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, Russia
and 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, 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 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:
JMP sees the qualitative
advance to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) as arising out of the practice of
waging people’s war by the CPP (Sendero Luminoso), the Communist Party of
Nepal (Maoist) (CPN(M) and the Communist Party of India
(Maoist). These parties have shown in practice the universal validity of
people’s war. It is also true that the first two parties, after tremendous
advances, suffered serious setbacks and defeats. In the case of the CPP(SL) the
capture of its leader, Chairman Gonzalo, and its Central Committee led to a
major split in the Party and great diminution of the armed struggle. The
CPN(M) fought a very successful people’s war which resulted in the first really
free elections in the country and the formation of a national government led by
the Party. But then its two main leaders, Prachanda and Bhatterai, abandoned
the struggle to create a New Democratic regime and claimed that only a
bourgeois republic was possible. The Nepal People’s army was disbanded and the
Maoist party split.
In actual practice Maoism has
in these two cases shown that it has some major shortcomings. JMP
emphasises the necessity of rupture in the successive stages in the development
of Marxism. The above two cases strongly suggest that there needs to be a
radical rupture with respect to the inflated role and position of
leaders in revolutionary parties. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all elevated to
occupy a demigod-like position. This was especially so with Mao. As we have
seen in the cases of Stalin and Mao, the socialist systems in the Soviet Union
and People’s China Peru and Nepal USA
Some people say that it is
necessary to have prominent, clearly visible leaders with whom the masses can
identify. But we have seen in the cases of Gonzalo and Prachanda that this can
lead to confusion and collapse when such leaders abandon the revolutionary
political line they hitherto espoused. Also this position takes a somewhat
patronising attitude towards workers and peasants. Are they not capable of
forming an allegiance to a particular political doctrine as opposed to a
particular leader? It is encouraging to note that the Communist Party of India
(Maoist), which is conducting a people’s war at a high level, has a more
collective style of leadership. Part of the development of Maoism should be a
rupture with the creation and elevation of great leaders. It‘s time for
the communists to grow up!
These are some good points on the cult of personality.
And such a cult does seem to hold a movement back. The Communist Party of
Kampuchea and the Sandinistas Revolution in Nicaragua
In the past many communists saw
People’s War as appropriate for less developed, imperialistically dominated
countries, e.g. the Philippines
One problem that remains for US leftists is how do we take
power in this country. There are three basic methods, people's war, spontaneous insurrection which was inherited from the experience
of the Russian Revolution and the ballot box. Of these three, none have been particularly
successful in the US US government
has worked overtime to try and be ready for the US America
We have seen some success with the Occupy Movement a few years ago. A prolonged version of something like that could provide us with a way to bring down the system.
We have seen some success with the Occupy Movement a few years ago. A prolonged version of something like that could provide us with a way to bring down the system.
[1] Communist
Party of Peru (Sendero Luminoso) is also designated, CPP (SL) or for this
article, CPP.
No comments:
Post a Comment