Suggested reading to learn about Maoism

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm interested in learning more about Maoism. What are some of the fundamental works that I should become more familiar with?


(I'm aware of the typo in the title.)

[Drosophila]

Mao, like Stalin, is an historical subject ridden with lies and exaggerations. It's important to avoid certain authors and/or works.

This was suggested to me by another user (siren bang), who is one of the few active Marxist-Leninist-Maoists on this site. Use the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=10) usergroup for further information.




-Edgar Snow: American journalist who interviewed famous Chinese Communist revolutionaries during the revolution and was a longtime friend and supporter of the Chinese peoples' revolution.

-William H. Hinton: Another American journalist who was in China during the revolution. He interviewed Zhou Enlai and ended up leaving his post as a U.S. government journalist to actually be a farmer in a Chinese village liberated by the communist party during the war. He wrote extensively on the land reforms in that particular village and eventually returned to America to defend the Chinese revolution from abroad.

-Helen Foster Snow: Edgar Snow's wife and another American journalist in revolutionary China who wrote books in favor of it.

-Anna Louise Strong: An American journalist who visited and wrote in favor of not only revolutionary China but also the Soviet Union. She ended up staying in China in the 1950's and died there in 1970 as a friend of the revolution.

-Raymond Lotta: An American political economist specializing in Maoist China economics. He is a great scholar on the era's economy.

-Dongping Han: A Chinese historian and political scientist who grew up in the revolutionary Maoist era of China and writes in favor of his village's experience in the time.

-Mobo Gao: A Chinese scholar who also writes in favor of the socialist revolution in China and favorably upon Mao.

-The Committee of Concerned Asia Scholars: A group of American intellectuals who went to China in the early 1970's and wrote on the great successes of the country under Maoist economic and political policies.

-Maurice Meisner: American historian of 20th century China who wrote books in favor Maoist China and the revolution. He died earlier this year.

-Joshua Horn: British doctor who worked in rural China during the revolutionary period and helped a village eradicate a virus that plagued them and embrace healthy lifestyles.

Other writers who wrote book books in favor of China, but I don't know much about their lives:
-Jurgen Domes, K.S. Karl, Maria Macciochi, David and Nancy Milton

Now, there are a lot of books by all of those authors you can check out, and I have a lot of them on my "to read" list and I still need to read a lot of them. But here are some of my recommendations for a newbie.

-The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village, by Dongping Han

-The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution, by Mobo Gao

-China!: Inside the People's Republic, by the Committee of Concerned Asia Scholars

-Mao's China and After, by Maurice Meisner

-Fanshen, by William Hinton

-Red Star Over China, by Edgar Snow

-The Long Revolution, by Edgar Snow

-Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism, edited by Raymond Lotta

And, also, I think it is very, very important to read the works of Mao Zedong himself when studying this time period. And from Mao, I highly recommend reading the 5 Essays on Philosophy (On Contradiction, On Practice, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?, Speech at the CCP's National Conference on Propaganda Work), On Protracted War, and On New Democracy as starters.

[Robespierres Neck]

This may be a bit obvious:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/

[DDR]

On Practice, On Contradition, a single spark can start a praire fire, against liberalism.

And the Little Red Book are only quotations so, isn't that much interesting.

[ind_com]

I'm interested in learning more about Maoism. What are some of the fundamental works that I should become more familiar with?


(I'm aware of the typo in the title.)

These can help, though you have to keep in mind that what is now known as Maoism originated only from the 80s onwards and sometimes contradicts some of these works:

1) On contradiction

2) On practice

3) On the ten major relationships

4) On the correct handling of contradictions among the people

5) Dialectical materialism

6) Combat liberalism

7) On guerrilla warfare

8) Analysis of the classes in Chinese society

9) Report on an investigation of the peasant movement in Hunan

10) On protracted war

11) Problems of strategy in guerrilla war against Japan

[TheGodlessUtopian]

For a study guide to Combat Liberalism you can check out what I wrote here...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=6601

[Камо́ Зэд]

If you're interested, comrade, Enver Hoxha's Imperialism and the Revolution is a critique of Maoism as a revisionist deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

[ind_com]

If you're interested, comrade, Enver Hoxha's <i>Imperialism and the Revolution</i> is a critique of Maoism as a revisionist deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

An interesting critique of the above:

Beat Back the Dogmato-Revisionist Attack on Mao Tsetung Thought - J. Werner

(Comments on Enver Hoxha’s Imperialism and the Revolution)

[Teacher]

I was going to mention a lot of those books Drosophila quoted. Also check out stuff by economist Chris Bramall who is not a communist but writes favorably about the Maoist period. Joel Andreas is another leftist academic (a sociologist I think) who has written a lot of really good stuff about China. The books in Drosophila's post are classics though, especially stuff by Snow and Hinton.

[Ismail]

An interesting critique of the above:

Beat Back the Dogmato-Revisionist Attack on Mao Tsetung Thought - J. Werner

(Comments on Enver Hoxha’s Imperialism and the Revolution)The article sucks. To deal with historical matters, it makes fun of the fact that at the First Congress of the Communist Party of Albania in 1948, it changed its name to the Party of Labour of Albania. The author, of course, didn't know (although he would be able to learn a year or two later) that no less a personality than J.V. Stalin suggested the name-change to Hoxha when the latter visited Moscow, as noted by Hoxha in his memoir With Stalin (and as later confirmed after 1991, in the Albanian archives.)

