What do you think?
Rate this book
Rethinking Mao: Explorations in Mao Zedong's Thought
Rethinking Mao offers an innovative perspective on the thought of Mao Zedong, the major architect of the Chinese Revolution and leader of the People's Republic of China until his death in 1976. Utilizing a number of recently discovered documents written by Mao, Nick Knight 'rethinks' Mao by subjecting a number of controversial themes to fresh scrutiny. This book provides a sophisticated analysis of Mao's views on the role of the peasants and working class in the Chinese revolution, his theoretical attempt to make Marxism appropriate to Chinese conditions, and his understanding of the Chinese road to socialism. Knight includes a discussion of the theoretical difficulties in interpreting Mao's thought. Rethinking Mao represents a challenge to many of the conventional accounts of Mao and his thoughts. This book will appeal to scholars and students of Chinese history and politics, as well as the history of Marxism in China.
- GenresChinaPhilosophy
295 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
2 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
About the author
Nick Knight
31 books8 followersNick Knight is among the world’s most influential and visionary photographers, and founder and director of award-winning fashion website SHOWstudio.com. As a fashion photographer, he has consistently challenged conventional notions of beauty and is fêted for his groundbreaking creative collaborations with leading designers including Yohji Yamamoto, John Galliano, Alexander McQueen. Advertising campaigns for the most prestigious clients such as Christian Dior, Lancôme, Swarovski, Levi Strauss, Calvin Klein or Yves Saint Laurent as well as award-winning editorial for W, British Vogue, Paris Vogue, Dazed & Confused, Another, Another Man and i-D magazines have consistently kept Knight at the vanguard of progressive image-making for the past three decades. His first book of photographs, Skinheads, was published in 1982. He has since produced Nicknight, a twelve year retrospective, and Flora, a series of flower pictures, both published by Schirmer Mosel. His work has been exhibited at such international art institutions as the Victoria & Albert Museum, Saatchi Gallery, the Photographers' Gallery and Hayward Gallery. In 1993, he also produced a permanent installation, Plant Power, for the Natural History Museum in London.
A long-standing commitment to experimenting with the latest technologies led to Knight launching his fashion website SHOWstudio in 2000, with an aim, in Knight's own words, of 'showing the entire creative process from conception to completion.' SHOWstudio has pioneered fashion film and is now recognised as the leading force behind this new medium, offering a unique platform to nurture and encourage fashion to engage with moving image in the digital age. Since its inception, SHOWstudio has worked with the world’s most sought-after filmmakers, writers and influential cultural figures to create visionary online content, exploring every facet of fashion through moving image, illustration, photography and the written word.
Knight lives with his wife and three children in London.
A long-standing commitment to experimenting with the latest technologies led to Knight launching his fashion website SHOWstudio in 2000, with an aim, in Knight's own words, of 'showing the entire creative process from conception to completion.' SHOWstudio has pioneered fashion film and is now recognised as the leading force behind this new medium, offering a unique platform to nurture and encourage fashion to engage with moving image in the digital age. Since its inception, SHOWstudio has worked with the world’s most sought-after filmmakers, writers and influential cultural figures to create visionary online content, exploring every facet of fashion through moving image, illustration, photography and the written word.
Knight lives with his wife and three children in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 8, 2024
Per usual, Knight’s work is somewhat flawed but ultimately such a useful illumination of Mao’s philosophical thought and Marxist-Leninism philosophy in general that these flaws can be totally overlooked. As Rethinking Mao is largely composed of separated, disconnected essays, I will review them one at a time.
Chapter 1 is Knight’s introduction, and is of little note aside from what I found to be an interesting description of Mao’s works as a “terrain,” a corpus which changed and developed over the years rather than the static, vulgar contradictionist seen by not only many non-Marxist historians but Marxists as well (6-7).
Chapter 2, “On Questions of Method I: Rethinking Mao and the Mao Texts,” opens with a marvelous critique of textual empiricism and the study of Mao by non-Marxist scholars like Stuart Schram. Knight rejects the epistemological readings of his colleagues in favour of a Foucault-influenced discursive analysis (19-20). Knight draws upon Althusser’s readings of Capital to oppose this empiricism, although also critiquing Althusser’s rationalism in favor of an approach which recognizes that “the reader imposes his framework for understanding on the text…” (21-23). Although I agree with this, I cannot help but wonder—despite our own issues in reconstructing what Mao or any other author might have meant in their works, it does not change the fact that Mao himself knew what he meant. I worry taking this approach farther would land us in a postmodern obscurantism. Knight also reflects upon scholarly interpretations of Mao’s influences as well as the nature of periodization of Mao’s life and works (24-40).
Chapter 3, “On Questions of Method II: The Marxism of Mao Zedong,” Knight continues his attack upon Western scholarship’s understanding of “orthodox Marxism” that he began in Li Da and Marxist Philosophy in China and Marxist Philosophy in China (48). He does well in pulling back from what I find as his more extreme positions in Li Da and recognizes that “Stalinism” (or the Marxism-Leninism of the Stalin era, if one prefers) was undeniably “orthodox Marxism” from the 1920s to the 1950s (50). He reviews the debates regarding the authenticity of Mao’s Marxism and concludes that we must take Mao at his word as a Marxist (54-62). Knight concludes this chapter with an interesting concession which less humble historians could not: his analyses of Mao are “explorations” rather than absolute truth (62).
Chapter 4, “Working Class and Peasantry in Mao Zedong’s Thought, 1923-1945,” reexamines the position of the peasantry in Mao’s thought. Using Zapata and the Plan de Ayala as the prime example of agrarian revolutionary thought, Knight concludes that peasant revolutions largely reject class struggle and idolize traditional society, aspects that were totally missing in Mao’s thought (67-68). Knight periodizes Mao’s relationship with the peasantry into four phases. The first, “Reunion with the Peasants, 1923-1927,” Knight situates the famous “Report on the Peasant Movement in Hunan” as a document meant to electrify the reluctant Chinese communist leadership to take advantage of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, rather than a document situating them as the new leading revolutionary class in China (77-79). At this stage, Mao recognized the peasants as potential sources of revolution, but also reflecting deeply upon their limitations (73). The second phase, “Revolution in the Countryside, 1927-1930,” demonstrates that Mao always insisted upon the peasantry as a revolutionary class only strictly under the leadership of the proletariat (79-80). In this phase, however, the CPC was still reliant upon them as key supporters of guerilla warfare (81). The third phase, “Working Class Power and State Formation, 1931-1934,” occurred during Mao’s leadership of the Jiangxi Soviet. The institutions of the Jiangxi Soviet ensured that the relatively small proletariat was overrepresented in legislature and mass organizations, enforcing a leading role over the peasantry (87-95). The fourth phase, “Resistance and Reform, 1937-1945,” was Mao’s most conciliatory phase, a policy born out of strategic necessity as part of the Second United Front and the Anti-Japanese War (98-100). During this phase, Mao elaborated upon strata within the peasantry and stressed the connection of bankrupted peasants with the proletariat, etc. (100-101).
Chapter 5, “Politics and Vision: Historical Time and the Future in Mao Zedong’s Thought, 1937-1945,” is one of the weaker portion of this work. Knight reviews the understanding of time in Chinese philosophy, stressing Kang Youwei and the “Great Harmony” as a potential impact upon Mao’s thinking (120-134). Knight then moves to the Marxist theory of history with its technological progression through modes of production, etc. (124-129). Then Knight argues that Mao fused the two: Kang’s “three epochs” of (primitive) peace - (class) war - (communist) peace is cast as on par with the five stages of historical progression of Marxism in Mao’s thought (136-149). To me, the answer is much simpler. Mao used Kang’s “three epochs” as a rhetorical truism to a war-weary audience which needed morale for the Anti-Japanese War and Civil War. “There was peace and harmony once, now we are in a state of war, but under socialism there will be peace and harmony again.” I think he is reading far too much into things here.
Chapter 6, “Perspectives on Marxism and Social Change in Mao Zedong’s Thought: A Study of Three Documents, 1937-1940,” is one of the most interesting parts of the book. Knight conducts a deep read of “On Contradiction,” “On One-Party Dictatorship,” and “On New Democracy,” and tries to parse out Mao’s understanding of the base and superstructure from them. Knights finds that, contrary to conventional wisdom in Western scholarship, Mao never broke from the conventional Marxist understanding of base and superstructure. In “On Contradiction,” Knight finds that “Mao was seeking a theoretical formula for social change in which the superstructure could have a role other than that of passive reflection of the base” (162). In other places, Knight admits that this is easily found in the works of Engels and Lenin, but does not explain why Mao did not just use them. Does Knight mean that Mao was looking for a specific method to do so? It is not clear. Knight finds in “On One-Party Dictatorship” a rather mechanistic materialist explanation of the reasons for one-party dictatorship in the fascist countries and the USSR, a charge I don’t find justifiable (164-166). In “On New Democracy,” Knight finds that Mao split the superstructure into two: politics as the direct reflection of economics as found in Lenin, and culture as a combined reflection of the base and politics (167-169). I find Knight somewhat unclear here, as in other spots he seems to say that politics for Mao became a part of the base itself, an untenable position and one I don’t think is true for Mao. Knight finds that politics could affect the base through class struggle and the institutions of the state and government (169-180). Culture, on the other hand, became an arena for affecting the base only through class politics, “serving its own [class] base while assisting in the decline of any [class] base in contention with its own” (184). Knight also discusses the concept of class strata in Mao’s thought, particularly with the peasantry, and how it justified “political intervention” in the base and superstructure (186).
Chapter 7, “Mao Zedong and the ‘Sinification of Marxism’” seems to be most aimless of the bunch. Knight sets out to prove that Mao did not in any way abandon Marxism in his quest to adapt it to Chinese conditions; rather, Mao saw Marxism as a set of universal laws which had particular manifestations in specific historical contexts (199-213). This is, of course, true. The only people who could think differently were the detached scholars whom Knight was arguing against.
Chapter 8, “Mao Zedong on the Chinese Road to Socialism, 1949-1969,” seeks to explain the various twists and turns of Mao-era political and economic policy while Mao was in the driver’s seat. Unable to emulate the USSR owing to a level of industrial development far below even its 1917-level, Knight concludes that Mao was in “uncharted waters” (218-219). Knight discusses the success of cooperativization from 1955 to 1956 in China as well as the hesitancies of de-Stalinization as influences upon Mao’s thinking in this period (219-221). Knight finds the events of 1956 in Hungary as confirmation for Mao of the possibilities of not recognizing contradiction under socialism and its transformation into antagonism, which Mao saw as a key mistake of Stalin. The Hundred Flowers Movement, rather than a Machivellian plot by Mao to expose counterrevolutionaries, was instead an attempt to force non-antagonistic contradictions out into the open before they could become antagonistic; the hostile response from the intellectual strata confirmed to Mao that antagonistic contradiction might lurk beneath the surface of socialist China (221-225). Knight discusses the philosophy of Mao regarding the Great Leap Forward, arguing that Mao thought that economic development had become “logjammed” by the backwards superstructure of China which had not kept up with the socialist transformation. The GLF could undo this jam, facilitate rapid economic growth, and then allow for a period of consolidation. This failure and the Sino-Soviet split led Mao to a pessimistic view of a “new bourgeoisie” under socialism and the necessity of the Cultural Revolution to turn the superstructure and the Party itself into an “arena for struggle” (227-240). I think regarding the GLF, Knight is too harsh upon Mao, as if he was responsible for the whole failure. The 1959-1960 famine, the loss of Soviet aid and technicians in 1960, repaying the Soviet debt throughout the whole period, and mistakes and corruption in regional cadre are all ignored.
The final chapter, “From Harmony to Struggle, from Perpetual Peace to Cultural Revolution: Changing Futures in Mao Zedong’s Thought,” argues that the Cultural Revolution was a result of Mao’s growing pessism regarding the advance of socialism and the universality of revolution and contradiction even into the communist stage of development. Again, rather than the Machiavellian Mao we usually see in Western scholarship, here Mao “...is a leader somewhat bemused by the unanticipated consequences of his own actions” in the upheavals of the Red Guards and Rebels (249).
Overall, as usual, another banger from Knight and an excellent contribution to the study of Mao Zedong, Marxism in China, and Marxist philosophy in general.
Chapter 1 is Knight’s introduction, and is of little note aside from what I found to be an interesting description of Mao’s works as a “terrain,” a corpus which changed and developed over the years rather than the static, vulgar contradictionist seen by not only many non-Marxist historians but Marxists as well (6-7).
Chapter 2, “On Questions of Method I: Rethinking Mao and the Mao Texts,” opens with a marvelous critique of textual empiricism and the study of Mao by non-Marxist scholars like Stuart Schram. Knight rejects the epistemological readings of his colleagues in favour of a Foucault-influenced discursive analysis (19-20). Knight draws upon Althusser’s readings of Capital to oppose this empiricism, although also critiquing Althusser’s rationalism in favor of an approach which recognizes that “the reader imposes his framework for understanding on the text…” (21-23). Although I agree with this, I cannot help but wonder—despite our own issues in reconstructing what Mao or any other author might have meant in their works, it does not change the fact that Mao himself knew what he meant. I worry taking this approach farther would land us in a postmodern obscurantism. Knight also reflects upon scholarly interpretations of Mao’s influences as well as the nature of periodization of Mao’s life and works (24-40).
Chapter 3, “On Questions of Method II: The Marxism of Mao Zedong,” Knight continues his attack upon Western scholarship’s understanding of “orthodox Marxism” that he began in Li Da and Marxist Philosophy in China and Marxist Philosophy in China (48). He does well in pulling back from what I find as his more extreme positions in Li Da and recognizes that “Stalinism” (or the Marxism-Leninism of the Stalin era, if one prefers) was undeniably “orthodox Marxism” from the 1920s to the 1950s (50). He reviews the debates regarding the authenticity of Mao’s Marxism and concludes that we must take Mao at his word as a Marxist (54-62). Knight concludes this chapter with an interesting concession which less humble historians could not: his analyses of Mao are “explorations” rather than absolute truth (62).
Chapter 4, “Working Class and Peasantry in Mao Zedong’s Thought, 1923-1945,” reexamines the position of the peasantry in Mao’s thought. Using Zapata and the Plan de Ayala as the prime example of agrarian revolutionary thought, Knight concludes that peasant revolutions largely reject class struggle and idolize traditional society, aspects that were totally missing in Mao’s thought (67-68). Knight periodizes Mao’s relationship with the peasantry into four phases. The first, “Reunion with the Peasants, 1923-1927,” Knight situates the famous “Report on the Peasant Movement in Hunan” as a document meant to electrify the reluctant Chinese communist leadership to take advantage of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, rather than a document situating them as the new leading revolutionary class in China (77-79). At this stage, Mao recognized the peasants as potential sources of revolution, but also reflecting deeply upon their limitations (73). The second phase, “Revolution in the Countryside, 1927-1930,” demonstrates that Mao always insisted upon the peasantry as a revolutionary class only strictly under the leadership of the proletariat (79-80). In this phase, however, the CPC was still reliant upon them as key supporters of guerilla warfare (81). The third phase, “Working Class Power and State Formation, 1931-1934,” occurred during Mao’s leadership of the Jiangxi Soviet. The institutions of the Jiangxi Soviet ensured that the relatively small proletariat was overrepresented in legislature and mass organizations, enforcing a leading role over the peasantry (87-95). The fourth phase, “Resistance and Reform, 1937-1945,” was Mao’s most conciliatory phase, a policy born out of strategic necessity as part of the Second United Front and the Anti-Japanese War (98-100). During this phase, Mao elaborated upon strata within the peasantry and stressed the connection of bankrupted peasants with the proletariat, etc. (100-101).
Chapter 5, “Politics and Vision: Historical Time and the Future in Mao Zedong’s Thought, 1937-1945,” is one of the weaker portion of this work. Knight reviews the understanding of time in Chinese philosophy, stressing Kang Youwei and the “Great Harmony” as a potential impact upon Mao’s thinking (120-134). Knight then moves to the Marxist theory of history with its technological progression through modes of production, etc. (124-129). Then Knight argues that Mao fused the two: Kang’s “three epochs” of (primitive) peace - (class) war - (communist) peace is cast as on par with the five stages of historical progression of Marxism in Mao’s thought (136-149). To me, the answer is much simpler. Mao used Kang’s “three epochs” as a rhetorical truism to a war-weary audience which needed morale for the Anti-Japanese War and Civil War. “There was peace and harmony once, now we are in a state of war, but under socialism there will be peace and harmony again.” I think he is reading far too much into things here.
Chapter 6, “Perspectives on Marxism and Social Change in Mao Zedong’s Thought: A Study of Three Documents, 1937-1940,” is one of the most interesting parts of the book. Knight conducts a deep read of “On Contradiction,” “On One-Party Dictatorship,” and “On New Democracy,” and tries to parse out Mao’s understanding of the base and superstructure from them. Knights finds that, contrary to conventional wisdom in Western scholarship, Mao never broke from the conventional Marxist understanding of base and superstructure. In “On Contradiction,” Knight finds that “Mao was seeking a theoretical formula for social change in which the superstructure could have a role other than that of passive reflection of the base” (162). In other places, Knight admits that this is easily found in the works of Engels and Lenin, but does not explain why Mao did not just use them. Does Knight mean that Mao was looking for a specific method to do so? It is not clear. Knight finds in “On One-Party Dictatorship” a rather mechanistic materialist explanation of the reasons for one-party dictatorship in the fascist countries and the USSR, a charge I don’t find justifiable (164-166). In “On New Democracy,” Knight finds that Mao split the superstructure into two: politics as the direct reflection of economics as found in Lenin, and culture as a combined reflection of the base and politics (167-169). I find Knight somewhat unclear here, as in other spots he seems to say that politics for Mao became a part of the base itself, an untenable position and one I don’t think is true for Mao. Knight finds that politics could affect the base through class struggle and the institutions of the state and government (169-180). Culture, on the other hand, became an arena for affecting the base only through class politics, “serving its own [class] base while assisting in the decline of any [class] base in contention with its own” (184). Knight also discusses the concept of class strata in Mao’s thought, particularly with the peasantry, and how it justified “political intervention” in the base and superstructure (186).
Chapter 7, “Mao Zedong and the ‘Sinification of Marxism’” seems to be most aimless of the bunch. Knight sets out to prove that Mao did not in any way abandon Marxism in his quest to adapt it to Chinese conditions; rather, Mao saw Marxism as a set of universal laws which had particular manifestations in specific historical contexts (199-213). This is, of course, true. The only people who could think differently were the detached scholars whom Knight was arguing against.
Chapter 8, “Mao Zedong on the Chinese Road to Socialism, 1949-1969,” seeks to explain the various twists and turns of Mao-era political and economic policy while Mao was in the driver’s seat. Unable to emulate the USSR owing to a level of industrial development far below even its 1917-level, Knight concludes that Mao was in “uncharted waters” (218-219). Knight discusses the success of cooperativization from 1955 to 1956 in China as well as the hesitancies of de-Stalinization as influences upon Mao’s thinking in this period (219-221). Knight finds the events of 1956 in Hungary as confirmation for Mao of the possibilities of not recognizing contradiction under socialism and its transformation into antagonism, which Mao saw as a key mistake of Stalin. The Hundred Flowers Movement, rather than a Machivellian plot by Mao to expose counterrevolutionaries, was instead an attempt to force non-antagonistic contradictions out into the open before they could become antagonistic; the hostile response from the intellectual strata confirmed to Mao that antagonistic contradiction might lurk beneath the surface of socialist China (221-225). Knight discusses the philosophy of Mao regarding the Great Leap Forward, arguing that Mao thought that economic development had become “logjammed” by the backwards superstructure of China which had not kept up with the socialist transformation. The GLF could undo this jam, facilitate rapid economic growth, and then allow for a period of consolidation. This failure and the Sino-Soviet split led Mao to a pessimistic view of a “new bourgeoisie” under socialism and the necessity of the Cultural Revolution to turn the superstructure and the Party itself into an “arena for struggle” (227-240). I think regarding the GLF, Knight is too harsh upon Mao, as if he was responsible for the whole failure. The 1959-1960 famine, the loss of Soviet aid and technicians in 1960, repaying the Soviet debt throughout the whole period, and mistakes and corruption in regional cadre are all ignored.
The final chapter, “From Harmony to Struggle, from Perpetual Peace to Cultural Revolution: Changing Futures in Mao Zedong’s Thought,” argues that the Cultural Revolution was a result of Mao’s growing pessism regarding the advance of socialism and the universality of revolution and contradiction even into the communist stage of development. Again, rather than the Machiavellian Mao we usually see in Western scholarship, here Mao “...is a leader somewhat bemused by the unanticipated consequences of his own actions” in the upheavals of the Red Guards and Rebels (249).
Overall, as usual, another banger from Knight and an excellent contribution to the study of Mao Zedong, Marxism in China, and Marxist philosophy in general.
February 8, 2023
Very impressive intellectual history and political theory reflections from one of the best minds in the field, reflecting on different stages of Mao's thinking.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews