Wing Revisionism Today
@LBiz: en/HTML
1976 HTML Ussr: For Peace Against Aggression: 1933–1941.

Monopoly Press: Or, How American journalism found itself in the
1976 HTML
vicious circle of the “crisis of credibility”, The
1976 HTML This NATION AND SOCIALISM ARE ONE
Letters From the Dead: Last letters from Soviet men and women
1965 HTML
who died fighting the Nazis (1941–1945)
1984 HTML Behind the Scenes of Third Reich Diplomacy.
1984 HTML Problems of Common Security
1984 HTML New Information Order or Psychological Warfare?, A
1984 HTML Economies of the Countries of Latin America
International Working-Class Movement, Volume 4: The Socialist
1984 HTML Revolution in Russia and the International Working Class (1917–
1923), The Problems of History and Theory in Seven [sic] Volumes:
1984 HTML Political Consciousness in the U.S.A.: Traditions and evolutions.
Psychology of Phantasy:, The Experimental and theoretical
1984 HTML
investigation into the intrinsic laws of productive mentality., An
1984 HTML Subject, Object, Cognition.
Teaching of Political Economy: A critique of non-Marxian theories,
1984 HTML
The
1984 HTML Terrorism and International Law
1984 HTML Alternatives to Positivism.
1984 HTML World War II: Myths and the Realities.
1984 HTML World Without Arms?, A
Nuclear WAR: THE MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
1984 HTML
CONSEQUENCES
1984 HTML Dictionary of Scientific Communism., A
History of the Three Internationals World Socialist and Communist
1955 HTML
Movements from 1848 to the Present, The
1931 HTML Science AT THE CROSS ROADS
1990 HTML World MARXIST REVIEW
1990 HTML Meaning and Conceptual Systems.
1993 HTML Contemporary World Situation and Validity of Marxism
1977 HTML Philosophy of Optimism: Current problems
1977 HTML Planning a Socialist Economy Vol. 1
1977 HTML Planning a Socialist Economy Vol. 2
1977 HTML Philosophy in the USSR: Problems of dialectical materialism.
1977 HTML Foundations of Marxist Aesthetics
1977 HTML Sukhomlinsky on Education, V.
1977 HTML How Socialism Began: Russia Under Lenin’s Leadership 1917–1923
1977 HTML Military-Industrial Complex of the USA, The
@LBiz: en/HTML
Man At Work: The Scientific and Technological Revolution, the

1977 HTML
Soviet Working Class and Intelligentsia
1977 HTML Teaching
1977 Ussr State Industry During the Transition Period

HTML
Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume I): In Five
1977 HTML
Volumes
1977 HTML Nihilism Today.
1977 HTML Revolutionary Vanguard:, The Battle of ideologies.

1967 HTML Scientific Communism (A Popular Outline)
1967 Lenin In Our Life.
HTML
What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was
2000 HTML
Wrong?
1975 HTML Philosophy and Sociology.
1975 HTML “Cultural Revolution”: A close-up: (An eyewitness account), The

1975 HTML Critique of Masarykism, A
1975 HTML Women Today
1975 HTML Philosophy of Revolt: Criticism of left radical ideology., The
1975 HTML Science In Its Youth: Pre-Marxian political economy, A
1975 Planning of Manpower in the Soviet Union
HTML
Policy of Provocation and Expansion: A collection of documents and
1975 HTML articles, published in the Soviet press, dealing with China’s policy of
annexation and its territorial claims to other countries, A
1975 HTML Science and Morality
1975 HTML History and Politics: American historiography on Soviet society

Fundamentals of Political Science: Textbook for primary political
1975 HTML
education.
Leninist Theory of Socialist Revolution and the Contemporary
1975 HTML
World.
1975 HTML Cmea Today: From economic co-operation to economic integration
Man After Work: Social problems of daily life and leisure time.
1975 HTML Based on the surveys of workers’ time budgets in major cities of the
European part of the USSR
International Solidarity with the Spanish Republic 1936–1939:
1975 HTML
Detailed account of the activities of the International Brigades, A
1975 HTML Monetary Crisis Of Capitalism: Origin, Development
1975 HTML Economic Cycle: Postwar Development, The
1975 Present-Day China: Socio-economic problems, collected articles.
HTML
History OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION
1939 HTML
/ BOLSHEVIKS / SHORT COURSE
The LAND OF SOCIALISM TODAY TOMORROW Reports AND
SPEECHES AT THE EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE
1939 HTML
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (BOLSHEVIKS)
@LBiz: en/HTML
March 10-21, 1939

1969 HTML Problems of Modern Aesthetics: Collection of articles.
1969 HTML Sociology: Problems of theory and method.

1969 Communism IN THE UNITED STATES— A BIBLIOGRAPHY
HTML
International MEETING OF COMMUNIST AND WORKERS’
1969 HTML
PARTIES – MOSCOW 1969
1969 HTML Millionaires and Managers
1969 HTML Fifty Soviet Poets

1969 HTML Contemporary International Law: Collection of articles.
Making of the Marxist Philosophy from Idealism and Revolutionary
1981 HTML Democracy to Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Communism,
The
1981 HTML Economic Substantiation of the Theory of Socialism, The
Unity, Solidarity, Internationalism: International Communist Unity:
1981 HTML
Historical Experience, Principles and Problems
1981 HTML Dmitry Shostakovich: About himself and his times
1981 Disarmament and the Economy
HTML
Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume V): In Five
1981 HTML
Volumes
History of the USSR in three parts: PART II: From the October
1981 HTML
Socialist Revolution to the Beginning of the Great Patriotic War.
1981 HTML Workers in Society: Polemical essays
1981 HTML Enigma of Capital: A Marxist viewpoint., The

1981 HTML Ultras in the USA., The
History of the USSR in three parts: PART I: From the earliest times
1981 HTML
to the Great October Socialist Revolution.
International Working-Class Movement, Volume 2: The Working-
1981 HTML Class Movement in the Period of Transition to Imperialism (1871–
1904), The Problems of History and Theory in Seven [sic] Volumes:
1981 HTML Nuclear Strategy and Common Sense
Problems of the Communist Movement: Some Questions of Theory
1981 HTML
and Method.
1981 HTML Priorities of Soviet Foreign Policy Today, The
Political Economy of Revolution:, The Contemporary issues seen
1981 HTML
from the historical standpoint
1981 HTML Scientific and Technical Revolution: Economic aspects
1981 HTML Socialism As a Social System
1981 HTML Yakov Sverdlov
1983 HTML Civilisation and the Historical Process
1983 HTML Lenin on Language
1983 HTML Freedom of Conscience in the USSR
@LBiz: en/HTML
1983 HTML Strategy of Transnational Corporations, The

1983 HTML Ussr–FRG Relations: A new stage
1983 Lenin: A Biography
HTML
International Working-Class Movement, Volume 3: Revolutionary
1983 HTML battles of the early 20th Century, The Problems of History and
1983 HTML History in the Making: Memoirs of World War II Diplomacy
1983 HTML Politcal Economy (1983)

1983 Lenin on the Intelligentsia
HTML
Myth, Philosophy, Avant-Gardism: Philosophic myth-making and the
1983 HTML
literary avant-gardism
1983 HTML Psychology of Management of Labour Collectives, The
1989 HTML Ho Chi Minh.

1957 HTML Universe, The
1985 HTML American Utopia, The
1985 HTML History of Afganistan
1985 HTML Contemporary Revolutionary Process: Theoretical Essays, The
1985 HTML History of Ancient Philosophy: Greece and Rome
1985 Contemporary Political Science in the USA and Western Europe
HTML
Aggressive Broadcasting, Evidence Facts Documents: Psychological
1985 HTML
Warfare
1985 HTML Dictionary of Political Economy., A
1985 HTML Western Aid: Myth and Reality

1985 HTML Blacks in United States History
1985 HTML Washington Silhouettes: A political round-up
War Is Their Business: The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex: United
1985 HTML
Technologies, General Dynamics, General Electric
1985 HTML India: Spotlight on Population Demographic outline, A
Marxist-Leninist Theory of Society:, The Identity and Diversity of
1985 HTML
Social Development in the West and East
1985 HTML Witness to War: American doctor in El Salvador, An
International Working-Class Movement, Volume 5: The Builder of
1985 HTML Socialism and Fighter Against Fascism, The Problems of History and
1985 HTML Genocide
1985 HTML Emotions, Myths and Theories.
1962 HTML Communist Morality
1960 HTML Materialism and the Dialectical Method (by Cornforth 1960)
1928 HTML History OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
@LBiz: en/HTML
1942 Lenin COLLECTED WORKS (International), V.I. 1916–1917

HTML
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY Secret War Against Soviet Russia,
1946 HTML
The
1971 HTML Finance and Credit in the USSR
1971 HTML Materialism and the Dialectical Method ( by Cornforth 1971)

1971 HTML On the Paris Commune
1971 HTML Lenin and Books
1971 Development of Revolutionary Theory by the CPSU.
HTML
Leninism and the World Revolutionary Working-Class Movement
1971 HTML (1971): Problems of the stuggle for the unity of the proletariat, of all
anti-imperialist forces.
1971 HTML Young Communist International and Its Origins, The
1971 HTML Socialist Society: Scientific principles of development

1971 HTML Theory of Knowledge ( by Cornforth ), The
1971 HTML Historical Materialism ( by Cornforth )
1971 HTML Socialism and Capitalism: Score and Prospects
1971 HTML Re-reading Dostoyevsky
1971 HTML Philosophical Views of Mao Tse-Tung: A Critical Analysis, The
1923 HTML Kristin Labransdatter
1963 Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism • Manual
HTML
Communist :: 1938 (VOL. XVII), The A MAGAZINE OF THE
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MARXISM-LENINISM
1938 HTML
PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF
THE U.S.A.
http://leninist.biz/en/HTML
@LBiz: en/HTML
@LBiz: en/AZ: en/PS = PostScript (PS)
More
Pages:
PostScript (PS) @AT LENINIST
(DOT) BIZ
<<<
•
>>>
We agree with the article below.
<< • >>
<•> Therefore, a way to provide you with PDF and PostScript without putting those
types of files online will be needed. Maybe (a.) email request to webmaster,
(b.) auto-response with link to PDF or PostScript file, (c.) auto-delete link after a
few hours.
Contents
Index
PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption
Card
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html
Formats:
Text
PS
PDF http://leninist.biz/en/PS
Other
Titles:
T* leninistbiz FREE electronic books ... @Leninist(dot)Biz leninistbiz
Years:
19*
###
MAP
http://www.leninist.biz/en/PS[2013-03-30 오전 11:47:18]
@LBiz: en/AZ: en/PDF = Portable Document Format (PDF)
More
Pages:
Portable Document Format (PDF) @AT LENINIST
(DOT) BIZ
<<<
•
>>>
We agree with the article below.
<< • >>
<•> Therefore, a way to provide you with PDF and PostScript without putting those
types of files online will be needed. Maybe (a.) email request to webmaster,
(b.) auto-response with link to PDF or PostScript file, (c.) auto-delete link after a
few hours.
Contents
Index
PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption
Card
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html
Formats:
Text
PS
PDF http://leninist.biz/en/PDF
Other
Titles:
T* leninistbiz FREE electronic books ... @Leninist(dot)Biz leninistbiz
Years:
19*
###
MAP
http://www.leninist.biz/en/PDF[2013-03-30 오전 11:47:23]
@LBiz: __TITLE_ELEMENT_SORT_BY_PATH__
More
Pages:
A. B . C. D . E. F. G . H . I. J. K . L. M. Titles @AT LENINIST
(DOT) BIZ
<<< N . O. P . Q. R . S . T . U . V . W . X . Y . Z . A–Z
•
>>>
<< • >> No data at this time.

<•>
Contents http://leninist.biz/en/T
Index Created : 2011 August 06 • Refreshed : 288 • eBooks currently
Card 11:47:24 online
Formats: leninistbiz FREE electronic books ... @Leninist(dot)Biz leninistbiz

Text
PS
PDF
Other
Titles:
T*
Years:
19*
###
MAP
http://www.leninist.biz/en/T[2013-03-30 오전 11:47:57]
@LBiz: en/19* = Years
More
Pages:
1970 • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 Years @AT LENINIST
(DOT) BIZ
<<< 1980 • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9
•
>>>
<< • >> No data at this time.

<•>
Contents http://leninist.biz/en/19
Index Created : 2011 August 06 • Refreshed : 11:47:59 288 • eBooks currently online
Card
Formats:
Text
PS
PDF
Other
Titles:
T*
Years:
19*
###
MAP
http://www.leninist.biz/en/19[2013-03-30 오전 11:48:01]
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 5.3-Maos.Discoveries.in.the.Theory.of.Knowledge
MAP

>>>
<< • >> Mao’s “Discoveries” in the Theory of Knowledge 148

<•>
The Maoists claim that Mao made a great contribution to the development of the p
TOC theory of knowledge with the thesis of the transition from perceptual to rational
Card knowledge and then to practice as the result of a “leap”. He is, moreover, given the
credit for having advanced these views for the first time. Just how much truth, if
any, is there in all this?
Text
HTML The question of the existence of perceptual and logical (or as Mao calls it, p
PS “rational”) stages in the single process of cognition was posed and answered by
PDF
philosophers in ancient times. Thus, the Chinese sage Mo-tzu regarded that basic
knowledge was that acquired through the "five senses”, while understanding perfectly
T*
well that such knowledge only provided an image of a thing without answering the
19*
question "why is it so?”. Man acquires knowledge of the causes of things by
### "rational thought”, beginning with "description and denomination of objects”, and
going on to "thought on objects”. Mo-tzu and his followers regarded understanding
of the causes of things as the "highest complete knowledge" —“wisdom”. Thus, Mo-
tzu wrote: "Thought is the method of achieving true knowledge.” In the chapter
entitled “Canon” of Mo-tzu’s book we find the following: "Reason is the
understanding of the essence of things. Reason, based on perceptual knowledge
explains the causes of things and thereby attains clarity and lucidity, as if the thing
were before one’s very eyes.” [ 148•2
Mo-tzu and his followers divided knowledge into three categories according to type p
and provenance: "direct knowledge acquired through personal observations”; "
indirect" or “reported” knowledge "acquired from other people”, and finally, rational 149
or reflective-verbal knowledge, which is the result of the fusion of the above two
forms in one, and which is acquired through thought.
To turn to European philosophy, we know that ancient Greek and Roman p

philosophers divided knowledge into two basic categories: the “dark”, perceptual, and
the bright, lucid rational. The difference between the materialists and the idealists
was that the latter (Plato, for example) denied the importance of perceptual
knowledge, and even considered it a hindrance to the attainment of true knowledge,
while the former insisted on the importance of perceptual images as the objective
basis of knowledge, often indeed underestimating the importance of abstract logic.
Thus, according to Democritus, reason "possessing the most subtle organ of
knowledge in thought" derives its evidence from sensations arising as a result of the
influence on the sense organs of objects in the outside world, consisting of atoms.
What Mao claims to have been his own “discovery” was already known to, and
expounded by, Mo-tzu and his followers in China and by the materialists in Ancient
Greece.
Later on, both idealists and materialists accepted the division of knowledge into p
perceptual and rational. We meet this division frequently in the English materialist
philosophers, Spinoza, and the French materialists. Francis Bacon, with his materialist
theory of knowledge, regarded experience as the first stage of knowledge and reason,
the rational processing of perceptual experience, as the second. Moreover, Bacon
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/5.3-Maos.Discoveries.in.the.Theory.of.Knowledge[2013-03-30 오전 11:48:14]
rejected the extremes of both empiricism and rationalism. The Dutch philosopher
Spinoza differentiated three kinds of knowledge: perceptual knowledge, giving a
superficial understanding of individual things, rational knowledge, and intuitive
knowledge as its highest form, the ability to perceive a thing "through its essence or
through knowledge of its immediate causes”.
The French materialists also divided cognition into two stages—the perceptual and p
the logical. La Mettrie and Diderot, for example, considered sensations to be the
basis of thought as the essence of logical deduction. French materialism, being
contemplative, was based on the mechanical reflection of objects in the external
world on the "screen of the mind”.
Kant and Hegel, the classics of German philosophy, also accepted the relationship p 150
between perceptual and rational knowledge. Hegel’s objective idealism stressed the
importance of experience and relating our knowledge to reality, regarded by him as a
unity of existence (phenomena) and self-contained existence (substance), i.e., as
necessary essence.
Hegel wrote as follows of the relationship between the perceptual and the logical: p
"The content that fills our consciousness, of whatever kind it be, constitutes the
actual substance of the feelings, views, images, notions, aims, duties, etc. and of the
thoughts and concepts. Feeling, view, image etc. are thus the forms of such content,
which remains one and the same whether felt, viewed, pictured or desired, whether it
is only felt, felt, viewed, etc. with a mixture of thought, or only thought. In any one
of these forms, or in a mixture of several, the content is the object (Gegenstand) of
the consciousness.” [ 150•1
Thus, the claims of Mao and his followers to have “ discovered” the division of the p
cognitative process into perceptual and rational is wholly unfounded. It is worth
noting that the founders of Marxism-Leninism did not regard this division as a
distinguishing feature of Marxist epistemology, but treated it as something self-
evident, already demonstrated in philosophy.
Lenin made a profound and exhaustive analysis of the Marxist version of the p
process of cognition as combining two stages in his brilliant work Materialism and
Empiric-criticism. The problem has since been developed by Marxist philosophers
taking into account developments in the natural sciences, psychology and physiology.
The Marxist-Leninist theory of reflection was most fully discussed in the thirties by
the Bulgarian Marxist T. Pavlov, and in the books, manuals and articles of the
Soviet philosophers V. V. Adoratsky, P. F. Yudin, M. B. Mitin, F. I. Khaskhachick
and others.
It should be realised that the various correct propositions that are undoubtedly to be p
found in "On Practice" are really borrowings from Soviet sources. However, Mao
interprets them in his own way, according to his distorted view of the major 151
problems of Marxist epistemology, as is evident among other things in his approach
to the stages of cognition and their relationship to reality. To begin with, Mao treats
each stage as entirely separate: first we have perceptual knowledge, then a “leap”
into rational knowledge, followed by a further “leap” into practice. This mechanistic
division of the integrated process of cognition is apparent in the following statement
of Mao’s: "Practice, knowledge, more practice, more knowledge; the cyclical
repetition of this pattern to infinity, and with each cycle, the elevation of the content
of practice and knowledge to a higher level.” [ 151•1
In "Whence Does a Man Acquire Correct Ideas?" Mao Tsetung presents these stages
of knowledge as a sequence of separate "processes of cognition”. "Countless
phenomena of the objective external world are reflected in a man’s brain through his
five sense organs—the organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. At first,
knowledge is perceptual. [ 151•2 The leap to conceptual knowledge, i.e., to ideas,
occurs when sufficient perceptual knowledge is accumulated. This is one process in
cognition. It is the first stage in the whole process of cognition. . . . Then comes the
second stage in the progress of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back
to matter, from ideas back to existence, in which the knowledge gained in the first
stage is applied in social practice to ascertain whether the theories, policies, plans or
measures meet with the anticipated success. Generally speaking, those that succeed
are correct and those that fail are incorrect. . . Man’s knowledge makes another leap
through the test of practice. This leap is more important than the previous
one.” [ 151•3
To begin with, Mao splits the process of knowledge into a series of separate, p
individual stages. He then goes on to transfer questions of epistemology into the
sphere of practical political decisions in a simplified, mechanistic manner. In so
doing, he confuses the source of knowledge with the actual process of knowing
which is based on specific accumulated material. Mao completely dismisses the
question of continuity, the adoption of the experience of others. Every one of the
“theories, directions, plans, schemes" has to go through all the processes of 152
knowledge and every proposition has to be tested anew in direct individual
experience. Likewise, Mao completely disregards the experience of his predecessors.
He dismisses all borrowed, indirect experience as “bookish”, and simply ignores it.
Mao Tse-tung is a nihilist as regards the application to practice of the knowledge p

of former generations. In his opinion, this knowledge is perfectly useless, or at best,
requires testing anew against the conditions of Maoist practice. "All comparatively
complete knowledge is acquired through two stages, first the stage of perceptual
knowledge and secondly the stage of rational knowledge... . What sort of knowledge
is the bookish information of the students? Granted that their information is entirely
true knowledge ... something which has been verified by others but not yet by
themselves.” [ 152•1
Mao thus regards the knowledge acquired from studying the experience of past p
generations or other peoples, from written sources, as harmful “bookishness” and a
source of doctrinairism. It was in accordance with this attitude that Mao advised his
cousin: "If you read a lot of books, you’ll never become emperor.”
This nihilistic attitude to the human treasury of knowledge is in direct contradiction p

to Marxism-Leninism, which insists on continuity in the development of knowledge.
It is anachronistic in our age to regard knowledge, as Mao does, simply as the result
of direct personal experience. Engels, writing in the last century, noted that: "By
recognising the inheritance of acquired characters, it (modern natural science. —Ed.)
extends the subject of experience from the individual to the genus; the single
individual that must have experience is no longer necessary, its individual experience
can be replaced to a certain extent by the results of the experience of a number of
its ancestors... .” [ 152•2
A further major weakness of Maoist theory is the metaphysical understanding of p

practice as the criterion of truth. Mao Tse-tung is highly inconsistent in this matter.
While speaking of an endless cycle of "practice—knowledge— practice”, “matter—
spirit—matter”, he regards the verification of knowledge in concrete-historical 153
conditions as a single act, and not as a dialectical process. Thus, according to Mao,
the truth of knowledge is confirmed by the success of a single attempt to apply it in
practice. He does, it is true, make an exception for social phenomena, but this is
simply the exception that proves the rule.
Moreover, Mao understands "the success of practice”, as indeed practice itself, p

purely pragmatically, as "suiting the purpose”. In "On Practice" he declares "class
nature”, and “practicality” to be the "two outstanding characteristics" of Marxist
philosophy completely ignoring that inalienable feature, its scientific nature. This
pragmatism in the Maoist approach is expressed in the fact that theory itself is
regarded not as a science but as guidance for action, the methodological basis for
developing the most suitable strategy and tactics, policies and slogans, and in a
purely utilitarian manner, as a means to certain ends, as an “ instrument”. According
to Mao, Marxism-Leninism is an arrow shot straight to the target of the Chinese
revolution. The implication is that Marxism-Leninism and revolution are quite
separate things, success or failure depending entirely on the skill of the archer.
The chief mistake of Maoism here is that it destroys the organic relationship p
between revolutionary practice and revolutionary theory, and between the objective
and subjective factors of their development. Theory, as an instrument—an “arrow”—
is reduced to a convenient list of useful rules, a collection of tactical ideas,
directions, orders, etc. At the same time, universalisation of direct experience and a
complete disregard for knowledge acquired in the past and all non-personal
experience, reduces theory to a collection of individual generalisations of narrow
empirical experience rendering impossible the development and enrichment of theory
and giving rise to doctrinairism, metaphysics and subjectivism.
Mao’s empiricism in his treatment of the question of the relationship between theory p
and practice, knowledge and experience, is clearly seen in the following statement.
"Knowledge starts with experience—this is the materialism of the theory of
knowledge.” [ 153•1 Moreover, in treating experience as the starting point of 154
knowledge, Mao fails to see the difference between materialism and idealism. The
thesis that "knowledge begins with experience" was typical of materialism prior to
Marx, while today it is highly popular among various trends of subjective idealism,
from the Berkleyans to the neo-Kantian agnostics. Despite all his protestations of
fidelity to class and Party principles, in practice Mao renounces all commitment to
proletarian class and Party principles. Mao Tse-tung’s analysis fails to recognise the
fact that a man’s experience and the way it is reflected in his mind is determined by
his social, class position and is quite independent of his will.
When Mao goes on to supplement his thesis that " knowledge begins with p
experience" with the pragmatist assertion that "generally speaking, what is crowned
with success is right and what is unsuccessful is wrong”, he is adopting a purely
positivist view of practice that is subjective and voluntarist.
Professor Nobushige writes of Mao’s un-Marxist approach to the question of p

experience that these "thoughts of Mao" can be used to justify the practice of any
forces at all, even the most reactionary. After all, according to this logic, in the
period when developing fascism was winning “victories”, this could even serve as
proof that it was “right”. [ 154•1
There is thus clearly nothing new in the Maoist "theory of knowledge”. While
claiming to be the originator of his theory, Mao is in fact either repeating the most
elementary truths of pre-Marxian materialism or expounding his own eclectical brand
of subjective idealism combined with vulgar, mechanistic materialism.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 148•2] Mo-tzu (in Chinese), Peking, 1956, p. 204.
[ 150•1] Hegel, op. cit, p. 35.
[ 151•2] It is worth remembering in this connection that Hegel, in the last century,
held that reason, thought, is present in perception, since a certain level of
generalisation is already underway.
[ 151•3] Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, pp. 207–08.
[ 152•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Four, p. 33.
[ 152•2] F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, p. 267.
[ 154•1] See Mori Nobushige, op. cit.
< >
<< Mao's Oversimplified Approach to The Epistemology of Dialectical >>

Theory Materialism and the Empiricism and
Subjectivism of Mao Tse-tung

THE BASIC LAW OF
DIALECTICS
Maos.Discoveries.in.the.Theory.of.Knowledge
1,779 titles in [ en/TAZ
leninistbiz ]
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 5.4-Empiricism.and.Subjectivism.of.Mao.Tse-tung
MAP

>>>
<< • >> The Epistemology of Dialectical Materialism and the 154

<•> Empiricism and Subjectivism of Mao Tse-tung
TOC The chief features of the epistemology of dialectical materialism (the list is far from p
Card exhaustive) are as follows:
a) the object and reality are regarded as man’s "objective activity”, i.e., Marxism p
Text
associates the process of knowledge as the reflection of the objective world with 155
HTML
PS
man’s revolutionary, practical-critical activity;
PDF
b) Marxism holds that: "Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel and) p
T*
Marxism. This is the ‘aspect’ of the matter (it is not ’an aspect’ but the essence of
19* the matter) to which Plekhanov, not to speak of other Marxists, paid no
attention.” [ 155•1 ;
###
c) Marxism demands that "each proposition should be considered (a) only p
historically, (P) only in connection with others, (i) only in connection with the
concrete experience of history.” [ 155•2 ;
d) Marxism has adopted and develops the materialist theory of reflection. "From p
living perception to abstract thought, and from this to practice—such is the
dialectical path of the cognition of truth, of the cognition of objective
reality.” [ 155•3 Lenin emphasised that dialectics understood as epistemology
reveals the history of knowledge and the inner laws of the transition from ignorance
to knowledge.
On the basis of this fundamental premise the theory of knowledge of dialectical p

materialism examines a wide range of general methodological problems concerning
the relationship between mind and matter, thereby revealing the dialectical link
between mind and matter, the role of labour and other forms of human activity in
the emergence and development of consciousness, the active role of language in
expressing consciousness and in the accumulation and transmission of knowledge.
Marxism-Leninism also examines the reverse process—the influence of man as a
thinking being on the world.
Marxist epistemology is largely concerned with exploring the paths of knowledge, p

its forms and stages. Great stress is placed on the dialectical essence of the process
of cognition, and careful study is made of the various forms of logic, the laws of
thought, the nature of concepts, judgements, views, conclusions and the role of
theories and hypotheses in the discovery of truth.
A basic premise of Marxism-Leninism is that the truth is a process of the p

movement of knowledge from subjective ideas to objective truth via practice (and 156
technology). This was noted by Lenin. The aim is to reveal the relationship between
theory and practice and demostrate the active role of this relationship in man’s
efforts to transform the world.
In order to acquire a correct understanding of Marxist epistemology it is essential to p
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/5.4-Empiricism.and.Subjectivism.of.Mao.Tse-tung[2013-03-30 오전 11:48:52]
examine the materialist theory of reflection in close association with the dialectics of
absolute, relative and objective truth, bringing out their contradictory unity, their
mutual transition into one another, the spiral nature of the process of cognition of
truth, the relationship between the historical and the logical, the importance of the
principle of elevation from the abstract to the concrete in understanding the essence
of things in their dialectical concretion and many aspects, their interpenetration and
mutual transition.
Another major question of Marxist epistemology is the problem of dialectical logic, p

the study of categories as forms of cognition of the essence of the objective world,
analysis of the laws and features of the dialectical process of cognition of nature,
society and thought.
We have no intention of expounding in detail the theory of knowledge of dialectical p

materialism. However, a brief look at the basic problems of Marxist epistemology
and a comparison with the way they are treated in the articles of Mao Tse-tung,
shows the absurdity of the claims that vulgarised repetition of a few elementary
premises from manuals of Marxist philosophy constitute "the very best generalisation
of the basic content of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism”. The
“profound” content of the Maoist "theory of knowledge" can be summed up in the
following statement. "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.” [ 156•1
In "On Practice" Mao repeats and chews over the basically correct idea that practice p
is the source of knowledge, but in so doing he vulgarises and distorts it, identifying
practice with experience and making direct personal experience the source of all 157
knowledge. Thus, he writes: "Anyone who wants to know a thing has no way of
doing so except by coming into contact with it, i.e., by living (practising) in its
surroundings.... If you want to gain knowledge, you must participate in the practice
of changing reality.... If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you
must participate in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates from direct
experience.” [ 157•1 Or again: ”. . .Marxism teaches that in our approach to a
problem we should start not from abstract definitions but from objective facts and,
by analysing these facts, determine the way we shall go, our policies and
methods.” [ 157•2 A reader who is unaware that Mao identifies practice with
subjective perceptual experience and reduces objective reality as necessary being to
the sum of facts (the insertion of the word “objective” makes no real difference)
might well be duped into regarding the above statements as correct Marxist theses.
Mori Nobushige points out that Mao fails to draw a distinction between materialist,
and positivist individual, concretion and that the former is dissolved in the latter, so
that Mao’s references to "specific essence" and "specific contradictions" can contain
nothing but pragmatism. Nobushige notes how Mao, in both theory and practice,
confuses the concepts of “reality” and “actuality”. This represents a failure to draw a
distinction between phenomena in their totality and empirical facts as simple actual
being, on the one hand, and reality as the manifestation of what is essential and
fundamental in the development of nature, society and knowledge, on the other.
Since Maoist epistemology does not distinguish between the logical and the p
historical in the development of the process of knowledge and ignores the method of
elevation from the abstract to the concrete, Mao Tse-tung’s conclusions are abstract
postulates, devoid of the wealth of concrete reality. Mao’s vague general formulae,
although "derived from analysis" of certain "objective facts”, remain lifeless,

incomplete, one-sided postulates, since they are not enriched with concrete content in
the course of collation with practice, with experience. In contrast to Maoism,
Marxism-Leninism reviews practice as the sum practice of the working class of a 158
given country and the practice of the working class of all other countries taken
together, as national and international experience (in the case of social experience) in
their entirety, as the sum of the scientific experience of past and present, the
experience derived from experiments in a given science and allied sciences (in the
case of knowledge in the social sciences).
Marx wrote that the method of elevatoin from the abstract to the concrete is simply
a method by means of which thought takes hold of the concrete and reproduces it as
the spiritually concrete, and that it is never under any circumstances the process of
emergence of the concrete itself. Since Mao Tsetung’s concepts and deductions never
go through the stage of taking hold of the concrete, with Mao the combination of
theory with practice is frequently achieved by postulating reality from abstract
definitions. In this case theory simply becomes an apology for subjectivist practice.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 155•2] Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 250.
[ 155•3] Ibid., Vol. 38, p. 171.
[ 156•1] Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, pp. 208–09.
[ 157•1] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume One, pp. 286, 288.
[ 157•2] Ibid., Volume Four, p. 69.
< >
<< Mao's ``Discoveries'' in the Theory >>

of Knowledge

THE BASIC LAW OF
DIALECTICS
Empiricism.and.Subjectivism.of.Mao.Tse-tung
1,779 titles in [ en/TAZ
leninistbiz ]
online
@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176: 6-Conclusion
MAP

>>>
<< • >> CONCLUSION 159

<•>
For years the name of Mao Tse-tung was associated in the minds of many people p
TOC in various countries with the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people and the
Card activity of the Communist Party of China. This impression, promoted by the Maoist
claims that Mao has brilliantly applied the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism to
Chinese conditions, makes it especially hard for some people to understand the
Text present nationalist and anti-Soviet policy of the Mao group. At the same time, they
HTML
tend to regard Mao Tse-tung’s departure from Marxism-Leninism as a recent
PS
phenomenon, an accidental zig-zag, and feel that it is only a question of appealing to
PDF
his reason and conscience and he will think better of it, and everything will return to
normal. But this is simply an infantile illusion, and a very dangerous one at that,
T*
19*
since it disarms the Communists in the face of the splitting activity of the Maoists,
enabling them to continue their corruption of the communist movement from within.
###
Many Marxist works have been published in the Soviet Union and other countries p
recently, analysing the historical roots of Mao Tse-tung’s anti-Marxist views, and
removing the mask to show Mao’s policies as they really are, the stand he took at
all the main stages of the Chinese revolution. Worthy of special mention are the
book by Wang Ming (Chen Shao-yu), prominent member of the CPC, member of the
CPC Central Committee of the sixth, seventh and eighth convocations, On the Events
in China, published by the Soviet publishing house Politicheskaya literatura in 1969,
and the memoirs of the German Communist internationalist Otto Braun published in
several numbers of the weekly Horizon (GDR) and later in the Soviet weekly Za
Rubezhom in 1969 and 1970. The pamphlet Pages from the Political Biography of 160
Mao Tse-tung by O. Vladimirov and V. Ryazanstev contains valuable factual
material on the nationalist, anti-Marxist views and anti-Party activities of Mao. The
above-mentioned material proves conclusively that Mao Tsetung never was a genuine
Marxist or a real Communist but simply joined the communist movement because it
was the movement with the most authority, that Mao’s aims were only consonant
with those of the communist movement at the stage of the national revolutionary
struggle for the liberation of China from foreign capital and feudalism.
Yet there are still people with rather hazy notions of Marxism-Leninism who under p
the influence of Maoist and imperialist propaganda continue to regard Mao as a "lost
sheep" who can be returned to the fold, as a “seeking” Marxist.
Certain Maoist theses seem attractive to some politicians and revolutionaries in the p
Afro-Asian countries who lack the reliable information necessary to form a correct
concept of their essence. If they actually visit China they are surrounded by so much
false propaganda and agitation that they are quite unable to gain any real insight into
what is going on and simply have to take at its face value everything that is foisted
upon them and whatever they are “shown”.
These revolutionaries from Asia and Africa accept the outward propaganda aspect of p
Maoism as its true essence. Thus, some Arab freedom fighters believe Mao’s
declarations of support for them, little suspecting that while publicly announcing their
support for the Arab struggle, including the struggle of the Palestinian Arabs, the
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/6-Conclusion[2013-03-30 오전 11:49:29]
Maoists are doing everything in their power "behind the scenes" to prolong the
struggle. In this connection we cannot do better than quote from a speech made by
Mao Tse-tung at a meeting in Pehtaiho as long ago as August 17, 1958, which was
reported in the Hungweiping journal Tung-fang hung in July 1967.
“It is best to work from the premise that tension is more to our advantage and less p
to the advantage of the West. Tension is advantageous to the West in that it permits
them to expand arms production and it is to our advantage in that it can set in
motion all active factors. ... Let the Americans and the English stay in the Lebanon
and Jordan as long as possible. We must not help the Americans appear in a good
light. Every extra day they stay there helps us by giving us material for articles 161
exposing them, makes the American imperialists remain the object of universal
condemnation. But when we are making propaganda we should not talk in this
manner; we should say that they must get out immediately" (Emphasis added.—M.A.,
V.G.) This is what Mao’s “support” is really worth!
Hundreds of thousands of Chinese are herded to meetings in Peking and p

representatives from Asia, Africa and Latin America are invited. Mao publishes a
declaration demanding that "the American paper tigers" clear out of Vietnam,
Cambodia, Laos, Africa and Latin America. Yet, all the efforts of Peking, working
through secret diplomatic channels, are directed towards keeping the Americans as
long as possible in the places where the Maoists themselves are not yet in a position
to set up their own rule. Mao speculates on the discontent of peoples with the
aggressive actions of the Americans. He demonstrates his "revolutionary ardour" in
an orgy of hypocrisy, in words but not in deeds, and tries to influence public
opinion in these countries and the members of the liberation movement there in the
spirit of Maoism.
It requires tremendous lucidity and sober-mindedness on the part of revolutionaries p

to understand what lies behind the “revolutionary” phrases and declarations of Mao
and his entourage. Here we have the extremely dangerous situation when the general
position of the struggle in several areas of the world makes revolutionaries fall an
easy prey to the influence of revolutionary phrases, which leads to the defeat of the
revolution and the destruction of the revolutionaries themselves. Lenin, the great
master of revolution, warned revolutionaries of this danger.
The tragic experience of the revolutionary movements in a number of Afro-Asian p

