----- Original Message -----
From: Javad Eskandarpour
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
From: Javad Eskandarpour
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrades,
I mentioned, in the last
e-mail, that I will begin discussing Mao's On New Democracy with a
preliminary historical remarks on it. Chinese experts and well-informed Maoists
might know of Wang Ming, who was a great communist in the Communist Party of
China, and was the Chinese representative in the Comintern. It is appropriate to
see what Ming says in relation to Mao's attitude to On New Democracy.
The text of his conversation with Mao on Mao's On New Democracy is
relatively long, so I will present it in segments with my remarks on them. Wang
Ming states that "from September 1941 on, in private conversations with members
of the Politbureau, Mao often referred to his plan of creating Maoism. Here is
the the content of one of Mao's conversations with
me:
`Comrade Wang Ming, I want to create Maoism. What is your opinion on this score?'
`For what purpose?'
`If a leader has no "ism" of his own, he can be overthrown during his lifetime, and may even be attacked after death. With an "ism" the situation is different. Marx has Marxism and though the Second International split into many groups, none dared to go against Marx and Marxism. Lenin has Leninism and though there were many groups and currents in the Third International and the Bolshevik Party, none acted openly against Lenin and Leninism. Sun Yat-sen has Sun Yat-senism and though there is turmoil and a great number of groups in the Kuomintang, none dares to go against Sun Yat-sen and Sun Yat-senism. If I do not create my own "ism", I may be overthrown even though the 7th CPC Congress elects me chairman of the Central Committee'
Before proceeding with this "intelligent" conversation of Mao, I must say that Mao's mentality is a shopkeeper mentality which is anxious over some "competitions" coming from Marx, Lenin, and Sun Yat-sen in the bazaar of "isms"!
Maoists might say that this conversation is the invention of Wang Ming becuase Ming wanted to vilify Mao due to their previous political clashes in the CPC, especially this is a "private conversation". In other words, this is Ming's words against Mao's. This objection might appear convincing at the first glance, but this first glance is not sufficient regarding any historical oral or writtten documents because subsequent oral and written documents might bolster or reject the content of any oral or written documents through a detalied analysis of available documents along with the historical product of any particular social event. If this is not the case, then why Maoists want to accept whatever Mao has said or written. The truthfulness of Wang Ming's "private conversation" report will be shown in the course of the subsequent analysis of Mao's ideas in On New Democarcy, but not solely through the "private conversation" itself.
So let us proceed with the conversation when Wang Ming replies to Mao's above reasoning.
"I replied:
`It is not true that an "ism" is a guarantee against being overthrown. Indeed, if the "ism" is wrong, one can fall very quickly. Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu had their "isms", but didn't they both become a cropper? Like the communist parties of other countries, the Communist Party of China is guided by Marxism-Leninism. Why "stoke a separate furnace" and create an "ism"?"
Wang Ming is correct when he says that, for example, Trotsky became a cropper regardless of Trotskyism. In addition to Wang's idea, I must say that trends like Trotskyism, and Maoism become fashinable among the petty-bourgeois strata of society, especially in the West. Now let us listen to Mao's reply to Wang ming's above question.
"`By creating Maoism I shall preserve Marxism,' said Mao Tse-tung. `All I reject is Leninism. My approach is the following: Leninism is Russian Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Russian revolution; Maoism is chinese or Sinified Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.'"
As it is evident from the above quoted passage, all Mao rejects is Leninism, but nothing else! In other words, Mao "accepts" the universal truth of Marxism (whatever this means to Mao) but rejects Leninism because Leninism is allegedly a Russian phenomenon which is "blended" with the universal truth of Marxism, or the Russian "water" in the "pail" of Marxism. No wonder that some simple-minded Maoists repeat the myth of separate entities called "Marxism", "Marxism-Leninism", "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" ( actually they should have used "Marxism-Maoism" instead of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism") and debate their "crucial" differences from each other. And this "blending" activity of Mao, or carrying the Chinese "water" in the "pail" of Marxism is indicative of his "dialectical" understanding of the relation of universal to particular!
