COMINTERN (SH)

 

CRITICISM AT THE CHINESE CULTURAL REVOLUTION

On occasion of its 50th Anniversary

[Excerpt of our "Declaration of War on Maoists" - Part 2 - five years ago]

June 22, 2011

 

 

 

 

"The 'Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution'
was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian.”

(Enver Hoxha)

 

 

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.