Polemics

In Defence of Mao tse Tung Thought
Harsh Thakor

Today in the International Communist Movement there is a trend that has replaced the term 'Mao tse Tung thought' with 'Maoism'. The advocates of this trend slander those who uphold Mao tse Tung thought as revisionists and claim to be defending Mao's mass line. True, some of the greatest people’s wars have been led by parties deploying the use of the term 'Maoism'like the Peruvian Communist Party and more recently the CPI (Maoist) and the Communist Party of Phillipines. lt is worth recounting how using this ideology the PCP under chairman Gonzalo staged the greatest people’s war since the Chinese revolutionary war which morally implemented the mass line from 1980-1992 more than any post-war armed movement. Morally they were practising 'Mao tse Tung Thought' as they implemented Mao's theories. However in spite making historic strides the PCP revealed it's weakness in assessment and practice of work in urban areas. Above all adopting 'Maoism' affected their international line, which underestimated the forces of imperialism and overestimated third world war. The reference to ‘militarisation of the party’ in Gonzalo's interview revealed the confusion of mass line with military line. This was affected by the theory Gonzalo propounded that it was Maoism that was principal and not Leninism and that Mao tse Tung's military theory of people's war was a Universal Law. In the cities their document stated that the People’s Guerilla Army would be used to do the mass work which again does not reflect the mass line. Maoism also led to revisionist leanings of the RCP (USA) creating the ideology of the 'New Synthesis'. Maoism also led to further divergencies from the RCP, like the Kasama project that virtually delinks Mao's ideology from that of Marx and Lenin. On the other hand it was also the root of Maoism-third worldsim that denies the role of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries. The advocating of 'Maoism' by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and it's earlier inclination towards this-ism led to it's virtual disintegration. CPI(ML) Naxalbari asserts that non-recognition of Mao's ideology as an ism means negation of Mao's military doctrine of protracted people’s war. They also assert that Mao's military theory is a Universal Law. Here the most relevant point is whether protracted People’s War is a Universal Law and can be applied in capitalist or developed countries. Mao's people’s war theory is applicable to the third world countries and not to the developed countries pursuing Socialist Revolution. Can one apply Mao's protracted people's war concept in England, Italy or France where the bourgeoisie has an entirely different character?

Separating 'ideology of people’s wars' from Leninism would denigrate Marxism-Leninism. True, Mao developed the military concept of protracted people’s war but that thesis is a formulation for semi-colonial , semi-feudal societies and not necessarily for developed countries. Mao discovered that antagonistic classes existed within Socialist Societies and developed the concept of continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat which took Marxism-Leinism to a higher stage. However calling it Maoism would mean the oppressed have reached the era of 'Maoism', a higher stage than that of Imperialism. The ideology cannot be inseparable from the era. One cannot have 2 principal contradictions in the same era—the doctrine of emerging Leninism and Maoism as separate strategies and tactics from separate conditions in the same era. One must understand why the CPC under Mao used 'Mao tse Tung Thought' and not 'Maoism' as then the principal contradiction of Imperialism would be replaced. In defending the polemics of Mao tse Tung Thought as against Maoism the late Harbhajan Singh Sohi of India made the biggest contribution, through his writings on the 86th birthday of Mao and his later polemical writings. Another important contribution has been made by Sunder Navalkar, editor of a revolutionary journal Jasood, who upholds Mao tse Tung Thought against Maoism, tooth and nail but still upholds the virtues of the practice of the CPI(Maoist). There is also a useful polemic by Lal Salaam of the Reorganising Committee, Communist League of India defending Mao tse Tung thought in contrast to the Rahul foundation.

Today powerful forces have sprung from within the International Communist Movement to derail or deviate it from it's established general line and principles. In this great trial and strength between Marxism-Leninsm and Opportunism, the battle around the estimation of Mao tse Tung and Mao tse Tung Thought is crucial. Feverish attempts are being made in categorical as well as veiled fashion by various opportunist quarters to denigrate the name and teachings of Mao tse Tung. Confronted with this temporarily formidable opposite, the revolutionary aspect of international communist movement is being impelled to develop and supercede it through struggle. The gradually increasing number of genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and groups who boldly come forward against heavy odds, in defence of the glorious revolutionary practice of Mao tse Tung and Mao tse Tung Thought, is the manifestation of this phenomenan and a testimony to the inexhaustible vitality of Marxism-Leninism-Mao tse Tung Thought.

Mao tse Tung grasped and applied the science of dialectical materialism in a masterly fashion and in the process , greatly enriched it. Carrying forward Lenin's observation that the Law of Contradiction is the kernel of dialectics. Mao tse Tung definitely formulated that the Law of Unity of Opposites is the basic law of dialectics. Thus, he specified the interrelationship of various laws of dialectics.

Consistently, upholding the principle of universality of contradiction, he applied it to the Socialist Society and the communist party as well. Not only did he further develop the concept of two types of contradictions, i.e. antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions to be resolved by two different methods, but, more importantly, he explored the identity of these two opposites i.e. under certain conditions, antagonistic and non-antagonoistic contradictions undergo transformation into their opposites. Thus, he provided the theoretical frame for conceiving the political phenomena of formation and dissolution of united front between different class forces, and of alternating periods of milder and more acute forms of struggle in the development of Socialist Society as well as Communist Party, under varying conditions. Applying it to Socialist Society, he propounded the theory of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the Proletariat. Applying it to the Communist party, he put forth the organisational concept of struggle between two lines in the Communist Party, inter-linking the inner party struggle and the class struggle in the Society.
In his analysis of the law of contradiction in things, Mao tse Tung laid special emphasis on the study of particularity of contradiction and underlined its great importance for guiding the course of revolutionary practice. Exploring the problem of particularity of contradiction, he ascertained a new dimension of contradiction, representing in its particularity the unevenness of forces that are in contradiction i. e. the uneven character of development of various contradictions, and more importantly, the mutual transformation into each other of the principal and non-principal ones.

Applying this comprehension of the particularity of contradiction to such pairs of opposites as were generally considered to be undergoing no change in the respective positions of their aspects, namely the productive forces and the relations of production, theory and  practice, the economic base and superstructure, Mao tse Tung observed that the productive forces, practice and economic base generally play the principal role but in certain conditions the relations of production, theory and their superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal role. Thus, he restored the true spirit of dialectical materialist outlook in the International Communist Movement suffering from a mechanical materialist outlook in its viewpoint, particularly in questions related to construction of Socialist Society. This provided the ideological basis of the recognition of prime necessity of revolution in the superstructure after basically completing the Socialist transformation of the economic base. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the result.

Grasping the uneven and dynamic character of various contradictions in the process of development of a thing and that of the two aspects of a contradiction, Mao tse Tung observed ‘although the fundamental essence of a process remains basically unchanged till the culmination of the process, marked changes have their distinctive characters or particularities representing, respectively, qualitatively different states of contradiction in their inter-relationsship’. Thus, he crystallised the concept of definite stages in a process of development of a thing.

Mao tse Tung's comprehension of the phenomenan of definite stages in a process of development of a thing, that is the law of quantitative changes leading to qualitative changes. In this connection, he ascertained that, in the process of development of a phenomenan, along with uninterrupted quantitative changes many partial qualitative changes too take place before the final qualitative leap occurs.

Mao tse Tung's conceptual grasp over the law of contradiction in things, especially, the uneven and dynamic character of contradiction: the possibility under certain condition, of mutual transformation of principal and non-principal aspects of a contradiction, of partial qualitative changes permeates all his important military concepts, which constitute the most developed form of proletarian military thought till date-the strategy and tactics of protracted People’s War. For instance, at a strategic plane the concept of a revolutionary base area under people's state power amidst the country-wide counter-revolutionary state power; and at a tactical plane, the concept of miniature counter-encirclements by the people's armed forces within the overall encirclement by enemy forces, and the concept of ‘ten against one’, in tactical operations.

