The Predicament of Marxist Revolutionary

The Predicament of Marxist Revolutionary Consciousness: Mao Zedong, Antonio
Gramsci, and the Reformulation of Marxist Revolutionary Theory

Author(s): Arif Dirlik
Source: Modern China, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 182-211
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/188865 .
Accessed: 04/11/2014 14:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern China.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ThePredicamentof Marxist
Consciousness
Revolutionary
Mao Zedong, Antonio Gramsci,and the Reformulation
of MarxistRevolutionaryTheory
ARIF DIRLIK
Duke University
The Marxismof Mao Zedong has long been a subjectof con-

troversy bothwithintheCommunistPartyof China and among
seriousstudentsof ChineseHistory.Mao has been portrayed as
thegreatestMarxistof mid-twentieth and his Marxism
century,
as thefulfillmentof theMarxianrevolutionary idea, thearticula-
tion in practiceof Marx's theoryof revolution.At the otherex-
tremestandstheviewof Mao as a Chineserevolutionary whose
deviationsfromMarxismwereso fundamentalas to place him
outside mainstreamMarxistthought.'
At theheartof all controversyconcerningMao's Marxismlies
theproblemof consciousness.Mao, as is commonlyrecognized,
assignedto revolutionary activitya determinativestatusin the
realizationof socialism: The activityof revolutionaries could
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This articlewas originallypresentedat theLuce Seminar,Univer-

sityof Chicago,October1981,and subsequently at a facultyseminaron Marxismat Duke
Universityin November1981.I thankparticipantsin thoseseminarsfor theircomments
on thearticle.I would also like to thankEd Hundert,Maurice Meisner,David Noble,
and VeraSchwarczfor readingand commentingon the article.
ModernChina, Vol. 9 No. 2, April 1983 182-211

? 1983 Sage Publications, Inc.
25
0097-7004/83/020182-30S3
182

Dirlik / REVOLUTIONARY THEORY 183
mobilize societyin the cause of socialismeven wherethe class

basis forsocialistrevolution was missing;it could also bringabout
the establishment of socialistsocietywithoutawaitingthe foun-
dation of an advanced technologicalbase. Key to revolutionary
activitywas, needlessto say,revolutionary consciousness,which
occupied a supremestatusin Mao's thinking.Consciousness,to
Mao, was not simplya reflectionof social reality,but a mode
of comprehendingand changingit.
WhyMao endowedtheproblemof consciousnesswitha crucial
significanceforrevolutionary practiceremainsobscure,buried
under fruitlesseffortsto match his Marxism against his
Chineseness.In the followingdiscussion,I suggestan answerto
thisquestionthatseeksto rootMao's appreciationof theprob-
lem of consciousnessin the confrontation of Marxismwiththe
circumstances of theChineseRevolution.Mao sharedwithmany
of his contemporaries a perceptionof thedifficulties involvedin
reconcilingthe universalistic premisesof Marxismwiththepar-
ticularcircumstances and needsof theChineseRevolution.What
distinguished himwas hiscommitment to achievingsucha recon-
ciliation. His preoccupationwithconsciousnesswas a product
of hisrecognition of theburdensthistaskimposedupon thecon-
sciousnessof revolutionaries.
Thereare striking parallelsbetweenMao and AntonioGramsci
in theirunderstanding of theproblemof revolution.This discus-
sion does not undertakea point-by-point comparisonbetween
Mao and Gramsci;rather, I examinecertainbasicaspectsof Mao's
Marxismin lightof insightsderivedfromdiscussionsof theprob-
lem of revolutionary consciousnessbyGramsciand bycommen-
tatorson Gramsci'sMarxism.I willreturnto a moreexplicitcom-
parison of Mao and Gramsciat the end of the discussion.
Writerson Gramsci have repeatedlydrawn attentionto the
similaritiesbetweenGramsciand Mao on Marxism.In his pio-
neeringstudyof Gramsci,Antonio Gramsciand the Originsof
Italian Communism,JohnCammett(1967: 177n)firstnotedthe
kinshipbetweenGramsci'sand Mao's viewson the role of the
peasantry(or ruralareas) in revolution, and describedMao's com-
munismas "quiteGramscianin character"(Cammett,1967:177n).

184 MODERN CHINA / APRIL 1983
Cammett'ssuggestionhas beenrepeatedbya numberof authors.

Genovese,takinghiscue fromCammett,observeda "deeperlink
betweenthe two-that concernforthe dialecticsof historical
development"(Genovese, 1968: 393). More recently,Jerome
Karabel (1976: 170n) has noted the similarityof Gramsci's
''specializedand political"intellectual and Mao's "redand expert"
intellectualto thenewtypeof intellectualrequiredforsocialism
(Karabel, 1976: 170n).NigelTodd, followingCammett'sadvice,
has offereda sketchycomparisonof Mao's and Gramsci'sviews
on intellectualsthat revealsthe potentialvalue of comparison
betweenthe two revolutionaries (Todd, 1974).
At the riskof soundingoutrageous,it is possibleto observe,
I think,thatMao did whatGramscithought.Mao was notgiven
to theoreticalspeculationforits own sake. The considerations
underlyinghis revolutionary practiceremainimbedded in his
revolutionary activityand writings, whichwereinvariablyprac-
tical in purpose.Gramsci,equally practiceoriented,was never-
thelessforcedintospeculationbythetragiccircumstances of his
life.The conceptof hegemony, whichhe elaboratedin his prison
cellto cope withtheproblemsof Italianpolitics,veryoftenreads,
at least fora novicein Gramsci'sthought,as a descriptionof
Mao's activities.
Havingsaid this,however,it is necessaryto add a noteof cau-
tion.Thereare certaindangersin comparingMao and Gramsci.
The tworevolutionaries shareda commondisdainforpreoccupa-
tionwithorthodoxy. Gramsci'sstatement, "AreweMarxists?Who
is a Marxist?Only stupidityis immortal"(Gramsci, 1975: 9),
parallelsin itscontemptfororthodoxyMao's viewof dogma as
dung.Furthermore, thereis stillconsiderableuncertainty overthe
preciseintentand meaningof Gramsci'stheoretical formulations,
and his Marxismis controversial, as is Mao's. The Marxismof
one,therefore, does notvindicatetheMarxismof theother.Still,
thismakescomparisonmore,not less,useful,sinceit refocuses
attentionfromabstract,ahistoricalquestionsof orthodoxyto
questionson revolutionary practiceand itsimplications fortheory.
The same is thecase withregardto theconditionsand nature
of revolution as thetworevolutionaries perceivedit. Gramscidrew

a dinstinctionbetweenrevolutionin the Westand revolutionin

the East (Gramsci,1971:238). In the West,"civil society"(the
realmof privatelifeand institutions) was wellestablished;revolu-
tion, therefore,was as much a culturaland educationalactivity
as it was a politicalone, sincethe conquestof civilsocietytook
priorityover the conquest of the state. In the East (including
Russia), revolutiontook a moredirectlypoliticalform-the con-
quest of statepower-since civil societywas, forall purposes,
nonexistent. Gramsciclearlyhad Russia and Leninin mindwhen
he made thisdistinction.Whilethedistinctionis also applicable
to China, the protractednature of the Chinese Revolution
distinguishesit fromthe Russian Revolution.While China did
nothavea civilsocietyin theGramsciansense(thatis,a bourgeois
society),the Communistsin China obviouslyhad to struggle
duringtheirlong revolutionto capturethe heartsand mindsof
thepeople beforetheywerein a positionto conquerstatepower.
For them,too, in otherwords,the culturaland the educational
task appeared as a prerevolutionary ratherthan a postrevolu-
tionary requirement.Gramsci's Marxism may have led to
Eurocommunism and Mao's to revolutionaryviolence;theanswer
to thesedivergent pathsmustbe soughtin theconditionsof revolu-
tion. Underlyingthesedifferent paths,however,one maydetect
a similarappreciationof the intimatedialecticbetweenrevolu-
tionaryconsciousnessand culture,and the consciousnessand
culture of its social ambience.
THIRD-WORLDISM, ORIENTALISM, AND

THE QUESTION OF MAO'S MARXISM
Contraryto some studentsof Mao, Mao assignedto conscious

activitya much more prominentstatus in revolutionthan did
Marx. "Mankindsetsitselfonlysuch tasksas it can solve,"Marx
wrotein 1858, "since the task itselfarises only when the
materialconditionsforits solutionalreadyexistor are at least
in the processof formation."Any defenderof identitybetween
Marx and Mao wouldbe hardputto demonstrate thattheabsence

of requisitematerialor social conditionsfor the solution of

politicalproblemseverrestrained himfrompursuingsucha solu-
tionanyway. This is notto implythatMao was an arbitrary volun-
taristwho recognizedno constraints on revolutionaryactivity,or
thathe ignoredthecontextforrevolutionary activity.
Nevertheless,
Mao's careeras a revolutionary providesthemostincontrovertible
evidenceof his beliefin the abilityof revolutionary activityto
createthe conditionsforits own fulfillment.
Preoccupationwithorthodoxy is notonlymisguidedin thecase
of a revolutionary who thoughtMarxistdogma to be less useful
than dung, but diminisheshis creativityas a Marxist. More
seriously,it ignoresthe significant differencesfromMarx in the
contentof Mao's consciousness, whichwerea productof thecon-
cretecircumstances withinwhichMao carriedouthisrevolutionary
activity.The argumentthatMao and Marx both endowedcon-
sciousnesswitha role in social and revolutionary changeat the
formaltheoreticallevelmakesan abstractcomparisonthatdoes
not saymuchabout theconcreteroleof consciousnessin revolu-
tionaryactivity. This is a seriousdeficiency in a Marxistanalysis.
It sweeps under the rug, as I will argue,the most significant
elements in Mao's thinking on consciousness.Underlying thisview
is a "ThirdWorldistfantasy," a fantasyof Mao as a Chineserein-
carnationof Marx who fulfilledthe Marxistpromisethathad
been betrayedin the West.
ExplanationsthatattributeMao's faithin revolutionary con-
sciousnessto his life-longpreoccupationwithsubjectivewill,or
traceit to somevagueChineseculturallegacy,areevenlesssatisfac-
torybecausetheyabolishtheproblemas a problemwithinMarx-
ism and, withit, Mao's Marxismitself.These explanationsare
informedbya pre-Leninist economisticunderstanding of Marx-
ism that serves,on the one hand, to emasculateMarxismas a
progenitor of revolutionary consciousness,and,on theotherhand,
to "orientalize"Mao byencapsulatinghimin a Chinesecultural
and politicalspace. The economisticinterpretation of Marxism
rendersconsciousnessepiphenomenalby definition.Therefore,
it deniesthesignificant roleof consciousnessin socialchangeand
revolution. Mao's preoccupation withconsciousnessappears,con-

sequently,as an aberrationof his Marxismthatmustbe traced

to sourcesextraneousto Marxism.Mao's individualorientation
or his predispositionas a Chinese revolutionary providea con-
venient,and circumstantially logical,explanation.Mao's Marx-
ism has been orientalizedboth by Westernstudentsof China,
suspicious of the authenticity of his Marxism because of his
Chineseness,and byChinesewho,convincedof theresiliency of
theirculturalheritage,resistanysuggestionof theimpregnation
of Chineseculturebyan alienideology.The culturalist interpreta-
tion of Mao, it mightbe noted,coincideswitha politicallycon-
servativereadingof Marx thatlimitsconsiderably theboundaries
of Marxistrevolutionary activity.
The problemwithsuch explanationsis that theyignorethe
Marxistproblematic,basic to whichis the idea of class, within
which Mao viewedthe problemof consciousness,and which
shaped his activitiesas a revolutionary.Fred Wakemanand Li
Rui (Li Jui),withdifferent emphases,have shownthatMao was
indeedpreoccupiedwiththequestionof subjectivewillfromhis
youthfuldays(Li Jui,1977;Wakeman,1973). What needsto be
pointedout is thatMarxismtamedMao's subjectivism, and taught
himtheconstraints placed on revolutionarywillbysocial circum-
stances.The matureMarxistMao who firstexpressedhis views
on this subject in the 1937 essay,"On Practice" (Mao, 1965:
1/294-309),remainedconsciousof thedialecticalrelationship be-
tweenconsciousnessand social existence,betweenrevolutionary
activityand its materialpremises.
This wouldseemto be beliedbytheCulturalRevolution, which
was in fact responsiblefor dramatizingto studentsof China,
Mao's persistentpreoccupationwith the autonomyof revolu-
tionaryconsciousness.The Cultural Revolutioninformsmost
discussionsof Mao's so-calledvoluntarism.DuringtheCultural
Revolution,arbitrary subjectivityseemedto takeoveronce again,
and led Mao to the assertionof the powerof revolutionary will
overmaterialreality.The CulturalRevolutionary phase of Mao's
careerhas recentlybeen repudiatedbyMao's successorson these
same grounds,whichwould seemto confirmearlieranalysesby
studentsof China.

Yetthisis valid only froma limitedperspective on Marxism,

and it remainsto be demonstrated thatMao abandonedthebasic
Marxistpremisethat "social being determinesconsciousness"
duringthe CulturalRevolution.We have yetto distinguishthe
intentionthat underlaythe Cultural Revolutionfromthe cir-
cumstancesthatperverted theintentionintoitsown caricature.2
In itsintention, theCulturalRevolutionwas quitein keepingwith
therevolutionary goals Mao had pursuedas a Marxistforall of
hismatureyears.Fromthebeginning, Marxismredefined forMao
the goals as wellas the strategyof the ChineseRevolution.His
aim as a Marxistwas not simplyto createa strongand indepen-
dent China, but a revolutionary one as well.
Mao's idea of the"Sinificationof Marxism"has been used as
evidencethathe subsumedMarxismwithinhis nationalism.It
is clear fromMao's discussionsof Sinification,especiallyhis
seminalessay,"On New Democracy"(Mao, 1965: 11/339-381),
however,thatMao's nationalismwas quite empirical,that the
Chinesenationhe had in mindwas yetto be createdin thecourse
of theChineseRevolution.Marxismwas to be presentat thecrea-
tion.UnlikeSinificationof old (thatis,theabsorptionof foreign
culturesand peoplesintoChinesecivilization, wheretheylosttheir
identity), theSinificationof Marxismdid not implytheabsorp-
tion of Marxismintoa Chineseculturethatcould be takenfor
granted;Marxismwas to serveas thelitmuspaperagainstwhich
the new Chineseculturewas to be tested.Hence Mao could by
definition excludefromtheculturehe envisagedChinese"feudal"
cultureas well as Western"bourgeois" culture.
If Mao nationalizedMarxism,in otherwords,his idea of na-
tionalismwas fashionedbyMarxism,and itstasksweredefined
byrevolutionary considerationsof class and class consciousness.
It is sufficient
to place Mao's nationalismagainstthenationalism
of his successorsto appreciatethe revolutionary mold in which
his Marxismcast his nationalism.
It is onlywhenthisrevolutionary natureof Mao's nationalism
is overlooked,when his nationalismis equated with China's
nationalsalvationpureand simple,thattheCulturalRevolution
appears as a departurefromMao's previouslyMarxistunder-

standingof consciousness.On the otherhand, if Mao's Marx-

ism is viewednotsimplyas an instrument of his nationalismbut
also as its determinant, the CulturalRevolutionappears as an
attempton the part of Mao to move furtheralong the path of
revolution,past the point whereimmediatenationalgoals had
beenachieved,towardthecreationof a revolutionary culture.That
Mao, as a revolutionary committedto China's autonomyand
strength, would riskChina's wealthand powerin the pursuitof
revolutionary goals only atteststo the powerfulpart Marxism
playedin the shapingof his nationalism.From Mao's perspec-
tive,therewas nothingaberrantor arbitrary about the Cultural
Revolution, whichremainedfirmly withintheMarxistproblematic
that had guided him all along.
Fromthisperspective, it appearsthatwhatMao rejectedduring
the CulturalRevolutionwas not theMarxistconceptionof con-
sciousness,but a determinism thatrelinquishedto technological
developmentthe task of achievingsocialism.To interpret Mao's
activitiesduringthisperiodas expressionof a faithin thepower
of subjectivewill over materialrealityis to ignoreMao's very
Marxist premise that social relations mediate between con-
sciousnessand materialreality.A noteMao made on theorigins
of capitalismin the late fifties,whenthe problemsthatwereto
culminatein the CulturalRevolutionwerealreadyin his mind,
is illustrative
of his appreciationof thisproblem.Mao observes
in that note thatbourgeoisconsciousnessand bourgeoissocial
relationshistorically precededthe technologythathad come to
identifycapitalism.He obviouslyhad in mind a parallel with
socialism, that socialist social relations,too, could precede a
socialisttechnology, thatsocialistsocial relationspresupposeda
socialistcultureand consciousness.This is quite consistentwith
Marxismexceptin itstechnologicaldeterminist version;indeed,
Mao's note maycontainthe insightthattechnologyitselfmust
correspondto thedesiredsocial relationsand not be allowedto
subvertthemor renderthemimpossible,an insightthat many
present-dayMarxistsshare (Mao, 1977: 66).
The notionof voluntarismis the guise in whichthe problem
of consciousness appears in most discussions of Mao. This

approach is misleadingbecause it poses a falseissue. If volun-

tarismis meantto be juxtaposedagainstdeterminism, it does not
sufficeto distinguish Mao fromanyotherMarxistrevolutionary
(includingMarx) sinceall revolutionary a&tivityis bydefinition
voluntaryactivity.If, on the otherhand, voluntarismis meant
to implyobliviousness to socialand materialconstraints on revolu-
tionaryactivity,it suggestsan unjustifiedand undemonstrated
conclusionthatMao's Marxismrepresents the degenerationof
Marxismto arbitrary subjectiveactivity.Here Mao's Marxismno
longerappears as a seriousproblemwithinMarxism.
The problemappears in a different lightwhenposed in terms
of consicousactivitythatis both intentionaland voluntary, but
is not,therefore,
arbitrary sincethereis no necessarycon-
activity,
tradictionbetweenintentionality and social existence,onlya com-
plexrelationshipto be analyzedand explained.Whenwe approach
the problemof consciousnessin Mao fromthisperspective, it
becomespossibleto perceivewhyMao shouldhaveendowedcon-
sciousnesswitha fundamentalrole in revolutionary activity.
WhatMao juxtaposedwas notconsciousnessversussocial and
materialreality,but revolutionary consciousnessagainst con-
sciousnessin general.Consciousnessin generalis theoutlookon
lifeand societythatguides people in theireverydayactivity;it
is shapednotjustbyimmediatesocialand materialcircumstances,
but by inheritedculturaltraditions;it is just as mucha partof
socialexistenceas arethematerialconditionsof life.Revolutionary
consciousness(thatis, class consciousness),on the otherhand,
appearsin thislightas partof a moreall-encompassing concept
of consciousnessto whichit bears a problematicrelationship.
The revelationof thisproblemmaybe Mao's contribution to
Marxism.His own appreciationof theproblemwas a directpro-
duct of the problemsthatwereimplicitin the confrontation of
Marxismwithan alienculturaland socialenvironment. As Schram
has observed,in a slightlydifferent sensethanmine:"the whole
recordof Mao Tse-tung'sintellectual itineraryduringtheensuing
decades [after1926]can be read as a persistent searchforways
to combinetheprincipleof proletarianhegemonywiththevision
of Chinesesocietywhichhad grippedhimin 1926"(Wilson,1977:

41). This confrontation exposedproblemsthatwerenotapparent

undercircumstanceswhereMarxistscould anticipatethe spon-
taneous articulationof revolutionary consciousnessthat they
thoughtwas immanentin society.Marxismin China providedthe
redefinition of thegoals and strategyof theChineseRevolution,
but it did not survivethe processunchanged.In orderto serve
as an effective ideologyof action,Marxismhad to be nationalized
to lose its aliennessto thecircumstances of the Chinese Revolu-
tion. This was the predicamentof Marxismin China: to retain
itsidentity unchangedand lose itsrelevance to theChineseRevolu-
tion,or to undergothe necessaryadjustmentand relinquishits
identity.The greatnessof Mao as a Marxistlay in his recogni-
tionof thispredicament, and hispersistent
convictionthata dialec-
ticalintegration, a mutualincorporation of Marxistand Chinese
goals (ratherthana "combination," as Schramsuggests)laywithin
the realmof possibility.It was thisrecognition,I think,thatled
him to endow the problemof consciousnesswitha significance
and urgencythatit did notcall forunderthoseconditionswhere
the circumstancesof revolutionary activitywereless alien to its
theoretical premises.
MAO AND MARXISM:

SOCIAL EXPERIENCE AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
It is necessaryto viewMao's preoccupationwithconsciousness

fromtheperspective of Marxistthoughtbothto identify
itsroots
in theMarxistproblematicof revolutionand to appreciateMao's
originality.
Marx conceptualizedconsciousnessin its dialecticalrelation-
ship withhistory,withthe proletariatas its concretereferent.
Revolutionary consciousnessrepresented thedevelopment of pro-
letarianconsciousnessas the proletariatbecame aware of itself
as a class bycomprehending itselfin history.As thearticulation
of proletarianself-consciousness, revolutionaryconsciousness
mediatedthetransformation of theproletariatfroma politically
inertclass-in-itself
to a revolutionary class-for-itself
capable of

carryingout itshistoricaldestiny.The taskof therevolutionary

was to presentto the proletariatits imagein historyin orderto
helptheproletariat fulfillitspotential.Revolutionary activity was,
therefore,placed in a dialecticalrelationshipwiththe teleology
that Marx's social and revolutionary theorypresupposed.
Lenin'srecognition thatrevolutions did notcome about spon-
taneouslythrough thedynamicsof social forces,butwerebrought
about bytheconsciousactivityof revolutionaries, was a crucial
redefinitionoftherelationship Marxhad established betweencon-
sciousnessand history.Revolutionto Leninwas not a social but
a politicalevent;it was the productnot of social movementsof
classes but of politicalorganization;and therevolutionary con-
sciousnessthatguidedrevolution was notthearticulation of pro-
letarianconsciousnessbut an attributeof revolutionaries that
presupposedtheproletariat as an object,ratherthanthesubject,
of revolutionary activity.
Lenin's recognitionthatrevolutionary consciousnesswas not
theexpression of social forces,butwas autonomouspoliticalcon-
sciousnessthat sought to remold social forces,freedMarxist
revolutionaries fromthenecessity of waitingupon history;it also
openedup thepossibility of arbitrariness inthepursuitof revolu-
tion. The dialecticbetweentheoryand revolutionary activity,
imbeddedbyMarx in history, was relocatedbyLeninin thecon-
sciousnessof the revolutionary. Marxisttheory,divorcedfrom
itsconcretesocial referents, could,therefore, be instrumentalized
in theserviceof goalsthatboreno organicrelationship to itssocial
premise;in otherwords,capitalismand itsrevolutionary product,
theproletariat, wereno longerpreconditions forsocialistrevolu-
tionaryactivity.At the same time,socialismcould now accom-
modate,or evenbe appropriated bygoalsthatexpressed theaspira-
tions of a social contextalien to the originalsocial premiseof
Marxisttheory.This renderedconsciousnessmuch more prob-
lematicthanithad beento Marx,and requiredtherevolutionary
partyas guardianof theintegrity of revolutionaryconsciousness.
Mao was heirto thisproblem.In his case, however,theprob-
lemwas muchmorecomplexthanithad been forMarx or Lenin
because of the tenuousstatusof Marxism,not just among the

people of China, but amongMarxistintellectualsthemselves.In

the firstplace, Marxismwas an alien ideologyin China. (I do
notmeanthisin thesenseof aliennessto an "orientalized"China
thatwas a worlduntoitself.)In thetwentieth century,China was
placed in a worldsetting,and was absorbedintoa worldmarket
of ideas just as muchas it was absorbed intoa worldmarketof
commodities.Marxismwas one of theseideas. It was relevantto
theproblemsof Chinesesocietyto theextentthatChina's prob-
lems wereidentifiablewiththe new settingin whichChina was
placed. Socialism in China was fromits beginningsconcerned
withthe role capitalismshould play in China's developmentin
a world dominatedby capitalism.
Nevertheless, thereexisteda gap, as Tang Tsou has noted,be-
tweenideologicaldevelopmentand social and politicaldevelop-
ment(Tsou, 1977). Social beingin China was muchmorecom-
plex than it had been forMarx or forthe emigreLenin,both of
whom feltat home in European thoughtand politics. For a
Chineserevolutionary, socialbeingin China meanta Chineseexis-
tenceas wellas existencein a China situatedin the world;con-
sciousnesshad a corresponding complexity.The predicamentof
Marxistrevolutionary consciousnesswas notjust political(recon-
cilingMarxistand Chinesepoliticalgoals), it was also cultural.
This predicamentwas underlinedby the culturalinertiaof the
massestherevolutionaries soughtto revolutionize.
Contradiction,
ratherthan dialecticalintegration, is the appropriatetermfor
describingtheinnertensionsof revolutionary consciousness,not
to speakof therelationship betweenrevolutionaries
and themasses
theyhopeto lead. Revolution wouldhaveto be made,and a revolu-
tionin consciousnessand culturewas thepreconditionto,rather
than an expressionof, a revolutionin materialexistence.
This problembecamedramatically evidentafter1927whenthe
Communistsweredrivento thecountryside, and whenMao began
his ascent to leadership.In the earlytwenties,the firstyearsbf
communismin China, it mighthave been possibleto have some
faithin spontaneousmass uprisingon the evidenceof working-
class revoltin China'scities.After1927,revolution
had to be made
in agrarianChina where,in spiteof all the existingsocial agita-

tion,politicalconsciousnessremainedenshroudedwithintradi-
tional formsof protest,and revolutionaries faceda muchmore
difficulttask in remoldingpeasant grievanceinto revolutionary
class consciousness.It was to Mao's creditthathe could perceive
therevolutionary potentialof thepeasantry. MauriceMeisnerhas
pointedto Mao's populistfaithin thespontaneousrevolutionary
creativityof the peasant (Meisner,1971).3This faith,however,
was notsuchas to lead Mao to anticipatespontaneousclass con-
sciousnessor revolutionary activityfromthepeasant.In hisclassic
reporton thepeasantmovement in Hunan, Mao identified tradi-
tionalsocial and religiousauthority as forcesthatweigheddown
thepeasant.As in thecase of his nationalism,Mao's faithin the
peasantrywas mediatedby his Marxism.To the end of his life,
Mao remainedsuspiciousof thosewhobelievedthat"thepeasan-
tryis simplywonderful,"and thoughtit necessaryto transform
peasantconsciousnessin accordancewithsocialistpremises(Mao,
1977: 146). Nevertheless,his Marxistconvictionin the necessity
of transforming the peasantrywas not accompaniedbydisdain
forthepeasant,or the beliefthatpeasant"false consciousness"
mustbe purgedthroughtheimpositionon thepeasantry of Marx-
istconsciousness.In dealingwiththepeasantry,educatorsmust
themselvesbe educated.This attitudemade as muchsense from
the viewpointof revolutionary pragmatismas it did fromthe
perspectiveof a populistaffectionfor the peasantry.What it
meant,fromthestandpoint of theproblemhere,wasthatthecon-
sciousnessof the revolutionary mustbe transformed in thepro-
cess of the revolutionary transformation of the peasant.
REVOLUTIONAY PRACTICE
AND REVOLUTIONARY CONSCIOUSNESS
This briefconsiderationof thecircumstantialpeculiaritiesof

theChineseRevolutionpointsto twoproblems.First,thatunder
thecircumstances of the ChineseRevolution,constantvigilance
was necessary,on the one hand, to preventtheinstrumentaliza-
tionof Marxismintoa meretool of parochializedgoals, and, on

Dirlik / REVOLUTIONARY-THEORY 195
theotherhand,to minimizethetendencyto convertMarxismin-

to a dogmathatwouldonlyserveto underscore itsalienness.This
was a problemprimarily forrevolutionaries,whohad to assimilate
theirabstractrevolutionary consciousness to theconcretedemands
of theirimmediatecircumstances. The predicament of therevolu-
tionarywas born out of the uneasyassimilationof Chinese to
Marxistpoliticalgoals.
The problemof consciousnesswas not,therefore, simplya prob-
lem of theformalstatusof consciousnessas an abstractcompo-
nentin the Marxisttheoryof revolution.The formalstatusof
consciousnessin revolutionwas bound up withthe contentof
revolutionary consciousnessas Mao perceivedit. In otherwords,
thesame forcesthatshapedMao's ownconsciousnessas a revolu-
tionaryappear simultaneously as theforcesthataccount forthe
supremestatuswithwhichMao endowedconsciousnessas an
agentof change.As Leninhad perceived and Mao nowelaborated,
revolutionary consciousnesswas notmerestaticreflection of class
or society;it was a dynamicmaterial"moment"of revolutionary
activity.As Mao explainedin his essay "On Practice,"revolu-
tionaryactivityand the conceptualizationof revolutionwere
simplyalternating,dialecticallylinked,phases of a continuing
process. Theory provided the overall directionby mediating
betweenactivity and itsconceptualization,butit did notpredeter-
mine"correct"action or offerprefabricated conceptsthatpro-
vided universalexplanationswithoutregardforparticularcir-
cumstances.By the same virtue,revolutionary activitymediated
betweentheoryand empiricalconditions, and integrated theminto
a historicalprocess.Withoutrevolutionary activity,theorywas
reducedto dogma, and empiricism to activitywithoutdirection:
both manifestations of arbitrarysubjectivism.
The complexityof Mao's own consciousnessmirroredthe
predicamentof revolutionary consciousnessin China. Mao was
accused of empiricismin theCommunistPartyof China; he has
also beenchargedrepeatedly withobliviousnessto empiricalcon-
cerns(Mao, 1965: 111/13;Wang, 1979). Whyhe should be sub-
jected to such antitheticalinterpretationsmay be gleaned from
his 1937essay"On Contradiction"(Mao, 1965:1/311-347),which

I thinkis Mao's mostimportantarticulationof his perceptions

of theproblemof revolution.The essayat once instrumentalizes
Marxisttheoryas a guide to analyzingempiricalconditionsin
society, and reaffirms the possibility of revolutionary
transcendence througha theoreticalgraspof social and political
contradictionsin theirmost empiricalmanifestation.
"On Contradiction"was theculminationof lessonsMao drew
froma decade of revolutionary activity.The essay was both a
descriptionof recentChinesehistoryas Mao perceivedit, espe-
ciallyas he had experienced it,and a prescription forfuture revolu-
tionaryaction drawnfromthatexperience.The essaywas most
conspicuousforitsinstrumentalized conceptionof theory, which
was implicitin Mao's stresson contradiction overclassas thebasic
unit of analysis.In this respect,it was but a statementin the
abstractof Mao's revolutionary practiceoverthepreviousdecade.
Fromhis firstanalysisof classes in China in 1926,Mao revealed
a politicalconceptualization of class: In hisdelineationof classes
in China, he was interested not in a structural determination of
class in termsof relationship to themeansof production,but in
theidentification of thestatusof social groupsin termsof hier-
archyof power,and especiallyin termsof relationsof exploita-
tion. In otherwords,Mao's conceptof class was based not on
abstracttheoreticalconsiderations,but a utilitarianconcernto
guage thepotentialforrevolutionary consciousnessand activity
of different stratawithinthe Chinese population.The opening
wordsof his 1926 essay,"Analysisof Classes in Chinese Soci-
ety,"revealtheunderlying intention of Mao's analysis:"Who are
our enemies?Who are our friends?"The essaywenton to iden-
tifyfifteen"classes" in China in termsof theirattitudestoward
revolution.This same activistapproachto class analysisguided
Mao's analysisin anotheressay,publishedin thesameyear,where
Mao identifiedfiveclasses in agrarianChina, as well as in the
better-known essayof 1933,"How to AnalyzeClasses [in rural
areas]," whichservedas the basis forCommunistland reform
programsthenand after1949.4To Mao in everycase classanalysis
was social analysisdesignedto identifythe dimensionsof con-
flictinsocietyfortheguidanceof revolutionary and policy.
activity

"On Contradiction"was theultimateexpressionof Mao's view

of Marxismas a theoryof conflict.The essayarticulatedMao's
appreciationof the complexityand multitudeof social and
politicalconflict,whichwas muchmorecomprehensive and intri-
cate than is allowed forin class analysisbased on relationship
to themeansof production.The recognition of multifacetedcon-
flictincreasedtheburdenon revolutionary consciousness.Revolu-
tionarieshad to absorb in theirconsciousnessall aspectsof con-
flictin orderto devisean effective strategy of action,butwithout
gettingcaughtup in theconflictthemselves, forthelatterwould
resultin theloss of direction to revolutionary In theessay,
activity.
Mao attemptedto bring order to the chaos of conflictby
postulating thatin anysituation, therewas a "principal"contradic-
tion thatconditionedall the othercontradictionsand provided
a focusforrevolutionary activity;it was up to the revolutionary
to identifytheprincipalcontradiction and use it as theguide to
action.This,however, did notexhaustthedemandson therevolu-
tionary.The idea of a principalcontradiction resolvedtheprob-
lemof chaos on a short-term basis,butitdid notprovidea guard
againstarbitrary activity(morecrudely,opportunism)on a long-
termbasis; in fact,it opened up the dangerof the substitution
of short-term for long-termgoals.
It is implicitin Mao's reasoningthattherevolutionary who did
not look beyondthe immediatesituationremaineddeprivedof
the vision necessaryto transcendimmediatecircumstances. No
matterhowsuccessfula revolutionary mightbe in graspingimme-
diate contradictions,withouta vision of revolution,he or she
remaineda manipulatorof conflict.The manipulatorwho did
not have visionof the future,we mightadd, was condemnedto
manipulationby the same circumstances that he or she sought
to control.It was onlybykeepingtheirsightsfirmlyfixedon the
historicallyprincipaltask of abolishingclass dominationand
oppression,thatrevolutionaries could transcendthe immediate
historicalsituation,and liveup to thevisionimbeddedin theory.
It is hardlysurprising thattheconsciousnessof therevolutionary
must,underthecircumstances, be broughtto theforefront of all
considerationof change.

