What do you think?
Rate this book
Continuity and Rupture: Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain
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.
312 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2016
34 people are currently reading
913 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
June 20, 2017
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.)
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.)
August 28, 2019
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.
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.
November 9, 2025
"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.
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.
September 14, 2020
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.
May 11, 2019
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.'
June 4, 2022
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
February 20, 2021
This is bad. Really bad. My head hurts.
October 25, 2019
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.
April 21, 2022
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 :>
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 :>
July 22, 2017
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.
May 15, 2025
Sophistry, meant to confuse and misguide.
May 20, 2017
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.
November 21, 2023
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."
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."
June 5, 2017
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.
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.
September 6, 2020
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.
November 28, 2021
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.
December 2, 2016
Full review forthcoming. I don't like star ratings.
September 7, 2022
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.
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.
May 7, 2025
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.
December 27, 2017
Regardless of whether you agree with JMP's conclusions, this is a compelling and well-written book which argues effectively that the history of Marxism(-Leninism-Maoism) can be best understood materially as the outcome of revolutions in which preceding stages are codified and then reach their limits. I'm not sure I agree with JMP's claim that MLM did not emerge until the early 1990s because this seems to run against some of his other arguments; there has not been a fourth world-historical revolution, so Maoism itself remains uncodified (in the same way that Marxism-Leninism was until the Chinese Revolution - although how JMP dates the latter is quite unclear). Regardless, this book is absolutely essential reading for anyone interested in grappling with these questions - or in political practice. Further, and against some currents within the ML and MLM traditions, JMP correctly emphasises the need to appreciate the heterogeneity of the masses and to understand struggles over race/gender/sexuality/etc as class struggles. Although he has officially disavowed it, the influence of autonomism remains clear in JMP's writing and it is welcome in this instance, but I think a fuller appreciation for theoretical insights derived from Western (and Latin American) Marxism would be helpful in rounding out his argument.
July 14, 2017
"Althusser often argued that the final instance never arrives. Inspired by the insights of Mao––and thus a concept of Maoism that had not yet emerged––he meant that, while we can understand the meaning of these other sites of oppression according to the “final instance” of the economic base, there is never an instance of a purely abstract class struggle that is stripped from its ideological trappings. But Althusser, whose critical lens was ultimately aimed at an anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism, and even then ended up siding with the revisionist orthodoxy of the PCF, was incapable of grasping the full extent of this insight. Now we must take this insight further in order to declare that under capitalism the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are not categories that remain unaffected by race, gender, sex, sexuality, and ability; they are always over-coded by these sites of oppression."
January 13, 2022
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.
July 28, 2025
It’s maybe not fair to critique the author’s voice in a philosophical work, but I will anyway. This reads as a polemic written by the most annoyingly pretentious and snooty guy you ever met on the college Quad, which doesn’t in any way negate his arguments but does make the book a slog to get through. A good editor would’ve been useful in helping him develop his arguments in a clearer and more succinct manner, too.
But the topics and questions he brings up are indeed interesting and worth thinking about, even if, as many reviewers have noted, you don’t agree with his conclusions (and in fact, a number of throwaway assertions he makes I don’t agree with and would have appreciated an actual defense of). The appendix is, as a fairly thorough denunciation of Trotskyism, pretty damn good.
But the topics and questions he brings up are indeed interesting and worth thinking about, even if, as many reviewers have noted, you don’t agree with his conclusions (and in fact, a number of throwaway assertions he makes I don’t agree with and would have appreciated an actual defense of). The appendix is, as a fairly thorough denunciation of Trotskyism, pretty damn good.
July 9, 2017
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.
September 11, 2017
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.
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.
January 18, 2025
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.
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.
February 15, 2024
Bibliography included with notes at the end of each chapter. No further reading section.
Worth reading to have a grasp on the contemporary general Maoist perspective. I feel appreciative for the inclusion of the appendix.
As a philosopher, as he states in the text, he is explaining what he already considers a science that has been proven. Where theory continues to be developed he acknowledges that discussion as separate from his task.
Worth reading to have a grasp on the contemporary general Maoist perspective. I feel appreciative for the inclusion of the appendix.
As a philosopher, as he states in the text, he is explaining what he already considers a science that has been proven. Where theory continues to be developed he acknowledges that discussion as separate from his task.
December 9, 2024
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.
August 10, 2025
Very well written. But more of a defense of Maoism as it's own ideology, than an analysis of Maoism itself. Essentially that Maoism is both the continuation of Marxism while also being a rupture from Marxism which takes it to the 3rd stage.
August 12, 2021
kind of a slog, but a fun insightful slog if that makes sense?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews