Maoists, Hoxhaists And The Sino-albanian Split...

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I understand that both Maoists and Hoxhaists view themselves as Marxist-Leninists, and as anti-revisionists too.

But I'd like to know more about the Sino-Albanian split and what this means for the anti-revisionist movement in general.

I'd also like to know the main issues that separate Maoists from Hoxhaists. I've some idea of these differences, based on my reading of Mao and Hoxha, but I also feel that the points of agreement far outweigh the differences.

In particular, I'd request everyone who posts on this topic to state whether they view themselves as a Maoist or a Hoxhaist/Hoxhaite.

As for me personally, I find myself in between the two groups, leaning slightly more towards Maoism, but retaining some Hoxhaist positions.

[Whitten]

The Sino-albanian split that occured between the two states wasn't so much caused by a conflict between maoism and hohaism, rather between Hoxha and the revisionist market socialists who took control in China after Mao's death. The split followed a decline in relations related to Albania's opposition to the "theory of three worlds" being pursued by Mao towards the end of his life.

While the term Hoxhaism had been used before the sino-albanian split by a small minority, the idea really became an "ism" in and off its own as a result of the split. In all honesty I've never really understood any real theoretical ddifferences between Maoism and Hoxhaism, and have always percieved Hoxhaists as being Maoists who reject a few policies of Mao towards the end of his life.

I am neither, I am a marxist leninist with no particular standing in regards to Hoxha or Mao, although I approve of both to reasonable degrees.

[Ezekiel]

[I removed it]

One of the things that Hoxha opposed was the 'three worlds theory', but I don't think that is the main point of conflict between the two beliefs. From what I understand of it, the Three Worlds Theory of Deng Xiaopeng was quite different than that of Mao, but I must confess that I don't remember the specifics of it.

From what I have read of Hoxha, he held the oldschool Stalinist belief that class struggle ceased under socialism. Mao emphasized that classes still existed under socialism, and there would inevitably be class struggle and attempts of a new bourgeois class to emerge from within the communist party. Stalin didn't believe this, and a new ruling class came out of the CPSU.

Both Maoist and Hoxhaists uphold Stalin, but Maoists aren't afraid to criticize his errors, whereas many Hoxhaists (who refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninist) generally uphold everything he did.

One of the things that Hoxha criticized Mao for was his views on the dialectics of class struggle and alliances. Hoxha claimed that the Chinese CP ceased to be revolutionary when Wang Ming's line was defeated in 1938(?) Wang Ming was opposed to working with any forces that were not proles or peasants.
Mao insisted that there are three main types of contradictions: antagonistic - those that cannot be resolved peacefully, non-antagonistic - those that can be worked out peacefully, like with other groups we don't agree with, but have the same interests, and non-antagonistic that could become antagonistic, such as the national bourgeosie.
Mao advocated working with those who would benefit from the revolution, like the petty bourgeoisie and some of the national bourgeosie who were anti-imperialist. Hoxha maintained the 'if youre not with us fuck you' approach.

Which Hoxhaist positions do you hold to?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Ezekial, SoS didn't do that. That quote is all over the internet sourced to Lenin.

On topic:

Ezekial pretty much hit the nail on the head. The main seperations I guess is that Hoxhaism is more orthodox Marxist-Leninist, while Maoism adds onto Marxist-Leninism.

I would consider my self a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist with some Hoxhaite leanings.

The Sino-Albanian Split essentially meant that Albania would be cut off from the imperialist and social-imperialist worlds.

[Ezekiel]

Actually, if you google it in quotations, you get ninety hits where it is used in reference to Lenin, and 2,130 by Goebbels.
It's generally Christian Fundies, virulent anti-communists, some Trots, and the occasional anarchist that will pin that on Lenin. You won't find it in anything 'scholarly,' but mostly on people's blogs, forum sigs, and stuff like that. Many of the sites that have it with Lenin's name say that it was attributed to Lenin, whereas it's kind of a known fact that Goebbels coined it.
Google it in quotations.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well whatever. It's irrelevent.

[Prairie Fire]

I'm RavenBlade, and I'm Hoxhaist (He he. This is like Commie AA.) By the way, the term is HoxhaIST, not HoxhaITE. Adding the suffix "ITE" to the end of anything makes it derogatory.

Yes, the major point of contention between Hoxha and Mao was the theory of three worlds, but also the Chinese leadership cozying up to USA and Western Europe to gang up on Soviet social-Imperialism. Essentially, th echinese picked a side between the two superpowers, while hoxha advocated supporting niether.
This was the final straw.

Not only this, but Hoxha was critical of many of Mao's ideological and theoretical polices, such as how he handled the cultural revolution, not to mention downplaying the role of the proletariat as the class for change.

SoS is right that the Maoism and Hoxhaism are quite similar. I hav eno problems working with Maoists, and have many maoist comrades. Still, while the differences may be subtle, they are still there.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Lenin said that the peasantry and students can also be revolutionary forces. Mao agreed, and that was the reason why the cultural revolution was a complete success until Lin Biao crossed over creating a power gap.

Also, how do you think the Maoist Cultural Revolution was handled wrong. Was it because the revolutionary masses were relied on rather than the revolutionary state as in the Albanian Cultural Revolution. I fail to see that as making any sense.

[Prairie Fire]

the problem with the Maoist cultural revolution was that it was chaos, lacking in leadership by the party vanguard. In many parts of the country, the cultural revolution was nothing more than mere witch-hunting and vigilante justice.

The Albanian cultural revolution was organized, and hence was prone to less excesses and thrill-seeking vigilantism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It was all under the leadership of the vanguard but because it was an attack on the revisionist trend within the party, it had a revolutionary feel.

[Ezekiel]

the problem with the Maoist cultural revolution was that it was chaos, lacking in leadership by the party vanguardIt wasn't entirely disorganized, it did involve leadership, but to an extent you are right, it wasn't some party bureaucrat sitting on his laurels telling the working masses what to do, who to throw down, etc, it was a politcally conscious mass of people acting on there own to a certain extent, which I think is necessary if we are to get past socialism as an authoritarian state.

The Albanian cultural revolution was organized,Organized in terms of the State issuing all the orders, not relying on the masses, yes. I just don't think the state should or even be what carries out a cultural revolution.
Since so many of the targets of the GPCR were in the party itself, it would be more of just a purge for the leaders of the party (whether they should be or not) to just organize to take out their opponents. What should have been done and was done was mobilize the people to overthrown those bent on restoring capitalism.

A lot of Maoists today, the RCP-USA in particular, have criticized Mao for his playing geo-politics, like allying with the US against the USSR, opposing Bangladesh's right to self-determiniation as it was a move by India (and USSR by proxy) to weaken the Pakistani-Chinese alliance, etc.

And um, if you couldn't tell already, I am a Maoist.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:59 am
the problem with the Maoist cultural revolution was that it was chaos, lacking in leadership by the party vanguard. In many parts of the country, the cultural revolution was nothing more than mere witch-hunting and vigilante justice.

The Albanian cultural revolution was organized, and hence was prone to less excesses and thrill-seeking vigilantism.
I agree the Cultural Revolutions intentions were good, but it got way out of hand.

The real question is that did the Cultural Revolution turn into chaos due to Mao's deteriating health?

[Liberal Kid]

Cultural revolutions intentions were good?

I'm mildly curious as to what these good intentions were.

Just go ahead and enlighten me...

[grove street]

Originally posted by Liberal [email protected] 01, 2007 02:23 am
Cultural revolutions intentions were good?

I'm mildly curious as to what these good intentions were.

Just go ahead and enlighten me...
To get rid of all reactionaries in the party and society and giving more power to the proletriate and the peasants.

It was Mao's last attempt at full scale Communism and boy did they get close.

[RNK]

From what I've read on the Cultural Revolution, it seems that much of the problems were caused by sabotage from some elements of the Party leadership.

The intentions of the Culteral Revolution were very simple. It was basically an attempt to hand power over to the People, to curb the power struggles that were then occuring in the Party leadership, and create a China where the people lead themselves without the need for a beauraucratic Party. However, through the course of it, the troubles it faced and the internal sabotage, it failed horribly.

