Professional Documents
Culture Documents
II: Maoism
At the time of the international split in the Communist Parties, Maoism was clearly identifiable as a left
tendency. However, like any other Stalinist formation, it has embraced a wide range of political tendencies
in its growth and differentiation.
Whereas the split between Tito and Stalin did not lead to any significant and permanent splits [120] in the
international movement, the Sino-Soviet split triggered splits in virtually every national section of the
movement. The Stalinist monolith was broken. Hitherto, fragmentation had seemed to be the characteristic
of formations to the left of Stalinism. Now, there seemed to be no limit to the extent to which the Stalinist
movement itself was capable of fragmenting.
Given that all varieties of Stalinism encompass a wide range of politics, it is not easy to give a precise
political characterisation of Maoism. Its fundamental thesis is that the USSR was transformed into a
capitalist state by means of the election of Nikita Khrushchev as its national leader. The other
distinguishing feature derives from the nature of the Chinese revolution - a national democratic revolution,
led by the Communist Party, based on a peasant army, which grew over into the establishment of a
deformed workers' state resting on the peasant masses.
“Soviet-Social imperialism”
One of the central contradictions of Stalinism in the theoretical domain is this. Its very legitimacy rests
upon its claim to be the inheritor of Marxism, the continuators of the Russian Revolution, and the
representatives of the international working class; and yet the very existence of the bureaucracy belies this.
Their political perspectives run counter to the perspectives of Marxism, and the blood of the leaders of the
Russian Revolution is on their hands.
The result of this contradiction is that Stalinism manifests itself as 'revisionism'. That is, Stalinism seeks to
validate itself by drawing upon and utilising Marxist language and theory, while rationalising political
positions which are at odds with Marxism.
In the case of disputes within Stalinism, this tendency to revisionism may lead to absurdities which beggar
belief. Given that this dispute within the ranks of the Communist International lead to the rupture of the
Comintern and military conflict, it is worth a short diversion to investigate how fraternal parties, arguing on
the basis of a shared interpretation of history, arrived at the point of regarding each other as 'the main
enemy'.
Marxism holds that political differences ultimately reflect class antagonisms. For example, in this very
work, I have tried to explain the nature of Stalinism in terms of the social position of the bureaucracy,
rather than by a logical criticism of its theoretical positions. However, Trotsky warned:
'[Some comrades] assert most flatly, with the greatest insistence and sometimes most brutally, that every
difference of opinion ... is an expression of the interests of classes opposed to the proletariat' but 'there
should be no over-simplification and vulgarisation in the understanding of the thought that party
differences ... are nothing but a struggle for influence of antagonistic classes. ... The party is able to resolve
a problem by different means, and differences arise as to which of these means is the better ... but that does
not necessarily mean that you have there two class positions'. [121]
Not heeding these warnings, the Chinese leadership felt obliged to carry their polemic against
Khrushchev’s policies to the point of ascribing a bourgeois class origin to them. Once a socialist has
publicly ascribed bourgeois class origins to an opposing argument, all possibility of compromise or
fraternal discussion has been closed off. Debate is replaced by class struggle.
The Chinese characterised Khrushchev as a 'capitalist roader' and the Soviet Union as a 'social-imperialist'
state. In its foreign policy, and in the propaganda of their sympathisers in the capitalist world, the USSR
was portrayed as a worse enemy of the working class than imperialism itself, the 'greatest danger to world
peace' (read 'number one target for war'), etc etc.
I am not aware of any substantial argument to justify the assertion that the USSR had suddenly become an
imperialist country, other than criticisms of the policies of the government. For those claiming to be
Marxists, it would hardly be satisfactory to reduce characterisation of the social relations of a country to
analysis of the policies of the government of the day. And yet, the Maoists' whole political rationale rested
on just such a puerile distortion of Marxism.
Communists in the capitalist countries who sympathised with the Chinese CP and split from the pro-
Moscow factions, were encouraged to regard their former comrades, not simply as 'mistaken', or as
Communists belonging to a different tendency, but as representatives of an imperialist power - and what is
more - a super-power representing a greater threat than US imperialism itself!