and Latin American countries in the last decade reveals the danger all too plainly.
Surely the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian Communists after the
events of September 30, 1965, serves as a severe enough warning of the dangers of
following the advice of Mao Tse-tung and his emissaries. Here is surely ample
evidence that we are not dealing with the mistakes and errors of a Marxist but with
an attempt to make use of the authority of Marxism-Leninism and use the world
revolutionary cause for the furtherence of the great-power chauvinist plans of the 162
Maoist leadership in Peking and their appetite for hegemony.
The myth of Mao being a man who is trying to inspire the younger generation with p
revolutionary ardour and challenge bureaucracy and stagnation has gained wide
currency among Left-wing youth in Europe and America. Some student groups at the
Sorbonne and Rome University hold demonstrations demanding social transformations
and democratic reforms in the education system at which they carry portraits not
only of Marx and Lenin but also of Mao Tse-tung. They have heard, and read in the
bulletins distributed by Chinese embassies and missions in millions of copies, that
Mao called the young people of China to revolt. They are impressed by Mao’s thesis
"Revolt is a just cause”. They have heard that Mao called for the destruction of the
"old patterns" and "the bourgeois education system”. These young people seem to
believe these "thoughts of Mao" correspond to their own sentiments. They do not
realise what it was that Mao really called upon the young people of China, blinded
by fanaticism, to revolt against. The "Little Red Book" and Chinese propaganda
material does not mention the fact that Mao was really making use of the young
people as a blind tool for the destruction of the very gains, of the very system, that
give young people real freedom, develop their creative ability and make them real
masters. The "Little Red Book" and other Chinese propaganda pamphlets do not tell
how the very same young people whom Mao called to revolt are now being driven
by Chinese army units from the towns into wild mountain regions and deserts to be
used to carry out acts of provocation against China’s neighbours, and herded into
military settlements on the borders of the Soviet Union, Mongolia, India, Vietnam
and Burma.
These little red-covered pocket books and pamphlets printed on excellent fine paper, p
naturally make no mention of the fact that over seventy million Chinese children are
unable to receive an education as a result of this “revolt”, and that hundreds of
thousands of former students will be unable to complete their studies at university
and institute. Mao himself declared in November, 1968, "The sky will not fall down
if enrolment to the higher educational institutions is suspended for two or three
years!”
These little books, red in colour, but black-brown in content, do not quote such p 163
statements of Mao as those he made in 1964, on the eve of the "cultural revolution":
"Schools are little vaults, emitting evil everywhere, and shallow ponds teeming with
turtles”; "A science course can be cut in half. Confucius taught only six arts:
ceremony, music, archery, charioteering, the holy writings and arithmetic. If you read
a lot of books, you’ll never become an emperor... . The trouble now is, first that
there are too many subjects and second that there are too many books.”
As a warning to those who still associate the red colour of the Maoist pamphlets p
distributed outside China with revolution and communism, we quote the words of
several prominent Chinese Communists who emerged from the crucible of the
Chinese revolution only to fall victims to arbitrary Maoist persecution in the course
of the "cultural revolution”. Sun Yeh-fang, director of the Institute of Economics of
the Chinese Academy of Sciences: "To follow the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung in life
is the same as wearing dark glasses on a dark night.”
Wang Jen-chung, member of the CPC Central Committee of the eighth convocation, p
until 1966 Secretary of the CentralSouth Bureau of the Central Committee (reported
in the Chinese press in June 1966 as having swum with Mao during his fantastic
record swim that summer): "The thoughts of Mao Tse-tung are an insipid rice dish,
to which one must add one’s own oil and salt in order to make it edible.”
Tao Chu, member of the CPC Central Committee up to 1967, and once an ardent p
champion of the "thoughts of Mao": "Reflections on the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung
are like a fountain without water”; "Chairman Mao’s ideas of socialism are the
socialism of poverty and agony”; "The ’three banners’ policy is a suicidal policy”;
"The Great Leap Forward is solving tasks by the method of the despot Shih Huang
Ti: ’kill the duck to obtain the egg’.” [ 163•1
One could go on and on quoting such views, which it must be remembered were p
expressed by people who for years were close to Mao Tse-tung, propagated his ideas
and believed the Mao myth. It was only when they came to put these “thoughts” into 164
practice that they became convinced of how unfeasible and far-removed from reality
they were. Thus the Soviet magazine Kommunist (No. 3, 1969) was perfectly correct
in its characterisation of Maoism as an anti-Marxist trend in its editorial "The
Features of the Situation in China and the Position of the CPC at the Present Stage”.
"The Maoist programme on questions of social construction is extremely ‘radical’
and ‘Left-wing’ in form, but reactionary and Utopian in content. The programme is
the outcome of a total rejection of the Leninist principles of socialist construction
and an inability to find correct, effective methods of solving the complicated
problems in an extremely backward peasant country.”
Unbiased analysis of "the thoughts of Mao”, of his philosophical and political p

views, shows that the theory and practice of Mao Tse-tung and his followers has
nothing at all in common with Marxism-Leninism and scientific communism, except
for a certain terminological similarity. But the great danger of this ideology is that
with its subtle methods of disguising itself as revolutionary Marxism and attempts to
speak in the name of socialism and world revolution it is sowing confusion in minds
of some sections of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement, especially
among young revolutionaries. Moreover, Maoism thereby creates highly favourable
conditions for anti-communist ideological propaganda against revolution, Marxism–
Leninism, and scientific socialism.
It is significant that imperialist propaganda has been altering its sights in recent p
years. Whereas at one time tons of paper were used to discredit the revolutionary
struggle of the Chinese people and its Communist Party, today alongside attempts to
capitalise on the difficulties of political and economic development that have arisen
from the policy of the Mao group, there is a growing tendency to express a kind of
respect for the present Chinese leaders and present them as people with a concern
for their country’s interests and national grandeur.
Anti-communist centres in the USA, Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany p
hold wide symposia and “ scientific” conferences at which many distinguished
Sinologists make zealous attempts to detect “Marxist”, “Leninist”, “Stalinist”, etc,
elements in the views of Mao Tse-tung and try to gain acceptance for Mao’s 165
"Chinese model of communism”. Thus, at a symposium held in the USA in 1966 on
the subject "What Is Maoism?”, material from which appeared in the journal
Problems of Communism, [ 165•1 such outstanding Sinologists and Sovietologists as
S. R. Schram, R. Cohen and B. Schwarz tried very hard to prove that Mao Tse-tung
is an adherent of Marxism-Leninism, that he has shown "concern for preserving the
spirit of revolutionary struggle”, that he is "a Leninist revolutionary and an
AfroAsian nationalist”.
Apart from the various symposia and numerous articles published in both scholarly p
and popular journals and magazines, many American and West European Sinologists
have devoted monographs to Mao Tse-tung and his “thoughts”, in which the
abundant factual material is often interpreted in such a way as to present Mao as the
founder of a new model of socialism. Thus, Professor Robert North of Standford
University (California) named his book Chinese Communism. It is as though
Professor North were trying to lend support to Chen Po-ta’s thesis that "the ideals of
socialism and communism.. . have not been introduced from outside”. It is
significant that many of these authors “ conscientiously” repeat the anti-Soviet
inventions of Maoist propaganda. Although they are in possession of the facts about
the history of the CPC, they are nevertheless equally “conscientious” about repeating
many Maoist fabrications concerning the history of the Chinese revolution and the
CPC that are designed to discredit the Comintern and the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union and minimise the importance of the help China received from the
international communist movement and the socialist countries.
Some bourgeois propaganda agents insist that Mao is a "true Marxist”, that Mao and p
his group and not the communist parties criticising them are right from the
standpoint of Marxist theory. Such “concern” for the revolution and the purity of
Marxist theory from its most inveterate enemies has far-reaching aims—the
discrediting of the ideals of socialism and communism.
It is no accident that the leaders of the Trotskyite Fourth International have been p 166
increasingly active champions and “volunteer” propagandists of "the thoughts of
Mao" in various countries over the last few years. Maoist and Trotskyite views
coincide on many points. The present-day Trotskyites are quite correct when they
claim priority for invention of numerous theoretical propositions of Mao Tsetung,
such as the theory of "permanent revolution”, the "thesis of the continuation of the
revolution during the dictatorship of the proletariat”, the thesis of "the restoration of
capitalism in the USSR" and a host of other anti-Soviet concoctions. They are
equally justified in claiming that the "cultural revolution" in China is the realisation
of Trotsky’s ideas of struggle against "bureaucratisation of the Party”, etc.
Several foreign publicists write articles and make statements in which they attempt p
to justify the anti-socialist, anti-Marxist views and practice of Mao Tse-tung taking a
"broad view”, repeating what are essentially Maoist theses, such as "the experience
of the October Revolution is no use to China”, and the idea that Mao has created a
special " Chinese brand of socialism”. Thus, the editor-in-chief of the Yugoslav
journal International Politics even tries to ascribe to Mao "creative development of
the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of socialist revolution”. Without knowing anything of
China and the real practice of Mao Tse-tung during the last few years, he tries to
present the "cultural revolution" as enriching the theory of socialism and even as the
passage from "the period of etatisation and bureaucratisation of socialist society in
China" to the period of "democratisation and humanisation of social relations”. It is
difficult to find a greater misapprehension of the real situation in China than this.
These authors, having no real knowledge of the essence of the events in China or p
of Mao’s real policy, see just what they wish to see in the theory and practice of
Maoism.
The development of events in China and the policy of the Peking leadership cannot p
but arouse genuine concern and alarm among all honest men throughout the world,
among all revolutionaries and progressives, and all genuine friends of the Chinese
people.
This is why in exposing the disruptive, anti-Soviet activities of the Maoist leadership p
it is essential to analyse and criticise the theoretical roots of Maoism, its class and 167
ideological basis.
The present work has been an attempt at a critical analysis of one of the p
components of Maoism, its philosophy. This analysis shows beyond doubt that the
theoretical errors of Mao Tse-tung can on no account be considered temporary,
chance phenomena, but that they derive inevitably from his outlook.
Mao Tse-tung has never been a Marxist in his philosophical views. Firstly, he treats p
the basic question of philosophy from a subjective-idealist, and not a materialist,
standpoint, regarding ideas, subjective activity, as the determinant of social
development and substituting the question of the relationship between subject and
object for the question of the relationship between mind and matter.
Secondly, Mao distorts the concept of “practice”, reducing it to the practice of the p
class struggle of the Chinese peasantry. Mao combines universalisation of this
practice with an empirical approach to theory.
Thirdly, Mao Tse-tung has reduced the rich content of the laws of the dialectics to p
one single law, the law of the unity and conflict of opposites, distorting it,
refurbishing it with naive dialectical ideas and the theory of the antagonism of two
opposed forces (the theory of balance).
Fourthly, Mao Tse-tung treats the process of knowledge as a purely mechanistic p

relationship between the perceptual and rational stages.
Fifthly, Maoist philosophy ignores the concrete-historical approach to analysis of the p

phenomena and processes of the objective world. In other words, it does not contain
the feature that distinguishes Marxist philosophy from all other philosophies.
Sixthly—and this is extremely important—Mao Tse-tung regards various p

philosophical problems from the standpoint of nationalism and Sinocentrism.
Mao simply borrows Marxist-Leninist formulae and nomenclature wholesale. But the p
presentation of a few general premises of Marxist philosophy in popular, vulgarised
form can be ignored since it does not constitute an organic part of Mao Tse-tung’s
philosophical views.
The claims that Maoist philosophy represents a new stage in the development of p
Marxist philosophy are thus quite unfounded. On the contrary, it really takes several 168
steps backwards in the history of world philosophy.
It emerges clearly from analysis of the works of Mao that he never properly p
understood Marxism-Leninism, but while capitalising on Marxist revolutionary
terminology continued to adhere to the views of peasant revolutionary democracy
combined with militant great-Han chauvinism. Mao Tse-tung never advanced beyond
the Chinese bourgeois and petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, and this applies not only
to his philosophical views.
In political economy Mao’s only “contributions” have been the idea of a Great Leap p
Forward and the "people’s communes”, "the law of saddle-like development of the
economy”, and more recently, the creation of isolated seminatural, economic units in
the towns, the countryside and the army. Moreover, when applied in practice, these
ideas eventually led to the economic stagnation and political crisis which China is at
present experiencing.
Therefore, regarded from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint, the theoretical works of p

Mao Tse-tung and the Maoist claims that Mao’s ideas contained in articles written
twenty to thirty years ago and the anti-Soviet articles of recent years represent "the
Marxism-Leninism of the contemporary age" only raise a smile.
The so-called “thoughts” of Mao on theory and practice are an eclectical jumble of p
petty-bourgeois revolutionarism, sinified social-chauvinism, Confucianism and
Utopian egalitarian socialism with a sprinkling of Marxist-Leninist theses in a vulgar,
simplified interpretation.
Maoism does not represent an integrated system ideologically and the only things p
that it systematically justifies and substantiates are nationalism, hegemony and anti-
Sovietism.
In creating this eclectical ideological concoction, Mao Tse-tung and his group base p
themselves on the idea that the broad masses of people participating in the revolution
have no time to go into the finer points of doctrine and are attracted by short snappy
slogans, the idea that attractive slogans can make the doctrine attractive even if it is
little understood.
In the case of China, the spread of myths and legends about Mao Tse-tung and his p
“thoughts” is favoured by the fact that almost half the population are illiterate, by the
fact that the majority of Party members and the working class are, for historical 169
reasons, ill-prepared as regards general education and training in theory, and also the
fact that the population live in complete ignorance of what is going on at home and
abroad, in total isolation from the outside world.
In the international field, the extremely abstract character of the ostensibly radical p
theses of Maoism favours its mythicisation, enabling the Maoists to conceal their real
aims and foreign revolutionaries to imbue the Maoist theses with whatever concent
they please, according to their own sentiments and aims, which have nothing at all
to do with the real aims of Maoism. The weaving of myths around China and Mao
Tse-tung is also promoted by the fact that Mao and his followers prevent the spread
of real documentary information about China, the history of the Chinese revolution
and the present situation in the country, but instead propagandise the "Little Red
Book" and disseminate various panegyrics to the wisdom of the “thoughts” of Mao.
Maoism is not, and cannot be a form of creative development of Marxism-Leninism p

applied to Chinese conditions, since, if examined soberly, Mao’s works of the 1930s
and 1940s deal mainly with various stages of guerrilla warfare and universalise
specific features of the Chinese revolution and not the revolutionary experience of
the Chinese people over the last forty to fifty years.
The Chinese revolution is a complicated phenomenon, containing much that is p

original and unique in the world revolutionary process, and therefore to pick certain
individual features, however important, and present them as universal truths—dogmas
that must be accepted by all countries and peoples—is to distort the experience of
the Chinese revolution and the history of the revolutionary process as a whole. As
Lenin pointed out: ".. . any truth, if ’ overdone’ (as Dietzgen Senior put it), if
exaggerated, or if carried beyond the limits of its actual applicability, can be reduced
to an absurdity, and is even bound to become an absurdity under these
conditions.” [ 169•1 This is what has happened to the works of Mao Tse-tung.
Therefore, all the attempts of the Maoists to impose Maoism on the Chinese people
and the world revolutionary movement as a whole in place of Marxism-Leninism are 170
doomed to failure.
At the Ninth Congress of the CPC, Maoism was declared the basic ideology of the p
new regime. After the Ninth Congress, the process of Maoism’s break with Marxism-
Leninism can be considered completed. Words borrowed from the Marxist lexicon
are all that remain of Marxism-Leninism in the official views of Peking on all major
questions of philosophy, political economy and the theory of Communism.
The chief difference between Maoism and Marxism is that while the latter is a p
science, the former has evolved into a kind of religion with its own Church.
Afraid to risk allowing their views to face the test of aware, informed criticism, the p
Maoists try to limit as far as possible all knowledge that could rival the dogma they
are enforcing from above. What Mao Tse-tung and his supporters really need is
ignorant, spiritual paupers, and they would like to limit the knowledge of every
working person to the most primitive minimum necessary for him to fulfil his labour
function.
Identifying Marxism-Leninism with religion, the Maoists also tried at the Ninth p
Congress to present their leader as the successor to Marx and Lenin, as a theorist
who has made a notable contribution to the development of Marxist-Leninist thought.
The frequent verbal references to Marxism-Leninism at the Congress and in other p

CPC documents makes it necessary to begin by carefully examining the slogans and
theses borrowed from Marxism-Leninism as a cover for the real views and
instructions that underlie the present policy of the Mao group, and secondly—and
this is especially important— to carefully distinguish between the words and slogans
of the Mao group and their practical policy.
At least two points of ideology draw attention to themselves in the material of the p
Ninth Congress. Firstly, an attempt was made to use the Marxist-Leninist banner that
is sacred to all socialists to cover a grotesque parody of socialism and betrayal of
proletarian revolutionary theory.
The most typical feature of the policy proclaimed by the Ninth Congress was that it p
shifts the centre of gravity in the Party and the entire activity of the state from
questions of developing the economy and socialist construction to foreign policy 171
aims, the struggle for the assertion of the nationalistic aspirations of the Mao group.
Basically, all the directions of the Ninth Congress are aimed at creating a militarist-
bureaucratic state capable of conducting an adventurist great-power policy in
international affairs, spearheaded against the socialist countries and the world
communist movement. The Maoists try to justify this volte-face with the old
Trotskyite idea of the impossibility of the revolution triumphing in one country
without the triumph of the world revolution. Lin Piao made the following statement
in his speech, citing Mao Tse-tung: "From the Leninist viewpoint ultimate victory in
one socialist country does not only depend on the efforts of the proletariat and broad
popular masses of that country: it depends on the triumph of the world revolution
and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man throughout the world, leading to
the emancipation of all mankind.”
Surely no special evidence is required to show that this thesis has nothing at all in p
common with Leninism. The Communists of the Soviet Union, and the Communists
of other countries too, realise perfectly well, as they have for a long time, that this
was the thesis with which the Trotskyites attacked Leninism, tried to turn the CPSU
aside from the solution of the tasks of economic and social development and urge
the Soviet Union along the slippery path of adventures and provocations in the
international field.
Now this thesis is being made full use of by the Maoists. It is serving the same p
ends as it did in the past—attacking Leninism and justifying an adventurist,
expansionist foreign policy.
Today, the Chinese people are being informed of "the great strategy" of Mao Tse- p
tung—"preparation for the event of war, preparation for the event of natural disasters,
all for the people”. They are being told: "We cannot speak of final victory yet. Nor
shall we be able to speak of it in the next decade.”
The Maoists had recourse to this theory in order to forestall criticism and evade p
responsibility for the deterioration of the people’s living conditions, the ruination of
the national economy and their adventures abroad.
The aim pursued in advancing the thesis of the permanent threat of restoration of p
capitalism as the central guiding principle of the whole political and ideological
activity of the leadership for the whole period of socialism is intended to create an 172
atmosphere of "imminent crisis”, general political tension which the Maoists can use
for the purpose of tightening their control. It serves them as an excuse to organise
permanent persecution of progressive forces, of all who disagree with the reactionary
Maoist policy. In fact, it is this that leads to the realisation of the possibility of
social degeneration and a counter-revolutionary restoration of the worst forms of
anti-popular, bureaucratic dictatorship, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the
regime of Chiang Kai-shek and similar regimes.
What, one wonders, is the Maoist "new order"? Lin Piao’s speech formulates and p
makes public in a more or less complete form Mao’s principles of the organisation
of society. The new state machinery is roughly as follows.
The Army is declared to be the main decisive element of the whole social structure, p
and is regarded as the main bulwark of the new regime, "the main element of the
state”.
For Mao the Army is the main organisational bulwark of the present regime. Its p
main function is to keep the whole population subject to "the thoughts of Mao”. As
a result, the Army is torn away from its social basis and ceases to be an army of
workers and peasants to become the instrument of the military-bureaucratic
dictatorship of the Mao group. In these conditions the social contradictions of
Chinese society are not reduced but increased, and the very fact that the Army is
used for coercion of the masses speaks of the corruptness of the regime and the
inability of the Mao group to retain power without daily resorting to armed force.
Mao Tse-tung draws extensively on the experience of Chiang Kai-shek, and it is no p