The author likewise criticizes the Albanian Communists for admitting that they often hid Party proclamations behind those of the Democratic Front in the early postwar years. Here there's no excuse for the author to be ignorant; the Front and the Party's relationship to it were based on the Yugoslav People's Front, and the CPY likewise did the same thing as the CPA. In fact one of the Cominform's main criticisms of the CPY was that it was effectively merging the activities of the CPY and the Front. When Yugoslav control over most Albanian affairs ended in 1948, the practice of hiding behind the Front rather than leading it was condemned.

Then the author states:

It is not, of course, that a truly Marxist-Leninist communist party cannot, under certain circumstances, have the majority of its members drawn from the peasantry or other strata of the petty bourgeoisie. The point is that here we have Hoxha verging at one point on thinking that the character of a party depends on its “social composition” (so that a party in a mainly peasant country, and composed mostly of peasants, must be a workers’ and peasants’ party rather than a proletarian party)–and the PLA has never criticized itself on this score and continues to keep its “labor” name. For Hoxha to do this at one point, and then to call down thunderbolts from heaven when Mao deals with the question of representatives of the petty bourgeoisie in a ruling communist party, is a rather glaring instance of Hoxha’s hypocrisy and his totally unprincipled and non-Marxist method of argument and polemic.Of course I already noted that the Maoist author is effectively attacking Stalin himself in-re the name. The CPA's strategy was to unite the workers and poor peasants, with the former at the head. The CCP's strategy was for a "bloc of four classes" with a leading role for the peasantry.

[ind_com]

The article sucks. To deal with historical matters, it makes fun of the fact that at the First Congress of the Communist Party of Albania in 1948, it changed its name to the Party of Labour of Albania. The author, of course, didn't know (although he would be able to learn a year or two later) that no less a personality than J.V. Stalin suggested the name-change to Hoxha when the latter visited Moscow, as noted by Hoxha in his memoir With Stalin (and as later confirmed after 1991, in the Albanian archives.)

The author likewise criticizes the Albanian Communists for admitting that they often hid Party proclamations behind those of the Democratic Front in the early postwar years. Here there's no excuse for the author to be ignorant; the Front and the Party's relationship to it were based on the Yugoslav People's Front, and the CPY likewise did the same thing as the CPA. In fact one of the Cominform's main criticisms of the CPY was that it was effectively merging the activities of the CPY and the Front. When Yugoslav control over most Albanian affairs ended in 1948, the practice of hiding behind the Front rather than leading it was condemned.

The article does have its drawbacks, but despite them it does quite a good job of exposing Hoxha's line. The following excerpt is very interesting.


Hoxha charges that:

Mao Tsetung was never able to understand and explain correctly the close links between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution. Contrary to the Marxist-Leninist theory, which has proved scientifically that there is no Chinese wall between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, that these two revolutions do not have to be divided from each other by a long period of time, Mao Tsetung asserted: “The transformation of our revolution into socialist revolution is a matter of the future... As to when the transition will take place... it may take quite a long time. We should not hold forth about this transition until all the necessary political and economic conditions are present and until it is advantageous and not detrimental to the overwhelming majority of our people.”[8]

By now the astute reader will ask, what exactly did Hoxha leave out with his two sets of three dots (ellipses). The first ... is to obliterate one sentence in which Mao writes, “In the future the democratic revolution will inevitably be transformed into a socialist revolution.” The second . . . wipes out the phrase that appears in the sentence, “As to when the transition will take place, that will depend on the presence of the necessary conditions, and it may take quite a long time.” (Omitted phrase in italics.)[9][9a]

Thus we see that Hoxha omits two critical points of Mao’s: 1) that the transition to the socialist revolution is inevitable, and 2) that this transition depends on the “presence of the necessary conditions.”

Hoxha goes on to state:

Mao Tsetung adhered to this anti-Marxist concept, which is not for the transformation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into socialist revolution, during the whole period of the revolution, even after liberation. Thus, in 1940, Mao Tsetung said: “The Chinese revolution must necessarily pass through... the stage of New Democracy and then the stage of socialism. Of these, the first stage will need a relatively long time. . . . ”[10]

For the reader’s convenience, the whole of the paragraph Hoxha “quotes” is reprinted below, from the authorized Chinese translation and without his handy ellipses:

Without a doubt, the present revolution is the first step, which will develop into the second step, that of socialism, at a later date. And China will attain true happiness only when she enters the socialist era. But today is not yet the time to introduce socialism. The present task of the revolution in China is to fight imperialism and feudalism, and socialism is out of the question until this task is completed. The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight. We are not Utopians and cannot divorce ourselves from the actual conditions confronting us.[11]

So once again it is clear, even from the very passages Hoxha tries to twist and distort to back up his slanders, that Mao is clear that the new-democratic revolution leads to socialism once the necessary conditions have been met, which he specifically notes are the defeat of imperialism and feudalism.



Of course I already noted that the Maoist author is effectively attacking Stalin himself in-re the name. The CPA's strategy was to unite the workers and poor peasants, with the former at the head. The CCP's strategy was for a "bloc of four classes" with a leading role for the peasantry.

"To sum up, it can be seen that our enemies are all those in league with imperialism--the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big landlord class and the reactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may become our friend but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks." - Mao Zedong (Analysis of the classes in Chinese society. 1926)

[Ismail]

There is a good read by a pro-Albanian group, written the same year as the RCPUSA anti-Hoxha polemic, on Mao's rightist views in the 40's here: http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/cousml-neo/part4.htm

Anyway, to address said polemic:

Thus we see that Hoxha omits two critical points of Mao’s: 1) that the transition to the socialist revolution is inevitable, and 2) that this transition depends on the “presence of the necessary conditions.”Hoxha omitted them because they were, in effect, demagoguery. Obviously Mao isn't going to say "China will remain at the democratic stage forever."