Second,and perhapsmoreimportant, thecircumstances of the

Chinese Revolutionrequiredthe recognitionthatthe people of
China had theirown socially and culturallydeterminedcon-
sciousnessthatwas verymuchat odds withMarxistrevolutionary
consciousness;in otherwords,thatrevolutionary confrontation
was not simplya confrontation betweenMarxistrevolutionary
consciousnessand the social and materialconditionsof China,
buta confrontation betweenMarxistrevolutionary consciousness
and Chineseconsciousnessas materialized in peasantlife.Revolu-
tionaryconsciousnesscould possess this consciousnessor be
possessedbyit; thiswas itssecondpredicament. Mao recognized,
rightly,thatthepossessionhad to be mutualif therevolution was
to be successful,butalso becausehe was a Chineserevolutionary.
Marxistrevolutionary consciousnesshad to incorporate elements
of itsnovelculturalcontextif it was to lose its alienness;it also
had to possessand transform thatculturalcontext.This dynamic
optionwas closedoffbythosewho,in thenameof revolutionary
consciousness,would dismissnativeconsciousnessas primitive
or falseconsciousness.It was ignoredby those who readilyfell
in withpeasant consciousnessand lost theirabilityto lead.
Mao's concernwith this problemwas reflectedin his deep
awarenessof thecontradiction betweenempiricism and dogmatism
in theCommunistParty(Compton,1969:9-32)-above all in the
conceptof the "mass line" thatrepresented an effortto resolve
thiscontradiction in theorganizationforrevolution.Mao wrote
in 1934:"We shouldmakethebroadmassesrealizethatwe repre-
senttheirinterests, thatour lifeand theirsare intimately inter-
woven"(Mao, 1965: 1/149).The essenceof themass lineis con-
tained in the simple statement,"fromthe masses, and to the
masses." Buttheidea was considerablymorecomplex.The mass
linerepresented ineffecttheapplicationof theidea of democratic
centralismto therelationshipbetweenthepartyand themasses.
JohnLewishas drawnattentionto theparallelbetweenthemass
line as an organizationalconceptand the epistemologicalpro-
cess Mao had outlinedin "On Practice":perception-conception-
verification(or testingthroughpractice)(Lewis, 1963:72). This
parallelimpliesthatthe mass line was not a meretechniqueof
mass mobilization,but a meansof integrating therevolutionary
consciousnessof the CommunistPartywiththe consciousness

of the people the partyled. As theoryintermediated the inter-

relationshipbetweenrevolutionary conditionand revolutionary
thepartypur-
activityin thecase of theindividualrevolutionary,
suingthemass linemediatedtheinterrelationship betweenrevolu-
tionarygoals and popular interestsand consciousness.In this
mediationthe party,as the agent of revolutionary transforma-
tion, served as the guardian of revolutionaryintegrityand
theoreticalcorrectness,but it could performits role effectively
onlybyabsorbingintoitsconsciousnesstheconsciousnessof the
masses it led.
Whatever Mao's ownproclivities, theidea of themasslinemade
eminentsenseunderthecircumstances in whichtheCommunist
Party led the revolutionin China. That this was not mere
pragmatism, or simplya mechanicalconceptionof party-people
relationship,at least to Mao, is evidentin Mao's insistenceon
thecontinuationof the mass line after1949 As Mao's writings
fromtheearlysixtiesrevealunequivocally, one of thebasic prob-
lemsMao intendedto solvethroughtheCulturalRevolutionwas
the increasingalienationof thepartyin powerfromits popular
constituency,especiallytheworkingpeoplewho provideditsclass
basis (Schram,1974).The relationship Mao envisaged,and hoped
to achievethroughthe mass line,was not simplya mechanical
relationshipof interestmediation,but an organicrelationship
wherethe culture(in its broadestsense) of the masses and the
partywouldbe "interwoven," justas he envisagedtheinterweaving
of Marxistand nationalaspirationsat thelevelof politicalgoals.
Thiswas ultimately themeaningof Mao's Sinification of Marx-
ism,which,therefore, can also be viewedas the"Marxification"
of Chineseness.What is essentialis Mao's realizationthatthe
battleforrevolutionwas as mucha battleovercultureand con-
sciousnessas it was oversocial and politicalpower.This realiza-
tion,and thepracticeMao based on it, mayultimately be Mao's
greatestcontributionto Marxisttheory.
CLASS, CULTURE, AND REVOLUTION

IN GRAMSCI'S THOUGHT
Gramsci'sconceptionof hegemonyexpressedhis recognition

of the problemof revolutionaryconsciousnessin the battlefor
Unlessthisbattleforconsciousnesswas won,Gramsci
revolution.

thought,the revolutionwould be doomed to failure:"A social

groupcan, and indeed must,alreadyexercise'leadership'[that
is,be hegemonic]beforewinning governmentalpower(thisindeed
is one of theprincipalconditionsforthewinningof suchpower)"
(Gramsci,1971:57).
In his seminalarticleon Gramsci,GwynWilliams(1960: 587)
describedGramsci'sconceptof hegeomonyas follows:
By 'hegemony'Gramsciseemsto meana socio-politicalsituation,

in histerminology, a 'moment',in whichthephilosophyand prac-
tice of a societyfuseor are in equilibrium;an orderin whicha
certainwayof lifeand throught are dominant,in whichone con-
ceptof realityis diffusedthroughout societyin all itsinstitutional
and privatemanifestations, informingwith its spiritall taste,
morality, customs,religiousand politicalprinciples, and all social
relations,particularlyin theirintellectualand moralconnotation
[1960: 587].
Revolutionto Gramsciwas a battle for hegemonybetween

opposing classes. A hegemonicclass was by definitiona class
whosevaluessuffused thesocietyit dominated,the"historicbloc"
wherehegemonyovercultureand consciousnesscorresponded to
the controlof the meansof production.Hegemonyimpliedthe
dominationof "civil society,"withoutwhichpoliticaldomina-
tionor leadershipmustdegenerate intonakedgovernmental coer-
cion, which itselfwas an indication of the incompletenessor
degeneration of hegemony. Whenhegemonyprevails,"discipline
becomes self-discipline,coercion becomes self-government"
(Mouffe,1979: 73).
For our purposes,threecharacteristics of hegemony areimpor-
tant.A hegemonicclass mustof necessityincorporateintoitsin-
tereststheinterests of
of otherclasses(or articulatetheinterests
otherclasses throughits own interests)in orderto universalize
its economic domination.Second, it mustincorporateinto its
cultureelementsof its culturalcontextin orderto universalize
itsculture.It follows,third,thata hegemonicclass mustbe a na-
tional class. The firstcharacteristichas been cogentlyexpressed
by Chantal Mouffe.A hegemonicclass, Mouffeexplains(1979:
181),is
of othersocial
theinterests
a class whichhas beenable to articulate
groupsto itsownbymeansof ideologicalstruggle. This according

to Gramsci,is onlypossibleifthisclass renouncesa strictlycorpo-

ratistconception,since in order to exerciseleadershipit must
genuinelyconcernitselfwiththe interests of those social groups
over whichit wishesto exercisehegemony[1979: 181].
On the question of culture,the second characteristic,Raymond

Williams observes:
Any hegemonicprocessmustbe especiallyalertand responsive

to the alternativesand oppositionwhichquestionor threatenits
dominance. The realityof culturalprocess must then always
includetheeffortsand contributionsof thosewho are in one way
or anotheroutside or at the edge of the termsof the specific
hegemony[1977 113].
Williams describes as incorporation that process wherebythe

hegemonic group appropriates foritselfthe traditionsand values
of a given society. Williams's description of hegemony cogently
brings out the connection between class and culture:
Hegemonyis thennotonlythearticulateupperlevelof 'ideology',

norareitsformsof controlonlythoseordinarily seenas 'manipula-
tion'or 'indoctrination'It is a wholebodyof practicesand expec-
tationsoverthe whole of living:our senses and assignmentsof
energy,our shapingperceptionsof ourselvesand our world.It is
a lived system of meanings and values-constitutive and
constituting- whichas theyare experiencedas practicesappear
reciprocallyconfirming.It thusconstitutesa sense of realityfor
mostpeople in thesociety,a senseof absolutebecauseexperienced
realitybeyondwhichit is verydifficultformostmembersof the
societyto move,in most areas of theirlives. It is, thatis to say,
in the strongestsense a 'culture',but a culturewhichhas also to
be seen as the lived dominanceand subordinationof particular
classes [1977- 110].
Williams credits Gramsci with having abolished the base-

superstructuredivision in the Marxist appreciation of culture,and
made culture into a constituent element of social life; in other
words, materialized the notion of culture.