accident that he has repeatedly referred to him as his teacher. Chiang Kai-shek’s
main support and organisational strength lay in the Army, which controlled all the
higher organs of power. Military men are in the majority in the new CPC Central
Committee and Politburo. All the so-called revolutionary committees that have
replaced the constitutional organs of power and the Party committees are controlled
by the military. The leaders of twenty-four out of twenty-nine "provincial
revolutionary committees" and committees in the cities that come under central
authority are military men. The Chinese working class, disunited and disorganised, is
actually no more than an object of politics, and the most widely proclaimed slogan 173
"The working class directs everything" is simply the fig-leaf of the regime of
personal power of Mao Tse-tung and his entourage. This was once more confirmed
and strengthened by the Ninth Congress in its unprecedented resolutions on the
“permanent” nature of the leadership, the naming of successor, etc.
The Ninth Congress was, in fact, the culminating point of the efforts of Mao and p
his followers to turn the CPC into an organisation on an army model, with strict
discipline entirely adapted to suit the requirements of the military– bureaucratic
dictatorship and its anti-popular policy. The decisions of the Congress show that in
the protracted struggle of the internationalist forces in the CPC against adventurist,
anti-Marxist policy of Mao Tse-tung the scales have, for the time being, tipped in
favour of the Maoists.
The Ninth Congress fundamentally revised the political, organisational and p

ideological principles of the Party. The new Rules formally declaring the CPC to be
"the political organisation of the proletariat" in fact serve to turn the Party into the
obedient tool of the military-bureaucratic dictatorship.
Mao Tse-tung s policy in Party construction also represents a revival of the p

militarist, monarchist principles of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang. At one time the
Chinese revolutionaries condemned the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek regime for
demanding that the whole country "must bow to one leader wielding absolute
power”, and "only accept what the leader says as right”. In the Kuomintang it was
the practice to take the "oath of loyalty" to the leader, and there existed the principle
"faith in the leader must extend to superstition, obedience to the leader must be blind
submission”. It is difficult to see where the difference lies between the Kuomintang
“rules” and the instruction of Mao Tse-tung and Lin Piao on taking the oath to the
three loyalties to Mao Tse-tung instituted by Mao, or such Maoist thesis as "we
must carry out the instructions of Chairman Mao irrespective of whether we have
understood their importance or not”, [ 173•1 or again that "devotion to Chairman
Mao is the chief criterion of the transformation of outlook". [ 173•2
In order to ensure that Mao has a completely free hand in the Party, its leading p 174
organs have been made into a family patrimony. The Politburo includes wives, a
son-in-law, a former bodyguard, Mao’s private secretary and Lin Piao’s wife.
During the Chinese revolution the Chinese Communists called the usurpation of p
power in Kuomintang China by four families "the shame and misfortune of the
Chinese people”. Today China is once more ruled by an anti-popular group that
strengthens its grip of the country by violence, terror and unbridled demagogy.
Social relations are made to conform with Mao’s idea of "the continuation of the p
revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat”. Lin Piao says: "Chairman Mao
Tse-tung, for the first time in the theory and practice of the international communist
movement, put forward the clear doctrine that after the basic completion of socialist
transformation of ownership of the means of production, classes and the class
struggle continue to exist, and the proletariat must continue to carry on the
revolution.”
The laws of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat are major principles p
of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin’s doctrine of the inevitability of struggle between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie during the period of transition from capitalism to
socialism is one of the major weapons in the arsenal of the proletarian parties and
has been confirmed and reconfirmed by the experience of socialist revolution.
The Maoists take these ideas, amputate them from their historical context and try to p
place them, thus distorted and mutilated, in the service of their ignoble aims.
Lenin pointed out that the question of "who beats whom" is decided at the stage of p
transition from capitalism to socialism; the Maoists insist that the issue remains in
the balance throughout the period of communist construction. Lenin pointed out that
the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is waged at the stage
when socialism has not yet been built and, consequently, when hostile classes
continue to exist within society: the Maoists assert that the class struggle continues
after the triumph of socialism, in socialist society. Lenin pointed out that the
culminating point in the class struggle is the socialist revolution, the seizing of power 175
by the proletariat: the Maoists maintain that the class struggle becomes more and
more fiercer as society advances from capitalism to communism. Most important of
all, Lenin demonstrated the inevitability of struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie resisting the revolution, and the struggle between proletarian and
bourgeois ideology, whereas the Maoists aim not at struggle against the bourgeoisie
but at struggle with Party and state workers, the Communists, the advanced workers,
peasants and intellectuals who have opposed or refused to give active support to the
personal regime of Mao Tse-tung. This is hardly the "class struggle of the
proletariat”, or "the continuation of the revolution”. It is simply a group struggle for
power, for personal influence. This “revolution” has all the features of counter-
revolution.
The real purpose of the ideological theses and political slogans advanced at the p
Ninth Congress of the CPC and officially named "Mao Tse-tung’s Thought" is seen
when we compare the theory of the Maoists with their practice. Such comparison
immediately reveals that the thesis of " strengthening the dictatorship of the
proletariat" is simply a cover for the struggle to affirm the dictatorship of Mao Tse-
tung and his entourage, that the slogan "continuation of the revolution during the
dictatorship of the proletariat" really stands for the destruction of all the political
institutions of worker and peasant government as the result of a reactionary take-
over, that the slogan "purge the Party of people who are following the capitalist
path" means liquidation of the opponents of the personal dictatorship of Mao Tse-
tung and Maoism, that the slogan "strengthen the role of the working class" is
simply called upon to conceal the Maoists’ reliance on special army units, isolated
from the masses and set up in opposition to them, and on the petty-bourgeois strata
corrupted by chauvinism, and, finally, that the slogan "defence of the purity of
Marxism-Leninism" really means the implantation of Maoism and the "sinification of
socialchauvinism”.
A society built according to the principles of the "thoughts of Mao" is the antithesis p
of scientific socialism. In economics it means labour organised on army principles
according to the triple union system "worker, peasant and soldier”, the curbing of
consumption, "conducting a policy of rationally low wages”, "food for three people
must be eaten by five”, the concentration of all accumulated wealth for the needs of 176
"preparation for war" and the creation of a nuclear missile force. In social life it
means the forced levelling of society and the reduction of every individual to the
position of "a stainless screw”, an "obedient buffalo”, a “soldier” of Chairman Mao.
In ideology it means preservation of the cultural backwardness of the bulk of the
population, the forced indoctrination of the whole people in the spirit of the "Mao
Tse-tung’s Thoughts”, and complete isolation from advanced world culture. In
politics it is the complete abolition of the institutions of socialist democracy, the
dictatorial regime of a narrow group of people led by Mao Tsetung, the violation of
all legality, the militarisation of the whole political structure of society, and
systematic purges of “heretics” in the form of "cultural revolutions”.
Such are the inevitable pernicious consequences of the "Mao Tse-tung’s Thoughts”, p
of the anti-humanitarian philosophy and policy of Mao Tse-tung. Such is the
reactionary Utopia anti-Communists are trying to present as a creative combination of
Marxism-Leninism with Chinese conditions, a "new brand of socialism”, a "creative
contribution" and which the Maoists are trying to put into practice.
It is patently evident that Maoism is incompatible with Leninism. At the p

International Meeting held in 1969, the Communist and Workers’ parties subjected
the Maoist ideology to principled and scathing criticism. Maoism is a pettybourgeois

ideological and political trend, fundamentally alien to Marxism-Leninism, living
parasitically at the expense of the principles of scientific socialism, and adroitly
exploiting the strivings of the Chinese people to achieve socialism. It is a militaristic
variety of social-chauvinism, its purposes being at variance with those of the world
communist and liberation movements.
As Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, p

emphasised in the CC report to the 24th Party Congress, ".. .the Chinese leaders
have put forward an ideological-political platform of their own, which is
incompatible with Leninism on the key questions of international life and the world
communist movement, and have demanded that we should abandon the line of the
20th Congress and the Programme of the CPSU”.
For this reason the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its Central Committee p 177
have resolutely opposed the attempts to distort the Marxist-Leninist teaching, and to
split the international communist movement and the ranks of the anti-imperialist
fighters.
The 24th Party Congress approved this line of the CPSU Central Committee. The
Congress resolution notes that the "CC CPSU had taken the only correct stand—a
stand of consistently defending the principles of Marxism-Leninism, utmost
strengthening of the unity of the world communist movement, and protection of the
interests of our socialist Motherland”. This position of the Leninist Party is firmly
supported and approved by most of the Communists throughout the world, by the
progressives fighting against imperialism, for peace, democracy and socialism.
***
TEXT SIZE
normal
Notes
[ 163•1] All these statements were published as evidence of the “

counterrevolutionary” views of these people in the Hungweiping press, in articles
about their conviction by the Hungweipings.
[ 165•1] Sec Problems of Communism, Vol. XV, No. 5 (Washington, September-

October, 19G6), pp. 1-30.
[ 173•1] Jen-min jih-pao, July 18, 1967.
[ 173•2] Jen-min jih-pao, November 27, 1967.
< >
<< >>
<<< CHAPTER V -- MARXIST- >>>

LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND
MAOIST ``LEAPS'' IN THEORY OF
KNOWLEDGE
http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/6-Conclusion
@LBiz: Emacs-Lisp
How We Make This Site

tar archives (gzipped)
~/leninist.biz$ ls -l *.tgz
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 309807 2009-08-01 07:32 dotindex.tgz
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 320042 2009-08-01 07:32 el.tgz (see *.el below)
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 606747 2009-08-01 07:32 makesite.tgz
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 131369812 2009-08-01 07:51 tx.tgz
Miscellaneous
~/leninist.biz$ ls __ lb.sh lb-db__.awk
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 3179 2009-06-04 13:42 lb.sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 6787 2009-09-12 18:47 __
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 2209 2009-09-05 09:52 lb-tar.sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 2417 2009-05-31 04:26 lb-db__.awk
*.el
~/leninist.biz$ ls *.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 2195 2007-08-17 13:21 _-defvar.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 69951 2009-09-18 22:01 _.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 3310 2008-02-15 14:10 file-stamp.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 30014 2009-06-04 14:22 lb-abbyy.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 4122 2009-09-06 21:07 lb-batch.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 64097 2009-10-01 22:20 lb-db.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 19839 2009-07-31 21:02 lb-defun.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 47378 2009-10-01 16:51 lb-defvar.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 74807 2009-10-01 17:37 lb-edits.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 3663 2009-07-22 18:21 lb.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 264 2007-01-29 17:01 lb-en.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 457 2007-01-29 17:01 lb-es.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 13523 2007-04-11 11:33 lb-fix1st.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 27717 2009-09-29 15:51 lb-footn.el
-rw------- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 8131 2009-06-01 08:19 lb-ftp.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 19536 2009-10-01 22:28 lb-go-speed-racer.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 9873 2009-09-19 21:38 lb-hooks.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 62591 2009-09-30 18:32 lb-ht.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 331 2007-01-29 16:52 lb-lang.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 483 2006-12-14 23:41 lb-markup-checker.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 10720 2009-07-22 18:18 lb-misc.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 9071 2009-07-22 17:51 lb-model.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 73619 2009-09-12 19:42 lb-mu.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 12998 2008-05-25 16:16 lb-pmm.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 670 2009-08-04 18:35 lb-postinst.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 1640 2009-05-31 12:07 lb-qa.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 6139 2009-09-30 16:45 lb-registers.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 1913 2009-09-04 14:26 lb-sgml.el
-rw-rw-r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 1781 2007-06-25 16:43 lb-suspense.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 2060 2009-09-05 18:37 lb-test.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 5476 2006-12-14 23:41 lb-tmm.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 61599 2009-09-19 21:59 lb-toc.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 85919 2009-09-19 22:00 lb-tx.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 167 2007-01-29 16:53 lb-volume.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 553 2007-11-02 18:22 lb-web.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 13924 2009-05-31 12:07 lb-worldcat.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 8708 2009-05-31 12:07 lia_qual.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 15421 2009-09-04 17:37 lia-sgml.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 46517 2009-10-01 16:49 lia-tx.el
-rw-r--r-- 1 sverdlov sverdlov 23166 2009-09-10 18:05 _-sgml.el
Y. Sverdlov
Last modified: Tue Mar 2 13:46:15 PST 2010
http://www.leninist.biz/Emacs-Lisp[2013-03-30 오전 11:49:35]
@LBiz: en/TAZ = Titles A-Z
More
Pages:
A . B . C . D . E . F . G . H . I. J . K . L . M . Titles @AT LENINIST
(DOT) BIZ
<<< N . O . P . Q . R . S . T. U . V . W. X . Y . Z. A–Z
•
>>>
<< • >> have book

<•> need book
A Abc of Dialectical and Historical Materialism

A Abc of Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Contents
A Abc of Planning: Fundamentals of the theory and methodology of economic planning, An
A About Andrei Tarkovsky
Index A About Lenin: Lenin in Soviet Literature
Card A Account to the Party and the People:, An
A Across the Soviet Union: Impressions of the USSR
Formats: A Activeness and Self-Education
Text A Actors Without Makeup
PS A Advocates of Colonialism
PDF A Aesthetics and Poetics
A Aesthetics, Art, Life: A collection of articles
A Aesthetics: A Textbook
Other
A Afghanistan Weighs Heavy on My Heart: The reminiscences of soldiers who fought in Afghanistan
Titles:
T*
A Afghanistan, the Revolution Continues
A Afghanistan: Between the past and future
Years: A Afghanistan: Past and present
19* A Africa Today: Progress, difficulties, perspectives
A Africa: Politics Economy Ideology
A Africa: Progress, problems, prospects:
### A African Communists Speak: Articles and documents from "The African Communist"
MAP A African Countries’ Foreign Policy.
A After 14,000 Wars
A Against Dogmatism and Sectarianism in the Working-Class Movement
A Against Liquidationism
A Against Right-Wing and Left-Wing Opportunism, Against Trotskyism
A Against Trotskyism: The struggle of Lenin and the CPSU against Trotskyism
A Against U.S. Aggression for National Salvation
A Against the Threat of Another World War
A Age-Group and Pedagogical Psychology
A Aggressive Broadcasting, Evidence Facts Documents: Psychological Warfare
A Agony of a Dictatorship: Nicaraguan Chronicle, The
A Agostinho Neto
A Agrarian India Betwen the World Wars
A Agrarian Reforms and Hired Labour in Africa
A Agrarian Relations in the USSR
A Agricultural Co-operatives: Their role in the development of socialist agriculture in the Soviet Union
A Agriculture in the U.S.S.R
A Aim of A Lifetime:, The
A Albert Einstein’s Philosophical Views and the Theory of Relativity
A Albert Einstein: Creator and rebel
A Alexei Tolstoy Collected Works In Six Volumes:
A All About The Telescope
A Along the Path Blazed in Helsinki
A Alternatives to Positivism.
A Always a Journalist
A Ambient Conflicts: Chapters from the history of relations between countries with different social system
A American Age of Reason: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, The
A American Literary Criticism: An anthology
A American Model on the Scales of History, The
A American Utopia, The
A American Youth Today
A Americans: As seen by a Soviet writer, The
A Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism
A Anatomy of Lies [Amnesty International], The
A Anatomy of the Middle East Conflict
A Ancient Civilisations of East and West
A Andromeda: A Space Age Tale
A Anglo-Bulgarian Relations During the Second World War
A Anthology of Soviet Short Stories: In Two Volumes: Volume One.
A Anthology of Soviet Short Stories: In Two Volumes: Volume Two.
http://www.leninist.biz/en/TAZ[2013-03-30 오전 11:49:54]
A Anthony Eden
A Anti-Communism Today
A Anti- Communism, the Main Line of Zionism
A Anti-Hitler Coalition:, The
A Antitank Warfare
A Anton Chekhov and His Times
A Anton Makarenko: His life and his work in education
A Arab Struggle For Economic Independence
A Arduous Beginning, The
A Are Our Moscow Reporters Giving Us the Facts About the USSR?
A Aristotle
A Armed Forces of the Soviet Union, The
A Arms Trade: A new level of danger, The
A Arms and Dollars: Roots of U.S. foreign policy
A Army and Social Progress, The
A Army and the Revolutionary Transformation of Society, The
A Art Festivals, USSR
A Art and Social Life
A Art and Society: Collection of articles
A Artistic Creativity, Reality and Man.
A Artistic Truth and Dialectics of Creative Work
A As Military Adviser in China
A As the People Willed: A documented account of how the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was founded (1917–1922)
A Ascent: Careers in the USSR, The
A Asian Dilemma: A Soviet view and Myrdal’s concept
A Asian Dilemma: The essence of social progress in the transitional period
A Astronomy for Entertainment
A At the Bidding of the Heart:
A At the Centr\ve of Political Storms: The memoirs of a Soviet diplomat
A At the Turning Points of History: Some lessons of the struggle against revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement
A Atlantis
A Atomic Nucleus
A Authoritarianism and Democracy
A Avengers:
A Awakening to Life: Forming behaviour and the mind in deaf-blind children
A Azerbaijanian Poetry, Classic Modern, Traditional:
B Badges and Trophies in Soviet Sports
B Basic Economic Law of Modern Capitalism, The
B Basic Principles of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, The
B Basic Principles of Operational Art and Tactics: A Soviet view, The
B Basic Principles of the Organisation of Soviet Agriculture, The
B Basic Problems of the Marxist-Leninst Theory: Symposium of Lectures
B Basics of Marxist-Leninist Theory
B Battle for the Caucasus
B Battle of Ideas in the Modern World., The
B Battle of Kursk, The
B Before the Nazi Invasion: Soviet Diplomacy in September 1939–June 1941
B Beginning: Lenin’s Childhood and Youth, The
B Behind the Facade of the Masonic Temple:
B Behind the Scenes of Third Reich Diplomacy.
B Benefactors of Peace
B Big Business and the Economic Cycle:
B Big Changes in the USSR: Leafing through the Soviet Journal Kommunist
B Biosphere and Politics, The
B Birth of Nations, The
B Birth of a Genius: The Development of the Personality and World Outlook of Karl Marx
B Black Book and Schwambrania:, The
B Blacks in United States History
B Bolshevik Party’s Struggle Against Trotskyism (1903–February 1917), The
B Bolshevik Party’s Struggle Against Trotskyism in the Post-October Period., The
B Bolshevik-led Socialist Revolution, March–October 1917, The
B Bolsheviks and the Armed Forces in Three Revolutions:, The
B Book About Artists
B Book About Bringing Up Children, A
B Book About Russia: In the union of equals:, A
B Books in the Service of Peace, Humanism, and Progress
B Books in the USSR
B Boris Kustodiev: The Artist and His Work
B Boris Pasternak: Selected writings and letters.
B Bourgeois Economic Thought 1930s–1970s
B Bourgeois Nations and Socialist Nations
B Breadwinners, The
B Brief Course of Dialectical Materialism: Popular outline, A
B British Foreign Policy During World War II 1939–1945
B Broad-Casting Pirates or Abuse of the Microphone:
B Builder of Socialism and Figher Against Fascism, The
B Bureaucracy in India
B Bureaucracy, Triumph and Crisis: New thinking
B Bureaucrats in Power–Ecological Collapse
B By: ANNA LOUISE STRONG
B By: JASON W. SMITH
C Camp of Socialism and the Camp of Capitalism, The
C Can Man Change the Climate?
C Can Socialists & Communists Co-Operate?
C Canada–USA: Problems and contradictions in North American economic integration
C Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth in Developing Africa
C Capitalism and the Ecological Crisis
C Capitalism at the End of the Century
C Capitalism, Socialism and Scientific and Technical Revolution
C Capitalism, the Technological Revolution, and the Working Class
C Capitalist Economy
C Case for Perestroika: Articles from the monthly Kommunist , The
C Categories and Laws of the Political Economy of Communism
C Caught in the Act
C Causality and the Relation of States in Physics
C Cause of My Life., The
C Caution: Zionism!:
C Cecil Rhodes and His Time
C Central Asia and Kazakhstan Before and After the October Revolution
C Central Asia and Kazakstan[d] Before and After the October Revolution: Reply to falsifiers of history
C Central Asia in Modern Times:
C Central V.I. Lenin Museum
C Centralised Planning of the Economy
C Ch’ing Empire and the Russian State in the 17th Century, The
C Challenges of Our Time: Disarmament and social progress, The
C Champions of Peace
C Changing Face of the Earth:, The
C Chapters from the History of Russo-Chinese Relations 17th–19th Centuries
C Child Development and Education
C Child, Adults, Peers: Patterns of communication
C Children and Sport in the USSR
C Children and Sport in the USSR
C Chile, Corvalan, Struggle.
C Chile: CIA Big Business
C China Theatre in World War II: 1939–1945., The
C China and Her Neighbours from Ancient Times to the Middle Ages:
C Choice Facing Europe, The
C Choice for Children, A
C Christ–Myth or Reality?
C Christian Ecumenism
C Christianity and Marxism
C Cia Target: The USSR
C Cia in Asia: Covert operations against India and Afghanistan., The
C Cia in Latin America, The
C Cia in the Dock., The
C Citizenship of the USSR: A legal study.
C City Invincible
C City of the Yellow Devil: Pamphlets, articles and letters about America, The
C Civil Codes of the Soviet Republics., The
C Civil Law and the Protection of Personal Rights in the USSR
C Civil War in Russia: Its causes and significance, The
C Civil War in the United States, The
C Civilisation and Global Problems
C Civilisation and the Historical Process
C Civilisation, Science, Philosophy:
C Civilisation, science, philosophy : theme of the 17th World Congress of Philosophy
C Classes and Nations
C Classes and the Class Struggle in the USSR, 1920s–1930s
C Classic Soviet Plays
C Classical Islamic Philosophy
C Cmea Countries and Developing States: Economic cooperation
C Cmea Today: From economic co-operation to economic integration
C Cmea and Third Countries: Legal aspects of co-operation