Albanian sources (e.g. The People's Revolution in Albania and the Question of State Power by Luan Omari) point out that in Albania the democratic revolution was not artificially separated from the socialist revolution, and that democratic tasks were bound up with socialist tasks. There was no prolonged democratic stage where blocs of classes coexisted. The CCP upheld a right-wing interpretation of People's Democracy and it showed in practice.

Also Mao saying that the proletariat is the leading force in the CCP, in itself, means nothing, especially at such an early date. As Mao wrote much later, "Essentially, the politics of New Democracy means giving power to the peasants." (quoted by Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 421.)

[ind_com]

There is a good read by a pro-Albanian group, written the same year as the RCPUSA anti-Hoxha polemic, on Mao's rightist views in the 40's here:


This one is actually a far better criticism of Mao's line than Hoxha's 'Imperialism and the Revolution'. Although it starts with raising a hue and cry about the 'Three worlds theory' and an interview in which Mao flattered the USA while asking for their military presence in order to weaken the GMD, which is a typical Hoxhaist/Trotskyite method of attacking Chinese communism, it later does make some valid criticisms of Chinese communists.


Anyway, to address said polemic:
Hoxha omitted them because they were, in effect, demagoguery. Obviously Mao isn't going to say "China will remain at the democratic stage forever."

The nature of the omissions is itself demagogic. There is no other reason why anyone would shorten “As to when the transition will take place, that will depend on the presence of the necessary conditions, and it may take quite a long time” to "As to when the transition will take place... it may take quite a long time" for proving his own point.


Albanian sources (e.g. The People's Revolution in Albania and the Question of State Power by Luan Omari) point out that in Albania the democratic revolution was not artificially separated from the socialist revolution, and that democratic tasks were bound up with socialist tasks. There was no prolonged democratic stage where blocs of classes coexisted. The CCP upheld a right-wing interpretation of People's Democracy and it showed in practice.

Despite Hoxha's support for the Cultural Revolution, and his attempts to discredit Mao only after Maoists were wiped out from power in China, the Albanian counterpart of the cultural revolution was far less developed. The cultural revolution in China was a movement that even saw CPC leaders being exposed by the workers themselves, while in the same years, Hoxha was busy banning beards and travels abroad. Keeping in mind that even after two decades of the Albanian revolution, Hoxha's policies were primarily directed at cultural isolationism and fighting Islam, it is doubtful if Albanian socialism can be called socialism in the first place.


Also Mao saying that the proletariat is the leading force in the CCP, in itself, means nothing, especially at such an early date. As Mao wrote much later, "Essentially, the politics of New Democracy means giving power to the peasants." (quoted by Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 421.)

Could you please provide a link to the work by Mao where he stated that?

[Ismail]

Although it starts with raising a hue and cry about the 'Three worlds theory'Are you one of those who believe that somehow Mao was ignorant of the existence of the "Three Worlds Theory"? Or do you actually defend it?


The nature of the omissions is itself demagogic. There is no other reason why anyone would shorten “As to when the transition will take place, that will depend on the presence of the necessary conditions, and it may take quite a long time” to "As to when the transition will take place... it may take quite a long time" for proving his own point.And adding "..." does not change the content of the sentence.


Despite Hoxha's support for the Cultural Revolution, and his attempts to discredit Mao only after Maoists were wiped out from power in China,Hoxha did not support the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution." In public the Albanians praised China (and vice-versa), but in private, as early as the year the "GPCR" was launched, Hoxha made criticisms and had apprehensions both in his diary and amongst fellow leaders. See for instance: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1966/10/01.htm


the Albanian counterpart of the cultural revolution was far less developed.The Albanians weren't seeking to emulate the Chinese. Furthermore, Albanian sources do not really proclaim that in 1966 a "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" began as some independent event; they regard those years in Albania as a deepening of the process which began upon liberation, and use "cultural and ideological revolution" without capitalization.


The cultural revolution in China was a movement that even saw CPC leaders being exposed by the workers themselves,In the early 70's a number of PLA leaders were exposed in the economic, cultural and military fields. A number of them had been under increasing scrutiny from worker check-ups and other methods.


while in the same years, Hoxha was busy banning beards and travels abroad.... and advocating the reduction of the state bureaucracy (which was indeed marked with initial success), significant steps in increasing the prominence and influence of women in all levers of society, and other initiatives. In other words, it was actually tasked with cultural and ideological matters and not, as Hoxha put it, a "palace putsch on an all-China scale."

And are we to assume that China was a land where people could freely emigrate?


Keeping in mind that even after two decades of the Albanian revolution, Hoxha's policies were primarily directed at cultural isolationism and fighting IslamThis is asinine. At the 8th Congress of the PLA in 1981 Hoxha was calling for the intensification of efforts to convert collective farms into state farms at a time when Dengist China and the Eastern Bloc were going in the opposite direction. By the 80's Albania also achieved what was basically the world's most egalitarian wage structures.

Nor was there "cultural isolationism" (certainly much less than China under its "Cultural Revolution.") Even anti-communist works will note that Albanians with access to TV had more or less free access to Italian and Yugoslav stations. Albanian bookshops likewise had plenty of Western authors.


