Question for Hoxhaists.

[Uppercut]

Although I describe myself as a Maoist, I can sympathize with the Hoxhaists for their rugged stance on anti-revisionism and anti-imperialism. Although I'm in disagreement with Hoxha on some things, particularly when he stated Mao TseTung was not a Marxist at all.
But my question is this: Do Hoxhaists support the protracted people's wars being carried out in India, Nepal, the Phillipines, Peru, etc.? Or do they consider these parties to be revisionist?

EDIT: I take it that this is a stupid question. Feel free to trash.

[Ismail]

Although I'm in disagreement with Hoxha on some things, particularly when he stated Mao TseTung was not a Marxist at all.He wasn't. He was an anti-communist whose ideology was a bastardization of both Marxism and Leninism. The Chinese "revolution" was moderately progressive, but it was at best a bourgeois-democratic one, and that's being generous.


But my question is this: Do Hoxhaists support the protracted people's wars being carried out in India, Nepal, the Phillipines, Peru, etc.? Or do they consider these parties to be revisionist?Maoism, as a reactionary ideology, cannot fail to lead to an anti-communist path in Nepal, as we can see in the attempts of the "Prachanda Path" Maoists who are turning Nepal into a neo-colony of Chinese imperialism. As early as 1938 Mao was propagating his reactionary national-"socialism" through such quotes as these: "Before it can be applied Marxism must acquire a national form. The concept of abstract Marxism simply does not exist. There only exists concrete Marxism. What we call concrete Marxism is a Marxism that has 45 acquired national form..." (Mao, At the New Stage, pp. 73-75.)

This nationalist deformity of Marxism-Leninism plagues both Castroism and the Jucheists. It is also a prominent feature of Guevarist thought.

It is likely that the Naxalites and Philippine Maoists will also move onwards towards an anti-communist path. The Marxist-Leninists of Nepal, for example, must rise up and oppose the Maoist coup d'état, and should not be fooled by the Maoist attempts to consolidate a capitalist comprador regime.

The talk of "protracted people's war" is typical Maoist demagoguery. There can be no "people's war," only the struggle for Marxism-Leninism led by the vanguard party. As Lenin said (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) in 1920 against Trotsky:

But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels... for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation. It cannot work without a number of “transmission belts” running from the vanguard to the mass of the advanced class, and from the latter to the mass of the working people. In Russia, this mass is a peasant one. There is no such mass anywhere else, but even in the most advanced countries there is a non-proletarian, or a not entirely proletarian, mass.The Maoist doctrines of "national-socialism" and of "protracted people's war" are reactionary and revisionist, and ignore the fundamental law of Marxism-Leninism in all countries. As Hoxha said in 1978, "After liberation... the tendency advocated by 'Mao Tsetung thought' that the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolution had to continue for a long time, was kept alive in China. Mao Tsetung insisted that in this stage the premises for socialism would be created parallel with the development of capitalism, to which he gave priority. Also linked with this, is his thesis on the coexistence of socialism with the bourgeoisie for a very long time, presenting this as something beneficial both to socialism and to the bourgeoisie." (Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 427.)

As Hoxha also said in the same year, "Mao Tsetung and the other leaders of the Communist Party of China have always spoken disparagingly of the delegates from the Comintern to China, calling them 'stupid', 'ignorant' people, who 'did not know the Chinese reality', etc. Regarding each country as an 'objective reality in itself', 'closed to others', Mao Tsetung considered the assistance of the delegates from the Comintern unnecessary and simply impossible. In his speech to the Enlarged Working Conference of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in January 1962, Mao Tsetung said: 'China, as an objective world, was known by the Chinese and not by the comrades from the Comintern who were engaged with the question of China. These comrades from the Comintern knew little or nothing, about Chinese society, the Chinese nation and the Chinese revolution. Thus why should these foreign comrades be referred to here?'" (Ibid. p. 441.)

Speaking of Che Guevara in 1968, Hoxha said (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm), "In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few 'heroes' constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism... a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism."

As Hoxha concluded, "Now for our Party, as well as for all the Marxist-Leninist parties in the world. the struggle against Chinese revisionism should be given the greatest attention.... The struggle against modern revisionism, and especially against Soviet, Titoite and Chinese revisionism, is not an easy matter... all the working masses of our country must be imbued with the ideology of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin....

