Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Chairman Mao Tse-tung.

 

Among many leaders and dictators of the twentieth century, Mao takes a special place. In spite of the fact that after its death have passed three decades of rough events, historical role Mao has not been subjected to cardinal revision, and he still is popular among a considerable part of intellectuals of all world. And China has not failed at all, and opposite, confident steps goes on a way to power and prosperity. Probably there was in the person and philosophy Mao something very alive, taking place in mystical communication with the unknown and mysterious future. And knowingly, the enormous authority this politic in many respects was based on its skill to expect event.

In general, Mao resembled country leaders of the Chinese antiquity and the Middle Ages. To win, such leader should use, on the one hand, «the revolutionary theory» (for instance Buddhist White lotus), with another - to use an improvised material of an old society (“specialists” - landowners - Confucians, elements of classical culture, an infrastructure, etc.). In some old photos Mao reminds Russian anarchist Nestor Makhno (knowingly Mao was named "partisans"). It speaks that, in some alternative history, the peasant-anarchist leader of Russia could go much further.

Therefore, it is not surprising, that attitudes between Komintern and Mao reminded attitudes of ancient and medieval Chinese sects (“Yellow bandages”, the “White lotus”, etc.) with successful «field commander» to which repeatedly managed to base a new dynasty. These commanders used ideology and the some people organization of sects, but were guided, first of all, by interests of a practical policy, instead of dogmas. Therefore Mao attracted on itself frequent charges in "voluntarism", though (except for some very serious miscalculations, entailed monstrous mass famine in the Chinese village) he was closer to a reality, than rested workers Communistic International.

Soviet Union, certainly, has made very much for a victory of the Chinese communists. Communistic party of China has been created under home nursing of Comintern. And transfer of Manchuria to Mao, has given him great plazdarm for fight against his enemy - the leader of nationalists.

And still, there was a tragically Chinese-Soviet antagonism. To that there were many reasons. Were also subjective: expansionism of Komintern tops, imperial politics of the Soviet management, at last, Khrushchev’ s silly, who was not understanding, what great civilization is China. And, on the other hand - aspiration of leaders of the China to intercept leadership in world communistic movement. There were also objective reasons, for example, China passed the same revolutionary processes, as the USSR, but with delay on one phase.

When in Soviet Union there were «Stalin’s reprisals» and collective farms were created, in China «romanticism of civil war» reigned.  When Khrushchev destroyed "cult of Stalin’s personality", Mao has been «the big jump» - the Chinese variant of collectivization in agriculture. When in the USSR "stagnation" was established, in Chinese People's Republic reprisals - "cultural revolution" have begun. All this caused many efforts of the numbed Soviet version of Marxism.

But Mao has got the big respect in the West owing to own creative, abilities to not trivial decisions. These qualities are respected by western intelligence. We can see that, despite of all horrors and excesses of history, a way of Communist party of China was by development and a life, and the way of the USSR has led to withering and death.

We can see wellknown "cultural revolution" for instance. Mao realized, what danger bears degradation of bureaucracy, turning into «a new class» (especially, in such country traditionally inclined to servility, as China). By the way, Stalin understood it also, therefore and carried out the well-known "cleanings" which have reached apogee in 1937. But Great Joseph did not like improvisation and did not trust in spontaneous «creativity of peoples». Therefore «the Second leader of Russian revolution» during updating elite gave the basic role to security.

As for China, there security plays such great role never. And Mao, who liked non-tradition actions has organized grandiose destroying of nomenclature has entrusted unexpected courses, the basic role of youth (to students, senior pupils, and the young worker), operating, the truth, through to the spouse.

With positions of the today's researcher observing process of feudalization ex-Soviet nomenclature, thick corked all alive channels of a society it is visible, that the Chinese variant of rotation of elites appeared was many batter. Mao has kept in the Chinese elite the creative beginning which has managed to lead useful reforms (instead of their destructive imitation).

And, that is especially interesting, the Chinese Cultural Revolution whose moving force was becoming frequent youth, occurred almost during one time to student's excitements of the end of the sixtieth in Europe and America, directed against authority of the western establishment. Probably, here there is a certain deep mystical communication.

         It is curious to note that great value which Mao gave to "creative role of Chaos». It sounds is extremely modern. From everywhere we hear about theories of Chaos, about management in conditions of "controlled chaos”, than adores to be engaged modern intelligence America (by the way, there is the large expert in the given area in George Bush's administration). Really, to work in mode «controlled chaos» (frightening population special actions and campaigns in mass-media) is easier and cheaper, rather than in a mode of the order (when it is necessary to adjust everywhere in controllable territories an infrastructure and in the slightest degree comprehensible conditions of a life).

         In comparison of both leaders - Stalin and Mao the certain sense is hidden. The first (on Charles Jung's classification) was the representative of "imperial type” the policy, got used to lean on power structures, and usually not loving improvisation. The second was «the political shaman», use of «collective unconscious». Our time has more and more a kind feeling to last type, especially in connection with steadily growing power of the information structures capable incredibly to increase shamanistic influence on a society.

Perhaps the interest for the Chaos which has come in the western establishment from the left philosophy has been thrown Maoism, popular in European intellectuals. And many Russian philosophers lifting toasts in glory of “a creative role of Chaos” would be much embarrassed, having learned, that this rate is laid by the Chinese communists.

 

Alex Fantalov.

 

Bipolar Ukraine.

Menu