Declaration of War on Maoists
- continuation -
June 22, 2011
Revisionist tendencies have existed since the very beginning of the communist movement. The bourgeoisie always tried to penetrate inside communists’ ranks in order to corrupt the purity of the Marxist ideology and to take its militants away from the idea of the proletarian revolution.
Firstly, we had Bernstein’s and Kautsky’s revisionisms. Those were obvious revisionisms whose aim was to transform Marxism into an “acceptable” and “reasonable” ideology at the eyes of the bourgeoisie.
As Comrade Enver Hoxha stated:
“(…) after the heroic events of the Commune of Paris, (…) the bourgeoisie, mortally afraid of the spread of the great example it set, encouraged the new opportunist trend of Bernstein, who tried to strip Marxism of its revolutionary content and make it harmless to the political domination of the imperialist bourgeoisie.” (Enver Hoxha, Eurocommunism is Anti-communism, Tirana 1980, edition in English).
It’s very important to take Bernstein’s and Kautsky’s revisionisms into consideration, because its ideas influenced nearly all future revisionist, opportunist and anti-Marxist currents, including Maoism:
“The theories of Bernstein and Kautsky in various forms, sometimes openly and sometimes modified, are found in the revisionist Browder, are found in Khrushchevite revisionism, in Titoite revisionism, in French revisionism and in the Italian revisionism of Togliatti, in the so-called Mao Zedong thought and all revisionist currents. These innumerable anti-Marxist currents, which are developing in the present-day capitalist and revisionist world, are the fifth column in the ranks of the world revolution to prolong the existence of international capitalism by fighting the revolution from within.” (Enver Hoxha, Eurocommunism is Anti-communism, Tirana 1980, edition in English).
Bernstein was, much before Khrushchev, a staunch defender of the “gradual” and “peaceful” way to socialism.
After Bernstein, Kautsky and company, there were other revisionist currents such as Trotskyism, Titoism and Khrushchevism. All these currents were intended to separate peoples from the struggle for socialism by denying the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat and advocating that “there are many ways to achieve socialism”, that “after the socialist revolution, class struggle will disappear”, etc… In their writings, the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism analyzed deeply the causes, the consequences, the ideology and the actions of all those revisionist and anti-socialist currents and there is no need to talk further about them.
When reflecting about the evolution of the successive revisionist movements, we can easily note that the astuteness of the bourgeoisie in discovering new forms of revisionism with the purpose of detaching the broad masses from socialist edification is increasingly sharpening. Facing the strength of the proletarian forces and the growth of their revolutionary conscience, the bourgeoisie is forced to create new reactionary “theories” and “ideas” dressed in a “socialist” cloak in order to perpetuate the capitalist system and its immense class privileges. Of course, in doing this, the main objective of the bourgeoisie is to mislead the proletariat, is to create illusions and to propagate lies in order to thwart the socialist revolution.
When analyzing Maoist revisionism, we see that the bourgeoisie united all the old revisionist ideas and tried to dress them in a “revolutionary” and “leftist” cloak in order to deceive the working classes. However, behind its “revolutionary” outlook, Maoism was an anti-Marxist tendency from the very beginning. As Comrade Enver Hoxha said in his excellent book “Reflections on China”, the 1949 Chinese revolution was nothing more than a bourgeois revolution and Mao Zedong was never a Marxist-Leninist:
“Mao Tsetung is not a Marxist-Leninist but a progressive revolutionary democrat, and in my opinion, this is the angle from which his work should be studied.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, 26 December of 1976, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
However, to understand correctly the true character of Maoist revisionism, we have to analyze its origins, we have to analyze the conditions in which the chinese bourgeois-democratic anti-colonialist movement developed.
In the XIX century, the world was dominated by the European colonial and imperialist powers. British, French, German, Russian, Portuguese, Japanese, etc… imperialisms were dividing the world among them. British imperialism was hegemonic, but this did not hinder the other imperialisms from searching for new colonial areas where they could find new resources and markets to their products and capitals. In fact, the rivalry between the various European imperialist powers was increasing at the same time that there were less and less areas of the world which could be turned into colonial zones without interferences and conflicts with the other imperialisms also interested in colonial expansion. Of course, when these european imperialist powers penetrated in a new territory in order to transform it in a new colony, they only permitted the development of certain industrial and agricultural branches whose growth was considered more favorable for the economy of the colonial power. This is quite normal, because their aim was to turn the colonies into mere suppliers of basic resources without any signs of economic development. The effects and consequences of the European imperialisms were horrendous, from man-made large-scale famines and atrocities perpetrated against the oppressed peoples of the colonies, to the amount of massacres and slaughters which were called the “First World War” and which were a product of violent imperialist contradictions. In many senses, these awful effects are still felt nowadays, especially in what concerns the distribution of the world’s wealth and the division between “rich” and “poor” countries, which was artificially caused by the capitalist and imperialist system.
Nevertheless, it was not until the second half of the XIX century that the western imperialist powers finally fully penetrated into China. In truth, China’s case is very curious because the XIX century was the golden age of traditional colonialism; however, even when the coalition formed by the Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan, etc… managed to defeat the Qing imperial dynasty, those powers didn’t turn China into a traditional colonial country, but instead they applied what can be called an indirect colonialism or semi-colonialism, while maintaining China’s formal independence. In fact, we can almost say that China was one of the first territories in which was applied what we today call neo-colonialism. This caused the development in China of a very powerful and influent bourgeoisie intimately linked with foreign imperialisms (bourgeosie-compradore). Simultaneously, there were also another sections of the Chinese bourgeoisie which were growing, especially the more nationalistic and radical bourgeoisie whose interests had profound contradictions with those of the bourgeoisie compradore. This happened because the imperialist powers favored greatly the bourgeoisie of the compradore type, and through this support this bourgeoisie shared the control of China’s main industries and resources with the foreign imperialists.
In order to fight against the favored position of the bourgeoisie compradore, the national bourgeoisie claimed for “genuine independence” and “struggle against foreign control of China”. Therefore, the claims of the national bourgeoisie, whose ideology will constitute the main base of Maoist revisionism, were nothing more than instruments which were used by a section of the bourgeois class to accomplish its interests in front of another more powerful section of the same class. The bourgeoisie-compradore had power because it served the foreign imperialists interests. Consequently, to surpass this situation, the national bourgeoisie wanted China’s “true independence” in order to break the ties between the foreign imperialists and the bourgeoisie-compradore which were granting the latter’s power and influence in China.
This is not to deny that this national bourgeoisie had a certain “progressive” character. After all, we must bear in mind that, in those times, China was still a semi-feudal country and the Chinese peasants were harshly oppressed by the feudal and warlords which ruled the countryside. This fact was determinant in permitting that the national and “progressive” bourgeoisie could win the peasants and the working classes to its side. The “revolutionary” national bourgeoisie “promised” to liberate the peasants from this medieval oppression and with this it started to fight in both fronts: against the bourgeosie-compradore in the urban areas and against the feudal landowners in the countryside. It was in the context of this struggle between the national “progressive” bourgeoisie supported by the peasants and the working classes, on one side, and the bourgeosie-compradore and the feudal lords, on the other side, that the 1911 Chinese revolution of Sun-yat Sen (the leader of the Kuomintang) broke out and established the Chinese republic. This revolution was of a bourgeois-democratic character and, despite Sun-yat Sen sympathies for the Leninist Soviet Union, it never managed to menace the power of the bourgeosie-compradore, nor of the imperialist control in China. Comrade Enver Hoxha brilliantly analyzed the nature of this Chinese republic and the posterior conditions in which the Communist Party of China emerged in an article entitled “Can the Chinese revolution be called a proletarian revolution?”:
“This Chinese Republic was a «bourgeois-democratic» republic, still not fully formed with all the features and characteristics of an advanced bourgeois democracy, although it was moving in that direction. (…) At that time China was languishing under the double domination of the absolute monarchy, of the chaos in the provinces, where the «warlords» reigned with their autonomous administrations and their virtually private «armies», and under the domination of a series of imperialist states. (…) The proclamation of the republic and the coming to power of the Kuomintang did not mean that the big Chinese bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie and the compradore bourgeoisie were eliminated. In no way. This bourgeoisie remained in power and continued to maintain, protect and develop its links with the imperialist states, especially with American imperialism (…) Sun Yat-sen and the Kuomintang chose and developed the course of bourgeois-democratic reforms and, although they had friendly relations with the Leninist Soviet Union, they were far from following the Leninist road for the transformation of China.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, 26th December of 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English, edition in English).
The fact that the Chinese republic never managed to get rid of foreign dominance and of the power of the bourgeois-compradore was due to Sun Yat Sen’s ideological weakness. Instead of struggling against the bourgeoisie-compradore, he only blamed the defunct Qing dynasty for the fact that China was still a semi-feudal country completely exploited and controlled by the foreign imperialisms. He never understood that to eliminate semi-feudalism and imperialist interference in China, it was necessary at least to neutralize the bourgeoisie-compradore:
“His views and social inclinations were radical in words, but feeble in content. The ideopolitical inclinations of Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang as a whole leaned mostly and mainly towards the bourgeois-democratic views of Western Europe, America and other countries such as Japan.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II 26th December of 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
So, we can conclude that the 1911 Revolution which established the Chinese republic didn’t change the country’s general socio-economic and class structures. This meant that the section of the “progressive” national bourgeoisie continued the struggle against rival sections of the bourgeoisie.
Finally, in 1920, the Communist Party of China was born. The CPC was composed by some small groups submerged in a total ideological confusion and vacillation. The members of the Communist Party of China were guided by an ideology which was not Marxism-Leninism, but a reactionary and idealist ideology inspired on Confucianism, Buddhism, Chinese traditional philosophy, not to speak about the Trotskyist and anarchist influences which were also noted within the CPC:
“The Communist Party of China was born and developed in the bosom of the old Chinese society and civilization and its members, at that time, were products of the Confucian moral and intellectual education, democratic liberal education, and finally, Marxist-Leninist education. But even later it cannot be said that the Chinese Marxists broke away completely from the traditional civilization which continued to exert its influence on them through their individual psychology and the national psychology. The first Marxist groups were characterized by ideological confusion and vacillation in political line.
All these various ideological and political views should have been brought under control, in the sense that the ranks should have been purged and the influence of those elements who were democrats, but were not Marxists and who did not follow the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, should have been reduced. With this I want to say that the terrain should have been purged in order to form a genuine communist party, which would follow the theory of Marxism-Leninism, and apply it in a creative manner in the conditions of China, but apply it with a more profound and clearer understanding according to the ideas which guided the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Marxist ideas of Lenin.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, 26th December of 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
We must also note that the majority of the party members were under the influence of the Chinese national bourgeoisie and, indeed, the future Maoist revisionism would mainly serve the interests of this national bourgeoisie against foreign imperialisms and the bourgeosie-compradore:
“(…) in the views of the new cadres there remained a pronounced feeling of Chinese nationalism, of the independence of this «great state» and pronounced influences of old philosophical ideas of Confucius, Mencius, etc. This prevented the Chinese comrades, who were being formed during the struggle and battles, from considering Marxism-Leninism a true compass which would guide them in the very dark forest of the Chinese bourgeois- democratic revolution and from working out a Marxist-Leninist political line with clear objectives, which would guide them unwaveringly in all the stages of the Chinese revolution.
The Communist Party of China adopted only certain Marxist slogans and formulations, but in essence it was not a genuine party of the proletariat, a party of the revolution, which could secure the leadership in the democratic revolution and ensure its transformation into a proletarian revolution. In fact, within its ranks a series of anarchist and other theories and deviations developed. The whole development of China, from the formation of the party, from the foundation of the bourgeois-democratic republic of Sun Yat sen to this day shows this chaotic course.
The newly formed Communist Party of China should have followed the course of strengthening itself ideologically and organizationally, should have worked to build up its identity and, step by step, create its alliances with the revolutionary classes and forces, should have fought for the strengthening of the positions of the bourgeois democracy which was being built in this first stage, that is, to ensure the democratic freedoms of the people, to increase the influence of the people and, in the first place, of the proletariat (…) it should have worked to capture dominant positions in the trade unions and to carry on its propaganda with its own class stand, in order to consolidate its positions in the working class, in order to make that class the leading force of the revolution.
At the same time, it should have extended its influence into the Chinese countryside (…) and should have proceeded more consistently in implementing the agrarian reform and the political-educational awakening of the countryside.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, 26th December of 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Moreover, the “C”PC worked in a state of total disorganization, without even looking for the indications and directives that the Comintern of Lenin was giving them. Comrade Lenin analyzed the situation in China and, at its Second Congress, the Comintern defended:
“ (…) the thesis that «the revolution in China and other colonial countries must have a program which permits the inclusion of bourgeois reforms and, especially, the agrarian reform», but stressed that the leadership of the revolution must not be handed over to the democratic bourgeoisie; on the contrary, say the decisions of the Congress, the party of the proletariat must direct a strong and systematic propaganda in favor of Soviets and organize the Soviets of workers and peasants as quickly as possible. This was the general line of the Comintern, which should have been followed by the party in China, too.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, 26th December of 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Therefore, Comrade Enver concludes that:
“(…) in general, the Communist Party of China did not properly carry out this role in this situation which had been created in China in a studied and systematic manner, seen from the angle of scientific socialism.
(…) there were different tendencies in that small party which called itself the Communist Party of China, tendencies which have never permitted a correct Marxist-Leninist line to be established, or Marxist-Leninist thought and action to guide it. These initial tendencies which were displayed many times among the main leaders of the party, were frequently leftist, sometimes right-opportunist, sometimes centrist, going as far as anarchist, Trotskyite, bourgeois, and marked chauvinist and racist views. Even later, these tendencies remained as one of the distinctive characteristics of the Communist Party of China which Mao Tsetung and his group eventually led.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II 26th December of 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
As can be seen by these excerpts, Comrade Enver Hoxha exposed the ideological deviations and errors which would greatly influence the future course of the “Communist” Party of China and its total embracement of revisionism and social-imperialism. He did it in an adequate, correct and Marxist-Leninist manner. Thus, there is no need to talk further about the beginnings of the “C”PC.
Now that we have already taken Maoism’s roots into consideration, we are going to analyze Maoist revisionism in itself.
As was already referred, the “radical” section of the national bourgeoisie continued its struggle against the feudal lords and the bourgeosie-compradore which the Chinese republic of Sun yat Sen was unable to obliterate.
In 1931, the Japanese imperialism occupied China and in 1939, the Second World War begun. The Communist Party of China struggled against Japanese fascism and against the parts of the Chinese bourgeoisie which took the side of the Japanese and were helping them to dominate China and to win the war. Supported by the peasants and by some working masses, the Communist Party of China played a major role in defeating the Japanese in the National Liberation War. Nevertheless, the “C”PC still could not achieve political power because of the Kuomintang’s opposition. Since the late 20’s, the CPC and the Kuomintang had been engaged in a war for political dominance, but in 1931 they reached a certain unity through the fight against Japanese imperialism. Nevertheless, after the end of the Second World War, the “C”PC could not achieve political power because the war against the Japanese was replaced by the war against the Kuomintang. Both forces wanted to achieve political power and they were representing different sections of the Chinese bourgeoisie: the “C” PC represented the more “progressive” national bourgeoisie, while the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-shek represented the openly reactionary bourgeoisie linked with American Imperialism. However, as Comrade Enver Hoxha noted, it was not only the Kuomintang which maintained close relations with American Imperialism, in fact, the “C”PC did the same and, as we shall see, the chinese “communists” revealed themselves to be the best allies of American Imperialism in their quest to stop the world proletariat from doing the revolution and from edificating socialism and communism.
Finally, in 1949, the Communist Party of China emerged victorious of the war against the Kuomintang and the democratic-bourgeois, anti-feudal, anti-colonial and progressive revolution triumphed in China.
Nonetheless, the revisionist ideas of Mao existed many years before the bourgeois-democratic takeover in China. One of the more emblematic texts which characterize the so-called “Mao Zedong Though” is the famous booklet “New Democracy” which was written in 1940. In this work, Mao clearly reveals his bourgeois influences. He says that:
“For many years we Communists have struggled for a cultural revolution as well as for a political and economic revolution, and our aim is to build a new society and a new state for the Chinese nation.”
But after that, he explains what the Chinese “communists” really mean with “this new society and new state”:
“What we want is to get rid of the old colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal politics and economy and the old culture in their service.”
Here, we can easily note the animosity of the “progressive” bourgeoisie towards the foreign imperialists, the bourgeoisie-compradore and the feudal lords who represented the “old culture” and were preventing the “progressive” national bourgeoisie from achieving political power and from accomplishing its own class interests. In fact, we can consider Mao as some kind of “porte-parole” of the Chinese national bourgeoisie.
In the book “New Democracy”, Mao also presents his famous “theory” of the two revolutions:
“In the course of its history the Chinese revolution must go through two stages, first, the democratic revolution, and second, the socialist revolution, and by their very nature they are two different revolutionary processes. Here democracy does not belong to the old category -- it is not the old democracy, but belongs to the new category -- it is New Democracy.”
First of all, we should note that, as far as we have seen, Mao never explains exactly how will the first stage of the revolution, that of the democratic revolution be turned into the second stage, that of the socialist revolution. He just affirms that the Chinese revolution will have those two stages and that the first stage will no longer be “democracy in general, but democracy of the Chinese type, a new and special type, namely, New Democracy.”
This division of the Chinese revolution in two “different revolutionary processes” is one of the theories to be qualified by the Maoists as an “innovation” (read: deformation) of Marxism-Leninism. Unfortunately to the revisionists of the MLM, this theory constitutes one of the most obvious signs of the reactionary character of the Maoist “New Democracy”.
After the Khrushchevist takeover in the Soviet Union, nearly all the “Communist” Parties which accepted the revisionist betrayal in the S.U started to qualify the Marxist-Leninist militants and parties who refused their rightist course as “ultra-leftists” and “Phrase-Mongers”. However, 16 years before Khrushchev’s coup d’état against socialism, Mao Zedong already named the ones refusing his Trotskyist and Boukharinist ideas as “Left Phrase-Mongers”. Indeed, this is the name of one of the main chapters of his book “New Democracy”. In that chapter he bluntly says:
“If the capitalist road of bourgeois dictatorship is out of the question, then is it possible to take the socialist road of proletarian dictatorship?
No, that is not possible either.”
In the same chapter, Mao goes even further and makes a statement which is totally astounding:
“(…) there are other people, apparently with no evil intentions (?!!), who are misled by the "theory of a single revolution" and the fanciful notion of "accomplishing both the political revolution and the social revolution at one stroke"; they do not understand that our revolution is divided into stages, that we can only proceed to the next stage of revolution after accomplishing the first, and that there is no such thing as "accomplishing both at one stroke".
This wrong theory is based on the false presumption that it is essential to develop capitalism before advancing towards the socialist revolution. This anti-socialist presumption has its roots in the anti-Bolshevist and anti-Leninist opposition in the context of the 1917 October Revolution and was one of the main “arguments” used by the bourgeois opposition to destroy the October Revolution and to restore capitalism in Russia under the excuse that “economical conditions in Russia are still not ready to the socialist edification”.
In fact, there is a close relationship between Maoism and another major revisionist tendency: Trotskyism. Just like Maoism, Trotskyism tried to glorify and perpetuate bourgeois dictatorship by arguing that socialist revolution is impossible without the development of capitalism. Both revisionisms also tried to convince the oppressed masses that it is possible to rely on non-proletarian classes to successfully achieve socialism.
In truth, the October revolution was the historical precedent which permitted that Lenin affirmed:
“[...] with the help of the proletariat of the developed countries, the backward countries can establish the Soviet regime and, after passing through certain stages, they can achieve communism avoiding the capitalist stage.” (Lenin, “IIIe Congrès de l'Internationale communiste”, Oeuvres, Paris-Moscou, 1965, translated from french language).
Furthermore, the examples of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin and Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha show clearly the ultra-revisionist character of Mao’s affirmation that:
“One cannot edificate socialism without passing through the democratic phase, this is a Marxist law.” (Mao Zedong, « Du gouvernement de coalition », Oeuvres choisies, Pékin, 1968, translated from French language).
Both countries had backward political and economical systems with feudal and semi-feudal characteristics. However, nor Lenin, nor Stalin, nor Enver Hoxha ever thought of postponing the socialist revolution simply because bourgeois “democracy” and capitalism were still not sufficiently developed in their respective countries. To defend the contrary is nothing more than renouncing to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the edification of socialism and communism.
As Comrade Enver Hoxha significantly said:
“The Albanian experience proves that even a small country with a backward material and technical base can experiment a great and general economic and cultural development, can grant its independence and can also defeat the attacks of world capitalism and imperialism if that country is conducted by a veritable Marxist-Leninist party, if that country is decided to fight until the end for its ideals having confidence in their achievement.” (Enver Hoxha, Report to the VIII Congress of the PTA, Tirana, 1981, translated from the French language).
And as the Party of Labour of Albania correctly understood:
“The level of development of capitalism in a certain country cannot be considered as the decisive factor or the determinant factor in what concerns the victory of the socialist revolution.” (Parti du Travail d’Albanie, Histoire de la construction socialiste en Albanie, Tirana, 1988, translated from French language).
Albanian communists started to apply their Marxist-Leninist ideology even before the complete Liberation of their country, when they expropriated the cereals’ depots privately owned in the areas that they liberated from the Axis’ control. Less than two years after the Liberation, nearly all Albania’s industries and means of production were nationalized, and also the great landowners were expropriated and their properties were given to the landless peasants. The Albanian communists faithfully followed the lessons of Lenin and Stalin and was this ideological firmness that permitted that Socialist Albania could struggle and survive to the imperialist-revisionist encirclement. We should note that Socialist Albania followed a course which was contrary to that of the social-fascist states. Since the middle of the 50’s, those social-fascists states were openly restoring capitalism, the new oligarchic classes were taking power and exploiting the people under “socialist” cloaks. In a word, the general tendency in the states of popular democracy was to weaken and annihilate the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, in the same period, we note that in socialist Albania the collectivization of the economy in general and of the agriculture in particular was increasingly intensifying, that the proletarian dictatorship was strong and implacable with the enemies of socialism, giving them the treatment they deserved (contrary to what happened in the revisionist countries, where bourgeois “humanism” was undermining the use of revolutionary violence against the reactionaries), that the socialist democracy was more complete than ever, that the living conditions were dramatically improved, etc. In a word, that Albania was not only successfully building socialism, but was also moving towards communism.