Moa tse Tung integrated the universal truth of Marxism-Leninsm with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. In comprehending and solving the complex fundamental problems of national democratic revolution of semi-colonial and semi-feudal China and of its transition to socialist Revolution carrying forward the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on the colonial revolution, he dissected the native bourgeoisie, studied the chrasteristics of its segments, drew a clear cut demarcation between the big bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie treating the former as a target and the latter as a former ally of the revolution in its first stage preceding the Socialist Stage; concretely solved the peasant question by providing proletarian leadership to the agrarian revolutionary movement and relying on the peasantry as a main force in the national democratic revolution, ensured the consummation of the national democratic revolution and the transition to the Socialist Revolution by charting out a course of maintaining the independence of the proletariat as a political force, forging the worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the proletariat, establishing the hegemony of the proletariat over all the political forces engaged in the revolution, including the national bourgeoisie, thus making it New Democratic Revolution, in its political character.

Mao tse Tung critically absorbed the first experience of the proletariat of building Socialism in USSR and the loss of proletarian state power there, and drew illuminating conclusions for steering the development of socialist revolution in China. In the historical period of socialism there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the Socialist Road and the Capitalist Road. Hence he brought forward the foremost position occupied by class contradictions in proplelling social development throughout the historical period covered by Socialist Society, and laid down the cardinal precept that for properly appreciating and tackling problems of the development of Socialist Society proletarian revolutionaries must proceed by taking class struggle as the key link. He stressed the great significance of thoroughgoing changes in the relations of production and the superstructure for greatly boosting the development of productive forces during periods of revolutionary transition of society. He pointed out that Socialist Society being a long historical period of revolutionary transition, calls for unrelenting revolutionary effort to adapt the relations of production to the constantly emerging requirements of the development of productive forces, and transform the superstructure to bring it in tune with the Socialist economic base, so as to consolidate and develop the latter. He further observed that as every socialist transformation in the relations of production and the superstructure corrodes the socialist basis, influence and power of the old exploiting classes and new bourgeoius elements, it encounters frantic resistance. And, this class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie gets intense expression on the political front. Hence the paramount importance for political revolution.

Mao pointed out that after the smashing of the bourgeois political resistance, the chief representatives of the bourgeoisie are found to be hiding within the Communist Party itself-the party persons in authority taking the Capitalist Road-against whom the sharp class struggle has to be directed. To achieve all-round socialist revolution in ideological, political and economic spheres and to defend and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, Mao exhorted the proletarian revolutionaries to rely on the revolutionary masses of the people and revolutionary mass movements bringing into full play their creative initiative and genius.

Ideologically it is dangerous not subscribe to the notion of infallibility of great revolutionary persons. Mao tse Tung, like other great teachers of the International proletariat Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin cannot be free of errors and inadequacies. But such errors and inadequacies, if noticed, are to be alanysed in a total and historical perspective, on the basis of Marxism-Leninsm Mao tse Tung Thought and to enrich it. Whoseover ventures to challenge the validity of Mao tse Tung Thought, as an inalienable part of Mraxism-Leninsm must come to grips with this ideological edifice as a whole, especially his contribution to Marxist philosophy.

The leadership of the Albanian Party of Labour launched an attack on Mao tse Tung Thought in a most irresponsible manner without theoretical refutation of a single tenet of Mao tse Tung Thought. Not only did they take 180 degrees on their own previous estimation of Mao tse Tung Thought and his teaching without any convincing explanation or self-criticism but they also resorted to gross misrepresentations of Mao tse Tung's views to suit the convenience of their attack.

The shallow and unfair polemical stand of the leadership of the APL against Mao tse Tung and Mao tse Tung Thought is disappointing and quite out of character with its reputation as a principled and mature Marxist-Leninist Party which boldly withstood tremendous pressure of modern revisionism under testing conditions in the sixties. The less said the better about the so many rag-tag organisations decked in Marxist-Leninist colours gathering under the 'protective umbrella' of Albanian 'centre' and covering their political bankruptcy and renegacy to Marxism-Leninism with vociferous denunciations of Mao tse Tung and Mao tse Tung Thought.

The objectives of the Albanian leaders in presenting a distorted version of Mao tse Tung's views and practice apart, their own metaphysical and mechanistic approach to the study of concrete contradictions of present day world is linked to their inability to grasp the dialectical materialist content of Mao tse Tung Thought, especially Mao's exposition and handling of the particularity of contradictions.

