The version of Dialectical Materialism which appears in the supplementary volumes of the Mao Zedong ji is also significant because the two sources from which it was drawn also contain versions of On Practice and On Contradiction.[1-27]On Practice appears in both sources, while On Contradiction appears only in the volume entitled Dialectical Materialism published by Dazhong Shudian. The publication of all three philosophical essays in one volume under the title Dialectical Materialism reinforces Schram’s view that they represent “a single intellectual enterprise”.[1-28] It moreover suggests that the attempt to understand the development of Mao’s philosophical thought needs to confront the philosophy contained in all three essays, rather than concentrating on the two officially sanctioned essays which appear in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung as has been the case in many Western interpretations, or On Practice alone, as has been the tendency of contemporary Chinese Marxism. The evaluation of these texts in concert can, it is argued below, allow significant insights which may be concealed if analysis is limited to one or both of the two better known texts.
It might be queried whether Dialectical Materialism deserves serious consideration as a philosophical essay reflecting Mao’s own philosophical views. After all, as Wittfogel and Schram have pointed out, Dialectical Materialism is in many parts a direct plagiarism of a number of Soviet essays on philosophy.[1-29] Wittfogel estimated that some 40 per cent of Chapter 1 “consists of passages that are either literally or with some editing taken from Chinese translations of Soviet presentations of dialectical materialism”. Moreover, he argues that the rest of Chapter 1 is merely a paraphrase of ideas which can be found in these Soviet sources.[1-30] We will return subsequently to a more detailed consideration of this plagiarism and also of the influence on Mao’s philosophical thought of Ai Siqi and Li Da, the Chinese philosophers who translated into Chinese and edited the Soviet sources on which Mao relied, and who themselves wrote extensively on the philosophy of dialectical materialism.
However, to dismiss Dialectical Materialism as unworthy of serious analysis and consideration on the basis of Mao’s heavy reliance on Soviet philosophical sources of the 1930s is to miss a number of significant points.
First, it is important to note that when pressed to provide an explanation of Marxist philosophy it was to Soviet sources, replete with categories and themes of contemporary Stalinist Marxism, that Mao turned. Obviously, Mao’s choice of reference materials was severely limited due to the nature of the historical context, as several commentators have pointed out.[1-31]Nevertheless, it is significant that Mao regarded the philosophy contained in these reference materials as reflecting the orthodox response to problems of philosophy within the Marxist tradition.
This indicates that Mao was undoubtedly influenced by categories and concepts of Soviet philosophy, and although his adherence to some of these wavered over time, they contributed significantly to the construction of the theoretical framework from within which Mao observed and interpreted the world.