The task of our Party, and of all the genuine communists of the world, is to fight with dedication to defend our Marxist-Leninist theory and cleanse it of all the distortions which the bourgeoisie, the modern revisionists and all opportunists and traitors make of it." (Ibid. pp. 459-61.)

[Ismail]

Is that not like putting the cart before the horse, a common mistake committed by dogmatists? Sounds more like crystal ball gazing than a materialist analysis."Let's wait and see" is not a materialist analysis. To actually note the class character of the Naxalites and their revisionist policies is a materialist analysis.


What "Marxist-Leninists" are you talking about? What proof do you have that the Maoists are consolidating a capitalist comprador regime, apart from random newspaper statements?The pro-Chinese orientation of the Nepalese Government, along with their support of Dengism. You could call the latter a "random newspaper statement," but that would be akin to calling Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin or the proclamation of the 1960's "reforms" "just one of many things in a rapidly changing materialist context" or whatever Maoist shibboleths you'd want to use for "Oh, well, changing conditions, you see..."


Indeed, though they carried out most of the Comintern's suggestions I'd say the Chinese revolutionaries had every right to question and criticize the quasi-imperialist dictates of the Comintern.The Comintern's "dictates" were not "quasi-imperialist." There were errors (and Stalin, Hoxha, and Mao recognized them as such—though Mao used anti-Comintern sentiments to bolster himself) because of the fact that the Communist Parties were no longer small groups; they were active and were leading national liberation struggles with their own cadre and with their own reliable leaderships, aware of their own situations and being able to handle them better.

Of course Mao had a good reason to fear the Comintern: those who supported it (Wang Ming and Gao Gang, for example) were rightly criticizing Mao for taking opportunist and rightist lines.

[black magick hustla]

What "Marxist-Leninists" are you talking about? What proof do you have that the Maoists are consolidating a capitalist comprador regime, apart from random newspaper statements?

.

Lets be clear here. I think all third world politicians invariably set up "comprador regimes" simply because we live in a world capitalist economy. It does not matter what politics they profess. Their ideas are inconsequential.

[Leo]

Although I describe myself as a Maoist, I can sympathize with the Hoxhaists for their rugged stance on anti-revisionism and anti-imperialism. Although I'm in disagreement with Hoxha on some things, particularly when he stated Mao TseTung was not a Marxist at all.

Actually on an international level, Hoxhaism entirely came out of Maoism, and Hoxha himself was a Maoist until the Sino-Albanian split.

[Ismail]

Actually on an international level, Hoxhaism entirely came out of Maoism, and Hoxha himself was a Maoist until the Sino-Albanian split.Hoxha was not a "Maoist," unless you'd like to give evidence of this so-called "Maoist" Hoxha. Albania was allied with China against Soviet social-imperialism, but Hoxha himself criticized Maoism in private.

In fact, the title of many of Hoxha's works in Vol. III and IV of his Selected Works proves this:

“The Revolutionary Communists Expect China to Come Out Openly Against Khrushchevite Revisionism” – April 3, 1962

“The Stands of the Chinese Comrades are Improper in Several Directions” – Dec. 24, 1962.

“The Struggle Against Khrushchevism Must Not Be Diverted Into Territorial Claims” – Aug. 22, 1964.

“The Chinese Idea About An Anti-Imperialist Front Including Even the Modern Revisionists is Anti-Leninist” – Oct. 15, 1964.

“In No Way Can We Reconcile Ourselves To These Views of Chou En-Lai” – Oct. 31, 1964.

“The Chinese Want To Impose Their Opinions On Us” – Nov. 3, 1964.

“Opportunist Tactic of the Chinese Comrades” – Feb. 3, 1965.

“Some Preliminary Ideas About the Chinese Proletarian Cultural Revolution” – Oct. 14, 1966

“Reflections On the Cultural Revolution. Anarchy Cannot Be Combated With Anarchy” – April 28, 1967.There is also the two volumes of Hoxha's Reflections on China, which are taken from his diaries and provide ample evidence of his early criticisms and apprehensions of Maoism.

