Who Cared About Whether Mao was a Marxist or Not? Liberal Historiography and Chairman Mao
Sunday, 22. April 2007, 18:46:38
Gerry Iguchi
Chinese History Research, UCSD
In the years between 1951 and 1974, there was a consistent line of liberal, intellectual historiography on the topic of Mao Tse-tung which was bent on defining Mao as something other than a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist in any deep sense. Benjamin Schwartz got the ball rolling in 1951 with his Chinese Communism and the Rise. Schwartz explicitly calls Chinese Communism the latest stage of Marxisms deterioration (201-202); in the introduction to the 1958 edition, he called it the decomposition of Marxism (4). In the context of the early fifties red scare, Schwartzs purpose was to point out the fact that Chinese Communism was not simply part of a global conspiracy being controlled by the Kremlin. In 1966, Stuart Schram wrote Mao Tse-tung, a biography of the Chairman in which he too, once again, let us know that Mao differed substantially from anything one could call Marxism/ Marxism-Leninism. Although Schwartz moved on to other topics, Schram published two other books on Mao, both of which were collections of the Chinese leaders written or spoken words: The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (1969) and Chairman Mao Talks to the People: Talks and Letters, 1956-1971 (1974). In the introductions of both of these books, even as late as the mid-1970s when it was quite clear to most observers that the Chinese Communists had significant differences with the Soviets, Schram used the words of Mao to, again, proclaim that Mao is something other than a true Marxist.
Chinese History Research, UCSD
In the years between 1951 and 1974, there was a consistent line of liberal, intellectual historiography on the topic of Mao Tse-tung which was bent on defining Mao as something other than a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist in any deep sense. Benjamin Schwartz got the ball rolling in 1951 with his Chinese Communism and the Rise. Schwartz explicitly calls Chinese Communism the latest stage of Marxisms deterioration (201-202); in the introduction to the 1958 edition, he called it the decomposition of Marxism (4). In the context of the early fifties red scare, Schwartzs purpose was to point out the fact that Chinese Communism was not simply part of a global conspiracy being controlled by the Kremlin. In 1966, Stuart Schram wrote Mao Tse-tung, a biography of the Chairman in which he too, once again, let us know that Mao differed substantially from anything one could call Marxism/ Marxism-Leninism. Although Schwartz moved on to other topics, Schram published two other books on Mao, both of which were collections of the Chinese leaders written or spoken words: The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (1969) and Chairman Mao Talks to the People: Talks and Letters, 1956-1971 (1974). In the introductions of both of these books, even as late as the mid-1970s when it was quite clear to most observers that the Chinese Communists had significant differences with the Soviets, Schram used the words of Mao to, again, proclaim that Mao is something other than a true Marxist.
WIDGETIZE