Marxism, Maoism, and Social Change Author(s): Andrew G. Walder Reviewed work(s): Source: Modern China, Vol. 3, No.

1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 101-118 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/188913 . Accessed: 07/01/2013 03:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern China.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marxism, Alaoism, and Social Change

ANDREW G. WALDER
of University Michigan

and thoughtof Mao Ze-dong,judging by the The strategy devotedto it,appearsto have beensubsheervolume of writing of analysisby students China. This jected to the mostthorough work has most oftencompared Mao withboththe"orthodox" Chinesethought.Mao's conMarxisttraditionand traditional ceptionshave been closelycomparedwiththoseofLenin,Stalin, and Trotsky (Schwartz, 1951; Meisner, 1967; Schram and d'Encausse, 1969; Schram, 1971; Starr, 1971); with Gramsci, Lukacs, Korsch, Marcuse,and a host of lesser Marxistfigures (Wakeman, 1973); withRussian Populists(Meisner,1971);with traditions China (Meisner,1967; Wakeman, of the intellectual 1973); and with Kant, Hegel, and a corps of obscure Kantian
to AUTHOR'S NOTE: I owe a debt of gratitude Donald J. Munro and Richard M. Pfeffer, both of whom helped me to develop and shape the ideas in this essay. I am to his encouragement to thelatterfor and especially grateful theformerfor consistent his shortof unusuallythoroughand helpfulcriticisms an earlierversion.Any remaining my comingsare, along withthe opinionsexpressedherein, own responsibility. article.Part B willbe publishedin the EDITOR'S NOTE: This is Part A of a two-part April 1977 issue.
MODERN CHINA, Vol. 3 No. 1, January1977 ? 1977 Sage Publications,Inc. [11Jo

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[1021 MODERN CHINA /JANUARY 19 77

and neo-Hegelian philosophers (Wakeman, 1973). Mao's as has been attacked(Wittfogel, originality a Marxistthinker 1960), defended (Schwartz, 1960), and carefullyqualified (Schram, 1967, 1971). An impressive breadth factualknowlof edge about the Leninist tradition and traditional Chinese has theseefforts gauge Mao's position to thought characterized within Marxist the tradition tracethemany and influences upon him fromwithoutit. Yet, surprisingly, analysisof the writings of Marx himself playedonlya minor, has role in these vestigial studies. Schram and d'Encausse's Marxism and Asia, for example, devotes only ten pages of analysis to Marx's own based almostwhollyon isolatedquotesextracted writings, from letters and articleson colonialism.Even Wakeman's formidable and Will,whichcontainsthemostcomprehensive History treatment of Marx's theoreticalwritings this literature, in deals withthemin just overtwenty widelyscattered passages,largely comprised passingreferences assertions of and aboutwhatMarx was supposedto have said. Nowherein these twoworksorinany of the othercitedliterature Marx himself is giventheattention devoted to Lenin,Trotsky, even Friedrich or Paulsen or Kang You-wei. This relative paucity of at least observable research into Marx's own writings in no wayprevented has thesewriters from Mao's relationship Marx and the Marxist tradiassessing to tion. A dominantthemepresentsLeninismas a degeneration from original Marxism, and Maoism, in turn,as a further fromLeninism(Pfeffer, degeneration 1976). A related,recurrentthemepresentsMao as a "voluntarist" comparedwithan Marx. Mao, we are allegedly more "economic determinist" repeatedly told, displays "activistic and voluntaristicimpulses" (Meisner, 1967: 266), a "Rousseauan-Jacobinvoluntarismdiffused throughMarxism-Leninism" (Goldman, 1973: 246), and "extreme voluntarism" (Schram, 1969: 135). Not surprisingly, Great Leap Forwardis described "when Mao the as and his comrades indulgedin the greatest orgyof voluntarist in movement" thinking the history the communist of (Schram, 1967: 160). This typeof "voluntarism" at timesbeen sughas

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walder /MARXISM, MAOISM [1031

a thatit represents breakwith"thevery gestedto be so extreme of and essence of Marxismi" is characteristic "a revolution which in has nothing commonwithMarxism"(Schramand d'Encausse, 1969: 110, 112).
PREVIOUS TREA TMENTS OF MA O'S "VOL UNTARISM"