[Lenin II]

Lets be clear here. I think all third world politicians invariably set up "comprador regimes" simply because we live in a world capitalist economy. It does not matter what politics they profess. Their ideas are inconsequential.

This is a Theory of the Productive Forces line that states that undeveloped countries cannot develop to emancipate themselves from the global market. In socialist Albania they managed to build the nation without foreign interference or turning themselves into a neo-colony for the Soviets under Khrushchev or Titoite Yugoslavia.

By setting up an industrialized and self-sufficient economy a nation can protect itself from neo-colonialism, and can chart an indepedent course. If a nation is deterministically doomed due to its level of development then revolution is impossible in poor countries.

[Leo]

Hoxha was not a "Maoist," unless you'd like to give evidence of this so-called "Maoist" Hoxha

Here:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1969/04/29.htm

[Ismail]

Here:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1969/04/29.htmPraising an ally does not make Hoxha a Maoist. Hoxha (and Mao, FWIW) "praised" Khrushchev in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960 because it was customary to do so. Hoxha voiced his concerns about the stand of the Chinese in regards to a whole bunch of things, but in private, since he was concerned about unity and not appearing sectarian. Same thing with Hoxha in-re Khrushchev.

Here are some excerpts from Vol. I of Reflections on China, as an example: http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=22331&uid=2404

The same time he wrote what he did in 1969 publically, he was saying the following in private:

October 15th., 1968:
Speaking, with Beqir Balluku about the international situation, Chou En-lai proposed that we should enter into negotiations with Tito to sign a treaty of mutual aid with him! Chou's unprincipled proposal is that we should embrace the most ferocious enemy of Marxism-Leninism socialism and Communism, the most vicious enemy of our Marxist-Leninist Party and our socialist country; that we should reconcile ourselves with Tito who, for twenty five years, has striven to destroy and enslave our homeland and make it into the seventh Republic of Yugoslavia! He is proposing that we betray everything sacred to us.

Socialist Albania must never allow anyone to believe that he can use it as a pawn.

The basis of this infamous proposal is that in Chinese strategy the Soviet Imperialists are considered the most powerful and main enemy, since they have the greatest possibility of attacking and damaging China. For the Chinese comrades, therefore, anyone who appears to be against the Soviet's, even temporarily is regarded as their potential ally, regardless of who he may be. For our part, we say that the aim of our struggle must be to strive to weaken both imperialist superpowers, to wage a struggle on two fronts. In fact, it must be noted that, the Soviet Union is not the stronger, but the weaker of the two imperialist superpowers having a very long border and vacillating allies.

October 21st., 1968;
Chou En-lai's proposal with regard to Yugoslavia has been accompanied by a statement of lack of readiness to supply us with heavy weapons. He suggests that at the first attack of the enemy we should take to the mountains, relying on partisan warfare and an alliance with Tito for our salvation!

[...]

September 18th.,1969;
The "degeneration" of China from the strategic angle greatly interests American imperialism, and there is, no doubt that it will follow up these events vigilantly.

September 19th., 1969;
Chou En-lai was so irritated during his talk with comrade Rita that, although he had invited him to a banquet, he failed to propose a toast to our leadership. Could this have been an oversight? I don't believe so. It was pressure.

[....]

February 17th., 1971
When and how will the great disorder in China came to an end? This, naturally is very worrying to us. I think that under the cloak of "Mao Tse-tung Thought" powerful groups are clashing fiercely.

[....]

July 27th., 1971:
The Chinese think that others ought to approve everything they say or do, and should consider every word or action on their part a, treasure of Marxism-Leninism, to be applied everywhere. The whole foreign policy of the People's Republic of China is chaotic. The Marxist-Leninist Parties which have been created are regarded as worthless by Chou. The Chinese comrades do not support and aid these parties but maintain contact with all sorts of groups, especially those which praise Mao Tse-tung and the Cultural Revolution, irrespective of what tendency these groups have.

Even the stand of the Chinese against the Soviets reflects great state chauvinist views and is not based upon Marxist-Leninist principles. For the Chinese whichever is anti-Soviet is fine. This anti-Marxist position will, unless it is stopped, lead to betrayal.

[Ismail]

1) What do you think is their class character and what are examples of their "revisionist" policies?The Naxalites enjoy support from the segments of the peasantry which they fight for. That is about as much as can be said for a group which is still fighting and issues relatively few statements on theory.


There is no evidence for their "Dengism" and their relations with China seems a necessity for trade.... Besides their approval of Dengism, of course.


I don't know about internet communists like Hoxhaists, but in the real world,I guess the Party of Labour of Mali or the Democratic People's Movement in Ecuador don't count as Hoxhaists? The EMEP in Turkey? Party of Labour of Iran?


socialist countries need to be able to trade and play imperialist countries against each other in order to survive. Have you noticed that there is no more Uncle Joe or any socialist bloc for the Nepalese communists to align themselves with?I did notice that under the previous government Nepal wasn't becoming a neo-colony of China but did maintain a generally pro-Chinese foreign policy, whereas it seems that the new government is striving to become a Chinese neo-colony.

[Lenin II]

Again, without proper evidence to back them up, such statements can be dismissed as falsehoods.

From here: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=5029


In an exclusive interview with Nanfang Daily, a Chinese newspaper based in Guangdong province, incoming Prime Minister Prachanda emphasized that Nepal’s backward economy is the most pressing challenge: “Without economic development, it will be difficult to maintain social stability.”
Prachanda went on further to chide Western-style capitalism and praised China’s model of economic development as one that Nepal will emulate. “We will build special economic zones like China,” Prachanda said. “The special economic zones stimulated China’s economic development, and we want to learn from China. China’s experience is really helpful for us.”

[Saorsa]

Maoism, as a reactionary ideology, cannot fail to lead to an anti-communist path in Nepal, as we can see in the attempts of the "Prachanda Path" Maoists who are turning Nepal into a neo-colony of Chinese imperialism.

That is not true. Let's see some evidence for how the Maoists are bowing down to Chinese expansionism. In the real world, the Chinese are annoyed at all this instability on their border, and the example it gives to their own people. (http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=7636)


As early as 1938 Mao was propagating his reactionary national-"socialism" through such quotes as these: "Before it can be applied Marxism must acquire a national form. The concept of abstract Marxism simply does not exist. There only exists concrete Marxism. What we call concrete Marxism is a Marxism that has 45 acquired national form..." (Mao, At the New Stage, pp. 73-75.)

The point Mao is making here is that it's all very well to have a whole lot of ideas about revolution in your head, but until they have been tested on a national scale following the capture of state power, they cannot be called concrete and you cannot be sure how well they fit the concrete conditions. That's not reactionary nationalism - that's common sense.


The pro-Chinese orientation of the Nepalese Government, along with their support of Dengism.

Wait... did you just refer to the Maoists as the Nepalese government? Do you know anything about what's happened there in the past year?


You could call the latter a "random newspaper statement," but that would be akin to calling Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin or the proclamation of the 1960's "reforms" "just one of many things in a rapidly changing materialist context" or whatever Maoist shibboleths you'd want to use for "Oh, well, changing conditions, you see..."

Actually no it wouldn't. Krushchev's secret speech was made when he was the leader of the world's greatest socialist nation, and it represented a turning point in that nation's history. A speech like that carries a huge amount of weight. A handful of media statements made by some UCPN (M) leaders at a time when their strategy was to work within the framework of bourgeois legality does not define them as an organisation, and frankly I think all this shows how little you Hoxhaists understand how a revolution happens in the real world. It doesn't proceed in a straight line, and it is never orthodox. You're like the Catholics of the communist movement!


... Besides their approval of Dengism, of course.

The Nepali Maoists do not approve of the Dengist counter-revolution.


I did notice that under the previous government Nepal wasn't becoming a neo-colony of China but did maintain a generally pro-Chinese foreign policy, whereas it seems that the new government is striving to become a Chinese neo-colony.

Nepal is not becoming a neo-colony of China. Things have opened up slightly on a diplomatic level, but the current 22 party coalition government was raised to power by India and couldn't be pro-China if it wanted to. Nepal remains a nation dominated by India, not China, and it's only the UCPN (M) which is fighting this.

[Ismail]

That is not true. Let's see some evidence for how the Maoists are bowing down to Chinese expansionism. In the real world, the Chinese are annoyed at all this instability on their border, and the example it gives to their own people. (http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=7636)The Chinese Government funded the pre-Maoist government against the Maosts pre-"revolution," too. It's simple geopolitics that the state-capitalist regime there is playing, just as China is trying to covet the DPRK as a neo-colony.


The point Mao is making here is that it's all very well to have a whole lot of ideas about revolution in your head...No, the point Mao is "trying to make" is that the objective law of revolution doesn't exist and that one can arbitrarily decide what is not "necessary" in the construction of socialism, such as Mao's words that the Chinese bourgeoisie could work with the proletarian state.


Wait... did you just refer to the Maoists as the Nepalese government? Do you know anything about what's happened there in the past year?It's essentially the Maoists and a bunch of petty reactionary parties, yes. Sometimes the Maoists fall out of the government, sometimes they reenter, etc.


A handful of media statements made by some UCPN (M) leaders at a time when their strategy was to work within the framework of bourgeois legality does not define them as an organisation, and frankly I think all this shows how little you Hoxhaists understand how a revolution happens in the real world.Apparently a revolution happens in the "real world" when it is neither a revolution, and when high-ranking members of the party praise Dengism.


The Nepali Maoists do not approve of the Dengist counter-revolution.Let's see some examples from 2008 onwards.


Nepal is not becoming a neo-colony of China. Things have opened up slightly on a diplomatic level, but the current 22 party coalition government was raised to power by India and couldn't be pro-China if it wanted to. Nepal remains a nation dominated by India, not China, and it's only the UCPN (M) which is fighting this.It was China which the former government looked towards for protection against Indian chauvinism and neo-colonialism in the 70's, 80's and 90's. At this same time, however, the Nepali Government was able to maintain its independence. Right now the battles between state-capitalist China and market-capitalist India over Nepal are attempts to turn it into either a neo-colony of China or a neo-colony of India.

[Saorsa]

Sometimes the Maoists fall out of the government, sometimes they reenter, etc.

Uh... no.


Apparently a revolution happens in the "real world" when it is neither a revolution, and when high-ranking members of the party praise Dengism.

The life of a communist who sees the workers and peasants rising up in a far off country and searches for flaws and reasons to dismiss this as not a real revolution... that life must be pretty depressing. Please show me a single quote where the UCPN (M) has praised 'Dengism', and explain what 'Dengism' means to you.


Let's see some examples from 2008 onwards.

Examples of what? Them not praising Dengism? That's like asking me to provide examples from 2008 onwards of my car not crashing.

[Ismail]

Please show me a single quote where the UCPN (M) has praised 'Dengism', and explain what 'Dengism' means to you.Well now, it seems you don't even agree with the term itself.


Examples of what? Them not praising Dengism? That's like asking me to provide examples from 2008 onwards of my car not crashing.You were the one who raised the point about them allegedly condemning Dengism.

“We will build special economic zones like China.. The special economic zones stimulated China’s economic development, and we want to learn from China. China’s experience is really helpful for us.” - Prachanda, 2008

Tell me where Prachanda has reversed that.

[Saorsa]

That's not praising Dengism. That's praising the development of the rising power across their border which they need to develop good relations with so they can play it off against the main threat, India.

They're a desperately poor country, so any examples of modernisation are things they want to learn from - both from the good and from the bad.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That's not praising Dengism. That's praising the development of the rising power across their border which they need to develop good relations with so they can play it off against the main threat, India.

They're a desperately poor country, so any examples of modernisation are things they want to learn from - both from the good and from the bad.

No doubt that has the potential for excuses of turning Nepal into a neo-liberal country like China under some nonsense like stagism/Dengism if it were ever put into practice however...

[Saorsa]

Well there's plenty of doubt actually, mainly because the Maoists have consistently fought to advance the class struggle for decades now. Land to the peasants was achieved through land seizures and war in the countryside. Pay and conditions for workers were raised significantly by a militant, confrontational Maoist union movement which swept Kathmandu and the other cities. They don't just reform from on high, they deliver from below, and that's not the practice of a 'Dengist' group.

We need to get over our instinctive distrust of foreign revolutionary movements. We need to stop nitpicking and looking for flaws! Look at the whole picture and try to appreciate and learn from what you see.

[Ismail]

That's not praising Dengism...

They're a desperately poor country, so any examples of modernisation are things they want to learn from - both from the good and from the bad.Hrm, so they want to modernize and they're looking towards China?

"The problem is how to develop the productive forces more effectively... If we combine a planned economy with a market economy, we shall be in a better position to liberate the productive forces and speed up economic growth."
("There is no Fundamental Contradiction between Socialism and a Market Economy," October 23, 1985 in Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, vol. III)

Sounds pretty Dengist.


This 2009 document proves that the UCPN(M) are against Dengist revisionism and abandonment of class struggle. Though Deng is not specifically mentioned, it is abundantly clear what they are referring to:No it isn't. The Soviet Union post-Stalin condemned "rightist" tendencies too. Hell, even Deng condemned "rightist" tendencies (typified by people like Hu Yaobang).

Just saying "We condemn right revisionism" says nothing. What kind of materialist analysis is that? That's like if Hoxha just said "WE CONDEMN RIGHT REVISIONISM" from 1948-1985 and never named anyone or gave an examples of states pursuing a rightist/revisionist course. That's when a "C"P avoids taking a principled stand, and it's more indicative of Kim Il Sung or Ceaușescu's attempts at being "non-sectarian" and vacillating than the words of genuine Marxist-Leninists.

[Ismail]

The UCPN(M) upholds the class struggle of the workers/peasants with the bourgeoisie.The UCPN(M) claims this, but where are the criticisms (or condemnations) of Dengism which apparently exist and which showcase that the UCPN(M) is not a revisionist party?

[Saorsa]

I can't believe I had to provide a recent example of a Maoist party denouncing Deng (it's like asking for proof that a Hoxhaist party denounces Trotsky!), but here you go.

http://www.wprmbritain.org/?p=878


WPRM: In the current situation when the UCPN(M) has its sights set on New Democratic Revolution, it seems more important than ever to understand the party’s idea of 21st century democracy, competitive elections under New Democracy and socialism, can you explain this concept to us?

Comrade Gaurav: Yes we are now in the stage of completing the New Democratic Revolution. The New Democratic system is not a socialist system. It is a bourgeois democratic system. The difference is that the revolution is made under the leadership of the proletariat. The old type of bourgeois democratic revolution took place under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but the New Democratic Revolution will take place under the leadership of the proletariat. When it is led by the proletariat it will lead towards socialism and communism. On the other hand, if the bourgeois democratic revolution is being led by the capitalist class, it will either consolidate capitalism or, if it develops at all, it will develop towards imperialism. That is the difference. So New Democratic Revolution in this sense is not a socialist revolution, it is a bourgeois democratic revolution but it is led by the proletariat. And, when the proletariat leads this revolution and the revolution is completed, then immediately it will move towards socialism. It will not consolidate bourgeois democracy, it will move towards socialism. This debate was seriously carried out during 1956 in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). People like Deng Xiaoping said that since it is a bourgeois democratic revolution, it is the time to consolidate capitalism. But, Mao said that it should not be consolidated, it should go forward to socialism. This is the basic division between New Democracy and socialism. And, the question of which class is leading is the fundamental question.

[Ismail]

Apparently a comment by Prachanda saying that the Chinese economic system is "really helpful for us" is just some random throwaway comment, but a secretary within the party making a comment that "Oh, Deng was incorrect about New Democracy" equals "Deng was a revisionist piece of shit."

I'm sure you could find something more... assertive than that if the Maoists in Nepal are anti-Deng.

[Ismail]

Apparently, all the statements and documents of the UCPN(M) are not online, from what I found, I provided the one that upholds class struggle. Its now your turn to produce an official document of UCPN(M) to prove that they are Dengist revionists.Not many parties going around explicitly calling themselves Dengists, now are there?

We do, however, have Prachanda in 2008 saying that the Chinese economic experience is "very helpful" to the Nepalese Maoists. We also have a document wherein the Maoists lightly criticize Deng's take on New Democracy to "show" that they aren't basically Dengists in the economic sphere.