Under these conditions, the possibility of Communists in a capitalist country maintaining a united front
policy against the common enemy was scant indeed.
That the USSR was not 'socialist' was of course true. Nor was China. That Khrushchev’s policies
threatened to open the way to capitalist restoration may well have been true; but that he actually did restore
capitalism is patent nonsense. That in Khrushchev Mao confronted the leader of a imperialist power is
nonsense.
That the USSR subordinated countries to its own interests is true; but it also often sacrificed immediate
material benefits in favour of other nations within its orbit. What it did do, was to tie the economies of
other countries into markets and a division of labour dominated by its own statified economy. But this is
not the same thing as “imperialism” in the very specific meaning of the word as understood by Marxism.
The way in which finance-monopoly capital dominates the economies of other countries is quite different
from the way in which the degenerated workers' state did. Therefore, it does not follow that trampling upon
the national rights of other nations is tantamount to being 'imperialist'. The USSR was not an imperialist
country in the sense defined by Lenin, in the sense understood by Marxism.
In his famous work, Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin gave a very precise definition of
imperialism:
1. the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created
monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
2. the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance
capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
3. the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional
importance;
4. the formation of international monopolistic capitalist associations which share the world among
themselves, and
5. the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
'Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance
capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the
division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the
globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed'. [122]
Lenin described imperialism specifically as the highest, or last, stage of capitalism, because it has ushered
in all the pre-requisites of socialism - world market, world-wide division of labour, the possibility of
centralised planning, the transcendence of the nation-state - and at the same time it has taken humanity into
an epoch of decay and destruction. The contradiction between the private ownership of the means of
production, and the socialised character of the forces of production developed on a world scale has become
absolute.
Imperialism grew out of colonialism, which had forcibly dragged the peoples of all continents into the
world-wide system of capitalist production and distribution. Based on the most modern forces of
production built up in the 'home' country, colonialism gave way to the decline of the 'home' states into
rentier states, living off the proceeds of exported capital.
How does this definition of imperialism compare with the nature of the USSR?
In the first place, the post-war USSR arose not out of a colonial power or out of capitalism, but by the
degeneration of a workers state; not through the concentration of capital but through its expropriation.
Secondly, the penetration of the products of the USSR into the countries it dominated did not take place by
export of capital (investment in local industries and repatriation of profits). Trade between the USSR and
its “satellites” was organised by bureaucrats by means of planned export and import of products, not by a
“financial oligarchy” exporting and importing capital.
Thirdly, the backward nature of the Soviet economy meant that it was the USSR that supplied raw
materials, oil and gas, to the countries it dominated, in exchange for manufactured goods and machinery,
rather than the other way around.
The economy of each country was planned independently, and interconnected through trade. This is quite
different from the penetration of the economy of the dominated country through foreign ownership of the
means of production and the extraction of surplus value in the form of repatriated profits or products. The
isolation of a country from the world market and the world-wide division of labour is not the method of
imperialism. The tying of a country’s economy instead into a common market (i.e. COMECON) dominated
by trade with the USSR, is not the same as imperialism.
This economic domination of a country was certainly a feature of colonialism, but imperialism corresponds
to the breaking down of this exclusive colonialist relation (such as pertained to the way Portugal
maintained its colonies up until 1974) and its replacement by domination which is founded on “free trade”
and capital investment.
The majority of capital investment in the economies of other countries made by the USSR was not in
Eastern Europe for instance, but in the Middle East. This policy was dictated by the military need to
maintain friendly relations with neighbouring capitalist countries. The USSR’s relation to these Middle
Eastern countries was not that of an imperialist power, other than in the narrow military sense.
What was the real meaning of this gross mis-application of Marxist terminology on the part of the Chinese
Stalinists? On the arena of international diplomacy, it was not long before the need to fight 'Soviet social
imperialism' meant making diplomatic overtures to the US, and making deals with the US aimed against
any national liberation movement which chose to remain within the orbit of 'social imperialism' - i.e.
continue to accept aid from the USSR to fight the US, and refuse to bite the hand that fed it.
This diplomatic struggle led to a division of the world’s national liberation movements into rival pro-China
and pro-Soviet camps. The USA was then able to chose to make it a three-way fight or lend support to one
or another party in the internal struggle, choosing their tactics solely in order to maximise the advantage for
imperialism and most weaken the liberation struggle. One of the most scandalous episodes in this saga was
the aid that never seemed to be able to reach the Vietnamese from the USSR because it travelled through
China.
The rapid transition from the apparently ultra-left denunciation of Khrushchev in favour of a harder anti-
imperialist line, to forming close pacts with US imperialism to betray and undermine the anti-imperialist
struggle, took place over approximately a decade from 1960.
“Bloc of four classes”
In 1949, Mao defined the nature of the Chinese Revolution and its task as follows:
'... the people’s democratic dictatorship ... to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the
people alone have that right. Who are the people? At the present stage in China they are the working class,
the peasantry, the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. These classes, led by the working
class and the Communist Party, unite to form their own state and elect their own government; they enforce
their dictatorship over the running dogs of imperialism - the landlord class and the bureaucratic-
bourgeoisie, as well as the representatives of those classes, the Kuomintang reactionaries and their
accomplices. ... Democracy is practiced within the ranks of the people, who enjoy the rights of freedom of
speech, assembly, association and so on'. [123]
Just as the declarations in favour of 'freedom of association' in the above passage cannot be taken at face
value, the same article quoted also refers to the leadership of the working class, within the alliance between
workers and peasants, within the 'bloc of four classes'. But the fuzziness in Maoist theory on these
questions in the 1940s developed over time.
In the early 1950s, the “bloc of four classes” meant attempts to incorporate bourgeois representatives in the
government; it meant limiting calls for expropriation of capitalists to 'foreign monopoly capitalism', in the
interests of maintaining a bloc with the 'national bourgeoisie'. In the 1960s, it meant the shackling of the
urban proletariat and their subordination to the peasantry. In international relations, it meant forming
political blocs with bourgeois governments at the expense of the working class. In other words the Popular
Front policy which proved so disastrous for the communist movement in Europe and China in the 1930s.
[124]
One of the most repulsive characteristics of Maoism is its promotion of chauvinism. The nationalism of the
people of an oppressed nation is progressive in so far as it strives for national liberation and is directed
against imperialism. When this nationalism is transplanted to an imperialist country such as Australia, it
becomes down-right reactionary.
The Chinese Communist Party was obliged to engage in very complex political manoeuvring during the
30-year-long national liberation and civil war struggle. Once the CCP had taken power, it progressed to
complete indifference to principle when it came to the formation of blocs and alliances. The tactic of
uniting as broad a front as possible against the common enemy is habitually and mechanistically taken to
an extreme - an extreme which has no regard for class divisions.
Maoism is 'Popular Front-ism' par excellence.
“Socialism in one commune”
The leadership of the Chinese bureaucracy was recruited from the working class and urban intelligentsia,
but it rested on the peasantry. But the peasantry demanded of the Communists leaders a solution to the
principle problems facing the peasantry, that they could not resolve on their own: national liberation and
industrialisation.
Having been obliged to make a virtue of national self-sufficiency, the Chinese CP devised a unique
solution to the problem of industrialisation which would avoid increasing the political power of the urban
workers. Industrialisation would be delivered directly to the rural communes. Each commune would
establish a miniature self-contained economy with its own steel manufacturing, light industry and so on,
and the urban workers and professional people would be dispersed into the countryside to 'learn from the
peasants'.
Decentralisation of industry, by raising the technical level of the rural economy, seemed to make sense in a
country as vast and as backward as China. But it was a mistaken policy, based not upon the proletariat
turning to the countryside to lead the peasantry, but upon the bureaucracy turning to the peasantry to
maintain the subordination of the urban working class and the intelligentsia to the bureaucracy.