"Voluntarism"-in this case denotinga social analysisand revolutionarystrategystressinghuman will as the primary causative agent in producingdesiredsocial change-is thus a of commonlyaccepted characterization Mao's thought.'In the is but China fieldthe term"voluntarism" used in two distinct refers therelative to relatedsenses.The first integrally emphasis in Mao places on subjectivehuman effort activistpoliticsover to objectiveeconomicforces producesocial change.In thissense Mao is said to have invertedMarx's dialectic,so that in his rather than"economicbase" methodofanalysis "superstructure" is theprimary, notsole,factor. if to first sense Closelyrelated this is the second-Mao's conceptionof stagesofrevolution the and emphasishe places on activist politicsto speed,even"telescope", the successionof thesestages in Chinesesociety.In thissecond witha Marx who allegedly sense Mao's approach is contrasted laid out a conceptionof clearly demarcatedand "objectively determined"stages of world historywith specificroles prescribedto each social class in everyspecific stage. Mao's volunin tarism thissecondsense-that ofthespeeding stages of through emphasis on politics-is viewed by Schramas closelylinkedto Mao's voluntarism the first in sense-that of emphasison the superstructural and human in his method of analyzingand
changing society: the primacyof politicsand the humanfactor... are linkedand that Mao Tse-tung constitutetwo aspects of the voluntarism fromLenin and has carriedone step [Mao Ze-dong] inherited in in further, a context whichrelianceon theeconomicdeterminof ism of orthodoxMarxismfortheaccomplishment thehopedwas even less possible thanin the Russia of 1917. forrevolution rSchram,1969: 266]

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[1041 MODERN CHINA /JANUARY 1977

So Mao, faced with a situation in which the"economic determinthan ism of orthodox Marxism" was of no use, wenteven further Lenin in speeding the stages of historydespite the lack of economic development that Marx allegedly saw as a necessary precondition for socialist revolution. Mao, afterdispensing almost totally with Marx's "economic determinism," we are told, developed a voluntaristic method of analysis and strategyfor social change that placed near-total emphasis on human will rather as the primarycausative agent, making the superstructure than the economic base the key category of analysis. Meisner, who with Schram has been one of Mao's foremost interpretersin the China field, agrees with this twofold conception of Mao's voluntarism. For Meisner, what he refersto as the "socialist faith" of both Mao and his teacher Li Da-zhao in of based not upon confidence theworkings the was ultimately but ratherupon conobjective laws of socialist development, forces subjective powerful fidence theirabilitiesto bringforth in of latentin the present-the greatstorehouses "surplusenergy" in thatLi arguedhad beenaccumulating Chinaoverthecenturies. of The ideas, wills,and the"self-consciousness" manwouldreally the course of Chinese history. [Meisner, 1967: 266] determine After noting this, the firstsense of Mao's voluntarism, Meisner links it with the second: not only the voluntarist's impatience These notions reflected and his impulseto carryout withthe economicforcesof history if the even without actual proletariat the proletarian revolution, of need be, but also the willingness the Chinese nationalistto social class in Chinesesociety... abandon the only progressive [Meisand to look to broader,"national"sourcesof revolution. ner, 1967: 267]2 With Mao's apparent voluntarism enjoying such a solid consensus, the only task left is to retrace its intellectual origins. Wakeman's cerebral History and Will seeks to do preciselythis. YangWakerman traces the early influences on Mao-Wang ming's concept of praxis as developing the world to develop the

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

/ Walder MARXISM, MAOISM /1051

self; neo-Kantianism's concept of reason creatingsocial forms that liberatethe selffrom customs;Darwin's notionof objective laws of evolutionary change;and T. H. Green'sglorification of of will and his depictionof societyas the instrument individual self-realization, "Those earlierreflections," among manyothers. Wakeman (1973: 294) concludes,"allowed Mao a commitment historical to continuousand unending changethatwas farmore extremethan Marx's own." This is, in part, the case because Mao's "variant of Jacobinism"has "salvationistroots"-"the Confuciangentleman's the dutyto renovate people" (Wakeman, 1973: 63).
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE FIRST A SPECT OF MA O'S " VOL UNTA RISMW

