Maoism Versus Historical Materialism

[Unicorn]

In the educational aids of the Peking
hungweipings and in the official Chinese press Mao Tsetung’s abstract writings and directives are given out as a great “development” of Marxism-Leninism. In addition to the attempts to disparage the role of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the development of the three components of Marxism, Marxist theory has been “expanded” to include 41three more “components” deriving from Mao Tse-tung’s theories on the people’s war, the upbuilding of the Party and the
"development of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat”. At first sight the formulations in Mao’s writings do not seem to be at variance with Marxism. But a closer scrutiny shows that in most cases they are only a simplified retelling which frequently distorts the sense of known propositions. In this retelling these propositions are made to fit Mao’s political objectives, and in action they are given a completely revised content. The resultant system lacks harmony. But this whole eclectic mixture of vulgarised Marxist theses, opportunist ideas and Confucian rules plays the role of a screen for Mao’s political line. On the example of some issues let us examine the ideological and political content of the "thought of Mao Tsetung”.

p
Mao Tse-tung received a classical Chinese education and his thinking was moulded under the influence of the idealism of ancient Chinese philosophers. After coming into contact with Marxist views, instead of critically reappraising this influence he used it as the foundation of his own thought. Hence the extreme voluntarism, the absolutisation of. subjective factors and the virtual negation of objective reality.

p
In his interpretation of the fundamental problems of philosophy, Mao seeks to make his own viewpoint sound scientific. In Regarding Contradiction he placed being and consciousness on virtually one and the same plane. In the textbook Dialectical Materialism, published in China in 1961, we find a direct statement on the "identity between thinking and being”. The problem of the relationship between matter and consciousness is replaced by the problem of the link between the object and the subject. To quote this textbook: "The fundamental problem of philosophy is ... in effect that of the relationship between the subjective and the objective”. And further: "The question of what is primary—the subjective or the objective—is the only criterion for drawing the borderline between materialism and idealism”.

p
To all intents and purposes, these views reject Marxism’s basic proposition, which says that being determines consciousness. This proposition cannot be substituted by contrasting the objective with the subjective because the 42objective
can embrace both the material and the ideal. Permeated with idealism, Maoism spreads its subjectivism also to problems of social development. In the above-mentioned textbook, for instance, it is stated that the "process of remaking the world lies in applying thinking to being, in the attitude of the subjective to the objective”.

p
On this basis Mao Tse-tung compares the Chinese people with a "sheet of clean paper" on which "one can draw the newest and most beautiful pictures”. It goes without saying that Mao unquestionably sees himself in the role of the artist. This outlook throws the door open to subjectivism and voluntarism in practical politics. Hence the memorising of quotations from Mao’s writings, which, the Maoists think, will remake the subjective world and, consequently, the objective world, too.

The views of the ruling group in China rest also on Confucian philosophy, which continues to dominate the minds of many Chinese. In "Confucianism and Marxism in Vietnam”, Nguyen Khac Vien makes the following interesting observation: "In the homeland of Confucius revolutionary morality frequently gains the upper hand over the concept of the laws of historical development. Marxism is both the ‘explanation’ and the ‘precept’, and it frequently turns out that the ‘precept’ takes precedence.. . . This sort of moralism sometimes leads to voluntarism, according to which any task can be carried out if only the Party functionaries ’tighten the screws’ sufficiently.” [42•* This assessment is fully borne out by .the theory and practice of the Mao group.
Source: Krivtsov, V.I. 1970, "Maoism Through the Eyes of Communists". Progress Publishers
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1970/MTEC326/1.2.2-Maoism.Versus.Historical.Materialism

[trivas7]

I think it's fair to say that Mao was more influenced by Chinese rather than Marxist thought over the course of a lifetime. One thing to keep in mind when reading Mao is that the traditional Chinese mind doesn't make the cleavage of being and consciousness that is assumed by Marx. That is a Western, non-Chinese notion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This should be in Theory.

[Hit The North]

This should be in Theory.

Why? Isn't it about the philosophical underpinnings of Maoism?

[Dros]

:lol:

Whoever wrote this has know idea what they're talking about.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dros:


Whoever wrote this has know idea what they're talking about.

