Mao’s derivation of the concept of the unity of opposites from orthodox Soviet Marxist philosophy was to have a profound impact on the subsequent development of his philosophical thought. As indicated in the quote given immediately above, Mao refers to and draws on Lenin’s exposition of the law of the unity of opposites in elaboration and application of his own position. Both in this source, and in On Contradiction, Mao was to draw heavily on the fragments on philosophy which came to be incorporated in Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks. In these fragments, in particular “On the Question of Dialectics”, the dialectical conception of the unity of opposites is expounded with considerable force, a factor which suggested to Mao its preeminence as the “most basic law” of Marxist philosophy. For example, in “On the Question of Dialectics”, Lenin states:
The identity of opposites (it would be more correct perhaps, to say their “unity” – although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society). The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their “self-movement”, their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites.[1-61]
Moreover, in this as in other aspects of his philosophical writing, Lenin draws heavily on Engels to legitimize his own position. In both Anti-Dühring and Dialectics of Nature, Engels had referred to the ubiquity of contradictions, pointing out that a dialectical conception of reality which considers “things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence” immediately becomes “involved in contradictions”.[1-62] In Anti-Dühring, Engels stresses this aspect of dialectics:
If simple mechanical change of place contains a contradiction, this is even truer of the higher forms of motion of matter, and especially of organic life and its development…. Life is therefore also a contradiction which is present in things and processes themselves, and which constantly asserts and resolves itself…[1-63]
The view that the unity of opposites constituted the most fundamental law of dialectics was thus well established in Marxist philosophy prior to the 1930s, and the Soviet texts on philosophy which Mao was to draw on so heavily in his own writings on dialectical materialism were to further reinforce the centrality of this law. For example, the text by Mitin and others entitled Dialectical and Historical Materialism referred to the law of the unity of opposites as the “fundamental law (jiben faze) of materialist dialectics”.[1-64] Similarly, Li Da’s Shehuixue dagang described this law as the “basic law” (genbenfaze) of dialectics which incorporated all other laws, including the law of the “negation of the negation”.[1-65] Mao could thus call on a well-established body of philosophical thought to assert the law of the unity of opposites to be the “most basic law” of materialist dialectics. It has been suggested, however, that evidence of Mao’s divergence from orthodoxy is provided demonstration through his elevation of this law at the expense of the other two; indeed, both Western[1-66] and Chinese[1-67] scholars have argued that Mao eventually came to reject one of the three laws of dialectical materialism, that of the “negation of the negation”. Let us pause to consider this charge, for it bears on the proposition being advanced here that categories of Soviet Marxist philosophy did constitute a significant and persistent influence on Mao’s philosophical thought. If it is possible to find in Mao’s subsequent writings a rejection of one of the philosophical laws embraced in his Lecture Notes on Dialectical Materialism, it could betoken a significant change of direction in Mao’s thought and cast doubt on the degree of influence which Soviet philosophical categories exerted.[1-68]
On 18 August 1964, Mao held an informal conversation on various aspects of philosophy with several old comrades. Although it is not certain how many were present at this talk on philosophy, it appears that the group was a small one; only three other persons are actually identified as being in attendance with Mao – Kang Sheng, Chen Boda, and Lu Ping. In the course of the conversation, Mao made a number of provocative statements, but we will restrict our attention here to just one of these: his apparent rejection of the law of the “negation of the negation”. On being asked by Kang Sheng if the Chairman would “say something about the problem of the three categories”, Mao responded:
Engels talked about the three categories, but as for me I don’t believe (xiangxin) in two of those categories. (The unity of opposites is the most basic law, the transformation of quality and quantity into one another is the unity of the opposites quality and quantity, and the negation of the negation does not exist at all (fouding zhi fouding genben mei you).) The juxtaposition, on the same level, of the transformation of quality and quantity into one another, the negation of the negation, and the law of the unity of opposites is “triplism” (san yuan lun), not monism. The most basic thing is the unity of opposites. The transformation of quality and quantity into one another is the unity of the opposites quality and quantity. There is no such thing as the negation of the negation (mei you shenme fouding zhi fouding). Affirmation, negation, affirmation, negation … in the development of things, every link in the chain of events is both affirmation and negation. Slave-holding society negated primitive society, but with reference to feudal society it constituted, in turn, the affirmation. Feudal society constituted the negation in relation to slave-holding society but it was in turn the affirmation with reference to capitalist society. Capitalism was the negation in relation to feudal society, but it is, in turn, the affirmation in relation to socialist society.[1-69]
A number of points can be made about this passage. First, when called on to address the issue of categories of Marxist philosophy, Mao commences by invoking Engels. We made the point earlier that the genealogy of the philosophical concepts and categories employed by Mao could be traced back to Engels, rather than Marx, and here is provided further substantiation of that judgement. Second, this is, as far as I am aware, the only textual evidence available to support the proposition that Mao did reject the category of the “negation of the negation”. It is possible to find many other positive references to this category in his writings from the 1930s to the 1960s, and the existence of these references calls into question the propriety of taking this one reference as final proof that Mao had cut his links with the orthodox Marxist philosophical tradition.[1-70] I will argue below that Mao’s rejection of the “negation of the negation” was a rejection of the title, rather than the substance, of this philosophical category, that he was seeking a nomenclature more in keeping with his predilection to perceive a unity of opposites in all things and processes. To pursue this argument, let us first of all place Mao’s 1964 statement in the broader context of his other textual references to the “negation of the negation”.
1-61
V.I. Lenin,
1-64
M.B. Mitin et al.,
1-65
1-66
John Bryan Starr,
1-67
“Mao Zedong lun ‘fouding zhi fouding’” [Mao Zedong on the “negation of the negation”]
1-68
From Schram’s perspective, Mao’s “rejection” of the law of the “negation of the negation” is associated with the fact that Mao turned back to his Chinese roots during the 1960s. See Schram,
1-69
Schram,
1-70
Schram has argued that Mao’s ideas on the issue of the “negation of the negation” raise “serious problems about the conformity of his thinking as a whole to the basic logic of Marxism, and of Leninism”. See “The Marxist”, p. 64.