This almost universalconceptionof Mao as a voluntarist is in closelyrelatedto themanner whichtheissueof"determinism" versus"voluntarism" conceivedin the China field.The very is terms thesescholarsuse to think about and discuss and categories thedialecticalmodesofanalysisofbothMarx and Mao preclude of an accurateconception theanalytical method either of thinker. Instead of conceivingin a dialecticalfashion,as did Marx, of and economic base as merelydifferent superstructure aspects or sides of a singleunit or conceptualstructure, these writers without exceptionresort theatomistic to conceptions ourown of Westernphilosophicaland scientific traditions. Superstructure and economic base are insteadconsidered, the fashionof the in dominant positivisticsocial sciences, as distinct,separable factorsor independent on variablesreacting one another.With Marx's method of analysis conceived of in this fashion,it is the virtually impossibleto accurately interpret thought either of Marx or Mao. Without Marx's analytical method of a single conceptual structurecontaining opposing and dialectically interrelated aspects, the authorsare forcedto relyon a seriesof oversimplified dualities in orderto talk about Marx and evaluate Mao. Issues are cast in termsof "voluntarism versusdeterminism,"

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

19 [1061 MODERN CHINA/JANUARY 77

versusbase," and "humanwill versusobjective "superstructure conceivedof economicforces,"despitethefactthatMarx never Howeverthe issue is separable factors. these termsas distinct, present a series of characterized,these authors universally The spectrum. or choicesas oppositeendsofan imaginary either/ one of choosingwhichend of the whole effort becomes merely dualityeach thinkeris "closer" to. For Meisnerthe choice is and "economic between, variously, "social superstructure" (1965: or base" (1965: 168);"politicalfactors" "economicfactors" 168); "ideas" or "materialforces"(1965: 168); "the choices and forces" of actionsofmen"or "theinexorablemovement material (1971: 6); and the "ethicallydesirableand humanlypossible" (1971: 7). Schram'sformuand the"historically predetermined" only verbally.For him the lation of the same problemdiffers issue is a choice between"human will" and "objectivereality" and (Schram and d'Encausse, 1969: 108); and "voluntarism" force majeure" (Schram, 1967: 160). "an utterly deterministic Even whenscholarshave takenrareexceptionto the characterentrapped they izationof Maoism as voluntarism, haveremained withinthis dualisticconception.For this reason, Holubnychy Schramand (1964; 1965)can onlyasserttheexactoppositefrom deterministic," rather Meisner-that Mao is, like Marx,"utterly like Stalin. For him the choice is between than a voluntarist "man's will" and "objectivelaws." as With the issue thus formulated a choice betweenclearly opposite and separate poles, therecould be no middleground Meisnerand the Holubnychy positionsbetweenthe Schram/ to it was necessary emphasizeone end ofthevoluntarism/determinismdualityor the other.This choice, based on a misconand betweensuperstructure economicbase, is ceiveddistinction and of at the root of the failure Holubnychy Schramto develop To a scholarly dialogue -there was no basis forcommunication. masscampaigns,Mao Schram,who focusedon Mao's distinctive to who was obviously an "extremevoluntarist"; Holubnychy, focused upon Mao's concept of practice,Mao was "utterly since he asserts,as did Marx, that humancondeterministic," rootedin thematerial sciousnessis firmly processofproduction.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walder MARXISM, MAOISM [I 071 /

therewas simplyno or Withinthisdualistic,either/ framework into a coherent, of way to incorporatethe insights each writer completeportraitof Mao. Schram,as a result,could do little more than curtlydeclare Holubnychy's conception"ironic" in of voluntarism the Great Leap the lightof the obvious extreme on Forward (Schram, 1967: 159-160),while Holubnychy, the on otherhand, could onlyventhis wrath Schramand theChina field for being "purely"ideological (Holubnychy,1965: 190). could conceive of Mao as None of these writers, apparently, Thereis simply nor a beingneither "determinist" a "voluntarist." voluntaristic to seemingly no way,in theirconception, reconcile and deterministic aspects of Mao's thought. of conceived theissuesinthese of Interpreters Mao, sincethey and withsuperstructure base as clearly or dualistic, either/ terms, in positionwhen separate factors,found themselves a difficult of trying explain Marx's obvious acknowledgment "human to of the development history. of an important aspect activity" as Marx in no way recognize, As virtually of Mao's interpreters all precludedideas, laws, and otheraspects of the superstructure A role in human history. complex fromplayingan important an itself-ifMarx designated activerole problemthuspresented how to the superstructure, could his approach possiblybe disfrom Mao's? The solutionto this problemwas the tinguished of by only one that could be afforded a conception superstructure and base as separate factors-an exceedingly vague, conrelativism. tradictory, formless and witha complex, as Marx, insteadof beingpresented a thinker between superstructure coherentconceptionof the relationship withunspecified, contraand base, is portrayedas a thinker -"voluntaristicelements"and dictory"strains"in his thought "deterministic elements"(Schram and d'Encausse, 1969: 110). This presentation Marx is made plausiblebypullingambiguof sources and, not ous, isolated quotes from widely different and inconclusive" declaring them "fragmentary surprisingly, (Schram and d'Encausse, 1969: 9-15). Since Marx's thought and deterministic eleallegedly contains both "voluntaristic ments,"we are asked to believe that Marx is an economic

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[108] MGODERNCHINA /JANUARY 19 77

but determinist, that" 'voluntarism' byno meansabsentfrom is Marx himself' (Schram, 1969: 135). Marx, quite confusingly, mustbe an economicdeterminist is "somewhat" a volunwho of tarist.Perhaps more confusing, such "orthodox" Marxistsas Kautsky were "even more" deterministic than Marx, but still, Marx "tendedto emphasizeeconomicand social determinism" (Schram and d'Encausse, 1969: 17). Lenin, who lacked "patience" with Marx's "determinism," subsequently "shiftedthe accent fromthe determinist the voluntarist to strandin Marx's thought."If this concept of "shifting accent" seems vague, the Lenin's positionis made no clearerwhenSchramqualifieseven Lenin's own "voluntarism": "This does not mean, of course, thathe believedtherewereno limits theaction of therevoluto tionaries;he always stressed factthatone mustadapt onethe self to concrete revolutionary situations"(Schram and d'Encausse, 1969: 17). Schram's conception of the relationship betweenMarx and Lenin boils down to this:Marx was a deterministwho was somewhatof a voluntarist; Lenin was a voluntarist who was somewhat of a determinist. The difference is merelyone of "accent." Since this complex problemof specifying concretedifthe ferencesbetween Marxists in their respective conceptionsof base has become merely questionof a superstructure/ relations pegging each thinkerinto a continuumrunningfrom deterto minism voluntarism, dealingwithMao is no realproblem. All that is necessary to assert,withcharacteristic is vagueness, that "there is no doubt" that Lenin's voluntarism carried"still is further Mao Tse-tung"(Schram, 1969: 135). This greater in voluntarismis characterized a "generalshiftin emphasis" by from base to superstructure, where Mao now "tends" to see as superstructure the more importantof the two (Meisner, 1965: 168-169). The Chinese may evoke the "deterministic formulasof Marx," but this is only a smoke screen-Mao's conceptionclearlyreflects "lack of confidence the deterin a miningforcesof history" (Meisner, 1965: 168-169).In such a conception,where thinkers can be distinguished only by the distance betweenthem on the voluntarism/determinism spec-

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walder /MARXISM, MAOISM

[1 091

betweenthinkers trum, it helps to accentuatethe differences to give this conceptionsome semblanceof concretemeaning. are So the complex implications Marx's own "voluntarism" of simplyas a "detersimplyignored,and Marx is characterized him whileMao, largely orderto be able to distinguish in minist," be from the voluntaristLenin, must of necessity labelled an "extreme" voluntarist(Schram, 1969: 135). It is remarkable the that,aside from relativistic jargon-Lenin "tends"to empha"strands"and so forth-thereis simplyvery size voluntaristic in littlediscussion of the concretesubstanceof the differences of actual superstructure/ relabase each thinker'streatment conditions tionships-such as the crucial one betweenmaterial and human consciousness. On such a foundationhas been erectedthe whole edificeof studieslabelingMao a voluntarist.
MARX'S "DETERMINISM"

in sense-that of The case for Mao's voluntarism this first two from strategy-suffers analyticalmethodand revolutionary fartoo readily rely substantialflaws. First, Mao's interpreters rather thanon about Marx's "determinism" on vague assertions The of detailed,concreteanalysisof the writings Marx himself. overstatement the"relative" of resultis a systematic importance social change, Marx placed on theeconomicbase ingenerating as oftheactual relationship Marx well as a completemisstatement saw betweenthiseconomicbase and thesuperstructure. Second, once these assertions about Marx pass unchallenged,these writers to proceed,in turn, exaggerateMao's relianceon superstructural and attitudinal Chinesesociety. change to transform The resultis a caricatureof both Marx and Mao, presenting Marx as an "economicdeterminist" Mao as a "voluntarist" and rifewithHegelian and Confucianinfluences. Characteristicof these previous exaggerationsof Marx's "determinism" the cursorytreatment Marx's relationship is of with the so-called "orthodox Marxists"of the late nineteenth century.Schram, remember, clearly acknowledgesthat these

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Y [1101 MODERNCHINA/JANUAR 1977

"orthodox Marxists" were "even more" deterministic than thisproblem he merely therugwhenhe under Marx, but sweeps vaguelyassertsthat Marx still"tendedto emphasizeeconomic and social determinism"-whatever this means (Schram and d'Encausse, 1969: 17). This sortofobfuscation complexissues on is at the heart of the commonplace exaggerationof Marx's of "determinism" interpreters Mao. by Ampleevidenceexistsin thewritings bothMarx and Engels of to demonstrate that the differences betweenMarx and these turn-of-the-century "orthodox Marxists" were indeed great. Engels, Marx's closest collaboratorand foremost interpreter, spentin the waningyearsof his lifea significant amountoftime the correcting common misinterpretations these"orthodox by theimportant Marxists"who systematically role Marx ignored attributed all aspectsof thesuperstructure. to Engelsconstantly repeatedto these "Marxists,"who reduced Marx's methodof analysis into a formof economic determinism, although that he and Marx had asserted,in oppositionto German idealist that all social life was firmly philosophers, rooted in material life,this in no way meantthatthe"economic base" caused all social life. Elements of the superstructure, incessantly he rereacton one anotherand on the economic peated, continually In to base itself. a letter Mehring July14, 1893,Engelsattribon uted this common misperception the factthatin such early to polemics as The German Ideology, wherehe and Marx were idealisticphilosophicalconceptionsof "ideals" or of a refuting as "world-spirit" the sole moving forceofworldhistory, emphasis was of necessity laid to the important linksbetweenmental and materiallife:
thereis onlyone otherpointlacking,which,howeverMarx and I always failedto stress and enoughin our writings, in regardto whichwe are all equally guilty.We all, thatis to say, laid and on werebound to lay the mainemphasisat first thederivation of political,juridical and other ideological notions, and of the the actionsarisingthrough mediumof thesenotions, frombasic economic facts. But in so doing we were found to neglectthe formalside-the way in whichthese notionscame about-for

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walder MARXISM, MAOISM [1111 /

sake of the content. This has givenour adversaries ample opportunityfor misunderstanding. [Marx and Engels, 1942: 510-511] The primary misunderstanding derived from their necessary stress on the link between the material and mental, Engels explained, was the fatuous notion of the ideologiststhat because we denyan independenthistoricaldevelopmentto the various ideological we sphereswhichplay a partin history also denythemanyeffect The basis of thisis the commonundialectical upon history. conas ception of cause and effect rigidly opposite poles, the total thesegentlemen often of almostdeliberdisregarding interaction; that once an historic elementhas been brought atelyforget into the world by other elements,ultimately economic facts,it by also reactsin its turnand mayreacton itsenvironment even and on its own causes. [Marx and Engels, 1942: 512] On the contrary,Engels explained, the"common undialectical conception" of a determinist interpretation systematically ignores the obvious importance of superstructuralelementsas a potentially independent source of social change. With reference to politics, an element of the superstructure,Engels wrote to Conrad Schmidt on October 27, 1890: the new independent power,whilehavingin the main to follow the movementof production,also, owing to its inward indeand courseof pendence... reactsin itsturnupon theconditions It of production. is theinteraction two unequal forces: theone on hanidthe economic movement, the other the new political on power... which,havingonce beenestablished, endowedwith is a movement its own. [Marx and Engels, 1942: 480] of Engels nowhere stated more unequivocally Marx's position about the relationship between superstructure and economic base than in his now-famous letterto J. Bloch of September 22, 1890. Here Engels reminded Bloch that in the materialist conception of history,human material lifewas only the "ultimately" determining factor, in the sense that it profoundly shaped the superstructurein distinctiveways:

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[112] MODERN CHINA I JANUARY 1977