C Cmea and the Strategy of Acceleration
C Cmea: International Significance of Socialist Integration
C Co-operative Movement in Asia and Africa:, The
C Collapse of the Russian Empire 1917, The
C Comet in the Night: The story of Alexander Ulyanov’s heroic life and tragic death as told by his contemporaries
C Coming World Order, The
C Comintern and the East: A critique of the critique, The
C Comintern and the East: The struggle for the Leninist strategy and tactics in national liberation movements, The
C Comintern and the East: strategy and tactics in national liberation movements, The
C Communism IN THE UNITED STATES— A BIBLIOGRAPHY
C Communism and Cultural Heritage
C Communism and Freedom
C Communism as a Social Formation
C Communism: Questions and Answers: 1
C Communism: Questions and Answers: 7
C Communism: Questions and answers: 4
C Communist :: 1938 (VOL. XVII), The
C Communist Morality
C Communist Party (Cuba): (Collection of documents)
C Communist Party in Socialist Society: A critique of bourgeois concepts , The
C Communist Response to the Challenge of Our Time, The
C Communists and the Youth: Study of revolutionary education
C Comprehensive Programme for the Further Extension and Improvement of Co-Operation and the Development of Socialist Economic Integration by the CMEA Member Countries
C Comprehensive Science of Man: Studies and solutions, A
C Comrade Stalin—the Continuer of Lenin’s Great Work
C Concept of Common Heritage of Mankind: From new thinking to new practice.
C Concepts of Regional Development
C Concise Psychological Dictionary, A
C Confrontation or Compromise?: The meaning of worker participation in the management of capitalist enterprises
C Conjugation of Russian Verbs
C Conservation of Nature
C Conservatism in U.S. Ideology and Politics
C Consolidation of the Socialist Countries Unity
C Conspiracy Against Delgado: A History of One Operation by the CIA and the PIDE
C Conspiracy Against the Tsar: A Portrait of the Decembrists
C Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
C Constitutional Law and Political Institutions.
C Contemporary Anti-Communism: Policy and ideology.
C Contemporary Bourgeois Legal Thought: A Marxist evaluation of the basic concepts
C Contemporary Capitalism and the Middle Classes
C Contemporary Capitalism: New developments and contradictions
C Contemporary International Law: Collection of articles.
C Contemporary Political Science in the USA and Western Europe
C Contemporary Revolutionary Process: Theoretical Essays, The
C Contemporary Trotskyism: Its anti-revolutionary nature
C Contemporary World History 1917–1945, A
C Contemporary World Situation and Validity of Marxism
C Contradictions of Agrarian Integration in the Common Market
C Correction of the Convicted: Law, theory, practice
C Correspondence Between the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidents of the USA and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945:
VOLUME 1:
C Correspondence Between the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidents of the USA and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain During the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945:
VOLUME 2:
C Cpsu and the Soviet State in Developed Socialist Society, The
C Cpsu in the Struggle for Unity of All Revolutionary and Peace Forces, The
C Cpsu’s Nationalities Policy: Truth and lies, The
C Cpsu: Ideological, political and organisational principles., The
C Cpsu: Party of Proletarian Internationalism
C Cpsu: Topical Aspects of History and Policy, The
C Criminalistics
C Crisis of Capitalism and the Conditions of the Working People., The
C Crisis of World Capitalism
C Critique of Anti-Marxist Theories
C Critique of Mao Tse-Tung’s Theoretical Conceptions., A
C Critique of Masarykism, A
C Cultural Changes in Developing Countries
C Cultural Exchange: 10 years after Helsinki
C Cultural Life of the Soviet Worker: A Sociological Study, The
C Culture and Perestroika
C Culture for the Millions
C Current Problems of Contemporary Capitalism

D Danger: NATO
D De Gaulle: His Life and Work
D Death Can Wait
D Decisions of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U.(B.) on Literature and Art (1946-1948)
D Dedication: Stories about Soviet men and women
D Definition (Logico-Methodological Problems)
D Demography in the Mirror of History
D Denis Diderot
D Destiny of Capitalism in the Orient
D Destiny of the World: The socialist shape of things to come, The
D Destruction of Reason, The
D Destructive POLICY [Policy of Chinese leadership], A
D Destructive Policy, A
D Detente and Anti-communism
D Detente and the World Today: 26th CPSU Congress:
D Developed Socialism: Theory and practice
D Developed Socialist Society: Basic features and place in history.
D Developing Countries from the Standpoint of Marxist Political Economy
D Developing Countries’ Social Structure, The
D Developing Nations At the Turn of Millennium.
D Development by J.V. Stalin of the Marxist-Leninist Theory of the National Question, The
D Development of Revolutionary Theory by the CPSU.
D Development of Rights and Freedoms in the Soviet State, The
D Development of Soviet Law and Jurisprudence:, The
D Development of the Monist View of History., The
D Dialectical Logic: Essays on its history and theory
D Dialectical Materialism and the History of Philosophy
D Dialectical Materialism.
D Dialectical Materialism: Popular lectures
D Dialectics in Modern Physics
D Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s Capital, The
D Dialogue For Peace
D Dialogue of Cultures or Cultural Expansion?
D Dictionary for Believers and Nonbelievers., A
D Dictionary of Ethics., A
D Dictionary of International Law, A
D Dictionary of Philosophy (1967)
D Dictionary of Philosophy (1984)
D Dictionary of Political Economy., A
D Dictionary of Scientific Communism., A
D Difficult Mission: War Memoirs: Soviet Admiral in Great Britain during the Second World War.
D Dilemma of Balanced Regional Development in India
D Diplomacy of Aggression: Berlin–Rome–Tokyo Axis, its rise and fall.
D Diplomatic Battles Before World War II
D Disarmament and the Economy
D Disarmament: the Command of the Times
D Discovering the Soviet Union
D Discovery of the Century
D Distribution of the Productive Forces: General schemes, theory and practice
D Dmitry Shostakovich: About himself and his times
D Do The Russians Want War?
D Documents and Materials Relating to the Eve of the Second World War:
D Documents and Resolutions: the 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Moscow, February 23–March 3, 1981
D Domination in 2,545 Endgame Studies.
D Dramas of the Revolution.
D Drawings by Soviet Children
D Dynamic Stability: The Soviet economy today
D Dynamic Twentieth Century, The
E Early Centuries of Russian History
E Early Russian Architecture
E Early Stories
E East After the Collapse of the Colonial System, The
E Eastern Societies: Revolution, Power, Progress:
E Echoes of the A-Blast
E Ecology and Development
E Ecology: Political Institutions and Legislation: environmental law in the USSR
E Economic “Theories” of Maoism., The
E Economic Aspects of Capitalist Integration
E Economic Aspects of Social Security in the USSR, The
E Economic Cycle: Postwar Development, The
E Economic Development and Perspective Planning

E Economic Geography of the Ocean
E Economic Geography of the Socialist Countries of Europe:
E Economic Geography of the World
E Economic Geography of the World
E Economic Geography: Theory and methods
E Economic Growth and the Market in the Developing Countries
E Economic History: The Age of Imperialism (1870–1917), An
E Economic Inequality of Nations
E Economic Integration: Two approaches
E Economic Law
E Economic Neocolonialism: Problems of South-East Asian Countries’ Struggle for Economic Independence
E Economic Policy During the Construction of Socialism in the USSR
E Economic Substantiation of the Theory of Socialism, The
E Economic System of Socialism, The
E Economic Theories and Reality
E Economic Zone: An International Legal Aspect, The
E Economics, Politics, the Class Struggle, International Relations
E Economies of Rich and Poor Countries, The
E Economies of the Countries of Latin America
E Economy of the Soviet Union Today: Socialism Today, The
E Education in the U.S.S.R.
E Education of the Soviet Soldier: Party-political work in the Soviet armed forces.
E Einstein and the Philosophical Problems of 20th-Century Physics
E Einstein
E Elements of Political Knowledge.
E Elitist Revolution or Revolution of the Masses?
E Elyuchin
E Emotions, Myths and Theories.
E End of Ideology Theory: Illusions and reality:, The
E End of the Third Reich., The
E Engels: A short biography
E English Revolution of the 17th Century through Portraits of Its Leading Figures, The
E Enigma of Capital: A Marxist viewpoint., The
E Environment: International Aspects
E Envoy of the Stars: Academician Victor Ambartsumyan
E Epoch of the Collapse of Capitalism and the Development of Socialism
E Era of Man or Robot?
E Ernesto Che Guevara
E Essays in Contemporary History, 1917–1945
E Essays in Contemporary History, 1946–1990
E Essays in Political Economy: Imperialism and the developing countries
E Essays in Political Economy: Socialism and the socialist orientation
E Essays on Linguistics: Language systems and structures
E Estonia, One of the United Family.
E Eternal Man: Reflections, dialogues, portraits
E Ethics of Science: Issues and controversies, The
E Ethics.
E Ethiopia: Population, resources, economy
E Ethnic Problems of the Tropical Africa: Can they be solved?
E Ethnocultural Development of African Countries
E Ethnocultural Processes and National Problems in the Modern World.
E Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere
E Europe 1939:
E Europe and Detente
E Europe and the Communists
E European Security and Co-Operation:
E European Security: Social aspects
E Evgeny Vakhtangov
E Exercises in Russian syntax with explanatory notes: [no date [ca. 1960]].
E Experience of Industrial Management in the Soviet Union, The
E Experience of the CPSU: Its World Significance.
E Export of Counter-Revolution: Past and present, The
F Face to Face With America: The story of N.S. Khrushchov’s [Khrushchev’s] visit to U.S.A., September 15–27, 1959
F Facts About the USSR
F Failure of Three Missions: British diplomacy and intelligence in the efforts to overthrow Soviet government in Central Asia and Transcaucasia...
F Fate of Man, The
F Faust versus Mephistopheles?
F Felix Dzerzhinsky: A biography.
F Female Labour Under Socialism: The Socio-Economic Aspects
F Feudal Society and Its Culture
F Few Salient Points or Things That Agitate Us: A collection of articles, A

F Fifty Fighting Years: The Communist Party of South Africa, 1921–1971
F Fifty Soviet Poets
F Fifty Years of a New Era:
F Fighters for National Liberation: Political profiles
F Fighting Red Tape in the USSR
F Figures for Fun:
F Film Trilogy About Lenin, A
F Final Reckoning, Nuremburg Diaries, The
F Finale: A Retrospective Review of Imperialist Japan’s Defeat in 1945
F Finance and Credit in the USSR
F First Breath of Freedom, The
F First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba:
F First Days of the October [sic. ABEBOOKS], The
F First Man in Space:
F Firsthand News
F Five Years’ Progress in Agricultural Production and the Tasks for the Future: Report
F Following Lenin’s Course: Speeches and articles
F Following the Course of All-round Perfection of Socialism
F For All Time and All Men [Karl Marx]
F For Man’s Happiness: The forum of Soviet Communists
F For a Nuclear-Free World
F For a Restructuring of International Economic Relations: 20th anniversary of UNCTAD
F Foreign Comrades in the October Revolution: Reminiscences
F Formation of the Socialist Economic System
F Foundations of Marxist Aesthetics
F Founding Fathers of the United States: Historical portraits
F Fourth Congress of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party:, The
F Fraternal Family of Nations:, A
F Frederick Engels: A Biography
F Frederick Engels: His Life and Work
F Freedom and the Artist
F Freedom of Conscience in the USSR
F From Anti-Imperialism to Anti-Socialism: The evolution of Peking’s foreign policy
F From Childhood to Centenarian
F From Geneva to Reykjavik
F From Helsinki to Belgrade:
F From Keynes to Neoclassical Synthesis:
F From Literacy Classes to Higher Education
F From Madrid to Vienna: Follow-up report of the Soviet Committee for European Security and Cooperation on the Helsinki Final Act
F From Revisionism to Betrayal: A criticism of Ota Sik’s economic views
F From Socialism to Communism
F From Tsarist General to Red Army Commander
F From Wooden Plough to Atomic Power: The Story of Soviet Industrialisation.
F From the History of Soviet-Chinese Relations in the 1950’s: Concerning the discussion of Mao Zedong’s role
F From the Missionary Days to Reagan: US China Policy
F Fundamental Law of the U.S.S.R., The
F Fundamental Problems of Marxism
F Fundamentals of Corrective Labour Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics: Statute on remand in custody
F Fundamentals of Criminalistics
F Fundamentals of Dialectical Materialism
F Fundamentals of Dialectics
F Fundamentals of Ergonomics
F Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics
F Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism • Manual
F Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism • Manual
F Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (1974), The
F Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (1982), The
F Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Theory and Tactics of Revolutionary Parties
F Fundamentals of Philosophy
F Fundamentals of Political Economy (1980)
F Fundamentals of Political Economy (1983), The
F Fundamentals of Political Economy: Popular course
F Fundamentals of Political Science: Textbook for primary political education.
F Fundamentals of Scientific Communism
F Fundamentals of Scientific Management of Socialist Economy
F Fundamentals of Scientific Socialism
F Fundamentals of Soviet State Law
F Fundamentals of Sports Training
F Fundamentals of the Socialist Theory of the State and Law
F Future of Society:, The
F Future of the USSR’s Economic Regions, The

F Futurology Fiasco: A Critical Study of non-Marxist Concepts of How Society Develops
G General Chernyakhovsky
G General Council of The First International 1864–1866: The London conference 1865 minutes
G General Crisis of Capitalism
G General Theory of Law: Social and philosophical problems, The
G Generalisation and Cognition
G Genesis of the Soviet Federative State (1917–1925)
G Genocide
G Geographical Prognostication: Problems and prospects
G Geography and Ecology: A collection of articles, 1971–1981
G Geography of the Soviet Union: Physical background, population, economy
G Georgi Dimitrov Selected Works (Volume 1):
G Georgi Dimitrov Selected Works (Volume 2):
G Georgi Dimitrov Selected Works (Volume 3)
G Georgi Dimitrov: An eminent theoretician and revolutionary
G Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume I):
G Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume II):
G Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume III):
G Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume IV):
G Georgi Plekhanov Selected Philosophical Works (Volume V):
G German Imperialism: Its past and present
G Germany:
G Glance at Historical Materialism, A
G Global engineering.
G Global Ecology
G Global Problems and the Future of Mankind
G Global Problems of Our Age
G Global Problems of Our Age
G Glory Eternal: Defence of Odessa 1941
G Going Beyond the Square: Notes by an economist
G Gorky Collected Works in Ten Volumes:
G Gorky and His Contemporaries:
G Government Regulation of the Private Sector in the USSR
G Great Baikal Amur Railway, The
G Great Construction Works of Communism and the Remaking of Nature
G Great Heritage: The classical literature of Old Rus, The
G Great March of Liberation, The
G Great Mission of Literature and Art, The
G Great October Revolution and World Social Progress, The
G Great October Revolution and the Intelligentsia:, The
G Great October Revolution and the Working Class, National Liberation and General Democratic Movements, The
G Great October Socialist Revolution, The
G Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941–1945:
G Grounds for Optimism
G Growing Up Human
G Growing Up in the Soviet Union from the Cradle to Coming of Age
G Guarantee of Peace
H Hague Congress of the First International, September 2–7, 1872:, The
H Handbook of Philosophy, A
H Hands Up! Or Public Enemy No. 1
H Hans Kohn Analyses the Russian Mind
H Hashar
H Hatredmongers: Anti-Soviet activity of the Lithuanian Clerical EmigrÃ©s
H Health Protection in the USSR.
H Heartbeat of Reform: Soviet jurists and political scientists discuss the progress of Perestroika:, The
H Henry Thoreau
H Henry Winston: Profile of a U.S. communist
H Higher Education and Computerisation
H Highlights of a Fighting History: 60 Years of the Communist Party, USA
H Historical Experience of the CPSU in Carrying Out Lenin’s Co-operative Plan
H Historical Knowledge: A Systems-Epistemological Approach.
H Historical Materialism ( by Cornforth )
H Historical Materialism (1969)
H Historical Materialism: An outline of Marxist theory of society.
H Historical Materialism: Basic problems.
H Historical Materialism: Theory, methodology, problems.
H Historical Science in Socialist Countries:
H Historical Science in the USSR: New research:
H History OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION / BOLSHEVIKS / SHORT COURSE
H History OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
H History Versus Anti-History: A critique of the bourgeois falsification of the postwar history of the CPSU.
H History and Politics: American historiography on Soviet society
H History in the Making: Memoirs of World War II Diplomacy
H History of Afganistan
H History of Ancient Philosophy: Greece and Rome
H History of Classical Sociology, A
H History of India (2 v.), A
H History of Old Russian Literature, A
H History of Psychology, A
H History of Realism, A
H History of Religion
H History of Science: Soviet research, The
H History of Soviet Foreign Policy 1945–1970
H History of the Ancient World.
H History of the Middle Ages
H History of the October Revolution
H History of the Three Internationals
H History of the USA Since World War I
H History of the USSR in three parts: PART I:
H History of the USSR in three parts: PART II:
H History of the USSR in three parts: PART III:
H History of the USSR: An outline of socialist construction
H History of the USSR: Elementary course
H History of the USSR: The era of socialism
H Ho Chi Minh Selected Writings, 1920–1969:
H Ho Chi Minh.
H Honour Eternal: Second World War Memorials
H How Many Will the Earth Feed?
H How Socialism Began: Russia Under Lenin’s Leadership 1917–1923
H How Soviet Economy Won Technical Independence
H How Wars End: Eye-witness accounts of the fall of Berlin
H How the National Question Was Solved in Soviet Central Asia
H How the Revolution Was Won:
H How the Soviet Economy Is Run:
H How to Study Historical Materialism
H How to Study the Theory of Scientific Communism:
H Human Relations Doctrine: Ideological weapon of the monopolies.
H Human Rights and Freedoms in the USSR
H Human Rights and International Relations
H Human Rights, What We Argue About
H Human Rights: Continuing the discussion
H Humanism of Art., The
H Humanism, Atheism: Principles and Practice
H Humanism: Its Philosophical, Ethical and Sociological Aspects.
I I Hereby Apply for an Apartment
I I Saw the New World Born: John Reed
I Icon Painting: State Museum of Palekh Art.
I Ideals and Spiritual Values of Socialist Society, The
I Ideological Struggle Today
I Ideological Struggle and Literature:, The
I Ideology and Social Progress
I Ideology and Tactics of Anti-Communism: Myths and Reality, The
I Illusion of Equal Rights: Legal Inequality in the Capitalist World, An
I Image of India: The Study of Ancient Indian Civilisation in the USSR, The
I Immortality: Verse By Soviet Poets Who Laid Down Their Lives in the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945
I Imperial China: Foreign-policy conceptions and methods
I Imperialism and the Developing Countries
I Improvement of Soviet Economic Planning
I In Disregard of the Law
I In Pursuit of Social Justice
I In Search of Harmony
I In Search of Holy Mother Russia
I In Southern Africa
I In the Forecasters’ Maze
I In the Grip of Terror
I In the Name of Life: Reflections of a Soviet Surgeon
I In the Name of Peace
I In the World of Music
I India: Independence and oil
I India: Social and Economic Development (18th–20th Century)
I India: Spotlight on Population
I Indian Economy, The

I Indian Philosophy in Modern Times
I Individual and Society, The
I Individual and the Microenvironment, The
I Individual in Socialist Society, The
I Industrial Revolution in the East, The
I Industrialisation of Developing Countries
I Industrialisation of India
I Inflation Under Capitalism Today
I Information Abused: Critical essays
I Insane Squandering: The Social and Economic Consequences of the Arms Race
I Integration of Science., The
I Intensifying Production: Acceleration factors
I Inter-American Relations from Bolivar to the Present
I Interaction of Sciences in the Study of the Earth, The
I International Covenants on Human Rights and Soviet Legislation
I International Humanitarian Law
I International Law of the Sea, The
I International Law: A textbook
I International Law
I International MEETING OF COMMUNIST AND WORKERS’ PARTIES – MOSCOW 1969
I International Monetary Law
I International Monopolies and Developing Countries
I International Solidarity with the Spanish Republic 1936–1939:
I International Space Law.
I International Terrorism and the CIA: Documents, Eyewitness Reports, Facts
I International Trade and the Improvement of the Standard of Living in the West
I International Working-Class Movement, Volume 1: The Origins of the Proletariat and Its Evolution as a Revolutionary Class, The
I International Working-Class Movement, Volume 2: The Working-Class Movement in the Period of Transition to Imperialism (1871–1904), The
I International Working-Class Movement, Volume 3: Revolutionary battles of the early 20th Century, The
I International Working-Class Movement, Volume 4: The Socialist Revolution in Russia and the International Working Class (1917–1923), The
I International Working-Class Movement, Volume 5: The Builder of Socialism and Fighter Against Fascism, The
I International Working-Class Movement, Volume 6: The Working-Class Movement in the Developed Capitalist Countries After the Second World War (1945–1979), The
I International Working-Class and Communist Movement: Historical Record (1830s to mid-1940s)
I Interpreting America: Russian and Soviet Studies of the History of American Thought
I Introduction to Physics
I Invitation to a Dialogue
I Islam and Muslims in the Land of the Soviets
J Jawaharlal Nehru and His Political Views
J Jawaharlal Nehru
J Joint Jubilee Meeting of the CPSU Central Committee, Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, Moscow November 3, 1967
J Jonestown Carnage: A CIA crime, The
K Kampuchea: From Tragedy to Rebirth
K Karl Marx and Modern Philosophy: Collection of Articles
K Karl Marx and Our Time: Articles and speeches
K Karl Marx and Our Time: The struggle for peace and social progress
K Karl Marx’s Great Discovery: The dual-nature-of-labour doctrine:
K Karl Marx: A Biography
K Karl Marx: Short biography.
K Keynesianism Today:
K Klement Gottwald Selected Writings 1944–1949
K Komsomol: Questions and Answers, The
K Konstantin Stanislavsky, 1863–1963: Man and Actor:
K Kwame Nkrumah
L Labour Protection at Soviet Industrial Enterprises
L Labour in the USSR: Problems and solutions
L Land of Soviets, The
L Landmarks in History: The Marxist Doctrine of Socio-Economic Formations
L Landmarks of Marxist Socio-Economic Foundations
L Last Nuclear Explosion: Forty years of struggle against nuclear tests, The
L Last of the Romans and European Culture, The
L Law and Force in the International System
L Law and Legal Culture in Soviet Society
L Law, Morality and Man:
L Law, Progress, and Peace: A journalist’s observations on the influence of Soviet law on the progressive development of international law
L Leap Through the Centuries, A
L Leftist Terrorism: Are the Leftist Terrorists Really Left?
L Legal Regulation of Soviet Foreign Economic Relations, The
L Legislation in the USSR
L Legislative Acts of the USSR: Book 3
L Lenin About the Press
L Lenin COLLECTED WORKS (International), V.I.

L Lenin Collected Works
L Lenin In Our Life.
L Lenin In Profile: World writers and artists on Lenin
L Lenin On Participation of the People in Government
L Lenin Prize Winners: Soviet stars theatre, music, art
L Lenin Selected Works
L Lenin Talks to America.
L Lenin Through the Eyes of Lunacharsky
L Lenin Through the Eyes of the World:
L Lenin and Books
L Lenin and Gorky: Letters, reminiscences, articles.
L Lenin and Library Organisation.
L Lenin and Modern Natural Science.
L Lenin and National Liberation in the East
L Lenin and Problems of Literature.
L Lenin and USSR Foreign Politics
L Lenin and the Bourgeois Press
L Lenin and the Leagues of Struggle
L Lenin and the Soviet Peace Policy: Articles and Speeches 1944–80.
L Lenin and the World Revolutionary Process
L Lenin in London: Memorial places
L Lenin in Soviet Literature; A Remarkable Year, etc.
L Lenin in Soviet Poetry
L Lenin on Labour Under Socialism: The Great Legacy of Marxism-Leninism
L Lenin on Language
L Lenin on religion, V.I.
L Lenin on the Intelligentsia
L Lenin on the Unity of the International Communist Movement
L Lenin’s "What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats"
L Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”
L Lenin’s “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”
L Lenin’s Behests and the Making of Soviet Latvia
L Lenin’s Comrades-In-Arms:
L Lenin’s Doctrine of National Liberation Revolutions and Modern World
L Lenin’s Geneva Addresses
L Lenin’s Ideas and Modern International Relations
L Lenin’s Plan of Building Socialism in the USSR
L Lenin’s Political Testament
L Lenin’s Teaching on the World Economy and Its Relevance to Our Times
L Lenin’s Theory of Non-capitalist Development and the Experience of Mongolia:
L Lenin’s Theory of Revolution
L Lenin: A Biography
L Lenin: A Short Biography., V.I.
L Lenin: Comrade and man
L Lenin: Great and Human
L Lenin: His life and work: Documents and photographs, V.I.
L Lenin: Revolution and the World Today
L Lenin: The Founder of the Soviet Armed Forces
L Lenin: The Great Theoretician.
L Lenin: The Revolutionary.
L Lenin: The Story of His Life, V. I.
L Lenin: Youth and The Future
L Lenin: a Biography
L Leningrad Does Not Surrender
L Leninism and Contemporary Problems of the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism.
L Leninism and Modern China’s Problems
L Leninism and Revolution: Reply to Critics
L Leninism and Today’s Problems of the Transition to Socialism
L Leninism and the Agrarian Peasant Question in Two Volumes: Volume One:
L Leninism and the Agrarian Peasant Question in Two Volumes: Volume Two:
L Leninism and the Battle of Ideas.
L Leninism and the National Question
L Leninism and the Revolutionary Process
L Leninism and the World Revolutionary Working-Class Movement (1971):
L Leninism and the World Revolutionary Working-Class Movement (1976):
L Leninism: The Banner of Liberation and Progress of Nations
L Leninist Standards of Party Life.
L Leninist Theory of Reflection and the Present Day, The
L Leninist Theory of Revolution and Social Psychology
L Leninist Theory of Socialist Revolution and the Contemporary World.
L Let Us Live in Peace and Friendship

L Let the Blood of Man Not Flow
L Let the Living Remember: Soviet War Poetry
L Letters From the Dead:
L Lev Vygotsky.
L Liberation Mission of the Soviet Armed Forces in the Second World War
L Liberation of Europe, The
L Liberation
L Lie of a Soviet War Threat, The
L Life and Activities of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A lofty example of serving mankind, The
L Life and Death of Martin Luther King, The
L Life and Work of Walt Whitman: A Soviet view
L Life of Lenin
L Life, Art and America: Narratives and stories, articles
L Life, We’re All in It Together
L Lifelong Cause, A
L Literature and the New Thinking
L Living Ocean, The
L Living and Effective Teaching of Marxism-Leninism:, The
L Logic Made Simple: A dictionary
L Logic
L Lomonosov’s Philosophy
L Long Road: Sino-Russian economic contacts from ancient times to 1917, The
L Looking Into the Future
M Macro-Economic Models
M Mad Love
M Made in USSR
M Mahitahi = Work Together: Some peoples of the Soviet Union
M Main Trends in Philosophy: A theoretical analysis of the history of philosophy., The
M Major Ethnosocial Trends in the USSR
M Making of the Marxist Philosophy from Idealism and Revolutionary Democracy to Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Communism, The
M Man After Work: Social problems of daily life and leisure time.
M Man At Work: The Scientific and Technological Revolution, the Soviet Working Class and Intelligentsia
M Man and His Stages of Life
M Man and Man’s World: the categories of “man” and “world” in the system of scientific world outlooks
M Man and Nature: The ecological crisis and social progress
M Man and Sea Warfare
M Man and Society
M Man and the Scientific and Technological Revolution
M Man as the Object of Education: An Essay in Pedagogical Anthropology (Selected extracts)
M Man at the Limit: Eye-witness reports
M Man’s Dreams are Coming True.
M Man’s Potential: Sketches
M Man’s Road to Progress: Talks on political topics
M Man, Science and Society
M Man, Science, Humanism: A New Synthesis
M Man, Society and the Environment:
M Man: His Behaviour and Social Relations
M Management of Socialist Production
M Mankind and the Year 2000: Current problems
M Manoeuvre in Modern Land Wafare
M Manpower Resources and Population Under Socialism
M Manzhou Rule in China
M Mao Tse-Tung: A political portrait
M Mao Tse-Tung: An ideological and psychological portrait
M Mao’s Betrayal
M Maoism As It Really Is:
M Maoism Through the Eyes of Communists
M Maoism Unmasked: Collection of Soviet Press Articles
M Maoism and Its Policy of Splitting the National Liberation Movement
M Maoism and Mao’s Heirs
M Maoism: The Curse of China
M Market of Socialist Economic Integration: Selected conference papers, The
M Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Zhukov (Volume 2):
M Marx & Engles Collected Works
M Marx • Engels • Marxism [Lenin]
M Marx Engels On Religion
M Marx and Engels Through the Eyes of Their Contemporaries
M Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Programme”
M Marx’s Theory of Commodity and Surplus-Value: Formalised exposition
M Marxism and the Renegade Garaudy
M Marxism-Leninism on Proletarian Internationalism

M Marxism-Leninism on War and Army
M Marxism-Leninism on War and Peace
M Marxism-Leninism on the Non-Capitalist Way
M Marxism-Leninism: A Flourishing Science
M Marxism-Leninism: The International teaching of the working class
M Marxist Conception of Law, The
M Marxist Philosophy at the Leninist Stage
M Marxist Philosophy: A Popular Outline.
M Marxist Philosophy
M Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics and Life:
M Marxist- Leninist Aesthetics and the Arts
M Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (1978)
M Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (1980)
M Marxist- Leninist Philosophy: Diagrams, tables, illustrations for students of Marxist-Leninist theory.
M Marxist- Leninist Teaching of Socialism and the World Today, The
M Marxist-Leninist Theory of Society:, The
M Mass Information in the Service of Peace and Progress
M Mass Media in the USSR
M Mass Organisations in the U.S.S.R.
M Materialism and the Dialectical Method ( by Cornforth 1971)
M Materialismus Militans: Reply to Mr. Bogdanov
M Maxim Gorky Letters
M Maxim Litvinov
M May Day Traditions
M Meaning and Conceptual Systems.
M Meaning of Life, The
M Mechanisation of Soviet Agriculture: The economic effect, The
M Meeting of European Communist and Workers’ Parties for Peace and Disarmament, Paris, 28–29 April, 1980
M Meeting of Representatives of the Parties and Movements participating in the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution
M Meeting the Challenge: Soviet youth in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945
M Meetings with Sholokhov
M Memoirs of Wartime Minister of Navy
M Men at War
M Methodology of History
M Methodology of Law
M Middle East: Oil and Policy, The
M Mikhail Bulgakov and His Times: Memoirs, Letters
M Milestones of Soviet Foreign Policy 1917–1967.
M Militant Solidarity, Fraternal Assistance:
M Militarism and Science
M Militarism in Peking’s Policies
M Military-Industrial Complex of the USA, The
M Millionaires and Managers
M Miracle of the Age
M Moby Dick, or the Whale
M Modern History of China., The
M Modern History of the Arab Countries
M Modern History, 1640–1870
M Modern State and Politics, The
M Modern Theories of International Economic Relations
M Moiseyev’s Dance Company
M Monetary Crisis Of Capitalism: Origin, Development
M Monism and Pluralism in Ideology and in Politics (Abridged).
M Monopoly Press: Or, How American journalism found itself in the vicious circle of the “crisis of credibility”, The
M Morality and Politics: Critical essays on contemporary views about the relationship between morality and politics in bourgeois sociology
M Moscow Diary, A
M Moscow Soviet, The
M Moscow, Stalingrad, 1941–1942: Recollections, stories, reports.
M Multilateral Economic Co-Operation of Socialist States:, The
M Music Education in the Modern World:
M Musical Journey Through the Soviet Union, A
M My Day and Age: selected poems
M Mysteries of the Deeps [i.E. Deep]:
M Mystery of Pearl Harbor: Facts and Theories, The
M Myth About Soviet Threat: cui bono?
M Myth, Philosophy, Avant-Gardism:
N N. Lobachevsky and His Contribution to Science
N Namibia, A Struggle for Independence:
N National Economic Planning
N National Folk Sports in the USSR
N National Languages in the USSR: Problems and Solutions

N National Liberation Movement in West Africa
N National Liberation Revolutions Today: Part I:
N National Liberation Revolutions Today: Part II
N National Liberation: Essays on Theory and Practice
N National Sovereignty and the Soviet State
N Nationalities Question: Lenin’s Approach:, The
N Nations and Internationalism
N Nations and Social Progress
N Nato: A Bleak Picture
N Nato: Threat to World Peace
N Nature Reserves in the USSR
N Nature of Science: An epistemological analysis., The
N Nearest Neighbour is 170 KM Away: A journey into the Soviet Union, The
N Neo-Colonialism on the Warpath
N Neo-Freudians In Search of “Truth”.
N Neocolonialism and Africa in the 1970s
N Neocolonialism: Methods and manoeuvres.
N Nep, a Modern View
N Never Say Die
N New Approach to Economic Integration, A
N New Constitution of the USSR, The
N New Information Order or Psychological Warfare?, A
N New International Economic Order
N New Life Begun: Prose, poetry and essays of the 1920s–1930s, A
N New Realities and the Struggle of Ideas
N New Scramble for Africa, The
N New Soviet Legislation on Marriage and the Family
N Newly Free Countries in the Seventies, The
N Nihilism Today.
N Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay: Traveller, scientist and humanist
N Nikolai Vavilov: The Great Sower:
N Nine Modern Soviet Plays
N Nineteenth Century American Short Stories
N Non-Capitalist Development: An Historical Outline
N Non-aligned Movement, The
N Noncapitalist Way: Soviet Experience and the Liberated Countries, The
N Normalization of World Trade and the Monetary Problem
N North Russian Architecture
N Not For War We Raise Our Sons: A collection of letters to the Soviet Peace Fund and the Soviet Women’s Committee
N Notes on Indian History (664–1858)
N Nuclear Disarmament
N Nuclear Engineering Before and After Chernobyl:
N Nuclear Space Age: The Soviet viewpoint, The
N Nuclear Strategy and Common Sense
N Nuclear WAR: THE MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
N Nuremberg Epilogue, The
O Ocean and Its Resources
O October Revolution and Africa, The
O October Revolution and the Arts:, The
O October Revolution and the Working-Class, National Liberal, and General Democratic Movements, The
O October Storm and After:, The
O October Storm and After:, The
O Of Human Values: Soviet literature today
O Old, the New, the Eternal: Reflections on art, The
O On Communist Education
O On Education: Selected articles and speeches
O On Historical Materialism • A Collection [Marx-Engels-Lenin]
O On Just and Unjust Wars
O On Labour-Oriented Education and Instruction
O On Literature and Art
O On Proletarian Internationalism
O On Relations Between Socialist and Developing Countries
O On The Art and Craft of Writing
O On The Principle Of Mutual Advantage:
O On a Military Mission to Great Britain and the USA
O On the “Manifesto of the Communisty Party” of Marx and Engels
O On the Communist Programme
O On the Edge of an Abyss: From Truman to Reagan, the doctrines and realitites of the Nuclear Age
O On the Eve of World War II: A foreign policy study
O On the Intelligentsia
O On the International Working-Class and Communist Movement

O On the Paris Commune
O On the Path of Cultural Progress: Culture of the socialist world
O On the Side of a Just Cause: Soviet assistance to the heroic Vietnamese people
O On the Soviet State Apparatus
O On the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: The technological revolution and literature
O On the Track of Discovery. [Series 1] [n.d. [1960’s]]:
O On the Unity of the International Communist Movement
O On the Upgrade: Living standards in the Soviet Union
O On the Way to Knowledge: Man, the Earth, outer space, acceleration
O One Is Not Born a Personality.
O One True Luxury: Research into communication pattern of Soviet schoolchildren, The
O One Way Ticket to Democracy:
O Optimal Functioning System for a Socialist Economy
O Orbits of the Global Economy, The
O Organisation and Management: A sociological analysis of Western theories
O Organisation of Domestic Trade in the USSR
O Organisation of Industry and Construction in the USSR
O Organisation of Statistics in the U.S.S.R.
O Organisation of Statistics in the USSR
O Organization of African Unity: 25 years of struggle
O Organizations: Communist Party, USA
O Origin and Principles of Scientific Socialism
O Origin of Man, The
O Origin of the Human Race., The
O Origins of the Proletariat and Its Evolution as a Revolutionary Class, The
O Our Course: Peace and Socialism
O Our Course: Peace and Socialism
O Our Lives, Our Dreams: Soviet women speak:
O Our Rights: Political and economic guarantees:
O Outer Space: Politics and law
O Outline History of Africa, An
O Outline History of the Communist International (1971)
O Outline History of the Soviet Working Class
O Outline Political History of the Americas
O Outline Theory of Population, An
O Outline of Soviet Labour Law, An
O Overseas Chinese Bourgeoisie: A Peking tool in southeast Asia.
O Overseas Expansion of Capital:, The
P Pacific Community: An Outlook, The
P Palekh: Village of Artists
P Palestine Problem: Aggression, resistance, ways of settlement, The
P Palestine Question: Document adopted by the United Nations and other international organisations and conferences, The
P Panorama of the Soviet Union
P Part Played By Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man, The
P Passing Age: The ideology and culture of the late bourgeois epoch, The
P Path of Valour., The
P Path to Peace: A view from Moscow, The
P Patrice Lumumba: Fighter for Africa’s freedom
P Peace Prospects From Three Worlds
P Peace Strategy in the Nuclear Age
P Peace and Disarmament. Academic Studies. 1980
P Peace and Disarmament: Academic Studies, special issue 1987:
P Peace and Disarmament
P Peaceful Coexistence: Contemporary international law of peaceful coexistence
P Peking Reaches Out: A Study of Chinese Expansionism
P People’s Army, The
P People’s Control in Socialist Society
P People’s Democracy, A New Form of Political Organization of Society
P People’s Theater: From the Box Office to the Stage
P Peoples of the North and Their Road to Socialism, The
P Perestroika In Action:
P Perestroika: The Crunch is Now
P Permanent Blush of Shame: A Trip to the East and West, A
P Personal Property in the USSR
P Personal Subsidiary Farming Under Socialism
P Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionism (Anarchism, Trotskyism and Maoism)
P Phenomenon of the Soviet Cinema
P Philosophical Conception of Man:, The
P Philosophical Concepts in Natural Science.