Anyway, Liberal_Kid, go back to preparing for your $90K a year job or whatever. ;)

Lastly, I'm a Maoist, and I'm in a Maoist Party, which, thankfully, is not completely dogmatic concerning Mao's policies.

[TC]

There is absolutely no reason for someone who doesn't live in Albania to declare themselves a "hoxhaist", its not a coherent theoretical position its just latching onto an isolated political tradition.

It was a purely sectarian split for diplomatic reasons.


When people say they're a Maoist, a term coined by westerners, not in China, it doesn't mean that they believe in every stupid thing that Mao did, by that standard Mao wasn't a Maoist as he wrote lots of self criticisms, rather it means that they believe in a set of Mao's tactical and analytical contributions (protracted people's war, cultural revolution, third world revolution and typically social imperialism and anti-revisionism).

There is no sense in which Hoxha contributed similarly, he simply agreed with Mao and several other eastern european anti-soviet marxists on the issue of anti-revisionism.

[Prairie Fire]

not necesarilly...

Have you read any works by comrade Enver Hoxha?

I mean, Stalin also was mor eof a developer of Lenin then a seperate school of thought, but that doesn't negate his contributuons all together.

[Janus]

The real question is that did the Cultural Revolution turn into chaos due to Mao's deteriating health?
No, Mao was quite healthy during this period. After all, that was the whole point of the Chang Jiang swim.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:59 pm

The real question is that did the Cultural Revolution turn into chaos due to Mao's deteriating health?
No, Mao was quite healthy during this period. After all, that was the whole point of the Chang Jiang swim.
That was a the start of the Cultural Revolution, by the time it was turning to custard he was very ill, to the point he couldn't even sign his own documents.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Liberal [email protected] 01, 2007 02:23 am
Cultural revolutions intentions were good?

I'm mildly curious as to what these good intentions were.

Just go ahead and enlighten me...
That is a question which can give you alot of answers, it was essentially a mass mobilization against Soviet beauracratic State-Capitalist Social Imperialist and American obliarchial Imperialist -Capitalism. At the same time, it was to propel China into Communism through all out class struggle.

[Janus]

That was a the start of the Cultural Revolution, by the time it was turning to custard he was very ill, to the point he couldn't even sign his own documents.
I've never heard of that happening until his later years when his Parkinson's disease had reached its apex. The thing is that throughout his political career, Mao was wracked by different ailments during difficult times and during depressions but this poor health wasn't constant till the last few years of his life.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:59 pm
the problem with the Maoist cultural revolution was that it was chaos, lacking in leadership by the party vanguard. In many parts of the country, the cultural revolution was nothing more than mere witch-hunting and vigilante justice.

The Albanian cultural revolution was organized, and hence was prone to less excesses and thrill-seeking vigilantism.
Well wasn't that the point? To create a grass roots movement to remove reactionary elements from power in society.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hiero+March 03, 2007 02:07 pm--> (Hiero @ March 03, 2007 02:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:59 pm
the problem with the Maoist cultural revolution was that it was chaos, lacking in leadership by the party vanguard. In many parts of the country, the cultural revolution was nothing more than mere witch-hunting and vigilante justice.

The Albanian cultural revolution was organized, and hence was prone to less excesses and thrill-seeking vigilantism.
Well wasn't that the point? To create a grass roots movement to remove reactionary elements from power in society.[/b]
Certainly it would have been nice for China and Socialism if that had happened. And Mao's intention was not exactly that


ISReview
the problem with the Maoist cultural revolution was that it was chaos,lacking in leadership by the party vanguard

Yes really stupid people. Who are they to do anything Independently when there is soembody like Comrade Hoxha to herd them <_<

[OneBrickOneVoice]

G.Ram

that trot source holds no weight and no accuracy whatsoever.


It was a power struggle waged at the top between a handful of men and behind the smokescreen of a fictitious mass movement. As things turned out, the disorder unleashed by this power struggle created a genuinely revolutionary mass current, which developed spontaneously at the grass roots in the form of army mutinies and workers’ strikes on a vast scale. These had not been prescribed in the program, and they were crushed pitilessly.