Let us see what Wang Ming says to Mao in relation to Mao's rejection of Leninism.
"I tried to explain:
`What you say is untenable theoretically and also in practice. To contrast Leninism to Marxism, to accept Marxism and reject Leninism--this was deliberately done by the leaders of the Second International and bourgeois scholars, who in fact reject both Leninism and Marxism. We communists cannot do this. For us Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. In other words, Leninism is Marxism as it continues to develop in the epoch. To Sinify Marxism is wrong. The very approach is un-Marxist. There are no national Marxisms, nor can there be. Marxism is and always will be an international teaching. Since you have raised this important topic, let me sincerely say : your approach is harmful not only for the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China, but will also do no good to you personally. I beg you to think long and seriously. There is no need for any Maoism.'"
Wang Ming clearly and aptly takes a correct internationalist Marxist-Leninist stance on the question of Maoism by reminding Mao of the international essence of Marxism in contrast to some anti-Marxist movements which present themselves as national Marxists. In this connection, some Maoists might ask the following: what about the national pecularities that any Marxist-leninist party must take into account in the process of the struggle and the subsequent establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariar? By this rhetorical question, they seem to say that, for example, when one talks about Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism, one wants to express these national pecularities alnog with "the universal truth of Marxism". Well, this kind of reasoning seems convincing to those who are in "blending" business of every kind in the name of Marxism-Leninism. In order to show the falsity of the above reasoning in relation to national pecularities, I must draw the attention of the reader to the fact that Marxism-Leninism is the Marxism of "the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolutions", not the Marxism of Russia or Lenin regardless of the particular reality of Russia or the great individuality of Lenin. Thus, that is why one cannot Russify or Sinify Marxism, and if one does, this act is not only "un-Marxist" approach, as Wang Ming put it, but also it is anti-Marxist-Leninist practice.
One might think that after listening to Wang Ming's reasoning, one might abandon the insane idea of creating Maoism. But does Mao listen to any reasonable arguement, or keep dreaming about his place in the Chinese history?
Mao's answer to Wang Ming reasoning shows how Mao's daydreaming guides him through the conversation. Here it is: "`How can this be?' Mao said. `Haven't I quite sincerely told you that if a man has no "ism" of his own, he usually [be]comes a cropper?'"
Mao is indeed daydreaming about his Mao"ism" sincerely!
"'In that case, which of your writing could be used as the basis for Maoism?' I asked.
"`Why--new democracy is Maoism. My book On New Democracy is the first and basic theoretical product of Maoism. It was for this purpose that I wrote it in 1939. But at that time I could not say so openly: now I can.'"
Two things are clear from the above quoted passage: (1) Mao considers his On New Democracy as the basic theoretical work of Maoism, and (2) Mao wrote his On New Democracy with the purpose of establishing his Mao"ism". It goes without saying that Mao's daydreaming of establishing Mao"ism" primarily has own objective social reality in addition to psychological factors, which I will discuss it later in the context of the analysis of his political ideas in On New Democracy.
Wang Ming replies to Mao's daydreaming with great insight in the following way: "Thereupon I said:
`You will surely recall that when you showed your rough copy of On New Democracy to the Politbureau comrades I spoke to you twice and criticised both the title and the content. I said that On New Democracy is contrary to Leninism in practically all the cardinal issues of the Chinese revolution (assessment of the character of the revolution, its stages, motive forces, and perspectives, the question of hegemony, etc.). Whatever you may wish it to be, "new democracy" is in effect an anti-Leninist and anti-socialist theory and platform; it is the theory and the platform of the Chinese national bourgeoisie as opposed to the non-capitalist, i.e. socialist, perspective of the Chinese revolution. Apart from talking to you, I also wrote you a letter saying that your book may be used by Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu against the Soviet Communists, the Comintern and the Communist Party of China. I suggested that you give some thought to correcting your book. But though you made a few corrections and added some passages, the basic principles remained the same. So now I sincerely say to you: if you oppose Leninism with "new democracy", you will be bound to fail. This is why I advise you to abandon the idea of creating Maoism and to give serious thought to revising your book, On New Democracy.'"(Mao's Betrayal by Wang Ming)
Wang Ming's prediction has indeed come true--the theoretical Maoism has failed regardless of some following due to the overall weakness of the working-class movement in the world, especially in some countries in which we have weak working-class movements along with their weak working-class parties.
Javad
`Comrade Wang Ming, I want to create Maoism. What is your opinion on this score?'
`For what purpose?'
`If a leader has no "ism" of his own, he can be overthrown during his lifetime, and may even be attacked after death. With an "ism" the situation is different. Marx has Marxism and though the Second International split into many groups, none dared to go against Marx and Marxism. Lenin has Leninism and though there were many groups and currents in the Third International and the Bolshevik Party, none acted openly against Lenin and Leninism. Sun Yat-sen has Sun Yat-senism and though there is turmoil and a great number of groups in the Kuomintang, none dares to go against Sun Yat-sen and Sun Yat-senism. If I do not create my own "ism", I may be overthrown even though the 7th CPC Congress elects me chairman of the Central Committee'
Before proceeding with this "intelligent" conversation of Mao, I must say that Mao's mentality is a shopkeeper mentality which is anxious over some "competitions" coming from Marx, Lenin, and Sun Yat-sen in the bazaar of "isms"!
Maoists might say that this conversation is the invention of Wang Ming becuase Ming wanted to vilify Mao due to their previous political clashes in the CPC, especially this is a "private conversation". In other words, this is Ming's words against Mao's. This objection might appear convincing at the first glance, but this first glance is not sufficient regarding any historical oral or writtten documents because subsequent oral and written documents might bolster or reject the content of any oral or written documents through a detalied analysis of available documents along with the historical product of any particular social event. If this is not the case, then why Maoists want to accept whatever Mao has said or written. The truthfulness of Wang Ming's "private conversation" report will be shown in the course of the subsequent analysis of Mao's ideas in On New Democarcy, but not solely through the "private conversation" itself.
So let us proceed with the conversation when Wang Ming replies to Mao's above reasoning.
"I replied:
`It is not true that an "ism" is a guarantee against being overthrown. Indeed, if the "ism" is wrong, one can fall very quickly. Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu had their "isms", but didn't they both become a cropper? Like the communist parties of other countries, the Communist Party of China is guided by Marxism-Leninism. Why "stoke a separate furnace" and create an "ism"?"
Wang Ming is correct when he says that, for example, Trotsky became a cropper regardless of Trotskyism. In addition to Wang's idea, I must say that trends like Trotskyism, and Maoism become fashinable among the petty-bourgeois strata of society, especially in the West. Now let us listen to Mao's reply to Wang ming's above question.
"`By creating Maoism I shall preserve Marxism,' said Mao Tse-tung. `All I reject is Leninism. My approach is the following: Leninism is Russian Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Russian revolution; Maoism is chinese or Sinified Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.'"
As it is evident from the above quoted passage, all Mao rejects is Leninism, but nothing else! In other words, Mao "accepts" the universal truth of Marxism (whatever this means to Mao) but rejects Leninism because Leninism is allegedly a Russian phenomenon which is "blended" with the universal truth of Marxism, or the Russian "water" in the "pail" of Marxism. No wonder that some simple-minded Maoists repeat the myth of separate entities called "Marxism", "Marxism-Leninism", "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" ( actually they should have used "Marxism-Maoism" instead of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism") and debate their "crucial" differences from each other. And this "blending" activity of Mao, or carrying the Chinese "water" in the "pail" of Marxism is indicative of his "dialectical" understanding of the relation of universal to particular!
Let us see what Wang Ming says to Mao in relation to Mao's rejection of Leninism.
