To condemn Mao as a "traitor to communism and a counter-revolutionary," Thanasis Spanidis has no choice but to separate dialectics from materialism—in a metaphysical way. PART 2

                            TEXT in PDF to download
NOTE: when I am talking here about Communist Party, I am talking about the “Kommunistische Partei” (of Germany)

In “Is Thanasis Spanidis (“commissioned by the CC of the KP”) trying to submit the International Communist Movement to his opportunist and subjectivist historical revisionism?”, I wrote about the analysis that Thanasis Spanidis made regarding the Chinese revolution and the construction of socialism .... and regarding the restoration of capitalism “commissioned by the CC of the CP” has been posted on their website and is therefore now a party position: “Der Große Sprung Zurück”.
My position which I developed in that article was: If this analysis, which Thanasis Spanidis produced “commissioned by the CC of the Communist Party”, now becomes a “party position”, you get the effect of an WRONG conception of the application of Marxism-Leninism “creeping” INTO the Communist Party.
On March 29, 2024, the analysis produced "commissioned by the CC of the KP" appeared on the KP website: “Der Große Sprung Zurück - Eine marxistische Kritik an Theorie und Praxis des Maoismus” (The Great Leap Back - A Marxist Critique of Theory and Practice of Maoism).
It is not an "analysis of and critique on Maoism" but an "analysis and critique of the strategy for revolution and the construction of socialism in China," primarily developed by Mao.
Thanasis Spanidis in his “Marxist critique”: “Mao ... espoused comprehensive revisionist and opportunist viewpoints” ... Mao was a ”traitor to the communist cause and objective servant of the counter-revolution”. Well how Marxist is Thanisis Spanidis? Who is “espousing comprehensive revisionist and opportunist viewpoints”?
How “Marxist” is Thanasis Spanidis in his "Marxist critique"...?
In “In order to condemn Mao as a "traitor to communism and counter- revolutionary," Thanasis Spanidis cannot do otherwise then metaphysically separate dialectics from materialism. (part 1)” I began to make clear that there is little "Marxism" in Thanasis Spanidis's analysis, if we consider Marxism as the application of scientific socialism or as dialectical and historical materialism...

Given how Thanasis Spanidis ("commissioned by the CC of the CP") applies Marxism, will that become the way the CP ("KommunistischePartei") applies Marxism?

Mao’s strategy for revolution and the construction of socialism is grounded in a concrete historical-materialist analysis of the specific historical situation in China at that time.
Thanasis Spanidis made – as he said “commissioned by the CC of the CP (Kommunistische Partei ) - an analyse pf Mao’s strategy of the revolution and the construction of socialism in China in Der Große Sprung Zurück - Eine marxistische Kritik an Theorie und Praxis des Maoismus - 29-3-2024 
Thanasis Spanidis’s analysis of that strategy is based on an examination of one of Mao’s expositions ( Formation which Mao gave for workers, peasants, soldiers … in Yan’an) from the Yan’an period — “On Contradiction”  —which formed a pair with the exposition “On Practice”. About “On Practice”Thanasis Spanidis is silence, not wasting a word to it …..
For Thanasis Spanidis, the exposition “On Contradiction” effectively constitutes Mao’s formulation of the strategy ITSELF for the revolution and the construction of socialism.
As if a general exposition delivered at a specific moment could serve as the concrete analysis of a later, specific situation (e.g., the construction of socialism... in the 1950s and 60s).
NOWHERE does Thanasis Spanidis himself provide a concrete analysis of the specific concrete historical situation for which—and within which—Mao formulated his concrete analysis into a strategy.
Yet Thanasis Spanidis has the advantage of being able to evaluate, NOW, the merits of how that strategy was applied in the specific situation THEN.
Indeed, that would be the proper way to assess the revolution and the construction of socialism in China BACK THEN and—for us communists TODAY—to draw the necessary lessons from it (just as the KKE did regarding the October Revolution and the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union at its 18th Congress).

Based on an analysis of “On Contradiction”, Thanasis Spanidis evaluates Mao’s conception of Marxism and how Mao—according to Spanidis—applied this conception in his analyses...
The title of the chapter in Der Große Sprung Zurück - 29. März 2024  concerning Mao’s conception of Marxism and his application of it already provides a clear indication of Thanasis Spanidis’s verdict: 2.2 Maos Philosophie -2.2.1 Maos Widerspruchstheorie: Weiterentwicklung oder Beerdigung des Dialektischen Materialismus? 
(2.2 Mao's Philosophy – 2.2.1 Mao's Theory of Contradiction: Further Development or Burial of Dialectical Materialism?) 

Thanasis Spanidis reverts here to metaphysics and Hegelian idealist dialectics. He separates dialectics from materialism... drawing inspiration in this regard from Robert Allinson—a metaphysician and neo-Hegelian...:

Robert Allinson is an original philosopher of theoretical philosophy. He has synthesized traditional, Western metaphysics, Platonic dialectic, Kantian epistemology, and Husserlian phenomenology (...)His systematic philosophy takes advantage of both Critical philosophy and phenomenological introspection and proposes an epistemological/metaphysical mix as the foundation for philosophy. (….)
Robert Neville, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University, also writes in a review in Iyyun: Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, of A Metaphysics of the Future, “Running contrary to nearly all contemporary Western philosophical currents, Robert Allinson ... has written a brilliant defence of a rigorous phenomenological approach to metaphysics ... (…)”
Robert Allinson introduces a definition of space-time that provides a philosophical and conceptual explanation of the nature of space and time….(…) Robert Allinson has long been a supporter of the idea that Philosophy is universal….
(…) …. commented upon by Slavoj Zîzêk: “Allinson does something that we all secretly knew it has to be done, but nobody dared to actually do it so directly: he convincingly aearrgues for the return to a philosophy that shamelessly addresses big questions…. (….)
Robert Allinson studied with Charles Hartshorne, heralded by the Encyclopedia Britannica as the leading metaphysician of the twentieth century, who became the co-director of his doctoral dissertation together with the distinguished Indian novelist, Raja Rao, winner of the Sahitya Akademi Award, India's highest literary award, and the Neustadt International Prize for Literature. His Doctoral dissertation at the University of Texas at Austin was a set of original dialogues between East and West. He earned the Highest Distinction in Metaphysics and Epistemology, graded by John Findlay and Charles Hartshorne. He was awarded an Oldright Fellowship, one of only two granted. He studied with the Kant scholar, John Silber, the Plato scholar, Alexander Mourelatos, the Hegelian scholars, John Findlay and Errol Harris, and the English translator of Heidegger's Being and Time, Edward Robinson.¹

And so, for Thanasis Spanidis, Robert Allison’s IDEA is a reflection of reality:

Robert Allinson recounts in his book on Mao's philosophy ... ².
…. Mao's political thought, his understanding of revolutionary strategy and socialist construction, were determined by his conception of dialectics. Philosophical reflections appear again and again in Mao's speeches and writings, and his understanding of contradiction is repeatedly reflected in concrete political measures and orientations.

As Thanasis Spanidis would have red well he could read that Mao in “On Contradiction” is talking about dialectics as a part of dialectical materialism:

The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics. Lenin said, "Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects."³ Lenin often called this law the essence of dialectics; he also called it the kernel of dialectics.⁴ In studying this law, therefore, we cannot but touch upon a variety of questions, upon a number of philosophical problems. If we can become clear on all these problems, we shall arrive at a fundamental understanding of materialist dialectics. The problems are: the two world outlooks, the universality of contradiction, the particularity of contradiction, the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction, the identity and struggle of the aspects of a contradiction, and the place of antagonism in contradiction.(….)
As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes. (…)
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.(….)
The dialectical world outlook emerged in ancient times both in China and in Europe. Ancient dialectics, however, had a somewhat spontaneous and naive character; in the social and historical conditions then prevailing, it was not yet able to form a theoretical system, hence it could not fully explain the world and was supplanted by metaphysics. The famous German philosopher Hegel, who lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, made most important contributions to dialectics, but his dialectics was idealist. It was not until Marx and Engels, the great protagonists of the proletarian movement, had synthesized the positive achievements in the history of human knowledge and, in particular, critically absorbed the rational elements of Hegelian dialectics and created the great theory of dialectical and historical materialism that an unprecedented revolution occurred in the history of human knowledge. This theory was further developed by Lenin and Stalin. As soon as it spread to China, it wrought tremendous changes in the world of Chinese thought.
This dialectical world outlook teaches us primarily how to observe and analyse the movement of opposites in different things and, on the basis of such analysis, to indicate the methods for resolving contradictions. It is therefore most important for us to understand the law of contradiction in things in a concrete way.

Thanasis Spanidis subsequently conflates his interpretation of Mao’s concrete analysis—regarding the strategy for revolution and the construction of socialism in the specific context of China—with Maoism (a form of dogmatism based on Mao’s writings); this is a deceptive and misleading practice on the part of Thanasis Spanidis:

Mao's dialectic, particularly his concept of primary and secondary contradictions and the distinction between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions , is often praised as a creative development of dialectical materialism. The distinction between primary and secondary contradictions also found its way into the Western European left in the 1970s, where it was often used in a vulgarized form. For example, the "primary contradiction" was translated as "the central social problem," and secondary contradictions, such as the oppression of women, as "less important problems" (which provoked feminism against this supposedly "orthodox Marxist view") ⁵. Contemporary Marxist engagements with the topic also largely treat Mao's concepts uncritically, as if they were indeed part of the Marxist worldview. As we will see below, this is not the case.

Without going into further detail here, we can certainly say that the analysis of the “West European Left in 1970” is not Mao’s, but rather that of people who use Mao’s works dogmatically. Mao is not responsible for the dogmatic use of “On Contradiction”—or of “Mao’s dialectics” as supposedly a “creative development of dialectical materialism”...
To reiterate, Mao presented an exposition “On Contradiction” in which he specifically explained what dialectics entails—but as part of dialectical materialism, as part of the scientific method for gaining knowledge of the material world in order to transform it (as is made clear in “On Practice”).

Without further explanation or clarification, Thanasis Spanidis moves directly to the unity of the aspects of contradictions, whereas Mao first draws a distinction between the universality of contradiction and the particularity of contradiction. Thanasis Spanidis thus divorces dialectics from materialism and speaks ONLY of the universality of contradiction.
Given his dogmatism, this is understandable, for the particularity of contradiction is linked to making a CONCRETE analysis of the CONCRETE historical situation—something Thanasis Spanidis refuses to do...
Thanasis Spanidis:

2.2.1.1 Mao's understanding of contradictions and development
For Mao, the fundamental law of materialist dialectics is the unity of opposites ⁶. The essence of all things contains contradictions that drive their self-movement, generating their interconnectedness and interaction with other things ⁷. The causes of change thus lie within things themselves and not in an external stimulus. External stimuli certainly exist, but these are then "conditions of change and the internal causes as its basis, whereby the external causes act by means of the internal ones ⁸. " Up to this point, no objections can be raised against Mao's statements from a Marxist perspective.
However, initial doubts should arise as soon as Mao cites his examples of contradictions : “Without life, there is no death; without death, no life. Without above, there is no below; without below, no above. Without misfortune, there is no happiness; without happiness, no misfortune. Without easy, there is nothing difficult; without difficult, there is nothing easy. (…) Without a bourgeoisie, there is no proletariat; without a proletariat, there is no bourgeoisie. (…) And so it is with all contradictions ⁹. ” Mao’s enumeration shows that his understanding of contradictions differs from that developed by Hegel and Marx. Up and down, happiness and unhappiness, ease and difficulty are simply logical and conceptual opposites—it is obvious that one cannot speak of an up if there is no down. However, these are not contradictions as understood by dialectical materialism, that is, as mutually exclusive, conflicting sides of the same thing, whose contradiction ultimately drives the development of something qualitatively new . " These contradictions have no function; they do not operate, they do not drive any development from within themselves ¹⁰. "

Here, Thanasis Spanidis is manipulating and misleading the situation... it is precisely against dogmatists—like Thanasis Spanidis—that Mao explains:

For convenience of exposition, I shall deal first with the universality of contradiction and then proceed to the particularity of contradiction. The reason is that the universality of contradiction can be explained more briefly, for it has been widely recognized ever since the materialist-dialectical world outlook was discovered and materialist dialectics applied with outstanding success to analysing many aspects of human history and natural history and to changing many aspects of society and nature (as in the Soviet Union) by the great creators and continuers of Marxism—Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin; whereas the particularity of contradiction is still not dearly understood by many comrades, and especially by the dogmatists. They do not understand that it is precisely in the particularity of contradiction that the universality of contradiction resides. Nor do they understand how important is the study of the particularity of contradiction in the concrete things confronting us for guiding the course of revolutionary practice.

NOWHERE does Mao provide an “enumeration” of contradictions; rather, he makes a DISTINCTION between the generality of the contradiction and the particularity of the contradiction…
When he discusses the identity of the ASPECTS of the contradiction, he give examples the opposition of aspects in contradictions (found both in the development of things in the world and in concepts within the human mind).
But the focus is on the ASPECTS within EACH contradiction (whether it lies in the development of a thing or in the human mind).
Mao:

When we understand the universality and the particularity of contradiction, we must proceed to study the problem of the identity and struggle of the aspects of a contradiction.
Identity, unity, coincidence, interpenetration, interpermeation, interdependence (or mutual dependence for existence), interconnection or mutual co-operation—all these different terms mean the same thing and refer to the following two points: first, the existence of each of the two aspects of a contradiction in the process of the development of a thing presupposes the existence of the other aspect, and both aspects coexist in a single entity; second, in given conditions, each of the two contradictory aspects transforms itself into its opposite. This is the meaning of identity.
Lenin said:
Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical—under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another,—why the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another¹¹
What does this passage mean?
The contradictory aspects in every process exclude each other, struggle with each other and are in opposition to each other. Without exception, they are contained in the process of development of all things and in all human thought. A simple process contains only a single pair of opposites, while a complex process contains more. And in turn, the pairs of opposites are in contradiction to one another.
That is how all things in the objective world and all human thought are constituted and how they are set in motion.
This being so, there is an utter lack of identity or unity. How then can one speak of identity or unity?
The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without "above", there would be no "below" without "below", there would be no "above". Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, there would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty, without difficulty, there would be no facility. Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants, there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semicolonies, there would be no imperialist oppression of nations. It is so with all opposites; ...

But because, for Thanasis Spanidis, only general contradictions exist (he is a dogmatist, after all!), he speaks of “a contradiction” … while PASSING OVER IN SILENCE the distinction Mao draws between the contradiction in the development of a thing and that within a concept of the human mind:

A contradiction in the sense of dialectical materialism, however, is indeed that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—this contradiction develops from the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist mode of production, which, according to Engels, is the contradiction between social production and private/capitalist appropriation ¹²—but more on the concept of fundamental contradiction later. In any case, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are not merely conceptual opposites, but rather real, opposing, yet mutually conditioning forces in reality. The contradiction between them is not logical, but rather dialectical; it is objectively inherent in the material reality of the capitalist mode of production and determines its development.

And so, Thanasis Spanidis arrives at an “assessment” of what HE views as Mao’s conception...:

The fact that Mao lists actual dialectical, i.e., "living," contradictions alongside dead conceptual opposites in his enumeration suggests that he did not understand the difference between the two. Indeed, Mao explicitly writes "that difference is contradiction" ¹³—but a difference is by no means the same as a contradiction. Following Mao's understanding, one could ultimately speak of a "contradiction" between yellow and blue, or a contradiction between apples and oranges. This has nothing to do with the understanding of contradictions as inherent self-contradictions that bring about the development of things.
Mao's examples of contradictions are not accidental lapses, but rather inherent in his understanding of dialectics, which differs fundamentally from that of Marx, Engels, and Lenin—although Mao frequently refers to Lenin in his philosophical writings, thereby attempting to create the impression that he shares the same position.

Incidentally, Thanasis Spanidis speaks here - again - as if Mao views dialectics in isolation from dialectical materialism.
In effect, he is so indirectly claiming that Mao is a metaphysician... which is what Thanasis Spanidis himself actually is.
Regarding dogmatists like Thanasis Spanidis, Mao patiently clarifies:

Since the particular is united with the universal and since the universality as well as the particularity of contradiction is inherent in everything, universality residing in particularity, we should, when studying an object, try to discover both the particular and the universal and their interconnection, to discover both particularity and universality and also their interconnection within the object itself, and to discover the interconnections of this object with the many objects outside it.(…)
Thus, Stalin analysed the universality of contradiction in imperialism, showing why Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, and at the same time analysed the particularity of tsarist Russian imperialism within this general contradiction, showing why Russia became the birthplace of the theory and tactics of proletarian revolution and how the universality of contradiction is contained in this particularity. Stalin's analysis provides us with a model for understanding the particularity and the universality of contradiction and their interconnection.
On the question of using dialectics in the study of objective phenomena, Marx and Engels, and likewise Lenin and Stalin, always enjoin people not to be in any way subjective and arbitrary but, from the concrete conditions in the actual objective movement of these phenomena, to discover their concrete contradictions, the concrete position of each aspect of every contradiction and the concrete interrelations of the contradictions. Our dogmatists do not have this attitude in study and therefore can never get anything right. We must take warning from their failure and learn to acquire this attitude, which is the only correct one in study.

But Thanasis Spanidis has clearly not read what Mao explains here, and he continues:

The widespread notion that Mao merely elaborated and differentiated the Marxist concept of contradiction is all the more astonishing given that Mao himself fundamentally contradicts Engels' understanding .
“Engels spoke about the three categories. However, I do not believe in two of these categories. (The unity of opposites is the most elementary law; the transformation of quantitative into qualitative changes is the unity of the contrast between quality and quantity. The negation of the negation does not exist at all. ) The simultaneous juxtaposition of the transformation of quantitative into qualitative changes and the negation of the negation with the law of the unity of opposites is triplism, not monism . ”¹⁴
This view can be found in several places in Mao's writings. It is obvious that this is a fundamental view of Mao's ¹⁵.
Even though Mao states in various places that contradictions drive development, this concession to Marxism does not align with Mao's other pronouncements on contradiction . For the crucial characteristic of the development brought about by contradictions is precisely that things can acquire new qualities through them, and that the contradiction within a thing is overcome, i.e., negated, thereby restoring, within the framework of a cyclical movement, the qualities of an earlier state at a higher level . If Mao reduces the transformation into a new quality to a mere variation of the struggle between opposites, he does violence to the dialectic of Hegel, Marx, and Engels. For in the contradictions that, as Mao also says, are inherent in all things, the characteristic feature is precisely coexistence, that is, the temporal simultaneity of the two sides of the contradiction and their mutual negation. The development that springs from these contradictions, however, means that this coexistence is overcome, not unilaterally in favor of one side of the contradiction, but by creating a synthesis of a new quality. By interpreting this movement as a variant of the “clash of opposites” as well as the (alleged) struggle between “above” and “below”, Mao relativizes the developmental aspect of dialectics.

In effect, Thanasis provides an indirect assessment of the analysis presented in the text (by Mao)—the very text from which he draws the quote. He implies—in reality—that Engels, had he been present (though he did not live during that period), would have arrived at an entirely different analysis. This is idealism squared!
The context of the text itself (by Mao—see the footnote) is withheld from us. Furthermore, Thanasis Spanidis offers no explanation of the context in which these texts were produced. In fact, he is not even familiar with that context, as a historical-materialist study of a concrete historical situation is simply not his forte. Instead, he engages in an idealistic approach, constructing his own mental representations of those historical situations.

During the period in which these texts were written (1964–65), there was a struggle within the Chinese Communist Party regarding various approaches to socialist construction. The bourgeois perspective was formulated based on a "revisionist" interpretation of how to "apply dialectical materialism."
The struggle against this bourgeois conception of socialist construction was inextricably linked to the struggle against that specific "interpretation of the application of dialectical materialism." At its core, this concerned the understanding of certain dialectical concepts.
Below, I provide a few passages on this subject from The Wind in the Tower (Han Suyin, 1975 - Wind in the Tower download here https://archive.org/details/windintowermaots0000hans ):

10 The Years of Endurance: September 1959 to September 1962
(…) Attacks on Mao continued and amplified. A play entitled The Dismissal of Hai Jui appeared, once again by Wu Han. First published in November 1960, staged in Peking in February 1961, Wu Han's play went further than his previous essays, for a chant is repeated by a chorus of actors portraying peasants: "Return to us our land! Return to us our land!" A forceful way of demanding a return to individual farming.
Wu Han and others wrote on Confucius, praising his moral outlook, the qualities of loyalty, devotion, integrity which irrespective of class should be "passed on" to youth.
Teng To, former editor of Red Flag and People's Daily, Lin Mo-han, director of the cultural department of the Peking Municipal Party Committee, and Liao Mo-sha, a journalist, wrote a series entitled Evening Talks at Yenshan, which ran for about eighteen months (1961-1962) in the Peking Evening News and was also reproduced in Frontline, the theoretical fortnightly of the Peking Municipal Party Committee. Teng To's attacks on Mao were filled with innuendo, sat-ire, using historical figures to deride Mao.
Teng To, Wu Han, and Liao Mo-sha also published a widely re-printed column entitled Notes from a Three-Family Village. One article, A Special Treatment for Amnesia (No. 14, 1962), is particularly excoriating: "People suffering from amnesia... do not keep their word ... it leads to abnormal pleasure or anger finally insanity.... Such a person must be put to rest, must not talk or do anything.... In the past the cure was to pour dog's blood on the sufferer's head." The Leap was ridiculed in the anecdote of a farmer who had one egg and dreamed this egg would hatch many chickens and procure him wealth. In another article occurs the phrase "Winter will soon be over... all things will show vitality in the thaw." Mao's sentence "The east wind prevails over the west wind" was mocked; in an article entitled Big Empty Talk Teng To wrote: "I want to offer my friends who are fond of big empty talk some advice: read more, think more, talk less."
A philosophical controversy on the theory of contradiction also took place. Yang Hsien-chen, vice-president of the Marx-Lenin Institute for Higher Cadres in 1949 and chief instructor for theoretical studies for higher cadres, in the late 1950's had begun philosophical controversy on the non-identity of thought and reality, on the "two categories of identity" and other philosophical themes. His arguments countered Mao's dialectical approach to ideological problems. Mao Tsetung countered these ideological attacks, although he ignored the persistent satire and malice of such works as Three-Family Village.
In May 1963 Mao would make a speech: Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? It was a philosophical thesis on conceptual knowledge and the process of cognition, which needs the test of practice to accomplish "leaps" in getting closer to truth. "Among our comrades there are many who do not yet understand that matter can be trans-formed into consciousness and consciousness into matter." This phrase, which subsumes Mao's dialectical mind and is the underlying theory for the cultural revolutions, was opposed strenuously by Yang Hsien-chen, who expounded that contradictions could be resolved by "uniting their opposites" (two unite into one). Yang affirmed that the link be-tween the opposites in a unity could not be split; and that the correct application of dialectics, the correct solution of contradictions, was how to reunite two opposites.
Yang's theory was not only the reverse of Mao's; it was also an attack on Mao's ideological battle with Khrushchev. It opposed Mao's policy of no compromise with revisionism, and it came at a time when Mao was saying that a split could not be avoided: that true Marxist-Leninists must form new Communist parties and withdraw from "revisionist" parties. While Mao carried on the polemics with the USSR leadership, he was being contradicted in the most authoritative institute for training Marxist-Leninist theoreticians in China.
In 1971¹⁶ the link between Yang Hsien-chen's philosophical theories and the economic thinking of Liu Shao-chi was exposed. It was then revealed that since 1949 Yang had supported Liu's policies by giving them a "Marxist" foundation. First in the transition period (1949-1955), when he upheld the necessity for "composite sectors" in the economy; second, during the Leap period (1957-1960), when he denied the dialectical identity between being and thinking (that a change in thinking could actively transform the material world); and again in 1964, when the "two unite into one" theory was calculated to stop Mao in his battle against revisionism in the USSR. These philosophical and economic battles were part of one and the same struggle, indivisible as Mao's confrontation against "revisionism" on the inter-national plane and against "revisionism" in China.

II The Cultural Revolution and after
1 Prelude, 1962-1965
(…) On May 20, 1963, Mao's first draft resolution on Some Problems in Current Rural Work was passed by the Central Committee. This document, known as the First Ten Points, is considered the first document of the cultural revolution.¹⁷
The First Ten Points exhibits the usual Mao way of stating ideological problems and guidelines, thus arousing initiative to deal with them. It points to responsibility for errors at the top level, insists that this is where the fault lies, not with the grass-roots cadres. It denounces the recrudescent activity of landlords and rich peasants at this moment on the offensive in the countryside. Leadership and power in some communes had fallen to them through corruption. Speculation and profiteering of serious proportions had occurred buying and selling of land, usury and extortion. "Not all comrades see this some turn. a blind eye to reality." The main thrust is a specific demand for the removal of "those in the Party in authority who are taking the capitalist road." "The socialist education movement is a great revolutionary movement... This is a struggle that calls for the re-education of man .. the new man."
Here, again, Mao goes further than before: to voluntary remolding. Man, facing himself, must change himself, must "fight self" in order to "repudiate revisionism." It is a problem of "world outlook," for each and every person. He entertained no illusion that all would change in one or even several such movements, but something could be done. Sixty to 70 percent of the poor and lower middle peasants, Mao firmly believed, wanted revolution and socialism. They were the mainstay of such a movement in rural areas. The peasant associations must hence be the prime movers in the change; all decisions on important problems must be made through full discussion with the masses, who must fully express their views "to expose bad people and evil deeds," the mass line in action.

When introducing the First Ten Points in May 1963, Mao Tsetung, in a vivid aside, took time off to reply to some of the attacks on the philosophical level which had been made against him by Yang Hsien-chen, the "Marxist" theoretician already mentioned.
Yang Hsien-chen in early 1962 had been calling the Leap "idealistic" and "due to one man's initiative only." It was necessary "to summarize historical experience and educate the cadres" in the errors of the Leap, he said. This attack on the theoretical plane, coming at such a time, coincident with the Seven Thousand conference, was far more deadly, in a system where ideological correctness is all, than any other form of attack. Yang denied the relation between matter and consciousness, between base and superstructure.
"Where do correct ideas come from?" said Mao. "Are they innate in the mind? No... they come from social practice and from it alone."
Thus from practice to knowledge and back to practice, in a continuing motion; this was the acquisition of understanding. Here also Mao went a step further in his enunciation of the relation between ideas, habits and customs which produce behavior, and the material and tangible ways in which they change the material environment.
"Some comrades... do not comprehend that matter can be trans-formed into consciousness and consciousness into matter, although such leaps are phenomena of everyday life." "It is man's social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world." Yang's philosophical precepts were actually, even though not worded that way, based upon the concept of an unchanging human nature, which is rejected by Marxism. For man does change, conditioned by the system he lives in; and though he has six thousand years of class society behind him, and it may take some centuries to eradicate certain of the traits which pull him back into a barbaric exploiting past, yet man can choose what he becomes, and this implies willful unremitting aware-ness of himself, perpetual self-remolding. Revolutions are conscious changes, and are becoming more and more conscious as the majority of the world's peoples heighten their awareness. This act of will by millions of people who want revolution is accompanied by an act of will towards the self, which also must change; and so man's future is to change himself, doing away consciously with the so-called "instincts" of greed, selfishness, and inhumanity towards others.
This moral dimension, generating a change consciously known and performed, accelerates the revolutionary process and is the key to the future. Hence all revolutions are not only acts of violence by which one class overthrows another, but also immense exercises in self-change. This inner revolution must accompany the societal one, and the eradication of old customs, attitudes, ideas, and prejudices is as essential as the breakdown of old societal structures. In fact, one cannot be per-formed without the other.
Thus Mao Tsetung was establishing the philosophical foundation of the continuing revolution, deepening the scope and giving the role of conscious man the forefront position in the great battle against injustice, exploitation, and barbarism.

3 The Cultural Revolution Swings into Action
(…) Indications that the policies and methods of the Leap of 1958 would be the ones guiding the Third Plan were abundantly clear in the People's Daily editorial for the sixteenth anniversary, October 1, 1965. "Long live the general line of going all out, aiming high, and achieving greater, faster, better and more economical results in building socialism," it was headed. But resistance to this policy continued, pugnacious, subtle, outwardly compliant, captiously hindering.
To all appearances, the cultural revolution already announced in 1964 was proceeding satisfactorily, or so the press proclaimed. The socialist education movement had certainly strengthened peasants' associations, which were getting more vocal. Great campaigns to study Mao Tsetung Thought, to emulate the PLA, were dutifully reported.
China's financial and commercial system was endowed with "strengthening" political committees manned by PLA demobilized veterans; strategic industrial units had similarly been reinforced. The intensive study of Mao Thought, it was said, had already effected great changes in thinking and doing; all successes were ascribed to it; and a pervasive Mao cult (boring in its loquacity) prevented critical assessment of the resistance to Mao Thought. Dialectical, "one divides into two" scientific thinking had led to success in solving medical, botanical, engineering and other problems. Exaggeration depresses.
The refutation of Yang Hsien-chien's heretical "two combine into one" theory silenced the opposition on the philosophical level. The down-to-labor movement among Party cadres now extended to Party secretaries, who criticized their own "mandarin behavior." University professors and students went in teams to rural areas. Industry was now "truly serving" agriculture; the volume of water conservancy works in that year (with PLA participation) had been the greatest ever-1.3 million hectares were opened to irrigation in 1965 alone, of which 99 percent was funded by the communes themselves. Chemical fertilizers, cheaper and more, were now available, and the harvests were good. Tractors of various kinds were turned out. The policy of lending only to selected areas was canceled. Small industrial plants, hydroelectric, cement, fertilizer, agricultural implements, and light industries of various kinds increased in rural areas. Publishing services supplied more science books to brigades and production teams. Actors, musicians, drama troupes toured the villages, bringing culture and leisure to the peasantry. A wired broadcasting network was erected to web China's countryside, with every team and sometimes every house equipped with its own loudspeaker, bringing news, exhortation, medical and agricultural advice, weather forecasts, scientific knowledge and political study. The picture was of health, modest prosperity and achievement.
On the mental level, an understanding of what Mao Tsetung wanted for his people appeared to percolate through the masses and the Party.
On October 18, 1965, the People's Daily published a revealing statement by a Party secretary. "We always think that the source of opposition lies... with the basic level cadres and the masses we do not seek the reason in the directives themselves, but criticize the lower cadres.... This is wrong.... We were greatly shocked when we read Chairman Mao's teaching that 'to carry out directives from upper levels blindly and without reservation' is the most subtle way of opposing or sabotaging such directives."
If everything was proceeding so well, then why was the upheaval necessary? In 1972 and 1973 one still heard it said aloud in China: "Was it really necessary to do it this way?" For the cultural revolution had to pay its cost, in errors, in extremism, in destruction.
The answer is a question of class outlook, of ultimate goals. The choice was either an unexplained palace coup, removing Liu Shao-chi, imposing Mao's line from above, or the way which Mao chose, which was to "rouse" the totality of the people in order to let them, through revolutionary practice, grasp the great issues at stake. Had the problem of Chinese revisionism been settled by a diktat from Mao, the people, and especially the young generation, would never have realized the ups and downs, the torment and conflict, the tortuousness and complexity of revolution.

 Thanasis Spanidis talks ONLY about dialectics. For Engels and Mao, dialectics is PART of dialectical and historical materialism
Thanasis Spanidis talks ONLY about dialectics (“Mao's concept of opposites...¨)
Well, both Engels and Mao (but apparently not Thanisis Spanidis… ) saw dialectics as part of dialectical and historical materialism:

Frederick Engels 1882
Preface to the First German Edition of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific 

The materialist conception of history and its specific application to the modern class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie was only possible by means of dialectics.

And when Engels discusses dialectics¹⁸, he specifically outlines the connection between dialectics and materialism:

But the old idealist conception of history, which was not yet dislodged, knew nothing of class struggles based upon economic interests, knew nothing of economic interests; production and all economic relations appeared in it only as incidental, subordinate elements in the "history of civilization".
The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past history. Then it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange — in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period. Hegel has freed history from metaphysics — he made it dialectic; but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; now a materialistic treatment of history was propounded, and a method found of explaining man's "knowing" by his "being", instead of, as heretofore, his "being" by his "knowing".

While Thanasis Spanidis FAILS to do so, Engels makes a distinction between the dialectics of Hegel and those of Engels (and Marx).

Citing a remark made by Mao during a discussion on philosophy—"The negation of the negation does not exist at all" (a point not mentioned in "On Contradiction"!!)—Thanasis Spanidis argues that "Mao himself is fundamentally in contradiction with Engels" and that he "does violence to the dialectics of Hegel, Marx, and Engels."
In reality, Thanasis Spanidis—albeit in a way "opposite" to that of Dühring—places an exaggerated importance on the understanding or application of the GENERAL law of "the negation of the negation." Engels, by contrast, puts this importance into perspective in Anti-Dühring.

Engels is saying there: 

XIII. Dialectics.
Negation of the Negation

And now I ask the reader: where are the dialectical frills and mazes and conceptual arabesques; where the mixed and misconceived ideas according to which everything is all one and the same thing in the end; where the dialectical miracles for his faithful followers; where the mysterious dialectical rubbish and the maze in accordance with the Hegelian Logos doctrine, without which Marx, according to Herr Dühring, is unable to put his exposition into shape? Marx merely shows from history, and here states in a summarised form, that just as formerly petty industry by its very development necessarily created the conditions of its own annihilation, i.e., of the expropriation of the small proprietors, so now the capitalist mode of production has likewise itself created the material conditions from which it must perish. The process is a historical one, and if it is at the same time a dialectical process, this is not Marx's fault, however annoying it may be to Herr Dühring.
It is only at this point, after Marx has completed his proof on the basis of historical and economic facts, that he proceeds:
“The capitalist mode of production and appropriation, hence the capitalist private property, is the first negation of individual private property founded on the labour of the proprietor. Capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a process of nature, its own negation. It is the negation of the negation” — and so on (as quoted above).
Thus, by characterising the process as the negation of the negation, Marx does not intend to prove that the process was historically necessary. On the contrary: only after he has proved from history that in fact the process has partially already occurred, and partially must occur in the future, he in addition characterises it as a process which develops in accordance with a definite dialectical law. That is all. It is therefore once again a pure distortion of the facts by Herr Dühring when he declares that the negation of the negation has to serve here as the midwife to deliver the future from the womb of the past {D. K. G. 502-03}, or that Marx wants anyone to be convinced of the necessity of the common ownership of land and capital {503} (which is itself a Dühringian contradiction in corporeal form) on the basis of credence in the negation of the negation {479-80}.
Herr Dühring's total lack of understanding of the nature of dialectics is shown by the very fact that he regards it as a mere proof-producing instrument, as a limited mind might look upon formal logic or elementary mathematics. Even formal logic is primarily a method of arriving at new results, of advancing from the known to the unknown — and dialectics is the same, only much more eminently so; moreover, since it forces its way beyond the narrow horizon of formal logic, it contains the germ of a more comprehensive view of the world.

