By សតិវ អតុ
I've come across an interesting article about J. Moufawad-Paul and his positions on Maoism.
For a little background from Revolutionary Praxis:
J. Moufawad-Paul on Maoism
Posted on October 14, 2017
J. Moufawad-Paul (JMP) has written two works upholding Maoism as the only viable revolutionary doctrine in the world today. These are The Communist Necessity: Prolegomena to Any Future Radical Theory (2014) andContinuity and Rupture: Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain (2016). JMP has summarised his general position in the form of a syllogism:
“Proposition1. Historical materialism is a “science” that holds class struggle as its primary law of motion.
Proposition 2. If we take this law of motion seriously we must also take world historical revolutions seriously.
Proposition 3. There were only two world historical socialist revolutions,
and there are reasons to accept them as “world historical”. China
Proposition 4. This science, like any science, must develop according to ruptures in continuity with its laws of motion.
Proposition 5. Revolutionary theory progressed through Leninist and Maoist turns because it is only world historical revolutions that permit development.
Conclusion 1. Maoism is thus the most advanced development and to reject this is to reject historical materialism’s law of motion.
Conclusion 2. Maoism is not the end of the sequence but another opening; the questions it raises must be solved by another world historical revolution.”
JMP makes some very good points about Maoism. I thing the conclusion 2 (above) makes a real important point; " Maoism is not the end of the sequence but another opening."
Within this article, in which JMP is both quoted and explained by Harry Powell:
The terms “Maoist” and “Maoism” came into use during the nineteen sixties following the Sino-Soviet split to refer to those communists who agreed with the Communist Party of China in characterising the
Soviet Union and its
internal and external political lines as “revisionist”. The organisations and
parties which were formed with this political orientation called themselves
“Marxist-Leninist” and proclaimed their guiding ideology as “Marxism-Leninism,
Mao Tse-tung Thought”. In America
these groups, such as the Revolutionary Communist Party, came to be
called the “New Communist Movement”. JMP does not consider that these
organisations were “Maoist” in a fully meaningful sense. Rather they adhered to
Marxism-Leninism as it had developed in the international communist movement
during the Lenin and Stalin periods. Mao Tse-tung Thought was seen as
supplementary to Marxism-Leninism with some useful additions applicable to
imperialistically dominated countries but not as a distinct qualitative
development in Marxist theory and practice. USA
JMP claims that the explicit recognition of Maoism as a qualitatively new advance on Marxism-Leninism came in 1988 with the issuing of a statement to this effect by the Communist Party of Peru (Sendero Luminoso). This was followed in 1993 by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) issuing its statement Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism! http://www.revolutionarypraxis.org/?cat=130. In this RIM statement the qualitative advances which Maoism has brought to revolutionary ideology are summed up as follows:
“Mao Tsetung greatly developed the proletarian philosophy, dialectical materialism. In particular, he stressed that the law of contradiction, the unity and struggle of opposites, is the fundamental law governing nature and society.”
This may seem unremarkable at first sight but Mao rigorously applied the dialectical method of analysis to concrete political situations and action in a much more rigorous way than had his predecessors. For example, see his On New Democracy. The conceptual distinctions Mao made in applying dialectical analysis enable much more definite and precise conclusions to be drawn from examining any particular matter than was the case hitherto.
With in this passage JMP makes a distinction between Marxist-Leninist (ML) and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (MLM). He also makes a distinction between MLM of the 1960s and a more updated version of MLM that starts in
with the Communist Party of Peru (Sendero Luminoso) and
also the beginning of the International
Revolutionary Movement (RIM). Peru
For those of us who consider ourselves Maoist, we see Maoism as the highest development of Marxism. We have a lot in common with those who simply consider themselves ML, but they reject the more developed theories of MLM. They may reject all other attempts to improve ML or they may have added a different theoretician, such as Trotsky. For us MLM is a way more complete theory than just ML or the other chosen theoreticians. It is already difficult to get most Americans to consider the positive side of ML. It could be argued that ML is easier for people to understand and easier to promote. It may be easier to understand, but it not much easier to sell the American people on ML than it is MLM. Trotskyites are of course opposition to Maoism and a competing ideology. We may be able to work with them from time to time in coalitions. But they have no place in a Maoist party.
The article explains why MLM is superior as stated in the above Conclusion 1.
The second point is that Maoism since 1980 and the advancement of the CPP(SL). Of course we develop MLM more since 1980. MLM is not a religious dogma. It changes and reconstitutes such theories over time. I hadn't thought much about such changes, but it doesn't hurt to look at them.
Cult of personality:
One problem that remains for US leftists is how do we take power in this country. There are three basic methods, people's war,
 Communist Party of Peru (Sendero Luminoso) is also designated, CPP (SL) or for this article, CPP.