P Philosophical Foundations of Scientific Socialism
P Philosophical Problems of Elementary Particle Physics
P Philosophical Traditions Today.
P Philosophical Views of Mao Tse-Tung: A Critical Analysis, The
P Philosophy and Scientific Cognition
P Philosophy and Social Theory: An Introduction to Historical Materialism
P Philosophy and Sociology.
P Philosophy and the Ecological Problems of Civilisation
P Philosophy and the World-Views of Modern Sciences
P Philosophy in the USSR: Problems of dialectical materialism.
P Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism., The
P Philosophy of Optimism: Current problems
P Philosophy of Revolt: Criticism of left radical ideology., The
P Philosophy of Survival, The
P Philososphy in the USSR: Problems of historical materialism
P Physics of Interstellar Space: A popular-science outline
P Pioneers of Space
P Plain-Spoken Facts, The
P Planet of Reason: A Sociological Study of Man-Nature Relationship, The
P Planning a Socialist Economy
P Planning in Developing Countries: Theory and methodology
P Planning in the USSR: Problems of theory and organisation
P Planning of Manpower in the Soviet Union
P Plato
P Please Accept my Donation: Collection of Letters to the Soviet Peace Fund
P Pluto’s Chain: Explorations of the Kamchatka-Kuril volcanic belt
P Polar Diaries
P Policy Keeping the World on Edge, A
P Policy of Peaceful Coexistence in Action, The
P Policy of Provocation and Expansion: A collection of documents and articles, published in the Soviet press, dealing with China’s policy of annexation and its territorial claims to other countries, A
P Policy of the Soviet Union in the Arab World:, The
P Politcal Economy (1983)
P Political Consciousness in the U.S.A.: Traditions and evolutions.
P Political Economy (1989)
P Political Economy of Capitalism (1974), The
P Political Economy of Capitalism (1985)
P Political Economy of Revolution:, The
P Political Economy of Socialism (1967)
P Political Economy of Socialism (1985)
P Political Economy: A Condensed Course
P Political Economy: A beginner’s course
P Political Economy: A study aid
P Political Economy: Capitalism
P Political Economy: Socialism.
P Political Map of the World, The
P Political Reality and Political Consciousness.
P Political Systems, Development Trends: Theme of the 11th World Congress of political sciences
P Political Terms: A short guide
P Political Terrorism: An Indictment of Imperialism.
P Political Thought of Ancient Greece
P Political Work in the Soviet Army
P Politico-Economic Problems of Capitalism.
P Population Biology: Progress and problems of studies on natural populations
P Population and Socio-Economic Development
P Population of the USSR: A socio-economic survey, The
P Population, Economics, and Politics: The socio-economic development of the European members of the CMEA
P Populism: Its past, present and future.
P Present-Day China: Socio-economic problems, collected articles.
P Present- Day Ethnic Processes in the USSR
P Present- Day Problems in Asia and Africa: Theory - Politics - Personalities
P Present- day Non-Marxist Political Economy:
P Press Is a Great Force, The
P Prevent War, Safeguard Peace. [ca. 1962]
P Prevention of War: Doctrines, concepts, prospects
P Principles of Criminology, The
P Principles of Philosophy, The
P Principles of the Theory of Historical Process in Philosophy.
P Priorities of Soviet Foreign Policy Today, The
P Privileged Generation: Children in the Soviet Union, The

P Problem of the Ideal: The nature of mind and its relationship to the brain and social medium, The
P Problems of Africa Today
P Problems of Common Security
P Problems of Contemporary Aesthetics: A collection of articles
P Problems of Leninism
P Problems of Modern Aesthetics:
P Problems of Socialist Theory
P Problems of Soviet School Education
P Problems of War and Peace: A critical analysis of bourgeois theories.
P Problems of the Communist Movement: Some Questions of Theory and Method.
P Problems of the Development of Mind.
P Problems of the History of Philosophy.
P Proceedings of the First Congress of the Yemeni Socialist Party:
P Profession of the Stage-Director, The
P Profiles in Labour: Essays about heroes of socialist labour
P Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:, The
P Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism and Other Writings, The
P Psychiatry
P Psychological Research in USSR: Volume 1
P Psychological War, The
P Psychology (1989)
P Psychology As You May Like It
P Psychology in the Soviet Union: A Historical Outline.
P Psychology of Experiencing: An analysis of how critical situations are dealt with, The
P Psychology of Learning: Theories of learning and programmed instruction, The
P Psychology of Management of Labour Collectives, The
P Psychology of Phantasy:, The
P Psychology of Thinking, The
P Public Education in Soviet Azerbaijan: Appraisal of an achievement
P Public Education in the U.S.S.R.
P Public Enterprises in Developing Countries: Legal status
P Public Sector in Developing Countries:, The
P Publishing in the Soviet Union
P Pulse of Time, The
Q Questions of the Methodology of History:
R R&D in Social Reproduction.
R Races and Peoples: Contemporary ethnic and racial problems.
R Races of Mankind, The
R Racism: An ideological weapon of imperialism.
R Rational Utilization of Natural Resources and the Protection of the Environment, The
R Re-reading Dostoyevsky
R Reader on Social Sciences (ABC #1), A
R Reader on the History of the USSR (1917–1937)., A
R Real Socialism and Ideological Struggle
R Real Truth: Profiles of Soviet Jews, The
R Recent History of the Labor Movement in the United States 1918–1939
R Recreational Geography in the USSR
R Red Carnation., The
R Red Star and Green Crescent
R Reflections on Security in the Nuclear Age: A Dialogue Between Generals East and West
R Relativity and Man
R Religion and Social Conflicts in the U.S.A.
R Religion in the World Today
R Remarkable Year: The Blue Notebook: Retracing Lenin’s Steps., A
R Reminiscences of a Kremlin Commandant. [no date, ca. 1965.]
R Rendezvous in Space: Soyuz Apollo
R Renovation of Traditions: (traditions and innovations of Socialist realism in Ukrainian prose)
R Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVI Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Immediate Tasks of the Party in Home and Foreign Policy
R Report to the Nineteenth Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
R Requirements of Developed Socialist Society
R Responsiblity for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity:
R Resumption and Development of International Economic Relations, The
R Retracing Lenin’s Steps
R Revolution in Laos: Practice and Prospects
R Revolutionaries of India in Soviet Russia: Mainspring of the Communist movement in the East
R Revolutionary Battles of the Early 20th Century
R Revolutionary COMMUNIST PARTY, USA
R Revolutionary Democracy and Communists in the East
R Revolutionary Democracy in Africa

R Revolutionary Movement of Our Time and Nationalism., The
R Revolutionary Process in the East:, The
R Revolutionary Vanguard:, The
R Riddle of the Origin of Consciousness., The
R Riddle of the Self, The
R Riddles of Three Oceans, The
R Right of the Accused to Defence in the USSR, The
R Right-Wing Revisionism Today
R Rights Accruing From Loss of Health
R Rights of Soviet Citizens: Collected normative acts
R Rights of the Individual in Socialist Society, The
R Rise and Fall of the Gunbatsu: A Study in Military History, The
R Rise and Growth of the Non-Aligned Movement, The
R Rise of Socialist Economy: The experience of the USSR, other socialist, and socialist-oriented developing countries, The
R Road to Communism:, The
R Road to Great Victory: Soviet Diplomacy 1941–1945
R Road to Nirvana, The
R Road to Stable Peace in Asia, The
R Road to Victory: The Struggle For National Independence, Unity, Peace and Socialism in Vietnam, The
R Role of Advanced Ideas in Development of Society
R Role of Socialist Consciousness in the Development of Soviet Society, The
R Role of the State in Socio-Economic Reforms in Developing Countries, The
R Role of the State in the Socialist Transformation of the Economy of the U.S.S.R., The
R Rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
R Russia and Her People: Recollections in Tranquillity
R Russia and the West: 19th Century
R Russian Discovery of America, A
R Russian History in Tales
R Russian Museum: A Guide, The
R Russian Orthodox Church (1982), The
R Russian Orthodox Church 10th to 20th Centuries, The
R Russian Revolution: The Comic Book Version, The
R Russian Revolution: What actually happened?, The
R Russian Revolutionary Tradition, The
R Russian Thinkers: Essays on Socio–Economic Thought in the 18th and 19th Centuries
R Russians Abroad
S Sacred Lyre: Essays on the life and work of Alexander Pushkin
S Safeguard of Peace: Soviet armed forces:, A
S Salyut Project, The
S Saturn Is Almost Invisible
S Scandinavian Social Democracy Today
S School of Classical Dance
S Science AT THE CROSS ROADS
S Science Fiction and Adventure Stories by Soviet Writers
S Science Fiction: English and American Short Stories
S Science In Its Youth: Pre-Marxian political economy, A
S Science Policy: Problems and trends
S Science Serves the Nation:
S Science and Morality
S Science and Philosophy
S Science and Society.
S Science and Soviet People’s Education
S Science and Technology, Humanism and Progress:
S Science in the USSR:
S Science, Technology and the Economy
S Scientific Communism (1986)
S Scientific Communism (A Popular Outline)
S Scientific Communism and Its Falsification by the Renegades
S Scientific Communism: A textbook
S Scientific Intelligentsia in the USSR: (structure and dynamics of personnel), The
S Scientific Management of Society (1971), The
S Scientific Management of Society
S Scientific and Technical Progress and Socialist Society
S Scientific and Technical Progress in the USA:
S Scientific and Technical Revolution: Economic aspects
S Scientific and Technological Progress and Social Advance
S Scientific and Technological Revolution and the Revolution in Education, The
S Scientific and Technological Revolution: Its impact on management and education, The
S Scientific and Technological Revolution: Its role in today’s world, The
S Scientific and Technological Revolution: Social Effects and Prospects, The
S Scientific-Technological Revolution and the Contradictions of Capitalism., The

S Sdi: Key to security or disaster
S Search in Pedagogics: Discussions of the 1920’s and Early 1930s, A
S Second International, 1889–1914: The History and heritage, The
S Second Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.:
S Second World War: A Politico-Military Survey, The
S Secret War Against Cuba
S Secret War Against Soviet Russia, The
S Secret Weapon in Africa
S Secrets from Whitehall and Downing Street
S Secrets of the Second World War.
S Seeking Rational Solutions: Discussions old and new
S Selected Pedagogical Works
S Selected Philosophical Works
S Selected Speeches and Articles
S Selected Works in Geography
S Selected Writings: Linguistics, poetics
S Selections from Shaw: A fearless champion of truth.
S Selections from Shaw: A fearless champion of truth
S Semantic Philosophy of Art
S Sentinels of Peace
S Sergei Prokofiev: Materials, Articles, Interviews
S Serving the People.
S Seven Days in May
S Seven Essays on Life and Literature
S Shakespeare in the Soviet Union: A collection of articles.
S Sholokhov: A critical appreciation
S Short Course on Political Economy, A
S Short Economic History of the USSR, A
S Short History of Geographical Science in the Soviet Union, A
S Short History of Soviet Society, A
S Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union., A
S Short History of the National-Liberation Movement in East Africa, A
S Short History of the USSR (1987), A
S Short History of the USSR: A popular outline, A
S Short History of the USSR: Part I., A
S Short History of the USSR: Part II., A
S Short History of the World in Two Volumes, A
S Short History of the World in Two Volumes, A
S Siberia, 60 Degrees East of Greenwich: Oil and people
S Siberia: Achievements, Problems, Solutions
S Siberia: Epic of the Century
S Silent Death (Chemical weapons/warfare), The
S Simon Bolivar
S Sino-Soviet Relations 1945-1973:
S Sketches of the Soviet Union
S Social Democracy and Southern Africa, 1960s–1980s
S Social Informaton and the Regulation of Social Development
S Social Insurance in the U.S.S.R.
S Social Organisations in the Soviet Union: Political and legal organisational aspects
S Social Partnership or Class Struggle?: Theory, Legislation & Practice
S Social Problems of Man’s Environment: Where We Live and Work
S Social Programme of the Ninth Five-Year Plan
S Social Psychology and History
S Social Psychology and Propaganda
S Social Psychology
S Social Science
S Social Sciences: Information system., The
S Social Security in the USSR
S Social Structure of Soviet Society, The
S Social and Economic Geography: An essay in conceptual terminological systematisation
S Social and State Structure of the U.S.S.R., The
S Socialism As a Social System
S Socialism Theory and Practice:
S Socialism and Capitalism: Score and Prospects
S Socialism and Communism: Selected passages, 1956–63
S Socialism and Communism
S Socialism and Culture: A collection of articles
S Socialism and Democracy: A Reply to opportunists
S Socialism and Energy Resources
S Socialism and Humanism
S Socialism and Law: Law in society

S Socialism and Optimism
S Socialism and State Administration
S Socialism and Wealth
S Socialism and the Individual
S Socialism and the Newly Independent Nations
S Socialism and the Rational Needs of the Individual
S Socialism and the State
S Socialism in the USSR: How it was built
S Socialism’s Historic Mission and the World Today
S Socialism: A new theoretical vision
S Socialism: Crisis or renewal?
S Socialism: Foreign Policy in Theory and Practice
S Socialism: Its Role in History.
S Socialism: One-party and multi-party system
S Socialism: Questions of Theory
S Socialist Community at a New Stage, The
S Socialist Community: A new type of relations among nations, The
S Socialist Countries’ Economy in the 1970s, The
S Socialist Countries: Important Changes, The
S Socialist Culture and Man
S Socialist Democracy: Aspects of theory
S Socialist Humanism, Culture, Personality:
S Socialist Ideal and Real Socialism, The
S Socialist Ideology
S Socialist Integration
S Socialist International, The
S Socialist Internationalism (1978)
S Socialist Internationalism: Theory and practice of international relations of a new type
S Socialist Life Style and the Family
S Socialist Literatures, Problems of Development
S Socialist Long-Term Economic Planning.
S Socialist Management: The Leninist concept.
S Socialist Nationalisation of Industry.
S Socialist Organisation of Labour
S Socialist Policy of Peace: Theory and practice
S Socialist Realism and the Modern Literary Process
S Socialist Realism in Literature and Art:
S Socialist Revolution [MarxEngels], The
S Socialist Revolution and Its Defense, The
S Socialist Revolution in Russia and the Intelligentsia, The
S Socialist Revolution in Russia and the International Working Class (1917–1923), The
S Socialist Self-Government
S Socialist Society In the Present Stage: Proceedings of a section meeting
S Socialist Society: Its social justice
S Socialist Society: Scientific principles of development
S Socialist Way of Development in Agriculture, The
S Socialist Way of Life: Problems and perspectives
S Socialist World System, The
S Socialist- Oriented State: Instrument of Revolutionary Change, A
S Society and Economic Relations
S Society and Individual: Give and take
S Society and Nature: Socio-ecological problems
S Society and Youth
S Society and the Environment: A Soviet view
S Society of the Future
S Sociological Theory and Social Practice:
S Sociology of Culture, The
S Sociology of Revolution: A Marxist view
S Sociology: Problems of theory and method.
S Soldier’s Duty, A
S Soldier’s Memoirs:, A
S Solving the National Question in the USSR
S Some Aspects of Party-Political Work in the Soviet Armed Forces
S Some Basic Rights of Soviet Citizens
S Some Questions Concerning the Struggle of Counter-Revolutionary Trotskyism Against Revolutionary Leninism
S South Africa Against Africa, 1966–1986
S Southeast Asia: History, economy, policy.
S Southern Africa: Apartheid, Colonialism, Aggression.
S Soviet Agriculture
S Soviet Ambassador Reports Back, The
S Soviet Armed Forces Yesterday and Today, The

S Soviet Army, The
S Soviet Banker’s Notes, A
S Soviet Circus: A Collection of articles, The
S Soviet Collective Farm (a sociological study), The
S Soviet Communist Forum: (World response to the 25th CPSU congress)
S Soviet Constitution and the Myths of Sovietologists, The
S Soviet Constitution: A dictionary, The
S Soviet Court, The
S Soviet Democracy and Bourgeois Sovietology
S Soviet Democracy in the Period of Developed Socialism
S Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and problems.
S Soviet Economy Forges Ahead: Ninth five-year plan 1971–1975.
S Soviet Economy: Results and prospects
S Soviet Employee’s Rights in Law
S Soviet Family Budgets
S Soviet Finance: Principles, Operation
S Soviet Financial System
S Soviet Fine Arts
S Soviet Foreign Policy Volume I:
S Soviet Foreign Policy Volume II:
S Soviet Foreign Policy: A brief review 1955–65.
S Soviet Foreign Policy: Objectives and principles
S Soviet Foreign Trade: Today and tomorrow
S Soviet Form of Popular Government, The
S Soviet Frontiers of Tomorrow
S Soviet General Staff at War 1941–1945: Book 1, The
S Soviet General Staff at War 1941–1945: Book 2, The
S Soviet Geographical Explorations and Discoveries
S Soviet Geography Today: Aspects of theory
S Soviet Geography Today: Physical Geography
S Soviet Historical Science: New research
S Soviet Industry
S Soviet Land Legislation.
S Soviet Legislation on Children’s Rights.
S Soviet Legislation on Women’s Rights:
S Soviet Literature–Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
S Soviet Literature: Problems and People
S Soviet Lithuania on the Road to Prosperity
S Soviet Man: The making of a socialist type of personality
S Soviet Nationalities and Policy and Bourgeois Historians: The formation of the Soviet multinational state (1917–1922) in contemporary American historiography
S Soviet Navy in War and Peace, The
S Soviet North: In the Land of the Midnight Sun; the Arctic; News from High Latitudes
S Soviet North: Present Development and Prospects, The
S Soviet Officers
S Soviet Parliament: A reference book, The
S Soviet Peace Efforts on the Eve of World War II
S Soviet Peace Efforts on the Eve of World War II
S Soviet Peace Policy, 1917–1939
S Soviet Peasantry: An outline history (1917–1970), The
S Soviet People as I Knew Them
S Soviet People: A new historical community, The
S Soviet Planned Economy, The
S Soviet Policy for Asian Peace and Security
S Soviet Political System Under Developed Socialism, The
S Soviet Political System: Perceptions and perspectives
S Soviet Psychology
S Soviet Reality in the Seventies
S Soviet Rock: 25 Years in the Underground + 5 Years of Freedom
S Soviet Russia Opts for Peace
S Soviet Russian Literature 1917–1977: Poetry and Prose - Selected Reading
S Soviet Russian Stories of the 1960s and 1970s
S Soviet Scene 1987: A collection of press articles and interviews
S Soviet School of Courage and Warcraft, The
S Soviet Science and Technique in the Service of Building Communism in the U.S.S.R.
S Soviet Socialist Democracy
S Soviet Society: Philosophy of Development
S Soviet Stars in the World of Music
S Soviet State and Law., The
S Soviet State as a Subject of Civil Law, The
S Soviet State, The
S Soviet Trade Unions: A collection of background materials, The

