The Art of War

[scarletghoul]

Reading this for the 2nd time now, it's so awesome. Would anyone else agree that it's an early example of dialectical materialism (though obviously not in the Marxist style) ? Obviously ancient Chinese philosophy has a certain dialectical element, but this book especially is great as it is materialist too. Ie, it doesn't concentrate on some mystical Chi thing but on the material situation. It's clearly influenced warfare ever since, particularly the theories of Mao who mixed it with proper ML dialectical materialism. It's useful for many other contradictions too, especially the political. After all, politics is war without bloodshed.

What are your opinions on this book ? Dialectical materialism or not ?

[Queercommie Girl]

The Art of War is generally speaking dialectical, but it is clearly not entirely progressive by any means, but a mixture of progressive and reactionary elements.

It was progressive in the sense that it was written during the period of slavery-feudalism transition, therefore it was materialistic as opposed to the theocracy of the slave-lords. But Yi Jing (Book of Changes) isn't mystical or idealist either, but containing both materialist and idealist interpretations.

Mao was somewhat influenced by the Art of War, but his evaluation of it isn't entirely positive by any means. The Art of War contains lots of feudal junk, such as the feudal warlord's glorification of warfare, the idea of absolute and blind obedience soldiers should have towards their superiors etc that would be reactionary from the point of view of revolutionary socialism.

The Art of War contains both reactionary and progressive aspects, just like the writings of Confucius and Laozi. I don't think it really stands out among similar texts of that era in ancient China, unless you happen to be really interested in warfare.

[Shokaract]

I think it has more historical value than philosophical. Furthermore, I'm disappointed that almost the entire modern audience for the book is vicious businesspeople hoping it'll help them destroy others more effectively.

[BAM]

I think it has more historical value than philosophical. Furthermore, I'm disappointed that almost the entire modern audience for the book is vicious businesspeople hoping it'll help them destroy others more effectively.

It was one, along with Clausewitz's On War, of Guy Debord's favourite books, if that's any comfort.

I agree that it is rather annoying that a lot of classics on strategy get bundled into the business self-help book genre. The same goes for Musashi's The Book of Five Rings, Machiavelli's Prince and so on.

[ComradeOm]

It's clearly influenced warfare ever sinceNo it hasn't. Leaving aside the fact that The Art of War wasn't introduced to Europe until the 18th C, it is merely one of the countless military treatises that have been written throughout history. That this particular tome has a higher profile is because a) its more general (than say De Re Militari), and b) more readable than serious theoretical works such as On War. Its impact on actual military campaigns, outside of Asia at least, has been minimal... not surprising that it merely restates some basic military axioms

[danyboy27]

mao and marx where fan of klausevitz, get used to it boy.

i am currently reading On war, and i must say this is quite interresting.

i have read the art of war several time, i learned some interresting things in it, but i must say klausevitz explain a lot of interresting concept.

you can clearly understand that relation between politics and war, and the importance of the state in it.

it might apply to guerilla warfare fan if differently interpreted, but its mainly explain how the relation between the state and the military work.

[RedStarOverChina]

I do not think one can make the connection between war strategists like Sun Tzu and Daoist philosophy. I would even say they were diametrically opposed to each other.

Sun Tzu did see war as a mean to peace---which can be seen as somewhat dialectical, but that was only a simple observation.

While war strategists and Daoist philosophers of the Spring and Autumn period in China were both members of the same caste---shi, or lower level aristocrats, there is hardly anything more that would link them.

The former (Sun Tzu, Pang Juan, Sun Bin, etc) were opportunistic careerists winning glory and wealth with their military service, while the latter were pacifist, nihilistic hermits (Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, etc.).

The Daoists in many ways closely resemble post-war Western nihilists who have lost faith in the Western civilization. The Daoists lost faith in the Chinese civilization after being traumatized by the centuries of continuous and increasingly bloody warfare.

In the West, nihilists looked for ideas from the technologically backward Orientals. The Oriental nihilists, i.e., the Daoists, had nowhere else to turn to except for the ancients. So they idolize a romanticized, largely fictional, primitive China.

Going back to dialectics: Daoists did see things in a dialectical way. They thought that moral proselytising only led to more immorality; commercialism led to thievery; pleasure led to greed. So in order to avoid this endless dialectical loop of increasingly unbearable suffering, people simply should stop trying to hard.

I doubt Sun Tzu would agree with that.

[Queercommie Girl]

I do not think one can make the connection between war strategists like Sun Tzu and Daoist philosophy. I would even say they were diametrically opposed to each other.

