Critiquing Mao's Class Analysis

[Soseloshvili]

I recently decided to reread my copy of Mao's Selected Works (three volumes). When reading through Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, I came across several passages which I felt the need to critique.

Though I realize this is a very early work, I have no evidence to the contrary that he ever changed his opinion on these matters.


[the rural proletariat] are the most hard-pressed people in the villages, and their position in the peasant movement is as important as that of the poor peasants.


China at the time was only semi-Capitalist, still very much so affected by Feudalism, and as such there existed three tiers of peasantry - essentially serfs, censitaires and proletarians (as Mao refered to them, "poor peasants", semi-owners, and the rural proletariat. he used the word "semi-proletariat" to refer to the poor peasants and semi-owners collectively).

However, Mao weights the serfs as having the same level of revolutionary importance as the rural proletariat, despite his admission that they are "more hard pressed" than the former.

More or less, the "poor peasants" are those serfs who rent their land from a landlord as they do not own any land of their own. This is separate from the rural proletariat, who are in the direct employ of the landlord. The difference is that the former still has a degree of economic freedom, as though the land they farm is rented and their crops taxed by landlords they still more or less control the land they work, whereas the rural proletariat do not, they have no control over their own lives and are completely tethered to the landlord.

Why does he do this? It should seem obvious that the rural proletariat were the most revolutionary of the Chinese peasantry, and yet, Mao declares them equal.


The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie.

With the first sentence, I find no quarrel. With the second sentence, I find great quarrel.

Mao mentions the petite bourgeoisie as an ally of the industrial proletariat - those peasants who own their land (and employ the rural proletariat), the intelligentsia and the successfully self-employed - when earlier he mentions the lumpen-proletariat as "Brave fighters... they can become a revolutionary force if given proper guidance."

He proposes that the bourgeoisie could actually be a main ally of the revolution over the unemployed proletariat. Despite, he admits, that the lumpen are well politically organized, with "their mutual-aid organizations for political and economic struggle, for instance, the Triad Society in Fukien and Kwangtung, the Society of Brothers in Hunan, Hupeh, Kweichow and Szechuan, the Big Sword Society in Anhwei, Honan and Shantung, the Rational Life Society in Chihli and the three northeastern provinces, and the Green Band in Shanghai and elsewhere".

Also - why did Mao chastise people such as Zhang Goutao for seeing the industrial proletariat as the base of the revolution when he himself states directly that? Though the work itself was purportedly to settle the dispute between "left and right opportunism" - he chooses to settle it by simultaneously incorporating both!


As for the vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may become our friend but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks.

Mao proposes that the liberal bourgeoisie could be an ally of the industrial proletariat. By this I do not believe he means class traitors, moreso, just the liberal bourgeoisie similar to Martov's Menshevism.

This despite that as Mao points out, "[the middle bourgeoisie] stand for the establishment of a state under the rule of a single class, the national bourgeoisie. A self-styled true disciple of Tai Chi-tao wrote in the Chen Pao,Peking, "Raise your left fist to knock down the imperialists and your right to knock down the Communists." These words depict the dilemma and anxiety of this class. It is against interpreting the Kuomintang's Principle of the People's Livelihood according to the theory of class struggle, and it opposes the Kuomintang's alliance with Russia and the admission of Communists and left-wingers.

Essentially, Mao is allowing the possibility of accepting a unit of society opposed to class war into the revolution. Which is, quite unacceptable.


***


For the record, I am neither a Maoist nor opposed to Maoism, I consider myself non-sectarian, before anyone accuses me of something along those lines.

[red cat]

I recently decided to reread my copy of Mao's Selected Works (three volumes). When reading through Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, I came across several passages which I felt the need to critique.

Though I realize this is a very early work, I have no evidence to the contrary that he ever changed his opinion on these matters.



China at the time was only semi-Capitalist, still very much so affected by Feudalism, and as such there existed three tiers of peasantry - essentially serfs, censitaires and proletarians (as Mao refered to them, "poor peasants", semi-owners, and the rural proletariat. he used the word "semi-proletariat" to refer to the poor peasants and semi-owners collectively).