S Soviet Trade Unions: Yesterday Today Tomorrow
S Soviet Ukraine
S Soviet Union 50 Years Statistical Returns
S Soviet Union Today, The
S Soviet Union and Africa, The
S Soviet Union and European Security, The
S Soviet Union and International Economic Cooperation, The
S Soviet Union and the Manchurian Revolutionary Base (1945–1949), The
S Soviet Union as Americans See It 1917–1977, The
S Soviet Union: Political and Economic Reference Book.
S Soviet Volunteers in China 1925–1945
S Soviet Way of Life, The
S Soviet Women (Some aspects of the status of women in the USSR)
S Soviet Women: A portrait.
S Soviet Worker, The
S Soviet Writers Look At America
S Soviet Youth and Socialism.
S Soviet Youth: A socio-political outline.
S Soviet–U.S. Relations, 1933–1942
S Soviets of People’s Deputies: Democracy and administration
S Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies on the Eve of the October Revolution, March–October 1917
S Soweto: Life and Struggles of a South African Township
S Space Age, The
S Space Flights Serve Life on Earth
S Specialisation and Co-Operation of the Socialist Economies
S Sport and Society
S Stanislavsky
S State Law of the Socialist Countries: Socialism Today, The
S State Monopoly Capitalism and Labour Law
S State Monopoly Incomes Policy: Conception and Practice (In the Context of Great Britain)
S State Property in the USSR: Legal aspects
S State Structure of the USSR
S State and Communism, The
S State and Nations in the USSR, The
S State of Israel: A Historical, Economic and Political Study , The
S State, Democracy and Legality in the USSR: Lenin’s ideas today, The
S State-Monopoly Capitalism and the Labour Theory of Value.
S Steeled in the Storm: Essays on the history of the Komsomol
S Steep Steps: A Journalist’s Notes, The
S Stories About Lenin and the Revolution
S Stories About the Party of Communists Under Whose Leadership the Peoples of Russia Overthrew...
S Straight from the Heart: The writer and the time series
S Strategy of Economic Development in the USSR, The
S Strategy of Transnational Corporations, The
S Stride Across a Thousand Years:, A
S Strong in Spirit, The
S Struggle for Socialism in the World
S Studies in Psychology: The collective and the individual.
S Study of Soviet Foreign Policy, A
S Subject, Object, Cognition.
S Submarines in Arctic Waters
S Sukhomlinsky on Education, V.
S Surrealism
S System of Physical Education in the USSR, The
S Systems Theory: Philosophical and Methodological Problems
C Cp of China :: THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT
T Tales of the Ancient World:
T Talking About the Future: Can We Develop Without Disaster
T Talking About the Future: Is Mankind Heading for a Raw Materials Crisis?
T Talks on Soviet Democracy.
T Teacher’s Experience: Stanislav Shatsky: A collection, A
T Teaching of Political Economy: A critique of non-Marxian theories, The
T Teaching: Calling and skills.
T Teaching
T Technological Neo-colonialism
T Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam Conferences., The
T Television In the West and Its Doctrines.
T Ten Years of the Ethiopian Revolution
T Territorial Industrial Complexes: Optimisation models and general aspects
T Territorial Organisation of Soviet Economy, The
T Terrorism and International Law

T That Curious World of Nature: Geography for entertainment
T The LAND OF SOCIALISM TODAY TOMORROW
T The POLICY OF NON-ALIGNMENT
T Theatre, Music, Art (1967–1970)
T Their Point of View: Young Americans in the USSR
T Theoretical Aspects of Linguistics
T Theoretical Physics
T Theories of Surplus Value:
T Theory and Practice of Proletarian Internationalism, The
T Theory and Tactics of the International Communist Movement
T Theory of Earth’s Origin: Four lectures
T Theory of Growth of a Socialist Economy, The
T Theory of Knowledge ( by Cornforth ), The
T Theory of Population: Essays in Marxist research., The
T Theory of the State and Law
T There Shall be Retribution: Nazi war criminals and their protectors
T They Came to Stay: North Americans in the USSR
T They Found Their Voice: Stories from Soviet Nationalities with No Written Language Before the 1917 October Revolution
T They Knew Lenin: Reminiscenses of Foreign Contemporaries
T They Sealed Their Own Doom
T Third Soviet Generation
T Third World War? Threats, real, and imaginary, A
T Third World: Problems and Prospects, current stage of the national-liberation struggle, The
T Thirty Years of Victory
T This Amazing Amazing Amazing But Knowable Universe
T This NATION AND SOCIALISM ARE ONE
T This Nation and Socialism Are One
T This Whole Human Rights Business
T This is My Native Land: A Soviet journalists travels
T Three Centuries of Russian Poetry
T Three Leaders: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi
T Three Men in a Boat to Say Nothing of the Dog
T Through the Russian Revolution
T Time For a New Way of Thinking
T Time to Speak Out, The
T To Be an Individual–Is It the Lot of Only a Chosen Few?
T To Children I Give My Heart
T Tomorrow Will Be Too Late: Dialogue on the threshold of the third millennium
T Topsy-Turvy Planet, or, Paramon’s Incredible Tale of Travel and Adventure, A
T Towards Freedom and Progress: The triumph of Soviet power in Central Asia
T Towards Social Homogeneity
T Towards Technologies of the Future
T Towns for People
T Tracing Martin Bormann
T Trade Among Capitalist Countries
T Trade Unions in Socialist Society
T Trade Unions, Disarmament, Conversion
T Trade and Coexistence
T Transition from Capitalism to Socialism, The
T Transnational Corporations And Militarism
T Travel to Distant Worlds
T Travels to New Guinea: Diaries Letters Documents.
T Tretyakov Art Gallery: A Guide
T Triumph of Lenin’s Ideas: Proceedings of Plenary Session
T Triumph of the Leninist Ideas of Proletarian Internationalism:
T Truth About Afghanistan:, The
T Truth About Cultural Exchange: 10 Years After Helsinki, The
T Turning-Point of World War II:, The
T Twentieth Century Capitalism
T Two Directions of Socio-economic Development in Africa
T Two Hundred Days of Fire: Accounts by participants and witnesses of the battle of Stalingrad
T Two Worlds–Two Monetary Systems
U U.S. Budget and Economic Policy.
U U.S. Labour Unions Today: Basic problems and trends.
U U.S. Military Doctrine, The
U U.S. Monopolies and Developing Countries
U U.S. Negroes in Battle: From Little Rock to Watts
U U.S. Neocolonialism in Africa
U U.S. Policies in the Indian Ocean
U U.S. Policy in Latin America: Postwar to present.
U U.S. Two-Party System: Past and present:, The

U U.S. War Machine and Politics, The
U Ultras in the USA., The
U Ulyanov Family, The
U Unbreakable Union of Soviet Republics, The
U Undaunted Heroes: A Vietnam diary, The
U Undeclared War: Imperialism vs. Afghanistan:, The
U Union of Soviet Writers: Aims, Organisation, Activities, The
U United Soviet People, The
U Unity, Solidarity, Internationalism: International Communist Unity:
U Universe and Civilisation, The
U Universe, The
U Us Monopolies and Developing Countries
U Usa and Western Europe: Economic Relations After World War II, The
U Usa versus Western Europe: New Trends
U Usa, Western Europe, Japan: a triangle of rivalry, The
U Usa: Anatomy of the Arms Race
U Usa: Imperialists and Anti-Imperialists: The great foreign policy debate at the turn of the Century
U Usa: Militarism and the Economy
U Ussr - USA - Sports Encounters
U Ussr Builds for the Future, The
U Ussr Economy in 1976–1980, The
U Ussr Proposes Disarmament (1920s–1980s), The
U Ussr State Industry During the Transition Period
U Ussr Tenth Five-Year Plan Building Projects
U Ussr Through Indian Eyes
U Ussr and Countries of Africa
U Ussr and Developing Countries: Economic Cooperation, The
U Ussr and International Copyright Protection, The
U Ussr and International Economic Relations:, The
U Ussr in World Politics., The
U Ussr–FRG Relations: A new stage
U Ussr–USA Trade Unions Compared
U Ussr’s Activities in the UN for Peace, Security and Co-Operation, 1945–1985, The
U Ussr, Reorganisation and Renewal
U Ussr, the USA, and the People’s Revolution in China, The
U Ussr: A Dictatorship or a Democracy?, The
U Ussr: A Short History., The
U Ussr: A Time of Change: Scholars, Writers and Artists Speak
U Ussr: A genuine united nations, The
U Ussr: A guide for businessmen
U Ussr: Education, Science and Culture., The
U Ussr: For Peace Against Aggression:
U Ussr: Geography of the eleventh five-year plan period
U Ussr: Public Health and Social Security., The
U Ussr: Questions and Answers
U Ussr: Sixty Years of the Union: 1922–1982
U Ussr: Youth of the Eighties
V Vietnam Story, The
V Village Children: A Soviet experience
V Vladimir Favorsky
V Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A biography
V Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: Life and works
V Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: Pages from his life with reminiscences of his associates
V Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
V Vladimir Mayakovsky: Innovator
V Vladimir Vysotsky: Hamlet with a guitar
W Wanted...
W War Is Their Business: The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex:
W War of Ideas in Contemporary International Relations:, The
W War’s Unwomanly Face
W Wars and Population
W Washington Crusaders On the March
W Washington Silhouettes: A political round-up
W Washington Versus Havana
W Way Society Develops, The
W We Are From Friendship University [nd (mid 1960s)]
W We Choose Peace
W Weaponry in Space: The dilemma of security
W Welfare the Basic Task: Five Year Plan, 1971–1975
W West Berlin: In memory of those Soviet officers and men who fell in the battle to liberate Berlin
W West Berlin: Yesterday and Today

W West European Integration: Its policies and international relations
W Western Aid: Myth and Reality
W Western Europe Today: Economics, politics, the class struggle, international relations
W What Are Classes and the Class Struggle? (ABC #14)
W What Are They After in Peking?
W What Are Trade Unions? (ABC #21)
W What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?
W What Is Capitalism? (ABC #8)
W What Is Communism? (ABC #10)
W What Is Democratic Centralism?
W What Is Democratic Socialism?
W What Is Dialectical Materialism? (ABC #6)
W What Is Good and What is Bad
W What Is Historical Materialism? (ABC #7)
W What Is Labour? (ABC #11)
W What Is Marxism-Leninism? (ABC #2)
W What Is Personality? (ABC #23)
W What Is Philosophy? (ABC #4)
W What Is Political Economy? (ABC #3)
W What Is Property? (ABC #13)
W What Is Revolution? (ABC #17)
W What Is Scientific Communism? (ABC #5)
W What Is Socialism? (ABC #9)
W What Is Surplus Value? (ABC #12)
W What Is The Party? (ABC #15)
W What Is The Scientific and Technological Revolution? (ABC #22)
W What Is The State? (ABC #16)
W What Is The Transition Period? (ABC #18)
W What Is The Working People’s Power? (ABC #19)
W What Is The World Socialist System? (ABC #20)
W What Is What? (ABC #24)
W What Maoism is Really Like
W What Real Socialism Means to the People:
W What’s What in World Politics: A reference book
W Where All Roads Into Space Begin:
W Where Are Trotskyites Leading the Youth?
W Where Human Rights Are Real.
W Where It’s Coldest
W Where the Old Are Young: Long life in the Soviet Caucasus
W White Book:, The
W White House and the Black Continent, The
W Whither and With Whom? Essays from the ideological front
W Who’s Who in the Soviet Cinema: Seventy Different Portraits
W Why We Returned to the Soviet Union: Testimonies from Russian emigrÃ©s
W Wilfred Grenfell: His life and work
W Will We Survive?
W Winning for Peace: The great victory–its world impact
W Winston Churchill
W Witness to War:
W Women Today
W Women in Science
W Women in the USSR: On the UN Decade for Women
W Women of a New World
W Words of Friends: Greetings extended to the XXVIth Congress of the CPSU, The
W Work and Love
W Workers in Society: Polemical essays
W Workers’ Control Over Production: Past and present.
W Working Class Movement in the Period of Transition to Imperialism (1871–1904), The
W Working Class and Social Progress:, The
W Working Class and its Allies, The
W Working Class and the Contemporary World:, The
W Working Class and the Trade Unions in the USSR:, The
W Working Class in Socialist Society:, The
W Working Class—The Leading Force of the World Revolutionary Process:, The
W Working-Class Movement in the Developmed Capitalist Countries After the Second World War (1945–1979), The
W Working-Class Struggle for Peace and Social Progress:, The
W Working-Class and National-Liberation Movements:
W World Capitalist Economy: Structural changes:, The
W World Communist Movement: An outline of strategy and tactics, The
W World Energy Problem, The
W World MARXIST REVIEW

W World Market Today, The
W World Revolutionary Movement of the Working Class
W World Revolutionary Process, The
W World Socialist Movement & Anti-Communism., The
W World Socialist System and Anti-Communism, The
W World Socialist System:, The
W World War II: Myths and the Realities.
W World War II: The Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army
W World Without Arms?, A
W World of Man In the World of Nature, The
W Wormwood [Hitler-era anti-semitism & postwar Zionism]
W Writer’s Creative Individuality and the Development of Literature, The
Y Yakov Sverdlov
Y Year 2000: End of the human race?, The
Y Year of Victory
Y Yellow Devil: Gold and capitalism., The
Y Young Communist International and Its Origins, The
Y Young Teens Blaze Paths to Peace: The story of the first global children’s festival for peace, friendship co-operation
Y Young in the Revolution:, The
Y Your First Move: Chess for beginners.
Y Youth and Politics
Y Youth and the Party: Documents
Z Zionism Stands Accused
Z Zionism: Enemy of peace and social progress
http://leninist.biz/en/TAZ

The Philosophical Views of Maotse-tung@Lbiz - en - 1971 - pvmt176

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Philosophical Views of Maotse-tung@Lbiz - en - 1971 - pvmt176

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

@LBiz: en/1971/PVMT176:

<<< THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF MAOTSE-TUNG A @AT LENINIST

5 THE MAOIST MYSTIQUE

Text THE SOCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF MAO TSE-

THE IDEALIST ESSENCE OF MAOIST PHILOSOPHY

66 1. Subjective Idealism Instead of the Materialist View of History

79 2. The Idealist Answer to the Basic Question of Philosophy

ECLECTICISM POSING AS DIALECTICS. MAO TSE-

109 The Theory of Balance in Lieu of Materialist Dialectics

113 Antagonism in Lieu of Contradiction

MARXIST-LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND MAOIST

135 Practice and the Relationship Between Theory and Practice

144 Mao’s Oversimplified Approach to Theory

148 Mao’s “Discoveries” in the Theory of Knowledge

The Epistemology of Dialectical Materialism and the Empiricism

@At Leninist . Biz ... FREE electronic books !

Español Que Nuevo en <—

Lenin Obras Completas, Akal Editor (Mexico).

<<< THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF MAOTSE-TUNG A @AT LENINIST

<< • >> INTRODUCTION 5

By parading in Marxist disguise, Maoist philosophy disorientates and ideologically p

Maoism not only discredits Marxist philosophy, presenting it in a highly primitive, p

Although eclectic in its composition and founded on subjective-idealist principles, p

Mao’s followers present his philosophy as "contemporary Marxism-Leninism”. p

However, we should be greatly overestimating the modesty of Mao Tse-tung and p

In the aforementioned work of Liu Shao-chi On the Selfcultivation of Communist p

In the course of the notorious "cultural revolution”, Mao Tse-tung hypocritically p

Hungweiping publications reported that the famous Chinese revolutionary Yang p

Lu Hsin, a representative of the Hungweipings declared: "We young red soldiers of

Progressively distorting Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung came to regard the p

Meanwhile, however, work was in progress to boost Mao’s status as "greatest p

In ’The ’fhrce Great Stages in the History of Marxism, a collection of material p

An important contribution to the spread of MarxismLeninism in China and the study p

However, even at the beginning of the forties, if we discount a few works on p

simply been back-dated.

2. No mention of these works is to be found in the Yenan newspaper Jiefang jih- p

Thus, Mao’s claims to have made a contribution to the development of Marxist p

The substitution of Maoism for Marxism-Leninism was actually effected at the p

The reasons are as follows. p

3. In choosing a convenient term, the Maoists were probably unable to entirely p

[ 16•1 ] Selected Works, Volume Three, p. 85.

[ 16•2 ] Ibid., p. 137.

[ 16•3 ] Ibid., p. 138.

[ 21•1 ] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Volume Four, p. 30.

[ 23•1 ] fiefangjiin j»io, November 13, 1903.

[ 24•1 ] Mao Tse-tung-, Selected Works. Volume One, p. 282.

[ 25•1 ] Dialectical Materialism (in Chinese), Talien, p. 110 (emphasis added.—M.A.,

<<< CHAPTER I -- THE SOCIAL AND >>>

@At Leninist . Biz ... FREE electronic books !

<<< THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF MAOTSE-TUNG A @AT LENINIST

<< • >> CHAPTER I 29

Describing the situation in the society of Western Europe in medieval times as a p

A roughly similar situation is to be observed in Chinese medieval feudal society. p

None of these programmes were capable of providing a real solution to the p

It must be realised, however, that many Chinese revolutionaries, including members p

Mao Tse-tung is certainly to be counted among these non-Marxists. Strongly p

“ Marxist philosophy is a revolutionary-critical generalisation of all previous p

The metaphysicism characteristic of European philosophy in the seventeenth and p

investigation of material objects and thorough analysis of their characteristics.

Although this and similar treatment of cosmological problems is of undoubted value p

The chief obstacle to the progress in Chinese philosophy, as we have already p

Jen, meaning humaneness or perfect humanity was a central concept of the p

Although such ideas undoubtedly had a negative effect on the development of p