Sun Tzu did see war as a mean to peace---which can be seen as somewhat dialectical, but that was only a simple observation.

While war strategists and Daoist philosophers of the Spring and Autumn period in China were both members of the same caste---shi, or lower level aristocrats, there is hardly anything more that would link them.

The former (Sun Tzu, Pang Juan, Sun Bin, etc) were opportunistic careerists winning glory and wealth with their military service, while the latter were pacifist, nihilistic hermits (Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, etc.).

The Daoists in many ways closely resemble post-war Western nihilists who have lost faith in the Western civilization. The Daoists lost faith in the Chinese civilization after being traumatized by the centuries of continuous and increasingly bloody warfare.

In the West, nihilists looked for ideas from the technologically backward Orientals. The Oriental nihilists, i.e., the Daoists, had nowhere else to turn to except for the ancients. So they idolize a romanticized, largely fictional, primitive China.

Going back to dialectics: Daoists did see things in a dialectical way. They thought that moral proselytising only led to more immorality; commercialism led to thievery; pleasure led to greed. So in order to avoid this endless dialectical loop of increasingly unbearable suffering, people simply should stop trying to hard.

I doubt Sun Tzu would agree with that.

"Dialectical" doesn't equate with "Daoist".

[Queercommie Girl]

No it hasn't. Leaving aside the fact that The Art of War wasn't introduced to Europe until the 18th C, it is merely one of the countless military treatises that have been written throughout history. That this particular tome has a higher profile is because a) its more general (than say De Re Militari), and b) more readable than serious theoretical works such as On War. Its impact on actual military campaigns, outside of Asia at least, has been minimal... not surprising that it merely restates some basic military axioms

However, note that the majority of the world's population is Asian. Having a big impact in Asia means having a big impact in the world in general.

Obviously texts like On War would be more complex since it was written thousands of year later than the Art of War.

I think in the US the Art of War is still on the recommended reading list for students at West Point.

[Queercommie Girl]

mao and marx where fan of klausevitz, get used to it boy.

i am currently reading On war, and i must say this is quite interresting.

i have read the art of war several time, i learned some interresting things in it, but i must say klausevitz explain a lot of interresting concept.

you can clearly understand that relation between politics and war, and the importance of the state in it.

it might apply to guerilla warfare fan if differently interpreted, but its mainly explain how the relation between the state and the military work.

Clausevitz himself praised the Art of War.

[danyboy27]

Clausevitz himself praised the Art of War.

dosnt change nothing from the fact the quality of on war surpass the art of war on every aspect.

its structured, well written, and more relevant of the current reality of things.

[Queercommie Girl]

dosnt change nothing from the fact the quality of on war surpass the art of war on every aspect.

its structured, well written, and more relevant of the current reality of things.

It's a modern work which is more relevant to the modern scenario of warfare.

But then saying On War is "better" than the Art of War is like saying airplanes are "better" than chariots.

However, On War is still a bourgeois text, just like the Art of War is a text of the feudal warlords. Socialists have better military texts to look at, such as the military works of people like Mao and Che Guvera.

[pastradamus]

However, On War is still a bourgeois text, just like the Art of War is a text of the feudal warlords. Socialists have better military texts to look at, such as the military works of people like Mao and Che Guvera.

Im glad you mentioned Mao & Che's Guerrilla warfare texts.

I've read them both and I must say mao's is much better and even more applicable to modern warfare. Its more complex and detailed and even speaks of how many Barbers a battle group should have! That being said, Che's version is much easier to read than mao's.

[Queercommie Girl]

Im glad you mentioned Mao & Che's Guerrilla warfare texts.

I've read them both and I must say mao's is much better and even more applicable to modern warfare. Its more complex and detailed and even speaks of how many Barbers a battle group should have! That being said, Che's version is much easier to read than mao's.

It's not just the strategic content, it's also the class basis of the military text. The CCP has a saying (not just Maoists but also shared by Chinese Trotskyists): "the party commands the gun", which means that political principle is more important than strategic content.

The strategic texts of the feudal and bourgeois classes, like the Art of War and On War, exist to serve feudal and bourgeois political ends. The Art of War for instance teaches blind obedience that soldiers should have towards their feudal warlord. This is clearly reactionary, no matter how great the strategic content is.

Proletarian strategy, on the other hand, exists to serve proletarian political ends. That is the fundamental difference, which is why Mao said that "class struggle is the framework for everything else".

[danyboy27]

It's a modern work which is more relevant to the modern scenario of warfare.

But then saying On War is "better" than the Art of War is like saying airplanes are "better" than chariots.

However, On War is still a bourgeois text, just like the Art of War is a text of the feudal warlords. Socialists have better military texts to look at, such as the military works of people like Mao and Che Guvera.

both Mao and che read and applied principles and basics described in On war.

i think it would be a huuge mistake to ''fallow'' any of these books, On war included, those are nothing but mere guidlines and way of thinking.

Someone who have only read On war could be an excellent guerilla warfare tactician, its all about how you use the information that you gather.

[danyboy27]

It's not just the strategic content, it's also the class basis of the military text. The CCP has a saying (not just Maoists but also shared by Chinese Trotskyists): "the party commands the gun", which means that political principle is more important than strategic content.

The strategic texts of the feudal and bourgeois classes, like the Art of War and On War, exist to serve feudal and bourgeois political ends. The Art of War for instance teaches blind obedience that soldiers should have towards their feudal warlord. This is clearly reactionary, no matter how great the strategic content is.

Proletarian strategy, on the other hand, exists to serve proletarian political ends. That is the fundamental difference, which is why Mao said that "class struggle is the framework for everything else".
basicly, the party command the gun is nothing more than a summarization of On war: war is the continuation of politics, by other means.

[Konstantine]

I loved this book, finished reading it in my high school years. I particularly love the idea of tactics and intellectual practice in warfare. That's all warfare is, a large war of logic and intelligence.

[Queercommie Girl]

basicly, the party command the gun is nothing more than a summarization of On war: war is the continuation of politics, by other means.

But the politics of On War is bourgeois politics, not proletarian politics.

Mao said: "if the political line is wrong, the more knowledge one has, the more reactionary one becomes".

Red is more important than expert, any socialists who is at all credible in any sense must never forget about the class line.

[Queercommie Girl]

I loved this book, finished reading it in my high school years. I particularly love the idea of tactics and intellectual practice in warfare. That's all warfare is, a large war of logic and intelligence.

Note however that for all its good points, the Art of War is still a text of the feudal warlord class.

[Queercommie Girl]

both Mao and che read and applied principles and basics described in On war.

i think it would be a huuge mistake to ''fallow'' any of these books, On war included, those are nothing but mere guidlines and way of thinking.

Someone who have only read On war could be an excellent guerilla warfare tactician, its all about how you use the information that you gather.

Yes, and Mao was also a big fan of the Art of War, and of certain positive aspects of classical Chinese philosophy as well.

[danyboy27]

Yes, and Mao was also a big fan of the Art of War, and of certain positive aspects of classical Chinese philosophy as well.

and klausevitz has well.

[danyboy27]

But the politics of On War is bourgeois politics, not proletarian politics.

Mao said: "if the political line is wrong, the more knowledge one has, the more reactionary one becomes".

Red is more important than expert, any socialists who is at all credible in any sense must never forget about the class line.

the politics of on war is basicly neutral and can be applied to basicly any political system.

its a blueprint, nothing more nothing less, you take what you need and that pretty much it.

[Queercommie Girl]

the politics of on war is basicly neutral and can be applied to basicly any political system.

its a blueprint, nothing more nothing less, you take what you need and that pretty much it.

The idea in On War is essentially correct - the principle that war is an extension of politics.

But when Chinese communists say things like "the party commands the gun", it's deeper than just saying that "war is an extension of politics". It's saying that political principles weigh more heavily than pure strategic concerns, i.e. it is better to make a stupid strategic decision that is nevertheless still politically sound than to make a superb strategic decision that is politically reactionary - e.g. sacrificing the lives of proletarian masses.

[danyboy27]

The idea in On War is essentially correct - the principle that war is an extension of politics.

But when Chinese communists say things like "the party commands the gun", it's deeper than just saying that "war is an extension of politics". It's saying that political principles weigh more heavily than pure strategic concerns, i.e. it is better to make a stupid strategic decision that is nevertheless still politically sound than to make a superb strategic decision that is politically reactionary - e.g. sacrificing the lives of proletarian masses.

and klausevitz say just that, in his first chapter he say that the political goal may replace a strategic goal if the situation demand it.

he also outline clearly the importance of the morale of the troops and of the population.

[Queercommie Girl]

However, bourgeois warlords never seem to get his message.

The Chinese nationalist armies during the Chinese civil war were armed with quite a bit of German military tactics, but they frequently sacrificed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians when the situation suited them. Like deliberating destroying the dams on the yellow river, which led to the complete flooding of entire areas that slaughtered tens of thousands, in order to stall the Chinese communist army.

[danyboy27]

However, bourgeois warlords never seem to get his message.