An example of the ideological correctness that characterized the actions of the PLA is that even in the first stage of the agrarian reform, the Albanian communists always kept in mind that the small property was nothing more than a temporary stage, that their true objective was the collectivization of all land. And even when the countryside was already organized in socialist cooperatives, the Albanian communists never stopped their militant activity in favor of the transformation of the cooperatives into property of the socialist state, because during socialism the cooperative form of socialist property is also a transitory form, and only its transformation in property of the entire socialist state is compatible with communism. The problem with the cooperative form of property (which the Titoites and the anarchists love so much…) is that it does not totally eliminate the problem of the sense of private property and of bourgeois egoism, because the cooperative is property of the workers of a certain geographical area, it is not property of the entire state of the dictatorship of proletariat. Therefore, this can cause situations in which the workers may feel tempted to favor the interests of their regional cooperative in detriment of the interests of the whole proletarian state. Unfortunately, the revisionist takeover in Albania happened before that the Albanian communists could completely transform all cooperatives into property of the entire state, but the application of Marxism-Leninism in Socialist Albania is in total contrast with Maoist conception that:
“The republic will take certain necessary steps to confiscate the land of the landlords and distribute it to those peasants having little or no land, carry out Dr. Sun Yat-sen's slogan of "land to the tiller", abolish feudal relations in the rural areas, and turn the land over to the private ownership of the peasants. A rich peasant economy will be allowed in the rural areas. Such is the policy of "equalization of landownership". "Land to the tiller" is the correct slogan for this policy. (…) socialist agriculture will not be established at this stage (…).” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
The Albanian Socialist Revolution also had various phases: the first phase was that of the liberation of the country and the conquest of the political power by the proletariat; the second was that of the edification of the economical basis of socialism; and the third phase was that of the cultural and ideological revolution. But these phases are very different from the stages defended by Mao. While the latter completely separates the democratic stage from the socialist stage (Mao not even explains how the democratic and bourgeois stage will be turned into the socialist stage), the three phases of the Albanian Socialist Revolution, far from being separated, are closely touching each other. The phase of the country’s liberation must have elements of the socialist economical edification, while this second phase cannot be realized without the seizure of power by the proletariat, and finally, the ideological revolution cannot be accomplish without the other two phases and it helps to grant the second stage and to consolidate the Liberation of the country. What this means is that there was only one Socialist Revolution in Albania, and these three phases merely indicate the most important tasks in each revolutionary period (respectively: conquer of political power, socialist economical edification and cultural revolution). The three “phases” of the Albanian Socialist Revolution are deeply merged among them.
This has nothing to do with the Maoist conception which imagines “two different revolutionary processes”, in which capitalism should be developed and in which the cooperation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and its parties are seen as a definitive aim.
In his book New Democracy, Mao does an astonishing statement concerning the 1911 Revolution of Sun Yat Sen. Mao starts by saying that this revolution was of a bourgeois-democratic character, but then he says that after the Russian October Socialist Revolution of 1917, the character of the 1911 Chinese revolution was changed:
“Before these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution came within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, of which it was a part.
Since these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution has changed, it has come within the new category of bourgeois democratic revolutions and, as far as the alignment of revolutionary forces is concerned, forms part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution.” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
This “formula” of considering that, after the 1917 October revolution, all the democratic-bourgeois revolutions are part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution will be generally applied by Mao:
“In this era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category.
It is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist, world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the proletarian-socialist world revolution. Such revolutionary colonies and semi-colonies can no longer be regarded as allies of the counter revolutionary front of world capitalism; they have become allies of the revolutionary front of world socialism.” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
This affirmation is a complete falsity. We, Marxist-Leninists, can never confound the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution with the truly socialist and proletarian revolution. To do so is to complete mislead the masses. One thing is to consider that the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution can open the path to the socialist revolution, that it can facilitate the proletarian struggle for socialism. This is true, but to do this it is necessary that the proletariat is able to use and advance the most progressive characteristics of the anti-imperialist revolution in order to transform it into a socialist revolution.
Another completely different thing is to state that the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolutions are integrating parts of the socialist and proletarian world revolution. This is a totally anti-Marxist and anti-communist theory which propagates class collaboration with the bourgeoisie:
“Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship.
It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes.”
“Although the Chinese revolution in this first stage (with its many sub-stages) is a new type of bourgeois-democratic revolution and is not yet itself a proletarian-socialist revolution in its social character, it has long become a part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and is now even a very important part and a great ally of this world revolution. The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat.” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
So, according to Mao, all the “revolutionary classes” should collaborate in the “joint dictatorship”. But what does Mao means with “all the revolutionary classes”? With this affirmation, Mao is permitting that the revolutionary process can be guided by the national bourgeoisie, because in the context of a bourgeois-democratic revolution against feudalism and colonialism, the national patriotic bourgeoisie can perfectly be considered as a “revolutionary class”. What Mao is saying is that the proletariat should closely collaborate with the national bourgeoisie in the development of a “revolution (which) actually serves the purpose of dearing a still wider path for the development of socialism.” To affirm that the proletariat should be dependent of the help of the bourgeoisie to open the path to socialism is a complete negation of the most basic Leninist principles. The truth is that the political power belongs to the class who controls the means of production and the productive relations which form the material base of society, and because of that, in the genuine proletarian dictatorship, the revolutionary proletarian classes will refuse to share the power with the bourgeoisie, no matter if it is with the reactionary bourgeoisie or with the “progressive” bourgeoisie. In an authentic proletarian dictatorship, the proletariat will never let the “progressive” bourgeoisie lead the revolution; indeed, the main task of the proletarian dictatorship is to eliminate the bourgeoisie not only as a class, but also to eliminate all its ideological and cultural influences, because there is no other way to assure the victory of socialism and communism.
Contrary to Lenin, Mao seems to think that it’s positive for the proletariat to collaborate and to share the power with the “progressive” national bourgeoisie, and this means that under the Maoist “New democracy” the bourgeoisie will continue to exist as a class. If the bourgeoisie will continue to exist as a class, then it will certainly control the means of production in a manner detrimental to the proletariat, it will still maintain the economical power in its hands! In the end, Mao frontally denies the necessity of the leading role of the proletariat in this “New Democracy”:
“No matter what classes, parties or individuals in an oppressed nation join the revolution, and no matter whether they themselves are conscious of the point or understand it, so long as they oppose imperialism, their revolution becomes part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and they become its allies.” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
So, for Mao, the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie, the exploited and the exploiters were all at the same level, they had no conflicting and irreconcilable class interests, but on the contrary, they should be united in the “anti-imperialist” revolution, because in doing this, even the bourgeoisie can turn into an ally of the “proletarian-socialist world revolution”!
As if this was not enough, Mao goes even further with his ultra-opportunist and reactionary theories:
“This new-democratic republic will be different from the old European-American form of capitalist republic under bourgeois dictatorship, which is the old democratic form and already out of date. On the other hand, it will also be different from the socialist republic of the Soviet type under the dictatorship of the proletariat which is already flourishing in the U.S.S.R. (…).
Thus the numerous types of state system in the world can be reduced to three basic kinds according to the class character of their political power: (1) republics under bourgeois dictatorship; (2) republics under the dictatorship of the proletariat; and (3) republics under the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes.” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
As can be observed, Mao is defending some kind of “third way”, nor the “bourgeois dictatorship” nor the “proletarian dictatorship”. This is very similar to the old anti-communist theory which says “nor capitalism, nor socialism” and which is still very used nowadays among the petty-bourgeois and “libertarian” currents. This slogan of the “third alternative” is in fact an ultra-reactionary ideology which serves to perpetuate capitalism because, as it was already said, the economical and political power belongs to the class which owns the means of production, the class who controls the productive relations which constitute the material base of society. While this control of the economical and material means of production is not conquered by the proletariat through revolutionary armed violence, it will always belong to the bourgeois exploitative class. If we say “nor bourgeois dictatorship, nor proletarian dictatorship”, as Mao openly does, then we are automatically favoring the bourgeois dictatorship. This happens because the proletarian dictatorship is the only way to definitively eliminate bourgeois dictatorship; therefore, if we deny the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are maintaining and serving the bourgeois dictatorship. Mao considers that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can “share” the state power. This is something impossible. It cannot exist a state in which both classes have state power and “share” that power. Or it is the proletariat who detains state power or it is the bourgeoisie. There is no “third way” because what is not revolutionary, it is necessarily reactionary. All those who are not in favor of the proletarian dictatorship and in favor of the communist society are necessarily in favor of the bourgeois dictatorship and of the capitalist system. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are two classes whose interests are irreconcilable. By its own nature and origins, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have historical missions and roles which are radically opposed. There is no possibility for these two classes to rule under a “joint dictatorship” as Mao argues, because that “share of power” and “joint dictatorship” will invariably be in favor of the bourgeoisie, because no matter how “progressive”, “liberal” and “patriotic”, the bourgeois class has always an exploitative and reactionary character; until the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship, the bourgeoisie is the class which controls the economical power and controls the productive forces which determine every aspect of the human society, obviously including the state power. So, when Mao affirms that the “New Democracy” will refuse “the dictatorship of the proletariat”, it means that it will certainly be a political-economical system in which the wage slavery will continue, in which the national and “progressive” bourgeoisie will continue exploiting the broad working masses.
The Maoist conceptions constitute a profound deviation from the Leninist strategy of the eventual necessity of an alliance between the proletariat and certain branches of the bourgeoisie in the period before the Socialist and Proletarian revolution. This Leninist strategy defends that, in certain conditions, it may be beneficial to the proletariat to make alliances with non-proletarian branches. Of course, these alliances must always be temporary, they can never be configured as an end in itself, and they should only be made in situations in which they can serve to strengthen the positions of the proletariat. Moreover, the proletarian party must never make concessions in what respects to organizational and ideological Marxist-Leninists principles. Therefore, one of the aspects which distinguishes Marxism-Leninism from Maoism is that the genuine Marxist-Leninists must never deviate from the principle that this kind of alliances are nothing more than temporary situations and the Marxist-Leninist party must always persist in its objective of destruction of the bourgeoisie even while temporarily in alliance with that same bourgeoisie. In reality, after the implementation of the proletarian dictatorship, there can be no other party besides the proletarian and communist party, there can be no other class interests besides the ones of the proletarian classes (the working class, the peasantry and the intellectuals born form these two oppressed classes), and there can be no other ideology besides Marxism-Leninism (this is not to say that bourgeois influences will not persist during some time, but the tendency must always be towards their inexorable disappearance, contrary to what happened in Maoist China).
Indeed, more than entering in an alliance and sharing the power with the bourgeoisie, what Mao proposes is that the proletariat should be controlled by the “democratic” (read: bourgeois) parties:
“The possibility that the democratic parties can exist during a long period is not only determined by the desires of the Communist Party, that depends also on the behavior of the democratic parties and on the confidence that the people has in these parties. […] Of course, the mutual control is not unilateral, the Communist Party will control the democratic parties and these democratic parties will equally control the Communist Party.” (Mao Zedong, De la juste solution des contradictions au sein du people, Textes choisis, Pékin, 1972, p. 509, translated from French language).
If there were still any doubts about the reactionary and anti-communist nature of the Mao Zedong though, here it is the final answer. What Mao is defending is that the proletariat and the communist party should rely on the bourgeois parties and on the non-communists in order to…achieve communism! This is totally illogical from a Marxist-Leninist point of view. To really edificate communism, it is indispensable to annihilate without mercy ALL the bourgeois and exploitative classes (the imperialist bourgeoisie, the great land owners, the petty-bourgeoisie, the reactionary bourgeoisie, the “progressive” bourgeoisie etc. etc…). Moreover, in the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there can be only one party: the proletarian party, the vanguard party of the working class which is leading the oppressed masses towards socialism and communism. After the establishment and consolidation of the proletarian power, it’s illogical and reactionary to admit and defend the existence of any other parties representing non-proletarian classes. The proletarian party must lead the exploited classes and it constitutes one of the main instruments through which the proletariat exercises the revolutionary armed violence against the bourgeois and oppressive classes. That’s why nearly all kinds of revisionist currents have denied the leading role of the proletarian and communist party. It is very interesting to observe how the Marxist-Leninist conceptions of Comrade Enver Hoxha regarding the leading role of the proletarian party are in total contrast with those of Mao:
“The revolution is a rupture with a whole world and a whole tradition. We should never forget that: the class struggle continues during the entire period of the edification of the socialist society and also while the communist society is still not completely secured. During all this time, the political parties express the interests of determined classes. Only an absurd opportunism can defend the presence of non-proletarian parties within the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, foremost after the edification of the economical base of the socialist system. This evolution, far from constituting a violation of freedom, is in fact consolidating the authentic proletarian democracy. The character of a social order is not determined by the number of parties. It is determined by its economical base, by the class which controls the state power, by the state policy which is or not at the service of the broad masses.
The modern revisionists (…) deny the leading role of the proletarian party in what concerns the seizure of power and the edification of socialism. Their propaganda even argues that it is possible to achieve socialism having the bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois parties as the main leading forces. (…) This conception represents a total betrayal of the Marxist-Leninist principles and of the revolutionary cause of the working class.” (Enver Hoxha cited by Gilbert Mury in Enver Hoxha contre le revisionisme, Paris, 1972, translated from French language).
And referring to the Democratic Front in Albania, Comrade Enver Hoxha underlines that:
“This Front is not a political party, nor a coalition of parties: in our country, there are no other parties besides the Party of Labour of Albania.” (Enver Hoxha cited by Gilbert Mury in Enver Hoxha contre le revisionisme, Paris, 1972, translated from French language).
The fake “Marxist” phraseology used by Mao when he says the “New Democracy” will refuse the “bourgeois dictatorship” and that “The Chinese democratic republic must be a democratic republic under the joint dictatorship of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people led by the proletariat (…).” is nothing more than an attempt to hide the democratic-bourgeois, anti-imperialist character of the Maoist ideological conceptions. That’s why the Chinese revisionists always supported the “non-aligned movements”; because those petty-bourgeois movements also had the same tendency of refusing both imperialism and socialist revolution while serving the interests of the national bourgeoisie of the semi-colonial countries which wanted to get rid of the limitations imposed by the foreign capitalists and by the bourgeoisie-compradore with the purpose of conducting the capitalist system in favor of its own interests (the social-fascist theory of the “three worlds”, which we will analyze, has its origins in this opportunistic and petty-bourgeois character of the Maoist ideology).
In his book Reflections on China, Comrade Enver Hoxha characterized the Maoist “New Democracy” in a very assertive manner:
“Mao Tse-Tung and the comrades around him were not genuine Marxist-Leninists, they were progressive bourgeois democrats, Marxists in appearance and phraseology, but who fought, and fought to the end, for the consolidation of a progressive bourgeois-democratic great state, for a «new democracy», as Mao Tse-Tung called it.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, 26th December of 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
The opportunistic, revisionist and anti-Marxist conceptions of Mao can also be observed in his descriptions of the economical aspects of the “New Democracy”:
“In the new-democratic republic under the leadership of the proletariat, the state enterprises will be of a socialist character and will constitute the leading force in the whole national economy, but the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production as does not "dominate the livelihood of the people", for China's economy is still very backward.” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
This paragraph constitutes the admission by Mao himself that the “New Democracy” will be nothing more than the social-fascist dictatorship of the national bourgeoisie. If the “the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production”, then how will the proletariat concentrate the means of production in its hands with the purpose of achieving state power? Every Marxist-Leninist knows that while “capitalist private property” and “capitalist production” continues to exist, it will always perpetuate wage slavery and the exploitation of man by man.
“China's economy must develop along the path of the "regulation of capital" and the "equalization of landownership", and must never be "privately owned by the few"; we must never permit the few capitalists and landlords to "dominate the livelihood of the people"; we must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type or allow the old semi-feudal society to survive.” (Mao Zedong, New Democracy, January of 1940, edition in English).
As we have already said, the “C” P C was the representative of the interests of the anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie. It is quite normal that its objectives were limited to the struggle against the Japanese imperialist aggression and the bourgeoisie-compradore. Indeed, all the objectives of the “C”P C were kept within the limits of the bourgeois-democratic anti-colonial revolution, because the class which was leading the revolution and which seized state power in China in 1949 was precisely the “radical” national bourgeoisie and not the proletariat. The great problem with the so-called Mao Zedong Though is that Mao tried to hide its bourgeois and reactionary conceptions under a “socialist” and “revolutionary” cloak which continues to mislead the oppressed working masses which see Maoism as a “development” of Marxism-Leninism, when in fact Maoism is a deformation of Marxism-Leninism, when in fact Maoism serves not to eliminate the capitalist system, but to perpetuate it in favor of the “progressive” section of the national bourgeoisie. The “anti-monopolist” claims made by Mao are proof of this. The truth is that Maoist conceptions are frighteningly similar to bourgeois Keynesianism and to the anti-monopolism of many revisionist parties. And before that the fascists of the MLM start saying that all this is nothing more than a product of the “imagination” of the “Hoxhaites”, here it is the confirmation of what is being said coming from Mao himself:
“The revolution of the New Democracy only wants to eliminate feudalism and the monopolist capitalism, only wants to eliminate the great land owners and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and not capitalism in general, nor the superior branch of neither the petty-bourgeoisie nor the middle bourgeoisie.” (Mao Zedong, « La situation actuelle et nos tâches », Oeuvres choisies, Pékin, 1967, t. IV, translated from French language).
One of the main purposes of chinese revisionism is to “regulate” capitalism in order to maintain the system of exploitation, its objective is to try to avoid the periodical crisis of capitalism and to deny the proletarian character of the revolution.
When studying the “Mao Zedong Though”, we easily note that its ideas are intimately related with those of one of the most known European revisionist leaders: Maurice Thorez, the leader of the French Revisionist Party. One of the most known historical examples of revisionist relations between the bourgeoisie and the “communist” party is precisely the 1936 Popular Front, whose objectives were clearly appointed by the French revisionist leadership as being reduced to “Peace, Bread and Independence for all”. Can anybody imagine a more reactionary, reformist, capitulationist and anti-socialist slogan? Just like Mao, Thorez will also configure the communist party as a party of various classes. If Mao has painted the anti-imperialist revolution as the final objective which justified the permanent alliance with the “progressive” bourgeoisie, Thorez has made the same with the opportunistic “United Front of the French nation against the oligarchic classes”. Just like Mao, Thorez also proposed an anti-monopolist unity:
“According to the existing social conditions, our society is divided in multiple classes. The capitalist oligarchy exploits the working class, it also exploits the middle classes constituted by peasants, by artisans, industrials (?!!!), people of commerce and liberal professions, etc. The Communist Party is conceived in function of the necessities of the struggles of the people against the oligarchs.” (Etudes et Documents Marxistes-Léninistes - Pour la lutte théorique, N° 1, décembre 1979. 58 L'Ecole élémentaire du Parti communiste français - Troisième leçon : Le Parti, Paris, 1936, Ed. la Section nationale d'éducation du Parti communiste français, p. 6., translated from French language).
Mao and Thorez completely corrupted and denied the proletarian character of the Communist Party by posing as the only legitimate leaders of their respective parties, by thwarting criticism and self-criticism inside their respective parties, by trying to “legitimate” their union with the national bourgeoisies of their countries and by keeping the oppressed and exploited classes away from the idea of the socialist revolution through making the bourgeois-democratic and anti-monopolist revolution as an end in itself.
However, the ultra-reformist strategy of the “anti-monopolist front” was not the only “idea” that the Chinese revisionists “borrowed” from revisionism of the classical type. In fact, just like Bernstein, Togliatti, Thorez, the Krushchevists, the Eurocommunists, etc. the Chinese revisionists also openly defend the “peaceful way to socialism”. In truth, their defense of this “peaceful transition” is synonym of a direct negation of the proletarian dictatorship.
Flagrantly denying the most basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese revisionist leaders affirm the following:
“If we have adopted the policy of the struggle in favor of the union towards the national bourgeoisie, that’s mainly with the purpose of educating the national bourgeoisie.
We think that we should follow the principle of the “long term coexistence and mutual control between the Communist Party and the democratic parties and groups. The social base of these parties and groups is the national bourgeoisie, some branches of the petty-bourgeoisie and the intellectuals. […] The bourgeois ideology will exist for a relatively long time (…) the democratic groups and parties should represent this ideology and help it to reeducate itself.
[…] the democratic and popular dictatorship has become, by its own nature, a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and this permits that our bourgeois-democratic revolution can be directly transformed into a socialist and proletarian revolution through peaceful means.” (Liou Chao Chi, Rapport politique du Comité central du Parti communiste chinois au VIIIe Congrès national du PCC, Pékin, 1956, translated from French language).
Reeducation of the bourgeoisie?!!! The bourgeoisie doesn’t exist to be educated! It exists to be exterminated by the proletariat through revolutionary violence! Lenin once said that the great problems of humanity were always solved through violence and this is foremost applicable to the elimination of the bourgeoisie, to the annihilation of the capitalist system and to the edification of socialism and communism.
This capitulationism idea is closely related with the “theory” of the “peaceful transition” to socialism through bourgeois means; it is linked with the Eurocommunist and reformist idea of “humanizing” and “educating” capitalism. The image of the “civilized” capitalism is common to all revisionist currents and Maoism is no exception.
And there’s more:
“The bourgeois elements have become members of the administrative staff in the mixed enterprises and they are being transformed from exploiters into workers which live through their own workforce; on the other hand, they still receive a fixed amount from those enterprises (…)” (Mao Zedong, De la juste solution des contradictions au sein du peuple , Textes choisis, Pékin, 1972, translated from the French language).
This statement is an example of the many things that Maoism has in common with Boukharinism. This bourgeois current is centered on the idea of the “peaceful” integration and inclusion of capitalism and capitalist elements within socialism, it is based on the idea of the “joint government” of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in order to undermine the edification of socialism through capitulation to bourgeois and non-proletarian influences and elements.
The utopian character of the Maoist ideology can also be noted in its presumption that the exploitative tendencies of the bourgeoisie can be gradually removed and that the bourgeois elements can be turned into inoffensive proletarian elements living “through their own workforce”. Moreover, it is astonishing to see that in “communist” china, the bourgeoisie continued to exploit the working people through the “mixed enterprises” which were nothing more than a disguise to the bourgeois and fascist dictatorship that Mao and the other Chinese revisionists implemented in China.
The documents and excerpts presented above prove that, contrary to what the fascists of the MLM might argue, the anti-Marxist conceptions of the Maoist ideology were not limited to the first phases of the “Mao Zedong thought”. In fact, one just has to look to the documents of the period after 1949, when the power of the national bourgeoisie guided by the “C” PC was already assured, to conclude that these conceptions were not temporary errors, but represent the general and definitive ideological constructions which constitute the main pillars of the Maoist bourgeois and reactionary ideology.
It’s not by chance that Comrade Stalin was always distrustful about the true character of the Chinese “socialist” revolution. He understood the bourgeois nature of that “revolution” and said that:
“In China, we cannot speak about a socialist revolution neither in the urban areas, nor in the rural areas. It’s true that certain enterprises have been nationalized, but their number is irrelevant.”
Stalin’s suspicions regarding the Chinese “revolution” are acknowledged by Mao himself who declared that:
“Since the beginning of the war, Stalin was very skeptical towards us. When we won the war, Stalin perceived our victory as being of the same kind of that of Tito, and in 1949 he exercised a very strong pression upon us.” (Mao Zedong, Oeuvres choisies, Tome V, translated from French language).
We must bear in mind that Mao’s works were published in the Soviet Union only after Stalin’s death. And this is not surprising. If they were published while Stalin was still alive, then Mao would have received the same treatment as Tito, that’s for sure.
In fact, many years before Mao’s 1949 bourgeois revolution, Stalin analyzed the conditions of the Chinese “revolutionary” movement and harshly criticized the “rightist deviationism” that existed within that movement:
“… the rightist deviationism that jeopardizes that independent class objectives of the chinese proletariat and is leading it towards an amorphous fusion with the national democratic movement.” (Stalin, La question nationale et coloniale, translated from French language).
We cannot separate this distrust of Stalin from his struggle against the already mentioned Boukharinist ideas which preached the “integration” of capitalist elements within socialist society:
“Boukharin’s greatest mistake is that he concedes that the koulaks and other bourgeois elements (…) can be integrated within socialism. This theory is a total absurd! The capitalists, the kulaks, the representatives of the foreign imperialists can be integrated in socialist society, according to Boukharin. We certainly don’t want this kind of “socialism”. We will not adhere to Boukharin’s conceptions. We, Marxist-Leninists, we think that there are irreconcilable differences between the capitalists and the proletariat. This is the base of the Marxist theory of the class struggle. But the Boukharinist theory about the peaceful integration of the capitalist elements within socialism contradicts the most basic Marxist principles, it contradicts the inevitable opposition between the exploiters and the exploited because the exploiters are included within socialist system. (Stalin, The questions of Leninism II, 1931, translated from French language).
It is astonishing the way in which these criticisms made by Stalin in 1927 perfectly fit Maoist revisionism:
“But if the capitalist of the urban areas and of the rural areas; if the kulaks and the other bourgeois elements are integrated in the socialist system, for what would serve the dictatorship of the proletariat? And even if it could serve for something, we have to wonder what would be the class it would repress.” (Stalin, The questions of Leninism, 1931, translated from French language).
Comrade Stalin’s correct analysis of the fake Maoist “revolution” was praised by Comrade Enver Hoxha in the Volume II of “Reflections on China”:
“When China was liberated, Stalin expressed his doubt that the Chinese leadership might follow the Titoite course. Glancing over all the main principles of Mao Tsetung's revisionist line, in regard to all those things which he raises against Stalin, we can say without reservation that Stalin was truly a great Marxist-Leninist who foresaw correctly where China was going, who long ago realized what the views of Mao Tsetung were, and saw that, in many directions, they were Titoite revisionist views, both on international policy and on internal policy, on the class struggle, on the dictatorship of the proletariat, on peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, etc.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, December 28, 1976, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Stalin was right about all these aspects and he saw clearly that the chinese “new democracy” was nothing more than the dictatorship of the national and “patriotic” bourgeoisie. In truth, if we analyze Mao’s works, we will always find the idea of the “development” of capitalism. For example, some months before the 1949 revolution, Mao affirmed that: “(…) we must permit the existence and the development of all the capitalist elements which are profitable and which don’t jeopardize the national economy”.
However, Mao goes even further and affirms that:
“(…) capitalism will be limited in China through various means: through restrictions in its activities, through taxes, through market prices and through working conditions. We will adopt an appropriate policy regarding the limitation of capitalism, according to the specific conditions of each place, of each section and of each period. It is very useful to remember the teachings of Sun Yat-sen about “controlled capitalism”. Therefore, it is in the interests of the national economy, of the working class and of all workers not to impose excessive limitations upon capitalist economy, but on the contrary, we should let that economy to exist and to develop in the context of the economical policy and of the economic planification of our popular republic”. (Mao Zedong, Sur la dictature populaire démocratique — cited by Yu Hai in Le rôle de la bourgeoisie nationale dans la révolution chinoise, in Cahiers du communisme, août 1950, translated from french language)
This development of capitalism means in fact the perpetuation of capitalism. And Mao even dares to say that this maintenance of the capitalist system is in the interests of the working class! Mao’s ideology is very similar to that of the openly pro-capitalist politicians which declare that “although capitalism is not perfect, the truth is that it creates wealth and permits that the proletariat can benefit of a consumer society”.
Even today, there are many Maoists which still claim that this perpetuation of capitalism is not anti-Marxist, but on the contrary it can be compared to the New Economic Policy (NEP) practiced by Lenin in the Soviet Union. What those Maoists “forget” to say is that the NEP was absolutely necessary in the context of the Soviet Union in the early 20’s because the country’s economy was totally ruined after 6/7 years of uninterrupted war (first, the four years of the First World War, second, the horrendous Russian civil war caused by the invasion of the capitalist powers with the objective of overthrow Bolshevik power), because the alliance between the proletariat and the immense peasantry was still not consolidated, because of the backward characteristics of the Russian economy, because the analphabetism of the Russian workers and their lack of experience in what concerned economic management caused great difficulties in the feeding of the population and because the presence of the petty-bourgeois elements in the economy was overwhelming. For all these reasons, it was permitted that, during some time, the petty-bourgeois elements could operate within straight limits with the purpose of revitalizing the economy. Nevertheless, we must always bear in mind that Lenin saw the NEP merely as a temporary process which would be surpassed through the development of the economic base of the socialist system and the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This conception is in total contrast with that of the Maoists which see the “development of capitalism” as a definitive process and not as a temporary stage imposed by harsh historical and economical conditions.
As Comrade Enver Hoxha states:
“Mao Tsetung has presented his opportunist stand towards the bourgeoisie as a creative implementation of the teachings of Lenin on the New Economic Policy (NEP). But there is a radical difference between the teachings of Lenin and the concept of Mao Tsetung on allowing unrestricted capitalist production and maintaining bourgeois relations in socialism. Lenin admits that the NEP was a step back which allowed the development of elements of capitalism for a certain time, but he stressed:
«. . there is nothing dangerous to the proletarian state in this so long as the proletariat keeps political power firm/y in its hands, so long as it keeps transport and big industry firm/y in its hands»'.
In fact, neither in 1949 nor in 1956, when Mao Tsetung advocated these things, did the proletariat in China have political power or big industry in its own hands.
Moreover, Lenin considered the NEP as a temporary measure which was imposed by the concrete conditions of Russia of that time, devastated by the long civil war, and not as a universal law of socialist construction. And the fact is that one year after the proclamation of the NEP Lenin stressed that the retreat was over, and launched the slogan to prepare for the offensive against private capital in the economy. Whereas in China, the period of the preservation of capitalist production was envisaged to last almost eternally.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Nowadays, there are even Maoists who claim that the predatory social-Darwinist capitalism which dominates today’s China is “a new NEP”!!! To qualify the bourgeois-capitalist economy that existed in China until the middle 70’s as “socialist” is completely erroneous and reveals total ignorance of the most basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, but to paint today’s chinese neo-liberal economy as a “new NEP” means to openly defend the fascist dictatorship which is governing China.
Chinese economy was never socialist, nor in the 50’s, nor today. The truth is that the chinese national bourgeoisie could not have dreamt about an ideology who could better serve its class interests than Maoism. And this because Maoism permitted that national bourgeoisie could exploit the proletariat in a “peaceful” and “controlled” manner while hiding behind a “Marxist” and “revolutionary” mask. One of the main reasons why Chinese national bourgeoisie supported Maoism was because of its “leftist” outlook which misled Chinese working masses. We can affirm that Maoism granted the Chinese bourgeoisie with a certain “safety”. Maoism was the best way that the Chinese national bourgeoisie could have found in order to neutralize the revolutionary feelings which existed among the chinese proletariat. Instead of sitting idle seeing the Chinese oppressed classes adhering to Marxist-Leninist ideology and developing revolutionary conscience in order to accomplish proletarian revolution, the Chinese “patriotic” bourgeoisie elaborated its own “revolutionary” ideology and accomplished its own “revolution”. Of course, this bourgeoisie could never reveal that this “ideology” was simply covering the implementation of its dictatorship, because otherwise it would never seduce the chinese exploited classes. The Chinese national bourgeoisie solved this problem in a very cunning way. It dressed its own bourgeois ideology with “Marxist-Leninist” clothes and with “revolutionary” phraseology with the purpose of winning the oppressed classes to its side. The Chinese national bourgeoisie used the mask of Marxism-Leninism in order to hide its exploitative and reactionary class interests and to conquer economical and political power.
Nowadays, large sectors of the world proletariat are still deceived by Maoists which try to force the oppressed masses to “recognize” Maoism as the “third stage” of communism, after Marxism and Leninism (thus openly negating Stalinism and Hoxhaism). They even qualify their reactionary and anti-Marxist ideology as “the highest development” of Marxism-Leninism. This arrogant attitude has been a constant in the history of maoist revisionism. Maoists always tried to paint themselves as “the greatest developers of the proletarian ideology” in order to hide their anti-socialist intentions and their support of Chinese social-imperialism. Maoists have also tried to paint themselves as “ardent anti-revisionists”. One of the main arguments utilized by them in order to “prove” their “anti-revisionism” is the fake “defense of Stalin” allegedly made by Mao in the context of the revisionist takeover in the Soviet Union.
What the chinese revisionists did was to use Stalin’s name and legacy with the aim of covering their reactionary, anti-communist and social-fascist ideology with a “revolutionary” disguise. When analyzing Comrade Enver Hoxha’s “Reflections on China” and “The Krushchevists”, we conclude that he suspected of Maoism’s nature from the very beginning, but he tried to correct the chinese “comrades” by advising them and informating them about the ideological divergences that existed between the CPC and the PLA:
“We were said that Mao was applying an interesting line of socialist edification in China, he collaborated with the local bourgeoisie and with other parties qualified as “democratics”; the communist party permitted and stimulated the existence of mixed enterprises with both private and state capital, it encouraged and remunerated the members of the wealthy classes, which were many times leading those enterprises, etc. All these things were inconceivable for us and despite our efforts, we could not find a single argument in favor of their conformity with Marxism-Leninism.
However, we though that China was a great country, populated by millions of people, which has just emerged from a bourgeois-feudal past, it has a lot of problems and difficulties to surpass and, in time, we though that it would rectify its errors, thus getting back to the correct Marxist-Leninist road.” (Enver Hoxha, Les khrouchtchéviens, Tirana, 1980, translated from French language).
This was the general line followed by the PLA towards the CPC during the period 1949-1956.
Comrade Enver noted that in 1956, in the context of the XXth Congress of the CPSU, the CPC assumed openly revisionist positions. The meeting between Comrade Enver and Mao Zedong which occurred in 1956, on the occasion of Enver’s visit to China, is described as deceitful by Comrade Enver himself:
“In truth, our impressions regarding this meeting were not what we expected (...) We had not acquired any kind of useful learning and experiences, and we perceived that this meeting was a mere courtesy act. We were surprise by Mao’s words and opinions about the Kominform, about Stalin and about the Yugoslav question.” (Enver Hoxha, Les khrouchtchéviens, Tirana, 1980, translated from French language).
In fact, during the meeting, Mao expressed views and opinions which were in total accordance with the ultra-revisionist, opportunist and anti-Marxist line which was dominating the communist movement in 1956. For example, regarding the Yugoslav question, Mao said:
“In that question, you Albanians did not commit any errors towards the Yugoslavs, and the Yugoslavs did not commit any errors towards you. It’s the Kominform which is responsible for grave errors.” (Enver Hoxha, Les khrouchtchéviens, Tirana, 1980, translated from French language).
So, according to Mao, the Marxist-Leninists of the PTA and the social-fascists of the Tito’s clique were totally equal. “Nor the Albanians nor the Yugoslavs committed mistakes”, is what Mao says, and then he affirms that all that happened is Kominform’s fault! To affirm this is to openly defend Titoite imperialism which tried to transform Albania in the seventh Yugoslav republic. From the very beginning, even during the Second World War, the Titoites always tried to hinder Albania’s independence. They tried through all means to control the Albanian partisans and to subjugate them to the orders and discipline of the Yugoslav Communist Party. The Titoites were always interfering in the internal affairs of the PLA and trying to impose their anti-Marxist line. They hired agents and spies and infiltrated them within the PLA in order to sabotate its Leninist line and to turn Albania into a Yugoslav satellite.
But let’s return to Mao’s affirmations during the meeting with Comrade Enver. When Mao asked Comrade Enver what he thought about Stalin, Enver proudly defended Stalin’s legacy. However, Mao disagreed with him and said:
“Stalin made mistakes. He made mistakes towards us, for example, in 1927. He made mistakes towards the Yugoslav comrades, too.” (Mao cited by Enver Hoxha in The Khrushchevites, Tirana, 1980, edition in English).
This affirmation is totally false; Stalin was never mistaken towards Yugoslav “comrades”. On the contrary, he unmasked their true character and objectives, thus making proof of a great Marxist-Leninist wisdom, and he also acted correctly towards Titoite Yugoslavia. The Titoites deserve to be hated and repudiated by all genuine communists because they totally betrayed the aspirations of the Yugoslav peoples, who fought and sacrificed their lives in the struggle against Nazism with the objective of edification of a socialist Yugoslavia. Unfortunately for those peoples, Tito sold the country to the Anglo-Americans and followed a revisionist-capitalist line. It’s curious to see that Maoism and Titoism are very similar. Both ideologies are trying to mislead the oppressed masses and to lead them away from the socialist and proletarian revolution, both propagate class reconciliation and incentive the supposed “positive aspects of capitalism” and the “mixed economy” (indeed, both open the path to social-imperialism, but Tito’s imperialism was limited to a local scale, while Maoist imperialism, due to China’s immense demographic and economic potential, reached a global scale).
As can be seen, the truth is that, in 1956, Mao adopted ultra-revisionist positions regarding Stalin, Tito and the Kominform.
We must keep in mind that, after Comrade Stalin’s death, Mao always desired to become leader of the communist movement. In order to achieve that, Mao tried to embrace revisionism and to agree with Khrushchev that “Stalin committed mistakes” (we should also remember Mao’s famous sentence: “Khrushchev is the Lenin of our times”). However, Mao’s great error was his underestimation of the great esteem that the SU enjoyed among world proletariat and the exploited classes. In 1956, nobody could assertively predict the dimensions that the revisionist disease would reach, and the world communists continued to see the SU as a socialist country. Indeed, the SU was seen with great esteem because it was the country in which the first successful socialist revolution had happened, it was the homeland of Lenin and Stalin, two of the greatest masters of the proletarian ideology. It’s true that Comrade Enver Hoxha and the PLA were very suspicious about the line which was being followed in the SU and about Khrushchev’s intentions after the death of Stalin, but we must note that the PLA was born in circumstances which armed the Albanian Marxist-Leninists against all kinds of opportunisms. The PLA had to face revisionism since its very foundations and this made the Albanian communists more able to unmask all kinds of bourgeois ideologies, even the ones which are hidden. That’s why the PLA was always in the front line of the struggle against revisionist currents, from Titoism to Maoism. Nonetheless, the great majority of the other Communist Parties embraced Khrushchevist revisionism without almost questioning it. And this ready acceptance was precisely due to the already referred prestige that the SU still enjoyed among the world proletariat.
On the contrary, the chinese 1949 bourgeois-democratic revolution, although seen with sympathy by the communists, did not grant Mao sufficient admiration to obliterate the Soviet Union’s role as the center of the communist movement, even because the SU had increased its strength with the essential role it played in the victory against nazi-fascism in the Second World War. For all these reasons, Mao could not accomplish his intentions of becoming the new leader of the communist movement through alliance with the soviet revisionists. In face of this, Mao changed his strategy. Instead of playing the role of the Khrushchev’s supporter in the supposed struggle against “Stalin’s mistakes and deviations”, Mao appeared as the “unwavering Stalinist”, as the “orthodox Leninist”, as the “great defender of Marxist-Leninist purity”. This tactical change occurred at a time in which many communists around the world began to challenge Khrushchev’s “anti-Stalin reports” as being anti-Marxist.
Nowadays, Maoists want us to believe that the line of the CPC was always a “Marxist-Leninist”, “anti-revisionist and anti-Khrushchevist” line from the very beginning. Unfortunately for the Maoists, the reality was something else. The “anti-revisionist” strategy that Mao adopted in 1960 had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. Mao never wanted to truly defend Stalin’s legacy. He just used Stalin’s name and prestige to achieve his own purposes of becoming the leader of the world communist movement in order to damage this movement with his bourgeois-capitalist “ideas” and to manipulate it in favor of China’s ascension as a new superpower. The Chinese revisionists wanted the position occupied by Khrushchev and by the CPSU at the head of the communist movement, but when they saw that they could not achieve that through open revisionism, they invocated a false “anti-revisionist and pro-Stalinist struggle” with the purpose of manipulating the honest communists which were worried about Khrushchev’s treacherous line. Maoism was presented to those communists as “the enrichment of Marxism-Leninism”, and Mao was the “leader of the struggle against Khrushchev”.
Even Maoist criticisms about “soviet social-imperialism” are nothing but a big fraud. Those criticisms are only intended to cover Mao’s own social-imperialist intentions and objectives.
Comrade Enver Hoxha exposed all this with Marxist-Leninist precision:
“Many times, I have turned back to this period of the history of the Communist Party of China, trying to figure out how and why the profoundly revisionist line of 1956 subsequently seemed to change direction, and for a time, became “pure”, “anti-revisionist” and “Marxist-Leninist”. It is a fact, for example, that in 1960 the Communist Party of China seemed to be strongly opposing the revisionist theses of Nikita Khrushchev and confirmed that “it was defending Marxism-Leninism” from the distortions which were being made to it, etc. It was precisely because China came out against modem revisionism in 1960 and seemed to be adhering to Marxist-Leninist positions that brought about that our Party stood shoulder to shoulder with it in the struggle which we had begun against the Khrushchevites.
However, time confirmed, and this is reflected extensively in the documents of our Party, that in no instance, either in 1956 or in the ’60s did the Communist Party of China proceed or act from the positions of Marxism-Leninism.” (Enver Hoxha, The Krushchevites, Tirana, 1980, edition in English).
And in 1978, by the occasion of the Sino-Albanian split, the Central Committee of the PLA sent a letter to the Central Committee of the CPC which underlined that:
“In the beginning, the CPC was in accord with the PLA in what respected to the polemics between the PLA and the Khrushchevist revisionists. However, this agreement was only superficial because what China really wanted was to reconciliate with Soviet revisionists and to avoid the ideological polemic with them. (…) The chinese leaders affirmed that this attitude was on Albania’s interests, but the truth is that to avoid polemics was (…) only advantageous to Khrushchev and to his struggle against socialism and Marxism-Leninism.” (Letter from the Central Committee of the PLA to the Central Committee of the CPC and to the Chinese government, Tirana, 28th July of 1978, translated from French language).
One of the most meaningful episodes involving the CPC’s willingness to reconciliate with soviet social-imperialism happened in 1964, when Khrushchev was expelled from power. The Chinese revisionists celebrated this happening as if soviet social-fascism had been totally defeated. They were so anxious and happy about reconciliating with soviet revisionism that they sent a delegation to Moscow and wanted the PLA to do the same. Of course, this treacherous and capitulationist proposal was firmly refused by the Albanian Marxist-Leninists:
“The Central Committee of the PLA could not accept this proposal which was synonym of the extinction of the struggle against revisionism and of ideological reconciliation with it. If the PLA had surrender to that line of reconciliation with the soviet revisionists, that would have been catastrophic to the Marxist-Leninist movement (…). That’s why our party firmly rejected the chinese proposal (…). The Central Committee of the PLA sent a letter to the CPC explaining that the reasoning made by the chinese leaders about the changes occurred in the Soviet Union was wrong and that its proposal of sending a delegation to Moscow was unacceptable. In that letter it was said, among other things, that:
“This happening (Khrushchev’s expulsion form power), although important and with serious consequences, does not lead revisionism towards its total defeat, it does not represent the final victory of Marxism-Leninism over revisionism, this happening only accelerated the putrefaction of revisionist ideology (…) while Khrushchev’s successors are striving to save revisionism through applying the policy of Khrushchevism without Khrushchev.” (Letter from the Central Committee of the PLA to the Central Committee of the CPC and to the Chinese government, Tirana, 28th July of 1978, translated from French language).
During the 60’s, two major events would demonstrate the anti-Marxist road in which China was engaged and the utopian and petty-bourgeois character of Maoist ideology: the “great leap forward”, and especially the “great cultural proletarian revolution”.
The “great leap forward” consisted in a totally utopian program to supposedly make China “advance directly to communism”. The aims and objectives that Mao imposed over the Chinese people in the context of the “great leap” were completely unrealistic, even because Mao affirmed that those objectives were to be fulfilled in a period of 2-3 years!
Despite China’s demographical and territorial potentialities, the fact is that 13 years after Mao’s bourgeois anti-imperialist revolution, China’s economy was very far from being at its maximum. It’s true that extreme poverty was almost eliminated and that some positive improvements were made regarding the living conditions of the popular masses, but it is also true that these improvements were not proportional to the country’s potentialities. The main reason for this slow development can be found in the reactionary nature of the 1949 chinese revolution and its maintenance of capitalist and bourgeois elements not only at the key branches of the economy, but also their maintenance in the key branches of the country’s government, which was turned from a dictatorship of the imperialist bourgeoisie into a dictatorship of the national “patriotic” bourgeoisie.
However, we must bear in mind that this state of things was not unanimously accepted by the Chinese proletariat; there were many workers who refused to follow Maoist illusions and clearly saw that China was not engaged in a veritable socialist path. These Chinese proletarians were becoming a very inopportune voice, they were very dangerous to the chinese national bourgeoisie because they were breaking the climate of “social peace” that Maoism had implemented in order to allow that chinese bourgeoisie could freely exploit workers without being disturbed by that horrible thing called class struggle.
It was in this context that Mao tried to mislead the masses through “Marxist” phraseology by falsely declaring that “China will pass directly to the communist phase of the revolution” through the “great leap forward”. This treacherous attempt to mislead the chinese proletariat was unmasked by Comrade Enver Hoxha:
“In a demagogic way, Mao Tse-Tung and the Communist Party of China have subordinated all their declarations about the construction of the socialist and communist society to their pragmatic policy. Thus, in the years of the so-called great leap forward, with the aim of throwing dust in the eyes of the masses, who, emerging from the revolution, aspired to socialism, they declared that within 2-3 five-year periods, they would pass directly over to communism. Later, however, in order to cover up their failures, they began to theorize that the construction and triumph of socialism would require ten thousand years.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
During three years (1962-1965), the chinese workers toiled like slaves trying to accomplish an utopian and megalomaniac economical program without any perspectives of success. Indeed, this was so obvious that even top leaders of the CPC were hesitant about following Mao’s directives about the “great leap”. Of course, this “great leap forward” resulted in a great leap backward, because it constituted a horrific failure which put Chinese industry and agriculture in complete chaos and originated a severe famine around the country. For example, the production of carbon and the production of cotton in 1964 were much below the level of 1958. As we said, the impossible character of the “great leap” was visible since the very beginning: the “C” PC planned that with the “great leap forward”, China would be able to produce certain quantities of cereals and steel that were totally exaggerated; for example, the chinese revisionists affirmed that before the end of the “great leap” (1962-1965), China would produce around 750 tons of cereals, but the fact is that China’s production of cereals was still inferior to 500 tons in the late 90’s! The final results of Mao’s “great leap forward” were so disastrous than Mao himself had to make his auto-critic in front of the central committee of the “C”PC.
This is not to agree with the affirmations of the rightist ideologues which affirm that the “great leap forward” was a “communist holocaust” which “claimed up to 30 million of lives”. These affirmations are false, firstly because the death toll they attribute to the “great leap” is ridiculously inflated, and second, even if the death toll of 30 million was true (and it’s not) that would never be a “red genocide” simply because there was never socialism in China. The rightist ideologues sold to the capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie cannot stand the fact that there are people who dare to struggle against capitalism, people who don’t resignate to the “consumer society” and to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. For them it is incomprehensible that some people can dedicate their lives to the struggle for the implementation of the proletarian dictatorship and to the edification of the stateless and classless society. That’s why they try to discredit communism through all means. Because they know that it’s to communism that the future belongs, they know that Marxism-Leninism is the only ideology which can completely destroy their beloved capitalism. Their class interests and anti-communism turn them so blind that they are totally unable to distinguish between what is really communist and what is not. For them, everything that qualifies itself as communist is a potential target, no matter if it is really communist, or if, on the contrary, it’s nothing more than bourgeois ideology disguised in Marxist phraseology. That is what happened with the Maoist China and especially with the “great leap forward”.
Some Maoists claim that “one of the signs which indicate that Maoist China was a veritable socialist country is the fact that the openly reactionary bourgeoisie of the capitalist and revisionist countries accused Maoist China with the same arguments it had previously used against Stalin’s SU”. To put things like this is totally fallacious. It’s true that the hypocritical, reactionary and false accusations of the capitalist-revisionist bourgeois “humanitarians” which affirm that the Stalinist Soviet Union supposedly caused “a genocide of enormous proportions” is, in some aspects, very similar to those accusations that the same bourgeoisie adopts towards Maoist China. However, if the formal accusations have important similarities, the truth is that the reasons behind them are radically different. The capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie tried to discredit the Stalinist proletarian democracy because it constituted a living proof that the proletariat was not eternally condemned to the horrors of capitalism and to the bourgeois tyranny, because it showed that a more humane and advanced social-economical system was not only possible, but also necessary. On the contrary, that same capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie accused Maoist China of perpetrating “horrific human rights violations” and of being a “communist hell” not because Maoist China constituted a genuine example of Marxist-Leninist edification, but because, due to China’s demographic and territorial weight, its ascension as a new superpower would put the world domination of the imperialist-capitalist-revisionist powers in a great danger.
The capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie manipulates the pathologic anti-communism of its own ideologues in order to mislead the proletariat. The capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie understood clearly that the Chinese national bourgeoisie which conquered power and which exploited the chinese proletariat in favor of its own interests and not in the interests of the foreign powers would sooner or later follow an imperialist line which would be a lethal challenge to the capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie. In discrediting Maoist China as an “unspeakable communist dictatorship”, the capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie is accomplishing two great aims: to slander communist ideology while simultaneously discrediting an imperialist rival in unstoppable ascension.
But let’s return to the historical course followed by Mao and by the “C”PC. After the “great leap forward”, we will now try to analyze the so-called “Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution” which, as Comrade Enver Hoxha correctly affirms:
“(…) was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
The Cultural Revolution was linked with the already referred Maoist idea that workers’ exploitation can be erased without the use of revolutionary violence by the proletariat and that the bourgeois elements can be peacefully converted to socialism through “reeducation”:
“In what respects to the national bourgeoisie, a great education effort can be made in the present period towards that class. When the time comes to accomplish socialism, to nationalize private enterprises, we will advance even more in our efforts to reform and to educate the bourgeois elements.” (Mao Zedong, Sur la dictature populaire démocratique — cited by Yu Hai in Le rôle de la bourgeoisie nationale dans la révolution chinoise, in Cahiers du communisme, August of 1950, translated from french language).
The ideological roots of the Cultural Revolution were a mixture of multiple anti-Marxist-Leninist currents, including spontaneism, anarchism and, of course, Mao Zedong anti-communist “theories”.
To understand the true causes of the Cultural Revolution we must note that after the 1949 chinese revolution, the chinese state appeared as a kind of arbitral organ which kept “social peace” by “regulating” the productive contradictions which existed between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Of course, this arbitral cover was very important to hide the true character of the Maoist state as a dictatorship of the national bourgeoisie; indeed, the improvement of the living conditions of the chinese people after the revolution was linked precisely with this need of creating a false impression among the oppressed classes, making them believe that China was following a socialist path and that the Maoist state was on the side of the proletariat. We have already explained that the 1949 revolution was led by the national bourgeoisie which conquered political and economical power against the interests of the former imperialist bourgeoisie. Therefore, despite the claim that Mao “nationalized” many of the key branches of the economy, the truth is that the chinese national bourgeoisie was never really expropriated. There are two kinds of nationalizations: the nationalizations of the bourgeois type and the nationalizations of the proletarian type. The first type is done in the interests of a certain branch of the bourgeoisie, while the second type is done against all bourgeois class and with the purpose of destroying the capitalist system. What mainly distinguishes them is that the first is done without veritable expropriation of the bourgeoisie, while the second is done with total expropriation of the entire bourgeois-capitalist class. The nationalizations which took place in Maoist China were clearly included in the first type, they were bourgeois nationalizations which were done with the objective of favoring the interests of the national “patriotic” bourgeoisie by permitting that this class occupied and controlled the direction of the nationalized enterprises. In addition to this situation, we must remember that, outside the nationalized enterprises, there were many essential branches of the economy which were not even formally nationalized and continued openly in the hands of the private bourgeois capital. As we had already explained, the material base of the chinese society continued to be dominated by the capitalist relations of production, and this was reflected in the political, social and cultural superstructure. It is impossible to prevent a class which controls economical power from controlling political power, since the political superstructure is a direct reflex of the material and economic productive base of society. This is what Marxism teaches us. Consequently, it was obvious that Maoist pretensions of “conciliation” of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were entitled to fail from the very beginning. If the proletariat does not establish its dictatorship, then the bourgeoisie will automatically continue to be the dominant class and will continue exploiting the oppressed masses. It’s impossible to find a third way between the bourgeois dictatorship and the proletarian dictatorship.
The causes of the Cultural Revolution are linked with the fact that, since the end of 50’s, the chinese national bourgeoisie was increasingly revealing its reactionary character, it was demanding the end of the Maoist “arbitration state” and the implementation of an openly capitalist dictatorship. This national bourgeoisie was now turned into a veritable state monopolist bourgeoisie which dominated all aspects of the chinese society. Therefore, it’s not surprising that this bourgeoisie which controlled the CPC tried to change the composition of its Central Committee according to its own exploitative interests; the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie tried to replace the centrist faction of Mao by more rightist sections which would erase the last remnants of Marxist phraseology and of apparent “socialist features”.
The Cultural Revolution was promoted by Mao in order to try to reverse the dominance of the more rightist factions of the CPC which were defending the implementation of a capitalist regime with fascist characteristics in the interests of the new monopolist bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, we must bear in mind that Mao did not incentive the Cultural Revolution because he was worried about the reactionary and pro-fascist character of the party factions which were representing the new monopolist bourgeoisie. No. Mao used his own authority to propagate the Cultural Revolution because, in first place, he did not want to be expelled from power by other party factions (as every bourgeois politician, Mao Zedong had lust for power and, throughout his political career, he did his utmost to keep his political supremacy). We must remember that Mao’s prestige was still seriously affected by the failure of the “great leap forward”, and the Cultural Revolution was seen by him as an opportunity to reconquer his lost status and to consolidate his positions within the apparatus of the Chinese bourgeois state.
The second reason is that Mao understood very well that, with the establishment of an openly capitalist regime, the Chinese monopolist bourgeoisie would also loose important means which permitted to deceive the chinese proletariat and to keep a climate of “social peace” in which exploitation and wage slavery could be peacefully exercised. We must not forget that Mao’s anti-imperialist rhetoric and “socialistic” outlook contributed greatly to the acceptance of the new bourgeois dictatorship by many sectors of the Chinese oppressed masses. The Chinese proletariat was on the side of the national bourgeoisie in the struggle against foreign imperialists, but, contrary to what Mao tried to promote, those two classes continued to have irreconcilable interests and this situation did not change just because they temporarily united in the context of a determined historical period of struggle against external oppressors. Of course, the revisionist Mao tried to perpetuate this “union” between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie in the interests of the last one, he propagated the false and impossible idea of the “share of power” between those two classes in order to eliminate class struggle and to disguise capitalist exploitation under a “Marxist” and “revolutionary” facade. However, if the monopolist bourgeoisie could install a openly capitalist and pro-fascist regime in China, that “socialist” mask invented by Mao to disguise the exploitative character of the chinese bourgeois state and to keep the chinese proletariat in bondage would totally fall apart. Moreover, Mao was also on the side of that petty-bourgeoisie of the rural and urban areas which still defended the coexistence and conciliation between the multiple classes which constituted the Chinese society. The Cultural Revolution was precisely an attempt to thwart the efforts of important sections of the national monopolist bourgeoisie which wanted complete control of their class over the Chinese bourgeois state, without even the apparent “share of power” which Mao proposed.
And it was for those reasons that Mao promoted the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”.
However, the anti-Marxism of the Cultural Revolution was not limited to its origins and to its reasons of existence. In fact, its anti-Marxist roots were clearly visible in the way it was conducted and directed.
In first place, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was the result of a call made by Mao Zedong as an individual revolutionary enjoying considerable prestige. We must note that Mao enjoyed an immense personal power within the party and controlled his own private militias which were used by him to secure his positions in face of the threats coming from other rival sections inside the party:
“Recently, «Renmin Ribao» published an article by a so-called theoretical group of the «General Directory» of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. This article says that under the name of the «General Directory», Mao had set up around himself a special apparatus which kept the Political Bureau, the Central Committee of the Party, the cadres of the state, the army, the security service, etc., under surveillance and control. Entry to this Directory and knowledge of its work was forbidden to all, including the members of the Central Committee and the Political Bureau. Here plans for the bringing down or elevation of this or that factionalist group were worked out. The men of this Directory were present everywhere, they eaves-dropped, watched, and reported independently, outside the control of the party.
Apart from them, this Directory had at its disposal entire armed detachments, hidden under the name of the «Guard of Chairman Mao». This praetorian guard more than 50,000 strong went into action whenever the chairman wanted «to act with one blow», as has frequently occurred in the history of the Communist Party of China (…).”(Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
And Mao’s individualist tyranny was not limited to the highest echelons of the party. On the contrary, he exercised his total control even among the population:
Under the pretext of maintaining contacts with the masses, Mao Tse-Tung had also created a special network of informers among the population who were charged with the task of keeping the cadres of the base under surveillance and investigating the conditions and state of mind of the masses, without anybody's knowledge. They reported directly to Mao Tse-Tung alone, who had severed all means of communication with the masses and saw the world only through the reports of his agents of the «General Directory ».” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
As can be seen, Mao Zedong repeatedly violated the most basic norms of democratic centralism and of Leninist-Stalinist democracy. This situation happened during the entire period of the Maoist governance, although it was more intense during the Cultural Revolution. Mao Zedong implemented an authentic personal dictatorship, totally outside the control of the party or of the proletariat:
“The article of «Renmin Ribao» provides new information which enables one to understand even more clearly the anti-Marxist direction and personal power of Mao Tse-Tung in the Chinese party and state. Mao Tse-Tung did not have the slightest respect for either the Central Committee or the congress of the party, let alone the party as a whole and its committees at the base. The party committees, the leading cadres and the Central Committee itself received orders from the «General Directory», this «special staff», which was responsible to Mao Tse-tung alone. The party forums, its elected organs, had no authority whatsoever.
The article of «Renmin Ribao» says, “no telegram, no letter, no document, no order could be issued by anybody without first going through Mao Tse-Tung's hands and being approved by him». It turns out that as early as 1953. Mao Tse-tung had issued a clear-cut order: «From now on, all documents and telegrams sent out in the name of the Central Committee can be dispatched only after I have gone over them, otherwise they are invalid. Under these conditions there can be no talk of collective leadership, democracy within the party, or Leninist norms.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
With this, we note that the leading role played by the revolutionary communist party is totally abandoned by Mao. Instead of that, we have an individual who uses its authority to “ideologically” mobilize certain “popular” branches to serve the interests of the revisionist group led by him (we must never forget that the Cultural Revolution was essentially a dispute for power between different bourgeois-revisionist party factions):
“The figure of Mao Zedong has been blown up until it has reached the dimensions of a Chinese emperor. And indeed, this modern emperor operates omnipotently over his courtiers, who have created an extensive and terrible bureaucracy in which the "brilliant ideas" of the "Great Steersman" are carried out.
He used the Communist Party as a stepping stone and has been doing so whenever he feels like it and as often as he thinks it is "reasonable"; depending on the "dialectical" development of the "contradictions", seen from the perspective of Taoism, he makes people drop from power, attacks the party and liquidates it, starts some "revolution" and balances the power of the courtiers.
He explains all this with allegedly revolutionary phrases which are in fact nothing but more "cultured" actions than those of Emperor Bokassa, the Shah of Iran or the King of Nepal, whom Mao liked very much, whom he welcomed and accompanied, not only because material interests, such as the hope of gaining political advantages and to make them into Chinese satellites, made him do so but also because Mao's philosophy coincided completely with their own.” (Enver Hoxha, Letter to Comrade Hysni Kapo, 30th July of 1978).
Comrade Enver Hoxha affirmed that the main event which made the PLA start to analyze Mao Zedong though in a more profound manner was precisely the Cultural Revolution. For the Albanian Marxist-Leninists, that was the decisive point which eventually led them to unmask Maoist revisionism and to demarcate themselves from chinese social-imperialism (although Comrade Enver and the PLA had already previously criticized the CPC’s opportunistic features):
“(…) what attracted our Party's attention most was the Cultural Revolution, which raised a number of major questions in our minds. During the Cultural Revolution, initiated by Mao Tsetung, astonishing political, ideological and organizational ideas and actions came to light in the activity of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese state, which were not based on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
In judging their previous dubious actions, as well as those observed during the Cultural Revolution, and especially the events following this revolution up till now, the rises and falls of this or that group in the leadership, today the group of Lin Piao, tomorrow that of Teng Hsiao-ping, a Hua Kuo-feng, etc., each of which had its own platform opposed to the other's, all these things impelled our Party to delve more deeply into the views and actions of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, to get a more thorough knowledge of «Mao Tsetung thought».
When we saw that this Cultural Revolution was not being led by the party but was a chaotic outburst following a call issued by Mao Tsetung, this did not seem to us to be a revolutionary stand. It was Mao's authority in China that made millions of unorganized youth, students and pupils, rise to their feet and march on Peking, on party and state committees, which they dispersed.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
According to Comrade Enver, what really upset the Albanian communists was the fact that the Cultural Revolution was a “mass movement” with spontaneist and anarchist features which completely excluded the leading role not only of the party, but also of the proletariat:
“(...) the main thing was the fact that neither the party nor the proletariat was in the leadership of this «great proletarian revolution». This grave situation stemmed from Mao Tsetung's old anti-Marxist concepts of underestimation of the leading role of the proletariat and overestimation of the youth in the revolution. Mao wrote: «What role did the Chinese young people begin to play since the 'May 4th Movement’? In a way they began to play a vanguard role — a fact recognized by everybody in our country except the ultra-reactionaries. What is a vanguard role? It means taking the lead.. .»'. Thus the working class was left on the sidelines (...)” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
It is a well known fact that one of the most famous characteristics of Maoist ideology is constituted by its eagerness to put every social class leading the revolution. Every social class…except the proletariat, of course. For example, during the Cultural Revolution, Mao considered the youth as the social branch which must play the leading role in the revolution. This idea is totally anti-Marxist. It’s true that the youth is a very progressive force, that it has a tendency to follow what is new and to reject what is old and backward. Nonetheless, this does not mean that it should lead the proletarian revolution. The same can be said about the peasantry. Although the small peasantry (and in the beginning stages of the revolution, also certain branches of the medium peasantry) can play an important and even decisive role in the victory of the proletarian revolution, the peasantry can never replace the proletariat as the leading force of the communist revolution:
“Mao has said that all other political parties and forces must submit to the peasantry and its views. «... millions of peasants will rise like a mighty storm, a force so swift and violent that no power, however great, will be able to hold it back... he writes. «They will put to the test every revolutionary party and group, every revolutionary, so that they either accept their views or reject them»". According to Mao, it turns out that the peasantry and not the working class should play the hegemonic role in the revolution.
Mao Tse-Tung also preached the thesis on the hegemonic role of the peasantry in the revolution as the road of the world revolution. Herein lies the source of the anti-Marxist concept that considers the so-called third world, which in Chinese political literature is also called «the countryside of the world», as the « main motive force for the transformation of present-day society».
According to the Chinese views, the proletariat is a second rate social force, which cannot play that role which Marx and Lenin envisaged in the struggle against capitalism and the triumph of the revolution, in alliance with all the forces oppressed by capital. The Chinese revolution has been dominated by the petty- and middle bourgeoisie. This broad stratum of the petty-bourgeoisie has influenced the whole development of China. Mao Tse-Tung did not base himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory which teaches us that the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie in general, is vacillating. Of course, the poor and middle peasantry plays an important role in the revolution and must become the close ally of the proletariat. But the peasant class, the petty-bourgeoisie, cannot lead the proletariat in the revolution. To think and preach the opposite means to be against Marxism-Leninism. Herein lies one of the main sources of the anti-Marxist views of Mao Tse-Tung, which have had a negative influence on the whole Chinese revolution. The Communist Party of China has not been clear in theory about the basic revolutionary guiding principle of the hegemonic role of the proletariat in the revolution, and consequently it did not apply it in practice properly and consistently. Experience shows that the peasantry can play its revolutionary role only if it acts in alliance with the proletariat and under its leadership. (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Marxism-Leninism teaches us that the peasantry is a vacillating class, that the proletariat must convince it and inculcate in it its scientific revolutionary theory. The Maoist theory which absolutizes the role of the peasantry and directly refuses the principles of Marxism-Leninism about the role of the proletariat brought horrific consequences to the entire communist movement. One of the most dramatic cases in which Mao’s abject and anti-communist theory of the “encirclement of the city by the countryside” assumed extremist features was that of Cambodia under Pol Pot (a subject which we will develop later in this article).
Therefore, the leading role in the proletarian revolution should always belong to the working class (the proletariat). If the revolution is not led by the proletariat, that means that the revolution has not a Marxist-Leninist and communist character. Anyone who denies the leading role of the proletariat in the communist revolution is an Anti-Marxist-Leninist and must be implacably fought, and the truth is that Maoism rejected the leading role of the proletariat both in theory and in practice. Indeed, it is impossible to speak about the leading role of the proletariat in a context like that of Maoist China, in which the national bourgeoisie dominated the material base of the economical power, and consequently dominated the social and political superstructure which permitted the perpetuation of capitalist exploitation.
The anarchist characteristics of the Cultural Revolution are intimately related to the leftist anti-Marxist conceptions of Mao Zedong which were highlighted during the Cultural Revolution:
“To encourage the freedom of expression, it’s to encourage the public voice, so that every person can freely speak and criticize. (Citation by Mao Tse-Tung, 16th May of 1966).
In the context of the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution, the masses can only liberate themselves and we can never pretend to act in their place.” (Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC about the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution, 8th August of 1966, Beijing).
This theory about the auto-liberation of the masses clearly reveals the idealist and voluntarist nature of the Maoist conceptions. Indeed, this false idea of “letting the masses liberate themselves” is common to nearly all Maoist parties around the world, supposedly with the objective of “avoiding bureaucratic deviations”. In fact, this theory is very similar to the leftist and anarchist thesis which don’t accept what they call “socialism imposed from above”; or in other words, which don’t accept the leading role of the communist party as the vanguard of the proletariat in alliance with the other exploited classes. This negation of the leading role of the proletarian class leads directly to the negation of the necessity of the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
This kind of thesis of anarchist inspiration invariably emerges in situations of social tensions, but in which there is not a veritable Marxist-Leninist party to lead the oppressed classes and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Regarding the anarchist features of the Mao Zedong Though in general, and of the “Cultural Revolution” in particular, Comrade Enver Hoxha remarked that:
“One must not label Mao Zedong as a "prophet" of the revolution but as a "prophet of the counter-revolution". He represented the type of the Anarchist in whose blood runs confusion, chaos, the undermining of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism, but under the condition that this permanent anarchy was led by him or by his typical Chinese anarchist ideology. Mao Zedong is a Chinese Bakunin. The Cultural Revolution was an expression of the ideas and action of this Chinese Bakunin.
The chaos which resulted in China, originated from this anti-Marxist, traitorous line of Mao Zedong and his courtiers, a chaos full of defeats in politics, ideology and economy was fought by the "Great Steersman" through the anarchy of the Cultural Revolution.
This anarchist revolution saved the Maoist absolute rule but contained the risk of undermining it, too. The "prestige" of the "Steersman" had to be saved, the anarchy was not allowed to topple the myths, therefore military measures were taken.
The character of bureaucracy with the courtier Zhou Enlai-Confucius was saved and supposedly "younger" "revolutionary" elements were integrated into the scene of agitation and propaganda, for whom the "Steersman" had intended the role of painting out the anarchy as a "revolution within the revolution" by which the alleged bourgeoisie, which had infiltrated the party, was supposed to be eliminated.
But in fact there was no party, but only the bourgeoisie, there were clans and fractions which were fighting for power. This was the Trotskyist "permanent revolution", led by Mao Zedong-Trotsky.” (Enver Hoxha, Letter to Comrade Hysni Kapo, 30th July of 1978).
At this point, another question is posed: Maoists are always abstractly referring to the “masses”, but what do they mean with that? It’s not by chance that their definition of “masses” is so vague and empty. This is because, behind the so-called masses, the Maoists can justify the existence of various classes under fake “revolutionary” and “socialist” slogans.
It’s not astonishing that the CPC practically ceased to exist during the Cultural Revolution. It ceased to exist because, during the Cultural Revolution, there were several revisionist clans within the CPC which fiercely struggled against each other and tried to conquer power to defend the interests of the branches of the bourgeoisie that were represented by each of them. In this context, the CPC was “neutralized” simply because it had no independent role to play. After this Cultural Revolution, when the victorious branches of the bourgeoisie consolidated their power, then the CPC re-occupied its place as the general committee of the Chinese monopolist bourgeoisie.
The idea of the spontaneous leadership of the masses is also included in the Maoist thesis which propagates the control of the Communist Party by the bourgeois parties and classes. It proposes general criticism among the elements of the various classes existing within the social and economic bourgeois system which constitutes the Maoist definition of “New Democracy”. We may not forget that Mao always defended the “100 schools”, which should debate among them. Of course, those “100 schools” mean a great variety of bourgeois ideologies which, according to Mao, should be allowed not only to exist, but also to develop and to spread their poisonous influence over the proletariat and the exploited masses:
“The revisionist concepts of Mao Tse-Tung have their basis in the policy of collaboration and alliance with the bourgeoisie, which the Communist Party of China has always applied. This is also the source of the anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist course of «letting 100 flowers blossom and 100 schools contend», which is a direct expression of the coexistence of opposing ideologies.
According to Mao Tse-Tung, in socialist society, side by side with the proletarian ideology, materialism and atheism, the existence of bourgeois ideology, idealism and religion, the growth of poisonous weeds» along with «fragrant flowers», etc., must be permitted. Such a course is alleged to be necessary for the development of Marxism, in order to open the way to debate and freedom of thought, while in reality, through this course, he is trying to lay the theoretical basis for the policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie and coexistence with its ideology.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
This is in total contrast with what happened in the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin and in Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha, where Marxism-Leninism had absolute predominance and was obliterating all kinds of bourgeois ideas and mentalities. In the context of a genuine proletarian dictatorship, there can be no space left for non-Marxist-Leninist ideologies. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism must be the only ideology allowed and encouraged in all spheres of life. To inculcate Marxism-Leninism in the minds and hearts of all workers is the best way to assure the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship and the successful edification of the socialist and communist society.
Of course, Maoism rejects all this and proposes a “revolution” made by “various classes” (read: the bourgeoisie). This is on the antipodes of the basic Marxist-Leninist teachings on the major role that the proletariat must play in any authentic proletarian revolution in order to completely remove even the smallest remnants of the bourgeois-capitalist system and ideology.
Comrade Enver Hoxha also notes that Mao’s defense of class reconciliation with the bourgeoisie goes so far that he (Mao) even criticizes the struggle against bourgeois elements and influences:
“Mao Tse-Tung says, «...it is a dangerous policy to prohibit people from coming into contact with the false, the ugly and the hostile to us, with idealism and metaphysics and with the thoughts of Confucius, Lao Tze and Chiang Kai-shek. It would lead to mental deterioration, one-track minds, and unpreparedness to face the world...».
From this Mao Tse-Tung draws the conclusion that idealism, metaphysics and the bourgeois ideology will exist eternally, therefore not only must they not be prohibited, but they must be given the possibility to blossom, to come out in the open and contend. This conciliatory stand towards everything reactionary goes so far as to call disturbances in socialist society inevitable and the prohibition of enemy activity mistaken. «In my opinion, » says he, «whoever wants to provoke trouble may do so for so long as he pleases; and if one month is not enough, he may go on for two, in short, the matter should not be wound up until he feels he has had enough. If you hastily wind it up, sooner or later trouble will resume again».
A11 these have not been academic contributions to a «scientific» discussion but a counterrevolutionary opportunist political line which has been set up in opposition to Marxism-Leninism, which has disorganized the Communist Party of China, in the ranks of which a hundred and one views and ideas have been circulating and today there really are 100 schools contending. This has enabled the bourgeois wasps to circulate freely in the garden of 100 flowers and release their venom.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
And there’s more:
“(…) openly taking counterrevolutionaries under his protection, Mao Tsetung stated: «. we should kill none and arrest very few... They are not to be arrested by the public security bureaus, prosecuted by the procuratorial organs or tried by the law courts.
Well over ninety out of every hundred of these counterrevolutionaries should be dealt with in this way». Reasoning as a sophist, Mao Tsetung says that the execution of counterrevolutionaries does no good, that such an action allegedly hinders production, the scientific level of the country, and will give us a bad name in the world, etc., that if one counterrevolutionary is liquidated, «we would have to compare his case with that of a second, of a third, and so on, and then many heads would begin to roll. .. once a head is chopped off it can't be restored, nor can it grow again as chives do, after being cut». As a result of these anti-Marxist concepts about contradictions, about classes, and their role in revolution that «Mao Tsetung thought» advocates, China never proceeded on the correct road of socialist construction.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
These quotations of Mao Zedong show clearly that he refused the use of revolutionary violence against the bourgeois and capitalist elements.
We, Stalinists-Hoxhaists, consider revolutionary violence as a fundamental weapon to establish the proletarian dictatorship. Without revolutionary violence, there can be no correct and solid edification of the socialist and communist society.
As a final note on the Cultural Revolution, we must conclude that Mao’s ultimate objective was not achieved. Mao failed to keep the apparent “equilibrium” of the Chinese bourgeois state through the supposed “share of power” between the national bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois peasantry. He could not stop the Chinese monopolist bourgeoisie from putting the Chinese state under its total control and dominance, and Mao could not stop it because the economical power of the bourgeoisie was never eliminated and even the productive relations continued to have a capitalist and bourgeois character during Mao’s rule. For these reasons, it was only a question of time until the Chinese national monopolist bourgeoisie would take complete control of the state apparatus, as indeed happened.
The truth is that since the end of the 60’s and the begging of the 70’s, the Chinese monopolist bourgeoisie was consolidated as the incontestable dominant class in China, thus obliterating any pretensions of the petty-bourgeoisie and even from the peasantry about the “joint dictatorship” of all classes. What the petty-bourgeois classes and also, to a certain extent, the Chinese peasantry did not understood was that, since the end of the 60’s, China had entered in a new stage, the stage of the imperialist expansion of the Chinese monopolist bourgeoisie. Immediately after 1949, the greatest concern of the national bourgeoisie was to assure its independence in face of the foreign imperialist powers and of the bourgeoisie linked with them. And this because, in its first stage of development, the Chinese national bourgeoisie had to struggle to avoid that the dependence on foreign imperialisms could maintain the Chinese economy in a backward state. After this, the national bourgeoisie accumulated many resources and developed the internal economy. And that was the point in which Mao’s ideas were decisive to serve the interests of the national bourgeoisie. Maoist Thought ideologically paralyzed the Chinese workers and “united” their interests with those of the national bourgeoisie. We know that this “union” was only superficial and was deeply anti-Marxist, but the fact is that it misled large sectors of the Chinese working masses (Mao’s “socialist” phraseology greatly contributed to this), thus permitting that the Chinese national bourgeoisie could exploit them without worries, thus developing the industrial base of the Chinese economy in order to pave the way for the future ascension of China as a new imperialist superpower.
After the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese national bourgeoisie definitively achieved a monopolist character and took absolute control of the political power. With this, it began to enter into imperialist competition and development, even because its colossal economical power was supported by an advanced and diversified sector of heavy industry and by the endless labor force provided by China’s colossal demographical and territorial dimensions.
It was in this context that the relations between Socialist Albania and Maoist China began to deteriorate seriously. Since the end of the 60’s, the Albanian Marxist-Leninists noticed that the Chinese “comrades” tried to dissuade them from developing the industry of means of production and from accomplishing many projects in various branches of the economy (agriculture, metallurgy, etc…). It is quite clear that the Chinese revisionists wanted to thwart Socialist Albania’s independent course, but they failed due to the heroic efforts of the Albanian proletariat:
“The building of factories of heavy industry in Albania with China’s help had to face many difficulties which were surpassed due to the hard work of the Albanian workers and specialists.” (PLA, Histoire de la construction socialiste en Albanie, translated from french language).
Since 1971, the Chinese revisionists imposed a harsh commercial blockade against socialist Albania and tried by all means to subjugate this country in favor of their imperialist interests. The chinese revisionists even refused to receive delegations from Tirana to discuss the political contradictions which were increasing between the two countries. In fact, the VI Congress of the PLA (1976), in which Comrade Enver Hoxha criticized the Maoist “theory of the three worlds”, was not attended by any chinese delegation.
Social-imperialist China officially broke with Socialist Albania in 1978. This rupture was not something surprising, nor had its origins in the period 1976-1978. On the contrary, the Sino-Albanian split was only the culmination of a long process which had intensified since the late 60’s, but that had its origins in the very beginnings of that decade.
The Albanian Marxist-Leninists trusted the chinese people and thought that the CPC would be able to correct its mistakes and to take a genuine Marxist-Leninist course. Comrade Enver and the other Albanian communists regularly criticized the CPC and told the Chinese “comrades” about the ideological questions in which they were in disagreement.
Nowadays, there are communist groups which correctly consider Albania as an authentic Socialist country and affirm (also correctly) that the Albanian socialist society was free from revisionist deviations. However, there is one aspect about Socialist Albania’s foreign policy that continues to confuse some of these communist groups and parties: the fact that Albania continued to have apparently friendly diplomatic relations with China until after Mao’s death. Many of the communists which see Mao Zedong Though as a bourgeois-revisionist current wonder why Socialist Albania was not capable of criticizing maoist China earlier.
First of all, we must not forget that the chinese revisionists always tried to hide the truth about the CPC’s internal situation. During many years, the Albanian communists could not have known what was going on within CPC’s ranks:
“(…) we did not have full knowledge about the internal political, economic, cultural, social life, etc. in China. The organization of the Chinese party and state have always been a closed book to us. The Communist Party of China gave us no possibility at all to study the forms of organization of the Chinese party and state. We Albanian communists knew only the general outlines of the state organization of China and nothing more; we were given no possibilities to acquaint ourselves with the experience of the party in China, to see how it operated, how it was organized, in what directions things were developing in different sectors and what these directions were concretely.
The Chinese leaders have acted with guile. They have not made public many documents necessary for one to know the activity of their party and state. They were and are very wary of publishing their documents. Even those few published documents at our disposal are fragmentary.
The four volumes of Mao's works, which can be considered official, are comprised of materials written no later than 1949, but besides this, they are carefully arranged in such a way that they do not present an exact picture of the real situations that developed in China.
(…) The Chinese leaders did not invite any delegation from our Party to study their experience. And when some delegation has gone there on our Party's request, the Chinese have engaged in propaganda and taken it here and there for visits to communes and factories rather than give it some explanation or experience about the work of the party. And towards whom did they maintain this strange stand? Towards us Albanians, their friends, who have defended them in the most difficult situations. All these actions were incomprehensible to us, but also a signal that the Communist Party of China did not want to give us a clear picture of its situation.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Therefore, it’s erroneous to judge the PLA’s attitudes towards China as if the Albanian Marxist-Leninists had total knowledge about the reactionary deviations which were happening in China.
Nowadays, thanks to the publication of many books of Comrade Enver and of the PLA, we can have a broader view on this matter and we can say that, in truth, Comrade Enver Hoxha and the PLA effectively criticized Maoist revisionism since the early 60’s.
If we search Comrade Enver’s Reflections on China, Volume I, we will easily observe that Comrade Enver already noted that China was following a centrist course and was reconciliating with soviet revisionism in 1962 (see: Reflections on China Volume I: The Chinese are giving Khrushchev a hand - April 6, 1962; China is proceeding on a centrist course - June 13, 1962; The Chinese are moving towards conciliation with the Khrushchevites - July 2, 1962; China is not acting well in failing to reply to Khrushchev's attacks - December 20, 1962;The stands of the Chinese comrades are improper in several directions - December 24, 1962; etc…).
Moreover, in other books such as “The Krushchevists” and “Imperialism and the Revolution”, Comrade Enver also reveals that he and the other Albanian Marxist-Leninists had many suspicions about the true character of the chinese “revolution” and of the chinese “socialist edification” from the first moment.
In the early and middle 70’s, there were already some people which criticized socialist Albania for not being able to denounce chinese revisionism. But today we know that this criticism was in discordance with reality. By that time, Socialist Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha not only had already done their criticism of maoist revisionism, but also noted that China was paving the way in order to become a new imperialist superpower.
In those times, many of these communists feared that if Socialist Albania refused to criticize Maoist revisionism, that would cause the degeneration of the socialist character of Albania. However, this fear was totally illogical and only reveals lack of confidence in the PLA’s ideological strength. In truth, there was never the risk of revisionist degeneration of socialist Albania, because Comrade Enver always maintained a correct and principled Marxist-Leninist stand and never made any concessions to Maoist revisionism, not even when Albania and China had “friendly” relations. While Comrade Enver was leading the Albanian people, socialist edification in Albania always followed a coherent Marxist-Leninist line and the PLA never let Maoist degenerative and anti-Marxist influences to penetrate the Albanian proletariat. We must remember that in the period 1974-1975, the PLA launched a ferocious battle against the party members which were trying to sold Albania to chinese imperialism, and thanks to the party’s vigilance, many pro-Maoist traitors were unmasked and received the treatment they deserved (and it’s important to stress that this happened in 1974-1975, 4 years before the official split between Beijing and Tirana, thus proving that Comrade Enver Hoxha had already predicted the inevitability of that rupture and cleaned the PLA from pro-chinese elements, thus preparing the Albanian proletariat to face the future inexorable rupture with China). Those pro-chinese traitors were united around Beqir Balluku and their objective was to subjugate Socialist Albania to the interests of the revisionist powers, including those of the chinese social-fascists:
“Chou En-laï explained to Beqir Balluku the point of view that Albania did not need heavy industry and that it could never defend itself against an external aggression (…). That’s why, according to Chou En-laï, (…) Albania should make a deal with Yugoslavia and with Romania. The Bureau of the Central Committee of the PLA unanimously rejected this anti-albanian and counter-revolutionary proposal of Chou En-laï. And although he said he agreed with the Bureau’s decision, Beqir Balluku later revealed to be in total accordance with the chinese proposal and he acted in secret to accomplish that hostile plan against Socialist Albania.” (Letter from the Central Committee of the PLA to the Central Committee of the CPC and to the Chinese government, Tirana, 28th July of 1978, translated from French language).
To think that Socialist Albania should have broken its relations with China and should have made public its anti-Maoist criticisms earlier than 1978 reveals a very superficial analysis of the facts.
After the Liberation, Albania was almost completely destroyed. The war had imposed a very heavy burden on the country. The heroic efforts of the Albanian people to build socialism under the direction of the proletariat through the PLA led to the edification of a new Albania. This new Albania engaged in the edification of a socialist and latter communist society achieved great victories and became a symbol to all truly revolutionary militants around the world. However, this glorious path was not without obstacles. Indeed, after surpassing many difficulties caused by the country’s destruction, the Albanian communists had to face Comrade Stalin’s death and the ascension to power of soviet revisionism. As we know, before Khrushchevite betrayal, the Soviet Union was the main supporter of socialist Albania; it supported Albania not only on economical aspects, but also regarding political questions (for example, Comrade Stalin’s defense of Albania’s independence and sovereignty helped the Albanian communists to defeat Tito’s imperialist ambitions and to avoid Albania’s transformation into a Yugoslav colony). But after the revisionist takeover, Albania had to advance towards socialism without the Soviet help. The rupture between Albania and the Soviet Union in the period 1956-1961 had some negative effects in Albanian economy, but thanks to the emphasis that Comrade Enver Hoxha had always put on the country’s internal forces and on the development of the heavy industry of means of production, Socialist Albania was able to surpass the rupture with Moscow without grave consequences to the socialist edification. After this episode, socialist Albania decided to accept China’s help bearing in mind that, despite CPC’s many and profound ideological mistakes, the CPC had also defended Comrade Stalin (at least apparently…) and consequently, it could still correct its political line in accordance with Marxist-Leninist principles. During some years, the Albanian Marxist-Leninists hoped that the CPC would return to the socialist path and actively tried to call the attention of the chinese revisionists to the profound ideological errors they were committing and to the abject anti-Marxist deviations they were making:
“Each time that our party noticed that the CPC was practicing acts and adopting attitudes which were in opposition with Marxist-Leninism and with proletarian internationalism, in opposition with the interests of socialism and the revolution, it tried to expose the CPC’s errors and criticized the CPC in a comradely spirit. But the leadership of the CPC never wanted to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the relations between parties.” (Letter from the Central Committee of the PLA to the Central Committee of the CPC and to the Chinese government, Tirana, 28th July of 1978, translated from French language).
“On many of Mao Tse-Tung’s theses, such as that about the handling of the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as non-antagonistic contradictions, the thesis about the existence of antagonistic classes during the entire period of socialism, the thesis that «the countryside should encircle the city», which absolutizes the role of the peasantry in the revolution, etc., we had our reservations and our own Marxist-Leninist views, which, whenever we could, we expressed to the Chinese leaders.
Meanwhile, certain other political views and stands of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China which were not compatible with the Marxist-Leninist views and stands of our Party, we considered as temporary tactics of a big state, dictated by specific situations. But, with the passage of time, it became ever more clear that the stands maintained by the Communist Party of China were not just tactics.
By analyzing the facts, our Party arrived at some general and specific conclusions, which made it vigilant, but it avoided polemics with the Communist Party of China and Chinese leaders, not because it was afraid to engage in polemics with them, but because the facts, which it had about the erroneous, anti-Marxist course of this party and Mao Tse-Tung himself, were incomplete, and still did not permit the drawing of a final conclusion.
On the other hand, for a time, the Communist Party of China did oppose US imperialism and reaction. It also took a stand against Soviet Khrushchevite revisionism, though it is now clear that its struggle against Soviet revisionism was not dictated from correct, principled Marxist-Leninist positions.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
But patience has limits and since the early 70’s, Comrade Enver Hoxha clearly understood that the CPC’s erroneous and anti-communist line was definitive and irreversible:
«Socialist China» receives the communist comrades in the same way as Nixon, Tanaka, and the revisionists, just as it might receive Chiang Kai-shek. This means blatant treachery. (…)Therefore the Chinese cannot be in accord with the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line of our Party. They are not in agreement with the whole of our internal and external policy, either. And this they are displaying. Chou En-lai, Li Hsien-nien and Mao have cut off their contacts with us, and the contacts which they maintain are merely formal diplomatic ones.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, April 20, 1973, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Moreover, the Albanian communists noted the attempts made by the chinese to sabotate Albania’s economy and to hinder socialist edification (see: Reflections on China Volume II: Why are the Chinese against our building the Fierza hydro-power plant?! - April 2, 1974; The Chinese are not supplying us with all the industrial projects - June 18, 1975, etc…). It was in these circumstances that the Sino-Albanian split took place:
“The unilateral manner in which Chinese leaders broke the economical and militar agreements which they had sign with Albania (…), the suspension of the most important works for our socialist economy, etc…reflect a well defined political and ideological line which is being followed by the chinese leadership. This is a consequence of the deviation of the CPC from Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism, of its collusion with American imperialism, with world capital and reaction, (…) of its willingness to turn China into a new imperialist superpower. This line of the CPC (…) always faced the opposition of the PLA (…). That’s why several ideological contradictions and disagreements emerged in the relations between the CPC and the PLA, and those contradictions and disagreements became even more accentuated.(…) The PLA tried to solve this divergences through Marxist-Leninist ways, through explanations and consultations in a comradely manner, without rendering those divergences public.” (Letter from the Central Committee of the PLA to the Central Committee of the CPC and to the Chinese government, Tirana, 28th July of 1978, translated from French language).
“In these circumstances, when the CPC refused every contact, every discussion or consultation, when it acted with arrogance and brutality (…) what should the PLA do? Should it accept the anti-Marxist line of the CPC thus negating itself? Should it renounce to the struggle against imperialism and against modern revisionism and unite with the enemies of the revolution, of socialism (…)? Should it separate from the true Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries and associate with the bourgeois opportunists? Should it cease supporting people’s struggle against superpowers? The PLA decided to remain loyal to Marxism-Leninism (…).
It’s precisely because chinese leaders could not subjugate socialist Albania that they want to (…) thwart socialist development in Albania. But with this attitude, the chinese leadership only reveals even more its anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary face.” (Letter from the Central Committee of the PLA to the Central Committee of the CPC and to the Chinese government, Tirana, 28th July of 1978, translated from French language).
Comrade Enver’s attitude towards the CPC was a Marxist-Leninist one. As we already referred, Comrade Enver always kept in mind that the Maoist ideological line was erroneous (as we have already mentioned, Comrade Enver never tried to hide the thoughtful ideological divergences that existed between the CPC and the PLA – for example, in what concerned Mobutu’s, Nixon’s and Rockefeller’s visits to Beijing, or in what respected to China’s friendship with Franco and Pinochet, which were considered by the PLA as obvious signs of wretched capitalist degeneration), but he honestly tried to correct it, he tried to show the chinese “comrades” how to follow a genuine Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist line; however, when he understood that it would be impossible, then he fiercely and publicly denounced Maoist social-fascism:
“The analyses we conduct regarding the Chinese revisionism are generally correct, objective in the light of Marxism-Leninism. Maoism as anti-Marxist theory is dying. It will face the same destiny as the other theories invented by world capitalism and by the decaying imperialism. (…)
The correct Marxist-Leninist line of our party will not only today but also in the future be supported by the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists worldwide, it will be supported by the world proletariat and the peoples.” (Enver Hoxha, Letter to Comrade Hysni Kapo, 30th July of 1978).
The Sino-Albanian split also represented a profound defeat to the capitalist-revisionist powers which thought that Mao Zedong would undermine the international communist movement:
“(…) when Mao Zedong thought was exerting its influence in many parties, the imperialists and social imperialists were more at ease, because they knew that this revisionist current was doing its work of undermining the Marxist-Leninist movement. Now that this current has been exposed, the enemies are trying to sow confusion by spreading all kinds of pseudo-Marxist theories, to split and weaken the parties through factional struggle, to manipulate weak and ill-formed elements in various ways and impel them to revisionist positions.” (Enver Hoxha, Report to the VIII Congress of the PLA, Tirana, 1981).
It was also in the middle 70’s that the chinese revisionists presented one of their most famous ideas: the “three world theory”. The main objective of this “theory” is:
“(…) to detach the peoples from the veritable struggle against American imperialism and soviet social-imperialism and to paint the reactionary leaders who serve imperialism and neocolonialism as “progressives” and “democratic”. (VIIIe Congrès de l'Union des Femmes d’Albanie, Tirana, 1978, translated from French language).
The three world theory is a reactionary and anti-Marxist theory which tries to extinguish people’s struggle and to obliterate Leninism. The three world theory, as its own name clearly indicates, divides the world in three parts: the first world, which is composed by the superpowers: the USA and the Soviet Union (this superpower does not exist anymore); the second world, which is composed by the capitalist countries that are not superpowers: Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc…; and finally the third world, which is composed by what the bourgeois analysts call “undeveloped countries”, that is, by the great majority of the African countries (Mozambique, Burundi, Kenya, Guinea, Mali, Sudan, Nigeria, etc…) by many Asiatic countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, etc…) and also by some countries of Central and Latin America ( Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, Haiti, etc…).
Accordingly with the Maoists, this third world is “the main revolutionary force of the present epoch”, it is this “third world” which is “advancing the revolution”. Of course, this is nothing more than a direct denial of the proletariat as the key revolutionary force. Indeed, this division of the world in three has the purpose of stopping the class struggle, of keeping the oppressed peoples in bondage.
When analyzing the “three world theory”, Comrade Enver stated that:
“After the triumph of the October Revolution, Lenin and Stalin said that in our time there are two worlds: the socialist world and the capitalist world, although at that time socialism had triumphed in only one country. Lenin wrote in 1921:
« ...there are now two worlds: the old world of capitalism, that is in a state of confusion but which will never surrender voluntarily, and the rising new world, which is still very weak, but which will grow, for it is invincible».
This class criterion of the division of the world is still valid today, regardless of the fact that socialism has not triumphed in many countries and the new society has not supplanted the old bourgeois-capitalist society. Such a thing is certainly bound to happen tomorrow.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
The three world theory wants to deviate the exploited classes’ attention form the fact that there are exploited and exploiters everywhere, there are oppressors and oppressed in the “first world”, in the “second world” and, of course, also in what is called “third world”.
An authentic Marxist-Leninist should recognize that there are disagreements and contradictions between the imperialist countries and the nations which, although capitalist, do not have an imperialist character. But to be aware of the existence of these contradictions does not mean that we should have doubts about their common capitalist nature. United States and Zaire, for instance. The first country is an imperialist superpower, while the second can be included in what the maoist revisionists call “third world”. It’s crystal clear that the existence of contradictions between these two nations is inevitable, because, on one side, the United States, in accord with its predatory imperialist nature, wants to dominate countries like Zaire not only in economical matters, but also even in political matters. However, on the other side, the national bourgeoisie of Zaire is also struggling to defend its own class interests and it can happen that these interests are in opposition to those of the American imperialist plutocracy. What we must always bear in mind is that, despite some conflicts which may occur, the bourgeois character of both countries (USA and Zaire, in this case) remains unchanged and unaltered. They continue to be capitalist countries in which the ruling classes (headed by the bourgeoisie) oppress and exploit the working classes (headed by the proletariat). Therefore, it is unconceivable for a genuine Marxist-Leninist to defend that the proletariat of Zaire should “unite” with the bourgeoisie of that same country in order to supposedly “fight” against American imperialism (or any other imperialism), as the Maoists argue. That treacherous “union” would only benefit the interests of the national bourgeoisie which does not want to share the profits of the workers’ exploitation with some foreign imperialist bourgeoisie.
It was not by chance that we cited Zaire in our example. This country’s recent history is very interesting, especially if we want to observe and understand the real intentions behind the untrustworthy “third world theory” invented by the Maoists.