Could you please provide a link to the work by Mao where he stated that?It's from Mao's 1940 speech "On New Democracy," with an official translation rendering it as, "New-democratic politics virtually consists in granting power to the peasants." (On New Democracy, 1964, p. 40.)

As the 1979 work I've linked to has noted, the Chinese liked changing words. Just a few years later, in 1967, Volume II of Mao's Selected Works has the passage changed to "the politics of New Democracy means giving the peasants their rights." (see: http://marx2mao.com/Mao/ND40.html)

[ind_com]

Are you one of those who believe that somehow Mao was ignorant of the existence of the "Three Worlds Theory"? Or do you actually defend it?

I acknowledge that class struggle exists within a socialist nation. Hence I do not think that Mao, or Stalin for that matter, were responsible for every action of party leaders or the party itself in their respective countries. As far as the theory of the three worlds is concerned, Mao can be held responsible only for what he said about it himself.


And adding "..." does not change the content of the sentence.In this case it certainly deleted some portions of the sentence and effectively distorted its meaning.


Hoxha did not support the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution." In public the Albanians praised China (and vice-versa), but in private, as early as the year the "GPCR" was launched, Hoxha made criticisms and had apprehensions both in his diary and amongst fellow leaders. See for instance:


Why did he not make his criticisms public?


The Albanians weren't seeking to emulate the Chinese. Furthermore, Albanian sources do not really proclaim that in 1966 a "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" began as some independent event; they regard those years in Albania as a deepening of the process which began upon liberation, and use "cultural and ideological revolution" without capitalization.

In the early 70's a number of PLA leaders were exposed in the economic, cultural and military fields. A number of them had been under increasing scrutiny from worker check-ups and other methods.

... and advocating the reduction of the state bureaucracy (which was indeed marked with initial success), significant steps in increasing the prominence and influence of women in all levers of society, and other initiatives. In other words, it was actually tasked with cultural and ideological matters and not, as Hoxha put it, a "palace putsch on an all-China scale."

How exactly were these achieved? By bureaucrats alone, or through the involvement of workers? It will be nice to see some detailed accounts.


And are we to assume that China was a land where people could freely emigrate?

I don't know of any major emigration restrictions in socialist USSR or PRC.


This is asinine. At the 8th Congress of the PLA in 1981 Hoxha was calling for the intensification of efforts to convert collective farms into state farms at a time when Dengist China and the Eastern Bloc were going in the opposite direction. By the 80's Albania also achieved what was basically the world's most egalitarian wage structures.

A detailed account of this collectivization or wage structures will be appreciated. Also, while we are at it, let's hear about any foreign aid that Albania received throughout the period of the Sino-Soviet split or after the Sino-Albanian split.


Nor was there "cultural isolationism" (certainly much less than China under its "Cultural Revolution.") Even anti-communist works will note that Albanians with access to TV had more or less free access to Italian and Yugoslav stations. Albanian bookshops likewise had plenty of Western authors.

But did they have access to American or West European TV-channels, so that they could have an idea of the standards of living in the West?


It's from Mao's 1940 speech "On New Democracy," with an official translation rendering it as, "New-democratic politics virtually consists in granting power to the peasants." (On New Democracy, 1964, p. 40.)

As the 1979 work I've linked to has noted, the Chinese liked changing words. Just a few years later, in 1967, Volume II of Mao's Selected Works has the passage changed to "the politics of New Democracy means giving the peasants their rights." (see:

Changing words. Which could be due to genuine problems in translations. Or they could be due to better theorization of one's politics. Apparently there was no problem when Stalin changed words regarding the victory of socialism in one country or omitted whole sentences about Yezhov. Do Hoxhaists also conclude that Georgians liked changing words?

[Ismail]

As far as the theory of the three worlds is concerned, Mao can be held responsible only for what he said about it himself.This is asinine. Mao approved Deng's speech to the United Nations which announced the policy, and he had met Nixon in Beijing which was a demonstration of the policy in action.


Why did he not make his criticisms public?For the same reason Hoxha didn't make his criticisms of the USSR public until November 1960 (and not "officially" until after the Soviets broke off diplomatic relations with Albania a year later), and the same reason the Chinese as late as 1962 or so were praising "Comrade Khrushchev" and the USSR (and vice-versa): as the History of the Party of Labor of Albania notes (pp. 413-414), after pointing out that the CC of the PLA made known its disagreements with the CC of the CPSU through letters, personal meetings, etc., the PLA (and CCP) did not yet opt for open opposition since "such an act would have been to the benefit of the enemies of communism who had unleashed a frenzied campaign against the Soviet Union and the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement." Hoxha says similar things of the Chinese in his diary.

Elez Biberaj in his book Albania and China notes that the Albanians did not portray "Mao Zedong Thought" as a new and "higher" stage of Marxism-Leninism, among other things which demonstrated their reservations about the "GPCR" and Mao's personality cult.


A detailed account of this collectivization or wage structures will be appreciated. Also, while we are at it, let's hear about any foreign aid that Albania received throughout the period of the Sino-Soviet split or after the Sino-Albanian split.You're free to read books. As for wages, though, income differentials by the time of Hoxha's death were limited by law to a maximum of 2:1 (Perspectives on Albania, 1992, p. 134) and in practice, "The ratio between the highest and lowest incomes was 1:2 so that in the mid-1980s a factory director would take home approximately 900 leks a month, an assembly worker 750 and a roadsweeper 600." (Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity, 2000, p. 12.)