In my view, what Engels says here in response to Dühring also applies to Thanasis Spanidis.
Incidentally, I would like to draw Thanasis Spanidis’s attention to the fact that in the text “Examples of Dialectics” (Mao, Vol. VIII, 1959)—from which Thanasis Spanidis HIMSELF extracts a few isolated “contradictions” (see the note in Thanasis Spanidis’s text here further)—Mao also states the following:

“7. Things will Invariably Head Toward Their Opposites
Things will invariably head toward their opposites. The dialectics of Greece, the metaphysics of the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. It was a negation of negation.
China was also like this. The contention of one hundred schools of thought in the period of Warring States was dialectics and the classical learning of the feudal times was metaphysics. Now we have returned to talking about dialectics, is it not? Comrade Fan Wen-Lan, you are well acquainted with this. The way I look at it is that after 15 years, our tail will definitely be wagging in the air. Of course, because things will head toward their opposites, I cannot but exert my utmost efforts. Even if big-nation chauvinism emerges in the future, it will also head toward its opposite. If there is one correct thing that will substitute for big-nation chauvinism, what is there to fear? It is not possible for all socialist countries to become chauvinistic. Lenin’s dialectics Stalin’s metaphysics and present-day dialectics. All this is also a negation of negation.”

But Thanasis Spanidis, (in his dogmatism) blind as a mole to this (he never reads the texts from which he only quotes in their entirety), goes further:

In another line of reasoning characteristic of Mao, he finally resolves it completely. A central idea for Mao is that the two sides of a contradiction mutually transform into one another:
" This means that each of the two opposing sides inherent in a thing, under certain conditions, transforms into its opposite, that it assumes the position of its opposite side. " ¹⁹" There is nothing that is not mutually convertible. High speed transforms into low speed and low speed transforms into high speed. Work transforms into rest and rest transforms into work (...). Getting out of bed and going into bed are also the unity of opposites (...) Sleeping transforms into getting up and getting up transforms into sleeping. " ²⁰" Sons transform into fathers and fathers transform into sons. Women transform into men and men transform into women. (...) War transforms into peace and peace transforms into war," ²¹and even: "The life of dialectics is constant turning into its opposite . "²²
It is, of course, fundamentally true that the developmental process of something can proceed in such a way that the thing itself turns into its opposite. Lenin also writes this quite clearly at one point: " It is, of course, a principle of Marxist dialectics that all limits in nature and in society are conditioned and fluid, that there is not a single phenomenon which, under certain conditions, could not turn into its opposite . " ²³In Mao's system of thought, however, this turning into its opposite plays a completely different role. While Lenin merely points out that this movement is possible under certain conditions, Mao's examples and his insistence that it is a " constant turning into its opposite " show that, for Mao, dialectical movement is essentially a pendulum swing between two poles, with the sides of the contradiction mutually transforming into one another. Furthermore, Mao actually confuses mere differences, which are otherwise completely meaningless (high and low speed, etc.), with dialectical contradictions. Since for him the mere difference between two things is apparently the same as a contradiction, he cannot understand what driving forces cause things to develop and move. For Mao, therefore, the reversal into its opposite—unlike for Lenin—is not a result of inherent laws that can be scientifically analyzed and explained, but rather it is stylized into a metaphysical principle of reality itself. This principle of the mutual transformation of opposites is even "more important" for Mao than the unity and mutual interdependence of opposites ²⁴. This understanding of movement thus resembles that of the Yijing and Daoism, in which the opposition of yin and yang plays a central role. It is, however, fundamentally different from the Marxist understanding of development, according to which movement does not occur back and forth between two sides or as a stationary cycle, but rather produces a qualitatively new stage in each instance. Mao's horizon is limited here, as he lacks an understanding of qualitative leaps.

Thanasis Spanidis is so intent on finding a single quote within a text—one that would confirm a "reality" existing solely in his own mind—that he fails to read or study the rest of the text.
In the text "On Contradiction," he perceives only what Mao says (in the context of an educational exposition) regarding the universality of contradiction. Thanasis Spanidis says: “ A central idea for Mao is that the two sides of a contradiction mutually transform into one another”, as if Mao would have said that “In general, ……”
So Thanasis has not red the following passage in “On Contradiction” allthough it could has been written just for him!….:

Where our dogmatists err on this question is that, on the one hand, they do not understand that we have to study the particularity of contradiction and know the particular essence of individual things before we can adequately know the universality of contradiction and the common essence of things, and that, on the other hand, they do not understand that after knowing the common essence of things, we must go further and study the concrete things that have not yet been thoroughly studied or have only just emerged. Our dogmatists are lazy-bones. They refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which man comes to know truth. Nor do they understand the interconnection of the two processes in cognition— from the particular to the general and then from the general to the particular. They understand nothing of the Marxist theory of knowledge.
It is necessary not only to study the particular contradiction and the essence determined thereby of every great system of the forms of motion of matter, but also to study the particular contradiction and the essence of each process in the long course of development of each form of motion of matter. In every form of motion, each process of development which is real (and not imaginary) is qualitatively different. Our study must emphasize and start from this point.
Qualitatively different contradictions can only be resolved by qualitatively different methods. For instance, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is resolved by the method of socialist revolution; the contradiction between the great masses of the people and the feudal system is resolved by the method of democratic revolution; the contradiction between the colonies and imperialism is resolved by the method of national revolutionary war; the contradiction between the working class and the peasant class in socialist society is resolved by the method of collectivization and mechanization in agriculture; contradiction within the Communist Party is resolved by the method of criticism and self-criticism; the contradiction between society and nature is resolved by the method of developing the productive forces. Processes change, old processes and old contradictions disappear, new processes and new contradictions emerge, and the methods of resolving contradictions differ accordingly. In Russia, there was a fundamental difference between the contradiction resolved by the February Revolution and the contradiction resolved by the October Revolution, as well as between the methods used to resolve them. The principle of using different methods to resolve different contradictions is one which Marxist-Leninists must strictly observe. The dogmatists do not observe this principle; they do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds of revolution and so do not understand that different methods should be used to resolve different contradictions; on the contrary, they invariably adopt what they imagine to be an unalterable formula and arbitrarily apply it everywhere, which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what was originally well done.
In order to reveal the particularity of the contradictions in any process in the development of a thing, in their totality or interconnections, that is, in order to reveal the essence of the process, it is necessary to reveal the particularity of the two aspects of each of the contradictions in that process; otherwise it will be impossible to discover the essence of the process. This likewise requires the utmost attention in our study.

In his hunt for a suitable quote, Thanasis Spanidis strings together two quotes—taken out of their original context—from two DIFFERENT texts.
The quote " This means that each of the two opposing sides inherent in a thing, under certain conditions, transforms into its opposite, that it assumes the position of its opposite side. " comes out of the chapter “V. THE IDENTITY AND STRUGGLE OF THE ASPECTS OF A CONTRADICTION” which BEGINS with “When we understand the universality and the particularity of contradiction, we must proceed to study the problem of the identity and struggle of the aspects of a contradiction. “

At the point where Thanasis selects his chosen quotation from the text, the text itself continues with...:

…. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction.
Why is there identity here, too? You see, by means of revolution the proletariat, at one time the ruled, is transformed into the ruler, while the bourgeoisie, the erstwhile ruler, is transformed into the ruled and changes its position to that originally occupied by its opposite. This has already taken place in the Soviet Union, as it will take place throughout the world. If there were no interconnection and identity of opposites in given conditions, how could such a change take place?
The Kuomintang, which played a certain positive role at a certain stage in modern Chinese history, became a counter-revolutionary party after 1927 because of its inherent class nature and because of imperialist blandishments (these being the conditions); but it has been compelled to agree to resist Japan because of the sharpening of the contradiction between China and Japan and because of the Communist Party's policy of the united front (these being the conditions). Things in contradiction change into one another, and herein lies a definite identity.
Our agrarian revolution has been a process in which the landlord class owning the land is transformed into a class that has lost its land, while the peasants who once lost their land are transformed into small holders who have acquired land, and it will be such a process once again. In given conditions having and not having, acquiring and losing, are interconnected; there is identity of the two sides. Under socialism, private peasant ownership is transformed into the public ownership of socialist agriculture; this has already taken place in the Soviet Union, as it will take place everywhere else. There is a bridge leading from private property to public property, which in philosophy is called identity, or transformation into each other, or interpenetration.
To consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the people is in fact to prepare the conditions for abolishing this dictatorship and advancing to the higher stage when all state systems are eliminated. To establish and build the Communist Party is in fact to prepare the conditions for the elimination of the Communist Party and all political parties. To build a revolutionary army under the leadership of the Communist Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in fact to prepare the conditions for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites are at the same time complementary.
War and peace, as everybody knows, transform themselves into each other. War is transformed into peace; for instance, the First World War was transformed into the post-war peace, and the civil war in China has now stopped, giving place to internal peace. Peace is transformed into war; for instance, the Kuomintang-Communist co-operation was transformed into war in 1927, and today's situation of world peace may be transformed into a second world war. Why is this so? Because in class society such contradictory things as war and peace have an identity in given conditions.
All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites. This is what Lenin meant when he discussed "how they happen to be (how they become) identical—under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another".

However, Thanasis appends to his limited quotation a “list” that Mao provides in a DIFFERENT text— “Mao Tse-tung 1959: Examples of Dialectics, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. VIII“—a list that may well have been presented there by Mao in support of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT argument.
And as we saw above, in his haste to locate that “list” within the text “Examples of Dialectics,” he failed to notice the passage where Mao discusses “the negation of the negation”….
And then Thanasis Spanidis claims…“While Lenin merely points out that this movement is possible under certain conditions, Mao's examples and his insistence that it is a " constant turning into its opposite " show that, for Mao, dialectical movement is essentially a pendulum swing between two poles, with the sides of the contradiction mutually transforming into one another.”
And so—and this is quite typical of his dogmatism—in order to make this claim, Thanasis Spanidis took that “list” from a DIFFERENT text… But Thanasis Spanidis does not even read his OWN selection of quotes correctly, because in the quote that Thanasis Spanidis cites at the beginning, Mao says: " This means that each of the two opposing sides inherent in a thing, under certain conditions, transforms into its opposite, that it assumes the position of its opposite side. " ²⁵

He then makes a number of assertions regarding “Mao’s confusion,” “Mao’s metaphysics,” and “the limited horizon that Mao demonstrates”—basing these not on a direct quotation, but on a paraphrase of a passage in which Mao does indeed use the phrase “more important.” However, this occurs within a context that Thanasis Spanidis omits; that very context appears just above the passage he DOES CHOOSE to quote verbatim:

But is it enough to say merely that each of the contradictory aspects is the condition for the other's existence, that there is identity between them and that consequ*ently they can coexist in a single entity? No, it is not. The matter does not end with their dependence on each other for their existence; what is more important is their transformation into each other. That is to say, in given conditions, each of the contradictory aspects within a thing transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction.

… and then you can read above how Mao’s text continues...

Thanasis Spanidis further:

While Mao's writings repeatedly contain references to dialectical development processes, these merely demonstrate the inconsistency in Mao's thinking and his inability to definitively decide between his own understanding of contradiction and that of Marxism. In Mao's case, for example, this is expressed in an insufficient understanding of the problem that Socialism is constantly threatened by capitalist restoration . While this is fundamentally a correct observation, Maoism during the Cultural Revolution held the view that even two decades after the socialist takeover, China could just as easily revert to capitalism as it could advance to communism . Mao ultimately made this dependent solely on the consciousness and will of the people ²⁶. The inevitability and regularity of societal developments in a specific and predictable direction In Mao's work, this is replaced by an arbitrary sequence and alternation of opposites. With this understanding, a correct method of socialist construction and the defense of socialism against the danger of counter-revolution is not possible.

Thanasis Spanidis “analyzes” “Mao’s writings” and makes GENERAL pronouncements based on them. Yet, he never attempts to substantiate the ideas he holds—which he perceives as objective reality—by conducting a CONCRETE analysis of a CONCRETE strategic assessment that Mao himself formulated regarding a CONCRETE historical situation. Doing so would be highly valuable for us communists TODAY, as it would allow us to draw lessons. This is especially true because, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now evaluate the extent to which Mao’s specific strategic analysis was correct—or not—and consider how we might avoid similar errors in comparable (though not ANALOGOUS, as true analogy does not exist in the unfolding of history) situations…
Instead, Thanasis Spanidis merely seeks to “prove” his preconceived positions and judgments (which he perceives as “reality” within his own mind). That is his version of “Marxist critique.” All he does, in fact, is refer to a NON-Marxist (Robert Allison—see footnote… —someone far more likely to defend Confucius than Marx…

Thanasis Spanidis, with his blinders on, notices “…. an arbitrary sequence and alternation of opposites”
Once again, he fails to see the distinction between the general nature of a contradiction and the specific nature of that contradiction within a CONCRETE situation. This is, for instance, what is meant when Mao speaks of—much like Lenin!—"in certain conditions" (a point even included in a quote cited by Thanasis Spanidis!!—see above).
Where Thanasis Spanidis is then concluding “ With this understanding, a correct method of socialist construction and the defense of socialism against the danger of counter-revolution is not possible”, we will have to wait a long time for Thanasis Spanidis to formulate what then REALLY constitutes “ a correct method of socialist construction and the defense of socialism against the danger of counter-revolution” is.

Thanasis Spanidis is an example of what Mao criticizes: “Our dogmatists are lazy-bones. They refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which man comes to know truth. Nor do they understand the interconnection of the two processes in cognition— from the particular to the general and then from the general to the particular. They understand nothing of the Marxist theory of knowledge.”
Thanasis Spanidis would have done better to study “On Contradiction” much more thoroughly. Had he done so, he could have learned the following:

…. in studying the particularity of any kind of contradiction—the contradiction in each form of motion of matter, the contradiction in each of its processes of development, the two aspects of the contradiction in each process, the contradiction at each stage of a process, and the two aspects of the contradiction at each stage—in studying the particularity of all these contradictions, we must not be subjective and arbitrary but must analyse it concretely. Without concrete analysis there can be no knowledge of the particularity of any contradiction. We must always remember Lenin's words, the concrete analysis of concrete conditions.
Marx and Engels were the first to provide us with excellent models of such concrete analysis.

Thanasis Spanidis continues… (and one cannot claim that I am quoting him very selectively—which is, however, exactly what he does with Mao…):

2.2.1.2 Fundamental, main and secondary contradictions
Mao's distinction between primary and secondary contradictions has become widely known. "In the development process of a complex thing, there is a whole series of contradictions, among which one is always the primary contradiction; its existence and its development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions. Thus, for example, in capitalist society, the two opposing forces, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, constitute the primary contradiction." The other contradictions of society (e.g., between the feudal class and the bourgeoisie, etc.) are, on the other hand, secondary contradictions—" they are all determined by the primary contradiction, are under its influence . " ²⁷Crucially, as Mao explains, primary and secondary contradictions—like everything else in Mao's theory—mutually transform into one another. His example: In a war of aggression waged by the imperialists against a semi-colony like China, its various classes can unite to form an alliance.
“ Then the contradiction between imperialism and the country in question becomes the main contradiction, while all contradictions between the various classes within that country (…) are temporarily relegated to second place and assume a subordinate position. (…) In another situation, however, the contradictions exchange places. ”
If the war ends and the ruling classes of the semi-colonial country capitulate to imperialism, then the masses of the people would have to fight the alliance between the ruling class and foreign imperialism ²⁸.
For Mao, in every stage of a development process, there can only be one principal contradiction. “ If a process contains several contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction, playing the leading and decisive role, while the others occupy only a secondary, subordinate position. Consequently, when studying a complicated process containing two or more contradictions, one must make the greatest effort to identify the principal contradiction. Once this is identified, all problems can be easily solved. ”²⁹
In addition, each individual objection also has a main side and a secondary side.
“ Of the two sides of a contradiction, one is inevitably the primary side, the other the secondary side. The primary side is the one that plays the leading role in the contradiction. The character of a thing is essentially determined by the primary side of the contradiction, which occupies a dominant position ³⁰.” “This position, however, is not immutable: the primary and secondary sides of the contradiction merge into one another, whereupon the character of the thing changes accordingly. ”³¹
First of all, we must acknowledge that Mao introduces new concepts into Marxism that are not found in the work of the classic thinkers Marx, Engels, and Lenin . This alone would not be a reason to reject these concepts if they represented a productive development of dialectical materialism. To examine this, let us first briefly recall the concept of contradiction in Marxism. For Marx and Engels, there are no "primary" and "secondary" contradictions, but there is a fundamental contradiction . Engels writes: " The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction from which all the contradictions in which present-day society moves and which large-scale industry openly displays arise. " ³²For Engels, the fundamental contradiction of society is thus the contradiction from which all other contradictions and laws of motion of society arise. In capitalism, this fundamental contradiction is that between social production and the private appropriation of products. From this fundamental contradiction arise other contradictions, such as the one between capital and labor, between the unlimited expansion of production and limited aggregate demand, and so on. The fundamental capitalist contradiction, in turn, is ultimately an expression of a contradiction that reaches far back into pre-capitalist times: the self-contradiction of the commodity, the contradiction between value and use-value. The commodity form, the dual character of the commodity, already contains within itself the potential for the capitalist mode of production, and the capital that drives the development of capitalist society arises from the fact that labor power also becomes a commodity. The capitalist mode of production in its entirety therefore develops both logically and historically from the contradiction inherent in the commodity—and Karl Marx depicted precisely this development in the three volumes of "Capital."
Mao also writes about the fundamental contradiction and the "greater and lesser contradictions that are caused by the fundamental contradiction or are under its influence . " ³³However, it is unclear whether and to what extent he distinguishes between the main and fundamental contradictions, or whether he uses them synonymously. The latter seems likely, since he defines the main contradiction as essentially the same (e.g., " its existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions "). What is meant by "determine or influence," however, remains unclear. According to the Marxist understanding of the fundamental contradiction, as the abstract aspect of the capitalist mode of production, it gives rise to the other, more concrete contradictions of the mode of production and does not merely "influence" them in an indeterminate way.
Mao's approach is quite different: his contradictions are by no means logically or historically related to one another, but rather exist side by side without any mediation. The contradiction between the Chinese people and Japanese imperialism, and the contradiction between the working classes and the Chinese bourgeoisie, are not derived by him from economic laws, but are the result of events in world politics. If, at a particular stage, the struggle against Japanese imperialism is a priority, this is merely a political decision of the Communist Party, to which Mao lent a philosophical veneer through the concept of the "main contradiction." Unlike Engels' concept, however, it is not one that contributes to an understanding of the laws of societal development itself. Rather, it is an instrument for justifying a particular policy than an analytical concept with its own explanatory power.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

First, let us address about what Thanasis Spanidis is not saying ANYTHING.
In his zeal to demonstrate that Mao lacked a “proper understanding of Marxism and/or its application,” he attempts to prove this by cherry-picking quotes from “On Contradiction.” As we have already shown—and will continue to demonstrate here—he is extremely selective in his approach.
Furthermore, Thanasis Spanidis—perhaps deliberately—singles out just ONE text from a set of educational materials that, together with another, forms a unified whole regarding the nature of Marxism and of dialectical and historical materialism.
In reality, “On Practice” serves as the foundation—the essential core—while “On Contradiction” addresses a specific ASPECT of dialectical and historical materialism; together, they constitute an integrated whole within the framework of dialectical materialism.
In the introduction of On Practice is said:

"On Practice" was written in order to expose the subjectivist errors of dogmatism and empiricism in the Party, and especially the error of dogmatism, from the standpoint of the Marxist theory of knowledge. It was entitled "On Practice" because its stress was on exposing the dogmatist kind of subjectivism, which belittles practice.”

And in “On Practice” Mao explained:

Marxists regard man's activity in production as the most fundamental practical activity, the determinant of all his other activities. (…)
This dialectical-materialist theory of the process of development of knowledge, basing itself on practice and proceeding from the shallower to the deeper, was never worked out by anybody before the rise of Marxism. Marxist materialism solved this problem correctly for the first time, pointing out both materialistically and dialectically the deepening movement of cognition, the movement by which man in society progresses from perceptual knowledge to logical knowledge in his complex, constantly recurring practice of production and class struggle. Lenin said, "The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in short, all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely."³⁴ (…)
Marxist philosophy holds that the most important problem does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world and thus being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world. (….)
Idealism and mechanical materialism, opportunism and adventurism, are all characterized by the breach between the subjective and the objective, by the separation of knowledge from practice. The Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge, characterized as it is by scientific social practice, cannot but resolutely oppose these wrong ideologies. Marxists recognize that in the absolute and general process of development of the universe, the development of each particular process is relative, and that hence, in the endless flow of absolute truth, man's knowledge of a particular process at any given stage of development is only relative truth. The sum total of innumerable relative truths constitutes absolute truth.³⁵ The development of an objective process is full of contradictions and struggles, and so is the development of the movement of human knowledge.

This brings us by On Contradiction where in the introduction is said

“ON CONTRADICTION …. was written by Comrade Mao Tse-tung after his essay "On Practice" and with the same object of overcoming the serious error of dogmatist thinking to be found in the Party at the time.”

And so Mao explains:

The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics. Lenin said, "Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects."³⁶ (…)
As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. (….)
The famous German philosopher Hegel, who lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, made most important contributions to dialectics, but his dialectics was idealist. It was not until Marx and Engels, the great protagonists of the proletarian movement, had synthesized the positive achievements in the history of human knowledge and, in particular, critically absorbed the rational elements of Hegelian dialectics and created the great theory of dialectical and historical materialism.

So now this is said we go on further with Thanasis Spanidis’ so-called “Marxist critique” based on a selective quoting of “On Contradiction” …..

     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Fundamentally, Thanasis Spanidis makes the error of failing to distinguish between the universality of contradiction and the particularity of contradiction. From the section where Mao discusses the universality of contradictions, Thanasis Spanidis selects quotes that reflect what he himself envisions—his own subjective conception of reality within the material world—specifically regarding Mao’s point that every process develops on the basis of its own internal contradiction. See the beginning of Thanasis Spanidis’s exposition at the very top: “For Mao, the fundamental law of materialist dialectics is the unity of opposites ³⁷. The essence of all things contains contradictions that drive their self-movement, generating their interconnectedness and interaction with other things ³⁸. The causes of change thus lie within things themselves and not in an external stimulus. External stimuli certainly exist, but these are then "conditions of change and the internal causes as its basis, whereby the external causes act by means of the internal ones ³⁹”
And then—as he does again above—he draws upon quotes in which Mao discusses the particularity of contradiction. This is characteristic of his dogmatic approach: he strips these quotes from their context and uses this hodgepodge to ostensibly “prove” the views of Thanasis Spanidis.

A second error made by Thanasis Spanidis is his failure to be CONCRETE. Through his collection of quotes, he attempts to “prove” that the CONCRETE strategy Mao developed for a CONCRETE historical situation is supposedly “non-Marxist.”
In fact, even at the time Mao formulated his treatise “On Contradiction,” there were dogmatists just like Thanasis Spanidis.
Mao explaining to them in “On Contradiction”:

II. THE UNIVERSALITY OF CONTRADICTION
For convenience of exposition, I shall deal first with the universality of contradiction and then proceed to the particularity of contradiction. The reason is that the universality of contradiction can be explained more briefly, for it has been widely recognized ever since the materialist-dialectical world outlook was discovered and materialist dialectics applied with outstanding success to analysing many aspects of human history and natural history and to changing many aspects of society and nature (as in the Soviet Union) by the great creators and continuers of Marxism—Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin; whereas the particularity of contradiction is still not dearly understood by many comrades, and especially by the dogmatists. They do not understand that it is precisely in the particularity of contradiction that the universality of contradiction resides. Nor do they understand how important is the study of the particularity of contradiction in the concrete things confronting us for guiding the course of revolutionary practice. Therefore, it is necessary to stress the study of the particularity of contradiction and to explain it at adequate length. For this reason, in our analysis of the law of contradiction in things, we shall first analyse the universality of contradiction, then place special stress on analysing the particularity of contradiction, and finally return to the universality of contradiction.

For instance, Thanasis Spanidis (cited above) refers to Engels and Marx in the context of their analysis of capitalism as a mode of production—distinct from other modes, such as feudalism. He contrasts them with Mao, highlighting what he perceives as differences between Marx and Engels on the one hand, and Mao on the other.
However, Mao did not provide an analysis of capitalism in the abstract; rather, he analyzed society as it concretely existed in China at that time—a society that was feudal and semi-feudal, with a form of capitalism that was largely dominated—in a colonialist manner—by foreign imperialism. In this way, the general contradiction manifested itself through the specificities of a concrete historical situation—a period long after the lives of Marx and Engels, though it coincided with the eras of Lenin and Stalin.
Below, I present an extensive excerpt from "On Contradiction" that addresses the points Thanasis Spanidis describes as "being unclear." for him:

II. THE PARTICULARITY OF CONTRADICTION
(…) The fundamental contradiction in the process of development of a thing and the essence of the process determined by this fundamental contradiction will not disappear until the process is completed; but in a lengthy process the conditions usually differ at each stage. The reason is that, although the nature of the fundamental contradiction in the process of development of a thing and the essence of the process remain unchanged, the fundamental contradiction becomes more and more intensified as it passes from one stage to another in the lengthy process. In addition, among the numerous major and minor contradictions which are determined or influenced by the fundamental contradiction, some become intensified, some are temporarily or partially resolved or mitigated, and some new ones emerge; hence the process is marked by stages. If people do not pay attention to the stages in the process of development of a thing, they cannot deal with its contradictions properly.
For instance, when the capitalism of the era of free competition developed into imperialism, there was no change in the class nature of the two classes in fundamental contradiction, namely, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or in the capitalist essence of society; however, the contradiction between these two classes became intensified, the contradiction between monopoly and non-monopoly capital emerged, the contradiction between the colonial powers and the colonies became intensified, the contradiction among the capitalist countries resulting from their uneven development manifested itself with particular sharpness, and thus there arose the special stage of capitalism, the stage of imperialism. Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution precisely because Lenin and Stalin have correctly explained these contradictions and correctly formulated the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution for their resolution.
Take the process of China's bourgeois-democratic revolution, which began with the Revolution of 1911; it, too, has several distinct stages. In particular, the revolution in its period of bourgeois leadership and the revolution in its period of proletarian leadership represent two vastly different historical stages. In other words, proletarian leadership has fundamentally changed the whole face of the revolution, has brought about a new alignment of classes, given rise to a tremendous upsurge in the peasant revolution, imparted thoroughness to the revolution against imperialism and feudalism, created the possibility of the transition from the democratic revolution to the socialist revolution, and so on. None of these was possible in the period when the revolution was under bourgeois leadership. Although no change has taken place in the nature of the fundamental contradiction in the process as a whole, i.e., in the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, democratic-revolutionary nature of the process (the opposite of which is its semi-colonial and semi-feudal nature), nonetheless this process has passed through several stages of development in the course of more than twenty years; during this time many great events have taken place— the failure of the Revolution of 1911 and the establishment of the regime of the Northern warlords, the formation of the first national united front and the revolution of 1924-27, the break-up of the united front and the desertion of the bourgeoisie to the side of the counterrevolution, the wars among the new warlords, the Agrarian Revolutionary War, the establishment of the second national united front and the War of Resistance Against Japan. These stages are marked by particular features such as the intensification of certain contradictions (e.g., the Agrarian Revolutionary War and the Japanese invasion of the four northeastern provinces), the partial or temporary resolution of other contradictions (e.g., the destruction of the Northern warlords and our confiscation of the land of the landlords), and the emergence of yet other contradictions (e.g., the conflicts among the new warlords, and the landlords' recapture of the land after the loss of our revolutionary base areas in the south).
In studying the particularities of the contradictions at each stage in the process of development of a thing, we must not only observe them in their interconnections or their totality, we must also examine the two aspects of each contradiction. (…)
If we do not study the particular features of both aspects of the contradiction, we shall fail to understand not only the relations of each party with the other forces, but also the relations between the two parties.
It can thus be seen that in studying the particularity of any kind of contradiction—the contradiction in each form of motion of matter, the contradiction in each of its processes of development, the two aspects of the contradiction in each process, the contradiction at each stage of a process, and the two aspects of the contradiction at each stage—in studying the particularity of all these contradictions, we must not be subjective and arbitrary but must analyse it concretely. Without concrete analysis there can be no knowledge of the particularity of any contradiction. We must always remember Lenin's words, the concrete analysis of concrete conditions.
Marx and Engels were the first to provide us with excellent models of such concrete analysis.
When Marx and Engels applied the law of contradiction in things to the study of the socio-historical process, they discovered the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, they discovered the contradiction between the exploiting and exploited classes and also the resultant contradiction between the economic base and its superstructure (politics, ideology, etc.), and they discovered how these contradictions inevitably lead to different kinds of social revolution in different kinds of class society.

When Marx applied this law to the study of the economic structure of capitalist society, he discovered that the basic contradiction of this society is the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of ownership. This contradiction manifests itself in the contradiction between the organized character of production in individual enterprises and the anarchic character of production in society as a whole. In terms of class relations, it manifests itself in the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Because the range of things is vast and there is no limit to their development, what is universal in one context becomes particular in another. Conversely, what is particular in one context becomes universal in another. The contradiction in the capitalist system between the social character of production and the private ownership of the means of production is common to all countries where capitalism exists and develops; as far as capitalism is concerned, this constitutes the universality of contradiction. But this contradiction of capitalism belongs only to a certain historical stage in the general development of class society; as far as the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production in class society as a whole is concerned, it constitutes the particularity of contradiction. However, in the course of dissecting the particularity of all these contradictions in capitalist society, Marx gave a still more profound, more adequate and more complete elucidation of the universality of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production in class society in general.
Since the particular is united with the universal and since the universality as well as the particularity of contradiction is inherent in everything, universality residing in particularity, we should, when studying an object, try to discover both the particular and the universal and their interconnection, to discover both particularity and universality and also their interconnection within the object itself, and to discover the interconnections of this object with the many objects outside it. When Stalin explained the historical roots of Leninism in his famous work, The Foundations of Leninism, he analysed the international situation in which Leninism arose, analysed those contradictions of capitalism which reached their culmination under imperialism, and showed how these contradictions made proletarian revolution a matter for immediate action and created favourable conditions for a direct onslaught on capitalism. What is more, he analysed the reasons why Russia became the cradle of Leninism, why tsarist Russia became the focus of all the contradictions of imperialism, and why it was possible for the Russian proletariat to become the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. Thus, Stalin analysed the universality of contradiction in imperialism, showing why Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, and at the same time analysed the particularity of tsarist Russian imperialism within this general contradiction, showing why Russia became the birthplace of the theory and tactics of proletarian revolution and how the universality of contradiction is contained in this particularity. Stalin's analysis provides us with a model for understanding the particularity and the universality of contradiction and their interconnection.
On the question of using dialectics in the study of objective phenomena, Marx and Engels, and likewise Lenin and Stalin, always enjoin people not to be in any way subjective and arbitrary but, from the concrete conditions in the actual objective movement of these phenomena, to discover their concrete contradictions, the concrete position of each aspect of every contradiction and the concrete interrelations of the contradictions. Our dogmatists do not have this attitude in study and therefore can never get anything right. We must take warning from their failure and learn to acquire this attitude, which is the only correct one in study.
The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking—all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception. Hence the general character, the absoluteness of contradiction. But this general character is contained in every individual character; without individual character there can be no general character. If all individual character were removed, what general character would remain? It is because each contradiction is particular that individual character arises. All individual character exists conditionally and temporarily, and hence is relative.
This truth concerning general and individual character, concerning absoluteness and relativity, is the quintessence of the problem of contradiction in things; failure to understand it is tantamount to abandoning dialectics.

IV. THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION AND THE PRINCIPAL ASPECT OF A CONTRADICTION
There are still two points in the problem of the particularity of contradiction which must be singled out for analysis, namely, the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction.
There are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions.
For instance, 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.

The search for quotations in On Contradiction —and combining these with further quotations from “Examples of Dialectics”—is intended to “prove” the following lies and inaccuracies of Thanasis Spanidis:

Now, Mao's concept of the primary and secondary contradictions is more than just useless—it's politically problematic. We've seen that, for Mao, 1) the primary contradiction in society, quite unlike the Marxist concept of the fundamental contradiction, is not rooted in the anatomy of the mode of production, but ultimately depends on political events. 2) However, the primary contradiction is the central problem of society, which politics must address and to which everything else is subordinate. And 3) this primary contradiction can change—even without a revolution in the mode of production—or another contradiction can become the primary contradiction. It follows that the politics of the Communist Party need not always be primarily oriented toward the class contradiction between the working class and the capitalists, but can, at will—provided it can be justified in some way— enter into strategic alliances with sections of the bourgeoisie if the "primary contradiction" allows it, and can subordinate the interests of the working class.
But back to Mao: Here too, his understanding of primary and secondary contradictions, which are interchangeable depending on political developments, cannot be traced back to Marxism, but to the ancient Chinese Book of Changes: “The contradictions coexist; for a time one is dominant; at other times another takes its place . ”⁴⁰

First of all: Thanasis Spanidis—citing his philosophical mentor (Robert Allinson, see footnote)—presents the “fact” that Mao did not apply dialectical materialism, but rather an idealistic dialectic (perhaps akin to Hegel’s? ….) found in the “Book of Changes”.
Yet, while Thanasis Spanidis himself regresses toward Hegel (as noted above, in the discussion regarding the “negation of the negation”), Mao himself emphasizes how dialectical and historical materialism specifically “liberated” itself from Hegelian idealism—as well as from the “Book of Changes”.
Mao in “DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM - April - June, 1938” :

Dialectical materialism is the world view of the proletariat. At the same time it is the method of the proletariat for taking cognizance of the surrounding world, and the method of revolutionary action of the proletariat. It is the unity of world view and methodology…. (….)
The very first condition for belonging to the materialist camp consists in recognizing the independent existence of the material world, separate from human consciousness -- the fact that it existed before the appearance of humanity, and continues to exist since the appearance of humanity, independently and outside of human consciousness. (…)
The second fundamental principle of dialectical materialism lies in its theory of movement (or theory of development). This means the recognition that movement is the form of the existence of matter, an inherent attribute of matter, a manifestation of the multiplicity of matter. This is the principle of the development of the world. The combination of the principle of the development of the world with the principle of the unity of the world, set forth above, constitutes the whole of the world view of dialectical materialism. The world is nothing else but the material world in a process of unlimited development…
Dialectical materialism's theory of movement is in opposition first of all with philosophical idealism and with the theological concepts of religion. The fundamental nature of all philosophical idealism and religious theology derives from their denial of the unity and material nature of the world; and in imagining that the movement and development of the world takes place apart from matter, or took place at least in the beginning apart from matter, and is the result of the action of spirit, God, or divine forces, The German idealist philosopher, Hegel, held that the present world results from the development of the so-called 'world idea'. In China the philosophy of the Book of Changes, and the metaphysics of the Sung and Ming, all put forward idealist views of the development of the universe. Christianity says that God created the world, Buddhism and all of China's various fetishist religions attribute the movement and development of all the myriad phenomena (Wan Wu) of the universe to spiritual forces. All of these doctrines which think about movement apart from matter are fundamentally incompatible with dialectical materialism...

Secondly, regarding the labels “uselessness” and “politically problematic” that Thanasis Spanidis attaches to the concrete analyses Mao developed to arrive at a concrete strategy for a concrete historical situation: Spanidis does this by spouting “generalities,” without making any attempt to substantiate his claims by actually analyzing one of Mao’s concrete analyses.
To refute these incorrect, untrue “generalities,” I present an excerpt from one such concrete analysis by Mao.
Mao in “THE CHINESE REVOLUTION AND THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY - December 1939 “:

CHAPTER I CHINESE SOCIETY
(…)
3. PRESENT-DAY COLONIAL, SEMI-COLONIAL AND SEMI-FEUDAL SOCIETY
(…)
As discussed in Section 2, Chinese feudal society lasted for about 3,000 years. It was not until the middle of the 19th century, with the penetration of foreign capitalism, that great changes took place in Chinese society.
As China's feudal society had developed a commodity economy, and so carried within itself the seeds of capitalism, China would of herself have developed slowly into a capitalist society even without the impact of foreign capitalism. Penetration by foreign capitalism accelerated this process. Foreign capitalism played an important part in the disintegration of China's social economy, on the one hand it undermined the foundations of her self-sufficient natural economy and wrecked the handicraft industries both in the cities and in the peasants' homes, and on the other, it hastened the growth of a commodity economy in town and country.
Apart from its disintegrating effects on the foundations of China's feudal economy, this state of affairs gave rise to certain objective conditions and possibilities for the development of capitalist production in China. For the destruction of the natural economy created a commodity market for capitalism, while the bankruptcy of large numbers of peasants and handicraftsmen provided it with a labour market
In fact, some merchants, landlords and bureaucrats began investing in modern industry as far back as sixty years ago, in the latter part of the 19^th century, under the stimulus of foreign capitalism and because of certain cracks in the feudal economic structure. About forty years ago, at the turn of the century, China's national capitalism took its first steps forward. Then about twenty years ago, during the first imperialist world war, China's national industry expanded, chiefly in textiles and flour milling, because the imperialist countries in Europe and America were preoccupied with the war and temporarily relaxed their oppression of China.
The history of the emergence and development of national capitalism is at the same time the history of the emergence and development of the Chinese bourgeoisie and proletariat. Just as a section of the merchants, landlords and bureaucrats were precursors of the Chinese bourgeoisie, so a section of the peasants and handicraft workers were the precursors of the Chinese proletariat. As distinct social classes, the Chinese bourgeoisie and proletariat are new-born and never existed before in Chinese history. They have evolved into new social classes from the womb of feudal society. They are twins born of China's old (feudal) society, at once linked to each other and antagonistic to each other. However, the Chinese proletariat emerged and grew simultaneously not only with the Chinese national bourgeoisie but also with the enterprises directly operated by the imperialists in China. Hence, a very large section of the Chinese proletariat is older and more experienced than the Chinese bourgeoisie, and is therefore a greater and more broadly based social force.
However, the emergence and development of capitalism is only one aspect of the change that has taken place since the imperialist penetration of China. There is another concomitant and obstructive aspect, namely, the collusion of imperialism with the Chinese feudal forces to arrest the development of Chinese capitalism.
It is certainly not the purpose of the imperialist powers invading China to transform feudal China into capitalist China. On the contrary, their purpose is to transform China into their own semi-colony or colony.
To this end the imperialist powers have used and continue to use military, political, economic and cultural means of oppression, so that China has gradually become a semi-colony and colony. They are as follows:
… (Mao gives ten CONCRETE points, NICO)….

These facts represent the other aspect of the change that has taken place since the imperialist penetration of China--the blood-stained picture of feudal China being reduced to semi-feudal, semi-colonial and colonial China.
It is thus clear that in their aggression against China the imperialist powers have on the one hand hastened the disintegration of feudal society and the growth of elements of capitalism, thereby transforming a feudal into a semi-feudal society, and on the other imposed their ruthless rule on China, reducing an independent country to a semi-colonial and colonial country.
Taking both these aspects together, we can see that China's colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society possesses the following characteristics:
...( again six CONCRETE points, NICO) ….

Such are the characteristics of China's colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society.
This situation has in the main been determined by the Japanese and other imperialist forces; it is the result of the collusion of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism.
The contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation and the contradiction between feudalism and the great masses of the people are the basic contradictions in modern Chinese society. Of course, there are others, such as the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and the contradictions within the reactionary ruling classes themselves. But the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation is the principal one. These contradictions and their intensification must inevitably result in the incessant growth of revolutionary movements. The great revolutions in modern and contemporary China have emerged and grown on the basis of these basic contradictions.

To be clear to Thanasis Spanidis : “the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation is the principal one.” means in de CONCRETE situation of the (fascist/imperialist) Japanese occupation ….
And Mao is speaking of “basic contradictions”, so in PLURAL.
The views formulated by Thanasi Spanidis just above are ultimately meant to “prove” that Mao Zedong was more to blame for the restoration of capitalism in China than Deng Xiaoping.
He does, however, still have to link this to a deceitful line of reasoning.
Thanasis Spanidis:

The development of the Chinese Communist Party vividly illustrates precisely this problem. In 1952, Mao Zedong stated:
" With the overthrow of the landed gentry and the bureaucratic capitalist class, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie has become the main contradiction in China ⁴¹." However, at the 8th Party Congress in 1956, it was decided "that the main domestic contradiction was no longer the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie, but the contradiction between the people's needs for rapid economic and cultural development and the lack of capacity of our economy and culture to satisfy these needs . "⁴²
After the start of the "reform and opening up"—that is, the establishment of capitalist relations in China after Mao's death—the Party repeatedly invoked this understanding of the current "principal contradiction" and, unsurprisingly, never changed it . Since then, the class struggle between capitalists and workers has been, in the official understanding of the Chinese Communist Party, merely a "secondary contradiction," relegated to the background against the backdrop of creating a (capitalist) society of "modest prosperity." While there is no doubt that Mao Zedong disagreed with this development, he nevertheless provided the philosophical framework with which today's revisionists within the Chinese Communist Party justify it.

Once again, we see in the work of Thanasis Spanidis a DELIBERATELY inaccurate and incomplete “historical” account… (did he learn this from his anti-communist mentor, Roderick Lemonde MacFarquhar…?)
1. The line (that “class struggle is no longer the fundamental contradiction, given the development of the productive forces”) was imposed by Liu Shaoqi at the 8th Congress… and was perhaps accepted by a certain “majority.”
Out of “The Wind in the Tower” (Han suyin, 1975):

6 The Hundred Flowers
(…)
The word "revisionism" was first used by Mao as a hint to the Kremlin leadership in December 1956.⁴³ Again, in his March 1957 speech at the National Conference on Propaganda Work, Mao warned against revisionism at home. "One of our current important tasks on the ideological front is to unfold criticism of revisionism." However, it appears that until 1963 the Chinese Party in the main did not feel that China could have "revisionists" in its upper echelons.
Denounced by Lenin as the crassest form of opportunism, revisionism is a distortion of the basic principles of communism. It denies class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat; it breeds a new elite class from within the Party itself, which in turn becomes an exploiting class and leads back to capitalism or worse, to what Lenin had called "social-imperialism." And its most pernicious feature is that while practicing capitalism, it cloaks itself in Marxist phrases and slogans. (...)
But he also disapproved of Khrushchev's arbitrary and total demolition of Stalin. It too was a kind of pressure, unprincipled, non-analytic, and he only hoped that "blind faith" would not recur.
But if Mao was both relieved and worried, the worry prevailed. Not so, however, with Liu Shao-chi. This does not imply that Liu at any time was in collusion with Khrushchev, but simply that he thought along similar lines. This coincidence of opinion was ironically referred to by Mao in his speech in Chengtu (March 1958) when he alluded to Khrushchev's main thesis at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU: "peaceful transition to socialism." "Some people [certain Communist parties] were delighted a millstone had dropped from their neck now the world was at peace." Such people were no longer revolutionaries, but wanted socialism to come peacefully, without their own exertions.⁴⁴
Mao noted that the majority of the Chinese Party did not agree with the manner in which Khrushchev launched his attack on Stalin. However, the reaction to the "peaceful transition" thesis was far more difficult to gauge. And the net result for a few months was a strengthening of the right wing, led by Liu Shao-chi, opposing the Mao line and saying that "it always smells of gunpowder."
Three things, Mao said, had been "blown away by a gust of foul revisionist wind." They were: the general line or basic policies, promoters of progress; the program based on the Ten Great Relations speech; and Mao's twelve-year plan for agriculture, drafted in 1954, twice shelved by the opposition of Liu Shao-chi.
As a result of his increased influence, Liu pushed through a number of his own policies. A directive that there would be no further changes in policies for the countryside for ten years, and the circulation of another "four freedoms"⁴⁵ draft to the grass-roots cadres (without the approval of the Central Committee, as Mao said in March 1958 in Chengtu), were calculated to reverse collectivization when the co-operatives were still frail. The policy of admitting intellectuals to the Party was speeded up, and there was a revision of the Party constitution at the Eighth Congress in September 1956.
Liu's main speech at the Eighth Congress shows his thinking, and the approval of his report by the Congress bears out the evidence that the right wing was then in preponderant position. Liu's speech is full of quiet sniping at Mao. He notes that "some comrades want to lower the rate of development of heavy industry... this is wrong." He averred that "the tendency of deviating to the 'left' has manifested itself in demanding that socialism be achieved overnight." On class struggle, Liu's major theme was directly contrary to Mao. Liu spoke of "the decisive victory of socialism." "The national bourgeois elements are in the process of changeover from exploiters to working people the working class has won ruling power throughout the country." The resolution of September 27, 1956, passed by the first plenum of the Eighth Central Committee, spoke of the "decisive victory. . won in socialist transformation... the contradiction in our country between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has been basically resolved."
In international relations, Liu praised the theses of Khrushchev at the Twentieth Congress and declared that there was definite hope of "an era of peace" and of "relaxation of tension."
Liu derided Mao's fundamental view that changes in relations of production and the superstructure were essential and primary in China. The basic contradiction in China, Liu declared, was "between the productive forces which are backward and the advanced socialist system." This meant that no criticism from the masses who were "backward" could be acceptable; the Party was "advanced," and its leadership must be reinforced.
Neither Liu nor Khrushchev was prepared to rectify and educate the Party by plunging it into the masses and practicing open-door debate and criticism, so fundamental to Mao's thinking. Both saw the Party organization as a power base. And both would initiate an ostensible "thaw" to allow certain privileged intellectuals into the Party, thus producing a fusion of high Party cadres and a technocratic elite.
The notion of the "dying out of class struggle," therefore, far from being more democratic or "liberal," was paradoxically the opposite - a means of reinforcing absolutism through a new class. "Criticism of inferiors by superiors is all right... but the other way round, things become chaotic," said Liu Shao-chi.

2. This went AGAINST Mao’s view (though he could not directly oppose a generally accepted congress resolution):

Talk at the Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the 8th Central Committee of the CCP ⁴⁶ – October 7, 1957

… in proceeding through the transitional era from capitalism to socialism, the main (or fundamental) contradiction is the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism.
Thus in social relations and interpersonal relations there has been a fundamental resolution, but there has not been a complete resolution. The landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, and bad elements endorse capitalism, and those who exploit people endorse capitalism. This is also a contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The struggle between the two roads will be resolved after a long period of struggle. “Main” and “fundamental” have the same meaning.
The resolutions of the 8th Party Congress declare that the main contradiction is the contradiction between the advanced social system and the backward productive forces. Speaking reasonably, one cannot speak in that manner. Now there are contradictions, and in the future there will also be contradictions. When cooperatives have all been transformed into state farms which pay out wages there will still be contradictions. Socialism is comprised of two sectors: public ownership and collective ownership. In the future, contradictions will also arise between the two. The socialist system and the productive forces are fundamentally in conformity, but they also have areas where there is not total conformity. There are still shortcomings and it is incorrect to say that there is perfect conformity. When Stalin mentioned perfect conformity (official report, page 14) there arose a problem. The ideology of religion is not in accord with socialism, but we still want to repair temples. Repairing temples is done to achieve the goal of tearing down temples. Why do we say this is by and large in accord? Because it can develop the productive forces. India undertook a five-year plan and increased its steel output by 300,000 tons. We raised our output by 94 million tons. Our system does not impede the development of the productive forces. After several tens of years the contradiction between the collective and the state-owned sectors will be resolved, but there will still be new contradictions. When we have arrived at communism, we will not need the law of value and we will not need an army, the international environment permitting of course. Marx, Engels, and Lenin never said this sentence, which is in the resolutions of the 8th Party Congress, but there is no harm in it. The meaning is that we must hurriedly develop production, strengthen the material foundation of socialist society; it is only that this was not said clearly. The essence of the stylistic faults is that we have not seriously talked about contradictions. It has drawn comparisons with foreign countries and with the future.
It is not necessary to change this sentence now; there is no need to discuss this question now. Lenin said that there is a contradiction between Soviet power and backward technology. We will not talk about this now. Afterwards it will be all right to explain it more clearly. Strictly speaking, it is of course incorrect to say that the socialist system and the productive forces are not in accord. We are a socialist system developing its productive forces. A good many economists say that there is a contradiction between our system and the productive forces and that the productive forces of a socialist system are backward. This sort of talk is bad.

3. The Resolution of 2021—to which Thanasis Spanidis refers—speaks of the “correctness” of the line of the 8th Congress. The Resolution of 2021 suggests that Mao supported it at the time.
It is this passage in the Resolution of 2021⁴⁷ upon which Thanasis Spanidis bases his argument:

The Party propounded at its Eighth National Congress that the main contradiction in China was no longer the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie, but rather that between the demand of the people for rapid economic and cultural development and the reality that the country’s economy and culture fell short of the needs of the people. Therefore, the major task facing the nation was to concentrate on developing the productive forces and realize industrialization in order to gradually meet the people’s growing material and cultural needs. The Party called on the people to redouble their efforts to build China step by step into a strong socialist country with modern agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology, and it led them in carrying out large-scale socialist construction across the board.

4. Thanasis ignores and remains silent about another passage in the Resolution of 2021 (issued by the CCP leadership—Xi Jinping—in 2021, though also present in the Resolution of 1981 by the CCP leadership under Deng Xiaoping) in which Mao is specifically criticized for failing to follow the line of the 8th Congress and for pursuing class struggle “too extensively and too intensely”—notably through the implementation of the Great Leap Forward, the communes, and the Cultural Revolution.:

... the correct line adopted at the Party’s Eighth National Congress was not fully upheld. Mistakes were made such as the Great Leap Forward and the people’s commune movement, and the scope of the struggle against Rightists was also made far too broad. Confronted with a grave and complex external environment at the time, the Party was extremely concerned about consolidating China’s socialist state power, and made a wide range of efforts in this regard. However, Comrade Mao Zedong’s theoretical and practical errors concerning class struggle in a socialist society became increasingly serious, and the Central Committee failed to rectify these mistakes in good time. Under a completely erroneous appraisal of the prevailing class relations and the political situation in the Party and the country, Comrade Mao Zedong launched and led the Cultural Revolution.

5. Thanasis aligns himself—following the line of the CCP, as well as the “proven facts” presented by Roderick Lemonde MacFarquhar and the CIA(!!)—with the criticisms of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution⁴⁸.
He REFUSES to engage with any study of the accounts and analyses provided by individuals (who may not have been communists or Marxists—though, by that point, neither was the CCP leadership anymore, and certainly neither were Roderick Lemonde MacFarquhar or the CIA) who were IN China during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (and, in some cases, even the 1980s) and who spoke with workers, soldiers, students, and lower-level party officials.
Thanasis Spanidis further:

2.2.1.3 Antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions
For Mao, contradictions differ from one another according to a further criterion: Non-antagonistic contradictions "within the people" differ from antagonistic contradictions between "the people" and their enemies. The arbitrariness of Mao's method is also characteristic here, as he defines the people as follows:
"In the present stage, in the period of building socialism, the people include all classes, strata and social groups that approve of, support and work towards the building of socialism; on the other hand, all social forces and groups that oppose the socialist revolution, that are hostile to the building of socialism and try to undermine it, are enemies of the people ⁴⁹. "
In previous phases, the criterion was accordingly which social strata, for example, opposed the Japanese invasion. The people, therefore, include all forces that can be integrated into the strategic conception of the Chinese Communist Party and with which no antagonistic contradictions exist—and conversely, non-antagonistic contradictions are defined as existing only within the people. (…)
In other words, Mao's concept of the people replaces the analysis of objective social conditions with a purely political theory of "non-antagonistic contradictions," which serves solely to justify a particular policy of the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao. Specifically, Mao's primary concern is that disagreements and opposition within the working class and other working strata should be resolved not by force, but through persuasion in socialism. It is difficult to object to this. However, whether it is sensible to apply the philosophical category of "non-antagonistic contradiction" to this end—a category that essentially only suggests that certain social contradictions must be resolved differently than others—is another question entirely.
Reality, in its entirety, is permeated by contradictions that determine its development. The nature of these contradictions, their structure, arises from the thing itself: Naturally, the contradiction inherent in the commodity form between use-value and value is entirely different from the contradiction between dying and newly growing cells in a body, or between productive forces and relations of production. Because these contradictions are part of material reality and not a general philosophical principle that we impose upon reality through scientific analysis, Mao's newly introduced distinction between "antagonistic" and "non-antagonistic" contradictions is questionable. After all, Mao speaks of contradictions in general, usually citing examples from all areas of life. The distinction between "antagonistic" and "non-antagonistic" contradictions makes sense, if at all, as a description of specific political and social conflicts. As a general principle of dialectics, it is nonsensical.
With his concept of the people, Mao ultimately dissolves the Marxist understanding of the working class as the revolutionary subject. For Marxism, the revolutionary subject is the working class—not because workers always possess a revolutionary consciousness or because poverty automatically drives them into the revolutionary camp. Rather, the working class is the revolutionary subject by virtue of its position within the capitalist order: it operates the means of production in a system of highly socialized capitalist production, it has the power to disrupt and abolish the production of surplus value, and it possesses no private property of its own to defend. For Mao, however, the question of who belongs to the revolutionary subject is answered solely based on consciousness. Only from this idealistic foundation does it make sense to declare sections of the bourgeoisie to be part of the revolutionary classes.

“ For Mao, contradictions differ from one another according to a further criterion: Non-antagonistic contradictions "within the people" differ from antagonistic contradictions between "the people" and their enemies. The arbitrariness of Mao's method is also characteristic here ...”

Due to his dogmatic approach to the application of Marxism—in which he, in a metaphysical fashion, decouples "dialectics" from materialism—he is only able to perceive the contradiction in its general sense (Mao: “the universality of contradiction” ). He recognizes the fundamental contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat solely in the general form in which Marx formulated it, based on his analysis of capitalism and the essence of capitalist relations of production.
When conducting a concrete analysis of a specific historical situation—in order to arrive at the correct strategy for "taking action" (The practice) within that context (for instance, in a semi-colonial situation where capitalism, in its highest stage—imperialism—holds China, and where a specific imperialist power might even proceed to an occupation)—it is possible that this fundamental contradiction must be addressed differently than it was in a previous, distinct historical situation.
While a socialist revolution involves confronting the bourgeois dictatorship in an antagonistic manner (through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the "expropriation of the expropriators"), it is also possible—based on a concrete analysis—that the "power and influence" of the bourgeoisie under socialism may persist primarily within its ideology (including still within the consciousness of many workers). Combating this might well be achieved through discussion, practical engagement, and setting a positive example—that is, in a non-antagonistic way—provided that no acts of sabotage or subversion occur (for example, through lingering ties to the bourgeoisie in the rest of the world).

For Thanasis Spanidis, the (fundamental/general) contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is ALWAYS "antagonistic." He makes the same error as the "leftists." ...policy lines within the CCP during the 1930s (such as those under the leadership of Li Lisan or Wang Ming).
Since Thanasis Spanidis has evidently not studied "On Contradiction" in its entirety—and thus, constrained by his dogmatic blinders, sees Mao speaking *only* of "the universality of contradiction" while remaining "blind" to what Mao says about the “particularity of contradiction” (which links to the concrete analysis of a specific historical situation and should lead to the correct PRACTICE— "On Practice," is a text of Mao which Thanasis Spanidis apparently does not even know—he ends up completely confused:

“Mao's concept of the people replaces the analysis of objective social conditions with a purely political theory of "non-antagonistic contradictions," which serves solely to justify a particular policy of the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao. Specifically, Mao's primary concern is that disagreements and opposition within the working class and other working strata should be resolved not by force, but through persuasion in socialism. It is difficult to object to this. (…)… a category that essentially only suggests that certain social contradictions must be resolved differently than others—is another question entirely. (...)Mao speaks of contradictions in general, usually citing examples from all areas of life. The distinction between "antagonistic" and "non-antagonistic" contradictions makes sense, if at all, as a description of specific political and social conflicts. As a general principle of dialectics, it is nonsensical. With his concept of the people, Mao ultimately dissolves the Marxist understanding of the working class as the revolutionary subject.”

For Thanasis Spanidis, the nature of the fundamental (or, in his terms, "general") contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is ALWAYS antagonistic.
He neither perceives nor acknowledges any particularity within this contradiction—certainly not the possibility that the APPROACH to this fundamental contradiction might vary depending on the specific, CONCRETE situation.
Consequently, if an analysis by Mao points toward a potentially non-antagonistic APPROACH to this fundamental contradiction (which, for Spanidis, is inherently ANTAGONISTIC), he concludes that "Mao no longer recognizes the fundamental contradiction."
It should be noted that this is the "reality" as it exists solely within Thanasis Spanidis’s own mind.
He makes no effort to examine the actual, concrete analyses Mao provides to substantiate his position—analyses that could, in principle, be evaluated for their accuracy or errors by considering the specific concrete historical context in which they were formulated (provided, of course, there were a genuine intention to study them).

(See the earlier remarks regarding Thanasis Spanidis’s refusal to engage with concrete analyses within their specific contexts—for instance, his comments concerning the 8th Congress and similar matters.)

“For Mao, however, the question of who belongs to the revolutionary subject is answered solely based on consciousness. Only from this idealistic foundation does it make sense to declare sections of the bourgeoisie to be part of the revolutionary classes.”

This is another “reality” that exists in the mind of Thanasis Spanidis. (who is the idealist here?)
Mao states (e.g. in the discussion with the CPSU of the 20th Congress ..) that the dictatorship of the proletariat will still exist and be necessary as long as the bourgeoisie still exists (especially in the form of its ideology) and the class struggle will still exist.
If everyone (both those who formed the bourgeoisie in the "old" society - and also the petty bourgeoisie - but also among the workers) rejects the ideology of that "old" society and is won over by the collectivist (proletarian) ideology, the bourgeoisie as a class will disappear, with which the class antagonisms will die and also the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
So the bourgeoisie will not become part of the proletariat, but “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” will no longer exist as classes.
Thanasis Spanidis would probably be better off reading “State and Revolution”: Lenin can explain it better than me, I admit.

Thanasis Spanidis further:

The assertion that the contradiction between the petty bourgeoisie (including the small peasantry) and the working class is non-antagonistic is incorrect. Based on their objective class position, the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry tend to defend private property, even though their precarious economic situation makes an alliance with the working class possible. Nevertheless, an antagonistic relationship exists between the strategy of the labor movement, which fights for socialism-communism, and the existence of petty bourgeois private property. That this contradiction can be resolved in socialism through persuasion and concessions is due to the petty bourgeoisie's objective intermediate position between the two main classes, and not to the fact that the contradiction between the working class and the petty bourgeoisie is fundamentally non-antagonistic.
While this criticism might be dismissed as mere hairsplitting, the crucial problem with Mao's concept of contradiction becomes apparent where he seeks to justify his alliance policy that includes the national bourgeoisie:
"In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie is one of the contradictions within the people. The class struggle between the working class and the national bourgeoisie is generally part of the class struggle within the people, since the character of the national bourgeoisie in our country is ambivalent. (...) During the period of socialist revolution, it exploits the working class for profit, but at the same time it supports the constitution and is ready to accept socialist transformation . "⁵⁰
Is this contradiction "among the people," between the exploited and the exploiters, therefore no longer to be understood as antagonistic? Mao's answer:
"The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class, a contradiction between exploiters and exploited, is in and of itself antagonistic. But under the concrete conditions of our country, this antagonistic class contradiction, if properly addressed, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and resolved peacefully. However, if we do not properly address it, and do not employ the policy of association, critique, and education toward the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie may be transformed into a contradiction between us and the enemy . "⁵¹

The positions held by Thanasis Spanidis here are ones he had already formed in his own mind; his “general conclusions” are detached from any concrete analysis of specific historical situations, as I have already pointed out above.
Consequently, he fails to distinguish between the general nature of a contradiction and its specific, particular manifestations.
While it is true that there exists a fundamental, general contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—implying that class struggle persists as long as this class contradiction remains—Thanasis Spanidis dogmatically asserts that this contradiction is “fundamental” and therefore always antagonistic.

Through the rhetorical question, “is the contradiction between exploited and the exploiters no longer to be understood as antagonistic?”, he implies that this is what Mao himself would argue. He then “proves” this by citing a specific passage from On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.
However, he overlooks the fact that the dictatorship of the proletariat is capable of abolishing “exploitation” in an antagonistic manner—specifically through the “expropriation of the expropriators,” as I noted above.
Furthermore, the passage Thanasis Spanidis selects comes from On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People—a text written in 1957, AFTER the revolution and during the development of socialism.
By posing this rhetorical question, Thanasis Spanidis suggests that Mao held the view that there is “no antagonism between exploiters and the exploited”— so in a situation when exploitative capitalist relations of production were still in place, that is, BEFORE the socialist revolution.
Firstly, he has not read the text “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” in its entirety.

Or perhaps he did read it, but assumes that his readers—fellow members of the CP, whose Central Committee has “mandated” him to make his “Marxist Critique”—will not bother to read the text in full, and will instead rely solely on the specific quotes he has chosen to present?

Mao in ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE -February 27, 1957 :

In ordinary circumstances, contradictions among the people are not antagonistic. But if they are not handled properly, or if we relax our vigilance and lower our guard, antagonism may arise. In a socialist country, a development of this kind is usually only a localized and temporary phenomenon. The reason is that the system of exploitation of man by man has been abolished and the interests of the people are fundamentally identical. (…)
Contradictions in socialist society are fundamentally different from those in the old societies, such as capitalist society. In capitalist society contradictions find expression in acute antagonisms and conflicts, in sharp class struggle; they cannot be resolved by the capitalist system itself and can only be resolved by socialist revolution. The case is quite different with contradictions in socialist society; on the contrary, they are not antagonistic and can be ceaselessly resolved by the socialist system itself.
In socialist society the basic contradictions are still those between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base. However, they are fundamentally different in character and have different features from the contradictions between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base in the old societies. The present social system of our country is far superior to that of the old days. If it were not so, the old system would not have been overthrown and the new system could not have been established. In saying that the socialist relations of production correspond better to the character of the productive forces than did the old relations of production, we mean that they allow the productive forces to develop at a speed unattainable in the old society, so that production can expand steadily and increasingly meet the constantly growing needs of the people. (…)
To sum up, socialist relations of production have been established and are in correspondence with the growth of the productive forces, but these relations are still far from perfect, and this imperfection stands in contradiction to the growth of the productive forces. Apart from correspondence as well as contradiction between the relations of production and the growth: of the productive forces, there is correspondence as well as contradiction between the superstructure and the economic base. The superstructure, comprising the state system and laws of the people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist ideology guided by Marxism-Leninism, plays a positive role in facilitating the victory of socialist transformation and the socialist way of organizing labour; it is in correspondence with the socialist economic base, that is, with socialist relations of production. But the existence of bourgeois ideology, a certain bureaucratic style of work in our state organs and defects in some of the links in our state institutions are in contradiction with the socialist economic base. We must continue to resolve all such contradictions in the light of our specific conditions. Of course, new problems will emerge as these contradictions are resolved. And further efforts will be required to resolve the new contradictions. For instance, a constant process of readjustment through state planning is needed to deal with the contradiction between production and the needs of society, which will long remain an objective reality. Every year our country draws up an economic plan in order to establish a proper ratio between accumulation and consumption and achieve an equilibrium between production and needs. Equilibrium is nothing but a temporary, relative, unity of opposites. By the end of each year, this equilibrium, taken as a whole, is upset by the struggle of opposites; the unity undergoes a change, equilibrium becomes disequilibrium, unity becomes disunity, and once again it is necessary to work out an equilibrium and unity for the next year. Herein lies the superiority of our planned economy.

2. In the case of Thanasis Spanidis, there is no analysis of a concrete situation—nor any examination of a concrete analysis by Mao regarding such a situation,which would lead to a strategic guideline. Thanasis Spanidis limits himself to cherry-picked quotes (divorced from their context). And that is where he goes wrong…
Mao, dealing very concretely with a concrete situation in THE SITUATION IN THE SUMMER OF 1957 - July 1957 :

During the period of socialist revolution in our country the contradiction between the people and the bourgeois Rightists, who oppose the Communist Party, the people and socialism, is one between ourselves and the enemy, that is, an antagonistic, irreconcilable, life-and-death contradiction.
The bourgeois Rightists who have launched wild attacks against the working class and the Communist Party are reactionaries or counter-revolutionaries. They are not so labelled but are instead called Rightists because, first, this will make it easier to win over the middle and, second, it will help split the Rightists and enable some of them to change and come over.
Those bourgeois Rightists who remain unchanged to the bitter end are die-herds, but they too will be given work and not deprived of their civil rights, unless they act as secret agents or carry on sabotage. This line of action is being taken because, judging from many events in the past, extreme policies produce bad results. We should take a long view, and decades from now when we look back on the present events we shall see how this treatment of the bourgeois Rightists profoundly influenced and greatly benefited the revolutionary cause of the proletariat.
Our aim is to create a political situation in which we have both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of mind and liveliness, and thus to promote our socialist revolution and socialist construction, make it easier to overcome difficulties, build a modern industry and modern agriculture more rapidly and make our Party and state more secure and better able to weather storm and stress. The general subject here is the correct handling of contradictions among the people and those between ourselves and the enemy. (….)
With regard to the bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals, the problem is to get them to accept socialist transformation, and the same holds for the petty bourgeoisie (including the peasants and the urban and rural self-employed working people), and especially the well-to-do middle peasants; but where the basic ranks of the working class and the Communist Party are concerned, the problem is to rectify their style of work. (...)
Firm faith in the majority of the masses, and first and foremost in the majority of the basic masses, the workers and peasants -- this is our fundamental point of departure. Even in the case of industrialists and businessmen and intellectuals, most people, who may have been deceived for a time and wavered during the period of the Rightists' frenzied attack, regained their bearings and came over to our side a few weeks later when the counter-attack against the Rightists started. (….)
In the countryside the landlords and rich peasants are being remoulded; some are still making trouble and we must heighten our vigilance. A great number of the well-to-do middle peasants are willing to stay in the co-operatives; a small number clamour to withdraw, eager to take the capitalist road. We should deal with each case on its merits. In the countryside it is imperative to pay attention to the class line and enable the former poor peasants and farm labourers to occupy the dominant position in the leading bodies, while at the same time pains must be taken to unite with the middle peasants. I'm all for a directive to be issued at once by the Central Committee to initiate a large-scale socialist education movement among the entire rural population to criticize Right opportunist ideas within the Party, the departmentalism of certain cadres and the capitalist and individualist ideas of the well-to-do middle peasants, and to strike at the counter-revolutionary activities of landlords and rich peasants. The criticism should be directed mainly against the vacillating well-to-do middle peasants whose capitalist ideas should be struggled against by arguing things out. From now on such struggle should be resolutely carried out once a year in co-ordination with the rectification movement among the district and township cadres and with the check-up of Class III co-operatives, so that all co-operatives may gradually be consolidated. (...)
In the rural areas as in the cities the struggle is still one between the two roads -- between socialism and capitalism. Complete victory in this struggle will take a very long time. It is a task for the entire transition period. (…)
Before the autumn harvest sets in this year, it is imperative to wage a struggle in the countryside against individualism and departmentalism, both of which ignore the interests of the state and the collective.
Counter-revolutionaries must be eliminated wherever found. Kill few, but on no account repeal the death penalty or grant any general pardon. Arrest and punish again those persons who commit fresh crimes after having served prison terms. Punish the gangsters, hooligans, thieves, murderers, rapists, embezzlers, and other felons in our society who undermine public order and grossly violate the law; also punish those whom the public identifies as bad elements. At present, certain functionaries in the judicial and public security departments are neglecting their duties and allowing persons who should be arrested and punished to remain at large; this is wrong. Just as over-punishment is wrong, so is under-punishment, and these days the danger lies in the latter. (….)
Our general subject is the correct handling of contradictions among the people. Keep on talking about it until it becomes familiar, then what once seemed bewildering will no longer be so. Clarify in your own mind the question of contradictions among the people, openly and clearly explain it, correctly handle a number of these contradictions, and then, having achieved results and gained experience, you won't be afraid of it any more.
Let me repeat. Correctly handling the contradictions among the people means following the mass line, which is consistently stressed by our Party. Party members should be good at consulting the masses in their work and in no circumstances should they alienate themselves from the masses. The relation between the Party and the masses is like that between fish and water. Without good relations between the Party and the masses, the socialist system cannot be established or, once established, be consolidated. (….)
Don't underestimate the significance of our current criticism of the bourgeois Rightists. This is a great socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts. By itself, the socialist revolution of 1956 on the economic front (that is, in the ownership of the means of production) is not enough, nor is it secure. This has been borne out by the Hungarian incident. There must be a thoroughgoing socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts too. In the democratic parties and in intellectual and in industrial and commercial circles, it is of course out of the question for the Communist Party to exercise leadership over some people (the Rightists), for they are our enemies, and the Party's leadership over most people (the middle section) has not been consolidated in certain cultural and educational units the Party's leadership has not been established at all. Firm leadership over the middle section must be established, and the sooner the better. The bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals do not gladly submit to the Communist Party, and the Rightists among them are determined to match their strength with ours.(…)
As long as imperialism and the bourgeoisie exist in this world of ours, the activities of the domestic counter-revolutionaries and bourgeois Rightists will always partake of the nature of class struggle, and, what is more, they will invariably mesh with those of the foreign reactionaries.

A few additional remarks:
“Based on their objective class position, the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry tend to defend private property, even though their precarious economic situation makes an alliance with the working class possible”

It is the CONCRETE policy of collectivization and, subsequently, the development of the communes—a process carried out primarily by the peasants themselves (stimulated by the communists among them)—that leads the peasants to abandon their class position as petty bourgeoisie and acquire a proletarian consciousness. 

“That this contradiction can be resolved in socialism through persuasion and concessions is due to the petty bourgeoisie's objective intermediate position between the two main classes, and not to the fact that the contradiction between the working class and the petty bourgeoisie is fundamentally non-antagonistic.”

The collectivization and development of communes - by the peasants themselves (helped by the party members among the peasants) should then lead to a "non-antagonistic" solution to the contradiction between the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat. There were also delegations of workers who helped peasants in the countryside to expand industrial activity there.

And now Thahansis Spanidis arrives at the point he wants to make:

Whether a contradiction is antagonistic or non-antagonistic, for Mao, is clearly not necessarily related to the contradiction itself or its material constitution. Rather, it is about how the Communist Party deals with this contradiction . If handled correctly, the contradiction between exploiters and exploited—a contradiction that could hardly be more antagonistic—is transformed into a peacefully resolvable contradiction among the people. If handled incorrectly, this does not work. Mao's understanding here is entirely idealistic. He does not explain why certain sections of the bourgeoisie should even be won over to socialism, nor how the contradiction between them and the working class is to be resolved without a revolutionary transformation of the relations of production. The mere fact that a section of the capitalists in China had entered into a tactical alliance with the Communists against foreign domination is reinterpreted by Mao as an essential statement about this "national bourgeoisie."
This inevitably raises the question of why all other contradictions—that is, the fundamental opposition to capitalists and foreign imperialism—cannot also be resolved in a non-antagonistic manner. The subsequent development of the Chinese Communist Party from a revolutionary to a counter-revolutionary and bourgeois party demonstrates that Mao's theory of contradictions provided the justification for precisely this approach: for the alliance with the USA during Mao's lifetime and under his leadership, and for the "non-antagonistic" integration of the bourgeoisie into China's economic development, the so-called "socialism with Chinese characteristics," just a few years after Mao's death.

And so, Thanasis Spanidis arrives at the point he wishes to reach. He now believes he has “proven” that Mao held certain views which directly contributed to the policies of Deng Xiaoping—policies that led to the restoration of capitalism.
However—as I noted above—these are merely PRECONCEIVED positions; they do NOT exist in reality, but rather within an “IDEA” of such a reality, situated entirely inside the mind of Thanasis Spanidis.

“Rather, it is about how the Communist Party deals with this contradiction ...”
From its founding “the” CCP was NEVER a homogeneous revolutionary party as was the “Bolshevistic” party founded in 1912 ( named then Russian Social-Democratic Party (bolshevistic). In the CCP existed bourgeois tendencies FROM THE BEGINNING ...

“He does not explain why certain sections of the bourgeoisie should even be won over to socialism, nor how the contradiction between them and the working class is to be resolved without a revolutionary transformation of the relations of production”
Mao “explains” this all extensively and concretely in several texts (see above) how revolutionary transformation of the relations of production is the PREREQUISITE CONDITION which make it possible to “win certain sections of the bourgeoisie over to to socialism.”

“the alliance with the USA during Mao’s lifetime and under his leadership”
This is a lie, a delusion in the mind of Thanasis Spanidis which he cannot prove.
There is just one who “suggest” there was such an alliance ….
BREZHNEV in “FOR GREATER UNITY OF COMMUNISTS, FOR A FRESH UPSURGE OF THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE”. Speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, in Moscow. June 7, 1969⁵² :

Peking’s practical activity on the international scene convinces us increasingly that China’s foreign policy has, in effect, departed from proletarian internationalism and shed all socialist class content. That is the only possible explanation for the persistent efforts to identify the Soviet Union with US imperialism. What is more, these days the spearhead of Peking’s foreign policy is aimed chiefly against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. For a start, the Chinese leaders reduced to a minimum China’s economic contacts with most of the socialist states and rejected political co-operation with them, ending up with armed provocations on the Soviet frontier. More, provocative calls resound from Peking, exhorting the Soviet people to “accomplish a revolution”, to change the social system in our country.
The facts show that the Chinese leadership only speaks of struggle against imperialism while in fact helping the latter, directly or indirectly, in deeds. It helps the imperialists by seeking to split the united front of the socialist states. It helps them by its incitement and its obstructions to relaxation of international tension at times of acute international crisis. It helps them by striving to hamper the emergence of a broad anti-imperialist front, by seeking to split the international mass organisations of youth, women and scientists, the peace movement, the trade union movement, and so on.
Naturally, the imperialists make the most of the present orientation of Peking’s foreign policy as a trump in their struggle against world socialism and the liberation movement.
To sum up: attack on the Soviet Union all along the line; specious propaganda; slander of the Soviet people, our socialist state, our Communist Party; fanning hatred against the USSR among the people of China and now also resort to arms; intimidation and blackmail in relation to other socialist states and the developing countries; flirting with the big capitalist powers, including the Federal Republic of Germany—such are the guidelines of China’s present foreign policy!

Well, the official point of view of the CCP, in 1973 – so BEFORE Mao’s dead – to this was at follows, CHOU EN-LAI in the REPORT TO THE TENTH NATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA (Delivered on August 24 and Adopted on August 28, 1973) :

Recently, the Brezhnev renegade clique has talked a lot of nonsense on Sino-Soviet relations. It alleges that China is against relaxation of world tension and unwilling to improve Sino-Soviet relations, etc. These words are directed to the Soviet people and the people of other countries in a vain attempt to alienate their friendly feelings for the Chinese people and disguise the true features of the new Czar. These words are above all meant for the monopoly capitalists in the hope of getting more money in reward for services in opposing China and communism. This was an old trick of Hitler's, only Brezhnev is playing it more clumsily. If you are so anxious to relax world tension, why don't you show your good faith by doing a thing or two - for instance, withdraw your armed forces from Czechoslovakia or the People's Republic of Mongolia and return the four northern islands to Japan? China has not occupied any foreign countries' territory. Must China give away all the territory north of the Great Wall to the Soviet revisionists in order to show that we favour relaxation of world tension and are willing to improve Sino-Soviet relations? The Chinese people are not to be deceived or cowed. The Sino-Soviet controversy on matters of principle should not hinder the normalisation of relations between the two states on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. The Sino-Soviet boundary question should be settled peacefully through negotiations free from any threat. "We will not attack unless we are attacked; if we are attacked, we will certainly counter-attack" this is our consistent principle. And we mean what we say.
We should point out here that necessary compromises between revolutionary countries and imperialist countries must be distinguished from collusion and compromise between Soviet revisionism and U.S. imperialism. (…)
Chairman Mao pointed out in his statement of May 20, 1970, "The danger of a new world war still exists, and the people of all countries must get prepared. But revolution is the main trend in the world today." It will be possible to prevent such a war, so long as the peoples, who are becoming more and more awakened, keep the orientation clearly in sight, heighten their vigilance, strengthen unity and persevere in struggle. Should the imperialists be bent on unleashing such a war, it will inevitably give rise to greater revolutions on a world-wide scale and hasten their doom.
In the excellent situation now prevailing at home and abroad, it is most important for us to run China's affairs well. Therefore, on the international front, our Party must uphold proletarian internationalism, uphold the Party's consistent policies, strengthen our unity with the proletariat and the oppressed people and nations of the whole world and with all countries subjected to imperialist aggression, subversion interference, control or bullying and form the broadest united front against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, and in particular, against the hegemonism of the two superpowers - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

Thanasis Spanidis’ conclusions:

Mao's theory of contradiction demonstrates how crucial errors in philosophy are reflected in politics and determine the victory or defeat of the communist movement . Contrary to popular belief, philosophy does not consist of ivory-tower intellectual games detached from reality, but is nothing more than the generalized expression of (correct or incorrect) insights about the world. Mao's philosophy is a "creative" synthesis of elements of dialectical materialism with pre-Marxist Western and Chinese philosophy. However, this result can no longer be considered Marxist, since Mao stripped dialectics of its core Marxist essence: self-movement and development based on contradictions. By replacing scientifically verifiable laws with arbitrariness and qualitative development in nature and society with lifeless oscillations between opposites, Mao's theory of contradiction is unsuitable for understanding social and political developments, and certainly not for guiding the construction of a socialist society.

Well, the positions and “analyses” of Thanasis Spanidis bear a resemblance to those of Wang Ming.
Wang Ming in Moscow 1970^53:

In 1931 Mao Tse-tung began to propagandize his theory to the effect that "the present Soviet movement in China is a purely peasant movement," from which followed his assertion that there was no possibility for the Chinese revolution to develop along the non-capitalist path but that there existed the possibility of the development of "peasant capitalism.".(….)
Overestimation of the role of the bourgeoisie in the Chinese revolution, underestimation of the revolutionary role of the proletariat and rejection of the proletariat as the hegemonic class in the Chinese revolution, placing the peasantry above the working class and denial of the need for union of the; proletariat and the peasantry with the proletariat assuming the leading role, rejection of the possibility of the Chinese revolution developing along a non-capitalist, i.e, socialist road - all these are the sources as well as component 'parts of the anti-Leninist, anti-socialist ideological concepts. of Mao Tse-tung.(…)
He continued to maintain that there existed. in China no possibility of launching a socialist revolution and establishing a socialist state with a socialist policy, economy and culture but that there It was possible to carry out a " new-democratic" revolution and set up under the guidance of the bourgeoisie " or" proletariat a "new democratic republic," i.e., bourgeois-democratic republic with a new democratic policy, economy and culture. (...)
Mao Tse-tung said that it was impossible to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat but that it was only possible to establish a " democratic dictatorship of the people" as a " combined dictatorship of the working class, the peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie." (…)
Mao Tse-tung followed a policy (...) in which he asserted that. it was impossible to carry out socialist revolution and socialist construction in China after the victory of the bourgeois-democratlc revolution because of the existence . of imperialism, the incompleteness of the agrarian revolution , the inadequate development of capitalism in china and the participation of national. bourgeoisie in the revolution .

And Wang Ming in Moscow 197154:

Mao's extremely serious crimes on the international scene have made him a traitor to the world communist movement and the anti-imperialist revolutionary movement, and have turned him into an enemy of progressive and peace-loving people throughout the world. (...)
On the international scene, he uses anti-Soviet and anti-communist acts as a means of rapprochement with imperialists and reactionaries abroad. (….)
It is beyond question that Mao's disgraceful fall, his betrayal of the revolution, has ideological, theoretical, historical and social roots.
The ideological roots are in his counter-revolutionary ideas of feudal monarchism, anarchism, Trotskyism, militarism, and reactionary pragmatism.
This is why, though Mao did join the revolutionary movement, his ideology drove him ultimately to the ranks of counterrevolutionaries.
The theoretical roots: in philosophy, political economy, and in the question of revolution and socialist construction, Mao was not simply a false Marxist who concealed his true identity behind a "Marxist" mask, but an outright opponent of Marxism. This is why, though he did penetrate the ranks of the Communist Party by pretending to be a follower of Marxism-Leninism, he ultimately substituted his unscientific and counter-revolutionary Maoism for the profoundly scientific and revolutionary teaching of Marxism-Leninism, and became a traitor to Marxism-Leninism.

Wang Ming was the protagonist of the third "leftist" policy line imposed upon the CCP—a line that served as one of the primary causes for the loss of 90% of the CCP’s strength and that of the Red Army.
Although a member of the Central Committee, Wang Ming spent only a few years in China itself. He went to Moscow for his education at a young age, returned to China for a few years during the 1930s, and subsequently went back to Moscow, where he remained until his death.
From Moscow, he was able to exert influence over the Party for some time—until his "fall" in 1937—as he remained a member of the Central Committee and commanded the support of a large portion of the Party’s cadres and members. Mao, meanwhile, faced long-standing opposition and was even removed from the Party’s leading bodies. This allowed the disastrous "leftist" policy line to be imposed upon the Party for an extended period. (I refer here to the 1973 book The Morning Deluge by Han Suyin. The Morning Deluge download here https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.285440 )
At the Seventh National Congress in 1945, these "leftist" policy lines were analyzed and rejected by a majority. Their practical application had demonstrated their destructive nature, while simultaneously confirming the validity of the strategy developed by Mao.
The section on the unmasking of the third “leftist” policy line in APPENDIX: RESOLUTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR PARTY  (Adopted on April 20, 1945 by the Enlarged Seventh Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China):

….. a number of Party comrades who were inexperienced in practical revolutionary struggle and guilty of “Left dogmatist errors came forward, with Comrade Chen Shao-yu (Wang Ming) at their head, and fought against the central leadership under the banners of “Against the Li Li-san Line” and “Against the Line of Conciliation”, taking a sectarian stand even more violent than that of the Li Li-san line. Their fight was not designed to help the central leadership liquidate the ideological essence of the Li Li-san line and those “Left” ideas and policies which had existed in the Party since the August 7 th Meeting in 1927 , and particularly since 1929 , and had never been thoroughly dealt with. They put forward what was actually a new political programme in Comrade Chen Shao-yu’s pamphlet published at that time, The Two Lines or The Struggle for the Further Bolshevization of the Communist Party of China, a programme that continued, revived or developed the Li Li-san line and other “Left” ideas and policies in a new guise. Thus, there was a further growth of “Left” ideas in the Party which took the form of a new “Left” line.
Although this new “Left” line under Comrade Chen Shao-yu’s leadership criticized the “Left” errors of the Li Li-san line and the error of conciliation on the part of the Third Plenary Session, its distinctive feature was that it mainly criticized the Li Li-san line as “Rightist”, that it accused the Third Plenary Session of “doing nothing to expose and attack the consistently Right opportunist theory and practice of the Li Li-san line” and that it blamed Circular No. 96 for failure to see that “the Right deviation is still the main danger in the Party at present”. On the question of the nature of Chinese society and class relations, the new “Left” line exaggerated the relative weight of capitalism in China’s economy, exaggerated the significance of the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the rich peasants and the significance of the “elements of socialist revolution” at the present stage of the Chinese revolution, and denied the existence of the intermediate camp and of third parties and groups. On the question of the revolutionary situation and the tasks of the Party, the new “Left” line continued to stress that there was a “revolutionary high tide” throughout the country and that the Party should have a “line of taking the offensive” on a national scale, and it held that an “immediate revolutionary situation” would soon occur in one or more major provinces containing key cities. From a “Left” viewpoint it slanderously asserted that in China there was as yet no “genuine” Red Army and no “genuine” government of Councils of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers and asserted with special emphasis that the main danger in the Party then consisted of “Right opportunism”, “opportunism in practical work” and “the rich peasant line”. (….)
... in essence its political programme was chiefly “against the Right deviation”. In its resolutions, the Fourth Plenary Session did not analyse the current political situation or lay down concrete political tasks for the Party and merely opposed the so-called “Right deviation” and “opportunism in practical work” in a general way, but in fact it approved Comrade Chen Shao-yu’s pamphlet, The Two Lines or The Struggle for the Further Bolshevization of the Communist Party of China, the pamphlet which represented the “Left” ideas in the Party and was taken by people then, and for another ten years or more, to have played a “correct programmatic role”, although, as can be seen from the above analysis, it was basically a completely wrong, “Left” opportunist general programme “against the Right deviation”. Under this programme the Fourth Plenary Session and the subsequent central leadership promoted the “Left” dogmatist and sectarian comrades to responsible positions in the central leading body on the one hand; on the other, they excessively attacked those comrades who had committed the errors of the Li Li-san line, wrongly attacked those comrades headed by Chu Chiu-pai⁵⁵ who were alleged to have committed “the error of the line of conciliation”, and immediately after the session the Central Committee wrongly attacked the great majority of the so-called “Rightist” comrades. In fact, the then “Rightists” were mainly the creation of the factionalist struggle “against the Right deviation” conducted at this session. Of course, among these people there was a handful of splitters headed by Lo Chang-lung, who later became real Rightists, degenerated into counter-revolutionaries and were permanently expelled from the Party, and who, beyond any doubt, had to be resolutely combated; their establishment of a duplicate Party organization and their persistence in maintaining it were absolutely impermissible according to Party discipline. But as for Lin Yu-nan,⁵⁶
Li Chiu-shih,⁵⁷ Ho Meng-hsiung⁵⁸ and some twenty other important Party cadres who were then attacked, they had done much useful work for the Party and the people and maintained close ties with the masses, and when they were arrested shortly afterwards, they stood firm and unyielding before the enemy and died as heroes. Comrade Chu Chiu-pai, who was alleged to have committed “the error of the line of conciliation”, was then a Party leader of prestige, and after he was attacked, he continued to do much useful work (mainly in the cultural field) and died heroically in June 1935 at the hands of the enemy executioners. The memory of the proletarian heroism of all these comrades should be cherished for ever. The kind of “reform” which the Fourth Plenary Session carried out in the central body was likewise extended to the local organizations in all the revolutionary bases and White areas. As compared with the Third Plenary Session and the subsequent central leadership, the central leadership after the Fourth Plenary Session was more insistent and more systematic in sending its representatives, agencies or new leading cadres to all parts of the country to carry through its fight “against the Right deviation”.
The resolutions issued by the central leadership on May 9 , 1931 , shortly after the Fourth Plenary Session, showed that the new “Left” line was already being concretely applied and developed in practical work. (…..)
The period from the establishment of the provisional central leadership headed by Comrade Chin Pang-hsien (Po Ku)⁵⁹ in September 1931 to the Tsunyi Meeting in January 1935 was one of continued development of the third “Left” line. During this period, because of the serious damage the incorrect line had done to the work in the White areas, the provisional central leadership moved to the southern Kiangsi base area early in 1933 , and this move facilitated the further application of its incorrect line there and in the neighbouring base areas. Before that, the correct line followed in the base areas of southern Kiangsi and western Fukien had already been maligned by the Party congress of the southern Kiangsi base area in November 1931 and by the Ningtu Meeting of the Central Bureau of the Red Base Areas in August 1932 , in accordance with the erroneous programme of the Fourth Plenary Session “against the Right deviation” and for “reforming the leading bodies at all levels” — the correct line had been called a “rich peasant line” and an “error of the most serious and consistent Right opportunism” and the correct Party and military leadership had been removed. Nevertheless, owing to the profound influence in the Red Army of Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s correct strategic principles, the campaign against the fourth “encirclement and suppression” achieved victory in the spring of 1933 before the erroneous line of the provisional central leadership had been fully enforced in the army. On the other hand, an utterly wrong strategy gained complete control in the campaign against the fifth “encirclement and suppression”, which started at the close of 1933. In many other policies, too, and particularly in the policy regarding the Fukien Incident, the erroneous “Left” line was fully applied.
The Fifth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee, convened by the provisional central leadership in January 1934 , marked the peak of the development of the third “Left” line. Disregarding the setbacks which the “Left” line had caused the Chinese revolutionary movement and the people’s anti-Japanese democratic movement in the Kuomintang areas after the incidents of September 18 , 1931 and January 28 , 1932 , the Fifth Plenary Session blindly concluded that “the revolutionary crisis in China has reached a new acute stage — an immediate revolutionary situation exists in China” and that the struggle against the fifth “encirclement and suppression” was a “struggle for the complete victory of the Chinese revolution”, which would decide for China “the question of ‘who conquers whom’, of the road of revolution or the road of colonialism”. Repeating the views of the Li Li-san line, this session declared that “when we have extended the democratic revolution of the workers and peasants to important parts of China, the socialist revolution will become the basic task of the Communist Party; only on this basis can China be unified and the Chinese people achieve national liberation”, etc., etc. Using the slogans of fighting “Right opportunism, the main danger”, “fighting the conciliatory attitude towards Right opportunism” and fighting “the use of double-dealing to sabotage the Party line in practical work”, it continued and developed the excessive factional struggles and the policy of attacking comrades. (…)
it greatly exaggerated both the current crisis of the Kuomintang regime and the growth of the revolutionary forces; it ignored the fact that after the September 18 th Incident the national contradiction between China and Japan was mounting and that the intermediate classes were making demands for resistance to Japan and for democracy; it emphasized that Japanese imperialism and other imperialist powers would combine to attack the Soviet Union and that the imperialist powers, the Chinese counter-revolutionary cliques and even the intermediate groups would combine to attack the Chinese revolution; and it categorically asserted that the intermediate groups were the most dangerous enemy of the Chinese revolution. The new central leadership therefore continued to advocate “down with everything” and held that “the very heart of the political situation in China is a life-and-death struggle between counter-revolution and revolution”; hence it once again put forward many adventurist proposals, such as the seizure of key cities by the Red Army in order to win victory first in one or more provinces, the arming of workers and peasants everywhere in the White areas and the calling of general strikes there. (…)
Cloaking themselves in “Marxist-Leninist theory” and relying on the political and organizational prestige and influence built up by the Fourth Plenary Session, those comrades who were guilty of dogmatist errors were responsible for the domination of the third “Left” line in the Party for four long years, gave it the fullest and most systematic expression ideologically, politically, militarily and organizationally, and enabled it to exercise the most profound influence in the Party and consequently to do the greatest damage. Nevertheless, in defiance of the facts, the comrades guilty of this wrong line bragged long and hard about the “correctness” and the “immortal achievements” of the line of the central leadership following the Fourth Plenary Session, using such dogmatic phrases as “further bolshevization of the Communist Party of China” and “ 100 per cent Bolshevik”. Thus they completely distorted the history of the Party.
The comrades who advocated the correct line, with Comrade Mao Tse-tung as their representative, were diametrically opposed to the third “Left” line during the period of its domination. They disagreed with the “Left” line and demanded that it should be corrected, and as a result their correct leadership was everywhere overthrown by the central leadership that followed the Fourth Plenary Session and by the agencies or representatives it dispatched. But the repeated failures of the “Left” line in practical work, and especially the repeated defeats in the campaign against the fifth “encirclement and suppression” in the area where the central leading body was located, had begun to reveal the wrongness of this line to more and more leading cadres and rank-and-file Party members and to arouse their doubt and dissatisfaction. After the Red Army in that area set out on the Long March, this doubt and dissatisfaction grew to such an extent that some comrades who had committed “Left” errors began to awaken and take a stand against them. Accordingly, large numbers of cadres and Party members who were opposed to the “Left” line rallied under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung. It was therefore possible for the enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, held under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung in January 1935 at the city of Tsunyi in Kweichow Province, triumphantly to put an end to the domination of the “Left” line in the central leading body and to save the Party at that most critical juncture.

And special about de ideological roots of the three “left” policy lines. …. It is similar to the ideological roots of the dogmatism of Thanasis Spanidis:

The correctness or incorrectness of any political, military or organizational line has ideological roots — it depends on whether or not the line starts from Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism and historical materialism and whether or not the line starts from the objective realities of the Chinese revolution and the objective needs of the Chinese people. From the very day he embraced the cause of the Chinese revolution, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has devoted himself to applying the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism to the investigation and study of the actual conditions of Chinese society; time and again during the period of the Agrarian Revolutionary War, he laid great stress on the principle, “No investigation, no right to speak”, and time and again fought against the dangers of dogmatism and subjectivism. Indeed, the political, military and organizational lines then laid down by Comrade Mao Tse-tung were brilliant achievements which he made on the basis of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, of dialectical and historical materialism, by his concrete analysis of the actual situation and its characteristics inside and outside the country and inside and outside the Party and by his concrete summing up of the historical experience of the Chinese revolution, and especially of the 1924 - 27 revolution. For Chinese Communists, living and fighting in China, the purpose of studying dialectical materialism and historical materialism should be to apply them to the study and solution of the practical problems of the Chinese revolution, as Comrade Mao Tse-tung has done. But, of course, none of the comrades who committed “Left” errors was then able to understand or accept his method, and the exponents of the third “Left” line even slandered him as being a “narrow empiricist”. The reason was that their ideology was rooted in subjectivism and formalism, which during the domination of the third “Left” line expressed itself in a still more pronounced form as dogmatism. It is characteristic of dogmatism that it starts not from actual conditions but from particular words and phrases taken out of books. The dogmatists did not base themselves on the Marxist-Leninist standpoint and method to make a serious study of China’s past and present — political, military, economic and cultural — and of the practical experience of the Chinese revolution, to draw conclusions as a guide to action in the Chinese revolution and to test the validity of these conclusions in the practice of the masses. On the contrary, throwing away the essence of Marxism-Leninism, they transported particular words and phrases from Marxist-Leninist literature into the country and took them for dogma, without any study of the suitability of these quotations to the actual conditions of present-day China. Inevitably, therefore, the “theories” of the dogmatists were divorced from reality, their leadership was divorced from the masses, and instead of seeking truth from facts they were opinionated, arrogant, glib and afraid of proper criticism and self-criticism.

Thanasis (“commissioned by de CC of the CP”) “introduces” an opportunist way of “application of dialectical and historical materialism into the CP, similar as Herwig Lerouge and Boudewijn Deckers did this in de Workers Party of Belgium (WPB/PTB/PVDA)

If “Der Große Sprung Zurück - Eine marxistische Kritik an Theorie und Praxis des Maoismus” (The Great Leap Back - A Marxist Critique of Theory and Practice of Maoism).  is an example of “Marxist critique” that Thanasis Spanidis developed “comissioned by the C of the CP”—and it is subsequently posted on the website as the “party line” (it is still there today)—then it must be regarded as the “party line,” including the specific way in which Marxism has been applied therein.
Given that there appears to be no internal struggle taking place regarding this (the “analysis” has remained on the site since 2024), I am left with a grim vision of the trajectory of the Workers' Party of Belgium (WPB/PTB, https://www.ptb.be/ )...
Within the WPB, a revisionist line was able to develop with very little opposition. As far as I am aware, I was the only one who waged an internal struggle against this (starting around 1995)... And because I was apparently the only one, it was easy to cast me out. Which is precisely what happened in 2005.  

Some elements about the way the national WPB-cadre, Herwig Lerouge could introducing an opportunist way of “application of Marxism into the party … unoticed ….
29-11-2013 The CONTRADICTION between REVOLUTIONARY line and BOURGEOIS line WITHIN the International Communist Movement


About the same opportunist practice by national WPB-cadre Boudewijn Deckers  

6-10-2023 The WPB/PVDA/PTB: On 5th Congress “Party of the revolution”; on 8th Congress “New Social-Democratic Party”(1)

12-10-2013 The WPV/PVDA/PTB: On 5th Congress “Party of the revolution”; on 8th Congress “New Social-Democratic Party” (2)
An overview of a series of articles, I wrote about the development of opportunism in the WPB which at the end transformed the party into a social-democratic party, without much internal struggle or discussion:
WPB, her course to revisionism, teacher of negative example

1About Robert Allison on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Allinson&oldid=1163861417

2 Robert Elliott Allinson 2020: The Philosophical Influences of Mao Zedong: Notations, Reflections and Insights, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, London,., pp. 145f.

3 V. I. Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy" Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 249.

4 In his essay "On the Question of Dialectics", Lenin said, "The splitting in two of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts (see the quotation from Philo on Heraclitus at the beginning of Section 3 'On Cognition' in Lassalle's book on Heraclitus) is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics." (Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 357.) In his "Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic", he said, "In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This grasps the kernel of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development." (Ibid., p. 215.)

5Michael Steffen 2002: Stories of the Truffle Pig, Association A: Berlin/Hamburg, pp. 203ff.

6Mao Tse-tung 1937: On Contradiction, Selected Works Vol. I, p. 365.

7Ibid., p. 368.

8Ibid., p. 369.

9Ibid., p. 397.

10Gunnar Matthiessen 1973: Critique of the philosophical foundations and the socio-political development of Maoism, Pahl-Rugenstein Verlag: Cologne, p. 49.

11 V. I. Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 97-98.

12Friedrich Engels: The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science, MEW 19, pp. 219f.

13Mao 1937, p. 373.

14Mao Zedong 1982: Speech on Questions of Philosophy, in: Mao Zedong Texts. Edited by Helmut Martin. Hanser Verlag, Munich/Vienna 1982, Volume Five 1961-1964, pp. 341-367, online http://www.infopartisan.net/archive/maowerke/maosonst3.htm , accessed 13 June 2023.

15For example: “It was said that dialectics had three basic laws and then Stalin said there were four. But I think there is only one basic law – the law of contradiction,” quoted in Allinson 130. For a similar statement, see also: Mao: Speech at Hangchow, December 21, 1965, in: Stuart Schram (ed.) 1974: Chairman Mao talks to the People, Talks and letters: 1956–1971, Pantheon Books, New York, p. 240.

16 Peking Review, February 2, April 26, May 24, 1971.

17 Mentioned as such in Liberation Daily April 18, 1966. The document has not yet been officially published.

18Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific II [Dialectics], https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch02.htm

19Mao 1937, p. 397, see also p. 396.

20Translated from English: "There isn't anything that is not mutually transformable. High speed turns into low speed and low speed turns into high speed. Labor turns into rest and rest turns into labor. (…) Getting out of bed and going to bed are also the unity of opposites.(…) Sleeping transforms into getting up and getting up transforms into sleeping.", Mao Tse-tung 1959: Examples of Dialectics, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. VIII, 203f.

21From English: “Sons transform into fathers and fathers transform into sons. Females transform into males and males transform into females. (…) War transforms into peace, and peace transforms into war.”, Ibid, p. 205.

22Mao 1982: Speech on Questions of Philosophy, in: Mao Zedong Texts. Edited by Helmut Martin. Hanser Verlag, Munich/Vienna 1982, Volume Five 1961-1964,

23Lenin: On the Junius Pamphlet, LW 22, p. 314.

24Mao 1937, p. 397.

25Mao 1937, p. 397, see also p. 396.

26Allinson 2020, p. 177.

27Mao 1937, p. 388.

28Ibid., p. 389.

29Ibid., p. 390.

30Ibid., pp. 390f.

31Ibid., p. 391.

32Engels, MEW 19, p. 228.

33Mao 1937, p. 381.

34 V. I. Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 161.

35 See V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, pp. 129-36.

36 V. I. Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy" Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 249.

37Mao Tse-tung 1937: On Contradiction, Selected Works Vol. I, p. 365.

38Ibid., p. 368.

39Ibid., p. 369.

40Allinson 2020, p. 126.

41Mao Tse-tung 1952: The contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie is the main contradiction in China, Selected Works Vol. V, p. 353.

42Central Committee of the Communist Party of China 2021: Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the great achievements and historical experiences of the Party's centenary struggle, online: http://german.china.org.cn/txt/2021-11/17/content_77877415.htm , accessed 15 March 2023.

43 People's Daily Editorial Department On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and More on the Historical Experience of the Dicta-torship of the Proletariat, April 5, 1956, and December 29, 1956 (English edition Peking 1957).

44 In this general remark, Mao hints at the CCP, but also includes "other" parties, notably that of the USSR - meaning Khrushchev.

45 Freedom to buy and sell land, freedom to plant crops as wished, freedom for usury, and free markets. First promoted by Liu unofficially in 1952, and reissued in documents emanating from central administrative departments from time to time. This bypassing of Mao, as chairman of the Central Committee, was all the easier since Liu at the Eighth Congress had won the approval of the Central Committee for his main "line," from which specific policies then followed.

46 Also see Be Activists in Promoting Revolution, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Volume V.

47http://english.chinamil.com.cn/view/2021-11/17/content_10108612.htm, Full Text: Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century - Source Xinhuanet Editor Li Jiayao, Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century Adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on November 11, 2021

48Read: 2.6.2 Gleichzeitig: „Ultralinker“ Voluntarismus und asketischer Sozialismusbegriff and 2.6.4 Die „Große Proletarische Kulturrevolution“ – eine korrekte Methode zur Verhinderung der kapitalistischen Konterrevolution

49Mao Tse-tung 1968a: On the proper handling of contradictions among the people, published in: Four Philosophical Monographs, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Peking, p. 90.

50Mao Tse-tung 1968a: On the proper handling of contradictions among the people, published in: Four Philosophical Monographs, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Peking, p. 92.

51Mao Tse-tung 1968a: On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, published in: Four Philosophical Monographs, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Peking, pp. 90, 92 ....

52L.I. BREZHNEV FOILOWING LENIN’S COURSE - Speeches and Articles PROGRESS PUBLISHERS. Moscow . 1972

53Wang Ming LENIN, LENINISM AND THE CHINESE REVOLUTION Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow 1970

54Wang Ming (1971), The "Cultural Revolution" and the Maoist Bid for Cooperation with Imperialism, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wang/1971/00002.htm

55 Comrade Chu Chiu-pai, one of the earliest members and leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, was elected to the Central Committee at the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth National Congresses of the Party in the years 1923-28. During the First Revolutionary Civil War he actively fought against the anti-Communist, anti-popular “Tai Chi-tao doctrine” of the Kuomintang’s right-wing and against the Right opportunism represented by Chen Tu-hsiu in the Chinese Communist Party. After the Kuomintang’s betrayal of the revolution in 1 9 2 7 , he called the emergency meeting of the Central Committee of the Party on August 7 , which ended the domination of Chen Tu-hsiuism in the Party. But from the winter of 1927 to the spring of 1928 , while directing the work of the central leading body, he committed the “Left” error of putschism. In September 1930 he conducted the Third Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Party, which put an end to the Li Li-san line that was harming the Party. However, at the Fourth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee in January 1931 , he was attacked by the “Left” dogmatists and factionalists and was pushed out of the central leading body. From that time to 1933 he worked in the revolutionary cultural movement in Shanghai in co-operation with Lu Hsun. In 1933 he arrived in the Red base area in Kiangsi and was made Commissioner of People’s Education in the Workers’ and Peasants’ Democratic Central Government.

When the main forces of the Red Army embarked on the Long March, he was asked to stay behind in the Kiangsi base area. In March 1935 Comrade Chu Chiu-pai was arrested by the Chiang Kaishek gang in the Fukien guerrilla area and on June 18 he died a martyr’s death in Changting, Fukien Province.

56 Comrade Lin Yu-nan, a member of the Chinese Communist Party and one of the early leaders and organizers of the Chinese trade union movement, was Director of the Wuhan office of the Chinese Trade Union Secretariat, a member of the Executive Committee and concurrently Secretary-General of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. In 1931 he was arrested by the Chiang Kai-shek gang and died a martyr ’s death at Lunghua in Shanghai.

57 Comrade Li Chiu-shih, a member of the Chinese Communist Party, served in 1928 on the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Youth League and was head of its Propaganda Department and chief editor of its organ, Chinese Youth In 1931 , while working in the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Party, he was arrested by the Chiang Kai-shek gang in Shanghai and died a martyr ’s death at Lunghua.

58 Comrade Ho Meng-hsiung, a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was one of the early organizers of the trade union movement in northern China and founder of the Railway Workers’ Union on the Peking-Suiyuan Line. After the Kuomintang betrayed the revolution in 1927 , he served as a member of the Communist Party’s Kiangsu Provincial Committee in Shanghai and as secretary of its Peasant Department. In 1931 he was arrested by the Chiang Kai-shek gang and died a martyr’s death at Lunghua.

59 Comrade Chin Pang-hsien, also known as Po Ku, was a member of the Chinese Communist Party. From September 1931 to January 1935 he was at the head first of the Party’s provisional central leadership in Shanghai and then of its Central Bureau of the Red Base Areas. During this period he committed the serious error of the “Left” line. He worked in the Southern Bureau of the Party’s Central Committee during the early period of the War of Resistance Against Japan. After 1941 , under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, he founded and directed the Liberation Daily and the Hsinhua News Agency in Yenan. He was re-elected to the Central Committee at the Seventh National Congress of the Party in 1945 . In February 1946 he went to Chungking to take part in the negotiations with the Kuomintang. He died in April in an aeroplane crash on his way back to Yenan.