Misreading Mao: On Class and Class Struggle

Abstract

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:

• Class
• class theory
• Marxism
• Chinese Marxism
• Mao Zedong
• China

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, 1977: 1021-22, 1025; 1982: 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 (1987: 83-91). The Wengao sources attest to Mao's involvement in drafting and commenting on these documents. See, for example, Mao, 1992: 59-67, 283-5; 1996a: 369-76; 1996b: 102.

A similar point was made by Esherick (1979: 64-5). For a contrasting view, see Young (1986: 56-60).

I have discussed elsewhere the causal primacy Mao attributes in his post-1955 texts to the forces of production (see Healy, 1997: 127-9).

For a discussion of this issue in classical Marxism, see Healy (1987: 363-422).

For a discussion of Lenin's and Stalin's views on this matter, see Healy (1987: 387-422, 489-91).

See, for example, Schram (1974: 101) and Mao (1977a: 122).