But did they have access to American or West European TV-channels, so that they could have an idea of the standards of living in the West?I'd say having access to Italian (which I'm fairly certain is in Western Europe) and Yugoslav TV gave a pretty good idea of Western living standards, and this in fact did contribute to discontent in the late 80's and the perceiving of the West as a land of wealth and glory ready to extend its reach to Albania.


Changing words. Which could be due to genuine problems in translations. Or they could be due to better theorization of one's politics.I don't see how the latter could happen considering it's a speech from 1940, it's not like it was updated by Mao with a preface saying "oh, I was wrong about X."


Apparently there was no problem when Stalin changed words regarding the victory of socialism in one countryHe wrote a new edition of his work a year or two after the original, and noted as such. The "changed words" were not particularly significant either.


or omitted whole sentences about Yezhov.I don't think hat-tips to Yezhov belong in the same category as changing "New Democracy means giving power to the peasants" to the much less controversial "New Democracy means giving peasants their rights."

[ind_com]

This is asinine. Mao approved Deng's speech to the United Nations which announced the policy, and he had met Nixon in Beijing which was a demonstration of the policy in action.

The meeting of Mao and Nixon demonstrate nothing more than tactical siding with one imperialist power in order to weaken another. Moreover Chinese support for the struggles in Vietnam and the Philippines demonstrate opposition of the Three Worlds Theory.


For the same reason Hoxha didn't make his criticisms of the USSR public until November 1960 (and not "officially" until after the Soviets broke off diplomatic relations with Albania a year later), and the same reason the Chinese as late as 1962 or so were praising "Comrade Khrushchev" and the USSR (and vice-versa): as the History of the Party of Labor of Albania notes (pp. 413-414), after pointing out that the CC of the PLA made known its disagreements with the CC of the CPSU through letters, personal meetings, etc., the PLA (and CCP) did not yet opt for open opposition since "such an act would have been to the benefit of the enemies of communism who had unleashed a frenzied campaign against the Soviet Union and the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement." Hoxha says similar things of the Chinese in his diary.


That is quite good. But the Sino-Albanian split seems to be very well-timed on the Albanian side with their strengthening relations with other capitalist countries. Of course I don't deny that termination of material aid played a big part in the sudden about-turn of Hoxha's politics.



Elez Biberaj in his book Albania and China notes that the Albanians did not portray "Mao Zedong Thought" as a new and "higher" stage of Marxism-Leninism, among other things which demonstrated their reservations about the "GPCR" and Mao's personality cult.

Or the predominance of Hoxhaist revisionism in Albania.


You're free to read books. As for wages, though, income differentials by the time of Hoxha's death were limited by law to a maximum of 2:1 (Perspectives on Albania, 1992, p. 134) and in practice, "The ratio between the highest and lowest incomes was 1:2 so that in the mid-1980s a factory director would take home approximately 900 leks a month, an assembly worker 750 and a roadsweeper 600." (Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity, 2000, p. 12.)

I'd say having access to Italian (which I'm fairly certain is in Western Europe) and Yugoslav TV gave a pretty good idea of Western living standards, and this in fact did contribute to discontent in the late 80's and the perceiving of the West as a land of wealth and glory ready to extend its reach to Albania.

Why was there any discontent after all those years of socialist planning?



I don't see how the latter could happen considering it's a speech from 1940, it's not like it was updated by Mao with a preface saying "oh, I was wrong about X."

He wrote a new edition of his work a year or two after the original, and noted as such. The "changed words" were not particularly significant either.
Did he mention which words were changed and why? Mentioning the existence of old editions is not quite enough.

I don't think hat-tips to Yezhov belong in the same category as changing "New Democracy means giving power to the peasants" to the much less controversial "New Democracy means giving peasants their rights." Not theoretically, but deleting people from books as well as pictures is somewhat creepy, and definitely not very communistic.

[Ismail]

The meeting of Mao and Nixon demonstrate nothing more than tactical siding with one imperialist power in order to weaken another.And how can you justify that? The Chinese line was that NATO was a "defensive alliance" against Soviet social-imperialism, that "European unity" was necessary to safeguard the continent against the Soviets, that Zaire and Chile were states worth supporting because they were in the "third world," etc. Nixon's visit to Beijing, as Kissinger and various others have since noted, began the process of "opening up" China and creating an informal alliance between the USA and China. There was nothing principled about any of this.


Moreover Chinese support for the struggles in Vietnam and the Philippines demonstrate opposition of the Three Worlds Theory.The Vietnamese leadership was furious that the Chinese were talking behind their backs to the Americans over the future of the country. As for the Philippines, Hoxha in his diary in 1977 noted that, "The news agencies report that the chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines, together with a group of other comrades of the Central Committee of the Party, has been arrested by the dictator Marcos. The Communist Party of the Philippines is a militant party but it is being completely sabotaged by the Chinese revisionists. Why should the murderer Marcos not do such a thing when Mao Tsetung himself had established close links with the executioners of the Communist Party of the Philippines? The dictator Marcos and his beautiful wife, with her dress cut so low that her tits almost hung out, were received two or three times in audience by Mao. They were praised and congratulated by him and sought close and sincere friendship with Mao Tsetung and China. And Mao gave them his hand." (Reflections on China Vol. II, p. 716.)


Or the predominance of Hoxhaist revisionism in Albania."Hoxhaism" doesn't exist; Marxism-Leninism does.


Why was there any discontent after all those years of socialist planning?Because economic planning doesn't work too well when the resources necessary aren't available. As pretty much every source notes, the economy began sharply contracting after the early 80's. Some industries simply shut down because there were no resources to process, since they couldn't be obtained abroad.


