Otto's War Room (毛派): CRITIQUE OF MAOIST REASON-A PATH BREAKING CONTRIBUTION IN MAOIST WRITING

By Harsh Thakor

‘Critique of Maoist Reason’ by Joshua Moufawad Paul is a very creative, insightful and path-breaking work. It Covers every sphere of Maoism and is a worthy read even for non-Maoists. The author explains the spirit of his critique which is morally not a criticism. I recommend this book for many a non–Maoists. The spirit of this book combats dogmatism at it’s very root. Utilizing the term "critique" in the philosophical sense implied by Kant, Sartre, Mbembe, and others.

J. Moufawad-Paul offers an exacting analysis of the different trends that emerged out of the victory, development, and ultimate defeat of the Chinese revolution. Markedly and intentionally different from a polemic, Critique of Maoist Reason is a text for all who consider themselves "Maoists," as it clarifies and contextualizes various modes of thought within or associated with Maoism. Moufawad-Paul's latest contribution satisfies its intention to sharpen Maoist thinking through rigorous investigation. The author recognizes Maoism as third stage but refutes it as principal or Gonzalo as 4th sword of Marxism. Very well dissected chapters covering theory and practice today, and all the conflicting trends prevalent, within Maoism. Critically he respects concept of New Left and holds Comrade Ajith (Murali)in great esteem, yet Refutes dogmatic stand of Struggle Sessions and other Gonazloite groups. A most relevant coverage is about the true meaning of Maoism as a rupture, Communist party as a vanguard and right and left deviations. With great conviction asserts he has not abandoned vanguard party concept but only strived to develop it., to overcome bureaucratic trends. The author also refutes accusations of his treating Maoism as a separate entity and putting Leninism in the museum. The book elaborates the source of different trends disseminating in Maoism. Recognizes Maoism as third stage but refutes it as principal or Gonzalo as 4th sword of Marxism. Very intrinsically makes analysis of third worldism, which rejects the proletariat of the 1st world as evolutionary class. Expresses aspects not encompassed by Leninism but also critical of writers like Alan Badiou. Also illustratively elaborates why Gonzalo cannot be placed with Marx, Lenin and Mao. He refutes bourgeois reasoning at the very core. Critically respects concept of New Left and holds Comrade Ajith (Murali)in great esteem. Refutes dogmatic stand of Struggle Sessions. Critically respects concept of New Left and

holds Comrade Ajith (Murali)in great esteem.

A most relevant coverage is about the true meaning of Maoism as a rupture, Communist party as a vanguard and right and left deviations.

With great originality he sums up the inherent weaknesses of the formal Leninist vanguard party, but does not discard the concept. Very astutely he defends Marxism, as a developing science. With great conviction asserts he has not abandoned vanguard party concept but only strived to develop it., to overcome bureaucratic trends. The author also refutes accusations of his treating Maoism as a separate entity and putting Leninism in the museum. He delves on why the orthodox concept of vanguard party did not completely justify revolutionary democracy assessing that there were dogmatic trends within Leninism itself. The Eurocentric aspect of Marxism was highlighted. With great originality he sums up the inherent weaknesses of the formal Leninist vanguard party, but does not discard the concept. Very astutely he defends Marxism, as a developing science. Most dialectically he distinguishes dogmatism from ecclecticism and explains demystification and demarcation. A striking aspect is the author’s respect to the philosophical aspect of Maoism. This dimension has not been covered in at length by recent Marxists. He deals with the philosophical aspect of Science. Very concretely he is critical of trends that convert Marxism into a theology.

Moufawad Paul upholds positive aspects of thinkers like Louis Althusser and Alan Badiou but also highlights how they failed to grasp essence of Mao's contribution. Most incisively he penetrates how Maoism is both a continuity and a rupture of Leninism, and still has its roots firmly entrenched in it. He gives Chairman Gonzalo his fair due in balanced manner, in contrast to trends that eulogise him. He is critical of formulation of ‘Gonzalo Thought’, which is positive and tooth and nail refutes tendencies of ‘Personality Cult. ‘The author also deals with how the spontaneous or parliamentary path totally subverted genuine revolutionary movements like that of Allende in Chile ,Spanish Civil War or the UCF(ML).The author narrated how popular movements of the EZLN and Zapatistas subsided due to negating the line of the Chinese Cultural Revolution and how Cuba, Korea, Vietnam or China could not ignite the spark of a new revolution, for the same reason. Similarly he also negated Leon Trotsky and Enver Hoxha, portraying how no revolution in the world succeeded implementing their respective ideologies, or have no revolution to call their own. The author traverses region snot penetrated in previous books like Continuity and Rupture ‘or ‘Communist Necessity’, which he previously wrote. An approach is projected to counter traditional dogmatist approaches. This book did great justice to the contribution of Maoist leader ’Ajith.’, projecting his most pertinent influences. There is a dialectical link between this book and the work of Ajith. There is remarkable similarity of this book to Ajith’s books on Postists of Marxism.

I recommend everyone to see the Youtube on Foreign Languages Press when Joshua Moufawad Paul summarises his book. A possible weakness in this book is insufficient linking of the continuity of Maoism with Leninism and assessing that Maoism was founded in the 1980’s by the PCP, and not by the CCP, when referred to as Mao thought, by the CCP. It also does not adequately deal with why the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement had such a big setback or question of building a Communist International. There is not enough light thrown on the very fundamentals of Leninism or Marxism, contribution of Stalin and how in different stages the Chinese revolution imbibed Leninism in accordance to its own situation, or what led to the setback of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

There is tendency to treat Maoism as a separate entity from Marxism-Leninism and give it another meaning than the CCP did in 1969. In my view it also did not make an attempt to investigate the aspect of mass line in Cultural Revolution and People’s Wars like that of dissolving of the Shanghai Commune, setback in Peru or any appraisal of writings of Professor Joma Sison. The book is divided into 6 chapters -The Route Charted to Date, Thinking Science, The Maoist Point of Origin, Against Communist Theology, The Dogmato-eclecticism of “Maoist Third Worldism” Left and Right Opportunist Practice, Making Revolution. In the Introduction he writes that “In the face of critical passivity and dry formalism we must uphold our collective capacity to think thought. The multiple articulations of bourgeois reason demand that we accept the current state of affairs as natural, reducing critical thinking to that which functions within the boundaries drawn by its order. Since we are still more-or-less immersed in capitalist culture––from our jobs to the media we consume––the training persists. Hence, while we might supersede the boundaries drawn by bourgeois reason, it remains a constant struggle to escape its imaginary. The simplicity encouraged by bourgeois reasoning––formulaic repetition, a refusal to think beneath the appearance of things––thus finds its way into the reasoning of those who believe they have slipped its grasp. We must always be vigilant in the renewal of our thinking, struggling against the patterns of thought encouraged by bourgeois reason, so to keep our counter-reasoning sharp. Such vigilance is doubly required for the most revolutionary expression of such reasoning to date: Maoist reason. To think Marxism as Marxism now is to also think Maoism.”