The Chinese nationalist armies during the Chinese civil war were armed with quite a bit of German military tactics, but they frequently sacrificed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians when the situation suited them. Like deliberating destroying the dams on the yellow river, which led to the complete flooding of entire areas that slaughtered tens of thousands, in order to stall the Chinese communist army.

but that not beccause of the teaching of clausevitz, its was only plain stupid barbary, just like when hitler decided to go genocide on Ukraine.

if an horrible person use knowledge to do horrible shit, does it mean that this knowledge is bad? no, it just mean horrible person do horrible things, period.

stop blaming the book for the stupidity of its users.

[Queercommie Girl]

but that not beccause of the teaching of clausevitz, its was only plain stupid barbary, just like when hitler decided to go genocide on Ukraine.

if an horrible person use knowledge to do horrible shit, does it mean that this knowledge is bad? no, it just mean horrible person do horrible things, period.

stop blaming the book for the stupidity of its users.

No you are mistaken. I'm not directly blaming the book, I'm pointing out the fact that warfare actually has a class basis, (not just "stupidity" in the general sense) and though Clausevitz might have had some good ideas, since he never recognised the class nature of warfare a lot of them would not be put into actual practice.

If an horrible person uses a certain kind of knowledge to do horrible things, obviously one cannot directly blame the knowledge itself. But one can raise the point that whoever wrote down this kind of knowledge did not really see how the practical objective situation is so different from the theories it cherishes, because there is no conscious understanding of the class nature of war.

If there was a class element in the text, the text would not have fallen into the hands of these "horrible people" in the first place. If the book teaches anti-capitalism as well as military strategy like Mao's writings do, then a pro-capitalist like Chiang Kai-sheik would never have picked it up.

Socialist military writings contain all the positive elements of bourgeois and feudal military writings, but they also contain a conscious understanding of the class nature of warfare which the earlier writings were ignorant about.

When I said non-socialist military writings contain incorrect political lines and reactionary knowledge, you should note that I never meant to actually say that all of these texts are reactionary. That is obviously false. Lenin said socialists should study the positive aspects of feudal and capitalist civilisations, and no doubt texts like the Art of War and On War contain many good strategic elements. But they also contain elements which don't fit in with socialist political principles, like say teaching people to blindly obey their feudal lord or to promote bourgeois nationalism, or simply the absence of class consciousness when it comes to war.

[Konstantine]

Note however that for all its good points, the Art of War is still a text of the feudal warlord class.

I don't really take the Art of War as a political piece, but purely as a war piece. The way Sun Tzu comprehended things and could formulate such great tactics and ideas, the way he presented warfare not as a horrid thing but an art, are astounding. His maxims were so profound that recently they've found their way into politics and lifestyles.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't really take the Art of War as a political piece, but purely as a war piece. The way Sun Tzu comprehended things and could formulate such great tactics and ideas, the way he presented warfare not as a horrid thing but an art, are astounding. His maxims were so profound that recently they've found their way into politics and lifestyles.

It's a shame that a lot of the corporate types seem to have picked up the Art of War and other texts like the Book of Five Rings quite a lot. After all there is a saying in China, "the field of business is like the field of war".

But I mean as long as you explicitly recognise their limitations, obviously there is no reason why you cannot absorb certain positive elements from them, both Lenin and Mao learned from old cultures.

Though I have to say I'm not sure that not seeing warfare as a horrid thing is a positive thing. People do die in wars, a lot of them, no matter how artistic you get. I got involved in quite a few anti-war demonstrations before, I believe in what Mao Zedong says, that the ultimate aim of revolutionary war is to end all warfare.

By the way, the first time I read the Art of War was when I was like 4 years old. And I've read it many times since. But frankly I think for socialists modern proletarian military texts would be more applicable for our work.

[Dimentio]

It's a modern work which is more relevant to the modern scenario of warfare.

But then saying On War is "better" than the Art of War is like saying airplanes are "better" than chariots.

However, On War is still a bourgeois text, just like the Art of War is a text of the feudal warlords. Socialists have better military texts to look at, such as the military works of people like Mao and Che Guvera.

And the discrepancy between the actual actions of Mao and his strategic treatises?

[anticap]

Here's what the MIA editors have to say about it:


This book, along with the Tao Te Ching (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/lao-tzu/works/tao-te-ching/), represents one of the first works to use the dialectical process (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics), creating one of the most lucid books ever written on the principles of warfare. The most basic and powerful dialectical formulation Sun-Tzu makes is in his statement "All warfare is based on deception.", thus, all peace is based on honesty and openess. The last word (http://zhongwen.com/d/170/x107.htm) in the title, translated as "art", literally means "as water goes"; likely a reference to the methods explained in the Tao Te Ching.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/sun-tzu/works/art-of-war/

[RedStarOverChina]

This book, along with the Tao Te Ching (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/reference/archive/lao-tzu/works/tao-te-ching/), represents one of the first works to use the dialectical process (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics), creating one of the most lucid books ever written on the principles of warfare. The most basic and powerful dialectical formulation Sun-Tzu makes is in his statement "All warfare is based on deception.", thus, all peace is based on honesty and openess. The last word (http://zhongwen.com/d/170/x107.htm) in the title, translated as "art", literally means "as water goes"; likely a reference to the methods explained in the Tao Te Ching.
Sun Tzu did not follow "All warfare is based on deception" with "all peace is based on honesty and openess". That was not implied. So this "most powerful dialectical formation" did not exist.

Dialectical reasoning was popular with Daoists starting with Lao Tzu. While they could have been contemporaries, there's no evidence that Sun Tzu ever even heard of Lao Tzu and his Tao Te Ching. Even if Sun Tzu knew about Lao Tzu, he would probably have viewed Lao Tzu with utter contempt, like any military general would have viewed a peacenik.

Why does everyone always assume every school of Chinese philosophy is influenced either by Daoism or Confucianism?

The Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history is said to be a period where "a hundred schools of thought" jousted for attention. Confucianism and Daoism were merely two of them. Daoism hardly ever became a prominent ideology.

[anticap]

I don't think the MIA folks were being unreasonable there. If all warfare actually is based on deception, as Sun Tzu asserts, then it would follow that if you base your actions on the opposite of deception (i.e., if you're open and honest), then the result cannot be war, but non-war, which is generally called "peace."

[RedStarOverChina]

I don't think the MIA folks were being unreasonable there. If all warfare actually is based on deception, as Sun Tzu asserts, then it would follow that if you base your actions on the opposite of deception (i.e., if you're open and honest), then the result cannot be war, but non-war, which is generally called "peace."Now, lets stop and examine if this actually true.

Is "all peace is based on honesty and openness"?

Hell no!

Sun Tzu was a crafty proto-realist, he would be the last one to utter these words.

[anticap]

I don't think the MIA folks were being unreasonable there. If all warfare actually is based on deception, as Sun Tzu asserts, then it would follow that if you base your actions on the opposite of deception (i.e., if you're open and honest), then the result cannot be war, but non-war, which is generally called "peace."

Now, lets stop and examine if this actually true.

Is "all peace is based on honesty and openness"?

You should have quoted MIA there, not me.

If you read my post more carefully, you'll find that I did not take my conclusions as far as MIA did. It may be that peace can also be based on deception; but it is certainly the case, as I've stated, that if all war is based on deception, then non-deception can lead only to non-war (i.e., peace).

Edit: And don't forget that Sun Tzu may be full of shit.

[Queercommie Girl]

And the discrepancy between the actual actions of Mao and his strategic treatises?

I am partially a Maoist. Mao obviously made some mistakes, and the Chinese worker's state was deformed in some ways, but essentially Mao was still a genuine socialist in my opinion. He is obviously a class apart from feudal and bourgeois military leaders. The Chinese communist army with its inherent pro-peasantry political line and the Chinese nationalist army that deliberately destroyed dams to flood thousands of people, are objectively a world apart. In fact, many revolutionaries in the Third World, such as Che, were significantly influenced by Mao Zedong.

If you really want to dogmatic and strict about it, as most Trotskyists do, then frankly there are lots of "discrepancies" between the actions and strategies of Che Guvera as well.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sun Tzu did not follow "All warfare is based on deception" with "all peace is based on honesty and openess". That was not implied. So this "most powerful dialectical formation" did not exist.

Dialectical reasoning was popular with Daoists starting with Lao Tzu. While they could have been contemporaries, there's no evidence that Sun Tzu ever even heard of Lao Tzu and his Tao Te Ching. Even if Sun Tzu knew about Lao Tzu, he would probably have viewed Lao Tzu with utter contempt, like any military general would have viewed a peacenik.

Why does everyone always assume every school of Chinese philosophy is influenced either by Daoism or Confucianism?

The Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history is said to be a period where "a hundred schools of thought" jousted for attention. Confucianism and Daoism were merely two of them. Daoism hardly ever became a prominent ideology.

The standard Maoist interpretation is that the Art of War is indeed an example of dialectical military philosophy.

In ancient China, it wasn't just the Daoists that utilised dialectical reasoning.