Did he mention which words were changed and why?Stalin? Yes, he did. See: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm#VI (part six)


Not theoretically, but deleting people from books as well as pictures is somewhat creepy, and definitely not very communistic.Not like Lin Biao, Liu Shaoqi, etc. didn't suffer similar fates. I also see how this practice affects anything in-re "communism."

[ind_com]

And how can you justify that? The Chinese line was that NATO was a "defensive alliance" against Soviet social-imperialism, that "European unity" was necessary to safeguard the continent against the Soviets, that Zaire and Chile were states worth supporting because they were in the "third world," etc. Nixon's visit to Beijing, as Kissinger and various others have since noted, began the process of "opening up" China and creating an informal alliance between the USA and China. There was nothing principled about any of this.

The principle was an alliance with an imperialist power against another, because the latter posed greater threat to China. Pro-Soviet governments had demonstrated their ferocity while crushing communist movements. So it made complete sense to tactically ally with the USA. Although statements such that countries have to be supported because they are in the third world, have to be criticised.


The Vietnamese leadership was furious that the Chinese were talking behind their backs to the Americans over the future of the country.

It is to be noted that after the death of Ho Chi Minh, the Communist Party of Vietnam was taken over by pro-Soviet revisionists. Anyways, can you link to any pre-1976 document from the Communist Party of Vietnam which indicates this "fury"?



As for the Philippines, Hoxha in his diary in 1977 noted that, "The news agencies report that the chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines, together with a group of other comrades of the Central Committee of the Party, has been arrested by the dictator Marcos. The Communist Party of the Philippines is a militant party but it is being completely sabotaged by the Chinese revisionists. Why should the murderer Marcos not do such a thing when Mao Tsetung himself had established close links with the executioners of the Communist Party of the Philippines? Did Hoxha do anything other than write his own imaginations in his diary? Or did Hoxhaists of any category care to communicate with the PKP about this? This line is similar to a subcontinental Trotskyite line that accuses China of not helping the Marxist-Leninists materially, but never dares to bring this up with any subcontinental Marxist Leninist Party in fear of instant polemical defeat.





The dictator Marcos and his beautiful wife, with her dress cut so low that her tits almost hung out, were received two or three times in audience by Mao. Tells a lot about Hoxha.



They were praised and congratulated by him and sought close and sincere friendship with Mao Tsetung and China. And Mao gave them his hand." (Reflections on China Vol. II, p. 716.) Definitely according to Hoxhaist logic this must be enough to prove a Maoist conspiracy against Maoist revolutionaries.


"Hoxhaism" doesn't exist; Marxism-Leninism does.

Marxism-Leninism includes Stalin's support for the Chinese Revolution and acknowledging that China was a socialist country. Hoxhaism is characterized by its opposition to Chinese socialism and Maoism. Marxism-Leninism is remembered for the glorious revolutions that it ideologically led while Hoxhaism is remembered for Hoxha's insane political about-turn. Marxism-Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, remains the ideology of revolutions of today. Hoxhaism on the other hand, has self-dissolved and cannot be distinguished from Trotskyism by its practice.


Because economic planning doesn't work too well when the resources necessary aren't available. As pretty much every source notes, the economy began sharply contracting after the early 80's. Some industries simply shut down because there were no resources to process, since they couldn't be obtained abroad. In other words, socialism in one country (in this case, Albania) is not possible. So very Marxist-Leninist of you, indeed!


Stalin? Yes, he did. See: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm#VI (part six)


Good piece of information, thank you.

About the article by Mao, I see that even other than the controversial part that was changed later, Mao claimed that "This means that the Chinese revolution is essentially a peasant revolution and that the resistance to Japan now going on is essentially peasant resistance." All of this can be used to characterize the Chinese revolution as a peasant war if we ignore what Mao claimed earlier in the same article: "Therefore, the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and the other sections of the petty bourgeoisie undoubtedly constitute the basic forces determining China's fate. These classes, some already awakened and others in the process of awakening, will necessarily become the basic components of the state and governmental structure in the democratic republic of China, with the proletariat as the leading force. The Chinese democratic republic which we desire to establish now must be a democratic republic under the joint dictatorship of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people led by the proletariat, that is, a new-democratic republic, a republic of the genuinely revolutionary new Three People's Principles with their Three Great Policies." This itself implies that the Chinese revolution was a peasant revolution in the sense that peasants were the most numerous class in it, and were instrumental in smashing the semi-feudal organs of state power. Even Stalin had not said a word against this formulation of the Chinese Revolution. But of course, Hoxha ignores it. His analysis of the Chinese revolution is nothing but fermented Trotskyism, only manifolds fouler because of his alliance with China for decades.

[Ismail]

The principle was an alliance with an imperialist power against another, because the latter posed greater threat to China. Pro-Soviet governments had demonstrated their ferocity while crushing communist movements. So it made complete sense to tactically ally with the USA.And a concomitant part of this policy was allying with all the anti-communist regimes that the USA—no stranger to crushing communist movements either—had set up on the basis of CIA-backed military coups, invasions, and other means.

The view that the USSR was "more dangerous" than the USA was completely opportunistic. To quote Hoxha, "Soviet social imperialism is a savage, aggressive imperialism, thirsty for expansion, which is pursuing a typically colonialist and neo-colonialist policy, which is based on the power of capital and arms... But this in no way means that the other enemy of the peoples and of the whole world, US imperialism is allegedly no longer warmongering, that allegedly it has been weakened, is in decline, that it has become a «timid mouse», in a word, US imperialism is turning peaceful. Matters have reached the point that even the US military presence in various countries such as Germany, Belgium or Italy, in Japan and other countries, is being justified [by China] and described as a factor for defence." (The Theory and Practice of Revolution, 1977, p. 28.)