In Chapter The ‘Route Charted to Date’ he speaks about how Maoism has generated a vital heoretical terrain. Philosophy, which is not the same as theory, has continued to lag behind. He asserts that h philosophy will always tail theory because of what it is,4 the philosophical practice of contemporary Maoism is currently impoverished. In JMP’s view , other Marxist tendencies are also philosoph-ically impoverished, all of them relying on past philosophical interven- tions or eclectic and useless philosophical investigations, and so Mao-ism is no worse off than other Marxisms on the philosophical front. He differentiates between dogmatism and eclecticism, in detail exposing how they belonging to a different mode of thinking but silmuntaneously intersect or function as adjuncts of each other. In JMP’s view Dogmatism, characterized by formulaic and religious thinking, is by definition opposed to creative and fresh thinking insofar as it opposed to anything that strays from doctrinaire analysis. Eclecticism, defined by an unbounded and rigorous thinking where one constantly searches for new and overly creative conceptions (the mixing and matching of concepts without scientific rigour), thus appears to be synonymous with “non-dogmatism” Upholding Scientfic spirit in Chapter 2 on ‘Thinking Science”he even probes into contributions of Scientists like Einstein illustrating similarities between evolution in Science and Marxist ideology. The introduction and conclusion of this book are most incisive and lucid. The author debates on whether historical materialism is a true science. He has strong conviction that philosophy lags behind theory. The author delves into discoveries; like the’ big Bang Theory’, which rejected earlier concepts. He summed up how Marxism itself was a laboratory. of class Struggle. Most elaborately he summarises the development of Maoism in Chapter 3 on Maoist Point of Origin’and people’s wars and explains why morally the Communist Party of Philippines and the C.P.I. (Maoist) morally support Maoism, even if not recognising the Peruvian Communist party as the founder. The author credits the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement for formulating true meaning of Maoism. The author projects the dialectical development of Maoism and Peoples Wars narrating the contribution of the Peruvian Communist Party and the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. He analyses the growth of Maoism from the embryo, to germinate into a coherent force. He firmly defends that in crucial junctures ruptures took place from original Leninism .In detail he examines the adjacent and the prefigurations but asserted that it did not imply that there are multiple lines of origin, that all posess the same status. The prefigurative aspect encompasses a variety of theories and theorists: i) anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninisms that occasionally used the name of “Maoism” (often meaning “Mao Zedong Thought”); ii) early attempts to claim “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” that were still indistinguishable from Marxism-Leninism and were oft-times eclectic; iii) theories and theorists who did not necessarily use the term “Maoism” but that provided insights that predicted significant aspects of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The adjacent aspect refers to those theories and theorists that were claiming Maoism simultaneous to the PCP-RIM sequence, and thus influenced this sequence during and after its existence, only to be also influenced by it later on: i) the theory that emerged over the fragmented people’s wars in India, leading up to the foundation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist); ii) the theory that resulted from the long people’s war led by the Communist Party Philippines. In Chapter on ‘Left and Right Opportunist Practice’ The author dialectically projects the similarity and dichotomy of right opportunism and left adventurism.

He illustrates in a most coherent fashion how one deviation breeds the other. Examples are given of ‘Back to the Factory ‘Approach, paving way for an organisation to deviate from the party programme, and become isolated from the working class. The author also refers to phenomena of focoist tendencies in struggle.

Most methodically he portrays practice of mass line to integrate the working class. or drawing them towards the Communist party. In his view large factories can be the only places where organisational work could take place, where workers are concentrated and not diffused. In multiple job sites workers are dispersed or separated, so red union conglomeration is virtually impossible. The author narrates how economist tendencies prevail among the working class which make them abandon proletarian politics, An example was recounted where an organization focused purely on organising in a specific work place, giving no respect to the party programme or Marxist political plan. In Chapter on ‘Against Communist Theology’ he sums up the trend of dogmatism in groups which advocate ‘Principally Maoism” and highlights how Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao consistently engaged in the political debates of their day, having profound knowledge of history of philosophy. The author analysed how Marx, Lenin and Mao evolved their political thoughts. He pointed out the failure within Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to recognize antagonistic contradictions. A reference was given how some tried to make the contradiction between proletariat and labour as non –Antagonistic. Moufawad Pual explains that the ‘Principally Maoism’ trend that denies rupture, obscures the scientific meaning of Marxism-Leninism. Maoism is reduced to a theology by creating five or six facialisations of Marxism. In The Dogmato-eclecticism of “Maoist Third Worldism” he makes a most incisive analysis of the viewpoint that portray the proletariat of the 1st world as reactionary and merely a labour aristocracy. The author highlights the prominent trend of Lin Biaosm prevalent in Maoist third worldism and how it rejects Leninism. Still he does give them credit for giving valuable lessons on important aspects. The author is convinced that such trends lack social investigation and can be traced to works of academic theorisation and abstract empiricism. In final chapter on Making Revolution the author extensively deals with the aspect of mass line, revisionism, post-Maoism and fluctuating trends. He makes the subtle contrast in the lines of various nations engaged in peoples war like that of Prachanda in Nepal and Gonzalo in Peru. In the conclusion he states that to evaluate Maoism as a new stage of science, and not simply a non-dialectical repetition of pre-Maoist Marxism-Leninism, then we have to also begin thinking what such a transformation means according to this basic understanding of dialectical development. If we do not then we are simply stuck with an under-standing of a quantitative straight line of development where it is simply about adding up the insights as if they are an evolutionary trend.

Names:

Karl Marx,