Scan barcode
A review by huerca_armada
Maoism: A Global History by Julia Lovell
1.0
Without a doubt, the most tedious and obtuse book that I have ever read. Not just this year, but ever. The entire time I was reading this, it just felt like an enormous waste. So, in order to spare anyone else the agony of reading this, here are the most major issues with it.
1. What is Maoism? Great question! Because it seems that Lovell doesn't know either. While in passing she mentions the differences of Maoist strains of thought, including Mao Zedong Thought (MZT) and Marxist-Leninist-Maoism (MLM), she seems to think they are both the same things. This of course is so far removed from the truth that it would be grounds to stop reading right here if you know anything about these two subjects and the extreme differences that exist between them. Nevertheless, despite revealing this in the first 50 pages, Lovell proceeds to draw zero distinctions between them and what's more, not even touch upon Maoist Third Worldism (MTW), whose absence is felt with great peculiarity.
Lovell does claim that it is hard to provide a historic overview of (her interpretation of) Maoism across the globe, given the secretive nature that Maoist organizations have had to build up, and the scattered/classified nature of many a party's documents. But this is a flimsy defense at best when all three of these major branches of Maoist strands have reams of information written upon them already by representatives of those movements. The fact that she omits an entire branch, and melds the other two together, is completely unacceptable for a book with a goal of covering the global rise of Maoism in the latter half of the 20th century.
2. What is your point? The moment wherein I knew reading this book was a doomed venture was the following passage from pg. 19.
This is something that I would expect to read in a freshman history paper, not a book that received a round of applause from a host of reviewers like the Times, the Washington Post, and others. At its core, attempting to draw parallels between Mao and Trump is like attempting to compare the sun to a light bulb and one of the worst examples I have seen of establishment politics suffering from Trump derangement. Never have I seen such a clear effort to sell the timeliness of a book then with this bit of the introduction. It is such a jarring transition from what was written up to this point that I had to set the book down and collect myself.
3. Is this REALLY what you want to write? Unsurprisingly with all the issues I've mentioned so far, the the lens with which Lovell has adopted for this is excruciating. First up, we have the famous private account of Mao's doctor Li Zhisui -- this features prominently in the early chapters discussing Mao in China, where an inordinate time is given to his purported grooming habits and sexual appetites. There's a reason why it has received intensive criticism not just by Chinese academics, but by English sinologists as well. Warning bells should be going off in your head at this point at the usage of an account like this one, but it is accepted uncritically. I almost expected to see a resurgence of the dumbest lie ever, which only rags like the SCMP or the Epoch Times would carry, of Mao attempting to sell millions of Chinese women for trade deals reprinted uncritically for this book but I guess even that was a bridge too far for Lovell.
With this highlighted early on, you begin to see a pattern in all the chapters that Lovell has painfully laid out for you. This is not so much a history as it is a lurid recounting of misadventures, wrong turns, and at times insane framing of Cold War events. It takes real skill to talk about the Years of Lead in Italy and ONLY talk about the Red Brigades instead of the (US-funded) fascist organizations with ties to the military and upper echelons of Italian political leadership. Yet somehow Lovell defies all odds in managing to do that.
Genuinely do not read this book. I picked it up as used for 10$, and it would have been better for me to burn that money myself because it could have provided a brief bit of warmth rather than this steaming pile of excrement.
1. What is Maoism? Great question! Because it seems that Lovell doesn't know either. While in passing she mentions the differences of Maoist strains of thought, including Mao Zedong Thought (MZT) and Marxist-Leninist-Maoism (MLM), she seems to think they are both the same things. This of course is so far removed from the truth that it would be grounds to stop reading right here if you know anything about these two subjects and the extreme differences that exist between them. Nevertheless, despite revealing this in the first 50 pages, Lovell proceeds to draw zero distinctions between them and what's more, not even touch upon Maoist Third Worldism (MTW), whose absence is felt with great peculiarity.
Lovell does claim that it is hard to provide a historic overview of (her interpretation of) Maoism across the globe, given the secretive nature that Maoist organizations have had to build up, and the scattered/classified nature of many a party's documents. But this is a flimsy defense at best when all three of these major branches of Maoist strands have reams of information written upon them already by representatives of those movements. The fact that she omits an entire branch, and melds the other two together, is completely unacceptable for a book with a goal of covering the global rise of Maoism in the latter half of the 20th century.
2. What is your point? The moment wherein I knew reading this book was a doomed venture was the following passage from pg. 19.
The Australian sinologist Geremie Barme has compared Trump ('the Great Disruptor') with Mao: for his erratic populism, his scorn for the bureaucratic establishment, his predilection for brief, earthy statements...
This is something that I would expect to read in a freshman history paper, not a book that received a round of applause from a host of reviewers like the Times, the Washington Post, and others. At its core, attempting to draw parallels between Mao and Trump is like attempting to compare the sun to a light bulb and one of the worst examples I have seen of establishment politics suffering from Trump derangement. Never have I seen such a clear effort to sell the timeliness of a book then with this bit of the introduction. It is such a jarring transition from what was written up to this point that I had to set the book down and collect myself.
3. Is this REALLY what you want to write? Unsurprisingly with all the issues I've mentioned so far, the the lens with which Lovell has adopted for this is excruciating. First up, we have the famous private account of Mao's doctor Li Zhisui -- this features prominently in the early chapters discussing Mao in China, where an inordinate time is given to his purported grooming habits and sexual appetites. There's a reason why it has received intensive criticism not just by Chinese academics, but by English sinologists as well. Warning bells should be going off in your head at this point at the usage of an account like this one, but it is accepted uncritically. I almost expected to see a resurgence of the dumbest lie ever, which only rags like the SCMP or the Epoch Times would carry, of Mao attempting to sell millions of Chinese women for trade deals reprinted uncritically for this book but I guess even that was a bridge too far for Lovell.
With this highlighted early on, you begin to see a pattern in all the chapters that Lovell has painfully laid out for you. This is not so much a history as it is a lurid recounting of misadventures, wrong turns, and at times insane framing of Cold War events. It takes real skill to talk about the Years of Lead in Italy and ONLY talk about the Red Brigades instead of the (US-funded) fascist organizations with ties to the military and upper echelons of Italian political leadership. Yet somehow Lovell defies all odds in managing to do that.
Genuinely do not read this book. I picked it up as used for 10$, and it would have been better for me to burn that money myself because it could have provided a brief bit of warmth rather than this steaming pile of excrement.