Continuity and Rupture: Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain

by J. Moufawad-Paul

A philosophical examination of the theoretical terrain of contemporary Maoism premised on the counter-intuitive assumption that Maoism did not emerge as a coherent theory until the end of the 1980s.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, History, China, Political Science

312 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2016

Reviews

[T. Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of the reviews in the front fold of this book contain a clause to the effect of "regardless of if you agree with the conclusions, this is worth reading", which don't really do this book justice honestly. This is not strictly a polemic, but does a good job of at least presenting M-L-M in a way that makes it convincing.

The book covers a defence of (in somewhat Althusserian terms) the thesis that historical materialism is a science, and that revolutionary communism (of which M-L-M is the "highest form") is the science of making revolution. There's then a critique of the M-L party form (in favour of the M-L-M mass line) and a critique of "October road" insurrectionism in favour of protracted people's war.

The critique of the classical vanguard party is interesting, it moves beyond sloppy characterisations of Leninist partisans as "petty bourgeoisie" to instead look at the ideological dynamics that allow intellectuals to become funnels for bourgeois ideology. The solution presented is an emphasis on continual line struggle and the mass line approach to party building.

The critique of revolutionary strategy is probably the strongest part of the book. Bypassing having to discuss the endless ways in which the same solution has been proposed, Moufawad-Paul groups M-L of various stripes with other insurrectionist movements like post-structuralism and anarchism. The critique is largely that the specific formula of protracted legal struggle -> mass strike -> insurrection -> all power to the Soviets actually hasn't been replicated outside of Russia. In response to this (agree or disagree) he proposes the Maoist protracted people's war.

This book isn't an explanation of what Maoism is, nor really a work of Maoist philosophy. Instead its a somewhat strange academic intervention. It provides, very literally, a reference point for future "taking seriously of" Maoism - an actual concrete, "proper" book from a "proper" publisher that others can cite to use these theoretical ideas. It provides a new exploration of the theories of Maoism that place it on the same level conceptually as Althusser and Badiou, and allows for it to be taken seriously as a strand of Marxism in its own right. It's worth remembering that Althusser continually refered to himself not as a Marxist philosopher, but as a Marxist-Leninist philosopher. Placing Marxist academia back in contact and discussion with actual revolutionary experiences (even if they failed in the ways that Peru and Nepal did) is a massively important step.

A lot of this will be either incomprehensible (or even abhorrent, in the case of seeing Stalin cited as a theorist in his own right) to non-Marxists, but particularly for Leninists or more open-minded Trotskyists, this should at least be on the reading list - even if its just so that you can make your arguments against Maoism in better faith.

(also quick note on a previous reviewer saying that Moufawad-Paul is very dismissive. He is, but a) his dismissals of Trotskyism, to be frank, aren't unwarranted, and he does provide actual theoretical rebuttal to permanent revolution theory; and b) his dismissals of post-structuralism/"postmodernism" are not based around those theories being difficult for the masses to understand. Instead his point is that post-structuralist academics themselves see these theories as too hard for the proletariat to digest, so don't even bother taking them to the masses. Most Marxists would probably actually disagree and say that many post-structuralist ideas are ironically blindingly simple. Moufawad-Paul actually has an essay somewhere about Deleuze's philosophy and its relation to theories of imperialism, with many positive things to say about Deleuze. One of the strongest strengths of this book is it's ability to actually enter the same theoretical terrain of contemporary continental philosophy, showing a writing style that doesn't feel like its a 1960s pamphlet, a style which is still for some reason replicated by many leftists today.)

[Rohit · Rating 2 out of 5]

A mostly dull and tedious book on how to philosophize about revolutionary theory and Maoism. A lot of repetitive points throughout, about concepts that are ultimately quite simple and banal (i.e. the simple point about how Maoism is both continuous with, and breaks beyond, Leninism) and don't really require the same arguments to be stated over and over again. And also a lot of tautological points and vague hand-waving around basic points regarding revolutionary history and ideology that really should be elaborated on, to actually ground the abstract points being made in some actual concrete material analysis.

But there were some somewhat interesting commentary that was made, mostly around the issue of class and party-building, and comparing and contrasting Leninist and Maoist ideas of organizing. Almost all of this is in the last chapter.

[Rhi Carter · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Continuity and Rupture" by J. Moufawad-Paul is primarily concerned with arguing that Maoism (as defined by groups like Peru's Shining Path and Bob Avakians RCP in the 80's) is the universally applicable "next stage" of Marxism the way that Leninsm was Marx's. As with many books of theory, the evidence is more compelling than the thesis. The book needs to spend a lot of time arguing that science goes through periods of continuity and rupture, giving Einstein continuing and rupturing Newtonian physics, and that scientific socialism does the same. The problem with this that the singular breakthroughs in science are rare (evident by his limited examples), and that outside of the Darwins and Einsteins scientific progress is more of a mosaic of small steps with various small progressions and dead ends. The argument demands a shift in understanding of scientific socialism in order to justify the importance of its stance, which just doesn't land for me.
In spite of that, there's a ton of good analysis and theory and whatnot in here, particularly in chapters 3, 4, 6, and the appendix. The criticisms of Marxism-Leninism as it was applied in Soviet Union and it's allies, and the analysis of the lessons that can be learned from the Chinese Revolution (particularly the Cultural Revolution) are really convincing and enlightening. Moufawad makes extremely fair arguments against and for Leninsm, Trotskyism, revisionism, Mao Zedong Thought, without getting too dogmatic... EXCEPT when he's talking about the universality of his chosen Maoist movement.
Worth reading for the chapters mentioned above, I would love to read a straightforward history of the Maoist movement by Moufawad-Paul.

[Dan · Rating 2 out of 5]

JMP and his brand of "Maoism-qua-maoism" pose some very important problematics for active Marxist movements today, but unfortunately his theory is bogged down in tautology, dogmatism, and a similarly closed view of existing socialist states to the Trotskyites he critiques.

[Michael Boyte · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting discussion of the emergence of MLM, in (wait for it) continuity and rupture with Marxism-Leninism, and other forms of Marxist thought, trying to situate MLM as a concept within both philosophy and science. There are some thoughtful concepts developed, but I think it tends to be tautological, and doesn't consider that Maoism developed as much in the struggle to sum up the coup in China and the first wave of proletarian revolution- that the universality of those lessons was in of itself a struggle, and that certain features of that struggle may be falsely universalized. Particularly that the 'Maoism' that emerged out of the Peruvian experience wasn't the only 'Maoism' possible. While JMP relies heavily on the 1993 deceleration 'Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism', had he looked back on the original RIM deceleration he might have found the origins of a less-dogmatic and more interesting 'Maoism.'

[mimissyouu · Rating 5 out of 5]

very insightful into the existing maoist perspective and also very clearly articulated key distinctions within maoism (mass line, class struggle existing under socialism, party of a new type, etc.) but i found that it fell short a little in justifying the universality of the ppw? but overall, the analysis of the strategy of insurrection and the introduction as ppw as a possible alternative were worthwhile i just kind of went into it wanting to be persuaded about the universality of the protracted war. so maybe that's just me.

this would probably be unreadable to non-Marxists or people who have not familiarized with the various interpretations of leninism but either way, the book is an important read for all maoists and non-maoists alike for the work it does establishing past failures of socialist experiments, how revolution must be carried on in tandem with the development of revolutionary theory, and how marxism has developed as a science :>

[Michael A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book. Successfully delineates the limits of Marxism-Leninism and also outlines the "theoretical dead-end" that is Trotskyism. Turned me into a Maoist.

[Arya · Rating 4 out of 5]

its real good other than claiming that dialectical materialism isn't applicable to all science and not clearly defining what a "mass party" is and how that differs from the vanguard party

[Marvin · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is bad. Really bad. My head hurts.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really can't do theory/philosophy anymore and I need to keep that in mind when adding books to my TBR list. So I didn't really like the titular theoretical discussion around continuity and rupture, I just don't care.

But I really appreciated the relatively concise history of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism ("Maoism"), a rigorous explanation of what it is, and how it is distinguished from other theoretical tendencies (chiefly Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism). It was very illuminating and Moufawad-Paul did a good job parsing it even for a lay reader. I now have a much clearer grasp on the MLM tendency -- mass-line, post-revolution class struggle, and materially organizing for revolution -- and Moufawad-Paul makes a compelling case that it is the only viable path forward for communists.

Probably my biggest weakness as a reader and thinker is being uncritical. So if I am presented with a well-reasoned argument I have trouble not being immediately swayed by it, sometimes only until the next opposing view I may read. So while I find Moufawad-Paul's argument convincing, that's not necessarily high praise. I will probably start calling myself an MLM now though, instead of a ML. I think I had already been leaning that way with my appreciation of Mao, Guevara and Cabral, but this book has given me the confidence to know what I'm talking about when I claim the label.

If you're like me and have been befuddled on the distinction between different communist tendencies, or have been unable to get a clear, authoritative answer from those around you, I heartily recommend this book. It's similarly recommendable if you're just curious about Maoism. You may choose to skim around some of the deeper theoretical discussions, like I did, but the clear summary of the topic you will come away with is well worth it. I'd actually recommend starting with the appendix, a prior essay called "Maoism or Trotskyism?" as it is simpler and a good primer for the bulk of the book.

Not Bad Reviews

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is at the very least an interesting insight into what maoists think but the author dreadfully wrong about most things that he writes about. He seems to have read "What is to be done?" in reverse and uses words like "economistic" in all the wrong ways. His critique of Hal Draper is mostly unfounded. And a Canadian academic writing that the only worthwhile organizing is the organization of armed forces feels ironic at best.

[Andy P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

JMP's work continues to appeal to a growing readership beyond his online writing. Initially, it may seem implausible any trained academic in the West could combine philosophical rigor with an ideological orientation called "Marxism Leninism Maoism", but C&R brings a credibility and clarity to the subject that is satisfying on an intellectual level and challenging on a political level. There are two things the book isn't: a biography of Mao or a study of the Cultural Revolution. Both subjects must be raised of course, but they aren't the primary focus of C&R, which happen to be considerable strengths of the book because they allow a more focused discussion on the substance of MLM. I strongly recommend.

[Spooky Socialist · Rating 5 out of 5]

J. Moufawad Paul's Continuity and Rupture is one of the most thoroughly convincing texts arguing in favor of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Starting with the premise that Marxism is a science, it elucidates the common misconceptions and struggles of the modern communist movement and points towards Maoism as the solution. This is definitely a must-read for every communist who has to struggle and grapple with the questions of Marxism as a science, our historical failures, and what it means to wage revolution. Even if one does not consider themself a Maoist, JMP still provides a thorough analysis and coherent argument that will have you reconsidering what it means to be a Marxist.

[Suryashekhar Biswas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sophistry, meant to confuse and misguide.

[Ian]

This very interesting book is not a work of Marxist theory; it is written by a Kanadian philosophy professor who explicitly denies that is possible for him (or anyone else) to produce theory outside of the crucible of revolutionary struggle. Instead it is a book on the 'philosophy of science', that is, the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as a science, with its historical origins and the possible outer limits of its 'terrain'. The basic thesis of the book is that, while the term 'Maoism' was used in many different contexts prior to the late 1980s, it was only during the period 1988-1993 that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM, or what Moufawad-Paul also calls Maoism-qua-Maoism) crystallized into a distinct new stage of revolutionary science. This crystallization, moreover, was initiated by the Communist Party of Peru, which at the time was carrying out people's war, and the organization Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in which the PCP took a leading role. Much of the book focuses on the dialectic of continuity-rupture, and how each new stage of revolutionary science (first Marxism-Leninism as the successor to classical Marxism, then MLM as a successor to Marxism-Leninism) is both a continuation and a rupture with the previous stage.

It is not an accident that MLM crystallized a new stage of revolutionary theory around the same time that the Eastern Bloc and organized communist politics were collapsing; nor is it coincidental that the period of Marxism-Leninism corresponds with the period of 20th century socialism. The Leninist intervention clarified formerly ambiguous Marxist concepts such as vanguard party and dictatorship of the proletariat; it also produced an advanced theory of imperialism and how imperialism divides the world into oppressor and oppressed nations. These theoretical instruments became essential to the revolutionary movements of the 20th century -- both their successes and their failures. Moufawad-Paul addresses the limitations of this Marxism-Leninism and how Maoism recognizes and attempts to overcome these limits.

So what exactly are these limits? The middle section of the book devotes much attention to one particular problem which came to be regarded as an intractable contradiction of the Marxist-Leninist party formation during the 1970s (i.e., the period of the anti-revisionist New Communist Movement which struggled against the boundaries of then-existing revolutionary theory):

communist politics is the politics of the proletariat, which is a class that is scientifically determined to exist according to Marx's theory of capitalism. However, there is no inherent reason why the proletariat would subjectively recognize themselves as the revolutionary class; hence the need for a revolutionary theory and vanguard party through which the proletariat emerges as a class-for-itself. In practice, though, it is usually educated members of the petty bourgeoisie who have access to Marxist science and have theorized the proletariat and defined what proletarian politics looks like, so that, to the extent that class position determines class consciousness, the revolutionary party is inevitably infected with petty-bourgeois consciousness.

While this problem was not exactly 'new' in the 1970s and could not really be called an 'oversight' by Marxist-Leninists, at the same time it is true that the Leninist party was first theorized and created during a period before proletarian state power and before socialism. What was missing, then, was a theory of class struggle during socialism and in the communist party itself. Here is where the Chinese revolutionary experience becomes relevant. Socialism is a class society and antagonisms exist between the masses and party administrators. Instead of a monolithic vanguard party which 'by definition' represents the will of the proletariat, instead a concentration of class struggle takes place in the form of 'line struggle' inside the party. The Cultural Revolution in China was intended to advance the revolutionary struggle of the masses against their oppressors inside the party by attacking the division of labor through all of society. The theory of Maoism asserts the universality of class struggle under socialism, a dialectical relationship between party and masses (so that the party leads the masses and the masses lead the party), and the necessity of cultural revolution in every particular revolutionary setting.

On other problem of Marxism-Leninism is its inability to theorize other 'sites of oppression' besides class, particularly patriarchy and its resulting forms of gender and sexuality oppression. Some revolutionary groups took reactionary positions on gender and sexuality issues during the later period of Marxism-Leninism and accused feminist, queer theorists, etc. of being 'un-materialist' in their analysis; but the 'materialism' of these Marxist-Leninists was often in practice a mechanical understanding of class. One weakness of Continuity and Rupture is that, while Moufawad-Paul assures us that MLM has absorbed the feminist and queer critique and allows for a more scientific understanding of how other 'sites of oppression' relate to the formation of revolutionary consciousness, besides mentioning names like Anuradha Ghandy he cites very few examples of how this synthesis has been done in practice. I can guess at the method by which this is done: One useful intervention of Mao Zedong Thought, and later Maoism, is that, while the base determines superstructure in the last analysis, this 'last analysis' is never encountered in the concrete world of struggle, and in certain cases the superstructure may be primary over the base. The primacy of superstructure is embedded in the logic of Cultural Revolution and also allows for other 'sites of oppression' in its general class analysis, but beyond this abstract point Moufawad-Paul does not offer many examples.

The biggest thing missing from the book, in my opinion, is any discussion of why exactly MLM crystallized during the Peruvian revolutionary experience as opposed to any other time, and what about the Peruvian experience made the 'universalities' of Maoism apparent in a way they hadn't been before. It is acknowledged that a RIM document called 'Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!' was the first to articulate Maoism as the third and most recent stage of revolutionary science, but the exact contents of this document or its historical context are not discussed. When the activity of the PCP is brought up at all, it is mostly to critique the 'cult of personality' around Gonzalo as an apparent holdover from previous Marxist-Leninist revolutions. I would like to find more analysis of the Peruvian revolution as a means of universalizing Maoism.

[Ivan Labayne · Rating 3 out of 5]

a refreshing review of the maoist part of MLM--the importance of upholding the "mass line," the pitfalls of both tailism and vanguardism; the "party of the new type." sad trivia on the post-maoisms of the likes of badiou and godard; a quote: "the past may be 'like a nightmare' pero we can't pretend 'that this weight does not exist'

https://chopsueyngarod.wordpress.com/...

"In Continuity and Rupture: Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain, J. Moufawad-Paul cited four categories of failure, before positing that “this way of making sense of revolutionary theory through failure demonstrates Popper’s principle of falsification” (25). What a refreshing take, departing from the typical description (and subtle critique) of the so-called “triumphalist” discourses of revolutionary movements. And if we think of it really: isn’t this close-ended triumphalism more evident in the capitalist status quo? Reactionary discourses—from academic scholarship as in Bells’s “end of ideology” or Fukuyama’s “end of history, to neoliberal governments as in Thatcher’s and Reagan’s “there is no alternative”—teem with the sense that not only capitalism has won the wars on how to think and how to live, but that it is here to stay, not to be replaced, never to be transformed. As we say it Pinoy-style, this capitalist triumphalism seems to say, Uwian na, may nanalo na."

[Rafael Munia · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a book that has the stated goal of convincing Marxists of a non-Maoist bent to see the potential of the field of Maoist, I felt the book failed, as it basically preached to the choir.
The fact that the author keeps offending Trostkyites also do not help his point.

As a book in itself, I won't consider this a waste of time, as the author does give a lot of information about the current field of Maoism (or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, as he often states).
However, when it tries to establishes critiques, it does falls into some ignorant cliches most of the times (including the condescending ~post-modern theories are too obscure and hard to understand~ trope that you wouldn't expect of someone trying to establish honest and compelling critiques)
The stance on the role of philosophy that the author has also does not convinces me, and it might disappoint many readers that may think this is a book about Maoist Philosophy (hint: it isn't, it is a book about Maoism, not a philosophy of maoism, nor a maoist philosophy book)

All in all I would say, give the book a try if you are curious about the project of Maoism. Otherwise, if you came to this book seeking for a philosophically engaging exercise on Marxist philosophy, you may be in for a disappointment.

[Tobia · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book places Marxist-Leninist-Maoist strategy in relation to Marxist-Leninism and revisionism/anti-revisionism more in general. It does a good job in presenting the Maoist critiques of the Leninist vanguard party and revolutionary strategy. The book is a weird form of intervention though, its concept of continuity/rupture remains quite vague and, to me, it does not seem to add much to any practical revolutionary thinking while at the same remaining too abstract and general to be a serious academic argument. Most people will pick up this book hoping for a treatment of what Maoism is today to instead find a confusing prolegomena to any academic treatment of Maoism, which I somehow doubt the utility of. I say confusing because the book feels completely unedited, it is very repetitive and unorganised. Overall I enjoyed it but it could have been half of the lenght and much more focused.

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of those great theory books that I loved not so much because it introduced new ideas to me but because it provided a strong, cohesive framework for ideas that I'd picked up from scattered blog posts and discussions (plenty of which were drawing from Moufawad-Paul in the first place I'm sure). I know I'll be using it (and The Communist Necessity) as a basic intro package for Maoism for interested leftists, although neither book is intended or would be at all successful at converting a liberal.

[Eme Flores · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book that really cleared up a difficult topic no amount of my usual wiki dives had cleared up.
I'm not sure I'm head over heels in love with some of the technical concepts you use outside of academia but they are useful to know!
I was warned it was "not anarchist friendly" but I really disagree. It seems to be the ONLY anarchist friendly "authoritarian" style IMHO.

Really, most of all, if you were like me and you didn't know why SOME MLs or MLMs were nice but some were assholes, this really has the answer.

[Jacob Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Especially valuable for the analysis of the party composition and line struggle, Moufawad-Paul presents an interesting and well argued account of Maoism (or rather, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) as the most recent and advanced stage of revolutionary Marxist theory and practice.

Though some of it seems overly preoccupied with arguing against Draperism or Trotskyist tendencies at first blush, it ultimately becomes productive in exploring the tensions and differences between organisational and strategic differences in Marxist thought.

[Rob · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ok at least I understand what contemporary Maoists think. I’d like to have heard more about these protracted people’s wars fought by Maoist groups and why the author insists on looking to them for insights when all of them failed disastrously (according to the author himself). Also, if you are going to be a communist philosopher you have to leave the reader with some sort of (revolutionary) optimism near the end - this certainly didn’t.

[Comrade Zupa Ogórkowa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Found this mainly boring, but his bit on the importance of abandoning ideologies that continue to prove not to work (such as Trotskyism and anarchism) good and important. Communism is a commitment to what will make us win and this section at least is a good reminder of that.

[Evelyn R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full review forthcoming. I don't like star ratings.

[A L]

This pretty much codifies the historiography of MLM theory.

[Katelyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

kind of a slog, but a fun insightful slog if that makes sense?

[Toby Mustill · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting and in depth look at Maoism in its relationship to Marxism-Leninism and it's new formations. Very interesting Appendices on Maoism vs. Trotsky-ism too!

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

am i a real maoist now?

[An · Rating 4 out of 5]

Continuity and Rupture és una aproximació filosòfica al marxisme-leninisme-maoisme (M-L-M) i la relació d'aquest amb el marxisme i amb el marxisme-leninisme (M-L). En general, el llibre és agradable de llegir i, excepte per la forta influència d'Althusser i per la insistència del caràcter de ciència del marxisme, m'ha agradat.

RESUM:

El punt de partida és que el marxisme és una ciència i que, com a tal, només es manté viva si el seu objecte d'estudi (i.e. la lluita de classes/la història) és viu.
"To be closed to the future is to no longer be scientific" (p.10)

Com a ciència, el marxisme ha patit canvis de paradigma (seguint a Kuhn) que han suposat continuïtats i ruptures amb els paradigmes anteriors. Tres esdeveniments històrics ens ajuden a entendre la unitat dialèctica ruptura-continuïtat:
1. La Comuna de París va demostrar la impossibilitat d'una coexistència pacífica amb el capital.
2. La Revolució Russa aprèn del límit establert per la comuna de París i el supera amb l'aplicació de la dictadura del proletariat (aquesta és la ruptura del M-L respecte al marxisme anterior). Tanmateix, arriba a un nou límit: fracassa en reconèixer que durant la dictadura del proletariat es manté la lluita de classes.
3. La Revolució Xinesa aprèn del límit al qual arriba l'anterior revolució i demostra la necessitat de la revolució cultural per superar-lo (aquesta és la ruptura del M-L-M).

És en el conflicte on la ciència marxista ha de desenvolupar la seva teoria. Ignorar els esdeveniments revolucionaris posteriors a Marx i rebutjar tot el que no sigui "pur Marx" és mantenir el marxisme com una ciència morta.

Centrem-nos en el límit que es posa en evidència amb la revolució russa.El M-L arriba a una antinòmia que només pot superar el M-L-M. La contradicció interna del M-L és la següent:
-El proletariat no pot desenvolupar una teoria revolucionària perquè les idees de la classe dominant es tornen hegemòniques formant la consciència 'per defecte' de la classe treballadora.
-Per tant, la teoria revolucionària ha de venir "des de fora" de la classe treballadora, des de la petita burgesia.
-Si ve de la petita burgesia, el partit s'impregna d'ideologia burgesa i és incapaç de mantenir una pràctica revolucionària.

La superació dialèctica d'aquesta contradicció és la revolució cultural: enviar als intel·lectuals al camp i posar als marxistes privilegiats sota l'autoritat de les masses.

Per tant, la superació de la contradicció és: "to unleash the masses upon the party and even upon each other"(p.129)

El fracàs de la revolució xinesa fou no portar la revolució cultural fins a superar aquesta contradicció. Prendre consciència de la contradicció i la necessitat de superar-la és el "paradigm shift" que desenvolupa el maoisme a partir dels 80s 90s.

Resumint: "Maoism tells us that any revolutionary theory coming from outside must find its limits in the inside of the proletariat" (p.132)

Però, a part de la ruptura descrita, es manté una continuïtat: la necessitat de la revolució. Aquí apareix la unitat ruptura-continuïtat. Sense les ruptures que superen els 'culs de sac' als que arriben les experiències revolucionàries fallides és impossible mantenir una continuïtat amb el marxisme. Només mantenint el marxisme com a ciència viva és possible la revolució.

[Mariam Rawwas · Rating 3 out of 5]

What is so grating about this text is the way that it's written, almost as if it's a work of analytic philosophy, defending an argument by anticipating potential rebuttals and rebutting them in turn. The structure is mechanical, terms defined in narrow fashion then mobilized accordingly. Yet, for all its supposed rigour, it's ultimately incoherent: it is obviously heavily influenced by Badiou, and yet uses "Platonic idealism" as a pejorative in the way that vulgar materialists do, apparently unaware that Badiouianism is a Platonism. Similarly, it uses the term "dialectics" freely, without seeming to recognize that Hegel is an idealist, or perhaps is naïve enough to believe that Marx "set Hegel right-side up," so to speak. Its argument is that Maoism is a dialectical continuation (and rupture) with Marxist-Leninism, each in the set of three resolving a contradiction found on a lower dialectical level (as if the only thing it retains from Hegel is his worst aspect, the teleology). The contradiction between Marxism as a bourgeois intellectual achievement yet simultaneously seeking to serve the interests of the working class, like the contradiction of vanguardism, is sublated in the Third Worldism of Maoist practice. Moufawad-Paul is insistent on Marxism's status as a science, but the definition is Popper's, of falsifiability, but the only claim being tested by history is the success or failure of revolutions. In a simple way, it is true enough that we can learn from past mistakes, but I don't think that means that history moves so neatly or progressively, or that we should simply take whatever factional orientation comes latest because it's at a higher dialectical stage than what came before. Also, Moufawad-Paul dismisses entire thinkers by strawmanning their positions into a single sentence before moving on, in a way that meets no standard of intellectual integrity. It happens with Spivak, Rancière, even Foucault - and I don't even like Foucault, but I can tell that he's being misrepresented here. Not to mention the gloss on deconstruction, which is so reductive. Honestly, reading about Maoist movements in Peru, Nepal, India, Afghanistan, etc., would be a much more productive way of learning about Maoism, because that history is not covered in any detail here. Moufawad-Paul's main argument is that Maoism did not cohere into a conceptual category until the 1980s, but it seems like this is mainly meant as a rhetorical strategy against the Trotskyists' anti-Maoist arguments which pull from earlier periods. It's a provocative thesis, but one that isn't ever really defended with any true evidence, beyond some nominalist gloss on the role of philosophy. It's a disappointing, lazy work.