![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Source: "Uphold the Marxist Theory of Classes, Criticize the 'Theory of Human Nature,'" Beijing Review 14, no. 31, 30 July 1971, 9-13.
Transcribed by an HC, April 10, 2005
July 30, 1971
by Wen Chun of Peking University
It is 29 years since Chairman Mao's Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art was published. In this brilliant Marxist-Leninist work, Chairman Mao, using the proletarian world outlook, comprehensively and penetratingly summed up the historical experience of the struggle between the two lines on China's literary and art front from the time when our Party was founded to the early 40s, thoroughly criticized the counter-revolutionary revisionist line in literature and art, which Wang Ming, Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and their political swindlers pushed, and its theoretical basis -- the theory of human nature --and carried forward the principle put forward by the great teacher Lenin that proletarian literature must keep to the Party spirit, set forth the orientation that literature and art should serve the workers, peasants and soldiers, and formulated the correct proletarian revolutionary line in literature and art. This brilliant work is an important development of the Marxist-Leninist world outlook and theory on literature and art, and a powerful ideological weapon for criticizing the landlord and capitalist classes' theory of human nature.
The Marxist theory of classes and the landlord and capitalist classes' theory of human nature are two diametrically opposed world outlooks, and the struggle between them, when reflected in questions of literature and art, is a struggle between two opposed views on literature and art. This struggle manifests itself notably on the basic question of whether or not to recognize the class character of literature and art.
In his famous essay "Party Organization and Party Literature" (1905), Lenin used the Marxist theory of classes as his weapon and sharply criticized the fallacy of "literary freedom" that "stands above classes," as advocated by bourgeois intellectuals, laid down the principle of "Party literature" in clearly defined terms, and advanced the great thining that revolutionary literature and art must serve "the millions and tens of millions of working people."
In the Talks , Chairman Mao upheld and developed this brilliant thinking of Lenin's and, using the Marxist views on classes and class struggle, penetratingly, thoroughly and comprehensively analysed literary and art questions. Chairman Mao clearly pointed out: "There is in fact no such thing as . . . art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics." Chairman Mao further pointed out: "All our literature and art are for the masses of the people, and in the first place for the workers, peasants and soldiers; they are created for the workers, peasants and soldiers and are for their use." Here Chairman Mao has profoundly elucidated the class character of literature and art, defined the orientation of how proletarian literature and art should serve, and proclaimed the utterly bankruptcy of so-called "supra-class" literature and art.
Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and company completely denied the class character of literature and art and, proceeding from the landlord and capitalist classes' theory of human nature, did everything they could to peddle the reactionary fallacy of "supra-class" literature and art. They raved that "we should have things common to mankind and we cannot have an over-rigid view on classes." They called on writers to write about "common human nature" and reflect "the common interests of all mankind," and so on and so forth.
In his Talks , Chairman Mao in a clear-cut way exposed and criticized the nature of this reactionary theory of human nature. He pointed out: "There is only human nature in the concrete, no human nature in the abstract. In class society there is only human nature of a class character; there is no human nature above classes. We uphold the human nature of the proletariat and of the masses of the people, while the landlord and bourgeois classes uphold the human nature of their own classes, only they do not say so but make it out to be the only human nature in existence." Since the emergence of class society, there has never been such a thing as "common human nature"; there is only the class nature of different classes. The literature and art of each class can only reflect the interests, aspirations and demands of that class, but can in no way reflect the so-called "common interests of all mankind." As Engels said: "What is a boon for the one is necessarily a bane for the other; each new emancipation of one class always means a new oppression of another class." The interests of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes lie in ruthless exploitation and oppression of the proletariat and other working people whose interests on the other hand, lie in eliminating such exploitation and oppression as well as all exploiting classes, abolishing private property and ultimately liberating all mankind. Since the two are incompatible and opposed to each other, how can there be "common [p. 10] interests"? In advocating that literature and art should reflect the "common interest of all mankind." Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and other political swindlers were actually striving to win a place for the landlord and capitalist classes, making revolutionary literature and art reflect their interests and turning them into tools serving those classes.
Chairman Mao has taught us: "This question of 'for whom?' is fundamental; it is a question of principle." The focus on struggle between the Marxist view on literature and art and that of the landlord and capitalist classes is the question of whom and which class should literature and art serve. When Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and the rest trumpeted "supra-class" literature and art, "common human nature" and "common interests," their aim was, in the final analysis, to oppose Chairman Mao's revolutionary line in literature and art in connection with this fundamental question of "for whom?" They certainly did not advocate that literature and art should not serve any class; they only opposed literature and art serving the proletariat and the workers, peasants and soldiers, and wanted them to serve the landlord and capitalist classes instead. In criticizing the landlord and capitalist classes' theory of human nature and upholding the Marxist theory of classes, we are upholding the clear-cut proletarian character of revolutionary literature and art, maintaining the principle of proletarian Party spirit and keeping to the basic orientation that literature and art must serve the workers, peasants and soldiers, so as to make literature and art serve proletarian politics.
Two diametrically opposed political lines and literary and art lines emanate from the Marxist theory of classes and from the landlord and capitalist classes' theory of human nature, and this inevitably leads to a sharp struggle between the two lines. Chairman Mao has pointed out: "In the world today all culture, all literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines." Different classes have different literature and art; the literary and art line of each class stems from its own political line. While the literature and art and the literary and art lines of different classes are determined by the political lines of their own classes, they in turn serve these political lines.
Marxism holds that classes and class struggle are the root cause of every phenomenon in class society. The Marxist theory of classes is the basis of a revolutionary political line and a revolutionary literary and art line. The proletariat has always regarded literature and art as tools in class struggle. "Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause. . . . Party work in literature and art occupies a definite and assigned position in Party revolutionary work as a whole and is subordinated to the revolutionary tasks set by the Party in a given revolutionary period."
Our Party's basic task during the period of democratic revolution was to overthrow the reactionary rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism and seize political power by armed force. Revolutionary literature and art must be subordinated to this political task, in order to create revolutionary public opinion for the proletariat to seize political power. In the period of socialist revolution, our Party's basic task is to abolish the capitalist system, eliminate the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes, establish and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, and gradually advance to communism. Revolutionary literature and art must propagate the concept of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, educate the masses in the communist spirit, criticize the bourgeoisie and revisionism in a deep-going way, and fight for the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
With the theory of human nature which reconciles class contradictions and negates class struggle as their theoretical basis, Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and company came up with a counter-revolutionary revisionist line in literature and art. From the "national defence literature" of the 30s, to the "literature and art of the whole people" in the 60s, this line was closely co-ordinated with the counter-revolutionary political needs of various periods and served their own counter-revolutionary political line. On the eve of the outbreak of the War of Resistance Against Japan, in order to save the nation from its crisis and defeat the Japanese imperialist aggression, Chairman Mao put forward the tactical line of establishing an anti-Japanese national untied front and pointed out that the Communist Party and the Red Army must maintain leadership and persist in the principle of independence and initiative in the united front. This was the basic guarantee for victory in the national revolutionary war. Contrary to this, Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and other political swindlers, on the pretext of establishing a "coalition front," gave up class struggle and the leadership of the proletariat, clamouring that "the whole country, both the government and the people as well as persons of all affiliations (which at present means persons of different parties and classes)" should "be friendly and help one another" and that "all who are Chinese" should be included in the "coalition front." The theory of human nature was the theoretical basis of such capitulationist harping which made no distinction whatsoever. "National defense literature," which was based precisely on this theory was reactionary literature serving the Kuomintang's politics of opposing the Communists and betraying the country and serving the Right capitulationist line of Wang Ming and Liu Shao-chi. In the 40s, Chou Yang and his ilk held up the sinister banner of "literature that exposes" in Yenan, the centre of the Chinese revolution at that time. Taking the stand of the landlord and capitalist classes, on the one hand they did their utmost to advocate "deep and broad humanitarianism" and "humanitarian love," on the other hand they viciously attacked Yenan and shouted themselves hoarse that "guns be pointed at the domestic enemies" in a futile attempt to co-ordinate with the attacks of the Japanese invaders and Chiang Kai-shek bandits against [p. 11] the liberated areas, thereby subverting red political power in the revolutionary base areas from within. In the Talks , Chairman Mao incisively exposed and criticized the theory of human nature and the theory of "exposing darkness" they advocated. But Chou Yang and his gang refused to turn over a new leaf. So in the 50s and 60s, again proceeding from the theory of human nature, they came forth with the theory of literature and art for the whole people" which was nothing but an out-and-out revisionist fallacy suited to the needs of the counter-revolutionary revisionist political line and based on such absurdities of Khrushchov and Liu Shao-chi as "state of the entire people" and "Party of the whole people" and the theory of "the dying out of class struggle."
After the proletarian revolution had triumphed and the proletariat had seized political power, there was still the question: Whither China? To persist in class struggle, continue the revolution and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat or give up class struggle, liquidate the revolution and restore capitalism? This is the essence of the struggle between the two lines during the period of socialist revolution. As far back as 1940, Chairman Mao pointed out: "The world today is in a new era of wars and revolutions, an era in which capitalism is unquestionably prospering. In these circumstances, would it not be sheer fantasy to desire the establishment in China of a capitalist society under bourgeois dictatorship after the defeat of imperialism and feudalism?" What Wang Ming, Liu Shao-chi and that bunch dreamt of was nothing but the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in China. After the liberation of the whole country, they first trotted out the counter-revolutionary line of "consolidating the new-democratic system" later in the period of socialist transformation and after its completion, they continued to carry out a series of activities with the sinister aim of restoring capitalism. They spread such nonsense as "the landlord class has long been eliminated, the capitalist class has been basically eliminated, and counter-revolutionaries have also been basically eliminated" and "we do not want the dictatorship of a single class, we want to represent the whole people." Their purpose was to create counter-revolutionary public opinion for the restoration of capitalism. The theory of "literature and art of the whole people" was merely a reflection of the fallacy that "we do not want the dictatorship of a single class."
From "national defence literature" to "literature and art of the whole people" -- two different historical periods were involved, namely, the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. Running through "national defence literature" and "literature and art of the whole people" was the sinister line of the landlord and capitalist classes' theory of human nature, which reconciled class contradictions, negated class struggle and advocated class collaboration. Before victory was won in the democratic revolution, they proceeded from the reactionary theory of human nature and pushed a Right opportunist line, opposed the proletariat maintaining leadership, and plotted capitulation. After victory was gained in the democratic revolution, they again proceeded from the reactionary theory of human nature and pushed the counter-revolutionary revisionist line, opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat, and carried out activities to restore capitalism. Special attention should be paid to the fact that the theory of human nature is even more harmful in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. From it not only directly arise a Right opportunist line and an ultra-"Left" line or one that is "Left" in form but Right in essence. From it also directly arises the revisionist theory for restoring capitalism and serving the exploiting classes, such as the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists. A striking example of this is the theory of "literature and art of the whole people."
"The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie." In the final analysis, upholding the Marxist theory of classes or advocating the landlord and bourgeois theory of human nature involves the question of transforming the world according to the world outlook of a particular class.
In his Talks , Chairman Mao issued the militant declaration to the whole Party: "Mould the Party and the world . . . in the image of the proletarian vanguard."
The literary and art front is an important front for the proletariat in waging its great struggle to transform the world. The world outlook of the literary and art workers determines which literary and art line they will follow and the class character and orientation of service of the literature and art they create. The masses of literary and art workers must remould their world outlook with proletarian thinking. They must "change and remould their thinking and their feelings." They must "gradually shed their bourgeois world outlook and acquire the proletarian, communist world outlook." They must really move their feet over "to the side of the workers, peasants and soldiers, to the side of the proletariat." It is only in this way that revolutionary literature and art can truly display their militant role while the proletariat is transforming the world.
To meet their counter-revolutionary political needs, Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and their kind, proceeding from the landlord and bourgeois theory of human nature, created many excuses to oppose literary and art workers remoulding their world outlook with proletarian thinking, thereby maintaining the reactionary rule of bourgeois thinking over literature and art.
The first excuse: "Literary and art creations have nothing to do with world outlook." Chou Yang and his gang said: Every writer or artist has "his own artistic conscience." He also can "truly reflect life" "without a Marxist world outlook." "We shouldn't say that without remoulding one's world outlook one cannot serve socialism." In a word, what a writer or artist creates has nothing to do with world outlook, so there is no need to remould it. What nonsense!
In the Talks , Chairman Mao incisively pointed out: "Works of literature and art, as ideological forms, are products of the reflection in the human brain of the life of a given society. Revolutionary literature and art are the products of the reflection of the life of the people in the brains of revolutionary writers and artists." Chairman Mao's penetrating statement develops the Marxist theory of reflection and profoundly elaborates that literature and art reflect life and their relation to the world outlook of writers and artists. In reflecting life of a society, literature and art do not just simply reproduce life. Works of literature and art are produced only after writers or artists have observed, analysed life in society, selected from it and refine [d] it. Every writer or artist in class society invariably uses the world outlook of his own class to observe life, and chooses a theme and creates according to the political needs of his own class. Because of different world outlooks, writers and artists of different classes have a different political understanding of life, adopt a different attitude, select things from different angles and vary in methods of creation . Either one uses a proletarian world outlook to guide one's creation or one uses a bourgeois world outlook to guide his creation. There is no such thing as an "artistic conscience" which is not controlled by world outlook. So-called "artistic conscience" is sheer deception.
The second excuse: "Remoulding world outlook restrains development of individuality." Liu Shao-chi and his like said: We must "pay attention to allowing a writer to express his individuality" and let "individuality" have "conditions for unlimited development." Chou Yang and the rest also said: "A writer's or artist's creativeness is his individuality which plays a big role in artistry. If we do not protect and encourage it, but attack and restrain it instead, they will be very damaging to the artistic creation." This was their other shield to oppose transforming the literary and art ranks according to the world outlook of the proletariat.
Marxism has told us that human individuality does not exist in isolation. "The human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations." Relations between human beings in class society are class relations. And everyone's individuality embodies the class character of the class he belongs to. It is true that the work of writers and artists is different from other kinds of work and each of them has his or her own characteristics. However, for revolutionary writers and artists, all of them should view the world and society from a proletarian world outlook and use it to guide what they create. Without doing this, none is a proletarian writer or artist. Chou Yang and company tried to replace proletarian thinking with their own reactionary thinking and to oppose the remoulding of writers' and artists' world outlook by developing bourgeois individualism . To those trying to remould the literary and art ranks with the proletarian world outlook, he would say they were "attacking" and "restraining" the development of "individuality" and "damaging" artistic creation . Just as the Manifesto of the Communist Party has pointed out, "The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at." We certainly use the proletarian world outlook to attack, restrain and eliminate the development of bourgeois "individuality." Not only do we "damage" it, but we will thoroughly "destroy creative moods that are feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, liberalistic, individualist, nihilist, art-for-art's sake, aristocratic, decadent or pessimistic, and every other creative mood that is alien to the masses of the people and to the proletariat ." Genuine revolutionary writers and artists must, guided by the proletarian world outlook, give full play to their revolutionary creativeness and specialities and exert their efforts to create revolutionary literature and art which serve proletarian politics and serve workers, peasants and soldiers.
The third excuse: "Humanitarian thinking and the communist world outlook are identical." Chou Yang and his cronies said: "Genuine humanitarian thinking" "runs in a single line with communist thinking." "We must learn humanism from the bourgeoisie." To cap bourgeois humanism with a communist laurel is the vile means revisionists of all sorts often resort to. As everyone knows, the Soviet modern revisionists have raised a big noise that "humanism" is the "moral principle of communism," "communism is the highest embodiment of humanism." Chou Yang and others' fallacies are the same as what the Soviet revisionists preach. According to this reactionary theory of "identity," so long as a writer or an artist learns "humanism" from the bourgeoisie, he has fostered a "communist world outlook" and has no need to learn anything else. Writers and artists like these are nothing but bourgeois jackals dressed up as communists!
Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is the sharp weapon for us in remoulding our world outlook. Plunging into the revolutionary struggle of the workers, peasants and soldiers is the best way to do this. "The study of Marxism-Leninism and of society" and "for a long period of time unreservedly and whole-heartedly going among the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers" is the glorious road of remoulding our world outlook pointed out to us by Chairman Mao in his Talks . Starting from the bourgeoisie's theory of human nature, Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and their kind opposed literary and art workers studying the universal truth of Marxism and their revolutionary practice of going deep among the workers, peasants and soldiers. They openly pitted themselves against Mao Tsetung Thought's fundamental view of the concrete and historical unity of theory and practice.
Liu Shao-chi had this notorious saying: "A writer wants the world to obey him in every way. He wants to transform the world in his image." This sentence most [p. 13] clearly reveals their counter-revolutionary scheme: They first used the bourgeois world outlook to remould the literary and art ranks, that is, grasping the pen and through literature and art creating counter-revolutionary public opinion. Then they used the bourgeois world outlook to remould the whole world in order to restore capitalism in an all-round way. However, the historical trend always runs contrary to the wishes of the reactionaries. They miscalculated. The unprecedented Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has smashed Liu Shao-chi's counter-revolutionary revisionist line and the sinister literary and art line of Chou Yang and others. Under the leadership of Chairman Man and the Party Central Committee with Chairman Mao as its leader and Vice-Chairman Lin as its deputy leader, a great many revolutionary literary and art fighters have been enthusiastically going among the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers to remould their world outlook and enhance their consciousness of implementing Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line. They are marching courageously along Chairman Mao's revolutionary line in literature and art!