However, Mao weights the serfs as having the same level of revolutionary importance as the rural proletariat, despite his admission that they are "more hard pressed" than the former.

More or less, the "poor peasants" are those serfs who rent their land from a landlord as they do not own any land of their own. This is separate from the rural proletariat, who are in the direct employ of the landlord. The difference is that the former still has a degree of economic freedom, as though the land they farm is rented and their crops taxed by landlords they still more or less control the land they work, whereas the rural proletariat do not, they have no control over their own lives and are completely tethered to the landlord.

Why does he do this? It should seem obvious that the rural proletariat were the most revolutionary of the Chinese peasantry, and yet, Mao declares them equal.

1) In countries where feudal conditions are more or less prevalent, the contradiction of agricultural proletarians with the landlords is not the same as that of industrial proletarians with capitalists. The industrial proletariat demands social or working class control of the means of production as a whole, while the agricultural proletariat demands land as private property. Note that their demand is the same as that of whom Mao calls poor peasants.

2) A peasant might be forced to rent land, thereby promising the feudal lord anything from half to three-fourths of the produce, because that is more profitable to the feudal lord than paying wages to him. During the period that the peasant rents land, he has to borrow money from the feudal lord which might turn him into a bonded labourer or leave him with only a tiny fraction of the produce.

3) Due the above condition, a poor peasant can be reduced to an agricultural labourer because of more exploitation even in a single season. An agricultural labourer can sell some of his belongings and rent a small piece of land, or can enter into a contract of renting a land and paying the rent later as a part of the produce, thereby becoming a poor peasant. A poor peasant might live on partially renting land and partially working as an agricultural labourer. Since the boundaries between these two classes are fluid and they cannot be distinguished through the result of their contradiction with the ruling classes, sometimes assigning them the same importance in a revolution might be a safe stance, although this can vary according to their numerical strengths, the social conditions as well as degree of fluidity of the class boundaries or one-way conversions etc.



With the first sentence, I find no quarrel. With the second sentence, I find great quarrel.

Mao mentions the petite bourgeoisie as an ally of the industrial proletariat - those peasants who own their land (and employ the rural proletariat), the intelligentsia and the successfully self-employed - when earlier he mentions the lumpen-proletariat as "Brave fighters... they can become a revolutionary force if given proper guidance."

He proposes that the bourgeoisie could actually be a main ally of the revolution over the unemployed proletariat. Despite, he admits, that the lumpen are well politically organized, with "their mutual-aid organizations for political and economic struggle, for instance, the Triad Society in Fukien and Kwangtung, the Society of Brothers in Hunan, Hupeh, Kweichow and Szechuan, the Big Sword Society in Anhwei, Honan and Shantung, the Rational Life Society in Chihli and the three northeastern provinces, and the Green Band in Shanghai and elsewhere".

Also - why did Mao chastise people such as Zhang Goutao for seeing the industrial proletariat as the base of the revolution when he himself states directly that? Though the work itself was purportedly to settle the dispute between "left and right opportunism" - he chooses to settle it by simultaneously incorporating both! 4) Calling the unemployed "lumpen" is one serious blunder that Mao inherited from Marx. Though some of the biggest Maoist CPs of today use the same terminology, almost always they have special sections and committees of the party dedicated to organizing the unemployed proletariat, who sometimes might even surpass their employed counterparts in revolutionary zeal.

5) Maoists include in the petite bourgeoisie not only small businessmen but also workers with a high standard of living and enjoying a higher social position when compared to the vast majority of the working class. For example some teachers, office clerks etc. The lowest layer of the proletariat comprises of those who face the immediate danger of being reduced to the proletariat. Among these are sections that have the same relations to the means of production as the working class, along with developed organization due to less repressive attitude adopted towards them by the state. When this section revolts, it becomes a portion of the working class in action, often leading the industrial proletariat into struggle. Hence Mao's conclusion.