After achieving a formal independence from Belgian colonialism, Zaire fell under the yoke of American imperialism which murdered a bourgeois-progressive president (Lumumba) and imposed a brutal and bloodthirsty cleptocracy headed by General Mobutu which would exploit the working classes to the bone. In the beginning, Mobutu faithfully served the interests of the American imperialist bourgeoisie, but that situation would be challenged precisely when Maoist China started to had visibility in the international scene. Mobutu was a self-proclaimed anti-communist, but that did not stop the chinese revisionists from inviting him to Beijing and from receiving him with great honors. During this visit, Mobutu met with Mao and received promises of $100 million (!!) in technical aid. Of course, this attitude was harshly criticized by Comrade Enver Hoxha:
“Chou's statement at the banquet with Mobutu is flagrantly anti-Marxist. He included China in the «third world». This means to deny socialism, to conceal the true individuality of China and the character of its socio-economic order from the eyes of the world. This is an opportunist, anti-Marxist view. (…) General Mobutu and his clique are reactionaries, the murderers of Lumumba and other progressive individuals in their country. China receives the representative of this anti-democratic African clique with great honours (…).” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, January 15, 1973, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
The truth is that Mobutu’s visit to China was not an incoherence in the maoist foreign policy. On the contrary, to receive reactionary leaders was something usual for the chinese revisionists (apart from Mobutu, they received Nixon (!!!), Ferdinand Marcos (!!!), Rockefeller (!!!!!!), among many others…). And we must underline that the receptions made to those leaders were everything but discreet. Those leaders were received by the highest ranks of the CPC, including by Chou En Lai and by Mao Zedong himself. They were accompanied by sumptuous banquets and luxury parties, all this at the expense of the chinese working classes. But we should not be surprised. After all, they were just anti-communist leaders which were being splendidly received in an anti-communist country, as was the case of Maoist China.
But let’s return to Zaire’s example. After his visits to China, Mobutu started to oppose American Imperialism and to primarily defend the interests of the national bourgeoisie of Zaire (which was the main component of his own governing clique). This situation intensified even more in the middle 70’s, when Mobutu openly criticized USA. It is curious to note that, after his first visit to China, Mobutu adopted the title “the Helmsman”, which was used by Mao.
In the meantime, the chinese social-imperialists were using their friendship with Mobutu in order to penetrate in Africa and to undermine Soviet positions in that continent. But the most important aspect we must retain from the Zaire example is how the chinese revisionists tried to seduce the reactionary leaders of the “third world” with the purpose of attracting them to the chinese sphere of influence and to cover them with “anti-imperialist” disguises in order to deceive the peoples of those “third world” countries and to keep them in a state of slavery through the perpetuation of the capitalist system and of the reactionary cliques which were ruling those countries. We can never forget that if exploitation is not eliminated within a certain country, then that country will sooner or latter start to have commercial relations with more powerful capitalist countries, and, with time, these commercial relations will change their nature and will be transformed into relations of economical subjugation towards those other capitalist countries. This was predicted by Karl Marx, who explained that this phenomenon will inevitably happen because of the contradictions between production and consume within the internal market, and also because of the different productive degrees inside social work. This means that the more powerful capitalist countries, which are able to take profits of the selling of great quantities of merchandises which were produced at a very low cost, will inexorably dominate the weaker capitalist countries as long as capitalist exploitation continues to exist. Consequently, all the theories of “non-alignment”, of “fair trade”, are nothing but a big fraud fabricated by the revisionists to hinder the world socialist revolution.
Even today, the Maoists are still using this “theory” and continue to claim that only the countries which are included in what they understand by “third world” are truly progressive. With this, they openly deny the revolutionary character of the proletariat and of the oppressed classes in the countries of the “second” and of the “first world”. With this, they openly assume that they are against the world proletarian revolution and in favor of pro-fascist “class cooperation”. With this, they clearly show the anti-Marxist and pro-capitalist character of their depraved ideology.
Indeed, we observe that in the countries of the “third world” it is frequent that worker’s exploitation is exercised in a very high degree, because great part of these countries are ruled by reactionary and pro-imperialist cliques which do their utmost to serve their foreign bosses while brutally repressing their respective peoples’ aspirations for freedom and socialism. What the Maoists mean with this fake “three world theory” is that a bunch of countries which are mainly governed by backward forces and which are closely linked with imperialist interests can be considered as “the main motive force of the revolution”:
“How is it possible in the present epoch of social development, which has at its hub the most revolutionary class, the proletariat, to call a grouping of states, the overwhelming bulk of which are ruled by the bourgeoisie and the feudal lords, indeed, even open reactionaries and fascists, the motive force? This is a gross distortion of Marx's theory.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
As we said above, the Maoists deny that there is class struggle in every “world” invented by them. And they do this because they are anti-Marxist, and therefore they are not able to understand that the proletariat is invariably the main motive force of the revolution, whether in the “first”, “second” or in the “third world”. They try to paint the countries of the “three world” as “progressive” and “revolutionary” in order to thwart peoples’ struggle against their internal and external oppressors. In fact, if we follow the three world theory, we will easily reach the conclusion that this theory leads us towards the more abject cooperation and conciliation with the more reactionary branches of the bourgeoisie. Through this three world theory, the Maoists try to justify the peaceful coexistence between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, because they defend that from the moment a certain state is included in the so-called “third world”, that state is automatically qualified as “revolutionary” and “anti-imperialist” and therefore, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie of that state should allegedly unite with the objective of struggling against imperialism. So, what the Maoists propagate is that the union between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within a determined “three world country” is something “progressive” because it will supposedly contribute to the defeat of the superpowers. It’s hard to imagine a more counter-revolutionary and pro-capitalist theory than this one. In truth, the Maoists are condemning the revolutionary actions that the proletariat must undertake against its internal and external oppressors because, in the Maoists’ view, that would undermine the “necessary” union between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat:
“The theory of «three worlds» advocates social peace, class conciliation, and tries to create alliances between implacable enemies, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the oppressed and the oppressors, the peoples and imperialism.
It is an attempt to prolong the life of the old world, the capitalist world, to keep it on its feet precisely by seeking to extinguish the class struggle. But the class struggle, the struggle of the proletariat and its allies to take power and the struggle of the bourgeoisie to maintain its power can never be extinguished.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Indeed, this three world theory fabricated by the chinese revisionists headed by Mao is very curious because the idea of the “union” and the “cooperation” between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the countries of the “third world” looks like a copy of Mao’s theory of New Democracy. In truth, the “three world theory” is an attempt made by the Chinese revisionists in order to impose their own anti-Marxist and bourgeois line to other countries. Throughout this article, we underlined that the Chinese 1949 “revolution” was nothing more than a bourgeois anti-imperialist revolution and that Maoism was nothing more than the ideology of the chinese national bourgeoisie which strove to reach economical and political power in order to pave the way for China’s ascension as a new superpower. We also noted that one of the main instruments used by Mao in order to mislead the Chinese proletariat over the true nature of the Chinese “revolution” was precisely his theory of a “joint dictatorship” of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, of a “share of power” between these two opposite classes with irreconcilable interests. Now, when analyzing the “three world theory”, we conclude that the Chinese revisionists were trying to spread those reactionary ideas with the purpose of hindering the class struggle and of taking the world proletariat away from the idea of the proletarian revolution. They are still trying to deceive the oppressed classes by encouraging them to reconciliate with the bourgeoisie, and we had already seen what happens when the bourgeoisie pretends to “share the power” with the proletariat. In these situations, this false “share of power” will never last (not even in appearance) because from the moment that the bourgeoisie is not expropriated and destroyed by the proletariat, then it will always conquer and dominate the economical and political power; that is, it will always establish a bourgeois dictatorship. Therefore, to say that in the “third world countries” the proletariat and the bourgeoisie should “unite” with anti-imperialist purposes is to completely erase the class character of the social and economical relations that exist in these nations. The truth is that the main objective of the “third world theory” is to facilitate China’s ascension as a new imperialist superpower, by pretending to “lead” the “third world countries”.
This paragraph written by Comrade Enver correctly exposes China’s pro-imperialist intentions disguised under the cloak of the “three world theory”:
“The theory of «three worlds» is against the proletarian revolution, and replaces it with the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This anti-Marxist theory eliminates the decisive leading role of the proletariat in the revolution, lumps all the forces together under one umbrella or in one bag, calling them the «third world» and giving them that role and those attributes which these forces do not possess, and with this «world» denies the socialist world.
This means that China denies that it is a socialist country, calls itself an «undeveloped country» and not a socialist country. According to this theory, to be an undeveloped country means to be a socialist country. This theory is simply anti-Marxist and reactionary, it means to consider all the undeveloped countries with bourgeois capitalist systems as socialist countries.
Why is China doing this? It seems to me that it is doing this not only to defend an incorrect ideological thesis, but in order to realize its secret objective — to lead all those states of Asia, Africa or Latin America, which it includes in this «world», to become their leadership by presenting itself as their main defender.
But in fact China is not defending anything, because it does not give any sort of aid, even economic aid, to these states which are bourgeois-capitalist states; the majority of them are linked with the United States of America and the capital of other imperialists, or with the Soviet Union.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, March 22, 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
This “theory of the three worlds” emerged in a trouble context regarding China’s internal situation. In the spring of 1976, Mao was dying. Due to his serious disease, the country was now ruled by what would be later called “the gang of the four”. This “gang”, which was formed by Wang Hongwen, Zhang Chunquiao, Jao Wenjuan and Jiang Qing (Mao’s wife), was the representative of Mao’s “orthodox” and pro-nationalist line, and was struggling against the “reformist” section led by Deng Xiaoping.
This group of the four succeeded in expelling Deng from the leadership of the Central Committee of the CPC, but the fights between the group’s militias and the pro-Deng factions almost led to a civil war. With Mao’s death in September of 1976, the “gang of four” lost its main supporters and was obliterated by Deng’s pragmatic faction. After the arrest of the “gang”, Deng Xiaoping reconquered his former party positions and conducted China towards an openly pro-capitalist and imperialist road.
Nowadays, the majority of the Maoists which still insist in painting themselves as “pure communists” argue that the “gang of the four” was a kind of guardian of Mao’s “genuine communist line”, and that the “gang” was expelled by the “pro-capitalist forces” inside the CPC which would “betray” the socialist edification in China. Of course, this kind of argumentation is nothing but a masquerade. In fact, the “gang of four” was so revisionist and pro-capitalist as Deng’s faction:
“The "Gang of Four" was a group of megalomaniac, ambitious, intrigant babblers without any principles, just like the other fractions of the bourgeoisie which were swimming in the swamp. (…)
The bourgeois world called the "Gang of Four" radical. If you wish, you can also add the term "socialist" and call them "radical socialist". But those four were neither radical nor socialist.” (Enver Hoxha, Letter to Comrade Hysni Kapo, 30th July of 1978).
Both factions wanted to rule China and to totally dominate the CPC’s apparatus. Both sections were representing a determined branch of the Chinese bourgeoisie. However, the “gang of four” was defeated and Deng’s faction triumphed. Why? In truth, the answer to that question can be found in the interests of the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie which was dominating China since the late 60’s. As we have already referred, the economical objectives of the chinese national bourgeoisie after the 1949 “revolution” can be divided in two main stages: the first one, which lasted until the Cultural Revolution, was characterized by the efforts of the national bourgeoisie to create and strengthen China’s internal market in order to consolidate its economical and political positions; while the second, which begun after the Cultural Revolution and was fortified in the middle 70’s, was characterized by the definitive victory of the chinese national bourgeoisie over the petty-bourgeois and peasant elements which still believed in the “joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes” proposed by Mao. With this victory, the chinese national bourgeoisie turned into a veritable monopolist bourgeoisie and started to enter into competition with foreign imperialisms. In order to achieve success in becoming a new imperialist power, the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie needed to increase exportations and also to incentive foreign investments in China. And this is the main reason why the “gang of four” was defeated. It was defeated because it did not serve the interests of the monopolist bourgeoisie anymore (what distinguishes Deng’s supporters from Mao’s supporters was that the firsts relied on the international market in order to turn China into a superpower, while the seconds relied on the internal market). The “potentialities” of the Mao Zedong though which were utilized by the chinese bourgeoisie to deceive the chinese proletariat were no more needed because the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie had now total control over the chinese state and it had no more necessity to mislead the working classes through fake slogans covered by “Marxist-Leninist” phraseology. Therefore, the “gang of four” was eliminated and Mao’s epoch was gone forever.
However, we must not forget that it was Mao’s anti-Marxist ideology which permitted the development and economic consolidation of the chinese national bourgeoisie and its later transformation into a monopolist bourgeoisie. Thus, the Mao Zedong though was an objective and direct cause of the emergence of Chinese social-imperialism; in the same way that the emergence of the Chinese social-imperialism was an objective and direct consequence of the Mao Zedong Thought. One thing is intrinsically linked with the other and both are inseparable. This point must be crystal clear:
“The Communist Party of China and especially Mao Zedong, who was an idealist dreamer and utopian without general education (apart from the one about ancient China), followed the development of human history as xenophobic dilettantes. Their ideological, political and organisational principles, especially since the foundation of the Communist Party, are demonstratively pragmatical and solely focused on China's interests with the obvious aim of transforming "eternal" China into a superpower which controls the world, dictates the law, imposes its own culture and its own will upon others.” (Enver Hoxha, Letter to Comrade Hysni Kapo, 30th July of 1978).
The anti-Marxist conceptions of Mao continued to thwart the world proletarian revolution and to perpetuate the capitalist system. As we had already referred, the ascension to power of Deng Xiaoping and the definitive inclusion of China inside the orbit of world capitalism were accompanied by imperialist expansion which included the imposition of pro-chinese reactionary cliques in a number of countries. One of the most flagrant and impressive examples of the immense damages caused by Mao’s reactionary ideas and by chinese social-imperialism was that of Cambodia under Pol Pot.
We choose to develop the Cambodia example not only because it represents one of the most brutal attempts made by the chinese revisionists to create a sphere of influence of their own, but also because the “Pol Pot question” is one of the most important arguments used by the world bourgeoisie to discredit communist ideology.
The Pol Pot regime was a direct product of the Maoist pro-capitalist revisionism and of the social-imperialist interests it fostered.
After the American defeat, Vietnam started to be governed by a revisionist clique which served soviet interests. It was already in this epoch that the Cambodian nationalist-bourgeois “resistance” against the pro-American regime of Lon Lol was intensifying and Pol Pot and his “Red” Khmers were part of that “resistance”. Seeing all this, the Maoist imperialists, which were very irritated about Soviet influence in Southeast Asia, supported Pol Pot’s struggle for power with the purpose of transforming Cambodia into a Chinese satellite which would counter-balance Vietnam’s pro-Sovietism.
Pol Pot, whose real name was Saloth Sar, was born in a bourgeois family. Thanks to his family’s wealth, he was able to study in France, where he supposedly took contact with communist ideology. This is nothing astonishing, since the great majority of the sons of the native bourgeoisies which studied in colonialist metropolis during the second half of the XXth Century took contact with communist ideology at a determined moment. Therefore, just because the young Pol Pot read some communist books does not mean that, because of that, he had become a communist. Indeed, there are many bourgeois which know a lot about communist ideology, which even read the works of the Classics. But does that mean that they ceased to be bourgeois and can be considered genuine communists? Of course not. They are not communists because they don’t accept Marxism-Leninism, because they are unable to understand the grandiosity of that ideology. Even if they pretend to be communists, their true bourgeois nature will always appear in the way they distort and corrupt Marxism-Leninism. This was what happened with Pol Pot. In reality, in Pol Pot’s case, we cannot merely say that he was not a communist. In fact, we must affirm without fear that Pol Pot was a veritable anti-communist, because more than a simple rejection of Marxism-Leninism, he would launch a brutal war in order to avoid the Cambodian people from taking the socialist revolutionary path. The best proof of Pol Pot’s reactionary character was his embracement of Maoism. In fact, what most attracted Pol Pot towards Maoism was precisely Mao’s negation of the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution and its replacement by the peasantry. One of the main thesis which would be used by Pol Pot to justify the reign of terror that the “Red” Khmers imposed on the Cambodian people was precisely the famous Maoist conception about “the encirclement of the city by the countryside”.
In his works against Maoism, Comrade Enver Hoxha openly exposed the anti-Marxist character of this idea:
“In his writings, Mao has expressed and continues to express that «the peasantry is the most revolutionary force on which the revolution must be based».
Another expression of this anti-Marxist line of Mao's is the concept that «the countryside must encircle the city». This means that the poor peasantry must lead the revolution, that «the proletariat of the city has lost its revolutionary spirit, has become conservative and has adapted itself to capitalist oppression and exploitation».
Of course, this theory is anti-Marxist and cannot lead to revolution, cannot establish and give the role that belongs to it to the dictatorship of the proletariat, or to its leadership — the Marxist-Leninist proletarian party. Anything can be covered up with words and propaganda, but not the essence of the question, and consequently, if not today, tomorrow, the time will come when the roof and the walls will fall in, because, without the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist communist party and without resolutely implementing the immortal theses of the Marxist-Leninist theory in the correct way, socialism cannot be built.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, January 1, 1976, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Mao’s anti-Marxist thesis about the “encirclement of the city by the countryside” means that, accordingly with Mao, it is the peasantry which should lead the revolution, it is the peasantry which should be the main revolutionary force. Nonetheless, Pol Pot understood this idea in a totally literal manner. He interpreted this “encirclement” as a de facto encirclement, and as if the countryside should not only encircle the city, but also destroy the city and everything related with urban culture. This constitutes the main aspect of Pol Pot’s “ideology”.
Maoism deformed Marxism-Leninism by adapting it to bourgeois anti-colonialist nationalism, while Pol Pot deformed Maoism by adapting it to his individualist greed for absolute power over an entire people. Pol Pot’s ideology can be considered an extremist form of revisionism.
But let’s return to historical events. In 1975, after overthrowing Lon Lol pro-western despotic government, Pol Pot reached power and became an instrument of chinese social-imperialism.
Pol Pot occupied power from 1975 to 1979, and during those 4 years he took Cambodian people back to the stone age. Cambodia never had heavy industry and was very far from having an independent economy. After all, we must not forget that after being subjected to French imperialism, Cambodia was governed by pro-American puppets which sold the country to foreign capital. However, during Pol Pot’s rule, the few industries that existed in Cambodia were reduced to nothing. And it was not only the industries. The Cambodian proletariat also almost disappeared under Pol Pot. These effects were due to the policy followed by the “Red” Khmers which consisted in forcibly dislocating the urban people to the countryside with the alleged purpose of “making them learn from the peasants, which are the only revolutionary force”. Therefore, all that was linked with the urban proletariat (factories, schools, roads, electricity systems, etc…) was simply smashed. During Pol Pot’s rule, the Cambodian cities were deserts where nobody lived.
It is interesting to note that, as every genuine Marxist-Leninist knows, it is the existence of the urban proletariat and the development of the heavy industry that permits that even a backward country can edificate socialism in a correct and independent manner. The examples of Soviet Union of Comrades Lenin and Stalin and of Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha are living proofs of the scientific character of this theory. In both countries, after the socialist revolution, the urban proletariat increased exponentially and the main economic efforts were directed towards heavy industry; and this because, without wanting to diminish the great importance that socialist agriculture and the peasantry had in Socialist Albania and in Soviet Union, the truth is that the socialist edification is unconceivable without a strong and well organized urban proletariat in order to lead the revolution, and without a firm and diversified industry of means of production in order to assure the material base of the proletarian dictatorship and to grant its independence from world capitalism. But we observe that the strategy followed by Pol Pot was in total and irreconcilable opposition with that defended and applied by the Classics of Marxism-Leninism. The actions of the Pol Pot clique turned socialist edification in Cambodia completely impossible and, by leaving the country in ruins, Pol Pot gave a precious help to world capitalism which wanted to steal and to exploit the Cambodian people (a totally desolated and miserable country whose people is dying of hunger and malaria is a much easier prey to the capitalist multinationals looking for huge profits).
The terrorist actions which the “Red” Khmers perpetrated against the Cambodian people were also incompatible with the essence of the communist ideology. In Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the workers and even the peasants (the two main productive forces which should construct socialism) lived in total terror. They did not think about how to build a classless and stateless society based on the teachings of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism. Instead of that, they spent their time thinking if they would live to see another day or not (even the anti-religious struggle of the “Red” Khmers was conducted in a wrong and counter-revolutionary manner, because it was launched rightly after Pol Pot reached power, at a time when Cambodian people was still not ready to embrace atheism, and thus instead of removing religion in an efficient manner, the Pol Pot regime strengthened religious feelings because Cambodian people saw religion as a factor of unity against the rulers which were repressing them in such a harsh way. The anti-religious struggle which Mao launched in China was also inconsistent and ineffective, although that was due to reasons linked with the incoherence of that struggle, because on one side Mao affirmed he wanted to combat Buddhism, but on the other side, his own ideology was strongly influenced by that religion. The wrong anti-religious strategies followed by Mao in China and by Pol Pot in Cambodia are an antithesis of the revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist struggle against religion as it was conducted in Soviet Union of Comrades Lenin and Stalin and in Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha).
In such conditions, it is impossible to speak about dictatorship of the proletariat. Under a genuine proletarian dictatorship, the workers and the peasants must enjoy the greatest liberty, they should be free to expand and develop their Marxist-Leninist ideology in order to achieve socialist and later communist society. This happened in Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin and in Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver. These two states were by far the most democratic that ever existed, rightly because they were authentic proletarian dictatorships.
And as if that was not enough, the Pol Pot regime even provided the world reaction with another “anti-communist weapon”. If we observe the disgusting books about the so-called “communist crimes” which are largely published in the repugnant bourgeois media, we will conclude that nearly all of them refer to “the Cambodian genocide”, to the “Cambodian killing fields” or to the “the mass killings perpetrated by the communists in Cambodia”, etc…Those false qualifications of the Cambodian genocide which try to paint it as a “communist atrocity” are nothing more than evidence of how desperate the international reaction is in trying to justify the tyrannical imperialist-capitalist system which oppresses humanity today more than ever. Of course, this is not to deny that mass killings happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot. Undoubtedly, there were horrible killings. But, contrary to the desires of the bourgeois ideologues, it was not a “communist crime”, even because the so-called “communist crimes” never existed, they are nothing more than a fabrication by the bourgeoisie. Communism is the highest of all ideals, it is the most noble of all ideologies, and the bourgeois concept of “crime” is totally incompatible not only with communist ideology in itself, but also with the process of edification of a socialist and communist society. In socialist edification, the proletariat and its revolutionary party commit no crimes, but only acts of justice against the awful oppressors.
On the contrary, the course and the outcome of the Pol Pot regime clearly indicate that the killings which occurred in Cambodian were actions of an anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary nature, because they precluded the Cambodian people from establishing the proletarian dictatorship and from edificating socialism. The fact that Pol Pot qualified himself as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Cambodia does not change anything:
“History does not know any case of a country which has engaged or has achieved socialism under the direction of a non-Marxist-Leninist party or political organization. (…) It is true that nowadays there are a lot of people who talk about socialism, there are also a lot of parties which are pretending to be authentic socialist parties and which are pretending to lead the struggle for socialism. However, we can never judge things simply according with the words and the names that those people and those parties attribute to themselves. On the contrary, it is necessary to judge their actions, their concrete attitudes and the policies followed by them, all this with the objective of observing to whom are those people and parties serving and who profits from their views and actions.” (PLA, A propos des thèses concernant le Xe Congrès du Parti communiste Italien, article published in the newspaper Zëri I Popullit, on 17-18 November of 1962, in Les idées du marxisme-léninisme triompheront du révisionnisme, Tirana, 1964, translated from french language).
Concluding, the regime imposed in Cambodia by Pol Pot can be qualified as a reactionary anti-communist bloodthirsty dictatorship whose objective was to paralyze the socialist revolutionary aspirations of the oppressed Cambodian people in order to facilitate Cambodia’s exploitation by foreign imperialisms, especially by Chinese social-imperialism.
Comrade Enver Hoxha and the PLA severely criticized the Pol Pot regime and understood that it was a result of chinese social-imperialism and of Maoist anti-Marxist ideological deviationism:
“In regard to Cambodia, our Party and state have condemned the bloodthirsty activities of the Pol Pot clique, a tool of the Chinese social-imperialists. We hope that the Cambodian people will surmount the difficulties they are encountering as soon as possible and decide their own fate and future in complete freedom without any «guardian».” (Enver Hoxha, Report to the VIII Congress of the PLA, Tirana, 1981).
In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and Pol Pot was finally overthrew, in what represented a dispute between two exploitative and anti-Marxist cliques which symbolized pro-Soviet revisionism (Vietnam’s ruling clique) and pro-Chinese revisionism (Pol Pot’s ruling clique). It’s important to note that, throughout his rule, Pol Pot was also supported by American Imperialism, which provided his “government” with diplomatic recognition (even after knowing about the atrocities committed by it). The Americans also supported the “Red” Khmers in their disputes against pro-Soviet Vietnam. If Pol Pot was a true communist, would the Americans give him this kind of help? Obviously not. They supported Pol Pot because his ideology entirely coincided with their own.
After analyzing some of the effects of Maoist social-imperialism, we will now turn to another happening which occurred in Deng Xiaoping’s China, and which still attracts a lot of attention all over the world: the Tiananmen events of 1989.
In the beginning of this article, we observed how the former chinese bourgeoisie linked with foreign imperialism suffered a tremendous defeated with the 1949 revolution, which promoted the interests of the chinese national bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, that former bourgeoisie of the compradore type never stopped trying to reconquer its lost power, and the last attempt made by that class to achieve that purpose was precisely the Tiananmen “pro-democracy movement”, as it was called by the western media. This “movement” was led by the surviving elements of the chinese bourgeoisie of the compradore type linked with the Kuomintang and was promoted by the western powers which were afraid of the competition that an imperialist China would represent to them. Fang Lizhi, the main “leader” of the “movement”, even made a tournée in nearly all western capitals in order to win the support of the western leaders towards the “pro-democratic” movement which was about to be launched. Of course, this ridiculous “pro-democracy” movement represented nothing more than the interests of China’s imperialist rivals who wanted to freely exploit and penetrate into China’s markets with the purpose of transforming the country into the semi-colonial state it was before 1949. Of course, the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie was not stupid and knew very well that from the moment it let the other imperialisms penetrate China, those foreign imperialisms would try to overthrow its power with the purpose of transforming China into a semi-colonial country again. In order to avoid that, the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie fabricated a scheme which would permit to utilize foreign investments without submitting to the western imperialisms. That scheme consisted in letting foreign capitals and investments penetrate China, but only in certain industrial branches, especially in light industry. And this because while the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie has imperialist ambitions and wants to turn China into the new superpower, it also has a clear notion that it is fundamental not to permit the investments of foreign imperialisms in strategic economic branches (heavy industry), because otherwise the anti-chinese capitalist rivals would undermine China’s imperialist ascension. Therefore, under the guise of criticizing “socialism” and of demanding “free market reforms”, the Tiananmen “movement” was in fact criticizing the domination of the chinese economical and political apparatus by the monopolist bourgeoisie, and at the same time it was struggling in favor of a totally submissive pro-western regime which would get the former chinese bourgeoisie compradore back in power to serve the interests of the foreign imperialists. Those “students” which were “demonstrating” in Tiananmen had absolutely nothing to do with democracy, they were only the instruments used by China’s imperialist rivals with the objective of urging the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie to remove the obstacles which it put to foreign imperialists’ penetration in the most important branches of the state monopolist industry.
China’s imperialist rivals suffered a great defeat when the Tiananmen “movement” was obliterated by the security forces at the service of the monopolist bourgeoisie. In face of this, the western powers hypocritically started to scream about the “lack of human rights in China”, or about the “lack of democracy in China”, but there was nothing that they could do. The crushed Tiananmen “movement” was their last chance to reverse China’s ascension as a new superpower.
Today’s China is an entirely capitalist and imperialist country with huge class inequalities and in which the workers are savagely exploited in favor of the multinational’s superprofits. The political and economic tyranny that the chinese monopolist bourgeoisie exercises over the chinese exploited classes is so intense that we can qualify today’s China as a veritable fascist dictatorship. This is nothing surprising. Long time ago, comrade Enver Hoxha had already predicted this course:
“The black reaction of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping, which seized power, will lead a power struggle in order to build a fascist dictatorship. There will be a fight about world hegemony. The strategy they pursue is only logical. The alliances with American imperialism and the world reaction are logical and normal. Just as normal are the antagonisms and the outbreak of the predatory wars which will result from this fellowship of bandits. (…)
The currently ruling crew in China and the others who will definitely follow as result of the internal fraction fights for power will use Maoism, using it as an anti-historical corpse in order to ruthlessly, shamelessly build a powerful imperialist Chinese state, in unity and in divergence with the other imperialists and through the oppression of peoples who long fought for liberation, independence and socialism and who will fight for it.
The fascist-revisionist Chinese cliques will stop at nothing to antagonise the Chinese people through propaganda and other means and to deceive the world public.” (Enver Hoxha, Letter to Comrade Hysni Kapo, 30th July of 1978).
Of course, the chinese social-fascists try to deny this and even qualify their ferocious economic politics of ultra-liberalism as a “socialist market economy”. In 1992, it was clarified at the 14th CPC National Congress that the goal of the reforms of China's economic system was to establish a “socialist market economy”. In 1993, the China’s constitution was modified and it was explicitly stipulated that China adopts a “socialist market economy”. The expression “socialist market economy” is not an invention of the chinese revisionists. In fact, this expression has been used by revisionists and anti-Marxists of all types and represents the total abandonment of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist ideology and its replacement by bourgeois and capitalist Keynesianist or even neoliberal ideology.
Another major aspect of chinese revisionism is its tolerance regarding religion. In his book Reflections on China, Comrade Enver Hoxha already noticed the opportunistic stand taken by the CPC towards religion:
“The Chinese propaganda openly implies that religion is not combated in China and that is why it speaks about religious celebrations, about Easter, Bairam, about masses and prayers in the churches and mosques in Peking.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, January 18, 1973, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
“The Chinese will cause ideological confusion not only because they are impelled by the desire to unmask Soviet revisionism, but also because of the whole psychology and the Confucian Asiatic mentality of China and Asiatic idealist philosophy in general. When we speak about philosophy, we cannot exclude the influence of religion on it, the influence of Buddhism, Brahmanism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, these latter to the degree that they make themselves felt on the Asiatic continent and the Chinese subcontinent.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, October 14, 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
And nowadays, when searching on the official site of the CPC, we find an article with this astonishing title: “China Highlights Role of Buddhism in Promoting Social Harmony.” (?!!!!!) In this article from 2008, it is gladly affirmed that China is home to “100 million Buddhism adherents, as well as some 200,000 monks and nuns in 130,000 monasteries and convents.” Furthermore, it is said that:
“(…) the doctrines of Buddhism are officially recognized by the atheist government as a conducive vehicle to help with the creation of a harmonious society.”
According to Ye Xiaowen, director of China's State Administration for Religious Affairs, whose words are quoted in this article:
"This policy coincides with the Communist Party of China's ambitious campaign to "build a harmonious society" initiated by President Hu Jintao in 2005, when he urged state and Party leaders to prioritize social harmony on their agenda. Wealth disparity and materialism have not just created strains and tensions in modern China, but an ideological vacuum. Many feel lost, spiritually and morally. Buddhist clergies believe Buddhism offers peace of mind to fill the vacuum.”
Can anybody imagine a more reactionary and anti-communist attitude than that of a party which calls itself “communist”, but which not only tolerates religion but also propagates it with the purpose of accomplishing “social harmony” and “peace of mind”? Throughout history, religion has always been an instrument used by the dominant classes to keep the oppressed workers in bondage, thus facilitating their exploitation by the elites. Under socialism, all religions, without exception, must be harshly fought and replaced by an atheist and materialist scientific culture. As it was already referred in this article, Soviet Union of Comrades Lenin and Stalin and Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha are the best examples about how to correctly struggle against religion and all kinds of superstitions and obscurantism.
On the contrary, the chinese social-fascists which are ruling China clearly see Buddhist religion as a valuable instrument to neutralize the revolutionary aspirations of the chinese oppressed masses and to alienate those masses from the daily sufferings that are imposed on them by the ultra-capitalist and social-imperialist system which is governing China.
Throughout their political course, the Chinese social-fascists completely obliterated the fundamental class question. They affirm that China is a socialist country because “the means of production are nationalized and the economy is still controlled by the state”. This affirmation is false because the fact that there is economical planning does not change anything; everything depends of what class is effectively in power. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie dominates economical and political power and through that, it tries to dominate every sphere of the worker’s life. This state of things can only be changed through a socialist revolution which establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, while bourgeoisie is in power, it does not matter if that bourgeoisie adopts a more planned or a more “free” version of the capitalist economical system. And this because, while the proletariat does not achieve power through violent revolutionary means, the economical system will always have a capitalist nature, even because the option made by a determined bourgeoisie between a capitalist system with more “planned” characteristics and a capitalist system with “free market” characteristics is intimately linked with the circumstantial interests of that bourgeois class. There are historical occasions in which it is more beneficial to the bourgeoisie to practice a capitalist “planned” economy, and there are others in which is more beneficial to that same bourgeoisie to practice a capitalist “free market” economy. One of the best examples of this is precisely the tactic followed by the chinese national bourgeoisie. During the first phase of it development, the chinese national bourgeoisie chose to practice a capitalist economy with “planned” features (this phase corresponded to Mao’s rule and its “planned” characteristics mislead many people around the world about the true capitalist character of this economical system) , while in the later phases of its development, it chose to practice a capitalist economy with “free market” features (these phases correspond to Deng’s and his successors governments and lasts until the present moment).
Deng Xiaoping once said that:
"(…) Practice of a market economy is not equivalent to capitalism because there are also markets under socialism."
This statement clearly shows the revisionist character of its author. It is true that in the first phases of socialist edification, it can happen that some minor markets still persist. But that should not be something definitive. On the contrary, the markets which continue to exist after the proletarian revolution will disappear gradually but firmly with the development of the edification of socialist and communist society. And even in the first stages of socialism the minor markets should never be allowed to constitute a form of exploitation and of bourgeois-capitalist restoration; they should be subjected to total control by the proletarian state which must always keep in mind that the final objective is the elimination of those minor markets. In the late 40’s and early 50’s, Comrade Enver noted that Albania was the country in which the proletarian nationalizations were accomplished more quickly and in which the internal free market was more reduced. Comrade Enver Hoxha frequently remarked that one of the causes of the success of socialist implementation in Albania was the fact that in that country the internal markets were reduced to a minimum and the PLA was struggling for their total eradication simultaneously with the deepening of socialist edification. But in Maoist and revisionist China, the opposite happened. The CPC never wanted to eliminate markets. On the contrary, it strengthened internal markets in order to allow the national bourgeoisie to exploit the Chinese proletariat and to consolidate its class power.
This is also closely related with what the Chinese revisionists call “socialism with chinese characteristics”. As every revisionist current, Maoist revisionism also propagates its own “chinese socialism”, alongside with the Titoites’ “Yugoslav Socialism”, with Thorez social-chauvinist “French road to socialism”, and with many others. Of course, there can be certain national particularities which will dictate some specificities of socialist construction. However, Comrade Stalin and Comrade Enver Hoxha always underlined that those specificities are always limited to minor and secondary aspects of the socialist edification and can never be extended to its essential characteristics, because socialist and communist edification must follow a certain and invariable line in accordance with the teachings of the Classics, regardless of the place in which socialism is being built.
Nowadays, the bourgeois-reactionary parties which call themselves “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist” are continuing the anti-Marxist and pro-capitalist mission started by Mao. Their final aim is to definitively thwart world socialist revolution, consequently perpetuating imperialism and capitalism. They defend Maoist bourgeois ideology and even dare to affirm that Mao is the “fifth Classic of Marxism-Leninism”, alongside Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. However, it is remarkable that, on one side, they consider Stalin as one of the Classics, but on the other side, they say that their ideology is “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”, thus totally obliterating any mention to Stalin or to Stalinism. This apparent contradiction is not surprising. In 1960, Mao used Stalin’s name and legacy trying to become the leader of the world communist movement with the objective of assuring China’s imperialist dominance over the oppressed peoples. Mao hid his anti-communist ideology and views under the mask of the “defense of Stalin”. Just like Mao did in the 60’s, today’s Maoists also utilize Stalin’s glorious name in order to mislead the world proletarians and to convince them to follow an ideology which represents the interests of the bourgeois and capitalist classes. One of the main instruments used by the Maoists to achieve this is precisely the Marxist phraseology and the “revolutionary” appearance which characterizes Mao Zedong Though. Therefore, we can affirm that the tricks and the deceptions which had been used by Mao and his revisionists successors with the purpose of protecting bourgeois class interests and of transforming China into an imperialist superpower are still widely used by Maoist “groups” and “parties”.
There are two main currents within world maoist movement. The first is the one which is assumedly revisionist and social-fascist and which considers today’s China as a socialist country. This current has a tendency to disappear and it‘s becoming more and more discredited because only openly reactionaries can affirm that today’s social-Darwinist China is a socialist (?!!!) country. This current “proves” the alleged “socialist” character of China by saying that only a socialist country could experiment such a meteoric economic development and expansion as China is doing. Of course, this absurd affirmation simply doesn’t hold water. There are many historical examples of capitalist countries which also experienced tremendous economical growth and that certainly didn’t made those countries turn socialist. The case of the United States between 1850 and 1928 is a vivid example. During that historical period, the United States knew an incredible and almost uninterrupted economical growth. Therefore, according to those Maoists, we can conclude that between 1850 and 1928 the United States of America were edificating socialism!!!! This conclusion is so ridiculous that we will not waste our time commenting it further.
The Constitution of the Communist Party of China states that:
“Under the guidance of Mao Zedong Thought, the Communist Party of China led the people of all ethnic groups in the country in their prolonged revolutionary struggle against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, winning victory in the new-democratic revolution and founding the People's Republic of China, a people's democratic dictatorship.” (Constitution of the Communist Party of China, amended and adopted at the Seventeenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China on Oct. 21, 2007).
This paragraph is quite interesting. First of all, it curious to note that they consider that the “revolutionary struggle” guided by Mao Zedong was waged against what they call imperialism, feudalism and…bureaucrat-capitalism! Apparently, the chinese revisionists think that not all capitalism is bureaucratic but only a part of it, and they even explicitly affirm that the struggle of the CPC was directed against bureaucrat-capitalism. Therefore, we conclude that, accordingly with chinese revisionists themselves, Mao Zedong and the CPC only fought against a bureaucratic kind of capitalism, and not against all kinds of capitalism. Of course, bearing the CPC’s historical course in mind, we must conclude that when the chinese revisionists are referring to the struggle against bureaucrat-capitalism, they are referring to the struggle against the former bourgeoisie of the compradore type whose interests were in opposition with those of the chinese national bourgeoisie which Mao and the CPC defended and fortified.
In fact, every Marxist-Leninist knows that capitalism has always a bureaucratic nature, it is never dynamic nor progressive nor “human”, contrary to what its propagandists claim. Therefore, if we fight against capitalism, we must also fight against the bureaucratic nature which is inherent to it. Consequently, it does not make any sense to a say that we will fight against bureaucratic-capitalism, because all capitalism is bureaucratic. To say the contrary is to be a complete opportunist and a counter-revolutionary which tries to distinguish between the “bad” capitalism (bureaucratic-capitalism) and the “good” capitalism (non bureaucratic-capitalism), when every communist knows that there is never a “good” capitalism, that all kinds and types of capitalism, without exception, are always and invariably bad and dreadful.
But there is more. In the same paragraph, we are told that, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, the CPC transformed China into a “people’s democratic dictatorship”. In truth, when analyzing the Constitution of the CPC, we cannot find a single mention to the proletarian dictatorship. Instead, we find this thing called “people's democratic dictatorship”. One is left to wonder about what the chinese revisionists mean with this expression. People’s democratic dictatorship? What do they mean with “people”? Looking back again to the CPC’s historical and ideological course, we cannot avoid concluding that, in Maoists’ view, the national bourgeoisie is also included in what they call “people”. Therefore, we observe that the Constitution of the CPC which was adopted in 2007 follows exactly the same ideological line that we had already found in Mao’s book New Democracy which was written in 1940! This a clear proof that the imaginary division which some Maoists draw between the CPC before Mao’s death (labeled as “socialist”, “ideologically pure”, “revolutionary”, etc…) and the CPC’s of Deng Xiaoping and his successors is nothing more than an imaginary and non-existent division. The ideological line followed by the CPC’s was always totally coherent with the class interests served by the party. The CPC’s invariably adopted a strategy and a line in total accordance with the interests of the chinese national bourgeoisie, later turned into a veritable monopolist bourgeoisie.
The Maoists who argue that Deng Xiaoping and his successors are “traitors” to Mao’s “socialist line” constitute the second current within the Maoist movement. This current is as revisionist and social-fascist as the first one, but tries to cover its character through claiming the “purity of Maoism as the third development of Marxism-Leninism” and through the fake “denouncement” of what they call “the capitalist betrayal in China”. Accordingly with this last current, Mao was “betrayed” by what these Maoists call “the rightist section of the CPC”. Therefore, they pretend to defend “Mao’s socialist legacy” against capitalist development in China after Mao’s death (one of the main criticisms that this trend directs towards Comrade Enver is that he “had not the clairvoyance to distinguish between Mao and the Chinese pro-capitalist leaders which betrayed him” – as if there was some kind of substantial or ideological difference between them!!!) While the other current is openly pro-capitalist, this second current is much more hypocritical and treacherous, because it has a much more “revolutionary” and “Marxist” outlook. This trend is the dominant inside Maoist movement precisely because it is the one which better misleads the world proletariat and which better convinces the oppressed classes to support a counter-revolutionary ideology like Maoism.
One of the organizations included in this last trend of the Maoist movement is the so-called Union Obrera Comunista (UOC), a neo-revisionist organization which has the purpose of perpetuating capitalism. In order to achieve this task, the UOC tries by all means to discredit Stalinism-Hoxhaism, because Maoists perfectly know that Stalinism-Hoxhaism is the only ideology which can lead the world proletariat towards world socialist revolution. Maoists fear Comrade Enver Hoxha very much, because they are aware that Comrade Enver Hoxha is the Fifth Classic of Marxism-Leninism and not Mao Zedong; and they fear Hoxhaist ideology also because this is the only ideology which gave concrete historical proofs of being capable of unmask the reactionary and pro-capitalist character of the Mao Zedong Thought. In April of 2011, the official newspaper of the UOC arrogantly remarks that:
“(…) there is an objective tendency within the international communist movement towards the reorganization of the Marxist-Leninists-Maoists (…) Therefore, we understand the desperation of the Hoxhaist International (Comintern SH) which on 6th of February published a “Declaration of war against the Maoists”, an attack which, as happened with the trotskyists, shows the wicked face of the bourgeois detachments inside the communist movement (…) which in all history have never been able to accomplish a single victorious revolution (…).” (UOC, Semanário Revolución Obrera, 18th April of 2011, translated from Spanish language).
It's outrageous the way in which those social-fascists and defenders of chinese imperialism dare to compare us Stalinist-Hoxhaists with the trotskyists and to qualify us as "bourgeois detachments inside the communist movement"!!!
Maoism is nothing more than chinese fascism. And it's really shameful to see Maoists’ logo...to see how they consider the fascist Mao, the lover of Franco and Pinochet, the great friend of American imperialism, the main architect of chinese imperialism which exploits and oppresses the peoples of the entire world as the 5th head of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism"!!!! It's deplorable to see how they put Mao side by side with such great communists as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. They accuse us of being desperate, but they are the ones which say that “in all history of the proletarian revolution, they (Stalinists-Hoxhaists) could not make a single successful revolution". No comments. We, Stalinists-Hoxhaists, are the followers and continuers of the Communist Party of the SU (B) and of the Labour Party of Albania, which were the two only Communist parties which accomplished socialist revolution by leading their respective peoples under the dictatorship of the proletariat towards socialist and communist society, no matter if their revolutionary course was ultimately thwarted by revisionist traitors after the deaths of comrade Stalin and of Comrade Enver Hoxha.
To what "successful revolution" are those social-fascists referring to? To the bourgeois chinese "revolution" inspired by confucianism and buddhist religion, which was conducted by a party which was communist only in name and whose objective was to pave the way to china's ascension as a new superpower?
When analyzing Maoist “arguments” against Hoxhaism, we notice that they insult us, but they don't specify their insults, they call us opportunists but they don't explain why. This is quite normal. Maoists can never point a single ideological error in what concerns Stalinist-Hoxhaist ideology simply because Stalinist-Hoxhaist ideology contains no errors nor in theory, nor in practice. The ideological purity of the Stalinist-Hoxhaist ideology is in total contrast with Maoism reactionary eclecticism.
In the excerpt, we can also note that the Maoists of the UOC try to compare us Hoxhaists with the Trotskyites. This abject “argument” has been widely used by the Maoist revisionists. For example, in its First May Declaration entitled “Joint message to the workers of the world”, the UOC states that:
“The unity of the communists must be conquered on the base of the defense of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism against all attacks (…) and, especially, against rightist opportunism which is nothing more than genuine revisionism and which is allied with Trotskyism and Hoxhaism, occupying the place of the bourgeois detachments inside workers’ movement which deny Maoism as the third and the highest stage of the development of proletarian ideology.” (UOC, First May Declaration, 2011, translated from Spanish language).
And in other occasions, the Maoists stated that:
“Hoxhaism joins Trotskyism in its denial of the necessity of organizing the peasantry.”
This comparison is totally false. If we properly and honestly analyze the ideological nature and the historical role played by each of them, we will easily conclude that Trotskyism and Hoxhaism are intrinsically opposite ideologies. Trotskyism tried to deny the thesis of the socialism in a single country at a time when acceptance of this thesis was essential to the survival of the October Revolution and of the socialist edification in Soviet Union. On the contrary, Hoxhaism proved that even a backward and semi-colonial country can apply this thesis in a successful manner if it is guided by an authentic proletarian and Marxist-Leninist party.
Trotskyites always negated the glorious legacy of Stalin, calumniating him in order to prevent the world proletariat from overthrowing capitalism. On the contrary, the PLA of Comrade Enver Hoxha was the only party which consistently and coherently defended Stalin’s splendid inheritance against all kinds of revisionists and deviators, including Maoists.
Trotskyism completely denied the role of the peasantry in the revolution. On the contrary, Hoxhaism recognizes that role. Indeed, the first partisan detachments of the Communist Party of Albania which fought against the Axis during the Second World War were mainly composed by peasants. However, Hoxhaism refuses to see peasants as “the main force of the revolution” as does Maoism, because Comrade Enver Hoxha knew that only the proletariat guided by its vanguard party can lead the workers towards socialist revolution and establish a communist society. Therefore, the claims that Trotskyism = Hoxhaism are nothing more than a proof of the anti-communist nature of Maoism.
It is Maoism which has everything in common with Trotskyism. Just like Mao, Trotsky also defended the existence of various parties under socialism. In his “Program of Transition”, Trotsky affirmed that:
“The democratization of the Soviets is unconceivable without the legalization of the Soviet Parties.” (Trotsky, Programme de transition, Paris, 1973, translated from French language).
And the fascists of the MLM also state that:
“The President Mao was criticized by both the rightists and the leftists, but he always insisted in the struggle between multiple currents within the proletarian party, and it was like that since the beginnings of the Communist Party of China until the Cultural Revolution.” (Unión Obrera Comunista, Letter received from the committee of popular struggle “Manolo Bello”, 12th May 2011, translated from Spanish language).