They reiterate the basic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in this era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution but fail to examine the various specific manifestations of this basic contradiction, at various stages of its process of development, in the uneven accentuation of the four fundamental contradictions of the present world and changes of their inter-relationship.

The present day Chinese rulers, the revisionist usurpers of proletarian state power and party leadership in China are ideologically too bankrupt to challenge the theoretical validity of Mao tse Tung Thought and feel still politically too insecure to openly renounce it. Instead they choose for the time being, to strangle Mao tse Tung Thought by malevolent embrace. They rob it of dialectical materialist and revolutionary content and peddle its shell stuffed with eclecticism and pragmatism. In a way, they are doing to Mao tse Tung what the Russian revisionists did to Lenin. The latter disposed off Lenin by reducing him to a glorified mummy and unleashing a proxy-attack on Stalin who faithfully defended, elaborated, and applied Leninism. Similarly, the Chinese revisionists seek to dispose off Mao  tse Tung by reducing him to a venerable icon and unleashing a proxy attack on the four, who faithfully applied and defended Mao tse Tung Thought. But there is a subtle difference between the two situations. Whereas the Russian revisionists had a distance for about three decades and consequences of 2nd World War from the time of Lenin to amend or ignore as irrelevant his teachings under the pretext of changed conditions. The Chinese revisionists are denied this esacpe route from the revolutionary legacy of Mao tse Tung. Mao tse Tung, till the year of his death and their counter-revolutionary coupd’etat, used to comment on vital questions of internal and external line of China's Socialist Revolution. That is why the distinguished features of their revisionism is the reversal of the established contemporary revolutionary line, principles and policies at the national as well as the International level. And, to begin with, the reversal of the correct verdicts of the Great Proletrain Cultural Revolution of China.

Teng-Hua revisionism in its present form is the continuation and development of Chinese revisionism, which has been engaged in fierce contention with Mao tse Tung Thought for controlling the steering of social development of China since the emergence of New China in 1949. Ever since the central thrust of the Chinese revisionists has been to stall the forward movement of the social revolution of China on a course charted out by the proletariat, with the slogan of consolidating the obtaining stage of development of the revolution should this stratagem fail, to sabotage the revolutionary movement in the name of rectifying the excesses of revolution: should this stratagem fail too, hypothetically to hail the victories of revolution and stall the next revolutionary step further with the plea that the revolution had already achieved its objectives and other tasks come to the fore:all the while seeming to corrode and reverse the previous gains of revolution.

Socialist China has changed colour. A great fortress of world proletrain revolution today stands transformed into a citadel of neo-revisionism, a centre hostile to world revolution. The grave development has serious international repercussions. Remaining true to proletarian internationalist outlook, Communist Revolutionaries in India, cannot afford to adopt an attitude of unconcern or casualness towards this development. It has a profound bearing on the development of organisation and revolutionary mass movement. Every significant triumph or setback experienced by any of the contingents of the world proletarian revolutionary movement, and lessons drawn from it influence all other contingents in terms of material prospects as well as ideological clarity. Proletrain Internationalism rests on the common fundamental interests, aims, and fate of International proletariat.

Like Marxism, its opposite aspect i.e. opportunism, a form of bourgeois ideology in Marxist guise is also an International phenomenan. Although opportunism may assume particular expression in a given country which demands a corresponding treatment at the hands of Marxist-Leninists situated there. On account of this, every opportunist trend gets nourishment from International Opportunism. That is why opportunism can effectively be cobated only through concerted attack all along the front, locally as well as internationally. The practice of consistent struggle against local opportunist trends equips Marxist Leninist Forces for discerning the concrete thrust of opportunism of any hue that comes to the fore at International level. On the other hand, the process of uncompromising struggle against the latter brings out the latent opportunist and vaccilating tendencies within the ranks of the Marxist–Leninists.

In the period of the Great Debate, the opportunist leadership of a large number of communit parties used to brandish the sword of fake proletarian Internationalism and the accusation of anti-Sovietism to scare the Marxist Leninst ranks, into vaccilation in openly denouncing Khruschev revisionist leading clique of the CPSU.

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 34, Mar 3-9, 2013

Your Comment if any