Finally,theseconsiderationsrequiredthata hegemonicclass
must be national. "A class that is international,"Gramsci
observed,"has to 'nationalize'itself"in orderto effecta linkbe-
tween the leaders and the led (Gramsci, 1971: 241). This led
Gramscito theidea of a "national-popular"culture.Hoare and
Smith,the editorsof the Prison Notebooks,describethisidea
as "a sortof 'historicblock,'betweennationaland popularaspira-
tionsintheformation of whichtheintellectuals playan essen-
tialmediating role"(Gramsci,1971:421n).Theyfurther distinguish
Gramsci'sidea of national-popularculturefromFascistor populist
viewson the subject.This distinctionis supported,I think,by
themodel thatinformedGramsci'sidea: Leninand the Russian
revolutionaries,whomGramscicreditedwithhavingachievedjust
such a nationalizationof Marxism.
An eliteconsistingof some of the most active,energetic, enter-

prisingand disciplinedmembersof thesocietyemigratesabroad
and assimilatesthecultureand historicalexperiencesof themost
advancedcountriesof theWestwithout,however, losingthemost
of itsownnationality,
essentialcharacteristics thatis to saywithout
breakingits sentimental and historicallinkswithits own people
[Gramsci,1971: 19-20].
Gramsci'sviewsof intellectuals in theirrelationship

to revolu-
tion followedfromhis idea of hegemony.A hegemonicclass
needed its own "organic" intellectualswho would be its func-
tionaries in the world of governmentand culture.Gramsci
describedas "traditional"intellectuals who did
thoseintellectuals
not serveas functionaries of the hegemonicclass; or, at least,
thoughtthattheydid notdo so. A basictaskfora newlyemerging
hegemonicclass(a "counter-hegemonic" class),then,wasto create
itsown organicintellectuals and to assimilatetraditionalintellec-
tuals (Gramsci 1971: 5-23).
MAO, GRAMSCI, AND REVOLUTION
Fromthe perspectiveof Gramsci'sconceptof hegemony, the

whole course of the Chinese Revolution,but especiallythe late

1930s and early 1940s,when Mao formulatedhis idea of New

Democracy,appears as a drama enactedunderthe directionof
the idea of hegemony.Mao, too, believedthatthe primarytask
of theCommunistPartyin China was to attractunderitsleader-
shipthevarioussocial groupsin China,butin particulartheintel-
lectuals,by demonstratingthe superiorityof its culturaland
politicalleadership.5This was thepremiseupon whichthewhole
idea of New Democracywas founded.Second, Mao's Sinifica-
tionof Marxismbears a close resemblanceto Gramsci'sidea of
a national-popularculture.Both believedthat Marxistrevolu-
tionaryconsciousnessmustbe nationalizedand lose itsalienness
to the national cultureif it was to achievehegemony.Third,in
both cases, considerationsinvolvingthe agrarian population
playedan importantrolein sensitizing themto theculturalprob-
lems of working-classhegemony.Finally,both had remarkably
similarconceptionsof theroleof intellectuals, especiallyrevolu-
tionaryintellectuals.Karabel's comparison of "political and
specialized" in Gramsciwiththe "red and expert"intellectuals
is especiallyapt. If theworkingclasswas to establishitshegemony,
it neededitsownorganicintellectuals whowouldbe expertenough
to lead, and redenoughto retaintheirtieswiththeworkingclass.
"What a tragedyit would be," Gramsciwrotein one of his let-
tersfromprison,"if thegroupsof intellectuals who come to the
workingclass and in whomtheworkingclass places itstrust,do
not feelthemselvesthe same fleshand blood as the mosthum-
ble,themostbackward,and the least awareof our workersand
peasants. All our work would be useless and we would obtain
no result" (Karabel, 1976: 123). He might have been Mao
announcingthe Cultural Revolution.
These similaritiesbetweenMao and Gramscishould at least
cautionus againstthehastyattribution of Mao's Marxismto his
Chineseness.Cammetthas observedthatGramsci'sMarxism,too,
had its rootsin his Italian heritage.What thetwo sharein com-
mon is an awarenessof the difficulty of Marxistrevolutionin
a national environmentnot quite preparedfor it. It is in the
prioritytheygave to revolutionary practicein such an environ-
mentthat we mustseek the basis forthe common elementsin

theirthinking, as wellas thesourcesof theircontributionto Marx-

ist revolutionary theory.
This parallelrecognitionof the problemof cultureand con-
sciousnessby Mao and Gramsciadds a new dimensionto the
understanding of Marxistrevolutionary theory,and in particular
to the relationshipbetweenrevolutionary consciousnessand the
consciousnessof the culturethat revolutionaries findat hand.
The appreciation of thisproblemrevealsan evengreater magnitude
to theproblemof revolution thanhad been visibleearlier.It was
Leninwho firstrecognizedclearlythatrevolution was notsimply
a politicalact, but an educationalone as well. It is also clear,
however,thatLenin,isolatedfromthe masses he was to lead by
his longcareeras an emigre,did not confrontall thedimensions
of the problem.In fact,even thoughMao and Gramsciboth
claimed to be followingin Lenin's footsteps,theyhad a much
moredialecticalunderstanding of therelationshipbetweenrevolu-
tionaryconsciousnessand social consciousnessin general.
Lenin disdainedthe "false consciousness"evenof the work-
ingclass; correctideas had to be impressedupontheworking class
fromtheoutside.Mao and Gramsci,in constantinteraction with
workersand/orpeasants,modifiedand moderatedthecoercive
implications of Lenin'sapproach.Theyrecognizedthatclasscon-
sciousnessbore a problematicrelationshipto consciousnessin
general,because not all consciousnesswas class consciousness,
and consciousnesswas notfalsefornotbeingclassconsciousness.
If consciousnessis the articulationof social being,it contained
in its constitutionall the complexityof social existence,which
is notmerelyclass existence. Class interest
and consciousnesssuf-
fusedsocial existenceand consciousness,but did not consume
it; on thecontrary, classconsciousnessgaineditsconcretemeaning
in a particularsocialand culturalcontext,and mustbe articulated
withinthe languageof its culturalcontextin orderto be mean-
ingful.Gramscidistinguished a dominantor corporateclass from
a leadingclass (Gramsci,1971.55n). A class could be dominant
by imposingits class interests and ideologyupon society,but it
could notlead through thosemeans.A trulyhegemonicclass(that
is, a leading class) "articulatedotherintereststo its own," and

batheditsclass ideologyin thehues of itsculturalenvironment.

A class thatseeks to establishits hegemonymustlikewisecome
to termswithitscultureand society(whichwere,to Gramsci,but
two sides of the same coin), and not impose upon the latteran
abstractconsciousness.If it is to be hegemonic,in otherwords,
it maynotcaptureall consciousness foritsownclassconsciousness
to the exclusionof all the culturaland ethicalvalues it findsat
hand. As it seeksto restructuresocietyand consciousnessin favor
of itsown interestsand culture,it mustlearnto articulateitsown
class interestsand consciousnessin the languageof the culture
and societyit seeks to transform.
MARXISM AT THE CROSSROADS:

THE PROMISE AND THE PREDICAMENT
This reformulation of the problemsof class and class con-

sciousnesshas profoundimplicationsforboththetheoryand the
practiceof Marxism.Theoretically, it calls fora reevaluationof
theconceptof class.The conceptof classas an abstraction derived
fromabstracteconomic relationsis fundamentalto a Marxist
sociology;but as an abstraction,it tellsus littleabout everyday
social experience. On the contrary,the assumption that a
variegatedand complexsocial existencemay be comprehended
throughan abstract sociological concept easily leads to the
substitution of theconceptforsocialexperience. As consciousness
of class helpsdemystify muchthatis hiddenin social experience,
so is it necessaryfor social and politicalanalysisto refercon-
stantlyback to social experiencein orderto avoid mystification
of class consciousness.E. P Thompson'sobservationthat"class
is not a thingbut a relationship"is verymuchto thepointhere.
If class is a relationship,class and class consciousnessare not
abstractionsto be imposed upon societybut are attributesof
historicallychangingrelationshipsthat must be sought out in
social experienceas it is, and is in the processof becoming.
The implications forMarxistpoliticsareequallyprofound.Mao
and Gramsciwereboth loyal Leninistsin theirconceptionof a

revolutionary
vanguardparty;yet,theirunderstanding of therela-
tionshipbetweenrevolutionaries and theirsocial constituencies
containsan implicitchallengeto Leninistconceptionsof political
organization.
In identifyingclass consciousnesswiththe partyratherthan
theproletariat,Leninsetthepartyapartfromand abovethecon-
stituency thatthepartyclaimedto represent. Lenin'sconception
of theproletarianpartywas in effecttheorganizationalexpres-
sionof thetheoretical abstractionof classand classconsciousness
fromthe concrete,historicalexperienceof the proletariatas a
socialclass. Howevereffectivelythisorganization mayhaveserved
as an organof revolution undercertaincircumstances, it has also
broughtwithit a host of problems,chiefamong whichis the
potentialforpartydespotismovertheveryclassesthepartywas
intendedto serve-a potentialthathas unfortunately beenfulfilled
repeatedlyin past socialistrevolutions,starting
withLenin'sown
revolution.
In theirrecognitionof theneed to assimilatetheabstractpro-
positionsof Marxisttheoryto concretehistoricalcircumstances,
Mao and Gramscialso realizedthe need to integratethe party
closelywiththeworkingclasses the partysoughtto represent -
and even with classes whose interestsdivergedfromthose of
workers.In a veryreal sense,theyrestoredthe dialecticalrela-
tionshipbetweenrevolutionaries and social classesthatinformed
Marx's formulationof the problemof revolution.This realiza-
tion promised,and promises,a more democraticresolutionof
theproblemsof revolutionand socialismthanhas been possible
withLeninistconceptionsof politics.
How thischallengemightbe translatedintopoliticalpractice
remainsthebasic problemof Marxistpolitics.As I notedabove
withregardto Mao, it obviouslycreatesa predicament forMarxist
identity, one evendeeperthanthe predicamentLenin had fore-
seen: In comingto termswiththeclutteredrealitiesof class rela-
tionsand consciousnessin a complexsocial existence,Marxists
mustface the possibilityof beingabsorbed intothe verysocial
existencethattheyseekto transform. At theveryleast,assimila-
tionof theconcretecharacteristics
of thesocial environment into