It is to be noted that after the death of Ho Chi Minh, the Communist Party of Vietnam was taken over by pro-Soviet revisionists.The pro-Soviet slant of the CPV was apparent as the 1960's progressed, to the extent that Ho Chi Minh publicly endorsed the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. This was the result of it taking a vacillating stand on Soviet revisionism, which stressed "unity" between it and genuine Marxism-Leninism because of the DRV's own pressing need to fight US imperialism right on its doorstep. Yet the CPV could have turned into an avowedly capitalist party and this still would not justify, for instance, the Chinese invasion of it in 1979 or bargaining with US imperialism over the fate of the Vietnam War.


Anyways, can you link to any pre-1976 document from the Communist Party of Vietnam which indicates this "fury"?In the first place, any reasonably detailed discussion of the visits of Nixon and Kissinger to China will note that one of their goals was to harm the DRV's struggle. As one book notes, both men knew that "by opening to China, they would be able to make North Vietnam feel more isolated and vulnerable." (Isaacson, Kissinger: A Biography, p. 334.) And "the North Vietnamese had drawn the inescapable conclusion that China valued its relationship with the United States more than its revolutionary unity with the DRV." (Qiang Zhai, China and the Vietnam Wars, p. 197.)

Kissinger in his memoir Years of Upheaval noted that China "profoundly distrusted" the DRV and that if the Paris Peace Accords failed "Hanoi would achieve hegemony in Indochina without a fight, discredit the United States internationally as a paper tiger, and create on China's southern border a powerful Vietnamese state... in Indochina, American and Chinese interests were nearly parallel... Zhou Enlai... had always urged a ceasefire much like what we had achieved, the implication of which inevitably would permit the South Vietnamese government to survive. Unlike many of our domestic opponents, he never pressed us to overthrow Thieu and to install Hanoi's puppet regime."

In Mao: The Unknown Story (yes, I know it's a dubious source, but this bit is confirmed by other sources) the authors relate the following on page 585: "When Chou went to Hanoi immediately after Kissinger's first visit, to explain Peking's move, he got an earful from North Vietnam's leader. 'Vietnam is our country;' Le Duan protested; 'you have no right to discuss the question of Vietnam with the United States.' After Nixon's visit, Chou returned to Hanoi, and got an even worse reception."


Did Hoxha do anything other than write his own imaginations in his diary? Or did Hoxhaists of any category care to communicate with the PKP about this?You're the one claiming that the Chinese were simultaneously promoting their "Three Worlds Theory" and going "against" it using Vietnam and the Philippines as examples.


In other words, socialism in one country (in this case, Albania) is not possible. So very Marxist-Leninist of you, indeed!Except Albania successfully constructed socialism in the main, as had the USSR under Stalin.

As for Stalin, he considered the Chinese revolution to have ushered in something a fair bit different from the People's Democracies of Eastern Europe. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/pdchina.htm

Facts later demonstrated that although the CCP paid lip-service to the "leading role of the proletariat" (much as the Soviet revisionists still claimed the "leading role of the working-class" in the Soviet state and CSPU, even though both were said to be "of the whole people"), their doctrines absolutized the role of the peasantry in practice and during the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" Mao saw his greatest allies in the students and the army, not the proletariat.

[ind_com]

And a concomitant part of this policy was allying with all the anti-communist regimes that the USA—no stranger to crushing communist movements either—had set up on the basis of CIA-backed military coups, invasions, and other means. Tactical alliances. Didn't mean that China supported their anti-communist policies in any way.


The view that the USSR was "more dangerous" than the USA was completely opportunistic. To quote Hoxha, "Soviet social imperialism is a savage, aggressive imperialism, thirsty for expansion, which is pursuing a typically colonialist and neo-colonialist policy, which is based on the power of capital and arms... But this in no way means that the other enemy of the peoples and of the whole world, US imperialism is allegedly no longer warmongering, that allegedly it has been weakened, is in decline, that it has become a «timid mouse», in a word, US imperialism is turning peaceful. Matters have reached the point that even the US military presence in various countries such as Germany, Belgium or Italy, in Japan and other countries, is being justified [by China] and described as a factor for defence." (The Theory and Practice of Revolution, 1977, p. 28.)

The Soviet Union militarized its borders with China and was a greater threat. The greatest threat to the world is not necessarily the greatest threat in every region. However, claiming that US military presence in Japan etc. was merely for defence, should be criticized.


The pro-Soviet slant of the CPV was apparent as the 1960's progressed, to the extent that Ho Chi Minh publicly endorsed the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. This was the result of it taking a vacillating stand on Soviet revisionism, which stressed "unity" between it and genuine Marxism-Leninism because of the DRV's own pressing need to fight US imperialism right on its doorstep. Yet the CPV could have turned into an avowedly capitalist party and this still would not justify, for instance, the Chinese invasion of it in 1979 or bargaining with US imperialism over the fate of the Vietnam War.

True, but Ho Chi Minh was a centrist rather than a revisionist. And the Chinese invasion happened when anti-Maoists had come to power in China.


