Log in

View Full Version : Maoist bio-cosmism?



AConfusedSocialDemocrat
10th March 2013, 19:17
I discovered this yesterday when reading an essay on Mao by Zizeck (http://http://www.lacan.com/zizmaozedong.htm), any Maoists here who can give me a deeper understanding of it?



Mao goes even a step further and moves beyond humanity itself, forecasting, in a proto-Nietzschean way, the "overcoming" of man.

The life of dialectics is the continuous movement toward opposites. Mankind will also finally meet its doom. When the theologians talk about doomsday, they are pessimistic and terrify people. We say the end of mankind is something which will produce something more advanced than mankind. Mankind is still in its infancy.

- and, even more, the rise of (some) animals themselves (what we consider today as exclusively human) level of consciousness:

In the future, animals will continue to develop. I don't believe that men alone are capable of having two hands. Can't horses, cows, sheep evolve? Can only monkeys evolve? And can it be, moreover, that of all the monkeys only one species can evolve, and all the others are incapable of evolving? In a million years, ten million years, will horses, cows and sheep still be the same as those today? I think they will continue to change. Horses, cows, sheep, and insects will all change.

Two things should be added to this "cosmic perspective"; first, one should remember that Mao is here talking to the inner circle of party ideologists. This is what accounts for the tone of sharing a secret not to be rendered public, as if Mao is divulging his "secret teaching" - and, effectively, Mao's speculations closely echo the so-called "bio-cosmism," the strange combination of vulgar materialism and Gnostic spirituality which formed occult shadow-ideology, the obscene secret teaching, of the Soviet Marxism. Repressed out of the public sight in the central period of the Soviet state, bio-cosmism was openly propagated only in the first and in the last two decades of the Soviet rule; its main theses are: the goals of religion (collective paradise, overcoming of all suffering, full individual immortality, resurrection of the dead, victory over time and death, conquest of space far beyond the solar system) can be realized in terrestrial life through the development of modern science and technology. In the future, not only will sexual difference be abolished, with the rise of chaste post-humans reproducing themselves through direct bio-technical reproduction; it will also be possible to resurrect all the dead of the past (establishing their biological formula through their remains and then re-engendering them - at that time, DNA was not yet known...), thus even erasing all past injustices, "undoing" past suffering and destruction. In this bright bio-political Communist future, not only humans, but also animals, all living being, will participate in a directly collectivized Reason of the cosmos... Whatever one can hold against Lenin's ruthless critique of Maxim Gorky's the "construction of God (bogograditelk'stvo)," the direct deification of man, one should bear in mind that Gorky himself collaborated with bio-cosmists. It is interesting to note resemblances between this "bio-cosmism" and today's techno-gnosis. - Second, this "cosmic perspective" is for Mao not just an irrelevant philosophical caveat; it has precise ethico-political consequences. When Mao high-handedly dismisses the threat of the atomic bomb, he is not down-playing the scope of the danger - he is fully aware that nuclear war may led to the extinction of humanity as such, so, to justify his defiance, he has to adopt the "cosmic perspective" from which the end of life on Earth "would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole":

kasama-rl
13th March 2013, 01:21
The quote from Mao is authentic... it appears in a number of collections of his speeches (including "Mao talks to the people" edited by Stuart Schram).

Beyong that, I'm not sure what you are asking.

If you read the passage by Zizek, there are two parts:

First is the statement by Mao. The second is Zizek's (rather bizarre) association of Mao's comments with "bio-cosmism."

As for Mao's statements, he is arguing that all things come into existence and go out of existence. And that he sees no reason why we should assume this doesn't apply to human beings themselves.

Further, he is commenting that evolution is not only something that happened in the past -- as if change was a feature in the past, but the world we now experience is static.

All of this is (in my opinion) both correct and important: A key part of a revolutionary world view is the grasping of the universality of change. The question is not whether things will change -- of course they will change. What is now common will (in the future) go out of existence. The question in life and society is what replaces the current arrangements, and how do they emerge out of the contradictions around us.

Mao's talk of cows growing hands is a joke (since he is not arguing that this might literally happen -- he makes jokes a lot in these talks). But it is in line with his point: don't think there is something so special or permanent about humans, or anything about the current status quo.

As for Zizek's commentary... it seems to me that all of it (the speculation about 'secret teachings" or the association with gnosticism etc) is bullshit.

Mao's discussion is a commentary on dialectics and evolution -- with the point being (as so often with Mao) that everything changes and we should embrace that.

Mao also discussed that a nuclear war might blow a hole in the earth and this would be a big deal for humans but a minor matter for the solar system.... this was his pithy (and again funny) way of saying that China should not bow down to U.S. nuclear threats.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat
13th March 2013, 01:38
Cheers.

blake 3:17
13th March 2013, 02:06
Is it the same book where he talks about Heidegger not going far enough?

subcp
13th March 2013, 03:39
Is it the same book where he talks about Heidegger not going far enough?

Yes, it is. His thesis is that the "pure militant", i.e. the ideological fanatic, should be exalted, and is a part of history that we are missing today, and he thinks this is a bad thing for the communist project. It's garbage.


Regarding bio-cosmism and whatnot- in articles about the 'Socialist Cities' of the early 1920's, when the Soviet Union brought European, American and other foreign communists to the USSR as architects, city planners, industry specialists, etc. to populate and get barren areas off the ground (Kuzbas Autonomous Zone), Soviet architects were interested in avante-gaurd concepts like flying cities; in Literature and Revolution, Trotsky describes a utopian society, liberated from exploitation and class, where 'everyman is a Mozart or Shakespeare'. There's plenty of examples of the utopian and futurist thinking during the revolutionary wave- but this is different from zealous ideologue's and fanatics.

Astarte
14th March 2013, 06:06
I discovered this yesterday when reading an essay on Mao by Zizeck (http://http://www.lacan.com/zizmaozedong.htm), any Maoists here who can give me a deeper understanding of it?



It's not called 'Maochemy' for nothin'.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-and-alchemy-t161586/index.html?t=161586