Home | List of Publications | Articles | Reviews/Critiques
Biography | About
Some Books | Ordering Info | Mail Us...
PERSONALITY CULT: IS IT NECESSARY
FOR REVOLUTION?*
Ranganayakamma
While referring to the ‘cult of Mao’, Charles Bettelheim (1978) observed that it harmed the
‘Revolutionary Line’ in
This means, while persons like Lin Piao carried on Mao’s Cult for self-consolidation, Mao
considered it a revolutionary necessity. This is the reason which every one who
defends Cult would say. Mao also said the same thing in his interviews to Edgar
Snow: that his cult was necessary. Did he give this reason alone? No. He also gave
another reason: that people carried out Personality Cult on a large scale since
they were culturally backward.
Before we discuss whether this Personality
Cult is necessary for revolution and whether people carried it out or
revolutionaries resorted to it, it is necessary to know what sort of activities
were undertaken for this Cult.
1. Whenever one talks or writes about Mao,
‘Four Greats’ must be added to Mao’s name. (1) Great Teacher. (2) Great Leader.
(3) Great Supreme Commander. (4)
Great Helmsmen.
It was Mao himself who told Edgar Snow that
these adjectives were used with reference to him. Mao was eligible to greater
adjectives than these for his contribution to Chinese revolution. But, should
people add all these adjectives to his name? Should they describe him in this
manner? If they want to tell that ‘the Central Committee has passed a
resolution’, they would not tell it so simply. What sort of Central Committee
is it? It is under the auspices of the Party. What sort of Party is it? It is
led by a great Chairman. What sort of Chairman is he? (1) Great Teacher. (2) Great
Leader. (3) Great Supreme Commander. (4) Great Helmsmen. Hence, in order to
tell that the Central Committee has passed a resolution, they would say, ‘The
Central Committee of the Party –led by our Great Teacher, Great Leader, Great
Supreme Commander and Great Helmsmen Chairman Mao – has passed a
resolution.’ Whether they talk of the
Party, the Central Committee or Leadership and whenever they mention Mao’s
name, all these adjectives must be present one after the other like bogies of a
train. After describing like this, if Mao’s name has to be mentioned again, the
whole thing is repeated. We find hundreds and thousands of sentences in books
and newspapers of
2. Apart from adding such adjectives,
another aspect of Mao’s Cult was to drown him in eulogies.
“Mao
is the sun that illuminates the world, Mao is a great genius without comparison
in the history of mankind, the thoughts of Mao are the acme of Marxism, Mao
knows everything, Mao has done everything….” (Hoxa, 1979:224)
“[Mao is] a Marxist-Leninist theorist who had discovered a special road providing
a short-cut from Socialism to Communism.” (Rice, 1972:164)
“Chairman
Mao is like the sun giving light wherever it shines. His ‘thought’ had the miraculous
power of creating a spirit of self-sacrifice which in turn generates a ‘great
material force’.” (Rice,
1972:164)
“Indeed,
today in the era of Mao Tse-tung, heaven is here on
earth….Chairman Mao is a great prophet…Each prophecy of Chairman Mao has become
a reality. It was so in the past; it is so today…. ” (Rice, 1972:164)
“In
Snow (1972: 21) informs his readers about an
item in the Report presented at the Ninth Party Congress as follows: “whoever opposes Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, at any time or
under any circumstances, will be condemned and punished by the whole Party and
the whole country.”
In his speech at the Eleventh Plenum of the
Eight Central Committee on
On the question of the cadre policy, Lin
(1966-67: 16) proposed, “Our cadre policy
from now on should be that whoever opposes Chairman Mao will be discharged.”
In his ‘Instructions on raising the study
of chairman Mao’s writings to a new stage’, Lin
observed, “Chairman Mao stands much
higher than Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin. There is
no one in the world today who has reached the level of Chairman Mao. Some
people say that ‘Capital’ is the basis of al theories. In fact, it only sets
forth the laws and problems of capitalist societies. In our country we have
already overthrown capitalism; we are now setting forth the laws and problems
of a socialist society. To oppose imperialism, modern revisionism, and the
reactionaries in various countries and to build socialism, we must rely upon
the thought of Mao Tse-tung. The thought of Mao Tse-tung
is Marxism-Leninism at its highest level.” (Lin Piao, 1966-67: 31). In the same speech, Lin
declared, “A genius like Chairman Mao
emerges only once in several hundred years in the world and in several thousand
years in
If we begin to cite, there will be no end
to such phrases as these. This is not something that praises the contribution,
ability and capacity of a person. It crossed all the natural limits. As they
presented Mao as a greater person than Marx, here the question is not to decide
whether Mao is greater or Marx is. Not allowing discussions in the Party by
making Mao’s authority unquestionable and proposing the dismissal of those who
oppose Mao; arguing that Marx’s ‘Capital’
is irrelevant to the problems of socialism and describing Mao’s thought as the
highest stage of Marxism – all these views are serious blunders theoretically
as well as politically. Thus, Cult of Mao, with the consent of Mao, led to
political and theoretical blunders.
3. Displaying Mao’s pictures extensively was
also part of this Cult. Mao’s pictures, photographs and idols must be displayed
in offices, public places and theatres. Mao himself said to Snow, “The Red Guards had insisted that if you
didn’t have those things around, you were being anti-Mao.” (Snow, 1971:170)
Mao tells this to Snow not by way of criticising Red Guards. As if he was
giving a piece of information. Publishing Mao’s photographs daily in newspapers
was also a practice.
4. Making kindergarten school children
chant, ‘Long Live Mao for Ten Thousand years’! [Would Ten Thousand years be
enough? Why not Eleven Thousand years?] Praising Mao
after working overtime, ‘I have done this
in honour of the wise teacher Mao’. Screaming slogans in
Red Guards gatherings: ‘Death to the
Revisionists, eternal life to Chairman Mao’. [What is the difference
between these slogans and feudal, irrational blessings like ‘Dirghaayushmaanbhava’
and ‘Dirghaayusshu siddhirastu’?]
“One
can see, for instance, a formalistic approach, borrowed from tradition to
combat tradition, as it were. Quotations from Chairman Mao are read aloud in
the morning before work; before any meeting wishes for long life and health are
offered him” (Daubier, 1971: 264)
Holding the book of quotations of Mao,
reciting them fluently like chants, pinning Mao’s photos to shirts or buttons
(Did they have them in their finger rings?) –all these practices were part of
worship of Mao.
A still higher form of this worship was
workers, peasants and sailors standing in front of Mao’s photograph or picture
and report to him about the work that they were going to do!
5. Another act connected with Mao’s Cult
was the deletion of one particular line from the ‘Internationale’ which all
Communists sing. They deleted that line which says, ‘There is no supreme saviour. Not God, not Caesar, not democratic
leader”. This line tells people that they must liberate themselves; should
not think some god, king or saviour would save them; they should not expect
some leader would do things for them. They removed the line for the sake of
worship of Mao and sang the remaining lines whenever ‘Internationale’ was sung. Why did
they do so? Because, the Chinese people had a Saviour, a
liberator. Since Mao occupied the place of a ‘saviour’, people may raise
many doubts if the line that says ‘there is no saviour’ continued. This is why
they omitted that line. Since 1970, “the
Chinese have been taught to sing the ‘Internationale’
without omitting, as had hitherto been done, the famous words…..” (Daubier, 1971:277)
6. Another change introduced for the sake
of worship of Mao was suspending the publication of works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. They did this in order to divert
people’s attention from Marx, Engels, Lenin and
Stalin and focus on Mao only. After some years, the publication of those works
reappeared. Van Ginnekan (1976: 228) reported that
now the new editions of important works of Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin began to appear on a large scale. Their publication suffered
considerably due to extraordinary growth of publication of Mao’s writings.
There is no adequate data that enable us to
know the yet other ways in which Mao’s worship was carried out. This is what is
available. It appears that this worship began in 1965. But we also find some
instances of praising Mao along the same lines since 1958. But we do not have
data as to when exactly it had begun.
Snow (1971) reports that
Mao himself told him why that worship had to be initiated. The world has Snow’s book as the only
source to understand the need for the worship of Mao. [Snow did not report
Mao’s words either in a ‘dialogue’ form or in quotation marks. Many a time he
summarised the conversations. At some places he wrote in an indirect speech in
his own words. Therefore, it is not possible for us to present these things in
quotation marks.]
Snow reports that, in 1965, Mao told him
that his Personality Cult became necessary since the authority in local party
committees especially in the Peking Municipal Party Committee was not under his
control. Snow tells us as if Mao felt that ‘there
was need for more personality cult, in order to stimulate the masses to
dismantle the anti-Mao Party bureaucracy.” (Snow,
1971:169). This was the reason for Mao’s Personality Cult! Lack of power
for Mao means lack of majority to Mao’s line in the party. The theory of
Personality Cult tells us that it wants to create devotion and admiration for
Mao among the cadres and people and mobilize them around Mao (Mao’s Line). How
was this Cult possible in those provinces where Mao’s Line did not have
majority in the local party committees? Even if we assume that supporters of
Mao’s Line might have initiated it through their individual efforts, how did
those committees (in which Mao’s line had no majority) allow the Cult in those
areas? Instead of undertaking the Cult campaign in those areas where Mao had no
majority, why did they carry out it throughout the country? If revolutionaries
said that they were resorting to the Cult for the sake of majority, why did the
revisionists allow it? It is futile to expect answers to such questions. We
will not get proper answers. There are more important aspects to be discussed.
If the Revolutionary Line had no majority,
is Personality Cult a means to achieve it? [This means that Chinese
revolutionaries including Mao thought that they could mobilize majority support
to the revolutionary line by suspending Marx’s writings and thus draw people’s
attention towards him!]
Before discussing whether Personality Cult
is good or bad, we need to examine a strange question raised in
“The
question was whether the cult was to become the monopoly of a Party elite
manipulated for its own ends, and with Mao reduced to a figurehead on a pedestal,
or was to be utilized by Mao Tse-tung and his
dedicated true believers to popularize Mao’s teachings as a means to ‘arm
people’…….” (Snow,
1971:66)
The question which haunted the Chinese
revolutionaries was ‘under whose control Mao’s Cult must be carried out’ and
not whether Personality Cult was good or bad. They held a strong view that
Personality Cult must be conducted. However they must have control over it and
revisionists must not have it. This was the struggle between revisionists and
revolutionaries! Would there be a ridiculous class struggle than this? ‘Should Mao be reduced to a figurehead on a pedestal or not?’
– what sort of question is this? Even if they wanted,
could they keep Mao as a figurehead? Would Mao be under the control of others?
This means the phenomenon of ‘Personality Cult’ inherently has the feature of
reducing a person to a figurehead! Hence the question, ‘who should have the
control over the Cult campaign?’. It is possible to
infer something about this phenomenon from this struggle. The revisionists, who
were opposed to Mao’s political line were also in
favour of Mao’s Cult. It means they too find some ‘benefit’ from that campaign!
Unless there is some benefit, why do they compete to conduct the worship?
If Revolutionaries on the one hand and
revisionists on the other try to gain from Mao’s Cult, does it mean that the
Personality Cult has the character of being useful to both the classes?
As Mao thought that Personality Cult would
achieve majority for the revolutionary line, let us discuss to what extent it
is correct.
The aim of this worship was first to create
devotion and admiration for Mao among the people and then make the people
follow Mao’s politics.
If we ask the ‘Cult-ists’,
‘why don’t you put all those efforts of creating devotion in teaching politics
to people from the beginning’, their answer would be ‘people follow a person
only if they first develop devotion for the person’. That is, according to this
theory of Cult, people must first develop devotion and admiration for a person
and only then learn social theories of that person.
Why should people develop devotion for a
person? For what reason? What should be the basis for
that? According to the theory of Personality Cult, there won’t be any basis.
People must develop devotion without any basis.
Do you say, ‘why isn’t there any basis for
the devotion for Mao? Mao had already been making revolutionary efforts for the
past forty years by then. Is this reason not enough for the devotion? Won’t
this history be the basis for the respect for Mao?’ [Then why do you make
attempts again to create respect? – Let us keep this question aside.]
If people developed respect for that
person, it did not mean that they first developed respect without any reason.
They first learnt about Mao’s contribution and the past revolutionary history.
Only later, they developed respect for him. This process is contrary to the
rule of Personality Cult that ‘people must first develop respect’. People form
a good opinion of a leader and follow him only after they learn about the good
deeds of that person. If this happened, it means that there was a basis for
forming a good opinion and for following him. The rule that people must first
have respect is irrational and baseless.
You can’t say, ‘Mao’s Cult implies telling
about his contribution to and his role in the revolutionary history. This Cult
tries to create respect for Mao by telling about his contribution’. The term
‘Mao’s Cult’ does not mean revolutionary politics. In fact, ‘Mao’s Cult’ was
not carried out with such practices. Personality Cult is nothing but creating
respect for the person. Mao too talked about ‘Cult’ in terms of admiring him
personally! “…there was no ‘worship of the individual’ – Personality Cult – to
speak of, as yet, but that there was need for it……Now there was, in 1970, no
such need, and the ‘Cult’ would be cooled down, he (Mao) said.” (Snow, 1971: 18-19). If Mao’s Cult meant telling about Mao’s
contribution, why should we stop the Cult after some time? We should tell the
revolutionary history to every generation, shouldn’t we? While class struggles
were necessary for a long time even in the socialist society, should they stop
the efforts of teaching revolutionary politics by 1970? When Mao said that
there was no need of Cult, he meant Personality Cult which was unconnected with
politics. Personality Cult is not connected with not only politics but with any
social issue. No social aspect of life can be its basis. Except ‘idealism’,
what else this Cult-ism – which expects the formation of respect without any
material basis – could be? It follows that people did not learn revolutionary
politics from Mao’s Cult; instead the ‘revolutionary’ gain was idealism! [Thus,
they tried to secure majority for revolutionary politics by means of
Personality Cult that does not teach politics! By dumping
praises like ‘Indra! Chandra!’ , the Chinese communists wanted
to create an aura around their leader and thereby dazzle the eyes of the
people! They followed this path with the confidence that people may not raise
the question, ‘why couldn’t the Sun – who gives light wherever he is – illuminate
the Party!]
Personality Cult – it may be of a great leader
– has no place in the process of creating revolutionary consciousness among
people. Will the revolution – which happened in the past or which will happen
in future – take place due to a single leader? What about the role of other
leaders? Will they not have any role to play in revolution? What about people
who made extraordinary sacrifices for the sake of revolution? What about the
soldiers? What about ordinary cadres? A revolution will not be successful
unless thousands and lakhs of people make extraordinary
efforts and act courageously and without selfishness! When so much ‘collective
effort’ was needed for revolution, whose Personality Cult would find place in
that revolution? Would a leader singly be responsible for the achievements
which large masses of people accomplished collectively? (This does not mean
ignoring the speciality of a leader. But if we ought to recognize specialities,
each and every person who participates sincerely in a revolution would possess
some speciality or the other.) Is Mao singly eligible for the entire
revolutionary reputation of
No action undertaken in the name of ‘Mao’s
Cult’ has the nature of contributing to revolution. Whether or not there was
chaos in the party, Personal Cult which involves false practices would not be
useful in any context. Except through collective actions undertaken with a
class perspective, no one can ever defend revolution by means of shortcuts
created by individualism. ‘Serving people’ means going along a right path and
making sincere efforts to the best of one’s ability. It does not mean one can
follow any shortcut way. [It is a different matter that it would be fruitless
even if one follows a shortcut way.] The responsibility of leaders is confined
only to raise the consciousness of the people along a right path. It is the
responsibility of the people to wake up or not to wake up. It will be
‘revolutionary obsession’, not ‘revolutionary aim’ to leave a right path and
trying to defend the revolutionary line by means of shortcut ways. [All the
actions undertaken in Mao’s Cult were shortcuts only.]
Depicting ‘Cult’, Snow writes in his book
as follows: “Giant pictures of him now
hung in the streets, busts were in every chamber, his books and photographs
were everywhere on display to the exclusion of others. In the four-hour
revolutionary pageant of dance and song, The East Is Red, Mao was the only
hero. As a climax in that performance…..I saw a portrait copied from a
photograph taken by myself in 1936, blown up to about thirty feet high. It gave me a mixed feeling of pride of
craftsmanship and uneasy recollection of similar extravaganzas of worship of
Joseph Stalin seen during wartime years of
Snow, although not a Marxist, was not
opposed to Socialism and Mao. He was the most important journalist who
published Chinese revolution in the western countries. (He was an American
journalist.) Watching the Personality Cult of Mao in
In 1970, in a dinner with two Chinese vice-foreign
ministers, Snow asked, “The extent of
these displays is the only thing that makes me wonder whether the Chairman has
enemies here. Surely everyone knows that he is the main author of the
revolution, surely he does not personally need this form of exaggerated
adulation? Is it really necessary?” Laughing at Snow’s question, a woman
vice-foreign minister said, “During the
early years of the revolution there was a strange thing. When the peasants came
to the October anniversary and went past the reviewing stand, many did the Kou-t’ou before Chairman Mao. We had to keep guards posted
there to prevent them from prostrating themselves.” (Snow, 1971: 69) [This is to say that people themselves
resorted to Cult.]
Snow did not ask her thus, “If people have
so much admiration for Mao why is Mao in minority, Baby” At that moment, he
kept quiet smiling, ‘Oh, I see!’ But it seems the question of Cult did not stop
haunting Snow. In October of the same year, when he met Mao, he again raised
some questions. (Snow, 1971: 205)
“In
the
“Mao
thought that perhaps there was some. It was said that Stalin had been the center of a cult of personality, and that Khrushchev had
none at all…..Mr. Khrushchev fell because he had had no cult of personality at
all….”
“….he
[Mao] reminded me that he had told me in 1965 that there was some worship of
the individual but that there was need for some more.”
With reference to Cult, Mao made some other
observations: “But after all….did not the
Americans have their own personality cult? How could the governor of each state, how could each President
and each cabinet member, get along without some people to worship them? There
was always the desire to be worshiped and the desire to worship…..” (Snow,
1971: 170)
Unless we conclude that Snow was an utter liar,
it is not possible for any human being to save the reputation of Mao who
answered like that! But what Snow wrote were not lies. None of the Chinese
revolutionaries has denied it. Moreover, they published Mao’s answers to Snow
in Chinese newspapers. (People’s Daily
of
After commenting about the desire to
worship and be worshipped, Mao asked Snow as follows: “Could you…be happy if no one read your books and articles?” As if
Mao’s Cult meant reading Mao’s works! They should have referred to ‘reading of Mao’s
works’ as ‘study of revolutionary writings’ or ‘study of revolutionary
politics’. But, why was it called ‘Mao’s Cult?” [It was Mao who used the words
‘cult’ and ‘worship’.] Is it necessary to begin the personality cult in order
to make people read the works of a person. Cult of
Marx – in order to read Marx, Cult of Engels – in
order to read Engels, Cult of Lenin – in order to
read Lenin – should revolutionaries first begin movements of Personality Cult? [It
is not possible to organise these movements together. They have to carry on
them separately. As Cult means attracting people toward a particular
individual, they cannot allow Marx etc into Mao’s Cult. They cannot allow Lenin
etc into Marx’s Cult, Mao etc into Lenin’s Cult and so on. Thus they cannot
combine the Cults. They cannot display books of one person beside those of
others. This is how movements of Personality Cult should be carried on!]
Why does/should a revolutionary leader feel
happy when people read his writings? It is because people acquire new knowledge
from his books and revolt against those who oppress them and change society;
not because ‘people read my books and consider me a great person’. It is
meaningless if a person who has a collective objective to think thus, ‘People
should read my books only. They should not read others’ books at least for
sometime.’ It is a matter of great joy if people read such books as much as
possible. The reason for the joy is that all such books would
enable people achieve the objective more effectively and soon. Mao might
feel happy if people read his works. There was nothing wrong in it. Would Mao not feel happy if people read Marx’s writings as well?
If the purpose of making Mao’s writings available on a large scale to people is
to teach revolutionary politics, would Marx’s writings not serve the same
purpose?
Claiming that they were carrying on Mao’s
Cult for uniting revolutionary forces and fighting revisionists on the one hand
and not making available to people the writings of Marx, Engels
and Lenin and encouraging them to read – does this not amount to alienating
people from revolutionary ideas and hence helping revisionists?
Mao made another observation on Cult: “It was hard….for people to overcome the
habits of 3,000 years of emperor-worshiping tradition.” (Snow,
1971: 169). This is to say that people on their own carried on his Cult
and they still had the same old habit of worshiping. On the one hand he tells
that they [the party men] started Personality Cult for the sake of revolution
and “there was need for some more” and
on the other hand he tells that people did all this due to backward
consciousness!
Lin Piaos and
Chen Potas who organised the Cult of Mao on large
scale; Maos who wanted ‘some more’ cult; Reports of
the Party Congresses and Communist writers who defended the Cult – will all of
them come under the category of people who could not “overcome the habits of 3,000 years of emperor-worshiping tradition”?
Suspending the publication of writings of Marx etc, omitting important lines in
the ‘Internationale’,
imposing a new cadre policy – were all these actions
undertaken by people? Who did all these things? Ordinary
people, ordinary cadres or party officials?
If people had worshipped emperors for three
thousand years, they did so out of terrible fear and ignorance; did they do it
wholeheartedly and happily? [If people worshipped Mao due to their habit of
worshiping emperors, should we not admit that people were worshiping Mao too
due to fear and ignorance? It was not out of real love and enlightened thoughts
that people respected Mao, was it?] However great respect and fear people might
have had for the emperors, did they stop revolting against the emperors? The
fact that people revolted against emperors, overthrew them and reached the
stage of Socialism indicates that people had gone forward politically and
culturally leaving behind respect for the emperors, isn’t it? If people had not
changed since 3,000 thousand years and rigidly practiced the convention of
Personality Cult, how did revolts against emperors occur? Who revolted? If
people remained in certain ‘ignorant’ practices to ‘some extent’, should
Communist leaders try to discourage such practices or encourage them? If people
had carried on Cult due to 3,000-year old culture, did the party ever pass a
resolution that ‘we should not resort to Personality Cult’? Was it necessary
for the Socialist politics to retain people under the influence of 3,000 year
old ignorance of Personality Cult even under Socialism? Did Socialist politics
want to live on the ignorance of people? Would people’s revolution succeed if
people were still in ignorance? Would ‘the supporters of the
revolutionary politics’ secure majority only if ignorant practices continued?
What is the relationship between Personality Cult and revolutionary majority?
Is it positive relationship or negative relationship?
[The fact that people did not reject Mao’s
Cult indicates that they were still in the ignorance of worshiping. But the
important thing is that the people’s leader had the pride of emperors who were
worshiped for 3,000 years. It was no wonder that people were at the level of
‘worshiping’. They were not aware of Socialist or Communist practices. The
greatest of all the wonders of the world is that the Communist leader was also
at the level of receiving ‘worship’ from the people who were at the level of
‘worshiping’! When Mao says, “There was
always the desire to be worshiped and the desire to worship”, it does not
mean that the same person would have these two desires. Emperors and leaders
would like ‘to be worshipped’ and ordinary people would like ‘to worship’ the
emperors and leaders. It is unbearable to see Mao in this stage but a truth is
a truth, however unbearable it may be. If Cult was true, that Mao – who was
mainly responsible for the Cult – was at such a level should also be true. If
Mao’s opponents ridiculed Mao as ‘Party emperor’, he deserves that ridicule,
doesn’t he?
There have been many questions (very
natural questions) around the world with reference to Mao’s Cult. But the
so-called revolutionaries recite some incoherent and inconsistent phrases
defending the Cult. Communist writers and other writers sympathetic to the
cause of Communism as well mention this question, make a mild and negligible
criticism and offer lame defence by concluding that ‘it was necessary for Mao’.
[Daubier, Han Suyin, Maria Macciocchi etc offer the same defence.]
Maria Macciocci,
an Italian, who wrote Daily Life in
Revolutionary China (1972), discussed the question of Cult to some extent
(pp: 479-481). Referring to the comments in the Western countries about Mao’s
Cult (as “constant exaltation of and obsessional recourse to Mao’s thought”), Maria tends to
be fascinated by the arguments of Chinese on this question. When she visited
“Doesn’t
this type of ‘cult’ also exist in your own societies toward leaders?”, said the Chinese. (p. 480)
Maria feels very happy as if the Chinese
raised a very appropriate question. But she did not ask them thus, ‘Our country
is a capitalist country. Can practices of capitalist countries be present in
Socialist countries?’ She was not aware of the difference between bourgeois
society and a ‘socialist’ society.
The Chinese said to her husband (who was
also a writer and visited
According to the Chinese, readers develop
interest in a writer not after reading his articles but they read only after
they develop interest for the writer. How does liking for a writer develop?
What is that theory which made Chinese stand
on their head? It is the same
theory that made their leaders stand on their head.
[Even if people first read the writings of a person and then develop a liking
for that person, we can’t call that liking ‘cult’. Cult means irrationally
formed blind devotion. There won’t be real admiration in it. If people read the
writings of a person and develop liking, there won’t be blind belief and
falsity. If people developed liking for Mao after reading his writings, it
would not turn into Mao’s Cult. Even if people developed
great love for a person based on a right reason, that love should not
degenerate to the level of Cult whereby people give up their right and sense of
examining the deeds of that person. If it degenerates it would amount to
stupid surrender and not love. One should not have blind devotion to others and
should not let others behave blindly towards him.]
The Chinese had also asked, “And what about the ‘cult’ surrounding
Churchill, Roosevelt and de Gaulle when they were still alive?” (p. 480) This means the Chinese had equated Mao with bourgeois
leaders! It is natural! How could their leader appear differently from those of
other countries when their leader too did the same thing as bourgeois leaders
did?
Maria, considered comments of the Chinese
on the Cult to be correct and arrived at the conclusion that conducting Cult
and accepting Cult was something that exists always in human nature. She cites
the comments of the ‘Chinese interlocutor’ approvingly, “It’s not a ‘Chinese’ phenomenon….but a universally widespread and
sometimes profoundly human factor. The need to unite everyone around Mao,
especially during the period of the Cultural Revolution, was a political
necessity. Now it no longer seems as urgent.” (p. 480)
Finally, she makes a distinction between
Mao’s Cult and Stalin’s Cult. “Such
dogmatism was characteristic of Stalin, but it is the antithesis of the spirit
of Mao”. (p. 481).
See how other Cult-ists
argue.
“During
the Cultural Revolution this ‘cult’ allowed Mao to appeal directly to the
masses and neutralize the Liu Sho-ch’I and P’ng Chen factions. Now that the party has rediscovered its
revolutionary dynamics, this method becomes useless and disappears”. (Daubier,
1974: 278). [So, ‘cult’ is essential to ‘re’-discover
the revolutionary dynamics!]
Han Suyin (1976:
340) says that Mao himself started reducing his Personality Cult in 1970. He
had utilized his reputation and prestige among people as a means to regain his
authority. [For power! Using reputation and prestige!
Increasing and reducing one’s own Personality Cult! Not a single writer found
anything absurd in this kind of phraseology again and again! It is this kind of
stuff which all these Cult-ists speak.]
‘Don’t
you have cult in your countries?’, ‘People read your articles only if you have
Personality Cult’ – What was the source of these comments of Chinese who spoke
to Maria? These were the comments of the leaders who defended Personality Cult.
The Chinese repeated like parrot phrases the comments of their leaders as if
these were extraordinary reasons for observing ‘Personality Cult’. If people listen certain things in a tom-tom way, there arises a situation
whereby the people lose their sense of discrimination. [We should not conclude
that the views of those who spoke to Maria really represented the entire
Chinese people. There must have been people who hated the Personality Cult.]
They claimed that some attempts were made
to slow down Cult since 1970. If we see couple of examples, we will come to
know to what extent the Cult diminished. By
Another point connected with these
celebrations. Snow was accompanying Mao in those celebrations.
The following slogans were raised in those
celebrations.
“Chairman Mao, ten thousand times ten thousand times
ten thousand years!”
(This is materialism! Logical materialism! Dialectical materialism!)
Immediately after he heard these slogans,
Snow asked Mao, “How does it look to
you?” (“I could not resist asking”,
says Snow!)
“Mao
grimaced, shook his head and said that it was better but he was not satisfied.”
This he said with a view that Cult should decrease.
(In 1965, Mao told Snow that there was ‘need’
for Cult. Now he says, ‘there should be a
cooling down’. How much cooling down should be there? Should
it come down from three 10 thousand years (10 thousand, 10 thousand, 10
thousand years) to only one 10 thousand years? If the
slogan was ‘Chairman Mao, one thousand years!” – would this mean that
cult was justified?
If Personality Cult was useful to
revolutionary politics, why should there be cooling down? Any thing that
contributes to revolution and unity among people must be carried out as much as
possible, isn’t it? Why should it be decreased? It is because there is something
negative in it? Why should a negative action be carried out even to some
extent?
The greatest wonder in this matter is the
practice of Mao’s Cult to such an extent that it caused worry even to Mao. This
means, none cared for Mao’s feelings and people were showing superstitious
devotion for Mao!
Devotion for Mao was so much that they did
not care for Mao’s feelings! Admiration for Mao was so much that they disregarded
Mao’s feelings!
Did Mao think that the world would believe
that Mao could not resist his Personality Cult? It was futile if he ‘grimfaced’
and ‘shook his head’. What the world would like to know is – what steps did he
take to prevent such unpleasant situation? All explanations such as ‘It must
decrease’ are mere eyewash!
When a person comes and asks another
person, “How do you feel about these slogans’, what would any one say except, ‘I am not happy!’ Even if it were a bourgeois
leader, would he say, ‘I like these slogans. It is very gratifying to see
people greeting me for ever?’
He would say, ‘My people are doing all
these things out of love for me! I don’t understand their superstitious belief.
They do not heed even if I say ‘don’t do it’.
For every thing people can be made
scapegoats!
Mao’s was wholly feudal-bourgeois-formal
reply. He was not opposed to Personality Cult. He had never tried to resist it.
Where was the question of resisting it? He himself wanted it. Those who desire
cult would feel unhappy if the cult declines and not feel unhappy if it is
carried out on a large scale.
Since the publication of Marx’s writings
had been resumed, since they restored the previously deleted line in the ‘Internationale’
and decreased the exhibition of Mao’s photos – we can believe that they made
some attempts to reduce the Personality Cult. But we don’t know the actual
reason – whether the Cult seemed absurd to the leaders themselves, or they
found it difficult to face criticism across the world against the cult or there
might be some important political reason! Whatever be the reason, they made
some trivial modifications. They began to say, ‘Cult is no longer necessary’ –
as if they started it for a particular need and now stopped it since the need
no longer exists!
What did it mean when they declared that
Cult was no longer necessary?
It meant that Mao’s line was able to secure
majority in the party, wasn’t it? It meant that party members and cadres were
politically consciousness, weren’t they? It meant that everybody had faith in
Mao’s leadership, hadn’t they?
Let us put aside the question as to why
cult should be abandoned when it yielded good results? Why did revisionism
emerge again? What is this calamity that threw away a thousand miles Mao, his
political line and the Cultural Revolution led by Mao’s line? Why people
supported this calamity (opposition to Mao)? If Khrushchev fell due to the
absence of Cult, why did Mao – who received large scale cult so long a time –
fall down? Why couldn’t Personality Cult – which is necessary for revolution –
defend revolution? All these are questions that must be discussed.
Is Personality Cult good or bad?
Is Personality Cult a socialist practice or
feudal (or bourgeois) practice?
Does Personality Cult help revolution or
revisionism? To discuss these questions with evidence, the post-1976 October
period is the appropriate time. Because, the consequences of
Personality Cult became evident by that time. A point became clear by
then: does Personality Cult involve dogmatism alone or does it contain features
like political knowledge, class consciousness and cherishing the ideals of the
leader out of real love?
When they realized in 1970 that it was not
necessary to carry on Personality Cult on such a large scale, were the leaders
of the revolutionary line not expected to offer an explanation about this
question? Were the leaders not expected to explain their views (whatever they
formed at that time) to the people on the question of Cult as follows:
‘Personality Cult is good. The revolutionaries could
practice it whenever they are not in majority’ or ‘Personality Cult is not
good. All these years we practiced it due to false understanding.
Revolutionaries should never practice it.’
If the party leaders do not offer such explanation, how would people –
who ought to adopt Socialist ideas – receive education with regard to the question
whether Personality Cult was good or bad? How would people clear their doubts
on this issue? There has been no official document either by the party or Mao
on this question except what Mao told Snow in his interview. No revolutionary could
raise his head with courage after reading what Mao said in those interviews.
When he informed Snow
that people were using ‘Four Greats’ before his name, Mao said, “They would all be dispensed with sooner or
later. Only the word ‘teacher’ would be retained”. (p.71) Even the single adjective is also
not correct. If it is decided so, every one would be expected to use it as a
rule. People should have freedom to talk about their leader as they feel.
(Needless to say that one should talk from a materialist stand point).
To decide that people must say, ‘our
teacher Mao’ and should not use any other word – this amounts to curtailing the
initiatives, emotions and thoughts of people. If some body would like to say,
‘Mao is a great genius’, he must have that liberty to say so. It is a great
blunder if others dictate him saying, ‘Use this word! Not that’. It will be
greater blunder if the leader himself suggests, ‘Depict me like this’.
Bettelheim, who criticised Personality Cult as a
wrong practice, has also observed thus, “….he
considered it as a necessity, as a way of assuring the unity of the people in a
situation where many disruptive forces were at work.” (Personal
communication). Why should he repeat Mao’s view on Cult? Critics ought
to discuss whether Mao’s view on Cult was right or wrong. Would it amount to a
critical examination if they simply say, ‘Mao thought like that’?
Persons who commit mistakes (knowingly and
unknowingly) follow certain practices which they think are necessary. They
would say, “I did it because I thought it was necessary”. The duty of critics
is not to reproduce the explanation of those who commit mistakes. They must
examine whether a given explanation is right or wrong and subscribe to the
right one. If it is wrong they must reject it. Bettelheim
has not made a mistake in rejecting Personality Cult. He, however, made a
mistake in not criticising Mao in this regard.
Enver Hoxa, the then Secretary
of the Albanian Communist Party – who made some correct observations that
Personality Cult is idealism, non-Marxist and not desirable – compromises with
Personality Cult without sticking to his views strongly. He talks as if it was
inevitable for Mao to practice cult under those chaotic conditions.
“Why
does Mao permit the inflation of this cult? Perhaps the critical moments which
China went through, the fact that the Communist Party of China was not only in
confusion, but also in the hands of revisionist, impelled Mao to permit the
inflation of his name and authority in order to mobilize the sound
revolutionary energies of the masses so that he could hurl them into
revolution. Otherwise,
In these comments, we do not find any
opposition to the cult. He was opposing only ‘inflation of the cult’. He was
talking as if Cult has positive nature: that cult was necessary since the party
was in the hands of the revisionists, that the cult could mobilize
revolutionary forces and
Just as he raised the question (why did Mao
allow so much cult?) with regard to Mao, Hoxa did not raise such a question with regard to Stalin.
He did not find fault with Stalin even though he received dozens of titles of
‘Hero’, dozens of medals and numerous eulogies at which our ears feel ashamed
to hear! For Hoxa, it was the fault of Stalin’s
enemies! It was the fault of revisionists like Khrushchev.
Revisionists “built up the Cult of Stalin to the skies in order to overthrow him
more easily in the future”. (Hoxa, 1980: 45)
“The
great hullabaloo the Khrushchevites made about the
so-called cult of Stalin was really only a bluff. It was not Stalin, who was a
modest person, who had built up this cult, but all the revisionist scum
accumulated at the head of the party and the state which apart from anything
else, exploited the great love of the Soviet peoples for Stalin, especially
after the victory over fascism……They fostered the cult of Stalin order to
isolate him as much as possible from the masses, and, hiding behind this cult,
they prepared the catastrophe”. (Hoxa, 1980: 49-50)
Whenever he mentions any shortcoming of
Stalin, he says that Stalin might not have said so. Revisionists hid behind
Stalin’s name and did like that!
Why did Stalin allow them to hide behind
him? Was he not aware of it? If a leader fails to know where revisionists
intrude or hide, is it not his mistake? Why should he follow methods that allow
some one to hide behind some other person? Why should he keep quiet when others
dump hypocritical praises on him? If he opposed praises one day, nobody would
dare to praise again the next day.— Don’t our
Communists raise such questions?
[Some parents say, ‘All the friends of our
child spoiled him.’ All the comments of Hoxa are
similar to those of the parents!]
It was part of Personality Cult of Mao to
use expressions, ‘Mao’s line’ and ‘Mao’s thought’ by the Party in which Mao was
also a member. How can the line of a member be the line of a Party? Suppose the
Party in which Mao was a member declared in writing that ‘Mao’s Line is our
Line. Mao’s thought is our outlook’. When a decision has to be taken in that
party, every body in the party must follow whatever Mao says since Mao’s
thought was their thought. If Mao says, ‘we need to do like this in this
matter’, every one has to follow that suggestion. How could there be an
opportunity to discuss whether that decision was right or wrong and express a
different opinion? Why should there be a difference of opinion at all when a
person – whose line the party declared as its own – gives instructions to
follow? Whatever Mao tells would be Party’s line. Mao’s thought itself is Party’s
thought. If a member in the party rejects what Mao suggests and offers a
different suggestion, it would be something that opposes Mao’s line, wouldn’t
be? Thus, if the party considers the line of a member as its own, would it not
amount to not giving an opportunity for debate to express different opinions. Suppose, the party conducts a
debate. (In fact it would be wrong to conduct a debate without hearing
what Mao says since the party declared Mao’s line as its line. Let us, however,
see what happens if such a debate is conducted). Let us suppose that majority
of the members would not accept Mao’s views and arrive at a different decision.
Then Mao would be in minority (Mao was in minority many a time). The party
would have to implement the majority decision. Would, then, this mean that the
party followed Mao’s line or contrary to it? While following anti-Mao’s line,
the party would claim that its line was Mao’s line. How could any one resolve
this contradiction? There would be only two ways: either Mao should cease to be
a member of the party or the party shouldn’t decide a member’s line as its
line. It is needless to say which of these two is correct.
When we say that a party should not decide
a member’s line as its line, it does not mean that the party should not
consider and follow his line. Mao’s writings would be available as writings of
a revolutionary and a theoretician. All would read them. Those who were
influenced by those writings would try to work in the party with that
perspective. They would try to secure majority for that perspective. Mao would
become a centre to such a group which holds that perspective. Now, there would
be full scope for debates. Even if Mao’s group does not secure majority on some
occasion, it would not be party’s fault if it implements the majority decision.
What was the reason for the declaration of
“Absolute Authority of Mao” during
the period of Personality Cult of Mao? It was so because the party declared
Mao’s line as its line. When the party declared Mao’s line as its line, the
entire party must follow unquestionably what Mao says. From this basis there
arose authoritarian declarations like ‘The absolute authority of Mao’ and
‘those who oppose Mao will be dismissed!’ There was no place for such questions
as ‘why shouldn’t we oppose Mao? How can we accept, without discussion, what
Mao said?’
If the party line is perceived in the name
of a top leader, some members in the party (also outsiders) hesitate to think
differently from the line when some problem arises. Others try to follow it
without any question assuming that whatever the line says is right and it is
not necessary to apply thought. Because of this, there won’t be any attempts to
rectify the mistakes and overcome the limitations of the line. That line, instead
of being a collective line, turns into an individual line and would survive
until the leader is alive. If any one wants to protect it, they must have an
opportunity to discuss its merits and demerits.
Due to the lack of Socialist practice of
discussing the line and actions of a leader, some mistakes were committed again
and again. If we take the practice of Personality Cult, Mao committed the same
mistake which Stalin committed. Instead of criticising Stalin and explaining
how Personality Cult was wrong, Mao practised the same. Even if he had not
criticised Stalin, it would have been a good thing if he did not practise
Personality Cult. He ignored those two good ways and committed the same mistake
which Stalin did. If there was no critical examination of the actions of the
leaders, it is possible that subsequent (future) leaders would commit the same
mistake which these two leaders did.
Mao, who occupied the position of the
Chairman of the party in 1943, continued as the Chairman untill 1976 when he died. For 33 years! However
capable a leader might be, should he cling on to the position until death
removed him from that position? Could he properly discharge his duties of that
position even in the old age? Would there be no other capable leader in the party?
If there was no other capable leader, what sort of party was it which could not
prepare a second leader?
Mao, while being the Chairman of the party,
assumed the position of the Head of the State for some years. It was the
position of Military commander as well. Instead of the same leader occupying
two, three and four top positions, can’t that leader discharge those duties
without any position ? Even if a person has the talent
of studying problems of all spheres of life, would it be possible for a human body
to discharge duties of various positions? If discharging duties means signing
the papers, then any number of positions would not be a burden for a human
body. But if someone has to really examine many problems connected with a
responsible position, if he has to acquire proper knowledge, if he has to
consider each aspect of a problem and if he has to discharge his duties that
lead to establishment of a new society, would it be possible for a body to
discharge duties of several higher positions? One should not hold such position
even if it is possible.
If several persons have to evolve as
capable persons in every aspect, all persons should get an opportunity in
holding higher positions. No individual should hold more than one position. If
a person has the ability to work in more than one position, can’t he discharge
those duties without occupying higher position? Can we say that capabilities of
person could become useless if that person has no position? The attitude that
the chief leader must hold several top positions is also part of a kind of
Personality Cult.
Adding the word ‘Chairman’ before the name
every time is also part of Cult. Why should we add the designation of a person
before his actual name? None else have their designations before their names,
do they?
Bourgeois leaders add their long
designations and degrees around their names and exhibit extravagantly before
people thus, “Look, how great I am!”
With such extravagant exhibition, leaders
can keep people in an awe and respect towards them. We always find the
expression “Chairman Mao taught us…..” and we never find the expression, “Party
taught us……” In the Chinese Communist Party except Mao we don’t find the Party.
Party is a collective force. The leader,
however capable he may be, is part of that collective force.
[Since a leader possesses more ability and
capacity compared to others in the party, he becomes the leader. Recognition of
the ability of the leader by others and recognition of the collective force by
the leader – These two are essential. Whoever refuses these roles, the entire
organization becomes ineffective.
The personality Cult of the leader is a set
of practices which equate the leader (who is a part of the party) with the
party or show him as an alternative to the party.
The most important losses that result from
the Personality Cult of a revolutionary leader are:
1)
It
encourages idealist thought. (Is it necessary to say specifically?)
2)
It
introduces individualism. (It introduces a belief that any great deed would
take place by means of a great individual. It glorifies only one individual; it
ignores others who are qualified and thereby destroys collective spirit.)
3)
It
leads to factionalism. (It creates feelings of jealousy among other leaders, make them start their own cult at some level to the extent
possible and thereby destroys team spirit.)
4)
It
alienates the leader from the masses. (It presents the leader
not as someone who studies the life of people and learn from social
facts but as a great knowledgeable person. A leader who reaches such a stage
would become ineligible to lead people amid social conditions.)
5)
It
helps revisionists. (It does not help the development of people’s knowledge.
Moreover, it weakens revolutionary line by offering ignorance and thereby it
strengthens revisionism.)
The following are the reasons for
continuation of Personality Cult of their leader for some years on a large
scale under the auspices of the revolutionary line in a ‘socialist’ country
like
1)
Continuation
of bourgeois relations in the economic base of society. (Bourgeois relations
give scope for bourgeois-feudal practices.)
2)
Heritage
of
3)
Very
long feudal past of
4)
The
Personal weakness of the individual leader (surrender to worship).
The situation would have been different if
the last mentioned reason was absent. It is because: when a leader is inclined
to his Cult, the other three reasons encourages him. But when he does not like
Personality Cult, those reasons will not stand as hurdles. Those reasons will
not compel him thus, ‘You must accept your Personality Cult’. Practising
Personality Cult does
not lie under the control of the person who would like to have it (since he
needs people who carry on it) but rejecting the Personality Cult lies in the
hands of the person who does not like to have it. When society really
transforms into socialist, the basis that encourages cult also changes (there
won’t be people who carry on it) and hence the desire to have cult will also be
absent. Even if a person has the desire, it is not possible for him to have it.
This means, the main reason for the absence of Personality Cult in a really
Socialist society is the ‘economic’ foundations of that society. But, in a society which has
not yet transformed into socialist, aversion of an individual to Personality
Cult will be the main reason.
The main reason for Stalin’s cult was
Stalin’s weakness and the main reason for Mao’s cult was Mao’s weakness. For example, Lenin. Lenin too lived in a society which
favoured Personality Cult. Lenin too was in minority in the party on some
occasions. Lenin too lived amidst revisionism and terrible civil war. But, he did
not imagine Personality Cult as a solution to any problem. Had Stalin or Mao
followed such socialist practice, their Personality Cult would not have
emerged. If the present day revolutionaries cannot arrive at the conclusion
that Stalin and Mao committed mistakes in this regard, the future revolutionaries
will surely arrive at the conclusion that the present-day revolutionaries
committed mistakes. History does not pardon any mistakes of any person. It
rejects mistakes and accepts only right things. Only right things are eligible
to walk into the future.
To criticise a leader in one aspect does
not mean total rejection of his contributions. It is not a crime to question
and criticise a leader.
After the death of a leader his followers
will be responsible to the positive and negative aspects of that leader. If we
do not own the mistakes and faults of our leader and make a self-criticism, our
enemies will expose those mistakes. The purpose of self-criticism is not to
admit mistakes ritualistically before the enemy exposed us. We must make
self-criticism truthfully and wholeheartedly.
We should never fear that we will appear
weak before our enemies because of our criticism of our leaders. Instead of
becoming weak we will become strong due to self-criticism. Our line becomes
stronger if we realise and rectify our mistakes. If revolutionaries leave the
wrong path and enter the right path, it will weaken the enemy. As the
consciousness of revolutionaries develops, the strength of revisionists
declines. If we prevent theoretical knowledge from reaching the people with a
false understanding, it will cause terrible harm to the cause of revolution.
The Chinese revisionists had started a long
time ago criticising Mao’s Personality Cult. Their intention was to point out
Mao’s Cult as a pretext and attack Mao’s politics. Our intention is not that.
Our aim is to avoid repetition of past mistakes and follow Mao’s politics more
appropriately. The criticism by revisionists and the criticism by
revolutionaries do not have the same objective.
The revolutionaries must attempt to develop
the revolutionary line in respect of each and every issue.
It will be very enlightening to see what
Marx had said on the question of ‘Personality Cult’, which has become a point
of discussion for us.
In his letter to Wilhelm Blos, Marx wrote (on
[Translation from Telugu: B.R.Bapuji]
* This article is based on a long foot-note which the
writer provided to the Telugu version of Charles Bettelheim’s
book ‘China Since Mao’ under the title ‘Chinalo Emjarugutondi?’ (What is
happening in
References
Bettelheim, Charles. 1978.
Daubier, Jean. A History of the Chinese Cultural
Revolution.
Han Suyin.
Wind in the Tower.
Hoxha, E. Reflections on
––. The Khruchevites. Momoirs. Tirana: The "8 Nentori"
Publishing House, 1980.
Lin Piao.
Speeches and Instructions of Lin Piao, 1966-1967. Chinese Law and Government. Spring
1973/Vol. VI. No.1.
Macciocchi,
Maria Antonietta. Daily Life in
Revolutionary
Marx & Engels. Selected
Correspondence.
Rice, E.E, Mao's Way.
Snow, E. The Long Revolution.
Van Ginnekan,
J. The Rise and Fall of Lin Piao.
Penguin, 1976.
[FRONTIER,
Autumn Number 2006]
Home | List of Publications | Articles | Reviews/Critiques
Biography | About
Some Books | Ordering Info | Mail Us...