On Practice and Contradiction

by Mao Zedong, Slavoj Žižek (Introduction)

These early philosophical writings underpinned the Chinese revolutions, and their clarion calls to insurrection remain some of the most stirring of all time. Drawing on a dizzying array of references from contemporary culture and politics, Žižek’s firecracker commentary reaches unsettling conclusions about the place of Mao’s thought in the revolutionary canon.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, China, History, Essays

208 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1937

About the author

Mao Zedong, also transliterated as Mao Tse-tung, and commonly referred to as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese Communist revolutionary, guerrilla warfare strategist, Marxist political philosopher, and leader of the Chinese Revolution. He was the architect and founding father of the People's Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949, and held control over the nation until his death in 1976. His theoretical contribution to Marxism–Leninism, along with his military strategies and brand of policies, are collectively known as Maoism.

Mao rose to power by commanding the Long March, forming a Second United Front with Kuomintang (KMT) during the Second Sino-Japanese War to repel a Japanese invasion, and later led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's KMT in the Chinese Civil War. Mao established political and military control over most of the territory formerly contained within the Chinese Empire and launched a campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries. He sent the Communist People's Liberation Army into Xinjiang and Tibet but was unable to oust the remnants of the Nationalist Party from Taiwan. He enacted sweeping land reform by using violence and terror to overthrow landlords before seizing their large estates and dividing the land into people's communes. The Communist Party's final victory came after decades of turmoil in China, which included the Great Depression, a brutal invasion by Japan and a protracted civil war. Mao's Communist Party ultimately achieved a measure of stability in China, though Mao's efforts to close China to trade and market commerce, and eradicate traditional Chinese culture, have been largely rejected by his successors.

Mao styled himself "The Great Helmsman" and supporters continue to contend that he was responsible for some positive changes which came to China during his three decade rule. These included doubling the school population, providing universal housing, abolishing unemployment and inflation, increasing health care access, and dramatically raising life expectancy. A cult of personality grew up around Mao, and community dissent was not permitted. His Communist Party still rules in mainland China, retains control of media and education there and officially celebrates his legacy. As a result, Mao is still officially held in high regard by many Chinese as a great political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Maoists promote his role as a theorist, statesman, poet, and visionary, and anti-revisionists continue to defend most of his policies.

Reviews

[Carlos Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Getting Zizek to write an intro to a volume of Mao's selected works was a stunningly awful idea. His introduction is quintessential 'critical' mumbo-jumbo, so far removed from Mao's style of explaining concepts in a way that can be understood - and used - by anyone.

The essays themselves are mainly great. 'On Practice' and 'On Contradiction' are classics that everyone should read. 'Combat Liberalism' and 'Oppose Book Worship' are handy little articles that can be easily and quickly read online, and then put to use to win sectarian debates lol. The two essays on Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR seem pretty obscure and out of place in this volume. And 'Talk on Questions of Philosophy' is frankly a bit rambling, sorry Chairman.

[William West · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mao's early philosophical writings are fascinating and key if one wants to understand the intellectual evolution of Marxist (and post-Marxist) thought in the second half of the twentieth and into the twenty-first century.
Politically, Mao's primary innovation was the idea that the proletariat would not be universally the class to lead the communist struggle. Mao expanded upon Lenin's notion of uneven development, the notion that different countries and cultures resist imperialist finance capital in different ways based on their level of development (or under-development) and that their revolutions would take myriad forms, to claim that different classes would be the most forward-looking and correct at different points of revolutionary development. The notion that the proletariat would inevitably be the most revolutionary player in class society struck Mao as metaphysical and idealistic. Rather, Mao thought, at different moments and in different cultures and situations the workers, peasants, students, or some other group might be the most revolutionary voice. Mao also introduced the political notion that the most reactionary voice during the course of a communist revolution might be that of the communist party itself. These different forces had to be, Mao held, in constant interaction, constantly testing the contradictions between the different classes and groups, because only then would the most revolutionary voice in any given situation have at least a chance of coming out on top.
Philosophically, Mao's writings break even more dramatically with Marxist orthodoxy. Mao rejected Hegel's (and Marx's) concept of the negation of negation, the notion that eventually society would evolve to a point where all social contradictions would be resolved. For Mao, being itself is contradiction. He writes that even if the Earth were to explode, the cosmos would still be filled with contradictory forces. Contradiction is never simple for Mao. There are, in any situation, more kinds of contradiction than one can be aware of, and these different contradiction act on each other and transform each other's nature, making different contradictions, at different moments, the principal contradiction of a given situation. This, of course, does away with the traditional Marxist notion that the economy will universally be the principal contradiction in the last instant.
Mao thought that any contradiction could become primary, and that if the situation did not exist in a society for a contradiction to be resolved it could always become antagonistic- a violent, potentially revolutionary contradiction. Mao thought that antagonistic contradictions would become less necessary and frequent in the age of socialism, but not be eliminated completely because socialist society, being new to the world, would have to figure out ways of resolving contradictions through trial and error. Sometimes, especially early on, such experiments would fail and contradictions would still become antagonistic. This was all fine and good, from Mao's cosmic perspective, because the nature of being was for all things to transform each other, at times violently, but for society still to evolve through the process of contradiction. It seems to me that this notion of all things acting upon all things, and all things changing because of it, could mean that communism could itself transform into capitalism, and then transform back to communism.
My only issue with the book is Zizek's strange introduction. It's filled with a lot of fear mongering about contemporary China, which Zizek discusses as a "more evil" capitalism than western capitalism. Zizek, unfairly I think, thinks Mao the unintentional architect of the Chinese Communist Party's ongoing tactical embrace of capitalism, claiming that the hyper-individualism of the cultural revolution fostered a capitalistic national mentality. While I think China's post-Mao transformation was, perhaps, thinkable within Mao's thought, I also think he fought against such tendencies, and Zizek's claims about the cultural revolution are, I think, irresponsibly speculative.
Zizek criticizes Mao's dismissal of the concept of negation of negation. He envisions Mao as a man in love with war as such. He won't let capitalism or Confucianism die, just so he can continue to wage war against them. This terrifies Zizek, by his own admission, but he also recognizes in this outlook the spirit of a true revolutionary who is always, to some degree or another, a war-lord.

[Medicinefckdream]

i finally finished this big old book. all this dude talks about is universal vs particular contradictions, and thats pretty cool, but who knows why marxists were all obsessed with steel production. oh man, we produced 400,000 tonnes of steel this year. i mean, who even cqares abotu steal. ever heard of an ipod, fuck tard?>??? i also liked the part where he talked about imperialism as a paper tiger, and how china getting nuked would be a minor event for the universe or whatever. i didnt like how he really liked peasants even tho they just toil and smoke cigarettes and buy lottery tickets.

[Leo46 · Rating 5 out of 5]

This collection of essays has changed my life. Mao's revolutionary theory, practice, journey, and biography are truly marvels to gaze at and learn from. The Zizek introduction is by far the worst part of this book (banal, jargony, and unproductive critiques of modern China and Stalin/Mao's rejection of the negation of the negation), but every single one of the twelve excerpts chosen for this book perfectly portrays as holistic of a progression one can get for a revolutionary's life and intellectual thought in a mere 200 pages. The main missing elements/years are those around the time of the culminating 1949 Chinese revolution, skipping from '37-'55, making volumes IV and V of Mao's selected works a great and most fitting read after this. This is probably one of the best introductions to Mao and Mao Zedong Thought/Maoism I could've asked for. From his undying anti-dogmatism in "A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire," "Oppose Book Worship," and "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People" to his ever-accessible exposition on dialectics and the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge in "On Practice" and "On Contradiction" to his infinite courage in the Chinese people and in his criticism's in "The Chinese People Cannot Be Cowed by the Atom Bomb" and Concerning and Critique of Stalin's Economic Problems, he put these ideas at the forefront of his practice precisely so he could constantly and consciously evaluate society's contradictions in an effort to change society, which is in lieu of Marxism's famous departure from philosophy as not just to analyze the world but to change it. This was a man who emerged from a random rural peasant background that somehow got ahold of the unimaginably sparse number of philosophical texts translated into his language, then applied all this theory to the material conditions of China by spending months on end in every sector of occupation (farming, factory working, teaching, etc.) to scientifically test his theory of dialectical materialism, and lead his party and his people to revolution, the upheaval of an obsolete economic system, and drastically raising the quality of life, average lifespan (30-60/70), literacy (20% of population to a majority), and cultural prowess of the Chinese masses. Mao and Maoism brought anti-dogmatism and the constant outlook on socio-political issues as contradictions that need resolving to the forefront of Marxism-Leninism, and that is truly exemplified in this red book. His philosophical wisdom also permeates these essays with fascinating ideas on evolution, the unthinkable, and his Taoist & ancient Chinese story influences. Mao's work is indispensable to any aspiring socialist revolutionary.

[catarina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Žižek's intro...i pretend i do not see it

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and scary - as Mao's writings point to the fate of millions of people and to the roots of current China. His dialectical, materialist, and Marxist philosophy seems to rather follow his revolutionary, military, and political actions – since dialectics explains and justifies almost anything. Mao's claim that dialectic is scientific and anti-metaphysical no longer stands these days. Zizek's postmodern preface to this book is a bad joke – one should skip it or at best read it at the end.

[Brice Karickhoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to two podcasts on Pedagogy of the Oppressed to try to process it, and in one of them, the hosts mentioned On Practice as a very relevant work to the whole domain, so the chase of this “praxis” and “dialectical materialism” idea continued.

On Contradiction was aight. Helpful for sympathy, but too far off from what I believe for me to really find common ground. First, it discusses a very fluid view of the truth (which I don’t hold), and then it discusses this idea that in every realm, there is a sort of contradiction or conflict: protons and electrons, positive and negative, lift and gravity, and bourgeoisie and proletariat. Guess that makes sense if you believe humans are incapable of moving beyond the forces of nature.

On Practice was why I read this book, and I must say, it shed a lot of light on the beliefs and applications of ML thought. Action and outcome are linked to truth in a way that is outside my paradigm. Mao asks what the purpose of philosophy is if not revolution. To me, the answer is obvious: to know the Truth. But Mao argues that the truth is unknowable to the one who has not experienced the truth. This is a HUGE idea. The idea that practice precedes theory rather than the other way around.

Why is this a huge idea? Because if practice precedes theory, or a particular experience is necessary to know the truth, then it is possible for the truth to only potentially reside with certain people, and be inaccessible to others. This framework might have something to do with the willingness of those who ascribe to this worldview to murder tens of millions in the twentieth century - why not get rid of the unenlightened, non-revolutionaries if by rite of birth they just can't really be enlightened.

Aside from giving rise to murderous authoritarian regimes, this truth also gives rise to snide and arrogant podcast hosts. I listened to the same podcasters discuss On Practice, and the way they spoke so condescendingly and dismissively of anyone who holds other worldviews really ruffled my feathers. As good Marxists, they could choose the route of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, which should in theory lend itself to intellectual depth. Instead they take the “everyone is so unenlightened but us” approach that is implicitly validated by the book they’re discussing.

Well that’s all I guess. I didn’t say half of what I wanted to say, but I have been typing for a while. This book was readable and helpful for understanding, but surprise surprise: I’m not a Maoist.

Now I just have to detach Mao from Freire and/or detach Freire from all the education professors who love him, otherwise I’ll get all jaded.

[Aamer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe it's because this is an English translation of a Chinese text, but Mao does have some hilariously banal bangers like "can bad things ever become good things". Don't get me wrong, I respect the Chairman's ability to Bullshit his way through a point, but unfortunately this also meant that the text itself was very hit or miss. Some absolute bangers and some baffling tangents and inane points.

Nevertheless, salute to the Red Son over China. Eternal glory to the Chairman.

[David Barrera Fuentes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Viva el centralismo democrático y la dictadura del proletariado, caramba! Y bueno, a diferencia del rechazo que generó en algunos que reseñaron este libro el prólogo de Žižek, a mí me gustó la idea de Mao como pensador de la pura negatividad --quizá porque me gusta monear--.

[Michael Percy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am often critiqued for conflating ideas. I am fascinated by founding documents of social movements, political ideologies, and nation-states, and I also enjoy protest music, particularly the folk variety. Maybe this is a contradiction, in that one can be fascinated by the founding documents while supporting radical music designed to upset tradition. I don't know. But I do know that Australia's Constitution is suitably a bureaucratic administrative document that doesn't mention citizens, free speech, or human rights. This is a country that banned a Bob Dylan song. China also banned Bob Dylan from performing in 2010. Yet China is a republic forged from revolution. It is strange how pervasive conservatism can become. Especially when one considers these foundational philosophical writings by Mao Zedong. When reading Mao's book of quotations, I become interested in reading more of his historical writings. When teaching political ideologies, I have always included Mao's development of communist theory to incorporate peasants (who were technically not part of the proletariat, and certainly were not to be trusted, according to Lenin and Stalin). Yet today we have the next global super-power - displaying all the hallmarks of a capitalist industrial behemoth - still evolving out of what will soon be the world's longest experiment with socialism (the Soviet's lasted 74 years, the People's Republic of China is approaching its 70th birthday next year). Socialism, albeit with Chinese characteristics. But where did the ideas come from and what theory guided China's implementation of socialism? This work provides at least some of the answers. The introduction is by "the Elvis of philosophy", Slavoj Žižek, someone whose ideas I have grown fond of over time. I note with a little surprise that many suggest Žižek's introduction does not add much, but after reading it twice, it is clear that Žižek knows what he is talking about. In terms of theory, Mao suggests that the "negation of negation" is simply the bigger fish consuming the smaller. But Žižek points out that this is a critical mistake for Mao Zedong's thinking. For Žižek, Tony Blair's Third Way incorporated Thatcherism - you know you have really won not when you have destroyed the enemy, but when the enemy begins speaking your language. There is much more to discover in Žižek's short introduction, but it is certainly worth at least two readings. As for Mao's writings, there is so much to cover it is clear that he was a genius, with an enormous intellect. It is interesting that the United States, the most liberal (individualistic) country in the world, had a group of "founding fathers", whereas China, with its socialism with Chinese characteristics and its sense of filial responsibility, had an individual "founding father". Again, contradictions. Mao also writes of the eleven types of liberalism which must be combated. He also gives words to an idea I have when I observe my dogs eating. If you give one dog something to eat, it will sneak off to enjoy its meal individually. But the other dogs, seeing one has something and the others do not, will insist on equality (in terms of food distribution). For Mao (p. 105), combating liberalism is important as it is like a cancer on Marxism:

...they talk Marxism but they practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves.

The book includes a critique of some of Stalin's economic work (and some of Mao's critiques of Lenin) and outlines rather substantially Mao's ideas about overcoming contradiction, right analysis to bring the universal to the particular and back to the universal, to discover the essence of contradictions, and so on. All brilliant thinking. Mao also speaks of his pedagogy. Interestingly, this echoes Theodore Roosevelt's The Strenuous Life, but with more of a focus on working the land with the peasants to not only harden oneself, but to actually be the proletariat, to join in the struggle. A disturbing perspective, which other commentators see as the rationale for so many deaths during the Great Famine (and following the Great Leap Forward - clearly, there is a difference between theory and implementation), relates to Mao's view of the Atom Bomb. In effect, China's millet and rifles would surely overcome the United States' planes and atomic bombs.

We have two principles: first, we don't want war; second, we will strike back resolutely if anyone invades us... The Chinese people are not to be cowed by US atomic blackmail.

Mao justifies this stance through the historical processes of socialism: The First World War increased the number of socialists (via the Soviet Union); the Second World War increased the number of socialists again (via the People's Republic of China); and thus the Third World War will increase the number of socialists yet again, and so on until we all live happily ever after. But Mao does what all good philosophers do (from the time of Heraclitus), and maps out his understanding of physics, biology, the universe, and so on. No philosophy is complete without an understanding of the world. And herein lies the historical value of the work in this book. Mao was a prolific author, and, although Mao's former comrade Deng Xiaoping, undid all of his work in the space of a few years, Mao remains revered in mainland China. Later, when the victors control the past, Mao's cult status can only increase. But that hasn't stopped one New York Times reviewer of Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, suggesting:

If Chairman Mao had been truly prescient, he would have located a little girl in Sichuan Province named Jung Chang and "mie jiuzu"-- killed her and wiped out all her relatives to the ninth degree. But instead that girl grew up, moved to Britain and has now written a biography of Mao that will help destroy his reputation forever.

And this is the general tone of the reaction of most of the commercial world to Unknown Story. Nevertheless, the academy responded with Was Mao Really a Monster? The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday’s Mao The Unknown Story, and basically tore it to shreds for dodgy research and re-purposing evidence to achieve an agenda. (is this negating the negation?) The things is, and despite the problems cleverly identified and articulated in Žižek's introduction, Mao's philosophy is comprehensive, and provides a systematic approaches to understanding society, for better or worse. I intend to study Mao more seriously as a result of this book and hope to read my copies of Mao: The Unknown Story and Ross Terrill's Mao: A Biography in the near future.

[Σταμάτης Καρασαββίδης · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the greatest books i've read so far in my life (and yes i know i say that about alot of books. And for every book its true). I dont regret not having read more Mao before because this was just the perfect time to read and go deeper on his works which are simply amazing, more on that later. This specific Verso edition has a quite good selection of Mao's texts that really well capture his politics as well as his philosophy and view on life in general. One more very basic text by Mao that I believe should have been included is "On New Democracy". I'll ignore the Zizek foreword which was pretty cringe ngl (I've heard Badiou has a takedown on him in "Communist Hypothesis" which is next on my list).

Mao's understanding of dialectical and historical materialism is so just so good, and the way he puts it on paper and explains it is even better. It's just so poetic and so simple, while at the same time giving many real world simple exampls and using the simplest language and words that one can use to describe something like dialectical materialism. And his passion in the writting makes the text even better and more enjoyable.

The only thing that i found that i disagreed with Mao in the entire book is his denial of negation of negation, or, as i call it "negation of negation of negation". I don't have argument's to counter his thesis but i think his thesis and argument itself is not enough to refuge the "classical" Marxist position of negation of negation put up by Marx and Engels. But appart from that everything was simply perfect!

5/5

[strategian]

You can read all of this stuff on the Marxists archive. It doesn't have anything new in it and it's the same translation. It's literally all publicly available for free. So I've read it all. The only addition is a horrible introduction by Slavoj "The Epic Meme Man" Zizek who rambles incoherently, doesn't really know what he's talking about and cites debunked sources as his basis for understanding Mao Zedong. Why buy this? I guess if I lived in Brooklyn and wanted to have sex with college women who are just getting into politics, I would read it on the train while looking around for septum piercing young women and getting no pussy.

Regarding Mao Zedong, he was a wizard and the Chinese revolution is the third great world revolution that develops revolutionary theory to its next stage (Marxism Leninism Maoism). But this is a review of a book, not of a revolutionary. And you shouldn't buy this book if you have the internet!

[lexluvsb00ks · Rating 5 out of 5]

SKIP THE INTRO. ITS USELESS.

the rest of the book is amazing, reading mao’s texts like on practice, on contradiction, combat liberalism and oppose book worship have made me a better comrade. i wasn’t expecting to be touched so heavily but the collection of writings here are truly revolutionary and poetic

[Gary Bannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

giving 5 for maos writings ignoring the intro by slavoj zizek

[Ansgar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este señor me deja cuatro sensaciones:

- Comparto ideas marxistas con él de como hay que hacer la transición al socialismo. Critica a Stalin y me da más info de 2 gerifaltes por el precio de uno. También me ha dado trasfondo filosófico marxista básico que desconocía, lo cual ha estado bien. El pavo controlaba de la pensación (Interesante cuando habla de la guerra civil española y dice que la URSS limitó el plan de actuación del bando comunista porque tenía miedo de que Inglaterra y Francia se les echaran encima, prefiriendo al bando nacional. Eso sí, le echa la culpa a España por hacer caso sumiso a la URSS y no hacer lo que les dio la gana tendiendo la mano pacífica a la URSS y sacar las hoces y martillos por otro. Dice que Cuba hizo eso y casi los matan a todos, pero ya sabemos los resultados.)

- Me da la sensación de que intentó aplicar su método pero lo que él y su círculo querían hacer no lo hicieron del todo por las circunstancias, problemas internos o lo que fuera. Lo de las contradicciones suena bien, pero claro, corres el riesgo de caer en la vuelta al capitalismo y traicionas al marxismo (que el ya murió hace años, pero imagino que irían por este maoísmo)

- Da la imagen de una persona completamente fría, pragmática y dispuesta a usar los medios que haga falta para hacer lo que considera correcto. Y te lo estoy contando yo. Hasta a mí me ha parecido excesivo a veces. "The comrades who study philosophy should come to the countryside . They should go down this winter or next spring to participate in the class struggle. Those whose health is not good should go too. Going down won't kill people. All they is catch a cold, and if they put on a few extra layers of clothes they'll be all right (...) When you are so ill that you are on the verge of dying, then you should come back". No diré que estoy en contra, pero empiezo a entender porque se meten tanto con él. Si eres un facha que lee y ya piensa que el comunismo es comer bebes y lee esto, piensas que Mao comía bebés.

-Me la juego a que era un orador y agitador de manual. No se ve realmente porque está escrito pero parece más gritón y exaltado que Lenin y desde luego más que Marx o Engels. Un poco de sensación de "venir a por mí con la cara descubierta", pero más loco y menos elegante que el Comandante cubano.

[Foley Stocks]

While Zizek provides an interesting and compelling introduction, it is not entirely convincing as a defense of Maoism in general, and Mao seems to, in these writings and speeches, aside from a few intriguing concepts and arguments, consistently misunderstand Marxism. If we are being completely fair to him, they generally follow a trend seen in many Marxists: the idea of the 'dialectic' being misinterpreted from its original concept - that being, put simply, contingent on the idea that the moment of 'contradiction', as Mao would say, comes necessarily outwards from the first, as opposed to Mao's claim that "difference itself is a contradiction", which reduces the method - which is really a formalisation of Hegel that is not so clear as that - to arbitrariness. He is a good rhetorician, though (and his philosophy seems primarily to help this self-serving function).

[Tetra Glucido · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sencillo, simple, preciso,... Cuantioso sexo desprende el camarada Mao Tse-Tung.

[iainiainiainiain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Knowledge begins with practice

Oppose Book Worship, Combat Liberalism, On Practice, and On Contradiction are essential reading. Probably skip the rest, ESPECIALLY Žižek's truly useless introduction (Anti-Žižek Gang).

My favourite quotes:

—From On Practice

"If you want to know a certain thing or a certain class of things directly, you must personally participate in the practical struggle to change reality, to change that thing or class of things, for only thus can you come into contact with them as phenomena; only through personal participation in the practical struggle to change reality can you uncover the essence of that thing or class of things and comprehend them."

Echoes Vijay Prashad's "You can't know the world unless you're trying to change it"

—From Combat Liberalism

"People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well—they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each."

[Ohno · Rating 5 out of 5]

Come with me and sing this song
Chairman Mao did nothing wrong

[Adel · Rating 5 out of 5]

mao writes and explains concepts so well, helped me to understand dialectal materialism so much more, great essays

[Helena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes I hated Zižek’s introduction, yes some chapters were ramble-y and out of place, which may have enticed me to take a star or two off, but overall the knowledge I gained is so invaluable that none of these things seem to matter. Five stars.

Summary:
- This book contains a series of essays, speeches and conversations held by Mao.
- IMO, the two most important essays are “On Practice” and “On Contradiction” and I don’t think you’d miss too much if you simply read those essays without the other works.
- Mao uses simple language and many examples to explain dialectics and his theories - this is the most accessible theory I’ve read so far. I know that that’s what Mao is known for but I really couldn’t leave it unstated.
- “On the correct handling of contradictions among the people” is also a valuable chapter as Mao explains the differences between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions and how to resolve them.

What I learned:
- The dialectical theory of knowledge - that you go from perceptual knowledge - synthesize it in cognition and with enough perception form concepts and theories. Rational knowledge depends upon perceptual knowledge and perceptual knowledge must be synthesized into rational knowledge to be correct.
- Theory can only be deemed correct when put into practice (used to guide revolutionary practice) thus changing the subjective and the objective world. So the dialectical theory of knowledge is practice-theory-practice-theory.
- Knowledge is inseparable from direct experience (what is indirect for you will be direct for another).
- Contradiction is the “driving force” behind any change and the particular contradiction is what makes one thing differ from another. Everything contains contradiction. Resolving one contradiction will give way to others.
- There is always a principal contradiction (which may change) that defines the other contradictions.
- There is a difference between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions and the methods used to resolve them must also be different.
- (Non-antagonistic) contradictions still exist in a socialist society and a “ceaseless process of correctly handling and resolving contradictions” is necessary to unite and consolidate society.

Criticisms:
- I have absolutely no idea what he was trying to say about being “cowed by the atomic bomb” and its insignificance in the universe. Would be very grateful if somebody could respond and enlighten me.
- Mao’s Critique on Stalin’s text seems misplaced in this work. I did not gain too much from reading it and I believe it would make more sense if I had actually read Stalin.

Quotes:
On practice:
- Marxism is not a dogma but a guide to action.
- Above all, Marxists regard man’s activity in production as the most fundamental practical activity, the determinant of all his other activities.
- […] what is perceived cannot at once be comprehended and […] only what is comprehended can be more deeply perceived.
- Perception only solves the problem of phenomena; theory alone can solve the problem of essence.
- Knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice.
On contradiction:
- Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes.
- There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist.
- Every form of motion contains within itself its own particular contradiction. This particular contradiction constitutes the particular essence which distinguishes one thing from another.
- […] the principal contradiction[‘s] existence and development determines or influences the existence and development of the other contradictions.
On the correct handling of contradictions among the people:
- Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once a unity and a struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change.

[Jan Hendricks · Rating 4 out of 5]

The good, the bad, the ugly - this book pretty much contains most of Mao's more relevant writings. Some are fantastic like 'On Practice' and 'Oppose Book Worship'. Others are pretty bad ramblings such as 'Combat Liberalism' and 'Talk on Questions of Philosophy'. The majority is somewhere in the middle containing some decent new insights, occasionally false understanding of dialectics, and erratic revolutionary speeches, for instance 'On Contradiction' and 'On the Handling of Contradictions Among the People'. Some useful concepts are his emphasis on the relationship between practice and theory with an emphasis on the former and a pretty good grasp on how to develop the Marxist tradition through changing material conditions depending on specific circumstances, as well as the differentiation between different 'levels' of contradictions. Overall a pretty good mix to grasp his main writings and a good entry point to understanding Maoism. Some prior knowledge of dialectics, Marx, and Lenin is probably recommended though as this is not a general introduction. Zizek's introduction, while more useful than his other ones in the 'Verso Revolutions' series, is still largely unnecessarily complicated without contributing much to the actual text. He does, however, do a good job in pointing out Mao's main theoretical achievements and why he was wrong about dialectics in some instances. Together with the Ho Chi Minh book, this is probably the only one worth getting in the entire verso series.

[Zach · Rating 3 out of 5]

read very leisurely ! mao is such a fabulous and charismatic essayist that it's easy to let a lot of this convince on the nature of voice alone. but what's most persuasive and productive for a functional leftism is the devotion to practical experience and reality. i think it's in the text as, strangely enough, a theoretical framework, but it lacks the human conviction and struggle of other writers in the field. it works best in small pieces. the little red book begins to make more and more sense

[Arthur Dal Ponte Santana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Assustador como Mao é sucinto e ainda capaz de manter simples muitos conceitos complexos da dialética marxista. Uma exposição muito interessante e, certamente, muito tributária aos Cadernos Filosóficos de Lênin, ainda que expondo em outro contexto e com outros objetivos.

Estranho ainda ver a citação de Stalin como uma tendência correta da teoria marxista, mas imagino que isso tenha seus aspectos práticos.

Parece ser uma ótima primeira leitura para aqueles que desejem adentrar no estudo da dialética, mas não saibam por onde começar.

[Leo H · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know why left-wing thinkers always meander off into talking about abstract dialectical materialism in their writing, but the tradition continues here. I think I understand dialectical materialism (or at least Mao's version of it) a bit more now though, so that's a plus.

[Henrique Valle]

De fato, como o senhor Mao Tse Tung falou nos meus sonhos, a dialética tá sendo bem útil pra eu pensar minha vida emocional.

[Lentšik Tiiger Linin · Rating 5 out of 5]

magnificent

[miranda p. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Zizek intro was garbage (average Zizek moment) but the collection itself is fantastic!

[Matt Lucente · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mao was an excellent writer, thinker, and revolutionary, and the texts in this collection are, as expected, similarly excellent—at least, most of them are. Mao had such an incredible talent for educating the masses and explaining philosophical concepts (e.g. dialectical materialism) in accessible, concrete, and useful terms, and that really comes through in this volume. Just by reading and engaging with the short texts collected here, any reader will come away with a better, more informed view of the PRC, its development and foundational beliefs, and Mao Zedong himself. So much of what the average American “knows” about Mao is ideological slop, completely devoid of critical, concrete analysis or any real understanding of the material reality and conditions surrounding the Chinese Revolution, the PRC, and the man himself—for more on that I would recommend Han Suyin’s two-part biography of Mao or the work of Dr. Ken Hammond.

This text, however, will go a long way in furthering one’s understanding of Maoism, socialism and socialist thought in general, and how important it is to actually investigate things from a principled, concrete perspective; not simply accepting popular narratives and bourgeois platitudes, but analyzing the state of the world and its societies dialectically; understanding that every single entity and social force in the universe is subject to change and is in a constant state of change, and that those changes arise from observable contradictions within each concrete thing; knowing that the contradictory forces inherent in every object and society are in a constant state of pushing up against each other, transforming themselves and creating the identity and essence of the thing itself. This is vitally important for any socialist: we need to understand why capitalism is the way it is at this point in history, how it got to this stage, and we critically need to understand that it is NOT a permanent, static, immutable system, because nothing is permanent, static, or immutable.

”Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new. Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.” (p. 70)

This quote is from On Contradiction, the longest and most famous of the texts in this collection. In it, Mao stresses the analysis of internal contradictions, particularly in capitalist society, and gives a very actionable, clear explanation of how one should go about doing this analysis. This also ties with the prior text, On Practice, which embodies Mao’s constant and emphatic belief that anyone who wants to speak on a topic must investigate it concretely; “no investigation, no right to speak”. We need to understand a thing before it can be changed, and only through practice and concrete analysis of concrete conditions can that thing be understood.

I particularly enjoyed the section in On Contradiction concerning principal contradictions; that is, the main contradiction of a thing, whose existence and development fundamentally shape and determine the existence and development of its other contradictions. Mao explains this concept with an example relevant to his own material conditions in China at the time:

”...in capitalist society the two forces in contradiction, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, form the principal contradiction. The other contradictions, such as those between the remnant feudal class and the bourgeoisie, between the peasant petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, between the proletariat and the peasant petty bourgeoisie, between the non-monopoly capitalists and the monopoly capitalists, between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois fascism, among the capitalist countries and between imperialism and the colonies, are all determined or influenced by this principal contradiction.” (p. 87)

What can this method of analysis tell us about the United States in 2025? We know that the principal contradiction in capitalist society is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the exploiting class and the exploited. Secondary contradictions in our situation could include those between the imperial core and the global south (embodied most visibly by the current stage of the struggle for Palestinian national liberation), again between the monopoly and non-monopoly capitalists (think “local businesses” vs. mega-corporations like Amazon), and again between bourgeois fascism and bourgeois democracy. We can clearly see fascism taking shape in the U.S. in front of our eyes with the new Trump presidency, and we can clearly see that there is a crisis within the ruling class caused by the intensification of various different internal contradictions; the ruling class is obviously in agreement when it comes to upholding the U.S.’s murderous, vile imperial project, but is pretty acutely divided and crumbling in a number of observable ways. We can also clearly see a crisis within the American masses, as the contradiction between working-class interests and ruling-class interests has intensified to such a degree that people are starting to realize en masse that this system is not for them, it is not democratic, and it is fundamentally barbaric. An analysis of these contradictory forces and more reveals this: that American capitalist-imperialism is in its death throes, its contradictions turning into open antagonism and enmity between classes; and as the bulky, disgusting mass that is American imperialism continues to decay, it will transform more and more into fascism, repression, and violence towards the masses of working, exploited human beings. It is our job as socialists to harness revolutionary conditions as they arise, to realize that only through analysis, understanding, and concrete action can we prevent the house of cards from falling to the right, and instead push it with force to the left—either way, it is falling. To this effect, Mao says:

”Consider the contradiction between the exploiting and the exploited classes. Such contradictory classes coexist for a long time in the same society, be it slave society, feudal society or capitalist society, and they struggle with each other; but it is not until the contradiction between the two classes develops to a certain stage that it assumes the form of open antagonism and develops into revolution. The same holds true for the transformation of peace into war in a class society. Before it explodes, a bomb is a single entity in which opposites coexist under given conditions. The explosion takes place only when a new condition, ignition, is present. An analogous situation arises in all those natural phenomena which finally assume the form of open conflict to resolve old contradictions and produce new things.” (p. 99)

I feel like this review is getting pretty long, but I wanted to touch on a couple of the texts in here which I also really liked and a couple which I didn’t. I loved the short texts The Chinese People Cannot be Cowed by the Atom Bomb and U.S. Imperialism Is a Paper Tiger for their relevance to our current times. The second one includes this absolute banger of a quote:

”Now US imperialism seems quite powerful, but in reality it isn’t. It is very weak politically because it is divorced from the masses of the people and is disliked by everybody and by the American people too. In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of: it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger.
History as a whole, the history of class society for thousands of years, has proved this point: the strong must give way to the weak. This holds true for the Americas as well.
Only when imperialism is eliminated can peace prevail. The day will come when the paper tigers will be wiped out. But they won’t become extinct of their own accord: they need to be battered by the wind and the rain.” (p. 110)”

I didn’t particularly like the final text in this collection, Talk on Questions of Philosophy; it felt kind of obscure and non-useful, especially compared to the philosophical masterpieces that are On Practice and On Contradiction. I also thought the two texts analyzing Stalin and the economic situation of the USSR were strange inclusions, and also lack usefulness. And of course Slavoj Zizek’s introduction is trash, but I barely read two paragraphs before I skipped past it; Zizek is an imperialist stooge and his writing stands in stark contrast to Mao’s: rambling, unreadable, uninformed, and asinine. I think I’m echoing the sentiments of most Goodreads reviewers for this book when I dunk on Slavoj Zizek, but definitely skip the intro if you read the Verso Books edition.

Anyway, big recommend for Mao.

”Marxists are not fortune-tellers. They should, and indeed can, only indicate the general direction of future developments and changes; they should not and cannot fix the day and the hour in a mechanistic way. But when I say there will soon be a high tide of revolution in China, I am emphatically not speaking of something which in the words of some people ‘is possibly coming’, something illusory, unattainable and devoid of significance for action. It is like a ship far out at sea whose masthead can already be seen from the shore; it is like the morning sun in the east whose shimmering rays are visible from a high mountain top; it is like a child about to be born moving restlessly in its mother’s womb.” (pp. 41-42)

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mao masterfully addressees the contradictions of commodity production while building socialism, talks at length about the role of the peasantry, compares, contrasts, and critiques Stalin's approach in the USSR, and breaks down materialism. You can really see the echoes of his writing in today's PRC, despite what some might say to the contrary.