It's good of you to be so self-critical.:lol:

Even so, the influence on Mao of Daoism and Confucianism is well documented.

In fact this goes further back since the influence of Daosim on Leibniz and Hegel is well-known, so the influence on all dialecticians of Chinese thought is quite clear.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hporiental.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/diamat/15.htm

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1028

By the way, BTB, on second thoughts I think you are right.

[Unicorn]

Whoever wrote this has know idea what they're talking about.
The monograph was prepared by the Institute of Philosophy and the Institute of the Far East of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The author holds Cand. Sc. (Philos.).

[trivas7]

Even so, the influence on Mao of Daoism and Confucianism is well documented.

In fact this goes further back since the influence of Daosim on Leibniz and Hegel is well-known, so the influence on all dialecticians of Chinese thought is quite clear.

But Leibnitz and Hegel could hardly be described as "dialecticians of Chinese thought".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


But Leibnitz and Hegel could hardly be described as "dialecticians of Chinese thought".

No, they were both Hermeticists who found many common elements between western and eastern mysticism -- subsequently imported into Marxism by Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among others).

http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/ueberweg.html

http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/dialimm.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NFIOpySKxw0C&dq=Magee+Hegel+and+the+Hermetic+Tradition&pg=PP1&ots=KaISzMy727&sig=pVCoFfcGwRnLdJ3Y3PAVTKvg_tk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion9.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion10.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion11.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion4.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0jLghyHSg-wC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Hermeticism+and+Daoism&source=web&ots=SeUpTPNDni&sig=0gMG917FDS7_jE8zg3gh5sRglz4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:King_Vegita/Sandbox/Hermeticism#Mental_Gender.2C_Polarity.2C_and_Duali ty

Similar ideas crop up in Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam.

Which just goes to show that Marx was right when he said that the ruling ideas were always those of the ruling class

[trivas7]

Trivas:
No, they were both Hermeticists who found many common elements between western and eastern mysticism -- subsequently imported into Marxism by Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among others).

Ah, I see. So now Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin were importers of Chinese thought (or is that Hermeticism?). Well, perhaps you are right. I see nothing in Marx's subjectivism that disallows it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (showing once again, he cannot read):


So now Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin were importers of Chinese thought (or is that Hermeticism?).

Here is what I actually said:


No, they were both Hermeticists who found many common elements between western and eastern mysticism -- subsequently imported into Marxism by Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among others).

Trivias:


I see nothing in Marx's subjectivism that disallows it.

Maybe your dogmatic view of things does not, but Marx had already told us that 'his method' contained no such influence, for he had removed the mystical shell, and the rational kernel that was left had no trace of Hegel in it.

[Hit The North]

Which just goes to show that Marx was right when he said that the ruling ideas were always those of the ruling class The only time dialectics could conceivably have been considered the "ruling ideas" is during the reign of "really existing socialism"/"state capitalism. It has certainly never been the ruling idea within bourgeois society.

[trivas7]

No, they were both Hermeticists who found many common elements between western and eastern mysticism -- subsequently imported into Marxism by Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among others).

What this means is ambiguous at best (What was "subsequently imported into Marxism" -- hermeticism or common elements between western and eastern mysticism?).


Maybe your dogmatic view of things does not, but Marx had already told us that 'his method' contained no such influence, for he had removed the mystical shell, and the rational kernel that was left had no trace of Hegel in it.
Since you can't tell me what exactly his method is, I can only assume you have no idea what Marx meant to say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


The only time dialectics could conceivably have been considered the "ruling ideas" is during the reign of "really existing socialism"/"state capitalism. It has certainly never been the ruling idea within bourgeois society.

I have explained this to you several times; why do I have to explain it again?

As you should know, a "ruling idea" need not always be held by actual members of the ruling class, it just needs to express their view of the world (ie., one that is conducive to their interests).

Here's how I explained things on another Forum:


Well, the methodological assumption for Hegel (and the traditional philosophers and mystics from whom he copied) was that it was possible to derive fundamental truths about 'being' from thought alone (but, in reality, they were derived from the alleged meaning of a few jargonised expressions -- hence the points I was making in the debate above).

Marxist Dialecticians have taken over this bogus activity --, albeit with an alleged 'materialist' flip, which is no more convincing than a stage magician's hand movements are.

This 'allows' all traditional 'thinkers' (Marxist and non-Marxist alike) to derive truths from language alone, meaning that the actual material world drops out as irrelevant.

It also 'allows' them to 'study' a world beyond 'appearances', one that is said to underlie the empirical world, and which gives it its 'essence'.

That makes this traditional approach to knowledge inaccessible to the majority, thus favouring the world-view of a tiny elite, who are, and always have been since ancient Greek times, happy to employ/patronise theorists who concoct such theories, since those theories picture a hidden world conducive to the interests of that tiny minority (it is hidden, secretive, mystical, accessible to the few, and used to justify their power and wealth).

In the past, this hidden world represented 'God's' own thoughts, which, oddly enough, always seemed to rationalise and justify the status quo, or the current form of state power. Later, these 'theories' pictured a 'rational' universe (i.e., one now constituted by a secularised version of 'God's thoughts'), run on abstract lines, one that cannot be changed by democratic forces. Again, this tended to justify the status quo, and still does -- this often now appears in the form "you can't change human nature/your genes/human selfishness...", and the like.

More recently, in 'communist' societies, the neo-Hegelian version of this world-view -- called 'dialectics' -- was used to justify the oppression of the working class, and its substitution by an unelected elite once more (which explains why the Stalinist and Maoists like 'dialectics' so much, and why other dialecticians (i.e., Trotskyists) use it to justify the substitution of the working class by the 'party', or other social forces), in the USSR, China, Cuba, N, Korea..., etc.

So, no wonder workers reject this oppressive theory.

This a priori method of obtaining knowledge is also favoured by (middle class) amateurs (like many who post here), who, without a degree in science, and with no need to waste time on useless experiments and expensive equipment, can concoct their own fundamental truths about reality, true for all of time and space, in the comfort of their own heads, in an afternoon or two, all from a good philosophical dictionary.

All one has to do is 'reflect' on a few bits of jargon (such as "substance", "opposite", "contradict", "interpenetrate", "negation", "being"), or copy them form Habermas, Zizek, Adorno and the rest, and hey presto, out pop fundamental theses, true for all of space and time.

Word magic of this sort allows the individual involved to form a relationship with 'being itself', the goal of all mystical systems of knowledge.

And that is why I call such benighted souls: 'mystics'.

This mystical a priori method also enrols the ego in this process, and that is why they react emotionally when this method is rubbished by yours truly.


You can find this explained in more detail here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Click on these two Shortcuts: 'Traditional Thought' and 'Ruling Class Ideology'.

And in even more detail here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm

The latter is a summary of a 250,000 word Essay that has not yet been published.

[trivas7]

Well, the methodological assumption for Hegel [...] was that it was possible to derive fundamental truths about 'being' from thought alone[...].

This has to be proved; it's not mine nor other's reading of Hegel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What this means is ambiguous at best (What was "subsequently imported into Marxism" -- Hermeticism or common elements between western and eastern mysticism?).

Read my essays to find out (or don't). In addition to the material I have added to my reply to BTB, try this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Fourteen_Part_One.htm


Since you can't tell me what exactly his method is, I can only assume you have no idea what Marx meant to say.

I have told you; it's called "Historical Materialsim" -- with the gobbledygook removed.

How many more times?

[trivas7]

I have told you; it's called "Historical Materialsim" -- with the gobbledygook removed.
How many more times?
But you mean nothing by this. That's why you merely quote Marx in lieu of an explanation.

[JimFar]

The only time dialectics could conceivably have been considered the "ruling ideas" is during the reign of "really existing socialism"/"state capitalism. It has certainly never been the ruling idea within bourgeois society.

If by "dialectics", we mean Hegelianism, then that was pretty much an official ideology of the German ruling class through the 19th and 20th centuries. Certainly, Hegel himself aimed for such a result, when in many of his lectures and writings he presented the Prussian state as the epitome of man's historical development. In Britain too in the late 19th century, the neo-Hegelianisms of philosophers like Green, Bradley, and McTaggart found favor in much of the British Establishment.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Jim, and I take your point -- but BTB is, like me, a Cliffite, and the fact that the ruling-class of the former USSR (and other Stalinist and Maoist states) doted on this 'theory' is a sufficient embarrassment for my fellow SWP-ers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


But you mean nothing by this. That's why you merely quote Marx in lieu of an explanation.

I have no need to; Marx explained historical materialism for me.

All I have done is eradicate Hegel even more ruthlessly than Marx did.

My reading is close to that of Gerry Cohen (minus the technological determinism, the functionalism, and the logical howlers), but modified by Alex Callinicos (in 'Making History').

[Hit The North]

If by "dialectics", we mean Hegelianism, then that was pretty much an official ideology of the German ruling class through the 19th and 20th centuries. Certainly, Hegel himself aimed for such a result, when in many of his lectures and writings he presented the Prussian state as the epitome of man's historical development. In Britain too in the late 19th century, the neo-Hegelianisms of philosophers like Green, Bradley, and McTaggart found favor in much of the British Establishment.

Thanks for that Jim, but I'll need more than your say-so. Do you have any evidence that the German ruling class was Hegelian during the 19th and 20th centuries?

EDIT: By the way, by "dialectics" I'm not explicitly thinking of Hegel. Marx himself acknowledged that the dialectic in its "mystified form" became fashionable in German society - although he is referring only to the first half of the 19th century here. I also recognise that Hegel was important for German liberalism - although I'm not clear on how central his dialectic is here. Certainly Max Weber, a champion of late 19th and early 20th century German liberalism was not impressed with it.

As for Green, Bradley, et al. I'm not familiar with them so a link would be good. I won't tax you by requesting a link to the "forgotten history" of when the British ruling class became thorough-going Hegelians, though!

[Hit The North]

Thanks for that Jim, and I take your point -- but BTB is, like me, a Cliffite, and the fact that the ruling-class of the former USSR (and other Stalinist and Maoist states) doted on this 'theory' is a sufficient embarrassment for my fellow SWP-ers.

It's no less an embarrassment for you; given that the work of Marx and Engels were used as explicit justifications for ruling class control in those State Capitalist formations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


It's no less an embarrassment for you; given that the work of Marx and Engels were used as explicit justifications for ruling class control in those State Capitalist formations.

Not so; historical materialism was only acceptable to them when it had been adulterated with dialectics.

[Hit The North]

Not so; historical materialism was only acceptable to them when it had been adulterated with dialectics.

But, as you well know, a positivist version of the dialectic (drawn from The Dialectics of Nature) which downplayed the role of human agency in historical change (for obvious political reasons).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


But, as you well know, a positivist version of the dialectic (drawn from The Dialectics of Nature) which downplayed the role of human agency in historical change (for obvious political reasons).

Yes, so?

[trivas7]

Not so; historical materialism was only acceptable to them when it had been adulterated with dialectics.
Nonsense, without dialectics there would be no historical materialism.

[Rawthentic]

I actually disagree with some of Mao's (including part of his dialectical writings), but that doesn't change the fact that I maintain my Maoism (ie living Marxism).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Nonsense, without dialectics there would be no historical materialism.

We have already been through this; Marx derived HM from the Scottish School, and abandoned every trace of Hegel by the time he wrote Das Kapital. The confused ideas he found in Hegel merely slowed him down.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


I actually disagree with some of Mao's (including part of his dialectical writings), but that doesn't change the fact that I maintain my Maoism (ie living Marxism).

You are welcome to it...

[trivas7]

Trivas:
We have already been through this; Marx derived HM from the Scottish School, and abandoned every trace of Hegel by the time he wrote Das Kapital. The confused ideas he found in Hegel merely slowed him down.
Nope. Marx didn't derive HM from the Scottish school, his is an entirely different doctrine than theirs. Neither did he stop being a dialectician when he wrote Capital.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marx didn't derive HM from the Scottish school, his is an entirely different doctrine than theirs. Neither did he stop being a dialectician when he wrote Capital.

Ah, the minor deity, sometimes known in his earthly form as 'Trivas' has spoken; who may question his sacred word?

Er..., anyone knowing the facts, that's who.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/_paperbag_125.gif