Mao proposes that the liberal bourgeoisie could be an ally of the industrial proletariat. By this I do not believe he means class traitors, moreso, just the liberal bourgeoisie similar to Martov's Menshevism.

This despite that as Mao points out, "[the middle bourgeoisie] stand for the establishment of a state under the rule of a single class, the national bourgeoisie. A self-styled true disciple of Tai Chi-tao wrote in the Chen Pao,Peking, "Raise your left fist to knock down the imperialists and your right to knock down the Communists." These words depict the dilemma and anxiety of this class. It is against interpreting the Kuomintang's Principle of the People's Livelihood according to the theory of class struggle, and it opposes the Kuomintang's alliance with Russia and the admission of Communists and left-wingers.

Essentially, Mao is allowing the possibility of accepting a unit of society opposed to class war into the revolution. Which is, quite unacceptable.


***


For the record, I am neither a Maoist nor opposed to Maoism, I consider myself non-sectarian, before anyone accuses me of something along those lines.6) First of all no class is opposed to class war. The class in power conducts its war against the oppressed classes through economic means forced by military power. With military retaliation it switches to direct military means. Secondly, the national bourgeoisie of the colonies, in absence of the proletariat as a subjective force, leads class war against imperialists and comprador capitalists, although in the present situation they cannot win these wars.

7) The proletariat puts forward some conditions serving its own interests to the national bourgeoisie. The portion of the national bourgeoisie that fulfills these conditions become a part of the united front. In other cases, the struggles of the national bourgeoisie that are against the ruling classes might be supported by the CP, as an attempt to weaken the bigger enemy. Since the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the ruling classes is deep enough to make them launch military actions, the proletariat might share a common platform with them for sometime. However, after the completion of the new-democratic revolution, the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie becomes the principal social contradiction.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_07.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_32.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_21.htm

[pranabjyoti]

Basically such criticism are most often result of total ignorance about the material conditions of China and Asia in general. This thread isn't an exception.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Basically such criticism are most often result of total ignorance about the material conditions of China and Asia in general. This thread isn't an exception.

Yet you find the need to criticise Arundhati Roy for her 'petty bourgeois' class character.
:rolleyes:

[caramelpence]

Incidentally, OP, I don't know whether your Selected Works include this, but if you want to get a real idea of Mao's insights when it came to analysis of Chinese rural society then I would recommend his 1930 book-length Report from Xunwu, which goes into a lot more detail than Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, not least because it is based on a particular community where Mao was based rather than a set of generalizations about China as a whole n the 1920s.

[RED DAVE]

Essentially, Mao is allowing the possibility of accepting a unit of society opposed to class war into the revolution. Which is, quite unacceptable.Which is exactly what the Maoists did and the result was the establishment of capitalism in China.

And the Nepalese Maoists are doing the same thing.

When Maoists start to reply, watch how they bullshit about New Democracy, the bloc of four classes, the revolutionary nature of the national bourgeoisie, etc. The will also claim to believe, as Mao claimed to believe, that the working class should be leading class of the revolution, but their practice belies this.

RED DAVE

[Soseloshvili]

Incidentally, OP, I don't know whether your Selected Works include this, but if you want to get a real idea of Mao's insights when it came to analysis of Chinese rural society then I would recommend his 1930 book-length Report from Xunwu, which goes into a lot more detail than Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, not least because it is based on a particular community where Mao was based rather than a set of generalizations about China as a whole n the 1920s.

Mine is the 1967 edition, reprinted by University Press of the Pacific.

I will look for this, a check of my Selected Works reveals it is not included. Thanks!

[Soseloshvili]

1) In countries where feudal conditions are more or less prevalent, the contradiction of agricultural proletarians with the landlords is not the same as that of industrial proletarians with capitalists. The industrial proletariat demands social or working class control of the means of production as a whole, while the agricultural proletariat demands land as private property. Note that their demand is the same as that of whom Mao calls poor peasants.