More than thisneitherMarx nor I have everasserted.If thereforesomebodytwiststhisinto the statement thatthe economic elementis the only determining it one, he transforms into a and absurdphrase.The economicsituation meaningless, abstract is the basis, but the various elementsof the superstructure politicalformsof the class struggle and its consequences,constitutions establishedby the victoriousclass aftera successful etc. of battle, -forms of law -and theneventhereflexes all these actual struggles the brainsof the combatants: in political,legal, philosophicaltheories, further developreligiousideas and their mentinto systems dogma-also exercisetheir of influence upon thecourseofthehistorical struggles in many and casespreponderate in determining Thereis an interaction all these theirform. of elements. [Marx and Engels, 1942: 475] Engels not only laid out as a general, abstract proposition that elements in the superstructurestronglyinfluence the economic base in producing social change, he also gave specific examples to illustrate his points. He explained that state power, merely one element of the superstructure,crucially shaped the development of the economic base in threebasic ways-it could encourage production, channel it into certain directions, or, through misguided policies, obstruct economic progress, with disastrous effectson both state and society (Marx and Engels, 1942: 481-482). This effectis accomplished through the use of another aspect of the superstructure-the state's laws and financial policies-"tariffs, free trade, good or bad fiscal system" (Marx and Engels, 1942: 481-482). The "cringing servility"of the German pettybourgeoisie, and theirdeferenceto princesand nobles, for example, permitteda legal situation that accounted for the "miserable economic position" of the German principalities from 1640 to 1830 (Marx and Engels, 1942: 517; 1955: 442). Further,this reaction of superstructureon the economic base in no way precludes a conception of the superstructure firmly as rooted in the economic base. Insted, the proper relation between superstructureand base is a "dialectical unity"-a conception of a simultaneous shaping of base by superstructureand viceversa -a constant, dynamic process wherebysuperstructure and

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walder MARXISM, MAOISM [1131 /

base shape each otherinto a coherent social structure. Indeed, as Engels had explainedsome 30 yearsearlier, very the factthat we recognizea relationin societyimpliesthat the two related aspects are reciprocally related:"The fact that it is a relation alreadyimpliesthatit has two aspectswhichare relatedto each other.Each of theseaspectsis examinedseparately; thisreveals the nature of their mutual behavior,theirreciprocalaction" (Marx, 1971: 225-226). This complexrelationalconceptualizato tion simplycannot be comprehended resorting thedualisby tic categoriesemployedin the China field.It is not a question versus"voluntarism," still less of measuring of "determinism" the the "relativeaccent" placed on either superstructure the or economic base. It is absolutelyvital, instead,to have a clear conception of the actual complex relationsMarx saw between Without conception are reduced this we aspects of social reality. to a vague relativism that can only producecaricaturesof the the thinkers under consideration-precisely approach so often used in previousefforts Mao and Marx. on Engelsprovidedclearexamplesofthiselusivesuperstructure/ base relationship. thatgrowsout Law, forexample,a profession is ofthedivisionoflabor ofsociety, chargedalso withregulating thatdivisionoflabor (Marx and Engels,1955:399-400). Indeed, it is impossibleto maintain divisionoflabor in society any without a systemof laws withwhichto regulate A capitalistecoit. nomic base generatesa specific of system law-necessarily enin shriningprivateproperty-whichnaturally, turn,reacts on the economic base. Engelspointsout thesectionsin Capital on the working-day, whereparliamentary legislationhad a detereffect thelength theworking-day-which Marx on of mining for was an important of determinant surplus-value just suchan -as exampleofthiscomplexrelationship between superstructure and base (Marx and Engels,1955:402). In thesame manner, colonial wars, as the most violentformof political activityrooted in the economic lifeof capitalism, turnhave a strongeffect in on that economic base, as in "the case of the conquest and brutal destructionof economic resources"(Marx and Engels, 1955: 399). Engels quite clearlyfeltthat "Political,juridical, philo-

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

/1 MODERN CHINA /JANUARY 1977 141

is etc.,development based artistic, sophical, religious,literary, on economic development."But this conceptionin no way precludestheirreactionupon the economicbase. On the contrary:
all these react upon one anotherand also upon the economic to base . . . it is not, as people tryhereand thereconveniently effect. an produces automatic thattheeconomicposition imagine, onlyin givensurroundings themselves, Men make theirhistory already whichconditionit and on the basis of actual relations existing.[Marx and Engels, 1942: 517]

