The Dialectical illogicality of Neo-Maoism – the View from China


The US has been engaged in an overt attack upon Socialism and Communism for decades. Although this certainly intensified after WWII, the antagonism certainly existed before this date, with the US aligning with the USSR diplomatically (to achieve limited objectives) and diverting away (again also to achieve limited objectives). This carrot and stick approach was designed to ‘loosen’ the grip of Socialism upon the minds of the Soviets and replace it with a mania for modern consumer capitalism, but this policy failed due to America’s weakness prior to WWII, and its over-bearing strength after WWII. Whilst the US economic growth remained riddled with racism and hindered by class inequalities and injustices, the economic, industrial, scientific and technological growth increased year by year in the USSR – a country of diverse ethnic and cultural republics within which racism nolonger existed and the working class had eradicated all class inequalities. The US behaviour at these times, although designed to attack and weaken Soviet Socialism, actually produced the opposite dialectical effect. Quite literally it was obvious from this interaction that capitalism was digging its own grave, whilst although appearing to attack Soviet Socialism, was strengthening it through this antagonistic engagement.

Dialectics are as old as human thought. Examining a situation, idea or process from more than one perspective leads to the establishment of new ways of interpreting and seeing that is never ending and always orientated toward continuous refinement and growth. This can take the form of isolated and individual contemplation and meditation which sees data recorded and conclusions formulated, as well as through debate, argument, protest and even violence. A ‘thesis’ (i.e. ‘statement’) must have its opposite – or ‘antithesis’ (i.e. the ‘opposite point of view’), the interaction of which leads to a ‘new’ third position of ‘synthesis’ (or ‘useful integration of opposites’). This ‘synthesis’, as it does not represent any ultimate truth, is destined to eventually breakdown into its constituent parts of ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’ for the entire process to begin again, with the caveat that each ‘new’ ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’ is entirely different from any position that has previously manifested despite an apparent situational or circumstantial continuity. As the US pursued a one-dimensional policy against Soviet Socialism, its effort ‘strengthened’ rather than ‘weakened’ the USSR. Despite the US objective being that of weakening or discouraging Soviet Socialism, the exact dialectical opposite occurred. (The USSR collapsed not from any outer pressure, but rather from its own inner pressure of destructive reform from above).

The situation in modern China perceives all US efforts in this area as being counter-productive. The more the US throws its racist and hate filled rhetoric at Communist China, the stronger and more robust its Socialist structure becomes. As China is now surpassing the US in economic, technological and scientific development, the fruitless American attacks are becoming ever more desperate, incoherent and counter-productive. The mistaken Eurocentric notion that the Chinese people constitute an ‘inferior’ race (although common in the West) has been eclipsed by such an ingenious and rapid growth of China in every area (due to Socialist planning), that the Europeans under capitalism are now appearing to be developmentally bankrupt. Using maniacal and highly corrupt religious movements formulated in the West and paid for by the CUA (such as the Falun Gong Cult and the Pro-Tibetan Movement amongst others), has had no effect in China simply because freedom of religion is guaranteed for every citizen of the People’s Republic. Religious movements imbued with the ignorance of capitalism have no place in a civilised Socialist State.

This reality of China’s ongoing success coupled with the failure of every US offensive has left the American (capitalist) ideologues bereft of ideas. The usual fall-back position of anti-Chinese racism (the dominant factor during 19th century European and US imperialism in China) has failed to dent the development of Socialist China – as had the antics of its close ally – the religious fanatic. Due to its panic in the face of the success of Socialist planning in China, the US ideologues have resorted to the counter-intuitive accusation that China’s success is due not to ‘Socialism’ but rather to ‘capitalism’. As a rhetorical statement this is obviously ahistorical and only an uneducated (racist) and/or capitalist idiot would think this correct. A statement on its own, however, must be somehow justified in the US mind if the media and education system is to mindlessly broadcast it. This is where the US ideologues have concocted a double-barrelled fallacy that involves a) the abandonment of ‘Maoism’ by the Chinese government, and b) the apparent re-adoption of ‘Maoism’ amongst certain sectors of Chinese society. A Chinese academic colleague of mine (who lectures in China) suggests that the US is desperate to STOP Chinese development at all costs, and that they interpret ‘Maoism’ as a backward and primitive system that if ‘re-adopted’ would reduce China to chaos. The US fabricates news articles developed outside of China using ethnic Chinese people opposed to the Communist regime to pose for photographs and give false statements.

This US thinking is wrong on a number of counts. Maoism is not a separate ideology but is nothing less than Marxist-Leninism ‘developed’ by Mao Zedong for use in China during the times that he lived. More specifically, it was an ideology suited to a) the Chinese people in b) the times before and immediately after the successful Revolution of 1949. As times and conditions changed, however, Mao Zedong Thought in its original form became redundant and had to be dialectically evolved (as a form of Marxist-Leninism) to carefully navigate the new situations that arose both within and without China. Mao Zedong Thought was not formulated only by Mao Zedong (although he was an identifying focal point), but was the ‘collective’ effort of the entire Chinese people as led by the Communist Party of China (CPC). From a logical perspective, therefore, the body of knowledge known as ‘Mao Zedong Thought’ represents the struggles of the CPC primarily between 1921 and 1949 when the conditions in China were very different than they are today. An argument can be made that Mao Zedong Thought (in its original form) served as the foundation for ‘New’ China and contributed significantly to China’s victory during the Korean War, but ultimately Marxist-Leninism had to evolve in China as freedom from colonialism and imperialism was achieved (in other words, when Mao Zedong Thought had succeeded). This means that anyone who has received a Socialist education within China understands (when young) that as important as Mao Zedong Thought is – as a distinct body of work – it only represents a certain historical era in Marxist-Leninist interpretation and application. Mao Zedong Thought cannot be re-applied to the conditions of modern China because the conditions that Mao Zedong had to confront (and deal with) nolonger exist. This exposes the latest US folly and illogical approach to modern China, its Socialist ideology and dramatic transformation and success in every field of development.

Mao Zedong Thought remains relevant in its original form for those people still living in impoverished and highly oppressive conditions, dominated by reactionary, capitalistic or fascistic governments and neo-imperialist powers. In other words, the campaign map that Mao Zedong developed in the early to mid-20th century, retains a tremendous power to help those still living in similar circumstances today, but this model of resistance is not relevant to modern China which is now free of ALL colonial domination and imperialist exploitation. The US ideologues – probably taking a page out of the duplicitous work of the class enemy Leon Trotsky – is rather stupidly trying to paint the Chinese government as the new ‘colonial’ power that oppresses its people and is racist to foreigners. As if Chinese self-rule has carried on the type of rape, maiming, murder, exploitation and theft that the US (and her allies) inflicted upon China for hundreds of years. There are not any clandestine ‘neo-Maoist’ movements in China, no protests against the government and no discontentment amongst the workers, but the Westerners (and their anti-Chinese allies) will continue to make up their fantasies and believe in them.

One comment

  1. So much to learn and so little time to learn it in, Thank you for this and all the othere I have read and look forward to reading its like a breath of fresh air


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s