How do Maoists answer these Hoxha critiques?

[spiltteeth]

I saw this in an old thread but no one responded to it. I'm still learning so I'd appreciate a clarity on the Maoist response to these criticisms.
Thanks


Originally Posted by Prairie Fire http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1098837#post1098837)
Even a brief overview of "Revolution and Imperialism" would reveal that Hoxha had several points of contention with Mao:

- The bogus, anti-Marxist "Theory of three worlds"

- Absolutizing the role of the peasantry in socialist transformation

-Placing the highest authority in the Chinese socialist state in his own hands, while negating the legislative powers of the CC of the CPC, rendering them an impotent body (see Andres Marcos criticisms in the "Maoism and Hoxhaism" thread)

- Getting cuddly with American Imperialism, and promoting the idea that American Imperialism had been "Tamed", while Soviet social-imperialism was the greater threat (at the CPC 11th congress, I believe,)

- Shaking hands and making deals with a motley collection of tin-pot, banana republic generals, Colonels and "presidents" from the third world (many of whom were notorious commie killers,), as part of his "theory of three worlds" bullshit.

- Total bungling of the cultural revolution, creating a state of anarchy in china, totally negating the roll of the party, and all the while side-lining the proletariat, while placing the cultural revolution in the hands of the army and the students. In the end, the whole thing was such a tangled erroneous mess, that Mao had to call in the troops to restore order.

Hoxha critiques

[red cat]

"The notion of the existence of three worlds, or of the division of the world in three, is based on a racist and metaphysical world outlook, which is an offspring of world capitalism and reaction.

But the racist thesis which places the countries on three levels or in three "worlds"., is not based simply on skin colour. It makes a classification based on the level of economic development of the tountries and is intended to define the "great master race", on the one hand, and the "race of pariahs and plebs", on the other, to create an unalterable and metaphysical division in the interests of the capitalist bourgeoisie. It considers the various nations and peoples of the world as a flock of sheep, as an amorphous whole.

The Chinese revisionists accept and preach that the "master race" must be preserved and the .race of pariahs and plebs. must serve it meekly and devotedly." -Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution

Hoxha, in his critique of Maoism, very conveniently tries to present Mao's theory of the three worlds as something that glorifies the role of imperialistic capital, and also states that this theory was put forward to preach the slavery of the people living in the third world. In reality, this was only a classification made by Mao, to group the colonial, semi colonial and socialist countries(third world), the two most powerful imperialist countries, USA and the USSR (first world) and the other capitalist countries (second world).

Next, Hoxha quotes Lenin on his devision of the world into capitalist and socialist countries thus bringing up what seems to be a contradiction between Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. Here he conceals the fact that Mao's demarcation is somewhat finer than that of Lenin's, because it groups the countries further according to the objective conditions necessary for revolution. That is, if we divide the world into capitalist and socialist camps only, it would mean that we are grouping the colonial countries ruled by imperialists, and countries actually capitalist into the same capitalist camp. But then we ignore the colonial, or semi-feudal semi-colonial situation in the former and fail to see the much stronger objective conditions favoring revolution in the same.

Hoxha further continues in the rest of his article accusing this theory of not recognizing class-struggle anywhere in the world. As we all know what kind of relationship class struggle shares with the type of economy being followed, I will make no further comment on this.



It is evident from past and ongoing revolutions that when the main contradiction is between imperialism and the broad masses of colonized countries, then the peasantry is in fact the greatest force conducting the revolution. This type of revolution is called a New Democratic Revolution and always precedes a Socialist revolution in a former colony. Whether the Bourgeoisie or the Proletariat, as a class, takes control in the later parts of the New Democratic Revolution, decides whether the Socialist Revolution will actually take place or not.


The four other points mentioned in question are the result of contradiction in facts presented by the pro and anti-Mao camps and I don't think these can be solved through a discussion.

[Bankotsu]

Another related contradiction in that period was that while USA was busy fighting communists in South Vietnam, Kissinger was willing to strike a tacit alliance with Communist China against the Soviet Union.

So USA was fighting the communists in Vietnam while at the same time in tacit alliance with the chinese communists.

This is a contradiction.

[red cat]

Another related contradiction in that period was that while USA was busy fighting communists in South Vietnam, Kissinger was willing to strike a tacit alliance with Communist China against the Soviet Union.

So USA was fighting the communists in Vietnam while at the same time in tacit alliance with the chinese communists.

This is a contradiction.
There is no contradiction. The US would do whatever was the best for itself, which at that time was colonizing Vietnam and countering Soviet power in Asia.

[Dowshy]

There is no contradiction. The US would do whatever was the best for itself, which at that time was colonizing Vietnam and countering Soviet power in Asia.
Just like the Chinese ruling class was pursuing it's own best interests by signing the alliance.

[Dimentio]

Another related contradiction in that period was that while USA was busy fighting communists in South Vietnam, Kissinger was willing to strike a tacit alliance with Communist China against the Soviet Union.

So USA was fighting the communists in Vietnam while at the same time in tacit alliance with the chinese communists.

This is a contradiction.

Not at all. The struggle was more about USA vs the Soviet Union that the USA vs communism.

[Bankotsu]

Not at all. The struggle was more about USA vs the Soviet Union that the USA vs communism.

What was the reaction of U.S public to Kissinger's policy of using "communists to fight communists" in order to end communism?

[Ned Flanders]

Having read "Imperialism and revolution" (even in icelandic translation), I must say I quite agree with Hoxha in his criticism on the three world "doctrine" and chinese foreign policy from the early seventies onward. Even though Hoxha was wrong in many things, he quite well exposes the reactionary policies of the CPC after the cultural revolution. The consequences of those policies scream at us these days, with the chinese government being the earths bulwark of reaction. But I don´t remember ever coming across any maoist answers to his criticism. I would be interested in seeing some of those.

[red cat]

Having read "Imperialism and revolution" (even in icelandic translation), I must say I quite agree with Hoxha in his criticism on the three world "doctrine" and chinese foreign policy from the early seventies onward. Even though Hoxha was wrong in many things, he quite well exposes the reactionary policies of the CPC after the cultural revolution. The consequences of those policies scream at us these days, with the chinese government being the earths bulwark of reaction. But I don´t remember ever coming across any maoist answers to his criticism. I would be interested in seeing some of those.
Could you please be a little more specific ?
I have tried to show the faults in Hoxha's criticism.
By the way, Albania today is still more pathetic than China, and if you look at any communist party waging a revolutionary war today, with the possible exception of the Clandestine Communist Party of Colombia, you will see that all of them have embraced Maoism.