of These assertionsabout the effect elementsof the superwerenot merely qualifications in structure the courseof history within the Engelsto defend contradictions bytheelderly adopted conMarx himself of the besiegedsystem his late collaborator. and proposition, in specific asserted,both as a Igeneral sistently elementson the ecoof examples, the effects superstructural "volunnomic base. These assertionswere not contradictory partsofhis but strands"in Marx's thought wereintegral taristic dialectical methodof analysis. Whenspeakingof production, for exchange,and consumption, example, Marx distribution, declared that: "Mutual interactiontakes place between the organicwhole" This [is] thecase withevery moments. different interaction allows, (Marx, 1973: 100). This model of reciprocal the to indeed requires,the superstructure influence economic So the base-for the"mental"to affect "material." undercertain force too, becomesa material for circumstances, Marx,"theory, this once it seizes the masses" (Marx, 1970: 137).3Reflecting historiabout concrete whenMarx setout to write appreciation, to greatimportance therole of politics, cal eventshe attributed to law, and even greatleadersin contributing social change.His in of Brumaire Louis Bonaparteand Class Struggles Eighteenth France, 1848-1850-which were,in Engels'words,"Marx's first conception'to explain withthe aid of his materialist attempt, fromthe given economic history a section of contemporary accountsofdecisive with situation" (Marx, 1964:9) -are replete and even indiparties, politicalactions taken by governments,

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walder MARXISM, MAOISM [1 Is! /

economicconof independent any immediate viduals, relatively (Marx, 1964; Marx and Engels,1968: nection,in makinghistory 95-180). is to thisrole attributed superstructure not onlyeviFurther, reiterit dent in Marx's political writings, is also consistently ated in the most theoreticalof Marx's "economic" worksof of Capital. In Marx's treatment the development capitalism elements-the in Great Britain,for example, superstructural state and its laws and financial regulations-playdecisiveroles of in the developmentor nondevelopment productiveforces. of accordforces, This is the verysame development productive that of Marx as a determinist, is suping to the interpretation of posed to be an inexorable,"objective" event,independent "human will" (Schram and d'Encausse, 1969: 108). On theconof trary,a crucial factorin the development capitalismis the systemof ability of a political entityto develop an effective of of national credit.The development a system nationaldebt of and the printing banknotesas legal tenderforcommodities, for example, stimulatedindustrialgrowthboth in the home countryand in othernationstowardwhichcreditwas extended of system financial (Marx, 1967: 754-756). This superstructural Marx felt, reasonwhycapitalism develone important laws, was accountedforthe oped whereand when it did. Such a system of early mercantile prominence Venice; Venetiancredit,when extended to the Netherlands,stimulatedits early capitalist growth;the Dutch systemof credit,once developed, in turn At stimulated Great Britain'scapitalist industrialization. the Capital, Marx related, thisprocessofstimutimehe was writing lation through system credit the of and nationaldebtwas underway betweenGreat Britainand the UnitedStates(Marx, 1967: of system finan754-756). But not onlydid thissuperstructural cial laws have an influence whenand wherecapitalism on develthe growth.Marx felt oped, it also affected pace of industrial and tariffs, that Great Britain'slaws of protection coupled with the developmentof systemsof national debt and taxation,
was an artificialmeans of manufacturing manufacturers, of the labourers, capitalizing national of expropriating independent

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

/1161 MODERN CHINA/JANUARY 1977

of means of productionand subsistence, forcibly abbreviating fromthe medievalto themodern thetransition mode of production. [Marx, 1967: 756-757]

he But if Marx was clearlynot the determinist has so often to it to been portrayed be, nevertheless wouldbe misleading end the discussionof Marx's conceptionof superstructure base and on here,afterasserting, the basis of a fewpassages,that Marx role to superstructural gave an important elements producing in of social change. As the treatment Marx in the China field illustrates, quotes can be readilyfoundto supportalmost any positionabout what Marx was supposedto have said. It is vital, instead,to weave thesepassages into an alternative interpretation of Marx's methodof analysis,specifying how he used his definitions and conceptsin his dialecticalmethodof analysis. rolesMarx attributed Beforewe can evenspeak oftherelative to in economic base and superstructure generating social change, itis necessary understand to how Marxusedtheconcepts "superstructure" whathe meantby the and "base" and to understand word "determine."

