"As the Sept. 11 issue of Peking Review polemicizes,
… to view relations between the various classes of society in accordance with the concept that 'two combine into one' as advocated by Comrade [Yang Xuenzhen] will inevitably lead to obscuring the boundaries between classes, and to repudiating the class struggle, and thus lead to the theory of class conciliation."
It seems to me that it could also lead to thinking that the oppressed class that now is ruling (after revolution) automatically receives the faults of the ruling class. That would mean that there is an ontological danger to power.
Anyway, this "spear and shield" "theory" -- I think most metaphysics actually qualify as hypotheses, if not less -- I mean, after all, we ARE working with words -- slippery beings in themselves -- I find rather neat in itself, but it feels oddly separate from Mao's actions. Do I think it led to the unethical purges of innocent people? No, but I do think that the metaphysics of the Maoists were doomed before they even came into attempts at praxis. Mao as far as I can tell did not really care about the nature of reality and was willing to divide his own people against each other in a reign of guilt -- classic totalitarian and selfish behavior.
Your suspicion of metaphysics/praxis is one I'm sympathetic with. I grew up in environments that, like the majority of Western and some Eastern history, claimed to be "one" with their metaphysics; but, it seems, epistemological policies seem to reveal more about a given regime's tolerance and justice towards any and all people.
Absolutely, I don’t think Mao was primarily interested in the nature of reality per se, nor was it even his explicit purpose in “On Contradiction.” He gave that lecture at a military college during the civil war/Sino-Japanese War, and one of his goals was to justify a united front of the Communists and the KMT (who were massacring communists just a decade earlier) against the Japanese invaders; this meant the Communists had to temporarily suspend internal class struggle (and turn the other cheek about their own friends and family they lost to the KMT) so that the Chinese people could fend off the bigger threat. It’s helpful to clarify the difference between a “primary” and a “secondary” contradiction in a situation like that.
So all of this was very connected to praxis from the beginning, and I do feel justified in calling it a theory in that respect. Mao even says that theory has to come from practice, after which theory goes on to serve practice. This maxim is pretty in-line with the Marxist tradition too.
I call his theory “metaphysics” sort of half-sarcastically. The truth is he would’ve hated to be accused of doing metaphysics; he devotes the first section to criticizing traditional metaphysics. It’s just that from my standpoint, he’s just doing an “anti-metaphysics metaphysics” instead of breaking free of metaphysics altogether.
I think it’s undeniable that Mao was a brilliant revolutionary and military strategist, one that inspired liberation groups around the world. But he was a bad ruler. I do have to agree that a dangerous cult of personalty formed around him, which he did not try to curb, and which started even before he came to power.
"As the Sept. 11 issue of Peking Review polemicizes,
… to view relations between the various classes of society in accordance with the concept that 'two combine into one' as advocated by Comrade [Yang Xuenzhen] will inevitably lead to obscuring the boundaries between classes, and to repudiating the class struggle, and thus lead to the theory of class conciliation."
It seems to me that it could also lead to thinking that the oppressed class that now is ruling (after revolution) automatically receives the faults of the ruling class. That would mean that there is an ontological danger to power.
Anyway, this "spear and shield" "theory" -- I think most metaphysics actually qualify as hypotheses, if not less -- I mean, after all, we ARE working with words -- slippery beings in themselves -- I find rather neat in itself, but it feels oddly separate from Mao's actions. Do I think it led to the unethical purges of innocent people? No, but I do think that the metaphysics of the Maoists were doomed before they even came into attempts at praxis. Mao as far as I can tell did not really care about the nature of reality and was willing to divide his own people against each other in a reign of guilt -- classic totalitarian and selfish behavior.
Your suspicion of metaphysics/praxis is one I'm sympathetic with. I grew up in environments that, like the majority of Western and some Eastern history, claimed to be "one" with their metaphysics; but, it seems, epistemological policies seem to reveal more about a given regime's tolerance and justice towards any and all people.
Great to read your essay.
Thanks for reading and for your response.
Absolutely, I don’t think Mao was primarily interested in the nature of reality per se, nor was it even his explicit purpose in “On Contradiction.” He gave that lecture at a military college during the civil war/Sino-Japanese War, and one of his goals was to justify a united front of the Communists and the KMT (who were massacring communists just a decade earlier) against the Japanese invaders; this meant the Communists had to temporarily suspend internal class struggle (and turn the other cheek about their own friends and family they lost to the KMT) so that the Chinese people could fend off the bigger threat. It’s helpful to clarify the difference between a “primary” and a “secondary” contradiction in a situation like that.
So all of this was very connected to praxis from the beginning, and I do feel justified in calling it a theory in that respect. Mao even says that theory has to come from practice, after which theory goes on to serve practice. This maxim is pretty in-line with the Marxist tradition too.
I call his theory “metaphysics” sort of half-sarcastically. The truth is he would’ve hated to be accused of doing metaphysics; he devotes the first section to criticizing traditional metaphysics. It’s just that from my standpoint, he’s just doing an “anti-metaphysics metaphysics” instead of breaking free of metaphysics altogether.
I think it’s undeniable that Mao was a brilliant revolutionary and military strategist, one that inspired liberation groups around the world. But he was a bad ruler. I do have to agree that a dangerous cult of personalty formed around him, which he did not try to curb, and which started even before he came to power.
The education of contexts and your sophisticated takes are giving me a lot to think about.
That’s very flattering, thanks haha. Of course, glad to talk whenever!