In the first place, any reasonably detailed discussion of the visits of Nixon and Kissinger to China will note that one of their goals was to harm the DRV's struggle. As one book notes, both men knew that "by opening to China, they would be able to make North Vietnam feel more isolated and vulnerable." (Isaacson, Kissinger: A Biography, p. 334.) And "the North Vietnamese had drawn the inescapable conclusion that China valued its relationship with the United States more than its revolutionary unity with the DRV." (Qiang Zhai, China and the Vietnam Wars, p. 197.)

Kissinger in his memoir Years of Upheaval noted that China "profoundly distrusted" the DRV and that if the Paris Peace Accords failed "Hanoi would achieve hegemony in Indochina without a fight, discredit the United States internationally as a paper tiger, and create on China's southern border a powerful Vietnamese state... in Indochina, American and Chinese interests were nearly parallel... Zhou Enlai... had always urged a ceasefire much like what we had achieved, the implication of which inevitably would permit the South Vietnamese government to survive. Unlike many of our domestic opponents, he never pressed us to overthrow Thieu and to install Hanoi's puppet regime."

Thanks, but I was looking for documents from the Vietnamese CP itself.


In Mao: The Unknown Story (yes, I know it's a dubious source, but this bit is confirmed by other sources) the authors relate the following on page 585: "When Chou went to Hanoi immediately after Kissinger's first visit, to explain Peking's move, he got an earful from North Vietnam's leader. 'Vietnam is our country;' Le Duan protested; 'you have no right to discuss the question of Vietnam with the United States.' After Nixon's visit, Chou returned to Hanoi, and got an even worse reception."

Right!


You're the one claiming that the Chinese were simultaneously promoting their "Three Worlds Theory" and going "against" it using Vietnam and the Philippines as examples.

Yes I did, and you are quoting from Hoxha's personal diary, that didn't conform with his actions anyway. It seems as if Hoxha was enjoying the show while Filipino communists were murdered.


Except Albania successfully constructed socialism in the main, as had the USSR under Stalin.

And Alabanian 'socialism' vanished into thin air with our dear leader Comrade Hoxha's demise.


As for Stalin, he considered the Chinese revolution to have ushered in something a fair bit different from the People's Democracies of Eastern Europe. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/pdchina.htm

Sorry, I was wrong in implying that Stalin did not make any difference between the two. Mao himself declared the contradiction between the proletariat and national bourgeoisie to be principal only in 1952. But Stalin still upheld the Chinese revolution and also suggested the same path for India. This is on opposing ends with Hoxha's line that declared the Chinese line, and hence Stalin's line, as counter-revolutionary.


Facts later demonstrated that although the CCP paid lip-service to the "leading role of the proletariat" (much as the Soviet revisionists still claimed the "leading role of the working-class" in the Soviet state and CSPU, even though both were said to be "of the whole people"), their doctrines absolutized the role of the peasantry in practice and during the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" Mao saw his greatest allies in the students and the army, not the proletariat. And these facts came to light as soon as Chinese aid stopped flowing into Albania. Such a coincidence! And during the GPCR, workers played the chief role in exposing reactionaries such as Liu Shaoqi.

[Ismail]

Tactical alliances. Didn't mean that China supported their anti-communist policies in any way.China established all sorts of diplomatic and economic relations with Chile, Zaire, and other reactionary regimes. Mobutu even praised Mao in the 90's because of how generous he was with money.


The Soviet Union militarized its borders with China and was a greater threat. The greatest threat to the world is not necessarily the greatest threat in every region. However, claiming that US military presence in Japan etc. was merely for defence, should be criticized.The Albanian seriously feared a Soviet invasion of their country both during the 1960-61 period, and shortly after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Yet at no point did they declare that American imperialism was either "in decline" or a "lesser evil." China, which occupies a far larger landmass and obviously had the prerequisites to becoming a superpower (which it is ardently pursuing today) had even less of a reason, and yet embraced such positions.

Calling NATO a "defensive alliance" is indefensible. That's not being "realistic," it's calling on Marxist-Leninists (who upheld China at that point) to defend a "weakening" American imperialism against a "growing" Soviet social-imperialism. To give another example, in 1979 the Chinese supported the Shah of Iran and treated the Iranian revolution as something dangerous, since it meant that the Soviets could try manipulating the situation to their advantage.


True, but Ho Chi Minh was a centrist rather than a revisionist.I'm aware.


And the Chinese invasion happened when anti-Maoists had come to power in China.I don't know what "anti-Maoists" is supposed to signify in this context unless you treat Pol Pot as a fellow communist. When the Vietnamese toppled him the Chinese declared that Vietnam was pursuing a "hegemonistic" policy in Southeast Asia, and was thus intervening to put a stop to this. Anyone not a sycophant for the Chinese could see how ridiculous this sounded.


It seems as if Hoxha was enjoying the show while Filipino communists were murdered.This is an idiotic remark. If he was just "enjoying the show" then he would have simply omitted that diary entry from the published version. The Party of Labour had fraternal ties with all sorts of Marxist-Leninist parties. Indonesian, Polish and other Maoist groups published their materials from Albania. Pedro Pomar of the PCdoB, back when both it and the PLA were avowedly pro-China, believed that the Albanians were more helpful than the Chinese.


And Alabanian 'socialism' vanished into thin air with our dear leader Comrade Hoxha's demise.Actually Albania's first capitalist reforms began in January 1990. Mao's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," by contrast, had discredited itself while he was alive and his policies were more or less immediately abandoned after he died.


And during the GPCR, workers played the chief role in exposing reactionaries such as Liu Shaoqi.And Deng Xiaoping was rehabilitated by Mao. What's your point?