Marxistpoliticaltheoryis likelyto blurthe guidelinesprovided

byabstractclass analysis,subjectpoliticalactivityto contingent
changes in social disposition,and renderconsiderablymore
tenuousthe socialistvision of the future.
That maybe the reasonwhy,in spiteof theirdifficulties with
theirrespective Communistparties,Mao and Gramscibothheld
on to theLeninistconceptionof theparty, sincethepartyremained
as the only guarantorof class identity(Mao, 1974: 277-279).
Mao's idea of themass line,whichwas intendedto achieveleader-
shipratherthanthedominationof themasses,maybe theclosest
approximation to a politicalsolutionof theproblemsof classcon-
sciousnessand identitythat werecreatedby the recognitionof
complexityto the relationshipbetweenclass consciousness,and
consciousnessas theexpressionof complexsocial existence.But
it is, at best,only an approximation.Though it enhancedcom-
municationbetweentheleadersand theled,themass linedid not
abolishtheseparationof partyfrompeople.And thelinebetween
leadershipand dominationis easily confusedas long as power
is concentratedin the hands of the partyorganization-as the
Chineseexperiencepast and presenthas shown.Socialistsmust
stillfacethe challengeof discoveringa politicalstrategythatis
at once democraticand loyalto thevisionof social and economic
equality.
NeitherMao nor Gramsciformulateda politicalstrategy that
resolvedthese problemsof socialism and revolution.But they
cogentlyrepresented revolutionas a continuousdialecticalpro-
cess withthe revolutionary at the pivot of the dialectic.Mao
graspedtheendlessnessof therevolutionary undertaking and,with
it, thepathos of revolution.For eitherrevolutionary, however,a
paraphraseof the well-knownstatementby Marx would seem
appropriate:
Peopledo notmaketheirhistory
justas theyplease;theydo not
makeitundercircumstances
chosenbythemselves, butundercir-
cumstances givenandtransmitted
encountered,
directly fromthe
past.Butpeopledo maketheirownhistory.

NOTES
1. A fewwordsabout thissymposiummayhelp bringintorelieftheissuesraisedin

thediscussionbelow.Participants in thesymposiumofferedradicallydifferent interpreta-
tionsof Mao's Marxismbased on different readingsof Marx. But theyshareda com-
monparadigmof Marxismthatdefinedtheboundariesforthediscussion.This paradigm
is informed bya base/superstructure modelof societyinwhichthesuperstructural elements
of society(ideology,politics,and so on) arise out of and upon an economicbasis (the
mode of production).The questionthenwas whetherthebase limitedtheindependence
of thesuperstructure (themostgenerousconstrualof theeconomicdetermination posi-
tion),or whetherelementsof the superstructure could play an independentrole in the
determination of social changeand structure. Dependingon whichversionwas accepted,
Mao's Marxismwas questionedor reaffirmed respectively.
I am notconcernedin thisessaywithjudgingMao's Marxism,whichis not, I think,
a historicalbutan ideologicalproblem.Rather,I takeitas a giventhatMao was a Marx-
ist,and go on to inquireintotheproblemof whyhis Marxismtook theformit did, and
whathisMarxismmeansforthehistorical development of Marxismas a socialand revolu-
tionarytheory.Marx's work,takenas a totality, is too complexand multidimensional
to be reducedto an essenceagainstwhichto judge laterMarxists.All Marxistsare true
Marxistsin the sense thattheycan tracetheirideas back to Marx, and no Marxistis
a trueMarxistin the sense thatan inevitablehistoricalgap separatesMarx fromlater
Marxists.Anyeffortto reduceMarx's workto an essencemustresultin thesubstitution
forthehistoricalMarxof an unhistoricalrepresentation of his ideas producedundercir-
cumstancesthatare by definitiondifferent fromhis own. Transhistorical orthodoxies,
evenwhentheyare cast in a theoreticalform,servethepurposeof politicallegitimation
but not of historicalexplanation.
Marxismis by now too muchof a universalphenomenonto be encompassedwithin
theboundariessetbymid-nineteenth-century Europeancapitalism,whichshapedMarx's
ownexperience and theoretical presuppositions.Whatmakesitpossibleto speakof Marx-
ism as a distinctintellectualand politicalcurrentis a languageof social analysisand
transformation thatMarxistssharein common.The discussionbelow does not seek to
defineMarx theoretically or ideologically.Rather,I seek to showthatMao sharedwith
otherMarxistsan understanding of theproblematic of socialanalysisand politicalactivity
thathad its originsin Marx. Beyondthat,the way he workedout the problemsposed
by Marx's formulations was determinedby the specificconcernsand circumstancesof
his particularenvironment, as has been the case withall MarxistsafterMarx.
Second, the analysisrejectsimplicitlythe base/superstructure model of society.My
concernis not withthe formalstatusof ideologyin Marx or Mao, but ratherwiththe
problemof revolutionary consciousnessthat melds togetherideologyas systematized
thoughtwithcultureas livedexperience.Consciousness,thoughnot material,is rooted
in thespecificcircumstances of materiallife;it does not havean independentexistence
outsideof materiallife(as ideologymay),noris itsimplya reflection of abstracteconomic
or social relations.It refersto the thinkingof humanagencyin historythat seeks to
transform theveryconditionsthatfashionit. Consciousness,therefore, is not a "thing"
buta dynamicconcept-a productof therelationships betweenmaterialconditionsand

ideas-that changesas those relationshipsare transformed throughmaterialchange or

human activity.The place of consciousnessin Marxism,and Mao's contributionto it,
should become clearerin the course of the discussion.
One finalnote.I am notinterested herein offering
a comprehensive discussionof Mao's
viewson consciousnessand humanagencyas forcesforrevolutionary change.Those inter-
estedin theformaldiscussionof thoseideas maybe referred to JohnBryanStarr'sexcel-
lentdiscussionof Mao's thoughtin his Continuingthe Revolution(1979). My concern
is to identifycertainapparentpeculiaritiesin Mao's thinkingas a Marxist,and to ex-
plain themhistorically as a productof theintegration in revolutionaryconsciousnessof
the Marxistproblematicand the circumstancessurroundingthe Chinese Revolution.
2. It has becomenearlyimpossiblein recentyearsto sayanythingpositiveabout the
Cultural Revolution.The harshfactsthathave come to lightconcerningthe suffering
itcaused to individualsand groupshavecreatedhostility to theCulturalRevolutioneven
amongthosewho wereonce itsfervent admirers.It appearsin hindsight notas an attempt
at revolution, butas an episodeof terror-as mustanyrevolution thathas failedto fulfill
itspromisedgoals. Underthecircumstances, eventheeffort to explaintheCulturalRevolu-
tionas a phase in China's pursuitof socialismappears as an effortto legitimizethepain
it inflictedon its victims.
Thisattitudehas createdan ideologicalrigidity
thatequals in itsobscurantismtheunqual-
ifiedreaffirmations of theCulturalRevolutionin theyearsbefore1976.Its consequences
are twofold.It does notallow forrecognition of anyvalidityto thecriticismstheCultural
Revolutionbroughtagainstpostrevolutionary socialismin China and elsewhere;forthe
same reason,itratifiestheclaimsto socialismof thesocialistsystemas itexists.Second,
to the extentthatit blames the resultsof the Cultural Revolutionupon the failingsof
individualleaders,it distractsanalysisaway fromits properfocus:thesystemicfeatures
of Chinesesocialism,withtheCommunistPartybureaucracyat itscenter,thatmediated
theintentions and theresultsof theCulturalRevolution.The needfortheoretical analysis
is obviatedbya moralisticcondemnationof individualsthatbypassesfundamental ques-
tionsof socialistpoliticsand ideology.If thesequestionsare to be resolved,we have to
takeseriouslytheunderlying premiseof theCulturalRevolutionthatthesocialistsystem
as it existstodayis not a vehicleforthe realizationof socialismbut an obstacle to it.
It maythenappearthattheCulturalRevolutionfailednotbecauseitspremiseswerefaulty,
but because theCulturalRevolutionaries betrayedtheirown premisesby usingfortheir
own ends a systemalien to theirprofessedsocialist ideals. Even thoughtheyattacked
thissystemin the abstract,theywereunable to conceiveany genuinealternativesto it.
The resultwas notrevolution butdisorientation,whichenhancedthepossibilities forarbi-
trarydespotismin a systemthat took dictatorshipforgranted.
Officialideologyin China todaydrawsa distinctionconcerningMao's thoughtbe-
tweenitsCulturalRevolutionary phase and itspre-CulturalRevolutionary phase,theone
to be repudiated,theotherto be upheld.This distinctionseemsto me to be untenable.
What changedafter1949was not Mao's thoughtbutthecircumstances of therevolution
in China. The ideologyof an insurgent partyobviouslybecamea threatto thepartyonce
thepartyhad achieveditsimmediategoal of capturingpoliticalpower.The basic themes
of the Cultural Revolution,we mightrecall,werefirstenunciatedduringthe pre-1949
phaseof therevolution, in particular
theYan'anPeriod.Thisessayarguesthatthesethemes
represented an attemptbytheCommunistPartyto establishthehegemonyof itsrevolu-
tionaryidealsamongitsconstituents. The CulturalRevolution revivedtheseidealsto sustain
socialisthegemonyovera partyand societythatseemedto Mao to be forsakingsocialist
ideals withthe politicalvictoryof the revolution.The deplorableconsequencesof the

CulturalRevolutionshouldnot be allowedto conceal thefactthat,fromtheperspective

of the socialistgoals of the revolution,the concernwiththequestion of revolutionary
hegemonywas a fundamentalone.
This problemof revolutionary hegemonywas not simplya productof idiosyncracies
in Mao's thinking, butis imbeddedin thestructure of China's socialistsystem.The most
cogentevidenceforthisis providedbytheresurfacing since 1976of theverysame prob-
lemsthatearlierpromptedtheCulturalRevolution.It is also noteworthy thatthe Party
has respondedto theseproblemswiththerevivalof revolutionary themesforideological
education-minus the revolution.The emphasison the need forideologicaleducation
to sustainsocialisthegemonywas an importantthemetakenup by theTwelfthCongress
of theCommunistPartyin September1982.(For a discussionof thisproblem,see Dirlik
(1982).
3. Meisneralso observesthatMao's populismmayhavemade him"a betterMarxist
than Leninist."
4. See Mao (1965) 1/13-21,and 137-139) forthe 1926essay on classes in China as
a wholeand the 1933essayrespectively. The 1926essaywas morecompletein theoriginal.
For thatand the 1926 essay on ruralChina, see Mao (1976: 1/153-179).
5. The followingstatementby Mouffe(1979: 198) could be describingChina in the
late 1930sand the1940s:"In effect,thewarof positionis theprocessof ideologicalstruggle
bymeansof whichthetwofundamental classestryto appropriate thenon-classideological
elementsin orderto integrate themwithintheideologicalsystemwhicharticulatesitself
around theirrespectivehegemonicprinciples."
REFERENCES
CAMMETT, JOHN (1967) Antonio Gramsciand the Originsof Italian Communism.

Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press.
COMPTON, BOYD [ed.1 (1966) Mao's China: PartyReformDocuments,1942-1944.
Seattle:Univ. of WashingtonPress.
DIRLIK, ARIF (1982) "Spiritualsolutionsto materialproblems:thesocialisteducation
and CourtesyMonth in China." South AtlanticQ. 81 (Autuum): 472-501.
GENOVESE, EUGENE (1968) In Red and Black: MarxianExplorationsin Southernand
Afro-American History.New York: Pantheon.
GRAMSCI, ANTONIO (1975) History,Philosophyand Culturein the YoungGramsci
(P. Cavalacantiand P. Piccone, eds.). St. Louis: Telos Press.
-- - (1971) Prison Notebooks(Q. Hoare and G. N. Smitheds.). New York: Interna-
tional Publishers.
KARABEL, J.(1976)"Revolutionary contradictions: AntonioGramsciand theproblem
of intellectuals."Politicsand Society6, 2.
KNIGHT, N. (1980) "Mao Zedong's On Contradictionand On Practice:preliberation
texts."China Q. 84 (December).
LEWIS, JOHN WILSON (1963) Leadershipin CommunistChina. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Univ. Press.
LI JUI (1977)The EarlyRevolutionary of ComradeMao Tse-tung.(A. R. Sariti,
Activities
trans.).New York: M. E. Sharpe.
MAO ZEDONG (1977) A Critiqueof SovietEconomics(M. Roberts,trans.).New York:
MonthlyReviewPress.

--- (1976)Mao Zedongji (CollectedWorksof Mao Zedong). 10Volumes.Hong Kong.

--- (1974) ChairmanMao Talksto thePeople (S. Schram,ed.). New York:Pantheon.
- -- (1965) Selected Works.4 Volumes.Beijing: ForeignLanguages Press.
MEISNER, M. (1971)"Leninismand Maoism; some populistperspectives on Marxism-
Leninismin China." China Q. (January/March).
MOUFFE, CHANTAL (1979) Gramsciand MarxistTheory.Boston: Routledge,Kegan
Paul.
- - - (1977) "Gramsci in France and Italy-a reviewof the literature."Economyand
Society6, (February).
STARR, JOHN BRYAN(1979)ContinuingtheRevolution: The PoliticalThoughtof Mao.
Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press.
TODD, N. (1974) "Ideological superstructure in Gramsciand Mao Tse-tung."J. of the
Historyof Ideas 35, (January/March).
TSOU TANG (1977) "Mao Tse-tungThought,the last struggleforsuccession,and the
post-Mao era." China Q. 77 (September).
WAKEMAN, FREDRICK (1973) Historyand Will: PhilosophicalPerspectivesof Mao
Tse-tung'sThought. Berkeley:Univ. of CaliforniaPress.
WANG RUOSHI (1979) "Lun tiaojian" (On condition).Zhexue yanjiu,6.
WILLIAMS, G. (1960) "The conceptof 'egemonia' in thethoughtof AntonioGramscl:
some noteson interpretation." J. of the Historyof Ideas 21, (October/December).
WILLIAMS, RAYMOND (1977) Marxismand Literature.Oxford:OxfordUniv. Press.
WILSON, DICK (1977) Mao Tse-tungin the Scales of History.New York:Cambridge
Univ. Press.
ArifDirlik is theauthor of Revolutionand History:Orginsof Marxist Histor-

iographyin China, 1919-1917 He is currentlyat workon a historyof socialist
thoughtin twentieth-century China.


The Predicament of Marxist Revolutionary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Predicament of Marxist Revolutionary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Predicament of Marxist Revolutionary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Predicament of Marxist Revolutionary Consciousness: Mao Zedong, Antonio

Gramsci, and the Reformulation of Marxist Revolutionary Theory

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

The Marxismof Mao Zedong has long been a subjectof con-

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This articlewas originallypresentedat theLuce Seminar,Univer-

ModernChina, Vol. 9 No. 2, April 1983 182-211

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

mobilize societyin the cause of socialismeven wherethe class

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

Cammett'ssuggestionhas beenrepeatedbya numberof authors.

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

a dinstinctionbetweenrevolutionin the Westand revolutionin

THIRD-WORLDISM, ORIENTALISM, AND

Contraryto some studentsof Mao, Mao assignedto conscious

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

of requisitematerialor social conditionsfor the solution of

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

sequently,as an aberrationof his Marxismthatmustbe traced

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

Yetthisis valid only froma limitedperspective on Marxism,

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

standingof consciousness.On the otherhand, if Mao's Marx-

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

approach is misleadingbecause it poses a falseissue. If volun-

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

41). This confrontation exposedproblemsthatwerenotapparent

MAO AND MARXISM:

It is necessaryto viewMao's preoccupationwithconsciousness

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

carryingout itshistoricaldestiny.The taskof therevolutionary

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

people of China, but amongMarxistintellectualsthemselves.In

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

This briefconsiderationof thecircumstantialpeculiaritiesof

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

theotherhand,to minimizethetendencyto convertMarxismin-

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

I thinkis Mao's mostimportantarticulationof his perceptions

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

"On Contradiction"was theultimateexpressionof Mao's view

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

Second,and perhapsmoreimportant, thecircumstances of the

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

of the people the partyled. As theoryintermediated the inter-

CLASS, CULTURE, AND REVOLUTION

Gramsci'sconceptionof hegemonyexpressedhis recognition

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

thought,the revolutionwould be doomed to failure:"A social

By 'hegemony'Gramsciseemsto meana socio-politicalsituation,

Revolutionto Gramsciwas a battle for hegemonybetween

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM

to Gramsci,is onlypossibleifthisclass renouncesa strictlycorpo-

On the question of culture,the second characteristic,Raymond

Any hegemonicprocessmustbe especiallyalertand responsive

Williams describes as incorporation that process wherebythe

Hegemonyis thennotonlythearticulateupperlevelof 'ideology',

Williams credits Gramsci with having abolished the base-

This content downloaded from 128.223.174.64 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:00:09 PM