2) A peasant might be forced to rent land, thereby promising the feudal lord anything from half to three-fourths of the produce, because that is more profitable to the feudal lord than paying wages to him. During the period that the peasant rents land, he has to borrow money from the feudal lord which might turn him into a bonded labourer or leave him with only a tiny fraction of the produce.

3) Due the above condition, a poor peasant can be reduced to an agricultural labourer because of more exploitation even in a single season. An agricultural labourer can sell some of his belongings and rent a small piece of land, or can enter into a contract of renting a land and paying the rent later as a part of the produce, thereby becoming a poor peasant. A poor peasant might live on partially renting land and partially working as an agricultural labourer. Since the boundaries between these two classes are fluid and they cannot be distinguished through the result of their contradiction with the ruling classes, sometimes assigning them the same importance in a revolution might be a safe stance, although this can vary according to their numerical strengths, the social conditions as well as degree of fluidity of the class boundaries or one-way conversions etc.

I can see the logic here. Thank you for the clarification.


4) Calling the unemployed "lumpen" is one serious blunder that Mao inherited from Marx. Though some of the biggest Maoist CPs of today use the same terminology, almost always they have special sections and committees of the party dedicated to organizing the unemployed proletariat, who sometimes might even surpass their employed counterparts in revolutionary zeal.

5) Maoists include in the petite bourgeoisie not only small businessmen but also workers with a high standard of living and enjoying a higher social position when compared to the vast majority of the working class. For example some teachers, office clerks etc. The lowest layer of the proletariat comprises of those who face the immediate danger of being reduced to the proletariat. Among these are sections that have the same relations to the means of production as the working class, along with developed organization due to less repressive attitude adopted towards them by the state. When this section revolts, it becomes a portion of the working class in action, often leading the industrial proletariat into struggle. Hence Mao's conclusion.

Yes, however Mao does not refer to sections of the petite bourgeoisie as you have but the entirety of it. This includes individuals who do have employees, who have stable economic status due to the influx of Capitalism, and, by Mao's admission, traders - not just the revolutionary elements as you have.

What I do not understand is how he can choose the petite bourgeoisie over the unemployed proletariat - as you are right, the lumpen is not an accurate term. Especially in a nation like China, where the unemployed were organized into highly political bands which by your own admission can surpass the proletariat in revolutionary zeal.

Essentially, this is a "national bourgeoisie" policy (though I suppose I can only use the term loosely) - that the petite bourgeoisie can "lead" the proletariat in a revolutionary struggle. This is not acceptable from a Marxist perspective.


6) First of all no class is opposed to class war. The class in power conducts its war against the oppressed classes through economic means forced by military power. With military retaliation it switches to direct military means. Secondly, the national bourgeoisie of the colonies, in absence of the proletariat as a subjective force, leads class war against imperialists and comprador capitalists, although in the present situation they cannot win these wars.

Allow me to be more specific. The national bourgeoisie is opposed to class war between the bourgeoisie (meaning itself, not the compradors) and the proletariat - the breadth of Marxist class war.

This is still, entirely, allowing an element which is opposed to class war (albeit, against the "lesser evil" of the bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie) into the ranks of the revolution. In which case, the revolution becomes Nationalist and not Communist.


7) The proletariat puts forward some conditions serving its own interests to the national bourgeoisie. The portion of the national bourgeoisie that fulfills these conditions become a part of the united front. In other cases, the struggles of the national bourgeoisie that are against the ruling classes might be supported by the CP, as an attempt to weaken the bigger enemy. Since the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the ruling classes is deep enough to make them launch military actions, the proletariat might share a common platform with them for sometime. However, after the completion of the new-democratic revolution, the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie becomes the principal social contradiction.

This is suggesting that during a revolution it is acceptable to ally oneself with a nation's native bourgeoisie in order to overthrow a foreign invader. A "united front" strategy, as you say.

What you are suggesting is a Nationalist and not Communist revolution, as I have mentioned.

While the issue of riding China of Imperialism is still of great concern, class war is still by far the greatest priority, and the middle bourgeoisie is very much so the "the Capitalist relations of production on town and country" (in Mao's words). It is only just below the compradors and landlords, and is the native exploiter class of China.

I find this unacceptable from a Marxist position.

[Jose Gracchus]

1) In countries where feudal conditions are more or less prevalent, the contradiction of agricultural proletarians with the landlords is not the same as that of industrial proletarians with capitalists. The industrial proletariat demands social or working class control of the means of production as a whole, while the agricultural proletariat demands land as private property. Note that their demand is the same as that of whom Mao calls poor peasants.

That's absurd. The condition of the propertyless rural agricultural proletariat is one of contradiction with capital. The landlord exploits these strata by a wage relation. Since they are no longer in possession of land, there's no practical future for them to suddenly raise themselves to smallholders. Tenant farmers, peasants, sharecroppers - these groups do control plots, and there's something to be said for both their material relationship to production, and their practical experience, for pushing a distribution in land.


2) A peasant might be forced to rent land, thereby promising the feudal lord anything from half to three-fourths of the produce, because that is more profitable to the feudal lord than paying wages to him. During the period that the peasant rents land, he has to borrow money from the feudal lord which might turn him into a bonded labourer or leave him with only a tiny fraction of the produce.

3) Due the above condition, a poor peasant can be reduced to an agricultural labourer because of more exploitation even in a single season. An agricultural labourer can sell some of his belongings and rent a small piece of land, or can enter into a contract of renting a land and paying the rent later as a part of the produce, thereby becoming a poor peasant. A poor peasant might live on partially renting land and partially working as an agricultural labourer. Since the boundaries between these two classes are fluid and they cannot be distinguished through the result of their contradiction with the ruling classes, sometimes assigning them the same importance in a revolution might be a safe stance, although this can vary according to their numerical strengths, the social conditions as well as degree of fluidity of the class boundaries or one-way conversions etc.

This sounds like a lot of vacillation in order to group all the non-landlord strata in the agricultural economy together and push the SR land reform type politics.


4) Calling the unemployed "lumpen" is one serious blunder that Mao inherited from Marx. Though some of the biggest Maoist CPs of today use the same terminology, almost always they have special sections and committees of the party dedicated to organizing the unemployed proletariat, who sometimes might even surpass their employed counterparts in revolutionary zeal.

The unemployed proletariat is the unemployed proletariat. The reserve army of the unemployed is not identified with the lumpenproletariat. Surely you can locate where Marx asserts this, rather than it being a creation of Mao.


5) Maoists include in the petite bourgeoisie not only small businessmen but also workers with a high standard of living and enjoying a higher social position when compared to the vast majority of the working class. For example some teachers, office clerks etc.

On what grounds? Just asserting it ex cathedra?


The lowest layer of the proletariat comprises of those who face the immediate danger of being reduced to the proletariat.

I'm assuming you mean the petty bourgeois instead of proletariat in the beginning of this sentence.


Among these are sections that have the same relations to the means of production as the working class, along with developed organization due to less repressive attitude adopted towards them by the state. When this section revolts, it becomes a portion of the working class in action, often leading the industrial proletariat into struggle. Hence Mao's conclusion.

Or why not just say skilled workers have often been at the vanguard of working-class struggles. Just look at the Paris Commune.


6) First of all no class is opposed to class war. The class in power conducts its war against the oppressed classes through economic means forced by military power. With military retaliation it switches to direct military means. Secondly, the national bourgeoisie of the colonies, in absence of the proletariat as a subjective force, leads class war against imperialists and comprador capitalists, although in the present situation they cannot win these wars.

Can you give me a single practical example of these national bourgeois in the colonies?


7) The proletariat puts forward some conditions serving its own interests to the national bourgeoisie. The portion of the national bourgeoisie that fulfills these conditions become a part of the united front. In other cases, the struggles of the national bourgeoisie that are against the ruling classes might be supported by the CP, as an attempt to weaken the bigger enemy. Since the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the ruling classes is deep enough to make them launch military actions, the proletariat might share a common platform with them for sometime. However, after the completion of the new-democratic revolution, the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie becomes the principal social contradiction.

How can the working class form a class for itself, separate from the parties of all the other classes, as described for Marx, while tailing the struggles of as-until-now-undemonstrated (see above challenge) "national bourgeoisie" in the colonies? How can it be a class for itself while supporting a fraction of those engaged intrinsically in exploitation of it?

[Soseloshvili]

The unemployed proletariat is the unemployed proletariat. The reserve army of the unemployed is not identified with the lumpenproletariat. Surely you can locate where Marx asserts this, rather than it being a creation of Mao.

I believe the issue he was getting at is that what Mao refers to as lumpen are actually unemployed proletariat - a mistake on Mao's part. At least, that is what I got from it.


On what grounds? Just asserting it ex cathedra?

For the purpose of simplicity, all unsourced information in this thread will be taken to be directly from Mao's Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society. In this case, Mao more or less states what red cat has claimed,


The petty bourgeoisie. Included in this category are the owner-peasants, the master handicraftsmen, the lower levels of the intellectuals--students, primary and secondary school teachers, lower government functionaries, office clerks, small lawyers--and the small traders.

The issue is not whether these people are included, but that fact that Mao doesn't actually specify, throws them all into the same class, and rates them all with the same revolutionary potential - above that of the unemployed proletariat, which he mistakenly labels lumpen.


Or why not just say skilled workers have often been at the vanguard of working-class struggles. Just look at the Paris Commune.

The issue is that this isn't what I believe Mao means - I think he is actually asserting that that petite bourgeoisie are a revolutionary force as a whole, not just the skilled workers. If this were the case, I would find no issue, as you said this was the case in the Paris Commune.


Can you give me a single practical example of these national bourgeois in the colonies?

What, an example of a national bourgeoisie leading a struggle in an oppressed nation? I believe there are many, though the outcomes not quite good.

Basically what red cat is describing is a Nationalist revolution, class collaborationist in nature. Which is completely un-Marxist, and just leads to the same situation under a new regime who then has the capability to dangle Nationalism to suppress revolt.

Allow me to offer one of the better known examples, the example of India.


How can the working class form a class for itself, separate from the parties of all the other classes, as described for Marx, while tailing the struggles of as-until-now-undemonstrated (see above challenge) "national bourgeoisie" in the colonies? How can it be a class for itself while supporting a fraction of those engaged intrinsically in exploitation of it?

This is the essence of what the argument has boiled down to.

Was Mao's assessment of the Chinese class system an argument for a Nationalist, not Communist, revolution? Was it a treatise for class collaboration?

[red cat]

I can see the logic here. Thank you for the clarification.



Yes, however Mao does not refer to sections of the petite bourgeoisie as you have but the entirety of it. This includes individuals who do have employees, who have stable economic status due to the influx of Capitalism, and, by Mao's admission, traders - not just the revolutionary elements as you have.

What I do not understand is how he can choose the petite bourgeoisie over the unemployed proletariat - as you are right, the lumpen is not an accurate term. Especially in a nation like China, where the unemployed were organized into highly political bands which by your own admission can surpass the proletariat in revolutionary zeal.

Essentially, this is a "national bourgeoisie" policy (though I suppose I can only use the term loosely) - that the petite bourgeoisie can "lead" the proletariat in a revolutionary struggle. This is not acceptable from a Marxist perspective.

Actually Mao did refer to the sections of the petite bourgeoisie according to levels of income. The lowest level so described, cannot contain employers, because then they would not be at the immediate risk of getting converted into proletarians. So it is safe to assume that they contain only people who depend on their own labour and occasionally own the means of production. This Mao calls the left wing of the petite bourgeoisie.

Some features of this section is that it might have organizations identical to workers' unions, and the government might adopt a softer stance towards them due to them being slightly better off than the average proletarians. This matters a lot in semi-feudal political-military dictatorships and teachers, government employees etc. can lead factory workers in cities in some cases.

Having said that, the movements of today clearly prove that Mao had underestimated the unemployed proletariat. In many places the unemployed masses are the first to turn to communism that gives them hope unlike the world that cannot feed them.




Allow me to be more specific. The national bourgeoisie is opposed to class war between the bourgeoisie (meaning itself, not the compradors) and the proletariat - the breadth of Marxist class war.

This is still, entirely, allowing an element which is opposed to class war (albeit, against the "lesser evil" of the bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie) into the ranks of the revolution. In which case, the revolution becomes Nationalist and not Communist.

This is suggesting that during a revolution it is acceptable to ally oneself with a nation's native bourgeoisie in order to overthrow a foreign invader. A "united front" strategy, as you say.

What you are suggesting is a Nationalist and not Communist revolution, as I have mentioned.

While the issue of riding China of Imperialism is still of great concern, class war is still by far the greatest priority, and the middle bourgeoisie is very much so the "the Capitalist relations of production on town and country" (in Mao's words). It is only just below the compradors and landlords, and is the native exploiter class of China.

I find this unacceptable from a Marxist position.The correct term is new democratic revolution. A nationalist revolution is led by the national bourgeoisie, while the working class and its alliance with the lower peasantry form the nucleus of a new democratic revolution.

Members of the "native exploiter" class are friends of the revolution only when they subordinate their interests to those of the working class. It is not as simple as a small capitalist somehow supporting the revolution and yet starving his employees.

[Soseloshvili]

Actually Mao did refer to the sections of the petite bourgeoisie according to levels of income. The lowest level so described, cannot contain employers, because then they would not be at the immediate risk of getting converted into proletarians. So it is safe to assume that they contain only people who depend on their own labour and occasionally own the means of production. This Mao calls the left wing of the petite bourgeoisie.

Please show me an instance of Mao differentiating between the different sections of the petite bourgeoisie when referring to how they should be treated by the revolutionary movement.

As far as I can tell, Mao does break them down in his actual analysis, however, does not differentiate when describing how the petite bourgeosie should be considered. And I quote, "Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie." Note the word entire. He does not differentiate.


Some features of this section is that it might have organizations identical to workers' unions, and the government might adopt a softer stance towards them due to them being slightly better off than the average proletarians. This matters a lot in semi-feudal political-military dictatorships and teachers, government employees etc. can lead factory workers in cities in some cases.

Having said that, the movements of today clearly prove that Mao had underestimated the unemployed proletariat. In many places the unemployed masses are the first to turn to communism that gives them hope unlike the world that cannot feed them.

So, you are conceding the point that Mao was incorrect in rating the revolutionary potential of the unemployed proletariat lesser than that of the bourgeoisie?


The correct term is new democratic revolution. A nationalist revolution is led by the national bourgeoisie, while the working class and its alliance with the lower peasantry form the nucleus of a new democratic revolution.

Members of the "native exploiter" class are friends of the revolution only when they subordinate their interests to those of the working class. It is not as simple as a small capitalist somehow supporting the revolution and yet starving his employees.

Yes, sorry for the incorrect terminology.

Let's contrast what you have said here to Leninist class analysis - which allowed for Class Traitors to join the revolutionary movement, but not a class as a whole.

Mao does directly state that the proletariat are the heart of the revolution. I suppose my assessment of Mao advocating for Nationalist revolution would be incorrect, considering this.

However, elaborate as to why you believe a nation's native exploiter class (in its entirety, even just sections of it, which be reminded Mao does not specify) would be so inclined as to forfeit its position of domination over the proletariat for the sake of riding itself of the upper echelons of the bourgeoisie.

To me, this is illogical - you're suggesting the native bourgeoisie would opt to be déclassé (so, fall below even its present standing) just to rid itself of the classes above it? Doesn't that seem like trying really hard just to get yourself in the same situation?