"I tried to explain:
`What you say is untenable theoretically and also in practice. To contrast Leninism to Marxism, to accept Marxism and reject Leninism--this was deliberately done by the leaders of the Second International and bourgeois scholars, who in fact reject both Leninism and Marxism. We communists cannot do this. For us Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. In other words, Leninism is Marxism as it continues to develop in the epoch. To Sinify Marxism is wrong. The very approach is un-Marxist. There are no national Marxisms, nor can there be. Marxism is and always will be an international teaching. Since you have raised this important topic, let me sincerely say : your approach is harmful not only for the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China, but will also do no good to you personally. I beg you to think long and seriously. There is no need for any Maoism.'"
Wang Ming clearly and aptly takes a correct internationalist Marxist-Leninist stance on the question of Maoism by reminding Mao of the international essence of Marxism in contrast to some anti-Marxist movements which present themselves as national Marxists. In this connection, some Maoists might ask the following: what about the national pecularities that any Marxist-leninist party must take into account in the process of the struggle and the subsequent establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariar? By this rhetorical question, they seem to say that, for example, when one talks about Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism, one wants to express these national pecularities alnog with "the universal truth of Marxism". Well, this kind of reasoning seems convincing to those who are in "blending" business of every kind in the name of Marxism-Leninism. In order to show the falsity of the above reasoning in relation to national pecularities, I must draw the attention of the reader to the fact that Marxism-Leninism is the Marxism of "the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolutions", not the Marxism of Russia or Lenin regardless of the particular reality of Russia or the great individuality of Lenin. Thus, that is why one cannot Russify or Sinify Marxism, and if one does, this act is not only "un-Marxist" approach, as Wang Ming put it, but also it is anti-Marxist-Leninist practice.
One might think that after listening to Wang Ming's reasoning, one might abandon the insane idea of creating Maoism. But does Mao listen to any reasonable arguement, or keep dreaming about his place in the Chinese history?
Mao's answer to Wang Ming reasoning shows how Mao's daydreaming guides him through the conversation. Here it is: "`How can this be?' Mao said. `Haven't I quite sincerely told you that if a man has no "ism" of his own, he usually [be]comes a cropper?'"
Mao is indeed daydreaming about his Mao"ism" sincerely!
"'In that case, which of your writing could be used as the basis for Maoism?' I asked.
"`Why--new democracy is Maoism. My book On New Democracy is the first and basic theoretical product of Maoism. It was for this purpose that I wrote it in 1939. But at that time I could not say so openly: now I can.'"
Two things are clear from the above quoted passage: (1) Mao considers his On New Democracy as the basic theoretical work of Maoism, and (2) Mao wrote his On New Democracy with the purpose of establishing his Mao"ism". It goes without saying that Mao's daydreaming of establishing Mao"ism" primarily has own objective social reality in addition to psychological factors, which I will discuss it later in the context of the analysis of his political ideas in On New Democracy.
Wang Ming replies to Mao's daydreaming with great insight in the following way: "Thereupon I said:
`You will surely recall that when you showed your rough copy of On New Democracy to the Politbureau comrades I spoke to you twice and criticised both the title and the content. I said that On New Democracy is contrary to Leninism in practically all the cardinal issues of the Chinese revolution (assessment of the character of the revolution, its stages, motive forces, and perspectives, the question of hegemony, etc.). Whatever you may wish it to be, "new democracy" is in effect an anti-Leninist and anti-socialist theory and platform; it is the theory and the platform of the Chinese national bourgeoisie as opposed to the non-capitalist, i.e. socialist, perspective of the Chinese revolution. Apart from talking to you, I also wrote you a letter saying that your book may be used by Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu against the Soviet Communists, the Comintern and the Communist Party of China. I suggested that you give some thought to correcting your book. But though you made a few corrections and added some passages, the basic principles remained the same. So now I sincerely say to you: if you oppose Leninism with "new democracy", you will be bound to fail. This is why I advise you to abandon the idea of creating Maoism and to give serious thought to revising your book, On New Democracy.'"(Mao's Betrayal by Wang Ming)
Wang Ming's prediction has indeed come true--the theoretical Maoism has failed regardless of some following due to the overall weakness of the working-class movement in the world, especially in some countries in which we have weak working-class movements along with their weak working-class parties.
Javad