LOL&#33; That&#39;s is classic: "it wasn&#39;t MEANT to be a mass movement, but because of trotskyism, IT WAS a mass movement"


Burned by the disaster of the Great Leap Forward, the ruling bureaucracy eased Mao from control over the day-to-day running of the state, and relegated him to a figurehead with little power.

"ruling bureaucracy" I love how trotskyists completly ignore the fact that as long as there are rulers there will be bureaucracy.


The disasters of collectivized production

yes how socialist of them, ending exploitation, what a disaster&#33;&#33;&#33; <_<


gradually replaced by private landholding in the countryside and economic incentives like piecework and greater managerial control in productive enterprises.

Where? and When? Besides the growing capitalist-revisionist faction in the CCP was a major reason for the GPCR


Mao had tremendous prestige, but little real power. For Mao to regain power, he had to attack sections of the bureaucracy. But the bureaucracy paid lip-service to his ideas and then effectively sabotaged them. Mao needed to create a counterforce where he had none. Unable to find an instrument within the bureaucracy itself, Mao resorted to looking outside of the Party apparatus to a force which he thought he personally could control. Unorganized youth and students became that force, whom he urged to form Red Guard detachments and destroy his adversaries.

Oh yes, it was an evil totalitarian scheme... :rolleyes:


The Headquarters, they found, were those of the Communist Party, where they would find "persons in authority taking the road back to capitalism." China’s 11 million students were urged to go out, seek and destroy. To speed up the process, Mao shut down much of China’s educational system in 1966.

Really? That&#39;s quite funny considering that it was at this time that literacy exploded along with middle school enrollment.


Workers and Red Guards clashed

where and when?


Mao issued a series of directives ordering workers to stay in work...Shanghai workers exploded in a rash of strikes and agitation that were echoed around the country

really that&#39;s quite funny considering that Mao supported the Shangai Commune and this is well documented.


"I myself had not foreseen that as soon as the Beijing University poster was broadcast, the whole country would be thrown into turmoil…Since it was I who caused the havoc, it is understandable if you have bitter words for me."

I don&#39;t see how this is a call to end the GPCR


In the third week of January, the army was ordered to take over the administration of the country. The army was to take control of factories, villages, institutions of finance and commerce, of learning, Party organs, administrative and mass organizations.

Very stupid comment. Actually what the PLA was doing was sending detachments to villages to support worker takeovers of factories and workplaces.


"I am the black hand that suppressed the Red Guards."

when was this?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry
that trot source holds no weight and no accuracy whatsoever.

Exactly an expected reply from you no surprise. :rolleyes:

I posted that piece not to "educate" you(which is totally pointless). My intention was just to provide a counter argument in case somebody who is new when reading this topic not to be confused because nobody had contradicted your dreamy claims. Also there is criticism of it from a Marxist perspective and to prove that socialism is more than Mao and Hoxha.

Most point in that article points to a source "Chairman&#39;s New clothes" by Simon Leys(Unfortunatly it is not available online). And other sources are provided in foot notes(Go check it out).And I myself a sympathiser of Mao once and believed that GPCR was really what its name stands for not some political game by Mao.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I went through point by point refuting what you posted. It was not marxist critiscism, it was anti-communist critiscism. Marxists don&#39;t claim that collective production is "disasterous." It made no mention of the positives of the cultural revolution, like the eradication of prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_People&#39;s_Republic_of_China) or the Social and Economic Achievements under Mao (http://rwor.org/a/1248/mao_china_setting_record_straight.htm). Yes your story has a bibliography, but no footnotes. None of those claims could be sourced.

[Prairie Fire]

Heiro:

(RavenBlade @ February 23, 2007 02:59 pm)
the problem with the Maoist cultural revolution was that it was chaos, lacking in leadership by the party vanguard. In many parts of the country, the cultural revolution was nothing more than mere witch-hunting and vigilante justice.

The Albanian cultural revolution was organized, and hence was prone to less excesses and thrill-seeking vigilantism.


Well wasn&#39;t that the point? To create a grass roots movement to remove reactionary elements from power in society.

I guess methods of a cultural revolution depend on what it hopes to accomplish.
If the aim is to remove reactionaries from power, then usually this can be accomplished through party purges and democratic centralism, assuming that the party is still functioning properly. In the event that the party has completely sold out, then yeah you would need to rally the masses in a grassroots manner and overthrow their asses, but that would still require a vanguard party of some sort.
A vanguard party is the difference between a riot and a revolution.

If the aim of a cultural revolution is to purge revolutionary elements of society at large, rather then inside the party, I see no reason that it shouldn&#39;t be guided by the peoples party. It&#39;s checks and balances; The masses control the parties policies and actions, the party controls the masses excesses.

g.ram:


Yes really stupid people. Who are they to do anything Independently when there is soembody like Comrade Hoxha to herd them


I was under the impression that you were a Trotskyist. Even Trots are Leninists, and hence support and uphold the party vanguard as necesary to revolution. If you do not believe in the Vanguard as the force to lead a revolution, then you arn&#39;t even a Trotskyist, just another Libertarian-anarcho idealist.

Also, do you deny that in a state of mass hysteria that the masses can be prone to excesses?

[Joseph Ball]

I am a Maoist. Hoxha was a great anti-fascist, a great patriot and a great socialist. However, he threw the baby out with the bathwater when he attacked Mao&#39;s Cultural Revolution.

I can&#39;t believe what I read when I hear people talking about the Cultural Revolution nowadays. It wasn&#39;t a rebellion of the workers against Mao, this is a fantasy.

In the Cultural Revolution, well into the 70s, the peasants and workers enjoyed unprecedented rights to participate in the management of their communes and factories and to exercise political control over the Communist Party, being able to get rid of unpopular local officials etc.

All the talk of authoritarianism in the Cultural Revolution is rubbish. Look at the non-bourgeois sources and you will see there wasn&#39;t even a police apparatus in the countryside at this time.

People with the wrong political understanding condemn the Cultural Revolution because it was the highest height the international proletariat have ever reached anywhere. Up to now that is-the examples of India and Nepal provide hope for the future.

Hoxha&#39;s judgement was clouded by the truly awful example of the Three World&#39;s Theory. But, it would be moralistic to dismiss all the advances that Mao made because of one mistake his party made. And I am afraid Hoxha fell into this trap.

[Prairie Fire]

I don&#39;t believe that Hoxha did dismiss every advance that China made. If he suspected Mao of any revisionism, he never woul dhave allied with him in the first place.

Yes, the theory of three worlds was a great point of contention, but there were many other things... China was getting cozy with American Imperialism and promoting the idea that American Imperialism was "Tamed" while Soviet social-imperialism was the greater threat. This didn&#39;t sit right with Enver, as he had told both Imperialist superpowers to go fuck themselves.

I do not believe that the Maoist cultural revolution was an uprising against Mao, and I don&#39;t allege any authortarianism (silly anarchists). I do not deny that the Chinese cultural revolution began with the best of socialist intentions, and I can admire the attempt of the Chinese masses to try and institute socialism at a grass-roots level and take a stand against the revisionsists in the party. The only problem was, without organized leadership, the cultural revolution was prone to frequent excesses. Many individuals took advantage of the cultural revolution to satisfy their own brutality, and the culture of vigilante justice lead to inevitable witch hunting and un-necesary loss of life.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I agree with both the Cultural and Ideological Revolution and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

RavenBlade,

Mao did tell the American&#39;s to go fuck themselves. The Nixon visit is made up by left communists as collaboration with the bourgiouesie but in reality it was just politics. It wasn&#39;t anything in the ballpark of what normal government relations usually are and what China&#39;s view towards America is today. However, I agree with Hoxha&#39;s position and the RCP, the party I support, remains critical of Mao in that respect as well.

As for the cultural revolution having excesses, that is what grassroots proletarian dictatorship looks like. We could go back and forth on whether or not the GPCR had leadership or not because neither of us can prove it.