Mao Zedong On Dialectical Materialism полностью

However, the point remains that the material contained in these volumes cannot be regarded as having an influence on the development of Mao’s philosophical thought separate from the more general and pervasive influence of Soviet philosophy. A number of Western scholars have, through narrowing their focus to Ai’s contributions to Chinese Marxism and intellectual relationship with Mao, exaggerated the influence that Ai’s philosophy had on Mao. Ignatius Ts’ao, for example, suggests that Ai’s own writings on contradiction and practice were “essentially identical” to Mao’s essays on these subjects, and he considers Ai’s influence on Mao to be such that Ai can be considered (along with Chen Boda) as a co-author of the thought of Mao Zedong.[1-166] Similarly, Joshua Fogel argues that “an examination of the language, ideas, and organization of his [Mao’s] philosophical essays illuminates his enormous debt to Ai”.[1-167] Where both of these scholars err is in failing to situate both Ai and Mao in the broader intellectual context of the development of Chinese Marxist philosophy during the early to mid-1930s with its overwhelming debt to and reliance on Soviet philosophy. It may very well be true that the style of language and philosophical content of Ai’s writings are similar if not identical in parts to Mao’s own philosophical essays; but if one broadens one’s gaze to incorporate the Chinese translations of the Soviet texts discussed earlier and the writing of Li Da, one is struck by the essential similarity of all of these documents, both in terms of style and content. And the reason for this similarity is that Soviet and Chinese philosophers alike were constrained to operate within an emerging orthodoxy with its constraints on individuality or originality of thought. It is no mere accident that Ai Siqi occupied the role of popularizer of Marxist philosophy; for the possibility of innovation within the narrow circle of Soviet dialectical materialism was limited indeed. The function of the philosopher in such a context becomes less one of inquiry and more that of repetition, repetition of what is officially sanctioned, and avoidance of views which may be heterodox.[1-168]

Moreover, while it is true that Mao had access to the writings of Li Da and Ai Siqi, the material recently published in China concerning Mao’s annotations and marginalia suggests that in many instances he proceeded directly to the Chinese translations of Soviet texts on philosophy for confirmation of the appropriate interpretation of dialectical materialism.[1-169] The works of Li Da and Ai Siqi thus contributed to the general constellation of texts dealing with dialectical materialism available at the time, and to the intellectual environment in which Mao’s own essays on philosophy were written; but they should not be regarded as the starting point for an investigation of the origins of the philosophy contained in Mao’s essays on dialectical materialism.

This anthology of Mao’s philosophical writings of 1937 contains five separate translations. Some explanation is required regarding the forms that the translations take.

1. Lecture Notes on Dialectical Materialism: The translation which appears below is of a composite text drawn from the two versions to be found in the Mao Zedong Ji and its supplements. The construction of a composite text was found to be necessary as the text to be found in the Mao Zedong ji contained passages which were either obscure or marred by apparent typographical errors which in some instances altered the meaning of the text.[1-170] The version of this document to be found in the supplements to Mao Zedong ji also suffers from a number of similar problems (problems in both texts, I hasten to add, in the original Chinese text and not due to the editorship of Takeuchi Minoru). The translation proceeded through a comparison of the two texts, identifying differences and points of interest, reference to which are contained in annotations appended to the translation. No attempt has been made to indicate in the translation itself those parts of the text which Mao appropriated from the Soviet and Chinese sources discussed in this Introduction. As I have argued in previous sections, Mao drew on a series of texts on philosophy, all extremely alike in terms of style and content matter. It would therefore be a problematic exercise to insist on any one text as the source of Mao’s information or wording. Nevertheless, a table of possible sources has been appended to the notes following this Introduction. The reader wishing to pursue the issue of plagiarism further may use this as a guide.