Mao's On Contradiction

[Tim Cornelis]

Is Mao's On Contradiction taken seriously by anyone other than impressionable Maoists? By other Marxists, in philosophy? Is it worth reading?

Thanks

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I read it, around 6 years ago. I guess it's worth reading if only for the fact that Mao had a very astute political mind. When reading it I got a revolutionary feeling from it. So that's good. As to how helpful it is to us today. . . It certainly made an impression on my way of thinking and feeling about politics, "philosophy".

[John Nada]

guess it's worth reading if only for the fact that Mao had a very astute political mind. When reading it I got a revolutionary feeling from it. So that's good. As to how helpful it is to us today. . . It certainly made an impression on my way of thinking and feeling about politics, "philosophy".

Well, it was written to teach new recruits after the Long March, and at the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War. In some ways it's kind of the equivalent of something written by an American "Founding Father".

[motion denied]

I think Althusser takes it seriously. Zizek also has written on the limits of Mao's dialectic.

I've read it a few years ago, I don't remeber much aside from "principal contradiction and secondary contradiction"...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I wrote a substantial reply but unfortunately Revleft ate my post. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I just checked in to say that, while I haven't read "On Contradiction", Mao's philosophy as it relates to Marxist-Leninism is just not that interesting or unique, honestly. He was mostly following Stalinist state orthodoxy as it was articulated by people like Abram Deborin and the philosophers associated with him during the 1930's.

[Cliff Paul]

He was mostly following Stalinist state orthodoxy as it was articulated by people like Abram Deborin and the philosophers associated with him during the 1930's.

Deborin is not really an example of "Stalinist State Orthodoxy" since he was routinely denounced in party works as having Menshivist and idealist positions.

[Os Cangaceiros]

IIRC his dialectical philosophy was basically what Stalin subscribed to, though.

It's been a while since I've read about Mao's philosophical work but there's a pretty good rundown of it in "Critical Perspectives on Mao Zedong's Thought". Most of it, like I said, is derivative of Soviet work. Not a lot from "source material" because not much of Marx had been translated into Chinese at that time.

[Cliff Paul]

IIRC his dialectical philosophy was basically what Stalin subscribed to, though.

I mean there are some differences, I think. Mao actually starts off the work by denouncing Deborin's ideas (or his impression of his ideas, idk I've never actually read Deborin's work). He critiques Deborin for beliving that "contradiction appears not at the inception of a process but only when it has developed to a certain stage". And in a later work he critiques Deborin for beliving that contradictions are not mutually exclusive but mutually conciliatory.

I read On Contradiction once a long time ago, but to be honest I've never really been all that interested in dialectics, and I don't really have anything more than a basic understanding of dialectical materialism.

Edit: I also wouldn't be surprised if none of the things Mao critiques Deborin over happen to be true. Since Mao got his source material through the Soviets, there's the chance that they just deliberately misconstrued Deborin's ideas because he used to be a Menshevik.

[Tim Redd]

I wrote a substantial reply but unfortunately Revleft ate my post. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I just checked in to say that, while I haven't read "On Contradiction", Mao's philosophy as it relates to Marxist-Leninism is just not that interesting or unique, honestly. He was mostly following Stalinist state orthodoxy as it was articulated by people like Abram Deborin and the philosophers associated with him during the 1930's.

Guess you should have read it. In "On Contradiction", Mao argues against Deborin's view on the nature of the development of a thing. Mao claims that Deborin fails to see that contradiction is in a thing from its inception.

I'm not sure if one or more contradictions are present in everything from its inception or even later in its development. I tend not to see ones position on this as a dividing line for whether or not one has overall a good or bad revolutionary philosophical stance.

[Rafiq]

It is a good work in that it encapsulates the crystallization of the dialectical method and the formalization of dialectical logic. That is to say, while Mao should be criticized, as far as any critical understanding of Marxism goes in the 21st century, Mao is unavoidable. That is not to say Mao is the heir to Marxism, but that an understanding of the phenomena of Maoism and Mao is pivotal in an understanding of where we are today, as while it may have not inherited Marxism, it certainly has inherited revolutionary politics for some time now.