In this paragraph, we see that the “Marxist-Leninist-Maoists” recognize and praise the anti-Marxist and ultra-revisionist conception of Mao Zedong according to which the maintenance of numerous non-communist tendencies inside the “communist” party is something positive which should be stimulated. To defend this reactionary and opportunistic conception is to openly defend the evil bourgeois dictatorship and the totalitarian capitalist system. To defend this idea is to defend wretched bourgeois pluralism which also preaches the “diversity of opinions within society”.
And we should remember that the MLM is one of the more “leftist” factions of the entire Maoist Movement. Therefore, even the “orthodox” section of the Maoist movement loves bourgeois pluralism very much and has no problems about assuming that depraved love.
Recently, the Maoists again exposed their ultra-revisionist face in the context of the events in Nepal. After centuries of absolute and despotic monarchy, the king of Nepal was overthrown and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) took power. However, this was not a revolutionary nor Marxist-Leninist takeover, because a party based on Maoist ideology can never be revolutionary nor Marxist-Leninist. In fact, instead of establishing a proletarian dictatorship towards the edification of socialist and communist society, the “C”PN (Maoist) abjectly capitulated to the repulsive bourgeois legalism and parliamentarism.
There was another party which was also “opposed” to the Nepalese absolute monarchy. It was the Nepali Congress, an openly bourgeois party of social-democratic ideology which is linked with the interests of Indian imperialism in Nepal. Of course, if the CPN (Maoist) was a truly communist party, it should have smashed the Nepali Congress whose pro-capitalist ideology was poisoning the minds of the Nepalese people and preventing the country from taking the socialist road. The revolutionary violence which is inherent to the proletarian dictatorship serves precisely to eliminate bourgeois parties and influences. But the CPN (Maoist), faithfully following the reactionary and anti-communist nature of Maoist ideology, not only did not implement the proletarian dictatorship, but also organized elections of bourgeois style (!!!!). In these elections, the Nepali Congress won and the leader of that party is currently governing Nepal. Consequently, the CPN (Maoist) accepted defeat and left power, thus acting as the well behaved bourgeois party that it is.
Long time ago, Comrade Stalin taught us that a genuine revolutionary party cannot wait until the majority of the people has acquired Marxist-Leninist conscience to seize power. On the contrary, the communist party must conquer power as soon as possible, and it is after the seizure of power that the Marxist-Leninist party must start to educate and temper the exploited classes which still not have a developed revolutionary conscience and ideology. As can be seen, the CPN (Maoist) acted in the opposite manner and helped to perpetuate capitalist and bourgeois-imperialist dominance in Nepal.
The “orthodox” current of the Maoist Movement hypocritically qualifies the attitudes of the CPN (Maoist) as “revisionist”. However, this false criticism is completely unmasked by the fascists of the MLM themselves which, immediately after qualifying the CPN (Maoist) as revisionist, affirm that:
“The red faction within the CPN (M) is supported by the international maoist organizations. It is our duty to support it in order to facilitate the advancement of the New Democracy Revolution in Nepal.” (Unión Obrera Comunista, Letter received from the committee of popular struggle “Manolo Bello”, 12th May 2011, translated from Spanish language).
Therefore, they criticize the CPN (M) not from truly Marxist-Leninist and anti-revisionist standpoints, but only because they want the replacement of the open revisionism of the CPN (M) by another kind of revisionism, one with a more “revolutionary”, “popular” and “Marxist” outlook; one which is more able to deceive the Nepalese people and to turn proletarian and socialist revolution impossible. This is evident in the defense that these “orthodox Maoists” still do of the social-fascist New Democracy fabricated by Mao. The reactionary and pro-capitalist nature of this “New Democracy” was already exposed in this article and there is no need to repeat it.
MLM also claims the defense of the so-called “Naxalite Movement” in India. This “Movement” is mainly inspired by Mao Zedong Thought and is operating in many districts of India. The Naxalites are labeled by the world bourgeoisie and by the Indian reaction as “communists”, but this qualification is not correct. Since 1978, from the moment that a party or a certain “movement” assumes that it is based on Maoism, that is equivalent to openly affirm that the party or “movement” in question is anti-communist.
The Naxalite movement begun in 1967 and claims to be leading a “people’s war” against the repressive Indian government. Accordingly with the leaders of the “movement”, the Naxalite combatants are mostly recruited among the poorest strata of the population and it is quite possible that those leaders are saying the true. But the fact that its members come from the lower classes does not mean that a certain movement is progressive, let alone Marxist-Leninist. The fact that the Naxalite movement is mainly composed by people from the poor classes only proves how much can Maoism deceive the exploited masses and neutralize their revolutionary aspirations.
The activities developed by the Naxalite Movement are not revolutionary nor Marxist-Leninist. Indeed, they have striking similarities with the actions of the anarchists or of the nihilists. The “revolutionary activities” undertaken by the Naxalites consist in organizing terrorist attacks mostly in the countryside (although sometimes also in cities), killing large amounts of people. The Naxalites claim that these attacks are intended to kill the members of the bourgeois security forces, but the truth is that, together with the members of the armed forces, the attacks of the Naxalites also kill oppressed working people. For example, in the year 2009, the Naxalites killed around 600 civilians and only 300 members of the security forces. This means that the number of civilians killed by the attacks doubled that of the members of the armed forces who died in the same circumstances. And we must bear in mind that the Naxalites mainly operate in poor areas, therefore the immense majority of the civilians killed by them belong to the exploited classes.
It is obvious that these kind of activities have as result the detachment of the Indian masses from communist ideology. If the actions of the Naxalites only detached Indian workers from Maoism, that would not be a problem; on the contrary, it would be a very good thing. But unfortunately, the bourgeoisie misleads the proletariat and defends its class interests by painting Maoism as an inseparable part of the communist ideology. Thus, when condemning and fearing the terrorist actions of the Naxalites, the Indian workers feel compelled to condemn and fear not only the Maoist ideology which inspires the Naxalites, but also the entire Marxist-Leninist ideology and movement which, under the manipulation of the bourgeoisie, they see as inescapably linked with Naxalite terrorism.
The fascists of the MLM qualify the activities of the Naxalites as a “people’s war”. In truth, it is not only relatively to the Naxalite movement that the anti-communists of the MLM speak about “people’s war”. This expression is permanently on their lips. But what does this notion really means?
The political-military concept of “people’s war” was invented by Mao Zedong to be applied to China’s conditions (although it was also used by the Nicaraguan Sandinists, by the Cuban Revisionists, by the Nepalese opportunists, and even by the Irish republican nationalists of the IRA). The “people’s war” is intended to be mostly applied in semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries, in which the peasantry represents the majority of the population. The “people’s war” is also closely related with the “encirclement of the city by the countryside”, because Mao defends that it is in the countryside that the so-called “revolutionary forces” should start the “guerrilla warfare” against the bourgeois government. The “people’s war” is divided in three stages:
1º - Strategic defense: formation of peasant militias with the purpose of starting the guerrilla warfare. The “warriors” should try to gain the support of the peasants through propaganda and to establish a revolutionary base area.
2º - The “revolutionary” army grows and launches more attacks against the state and its forces. It forms more revolutionary base areas and initiates programs such as the agrarian reform.
3º - This is the final part of the “people’s war”. It is the stage in which the war intensity reaches its highest degree and in which the city must be conquered and the government must be overthrown.
It is evident that this concept of “people’s war” is totally anti-Marxist because the entire idea is centered on the already referred Maoist thesis according to which it is the peasantry and not the proletariat which should lead the revolution. The same happens with every stage of the “people’s war”. Mao defends that the “revolutionary” war should begin on the countryside and be mainly supported and waged by the peasants. If we follow Mao’s thought concerning the course of this “people’s war”, we will easily conclude that in this war there is no place left to the proletariat. During the entire process of the “people’s war”, the determinant role is invariably attributed by Mao to the peasantry and to the countryside. It is in the countryside that the decisive struggles are waged, and it is the peasantry that provides the great majority of the members and leaders of the “revolutionary army”. In truth, only at the final part of the third stage Mao allows that the “revolutionary fighters” should capture cities. And we must note that, even in this final stage, the cities will be conquered by “revolutionary guerrillas” mainly composed by peasants.
In other words, the dominant and leading role that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha attribute to the proletariat is completely obliterated by Mao in this anti-communist concept of “people’s war”. However, this is not something astonishing because it is not only in what respects to the “people’s war” that Mao denies the dominant role of the proletariat. In fact, Mao denies the leading role of the proletariat throughout his ideological writings and also throughout his entire political career; from 1940 book “New Democracy” to his “reflections” about the “Cultural Revolution” in the late 60’s.
The use of the expression “people’s war” is also frequently used by the Maoists to hide their support for the participation and inclusion of the “radical” and “progressive” bourgeoisie in this “revolutionary” and “popular” war.
This is not to say that the exploited classes will not need to wage war against the bourgeoisie in order to implement the proletarian dictatorship. It is not the idea of the “peoples’ war” that is entirely wrong, but the Maoist definition of it. To achieve power, the oppressed masses must declare war on the ruling classes, but this war can only be communist and revolutionary if it is led by the proletariat. There is no other class or popular branch who can replace the principal and indispensable role that the proletariat has to play in the revolution. On the other side, the proletariat must be organized around a veritable and centralized Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist party which must be free from all kinds of revisionist tendencies (including Maoism, of course).
If the proletarian control starts to observe that some revisionist currents are appearing within the communist party and that those currents are able to undermine and sabotate the socialist edification, then the proletarian dictatorship has not only the right but also the duty to purge the party from all the elements that are linked with the revisionist deviations. This was what happened in the Soviet Union of Comrades Lenin and Stalin and in Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha. In both countries, there were periods of war in the traditional sense of the word against the internal and external oppressors: the Russian Civil War in the case of Soviet Union, and the National Liberation War in Socialist Albania’s case. And after the respective victories of the Russian and Albanian Marxist-Leninists, the proletarian class struggle against the exploiters didn’t stop; on the contrary, it intensified even more with the development of the dictatorship of the proletariat in both countries (we must always keep in mind that this class war against the exploiters goes on during the entire period of socialist edification right until communism is utterly achieved).
Of course that in Maoist China, the so-called “people’s war” only served the interests of the chinese national bourgeoisie in defeating the bourgeoisie-compradore and the foreign imperialisms which were thwarting its economical and political ascension.
In fact, the Maoist expression “people’s war” must be replaced by the expression “proletarian revolutionary war”. This last expression permits to retain the notion of the necessity of the armed struggle against the capitalist oppressors while simultaneously underlining the decisive and major role that the proletariat has to play in that struggle for the triumph of the authentic revolution. Additionally, we can never forget that the proletarian revolutionary war must be always conducted by the vanguard party of the proletariat, which must be free from opportunisms and dogmatisms of all kinds and which must always keep in mind the complete establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. And we must also remember that, in the present globalized conditions, the proletarian revolutionary war should be waged at a world scale.
It is obvious that this genuinely proletarian and communist war is in total contrast with the petty-bourgeois and anarchistic fights of the Naxalite Maoist movement. First of all, the “founding father” of the Naxalites was an Indian Maoist called Charu Majumdar, which in 1967 led a peasant uprising in Naxalbari (that is the reason for the name of the movement).
His main work was the “Historic Eight Documents”, which has been seen as providing the ideological foundation of the Naxalites. In the “Historic Eight Documents”, Majumdar argues that Indian revolution must take the path of armed struggle on the pattern of the Chinese revolution. With this, we easily understand that the Naxalite movement is Maoist to the bone (and thus revisionist, reactionary and anti-Marxist) since its very foundations. Indeed, it operates mainly in the countryside and its members are mostly peasants, as Mao’s “people’s war” proposed.
And there is still another important aspect in which the Naxalites faithfully fulfill the “teachings” of the “Chairman Mao”: the multiplicity of parties in the leadership of the Naxalite Movement. This is in total agreement with Mao’s defense of various non-proletarian parties under socialism. In fact, the social-imperialists of the MLM want us to believe that “the Communist Party of India (Maoist) is leading the Naxalite movement”. But this is a lie. The CPI (M) is only one among many other “communist” parties which also claim to lead the “Movement”. The truth is that the Naxalite Movement is not composed by a single party; it is composed by various parties which are commonly based on Maoism. Some of the parties which are included in the “movement” apply an ideology which is openly anti-Marxist. For example, the Communist Party of the United States of India defends that caste issues should be precedent over class issues. This is a great error because the caste system is nothing more than a fabrication by the Indian ruling classes in order to deviate the attention of the proletariat from the only question that really matters: the class question. So, on one side these “communist parties” pretend to struggle against the Indian ruling classes, but on the other side, they gladly accept and embrace the ideological inventions and influences of those same ruling classes.
This does not mean that there are not people within the Naxalite movement who sincerely think that they are part of a genuinely revolutionary movement and that, by following Maoism, they are defending Marxism-Leninism. After all, India is a country in which the poor workers (which constitute the main social base of the Naxalites) have to endure a miserable life, with ridiculous salaries and horrendous working conditions. And we must never forget that Maoism is a very treacherous bourgeois ideology, whose “anti-revisionist” and “Marxist” appearance can attract and deceive many honest workers that are genuinely against capitalist system, but that are not correctly informed and that don’t have truly Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist ideological skills.
A similar situation to that of the Indian Naxalites occurred in Peru with a Maoist group called the Shinning Path. This group was led by a bourgeois professor known as President Gonzalo (although his real name was Abimael Guzmán). The group’s ideology is a mixture of Maoist revisionism and Guevarist influences and it wants to conquer power in order to implement a system of New Democracy (which means the perpetuation of capitalism and the continuation of workers’ exploitation by the “radical” and “progressive” bourgeoisie). Following the strategy of Maoist “people’s war”, the Shinning Path established base areas and its actions were equivalent to those of the Naxalites. Both “movements” are characterized by their terrorist attacks against the working people, by their obliteration of the role of the proletariat, by their consequent absolutization of the role played by the peasants as the initiators of the “people’s war” and by trying to detach the oppressed masses of the city and of the countryside from Marxism-Leninism.
The Shinning Path reached the peak of activity in the early 80’s and claimed to represent the interests and the aspirations of the Peruvian peasantry, but the truth is that it faced the opposition of large numbers of peasants from the very beginning (there were many occasions in which the peasants attacked the members of the Shinning Path and those conflicts often developed into harsh armed struggles).
The Shinning Path is still active, although it is inexorably declining since the capture of President Gonzalo in the early 90’s. The ideological revisionism and opportunism of the Shinning Path is a direct consequence of its Maoist roots and can be observed in the words of Gonzalo himself, who in 1988 gave an interview to the newspaper “El Diario”:
“El Diario: What will be the attitude of the Communist Party of Peru regarding religion from the moment that the party reaches political power in the country?
President Gonzalo: Marxism taught us how to separate the Church from the State and that will be the first thing that we will do. Secondly, let me repeat that we always respect the freedom of conscience of the people, and we apply the principle according to which people have the right to believe in God, while having also the right to be atheist. This is our attitude.”
This paragraph is just astonishing. And it is astonishing because the Shinning Path is presented everywhere as an orthodox and radical communist group which supposedly would not hesitate to use violence against the bourgeois institutions. However, the answer of Gonzalo concerning the attitude of the Shinning Path towards religion totally destroys that image of Shinning Path as the “hard-line communist organization”.
The purpose of all religions is to prevent the oppressed workers from adhering to communist materialist ideology and from doing the world socialist revolution. Religion always plays an inhibiting role, and we will never be able to achieve world communism if religion is not totally removed from the workers’ conscience. This is what Marxism really teaches us.
Gonzalo’s proposal about the separation between Church and State is not something new. On the contrary, the principle of the separation between the church and the state has been largely proclaimed by every bourgeois and “liberal” state (even if not applied in practice…). Every Marxist-Leninist knows that the effort to eradicate religion cannot be limited to the separation between the Church and the State. That struggle has to be constituted by an open and ferocious struggle against all kinds of religions, including the use of revolutionary violence against the reactionary as well as against the “progressive” clergy which will attempt to overthrown the proletarian dictatorship and to undermine socialist and communist edification. There can be no mercy towards religious influences and forces. Stalinist-Hoxhaist proletarian ideology will smash all religions like an hurricane.
The words of Gonzalo are proper of a liberal bourgeois, not of someone which qualifies himself as “Marxist”. For the leader of the Shinning Path, people should be free to decide if they believe in God or not; if they want to practice religion or not. This is a totally opportunistic and capitulationist attitude. To act like Gonzalo means an abject capitulation to religions influences, thus permitting that the religious forces can freely thwart socialist revolution in order to restore capitalism and wage slavery.
However, we cannot accuse Gonzalo of being incoherent. On the contrary, he is totally coherent with Mao’s embracement of non-proletarian and anti-communist influences, as is the case of religion.
Another major characteristic of Maoist revisionism is its attempt to annihilate Marxism-Leninism by replacing it with pro-capitalist “Mao Zedong Thought”. This was clearly visible in the case of the Shinning Path. In the interview mentioned above, President Gonzalo (the leader of the Shinning Path) also said that:
“The ideology of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, is the only ideology which is truly powerful (…) it is the product of the extraordinary historical work of such extraordinary men as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and President Mao Zedong (…) but we will specially underline three of them: Marx, Lenin and President Mao because their work will be continued and fulfilled by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly by Maoism.”
As can be seen, Gonzalo shamelessly tries to erase and deny the tremendous importance of the work of Comrades Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin while ridiculously overestimating a reactionary bourgeois nationalist like Mao!!! In truth, we observe that Gonzalo not only considers Mao as one of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism, but he even tries to paint Mao as being above Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin! Gonzalo’s positions are so intensely revisionist that we must conclude that when he says that “we will specially underline three of them: Marx, Lenin and President Mao”, he only mentions Marx and Lenin to avoid being immediately unmasked as the social-fascist and anti-communist that he is. And Gonzalo’s reactionarism reaches outrageous levels when we notice the disrespect and disdain which he shows relatively to Comrades Engels and Stalin, as if their work and legacy are of no value. Unfortunately, it is not only Gonzalo and the Peruvian Maoists which treat Engels and Stalin in a scornful way. All Maoists without exception treat the communist legacy of these two Comrades in the same manner. Of course, what the Maoists really want is to totally expunge also the names of Comrades Marx and Lenin, but, as happened with Gonzalo, they don’t dare to do that because if they denied the work of Marx and Lenin they would loose even the smallest remnants of the “communist” and “revolutionary” masquerade which they use as a disguise to their social-fascist ideology.
In what concerns Comrade Stalin, the Maoists use the same arguments of the bourgeois “criticisms” against him as an excuse to deny his magnificent legacy; while the valorous work of Comrade Engels is simply ignored by the MLM.
We, Stalinists-Hoxhaists, know that there are five Classics of Marxism-Leninism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha. All the five Classics have the same value and they cannot be considered from a purely individual perspective. The legacy of each of them is intimately related with the legacy of all the others. Although our ideology is called Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism, we refuse to underestimate the glorious and irreplaceable work of Comrade Engels, which is the second Classic of our ideology and has exactly the same worth as any of the other four Classics.
It is obvious why the Maoists in general and the Shinning Path in particular try to wipe out and deny the inheritance of the true Classics of Marxism-Leninism. They try to diminish and to erase the importance of the first four Classics of Marxism-Leninism while simultaneously misleading the world proletariat about the true identity of the fifth Classic of Marxism-Leninism (which is Comrade Enver and not Mao) because this is essential to defend the bourgeois and social-imperialist interests they are serving. Through the replacement of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin by the fascist Mao they are directing the world workers towards a reactionary ideology which is detaching the proletariat from the revolution. The main purpose of Maoism is to eternally maintain the capitalist system by avoiding the outcome of the world socialist revolution through all means. In order to cover their intentions, the Maoists spend their time screaming about “world socialist revolution”, “proletarian internationalism”, etc…But the analysis of the origins, history, actions and consequences of the Mao Zedong Thought totally unmasks their evil intentions, and clearly shows that expressions like “world socialist revolution” and “proletarian internationalism” are nothing more than empty lies when said by the Maoists.
Stalinism-Hoxhaism is the only ideology which can fully erase the poisonous influence of Maoism from the conscience of the workers. And this because Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism is the only ideology which is completely faithful and coherent with the interests of the world socialist revolution: it is the only ideology which is able to successfully lead the world proletariat towards the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship and the edification of socialism and communism.
Nowadays, there are Maoist parties in almost every country of the world. The reactionarism which characterizes the Mao Zedong Thought is largely spread among world workers. In face of this, the Maoists certainly think that their wicked ideology will be “the dominant force within the international communist movement”. But they are wrong. It is to us, Stalinist-Hoxhaists, that the future belongs.
We, Stalinist-Hoxhaists, are the only true defenders of the communist ideology, and we are entitled to triumph over the social-imperialist and social-fascist “Maoist movement”.
Maoism is nothing more than a disgusting pro-capitalist and reactionary ideological aberration. The “Mao Zedong Thought” is not a development but a deformation of Marxism-Leninism and thus it will inevitably disappear as will happen with everything which is of bourgeois nature:
“Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist, but a progressive bourgeois revolutionary, more progressive than Liu Shao-chi, but still a centrist revolutionary, who posed as a communist and stood at the head of the Communist Party. Within China, in the party, among the people, and abroad, he had the reputation of a great Marxist-Leninist who fought for the construction of socialism. But his views were not Marxist-Leninist, he did not follow the theory of Marx and Lenin, was a continuer of the work of Sun Yat-sen, but in more advanced positions, and dressed up his views, so to say, with some leftist revolutionary formulas, some Marxist-Leninist theses and slogans. Mao Tsetung posed as a Marxist-Leninist dialectician, but he was not so.”
Mao Tsetung thought» is not Marxism- Leninism and that Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist. He did not betray himself, as you might say. We say that Mao is a renegade, is an anti-Marxist, and this is a fact. We say this because he tried to disguise himself with Marxism- Leninism, but in fact he was never a Marxist.
In general, we can say that in some directions the revolution in China had certain features of a tendency to develop on the socialist road, but the measures taken stopped halfway, or were annulled, as they are being annulled at present, and the masks will be dropped one after the other. All these things must be understood by the Chinese people, and they must be understood outside China, too, because, unfortunately, the whole development of that country, the national liberation war of the Chinese people, the establishment of the progressive bourgeois people's democratic state, has gone down in history as a proletarian revolution (…)” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, December 26, 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
When the world proletariat finally takes weapons and overthrows world bourgeoisie, the counter-revolutionary influence of Maoism will definitively be removed from proletarian conscience. We, Stalinists-Hoxhaists, are the only ones who remain faithful to the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha. We are the ones which tirelessly fight against all kinds of revisionism, without any exception. Maoism has caused tremendous damages to the Communist Movement, but Maoists’ plans and tricks to deceive the exploited classes will not last forever and will ultimately fail. As Comrade Enver Hoxha once said:
“No force, no torture, no intrigue, no deception can eradicate Marxism-Leninism from the minds and hearts of men.” (Enver Hoxha, Eurocommunism is anti-communism, Tirana, 1980, edition in English).
World proletariat – unite against Maoist bourgeois ideology!
Fight against the treacherous and pro-capitalist Chinese revisionism!
Don’t be deceived by Maoist apparent “revolutionary” and “Marxist” outlook!
Maoism is nothing more than social-fascism!
Denounce the crimes of Chinese social-imperialism!
Establish the proletarian dictatorship through the armed proletarian world revolution!
Let’s edificate world socialism and world communism!
Long live the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha!
Long live the Comintern (SH), the only authentic defender of the proletarian ideology!
Long Live Stalinism-Hoxhaism!
Long Live the World Socialist Revolution!