A similar judgement can be made on the influence of Ai Siqi on the development of Mao’s philosophical thought. There can be no doubt that Ai was enormously important in making available through his translations Soviet texts on philosophy; he was also a prolific populariser and disseminator of the ideas of dialectical materialism. Nevertheless, as with Li Da, Ai Siqi’s writings on philosophy added little that was original to the general corpus of concepts, categories, and ideas of orthodox Soviet Marxist philosophy. As Ai himself openly acknowledged, he was a “reteller and copier” of the basic theory of dialectical materialism.[1-158]
The volumes written by Ai to which Mao had access prior to and during the writing of his own philosophical essays included Dazhong zhexue (Philosophy for the Masses) and Sixiang fangfalun (Methodology of Thought).[1-159] The former had been first published in January 1936, and it is highly likely that Mao did read and annotate it, although his personal copy of the volume has not survived.[1-160] The latter was published in January 1937 (second edition), and Mao’s annotated copy of this text has survived.[1-161] The annotations made by Mao on this text were of much less significance (in terms of text and content), Chinese specialists contend, in the writing of On Contradiction and On Practice, than were his annotations on the Soviet texts Dialectical and Historical Materialism and A Course on Dialectical Materialism.[1-162]
As with Li Da’s Shehuixue dagang, the volumes by Ai Siqi referred to by Mao contained a wealth of material relevant to his philosophical project of comprehending and elaborating the basic concepts and categories of dialectical materialism. For example, Chapter Three of Philosophy for the Masses is entitled “The epistemology of dialectical materialism”, and Chapter Four “The laws (faze) of materialist dialectics”. This latter chapter contains individual sections on the laws of the unity of opposites, the mutual transformation of quantity and quality, and the negation of the negation. This chapter also includes discussion of several other of the categories referred to by Mao in his Lecture Notes, including appearance and essence, form and content, and chance and necessity. What is distinctive about the approach taken by Ai in this volume is that the abstruse subject matter of dialectical materialism is explained in a straightforward manner, and more importantly perhaps for Mao’s own application of dialectical materialism to Chinese realities, the text contains numerous examples of dialectics taken from everyday life.
Ai Siqi’s Methodology of Thought similarly contains a chapter on the laws (faze) of dialectical materialism with individual sections on each of the fundamental laws discussed in Philosophy for the Masses. There is also a section on formal logic, and epistemology (including sections on reflection theory and the process of development of cognition).
Mao also read and made notations on Ai Siqi’s Zhexue yu shenghuo (Philosophy and Life)[1-163] in September 1937, that is, immediately following the writing of his other essays on philosophy. Mao thought highly of this text, as attested by a letter of congratulation he wrote to Ai.[1-164] Mao did, however, challenge Ai on the issue of whether a difference is a contradiction. Ai had argued that “different things are not in contradiction” but that “under certain conditions difference can become a contradiction”. Mao thought this an incorrect way of putting it. “Differences exist in all things in the world, and under certain conditions are contradictions, and the reason is that difference is contradiction, is so-called concrete contradiction”.[1-165] A translation of Mao’s “Extracts” from Ai’s Philosophy and Life appears in this anthology.
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.
The translations
This anthology of Mao’s philosophical writings of 1937 contains five separate translations. Some explanation is required regarding the forms that the translations take.
1-158
Ignatius J.H. Ts’ao, “Ai Ssu-ch’i: the Apostle of Chinese communism”,
1-163
Ai Siqi,
1-164
1-165
1-167
Joshua A. Fogel,
1-168
On the issue of repetition in Soviet philosophical writings, see De Seorge,