Relations in production and politics under Hoxha and Mao?

[Uppercut]

I've had this question on my mind for quite some time now, but I haven't gotten around to asking it in the open. I understand the Hoxhaist position on Mao (that he was a revisionist, and the system was state-capitalist, something I'm not so sure of), but what exactly made relations in productions and the electoral system different between the two countries? They both had centrally planned economies, cooperatives, and many public organizations. Albania operated in accordance to the concept of soviet democracy, whereas China was somewhat more liberal in the decision-making process (anyone could debate in the open), to the best of my knowledge. I'm also aware Hoxha claimed that the Chinese congress was not made up of elected delegates, but rather was made up of appointed officials on the basis of permanent representation. However, I can't find anything else to back up this claim.

So in short: what exactly made the Chinese political and economic system "state-capitalist" and how did things function differently between China and Albania? Thank you in advance.

[Cyberwave]

You may find an answer in some of Hoxha's own writing, particularly his views on how China planned to become a "superpower."

Imperialism and Revolution: China's Plan to Become a Superpower. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch5.htm)

The capitalism comes from Mao's theories of new democracy. There is a good deal of information regarding the revisionist nature of new democracy in the above work by Hoxha in the chapter on Mao Tse-Tung Thought. Also, Hoxha talks about new democracy here as well, as I have quoted. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm) Basically, the bourgeoisie were able to exist and to extent thrive in China (e.g. they had levels of controls in factories and communes, received 1/4th of profits, were able to spread propaganda, etc) and then Mao upset Hoxha and the 'Hoxhaists' after establishing relations with Kissinger and Nixon and the like.

An example of Mao admitting to capitalism to an extent. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_30.htm)


Mao Zedong was for the unrestricted free development of capitalism in China in the period of the state of the type of "new democracy", as he called that regime which was to be established after the departure of the Japanese. At the 7th Congress of the CPC he said, "Some think that the communists are against the development of private initiative, against the development of private capital, against the protection of private property. In reality, this is not so. The task of the order of new democracy, which we are striving to establish, is precisely to ensure the possibility for broad circles of Chinese to freely develop their private initiave in society, to freely develop the private capitalist economy." In this way, Mao Zedong took over the anti-Marxist concept of Katitsky, according to which, in the backward countries the transition to socialism cannot be achieved without going through a lengthy period of free development of capitalism which prepares the conditions to go over to socialism later. In fact, the so-called socialist regime which Mao Zedong and his group established in China,was and remained a bourgeois-democratic regime.
In practice, the line which the Chinese leadership, headed by Mao Zedong, began to follow for restraining the revolution in China and shutting off its socialist perspective assisted American imperialism, which wanted to extend its domination, and the other imperialist powers, which were seeking to preserve their old domination.
In the post-war years, the anti-colonialist national liberation movements surged ahead on all continents. The British, French, Italian, Dutch, and Belgian colonial empires were collapsing. one after the other under the waves of the popular uprisings in the colonies. The revolutions in most of these countries were bourgeois-democratic. However, in some of them, the objective possibilities existed for the revolution to be raised and assume a socialist character. Mao Zedong, with his views and activities, advocated the diversion of the anti-imperialist revolutions from the right course of their development; he wanted them to stop half-way, not to go beyond the bourgeois framework, so that the capitalist system was perpetuated. If we bear in mind the importance of the Chinese revolution and its influence among the colonial countries, the damage which the -theories" of Mao Zedong caused was great.
Mao's line was that China, and following its example, Indochina, Burma, Indonesia, India, etc., had to rely on the United States of America and American capital and aid for their development. In fact this was acceptance of that new strategy which had been formulated in the departments of Washington and which Browder had begun to advocate in his own way.


We "Hoxhaists" often refer to Mao as a radish communist; red on the outside, white on the inside.