Maoism A Global History: Misleading Thoughts in a Fascinating Title

Rishi Raj Baral

Many books have been written about Mao and the global influence of Maoism. The last of
these is Maoism A Global History. The 606-page book, written by British history
professor Julia Lovell, was published in 2019.

The name of the book is very attractive, but as you read, you feel a strange state of mind,
this kind of feeling comes from the very beginning 'Introduction' chapter.

Apart from the 'Introduction' and 'Conclusion', this book is written under12 titles. The first
is "What is Maoism" and the 12th is "Mao-is China." In this context, what is Maoism, how it
has expanded in the past, as well as the resurgence of Maoists in China has been discussed.
Discussing the global Maoism, the influence of the "Great Chinese Proletarian Cultural
Revolution" in the 1960s is emphasized.

She has mentioned in the 'Introduction' chapter that there are books written on the global
influence of the Maoist movement, but there is a lack of books to read the whole history in
one place. According to her, Maoism: A Global History is the consequence of this lack. As
she has said : '' This book aims to bring Mao and his ideas out of the shadows, and recast
Maoism as one of the major stories of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries." 1

Even if she says this, the reader does not feel that way. Although more emphasis has been
placed on the history of the past, the history of the past also has not been able to come as a
whole. It does not contain a comprehensive discussion of the Maoist movement in some of
the countries allied to 'Revolutionary Internationalist Movement' (RIM) and Coordination
Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA). In the current
context, global Maoism cannot be complete without discussing the Maoist movements in
countries like the Philippines and Turkey.

In 'Introduction' she has mentioned, ''Maoism is a body of contradictory ideas that has
distinguished itself from earlier guises of Marxism in several important ways.'' 2 Here, too,
Lovell's perceptive is confusing. There are many inconsistencies in the book not only in
terms of territorial influence and expansion of the Maoist movement but also in terms of
ideology. Maoism is not a body of contradictory ideas and it is not different from the basic
tenets of Marxism, rather it is the development in Marxism, it is the third and higher stage
of Marxism. Similarly, to limit Maoism to the term "umbrella" is to shrink its ideological
value in a way that minimizes the development of Marxism-Leninism into Maoism and
Mao's contribution to the world Communist movement. Maoism is the today's Marxism and
the guiding principle of the world revolution. It needs to be clear. And only the discussion
of global Maoism makes sense.
The Indian Maoist movement is of great importance in today's Communist movement.
Lovell has focused more on explaining the phase of the Naxalbari Peasant Movement. No
doubt, the Maoist movement led by Comrade Charu Majumdar has historical significance,
but it must be linked to continuity. The unified Maoist movement in India has taken on a
new dimension since 2004 and is now a headache not only for Indian expansionism but
also for the imperialist powers as a whole. Indian fascism has called the ongoing People's
War in India the biggest challenge to India's internal security, which also proves the
importance of the ongoing People's War in India.

The book is full of contradictory statements, but a detailed discussion of all the chapters is
not possible here. How much Lovell thinks negatively about Maoism and the Maoist
movement can be seen in the views on Pol Pot and Comrade Gonzalo. She wants to show
that both are people with similar and bad tendencies. Lovell's statement that "if Gonzalo
had been successful in Peru, he would have shed blood by embracing the Khmer Rouge" 3, is
very objectionable. Matthew Galway's comment on Lovell's statement regarding Pol Pot
and Gonzalo is logical and based on facts. 4 Certainly, Pol Pot had some dogmatist
tendencies, he had ideological problems. But it doesn't make sense to blame Pol Pot alone,
excluding the role, conspiracy and genocide of American imperialism. We should not fall
into the delusion spread by the proponents of imperialism regarding Pol Pot and Khmer
Rouge regime. The Communist movement is to learn from the history of Pol Pot. 5 Lovell
emphasizes that the influence of the Maoist movement has spread more as terror and
emotional impulse than revolution. In fact, she wants to limit Maoism to the theory of
impulse and terror rather than the theory of revolution.

Lowell seems to lack the correct knowledge of the history of Maoism and the Maoist
movement. Lovell's interest is focused on the details of events, rather than on the class
struggle and ideological question. This book, which seems to have a critical attitude
towards the Maoist movement, is not able to provide instructive conclusions. The title
Maoism: A Global History is fascinating, but the facts and figures are superficial. No
matter how much she tries to be ''neutral", the book is not free from prejudice.

Some of the references are such as to arouse distrust and disgust towards the Maoist
movement among the readers who do not know much about it. This book shows how
negativity towards the movement is being created with the help of negative reference
materials. In fact, the way she interprets global Maoism shows that her intention is not
positive.

Regarding the history of the Maoist movement, Lovell also discusses Nepal's Maoist
movement and rise of Maoists in China. She has said that the Maoists are in power in Nepal,
the "neo-Maoists" are rising in China and Xi Jinping is leading China to Maoism. It is true
that the Maoist party was formed in China in 2008 and the public opinion in favor of
Maoism is growing, but Xi Jinping is not trying to lead China towards the Maoist road,
rather than he wants to use the rising power of the Maoists in China to consolidate his
power. It's just his cunning. The Chinese Communist Party and its leaders have followed the
path of counter-revolution, not the path of Maoism as Lovell said, and are now practicing
social imperialism.. To say that Xi Jinping is on Mao's path is to fail to understand the
character of the Chinese Communist Party and the current Chinese rulers. Also, the context
of the Chinese ''neo-left" and Mao's supporters in China is not the same. The Maoists have
carried the flag of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Pro-Maoist leaders, especially large
numbers of students, are still in prison. In the case of Nepal, even though the Maoists joined
the government during the transition period, only those who betrayed the Maoist
movement are now in multi-party parliamentary politics, and the true Maoist
revolutionaries are fighting for a New Democratic Revolution. This is the reality of the
Maoist movement in Nepal and it needs to be clarified.

Many issues in this book are confusing in the case of Nepal as well as in the case of other
countries. In the context of the Nepal's People's War, the role of Mohan Baidya 'Kiran' has
been downplayed and Baburam Bhattarai's and his wife Hisila's role has been given more
importance. Intentionally Lovell has covered up Baburam's right-wing and pro-Indian
tendencies. Most of the sources of reference material are associated with Baburam
supporters and opponents of the People's War. It is natural that the interviews with the
opponents of the Maoist movement present a negative picture of the People's War.
Attempts have been made to present the Maoist cadres and the entire People's War in a
negative way. The discussion of the Nepal's People's War presents a very negative picture,
for example page 405-406 can be taken. It seeks to convey the message that Maoist cadres
are those who loot people's property, kill them and force them to work. Take, for example,
the construction of the road Holeri to Thawang. The killings and terror perpetrated by the
fascist government, the inhumane nature of state terrorism have been given very little
space, it seems that there has been no interest in it and the shortcomings of the Maoists
have been exaggerated.

The comments made regarding road construction are very objectionable. During the
People's War, construction work was started as a part of the Maoist Party-led road
construction campaign. In the book, it is said that the people were forced to work, starved
and economically exploited. The leaders and cadres of the party, the People's Liberation
Army (PLA), local People's government participated in the road construction. At the call of
the Party, the villagers voluntarily participated in the road construction. It is worth
mentioning here that expressing their commitment to the Proletarian Internationalism,
cadres of the fraternal parties also had participated. Lovell's statement is based on the
misinformation spread by the opponents, who were/are against Maoist movement and
road construction.
She has also said that the Maoist party had used the "widespread experience of terror
tactics" to gain majority in national election in 2008. This is another false statement by
Lovell. Likewise, Prachanda wanted to kill Baburam Bhattarai alive by burying him in a pit
do not match the facts. As she has said " Bhattarai faced real possibility that the armed
revolution that he had supported with all his intellectual energies would consume him in a
Stalinist purge. 'Prachanda could have (had me) killed,' he later recalled matter-of-factly.
'We were prepared for that…' He told me later, there were some people who wanted to
bury mee alive.'"6 This is an expression far beyond reality. Lowell has become Baburam's
spokesperson rather than a freelance writer here. This kind of writing raises the question
not only of the source of information, but also her intention itself. This kind of delusion
creates disillusionment and confusion not only in the context of the Maoist movement in
Nepal, but also Maoist movement as a whole.

Lovell has called Baburam Bhattarai "brains of the movement". This is also a wrong and
ridiculous statement. It has been wrongly analyzed that the People's War was waged under
the leadership of Prachanda and Baburam. The truth is that Baburam is a right-wing
opportunist and time has shown that he worked for Indian expansionism under the cover
of the Maoist. Now he has announced that he is no longer a Marxist. It must be clear that
Kiran and Prachanda are the main leaders of the Nepal's People's War. Even though
Prachanda has betrayed the revolution now, Kiran, a senior leader and ideologue of the
Nepalese Maoist movement, is still fighting for the New Democratic Revolution.

Lovell also said that Baburam's PhD thesis helped in analyzing the situation of Nepali
society and made it easier for the Maoist movement to move forward. What s ridiculous
assessment! It is known to all that there is not the slightest truth in this. Similarly, Lovell
says that first Kiran separated from Prachanda and then Biplav separated, this is also not
true. The Biplav group split from the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist formed under
Kiran's leadership. Biplav led group is now advocating the misleading slogan of 'post-
imperialism' and 'unified revolution'. In fact, in the name of 'unified revolution' this group
is practicing 'post-Maoism'.

To praise Baburam, Lowell has used a number of baseless materials. She has used people
like CK Lal and those who have a negative view of Nepal's People's War. Truthful analysis
requires official and truthful content. The correct approach seeks the correct reference
material. Lovell has interviews and information with Maoist opponents like CK Lal,
Khagendra Sangraula and right-wingers like Baburam Bhattarai, Hisila Yami and Surendra
Karki (Ram Karki?). Lowell did not consider it necessary to keep in mind that Sangraula
had written a novel against the Nepal's People's war. As well she as used books by
Prashant Jha, Deepak Thapa, Aditya Adhikari, Michael Hutt and David Kellner. These
sources and books are not able to present an accurate picture of the Maoist movement and
the ten-year People's war in Nepal. Michael Hutt, who is said to have knowledge of Nepal
and Nepali literature, is more interested in exploring negativity about the Nepali People's
War. Michael Hutt is a man with a negative attitude towards Marxism and Nepal's People's
War. Hutt has given Lowell enough guideline to write a history of Nepal's People's War.

In fact, this is what all the opponents of Maoism do, not just Lovell. Leaving aside Li
Onesto's book Dispatches from the people's war in Nepal most of the books written by
foreign authors do not contain correct descriptions of Nepal's ten-year People's War. Apart
from the Party Documents, the books that present the true picture of Nepal's People's War
are Deepak Sapkota's Ten Years of Upheavel (2066 BS) and Rishi Raj Baral's Nepali
People's War (2069 BS). These writers are soldiers of various fronts in the ten-year
People's War.

In the name of global Maoism, it is clear that Lovell is trying to create confusion about the
entire Communist Movement. Her emphasis in each chapter is on negativity. Her
ideological tendency and intention can be assessed by using many terms like "Stalinist
Terror", "Maoist Terror", "bloody Cultural Revolution", ''horror of the Cultural revolution".
In fact, Maoism: A Global History is a book based on bad intentions with a fascinating title.
Not only in the context of the Nepal's People's War, but also in the context of the discussion
of global Maoism, Lovell's greater interest is focused on the search for negativity and she is
interested in selecting similar references.

She has read Edgar's book, Red Star over China, from top to bottom, and has used the
writings of some Western intellectuals with critical views of the Maoist movement as a
source of material. But she is not interested in studying Mao's official documents and the
documents of Maoist writer. As a result, her statements are contradictory and negative.

The list of reference materials used by Lovell is long. In writing each chapter, she has used
the reference material very carefully and cleverly. She has used as many negative reference
materials as possible. One of the important aspects of Mao's contribution and the global
significance of Maoism is the "Great Debate" between China and Soviet Russia. This is a
very important ideological struggle waged by Mao. But instead of discussing such
ideological-political aspects, Lovell's interest is focused on distorting Mao's image. In fact,
this book is an example of deceptive writing. It is natural to be rewarded with this kind of
book by the anti- Communist agencies.

Where there is no need, she has repeatedly discussed the books of Li Zhisui's The Private
Life of Chairman Mao: The Memoirs of a Personal Physician (1994), Jung Chang and
Holiday's, Mao: The Unknown Story (2005) and Frank Decotter's The History of
Chinese Must Devasting Catastrophe (2010). But the books that have been published to
refute such misleading books like Manufacturing History: Sex, Lies and Random House
Memoirs of Maoist Physician (1995), Mobo Gao's The Battle for China's Past : Mao and
Cultural revolution (2008), Dongping Han's The Unknown Cultural Revolution (2008)
and the book Was Mao Really a Monster?: The Academic Response to Chang and the
Halliday, are not mentioned anywhere. Particularly, Mobo Gao's books are very important
in this regard, but Lowell has dismissed them all. It is not enough to just describe the
events, the main thing is the attitude towards it and in this regard Lovell's intention is
bigotry. We must keep in mind that the key question is outlook and intention of the writer.

Opponents have been campaigning for the disfigurement of images since the time of Marx
and Engels. Especially in the case of Stalin and Mao, they have been presented in a negative
way. Such acts are carried out in the imperialist scheme of disfiguring the image of
Communist politics and revolutionary leaders. Lovell's frequent references to of Li Zhisui
Jung Chang and Holiday, and Frank Decotter make it clear that she wants to draw the
reader's attention to their writings. The inherent negativity towards Maoism has worked in
this aspect. In this sense, Maoism: A Global History is a history book with a focus on
business objectives and propaganda.

Written in the style of journalism, this book has some positive terms and sentences.
Especially in the 'Conclusion' she has tried to be something positive. As she has mentioned:
''I have argued that Maoism has been underestimated not just as Chinese but also as a
global phenomenon. I have sought to re-center its ideas and experience as major forces of
the recent past, present and future that have shaped—and are shaping—the world, as well
as China." To say so is more compelling than her wish, because it is the living truth of today.
The main thing is the essence of the book and she has not been able to be positive about it.

In conclusion:

Although China has taken the road of counter-revolution after Mao; the Maoist movement
has not ended, this is continuing worldwide. The principles of the Paris Commune are
Eternal. The proletariat will always raise the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and
the International will resound. People's wars are still waging in India, the Philippines and
Turkey, and the Maoists are continuing the class struggle not only in the 'Third World'
countries but also in various 'First World' countries in the specific situation of their
countries. As far as the Maoist revolution in Nepal is concerned, the Communist Nucleus,
Nepal and the Nepal Communist Party (Revolutionary Maoist) are fighting for the New
Democratic Revolution. And at the same time, the Maoist revolutionaries of the world are
active in building a new center of revolutionaries—a new International.

The Maoist movement is a universal truth of today. As long as there is imperialist

oppression and capitalist inhumanity, the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism will
continue to rise and the proletarian struggle will continue. This is the truth whether one
accepts it or not.

Notes:

1. Julia Lovell, Maoism A Global History (London: Vintage, 2020), 7.

2. Ibid, 8.
3. Ibid, 4.
4. See, Matthew Galway, “Review of Maoism: A Global History by Julia Lovell,”  PRC History Review,
No. 23 (August 2020): 1-8.
5. Online:http://prchistory.org/prc-history-review/?
fbclid=IwAR2LZFXZbKt5x5Rh_zE1RlM1VjPBpywivc-TbeIr_9Ez3KUyefn3Wa_wPmo
6. For the detail study, see, F. G. 'What went wrong with the Pol Pot regime', A World To Win, 25
(1999).
https://www.bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm
7. Lovell, Maoism A Global History, 409-410.

From: therevolutioaryfront.com