NOTES
has of 1. The characterization Mao as a voluntarist not always been thesubjectof (1964) complexanalysisof Mao's such broad consensusin theChina field.Holubnychy's emphasizesthelinks that Mao's conceptionof dialecticalmaterialism thoughtstressed -far moreso than and themate~rial processofproduction betweenhumanconsciousness The withMao as an exampleof a voluntarist. contrasts did Stalin, whom Holubnychy 1965:187-188), (Holubnychy, of earlyworks of following year,in a review three Schram's Schram's to he objected strenuously the labelingof Mao as an 'extremevoluntarist." objectionsmarkedthe end of this (1967: 159-160)cavalier dismissalof Holubnychy's to debate,and attests briefexchange,whichneverreallydevelopedintoan intellectual have interpretations ever been consideredin the the seriousnesswithwhichalternative China field. .that thereis no 2. This position contradictsMeisner'searlier,correctrealization in rigidconceptionof stages of world history Marx againstwhichto measureMao's as voluntarism (Meisner, 1965: 166). To assert, Meisnerdoes here,that Mao is a volunthe impliesthatMeisner without proletariat tarist because he soughtto makerevolution and a propersocial accepts the view that thereis a properstageforsocialistrevolution

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walder MARXISM, MAOISM [I l 71 / class to carryit out within thisstage. Meisnerapparently eitherhas abandoned Marx voluntarism has ignored revised earlier or or his as the baselineformeasuring interpretation of Marx's materialist conceptionof history. of 3. Meisner(1965: 169), in a passage indicative thecommon misunderstanding of Marx's method, citesa paraphrase thisquote fromMarx ina Chinesejournal prima of as facie evidencethat Maoists have completely abandoned Marx's "determinism."

REFERENCES
GOLDMAN, M. (1973) "The Chinese Communist Party's 'cultural revolution'of 1962-64,"pp. 219-254inJohnson (ed.) Ideologyand Politicsin Contemporary China. Press. Seattle: Univ. of Washington HOLUBNYCHY, V. (1965) Book review.China Q. 21 (January-March): 185-190. --dialectics."China Q. 19 (July-September): (1964) "Mao Tse-tung'smaterialist 3-37. New York: Vintage. MARX, K. (1973) Grundrisse. --to (1971) A Contribution a Critiqueof Political Economy. London: Lawrence and Wishart. ---(1970) CritiqueofHegel's'Philosophy Right.'London: Cambridge of Univ.Press. (1967) Capital, Volume 1: A Critical Analysisof Capitalist Production.New York: International Publishers. in New York: International (1964) Class Struggles France 1848-1850. Publishers. and F. ENGELS (1970) The German Ideology, Part 1, withselectionsfrom Parts 2 and 3. New York: International Publishers. (1968) Selected Works.New York: International Publishers. Moscow: ProgressPublishers. (1955) Selected Correspondence. New York: International (1942) Selected Correspondence. Publishers. and Maoism: some populistperspectives Marxismon MEISNER, M. (1971) "Leninism Leninismin China." China Q. 45 (January-March): 2-36. --(1967) Li Ta-chao and the Originsof Chinese Marxism. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. --of (1965) "Li Ta-chao and the Chinese communisttreatment the materialist China Q. 24 (October-December):141-169. conceptionof history." a tradition: critique the of PFEFFER, R. (1976) "Mao and Marx in the Marxist-Leninist to 'China field' and a contribution a preliminary reappraisal." Modern China 2 (October): 421-460. SCHRAM, S. (1971) "Mao Tse-tungand the theoryof the permanent revolution, 1958-69."China Q. 46 (April-June): 221-244. (1969) The PoliticalThoughtof Mao Tse-tung.New York: Praeger. (1967) "A reviewarticle: Mao Tse-tungas Marxistdialectician." China Q. 29 (January-March):155-165. --and H. d'ENCAUSSE (1969) Marxismand Asia. London: Allen Lane. SCHWARTZ, B. (1960) "The legendofthelegendof Maoism." China Q.2(April-June): 35-42.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[118] MODERNCHINA/JANUARY1977
and the Rise of Mao. Cambridge, (1951) Chinese Communism Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. of STARR, J. (1971) -Conceptualfoundationsof Mao Tse-tung's theory continuous Asian Survey11 (June): 610-628. revolution." and Will:PhilosophicalPerspectives Mao Tse-tung's of WAKEMAN, F. (1973) History Thought.Berkeley: Univ. of CaliforniaPress. WITTFOGEL, K. (1960) "The legendof Maoism" (in 2 parts).China Q. 1-2(JanuaryMarch): 72-86; (April-June): 16-34. ---

AndrewG. Walderis currently the Department Sociologyat the University in of where is studying he theories organization modernization of Michigan, and of and in pursuingresearch industrial on organization China.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:15:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions