At first glance, Mao Zedong's The Role of Merchants in National Revolution might appear to represent an opportunism on Mao's part of turning his back on the proletariat and peasantry to advance the cause of the petit-bourgeois. Mao points out that the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce and merchants actually had revolutionary capability. To communists in the imperialist nations, the notion seems impossible. U$ chambers of commerce and petit-bourgeois usually uphold the most reactionary line. The merchants of China, however, suffered under a "two-fold" oppression from the imperialists and militarists. He shows how the interests of merchants, foreign powers, and militarists were at odds over likin and customs duties. Mao sought a united front for revolution:
Such a union in the U$ or imperialist nations would not be possible. The merchants, workers, students, and teachers in general have no interest in seeing a communist revolution succeed. RT cannot think of whom in the U$ would qualify as a peasant. A minority of students and teachers have advanced beyond the "democratic" sham elections and primogeniture.
The only solution is to call upon the merchants, the workers, the peasants, the students, and the teachers of the whole country, as well as all the others who constitute our nation and who suffer under a common oppression, and to establish a closely knit united front. It is only then that this revolution will succeed.
Were the peasants of China more oppressed than the merchants? If they were, could that explain the greater militancy of the peasantry, which is where Mao ultimately saw the best conditions for revolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment