Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Report of the Central Committee of the M.L.O.B.

On the Situation in the People’s Republic of China


“CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE”

Let us look at the viewpoint of Mao Tse-tung on the question of the socialist revolution in China.

This viewpoint is expressed authoritatively in one of his most published works, one which this year has been widely republished in many languages: “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People”, a speech made by Mao in February 1957.

Mao begins by saying:

We are confronted by two types of social contradictions – contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and contradictions among the people. These two types of contradictions are totally different in nature. (Mao Tse-tung: ”On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People”; Peking; 1964; p. 1-2).

In this respect, he says, what constitutes “the people” varies in different countries, and also in different historical periods within the same country:

The term ’the people’ has different meanings in different countries, and in different historical periods in each country. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.2).

He proceeds to analyse what constitutes “the people” during the period of the construction of socialism in China:

At this stage of building socialism, all classes, strata and social groups which approve, support and work for the cause of socialist construction belong to the category of the people. (Mao Tse-tung; ibid.; p.2).

Then, in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist thesis that the capitalist class represents a social force fundamentally and violently opposed to the building of socialism, he puts forward the revisionist thesis that “in the conditions existing in China” the capitalist class forms, during the period of the construction of socialism, a part of “the people”, that is, one of the “classes, strata and social groups which approve, support and work for the cause of socialist construction.”

During the building of socialism in the conditions existing in China today what we call contradictions among the people include the following: .... contradictions between the working class and other section’s of the working people on the one hand and the national bourgeoisie on the other ... In our country, the contradictions between the working class and the national bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.3).

He develops this revisionist thesis by claiming that “in the period of the socialist revolution”, the capitalist class has two sides to its character: the negative side is its social role as a class which exploits the working class, while the positive side is “its willingness to accept” socialism.

in our country the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie is a contradiction among the people. ... This is because of the dual character of the national bourgeoisie in our country. ... In the period of the socialist revolution, exploitation of the working class to make profits is one side, while support of the Constitution and willingness to accept socialist transformation is the other. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.3-4).

In so far as its negative aspect is concerned – that is, its role as a class which exploits the working class – the contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class is, Mao says, an antagonistic contradiction.

The contradiction between exploiter and exploited, which exists between the national bourgeoisie and the working class, is an antagonistic one. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.4).

Nevertheless, Mao proceeds, “in the concrete conditions existing in China”, where the capitalist class is a class which “approves, supports and works for” socialism, this antagonistic contradiction can, by proper handling, be transformed into a non-antagonistic one.

In the concrete conditions existing in China, such as antagonistic contradiction, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.4).

This means, Mao says, that, with proper handling, the transition to socialism in China can be brought about peacefully, without the violent opposition of the capitalist class.

The contradiction between exploiter and exploited, which exists between the national bourgeoisie and the working class, ... if properly handled, can be ... resolved in a peaceful way. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.4).

What does Mao mean by the “correct handling” of the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class, the “correct handling” which can bring about a “peaceful transition” to socialism in China?

He makes it clear that he means

a policy of uniting, criticising and educating the national bourgeoisie, (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.4)

a policy of “ideologically remoulding” (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.28)

the capitalist class.

Because, he says, the capitalist class and the working class in China both support the building of socialism, they have a mutual “desire for unity”, so that the contradiction between them can be resolved peacefully by the “democratic method” of criticism or argument.

In 1942 we worked out the formula ’unity-criticism-unity’ to describe this democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people ...: to start from a desire for unity, and thrash out questions of right and wrong through criticism or argument, and so achieve a new unity on a new basis. ... After the liberation of our country, we used this same method – ’unity-criticism-unity’ – in our relations with other democratic parties (i.e., the parties of the capitalist class – Ed.) and industrial and commercial circles. ... The year 1956 saw the transformation of privately owned industrial and commercial enterprises into joint state-private enterprises ... as part of the transformation of our social system. The speed and smoothness with which this was carried out are closely related to the fact that we treated the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie as a contradiction among the people. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p.9, 10, 27).

An important aspect of the “ideological remoulding” of the capitalist class, Mao says, is to encourage them to undergo “voluntary study”; by this means most capitalists learn from personal experiences that it is “good for them” to continue ideologically remoulding themselves.

Members of the bourgeoisie have already become managerial personnel in joint state-private enterprises and are being transformed from exploiters into working people. ... Even when they stop receiving their fixed interests payments and rid themselves of the label ’bourgeoisie’, they will still need ideological remoulding for quite some time. ... During the past few years, most of them have been willing to study and have made marked progress. Our industrialists and businessmen can be thoroughly remoulded only in the course of work; they should work together with the staff and workers in the enterprises, and make the enterprises the chief centres for remoulding themselves. It is also important for them to change certain of their old views through study. Study for them should be optional. After they have attended study groups for some weeks, many industrialists and businessmen ... know from personal experience that it is good for them to keep on studying and remoulding themselves. (Mao Tse-tung: ibid., p.28, 29).

This concept of the capitalist class peacefully growing into socialism is, of course, fundamentally identical with that put forward in the late 1920s by the Soviet revisionist Bukharin – a concept on which Stalin commented:

The dictatorship of the proletariat is needed for the purpose of waging a relentless struggle against the capitalist elements, for the purpose of suppressing the bourgeoisie and of tearing out capitalism by the roots. But if the capitalists of town and country ... are growing into Socialism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat needed at all? If it is, for the suppression of which class is it needed? ...

Either Marx’s theory of the class struggle, or the theory of the capitalists growing into Socialism. (J.V. Stalin: ”The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U. (B.),” 1929; in: “Leninism”; London; 1942; p. 254-5).