A couple of days ago at the library I came across a collection of works called The Twentieth Century. It piqued my interest, so I’m currently reading it (I'm a nerd, I know!). Anyway, right now I’m reading selections from Quotations by Mao-Tse Tung. Most of it is crystal clear (although I can’t help thinking that I would like to have seen Mao and Gandhi sit down and have a conversation), but I’m a bit confounded by one quotation. Most of the quotation makes sense to me. However, there is one part that I don’t understand. Here’s the quotation - the part I’m confused about is in ALL CAPS:

quote:

---

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 WORKING CLASS AND THE PEASANT CLASS IN SOCIALIST SOCIETY IS RESOLVED BY THE METHOD OF COLLECTIVIZATION AND MECHANIZATION IN AGRICULTURE; contradicition 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… the principle of using different methods to resolve different contradictions is one which Marxist-Leninists must strictly observe.

---

Here are my thoughts on what the part that is in all caps might mean. Once the wealth is redistributed, there will no longer be a capitalist (owner) class. However, there will still be a working class in the cities and factories and a peasant class in the agricultural sector. This must be a “contradiction” for Mao because he clearly sees them as different classes. However, I’m not sure exactly how these would be different classes, if the wealth is distributed evenly in the socialist society. Even in a socialist society there must be different forms of labor. Is it that this would give the peasants too much power because it would make them the “rulers” over the production of food? I doubt it, since I suspect Mao would be more suspicious of the working class than the peasant class, but it’s the only interpretation that sort of makes sense to me. “Collectivization” means that the land must belong to all of the people and the fruits of the labor are evenly spread – that way, the peasant class wouldn’t have power over food production. “Mechanization” must mean using modern machinery. I suppose that what it could do is turn farms into a kind of factory, making the peasant class the same as the working class. But I don’t quite see the benefit there. I’m definitely missing something. Can anyone help me figure out what I’m missing?

I'll try this again (I tried once before and don't know what became of my response).

The difference between the peasant and the worker is that the peasant is primarily a subsistance farmer, who produces for his own use, while the worker makes things to sell. The peasant has no incentive to grow more food than he can use, and generally speaking, his family tends to increase in size until they can no longer possibly produce more than they need. The worker, on the other hand, has to sell (or have things sold) in order to obtain the things he needs for himself and his family. Because of the intervention of money and markets, the more he produces, the better he lives (the peasant can only consume so much -- if he overproduces, it just goes to waste).

Through collectivization and mechanization, the peasant can be transformed into a worker whose output is an agricultural crop, available for sale or exchange for other things that may improve his life.

Alan Moore

Thanks, Alan. That makes sense.