Tragedy vs. Farce: Maurice Meisner''s Historiographic Indecision on Maoist/Chinese Socialism and Its Aftermath

• Main Authors: Wei-ting Syu, 許韋婷
• Other Authors: 石之瑜
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/67756891132432250815

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 政治學研究所 === 98 === Marx once said, all great world-historic facts and personages appear twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Does the history of the People’s Republic of China repeat the history of the Soviet and just be a farce? Or, is it a unique one to the history and, accordingly, a tragedy? The different answers represent different position, especially on the Marxism theory. Maurice Meisner is an important scholar who studies modern China history in American China scholars. He applies a special interpretation of Marxism to studying China and judging Chinese Marxism during different periods. His writings have affected not only China study, but also incurred a much wider debate on the nature of Marxism. Specifically, he summarizes Mao Zedong''s thought into what he calls Maoism. Moreover, he identifies the populist, voluntarist, and utopianist ingredients in Maoism. Chinese scholars are especially critical aobut his treatment of post-Mao ear as a move away from socialism. Although he is disappointed at the Cultural Revolution, he nonetheless believes that the Chinese Communist Revolution is of great significance and that Mao contributed dearly to the evolution of Marxism. One could gather from Meisner, on one hand, that the history of the People’s Republic of China is unique, hence not just a farce that repeated the history of the Soviet. On the other, since China has aborted its socialist goal, it is a tragedy or a failure. However, Meisner’s engagement with other Marxist scholars reflects different understandings of Marxism, which primarily answer to the need of the time. Marxism of different period vary and the later ones expand on the earlier ones. Marxism iinevitably moves away from Marx’s original thought. After all, the interpretation offered by Meisner could only reflect his political ideas of the time by which he evaluates Chinese socialism. Despite controversy around his scholarship or today’s lack of interest in it, Meisner is widely recognized scholar. Revisit to his scholarship should be useful in refreshing on how China studies have move a long way as well as how Meisner’s legacy could be an enlightening contrast to what is thought as obvious today.