Assignment First

杨百翰大学:有关毛泽东思想理论的陈述和讨论

事实上,正如吴所解释的那样,“毛确信,在废除以私人所有制为基础的剥削阶级关系之后,阶级冲突将转移到政治、意识形态和文化领域”(Wu19)。在过去,导致社会主义堕落的是资产阶级分子和帝国主义人民。但是,在革命时期,毛坚持认为,由于新资产阶级人物的出现和他们的意识形态的形成,这种堕落将会发生。从所有权到意识形态的转变将导致社会主义的堕落。

吴认为,学者们可能没有充分认识到文化大革命后出现的担忧。一旦一个先锋党突然成为新的统治阶级,社会危机随之而来。权力的性质可能导致党内分裂。吴邦国说,当激进的中国共产党夺取政权时,它是一个军事化的模式,它的形成和接管都是革命性的。然而,它的工作必须是官僚主义的。新中国成立初期对下级、干部和军衔的分配是违反革命原则的。因此,毛关于新资产阶级将会出现的普遍观点是不能完全否定的。然而,正如吴所描述的那样,与这些事件同时发生的还有社会和政治对立。这些事件阻止了社会主义在正在形成的革命力量阶级中的灭亡。因此,大众的意见不能被完全接受。

大多数中国学者认为,一个新的阶级是在毛主义后期发展起来的。这个新阶级是建立在官僚权力基础上的社会主义阶级。然而,并不是所有的学者都认为毛通过允许社会主义革命者掌权而摧毁了他所创造的东西。吴引用了李洪镛的工作,他说,共产党需要官僚主义,同时也面临着纠正社会主义中国不断扩大的精英和群众之间差距的必要性。吴认为,正是由于学者们在写作中对阶级因素的关注,才导致了对官僚权力为何成为资产阶级权力的批评。“毛主义阶级理论主要关注权力的分配关系或表现形式,如官僚特权和工资等级制度,而不是产生这种权力的政治结构和制度”(吴,36)。在“阶级和分类”小节中,读者实际上能够理解为什么官僚主义的形成总是以批判的眼光来看待。尽管在社会主义圈退化过程中出现了种种问题,但在官僚主义形成过程中所使用的等级制度让人想起了过去中国帝国主义社会所使用的等级制度。然而,等级制度等要素在两个不同的社会中有着模糊的定义。因此,大众理论不能被完全接受。

吴地方基于社会和政治对立的两个参数出现在毛泽东的中国和毛泽东思想中存在的矛盾和歧义和定义的类。通过理论辩论和对毛思想的论述,吴能够挑战学者们对毛思想的普遍解读。

杨百翰大学:有关毛泽东思想理论的陈述和讨论

In fact, as Wu explains, “Mao was convinced that after exploitive class relations based on private ownership were abolished, class conflicts would shift to the terrains of politics, ideology and culture” (Wu19). In the past the bourgeois elements or the imperialist people were the ones who led to the degeneration of socialism. However, during the time of the revolution, Mao contended that the degeneration would happen because of the creation of new bourgeois figures and their ideologies. There would be a shift from ownership to ideology as the tool that leads to the degeneration of socialism.
Wu argues that scholars might not have fully appreciated the concerns that arose after a cultural revolution. As soon as a vanguard party is suddenly crowned as the new ruling class, social crisis follows. The nature of power could cause divisions in the party. Wu states that when the radical Chinese Communist Party CCP seized power, it was a militarized model, revolutionary in its formation and taking over. However, in its working it had to be bureaucratic. The assignment of sub class, cadre and rank in the early inception of the PRC was against the revolutionary principles. Hence, the popular opinion of Mao that a newer bourgeois class would arise cannot be rejected completely. However, just as Wu presents it there were social and political antagonisms that ran parallel to these happenings. These happenings checked the demise of socialism in the revolutionary power classes that were being created. Hence, the popular opinion cannot be accepted completely.
Most Chinese scholars argue that a new class was developed in the late Maoism period. This new class was a socialist class that was built upon bureaucratic power. However, not all scholars entertained the idea that Mao destroyed what he created by allowing the socialist revolutionaries to come to power. Wu cites the work of Hong Yung Lee who states that the party needed to bureaucratic and at the same time it also faced the necessity of correcting the widening gap between elite and masses in socialist China. Wu argues that it was the attention given by scholars with respect to class-related elements in their writing which led to the criticisms on why the bureaucratic power was becoming a bourgeois power. “The Maoist theory of class focused largely on the distributional correlates or manifestations of power-such as bureaucratic privileges and the wage grade system-rather than on the political structure and institutions that gave rise to such power” (Wu, 36). In the ‘class and classification’ subsection the reader is in fact able to appreciate why the bureaucracy formation was viewed with an always critical eye. Notwithstanding the issues brought up in socialist circle degeneration, the hierarchy system that was used in bureaucratic formation reminds one about the hierarchies used in the past imperialist society of China. However, elements such as hierarchy have had an ambiguous definition in two different societies. Hence the popular theory cannot be accepted completely.
Wu places two arguments based on social and political antagonisms that were present in the case of Mao’s China and the inconsistencies and ambiguities that exist in the Maoist ideology and definition of class. Through the use of theoretical debates and also by means of arguments placed on Mao’s ideology, Wu is able to challenge the popular interpretation that scholars always had of the ideology.