[Sewer Socialist]

It is a good work in that it encapsulates the crystallization of the dialectical method and the formalization of dialectical logic. That is to say, while Mao should be criticized, as far as any critical understanding of Marxism goes in the 21st century, Mao is unavoidable. That is not to say Mao is the heir to Marxism, but that an understanding of the phenomena of Maoism and Mao is pivotal in an understanding of where we are today, as while it may have not inherited Marxism, it certainly has inherited revolutionary politics for some time now.

Would you recommend this work specifically as an introduction to Maoism?

[Rafiq]

It depends on what one is looking for in Maoism, but generally yes.

[Comrade Jacob]

Mao's "On contradiction" still stands the test of time and should be read by all Marxists and not just the Maoists.

[Hieremias]

I find that in the context of this particular essay Mao tends to over-simplify the philosophy of dialectical materialism to the point of deluding what made it so revolutionary to begin with. I have personally never found the theoretical side of Mao to be that engaging, like Guevara he was more compelling as a guerrilla.

[Rafiq]

One of the problems is that, for the most part, most Marxists had a very good idea of what Dialectical materialism was - they simply had no way of expressing it formally. I mean, surely many theoreticians encapsulated, in theory, its tenets, but dialectical materialism wasn't ever able to be reducible, on a theoretical level, to a formality. Mao did this, and he did it in a way that is precisely simplistic insofar as it can be, at face value comprehended by the average joe. It is worth not dismissing, but only from a critical standpoint.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Guess you should have read it. In "On Contradiction", Mao argues against Deborin's view on the nature of the development of a thing. Mao claims that Deborin fails to see that contradiction is in a thing from its inception.

I've actually read a little more on this subject since posting in this thread and yeah, I was wrong. Mao's "On Contradiction" isn't strictly derivative of Stalin's thought; it was put out in 1937 and J.V. Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" (which was the key text regarding the subject that he released...?) was put out in 1938. I came into this topic a little half-cocked, it happens ;)

I just wish I still had that book that goes into a lot of detail regarding Mao's thought and Soviet orthodoxy at the time, I have a whole pile of left-wing literature out here but I can't seem to find that one specific book.

[Tim Redd]

Would you recommend this work specifically as an introduction to Maoism?

"On Contradiction" is not an introduction to Maoist theory in general. Maoist theory covers a number of areas apart from just philosophy.

Chief among the theoretical contributions made by Mao are:
1) theory regarding people's war (revolution in less developed countries).
2) theory pertaining to the revolutionary democratic phase of the revolutionary struggle that is sometimes required in less developed capitalist after the initial revolutionary seizure of power, but prior to implementation of the socialist mode of production.
3) and significantly the theory of how to continue the revolution after the revolution of the initial seizure of power. The continued revolution has the primary goal of preventing a counterrevolution by the bourgeoisie and furthering the revolution toward its goal of communism in the face of mild to outright opposition by elements of the bourgeoisie right in the state and communist party.

On the other hand key flaws in On Contradiction are:
1) a practice following Lenin to attribute the primary cause of the motion, or development of a thing/process in most, or all cases to be due to factor(s) internal to the thing. It is a failure to see that in many cases external factors are equally or even more responsible for the development or motion of a thing/process.

2) narrowing the focus of the analysis of the development, or motion of a thing or process to a single thing in various contexts. For instance Mao in On Contradiction makes the point that it is a single contradiction and within that a single aspect of that contradiction which are the primary drivers of the motion or development of a thing. Mao calls the chief contradiction, the fundamental, or principal contradiction and he calls the chief aspect the principal aspect. In actuality there may be multiple contradictions, multiple aspects of a contradiction, or multiple factors that are key drivers of the motion and development of thing or process.

Note that I consider myself to be a Maoist. If you are interested in the details behind what I'm stating here, you should check out my paper: Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm).