Misreading Mao

On Class and Class Struggle

Dados Bibliográficos

ID3986295
AutoresPaul Healy (0000-0002-1920-3778, University of New England, autor correspondente)
Ano2008
Volume38
Fascículo4
Páginas535-559
Data de publicação2008-11-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoJournal of Contemporary Asia (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0047-2336 • E-ISSN: 1752-7554
EditoraInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00472330802309419
OpenAlexW2160380423
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências citadas18

It has been argued frequently that Mao Zedong's thought is a significant departure from classical Marxism. This break, usually dated from the mid-1950s, supposedly occurred in two areas. First, the primacy of the economic characteristic of orthodox Marxism was replaced by a "voluntarism," which emphasised politics and consciousness. Secondly, whereas classes are defined in economic terms in the classical Marxist tradition, Mao defined them by reference to political behaviour and ideological viewpoint. This definition derives from the primacy Mao is said to have accorded to the superstructure. This article rejects the second of these interpretations and argues that a fundamental continuity exists between Mao's post-1955 propositions on classes and class struggle and those advanced by orthodox Marxism. In conformity with classical Marxism, Mao conceived of classes as economic categories. Further, both Mao and classical Marxism saw classes as active participants in class struggle in the superstructure called into being by the contradiction between the forces and relations of production. Finally, Mao shared with orthodox Marxism the idea that economic classes are represented in the superstructure by a range of political agencies and ideological forms. Key Words: Classclass theoryMarxismChinese MarxismMao ZedongChina Notes Maurice Meisner has also argued that while Mao's thought was always somewhat voluntaristic in approach, this voluntarism became more significant after Mao's 31 July 1955 speech, and was further accentuated with the Great Leap Forward (see Meisner, Citation1977: 1021-22, 1025; Citation1982: 26, 70-1, 102, 190-1). There are often slightly different Chinese language versions, and sometimes multiple English translations, of Mao's writings and speeches. In this article I have generally cited only the most accessible, or most well-known, English version of each source. Chinese language citations are available from the author. For a discussion of the authorship of texts commonly attributed to Mao, such as "The Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and the polemics with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, see Healy (Citation1987: 83-91). The Wengao sources attest to Mao's involvement in drafting and commenting on these documents. See, for example, Mao, Citation1992: 59-67, 283-5; Citation1996a: 369-76; Citation1996b: 102. A similar point was made by Esherick (Citation1979: 64-5). For a contrasting view, see Young (Citation1986: 56-60). I have discussed elsewhere the causal primacy Mao attributes in his post-1955 texts to the forces of production (see Healy, Citation1997: 127-9). For a discussion of this issue in classical Marxism, see Healy (Citation1987: 363-422). For a discussion of Lenin's and Stalin's views on this matter, see Healy (Citation1987: 387-422, 489-91). See, for example, Schram (Citation1974: 101) and Mao (Citation1977a: 122

Class (philosophy · Class conflict · Class consciousness · Consciousness · Contradiction · Epistemology · Ideology · Marxist philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Voluntarism (philosophy · Chinese history and philosophy · Law · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism