sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1959 Tibetan uprising, Argentine Revolution, Fidel Castro, Hoxhaism, Kuomintang, Pol Pot

1

THE HOXHAIST COMMUNITY PRESENTS Notes On Maoite , Towards An Ultimate Debunking of And It’s Social-Fascist Adherents

Study Packet For and for Maoites Looking For A Principled Confutation of Maoism This long overdue and highly important writing and re-examination into the effects of revisionism in and its impact today could not have been possible devoid of the massive help of fellow Hoxhaist comrades who contributed to their utmost ability and their time and efforts into making this possible, particular, there’s a massive necessity of giving thanks to our dearest , the Hoxhaist Warrior, who wrote an entire section here based on the far-reaching research they themselves have done on contemporary movements, specifically Maoite ones, and we once again are very much appreciative of his work.

Part One: Chinese Revisionism: A Result Of None Other Than Mao

By The Raging Stalinist The Rise of Mao in The

Mao Zedong was born, and on December 26, 1893 to a well-off family. It has been said that his ancestors had lived in the region for around 500 years. So this was a place familiar to Mao. It was a beautiful place, full of luscious trees, forests, hills, and mountains. Mao was the third son to his mother and father, but only the first one to actually be healthful enough to survive beyond his youth.[1] Mao disliked his father a lot[2], but being the kind of person he was, he consistently asked ​ ​ ​ ​ him for money, time and time again[3]. He eventually left his parents, and began to study the works ​ ​ of , renown for being a sham-philosopher who kept China down in the feudal ages, and so, this was only the beginning of his influences from , Confucian values.

Mao could best be defined, in his teens, as a ‘Christian anarchist’, influenced by arch-revisionist and anarchist anti-communist, [4]. It is unknown to us when exactly he went from being ​ ​ an an anarchist to being a capitalist, but the transition surely happened. Mao once had the chance to travel to France, where many were popping up, and activism was in full-force, but Mao rejected this, for typical bourgeois-chauvinist reasons. He wanted to continue worshipping Chinese history, no matter how evil it was. He instead decided to become a librarian, to keep all the capitalist and proto-revisionist books in check, and Mao was also a womanizer. He began to try and get with every woman in sight, marrying by 1920[5]. He also very much supported the ​ ​ at this time, as he would continue to do until the end. He became involved in some form of activism, that is, rallying up police — defenders of the BOURGEOIS-STATE APPARATUS, for unionization, or ​ ​ something along those lines. Also, around this time, he also had a business, and he employed many, many people. That’s the very function of : the garner workers, who can’t live without them, and force them to work, then, the bourgeoisie takes their products for themselves and makes profit off of it, and forces the workers to work long hours, to produce more and more, giving them little pay. Mao was doing this, because Mao was a capitalist.[6] ​

2

The Communist Party of China was founded in in 1921, just ten years after the Revolution of 1911, which saw the overthrow of the last dynasty in China (or, so was thought, until the rise of Mao). The Party was initially founded as a study-group around the doctrine of Marx but came to be much, much more. The looked at the Party with great hope, but clearly began to see as time went on, and with the popularity of Mao’s line (in part due to force), the hope the Soviets once had began to fade.

Mao Zedong ended up joining the Communist Party of China, out of a sheer lust for power, around 1927, where he also began to lead a counter-revolutionary ‘peasant’ insurrection in . Stalin looked over this with regret, because he wanted the Chinese to hoist an alliance with the revolutionary Party, but Mao was having none of it. Mao wanted all the power, all of China, for his own. The masses, and the Communist Party, went along with it, but unbeknownst to the Chinese communists, the real ones that is, was that he, Mao, was simply another prophet of capital. This would later be found out once he began to all the real communists and put himself up on a pedestal, fighting for the continuation of capitalist development. Mao Zedong, ever since the start, consistently schemed against - and the advance of world , as we will get into.

Mao, contrary to popular belief, was indeed also a racist. He was a Han supremacist, even though China is home to over 50-some ethnicities and nationalities. The Han are an ethnic group in China. Mao’s Han supremacist can be substantiated in his work, 'To The Glory of The Hans', where he said, ​ ​ and we quote,:

"We are awakened! The world is ours, the nation is ours, society is ours."

This signified the start of the new ethnic order, where the Han will become the dominant force in China. Other races, like that of the Mongolians, who were on the Soviets side, and the Tibetans, were to be repressed, and their birth rates soon thereafter declined en masse. ​ ​ Since the death of Mao, which we will get to shortly, the racialism of the past as only intensified, with the Han being represented as the greatest race, with intense ethno-, beyond that of even Mao's, rising, and with the continuation of the occupation of and the destruction of the .

The revolution, however, continued. Even though Mao was, as evident from the start, a racist, the people will united with him, because of his (what-will-be) empty promises for a new, better world.

Stalin clearly stated that Mao not go to far in his so-called revolution, because Stalin sensed his revisionist line from thousands-of-miles away. Mao disobeyed Stalin anyway, because of course Mao would disobey the greatest Marxist-Leninist, besides that of Hoxha, because of course, Mao was not a Marxist-Leninist. Afterall, Mao said “[...] we must not follow the example of the Soviet ​ Union”, meaning he did not want to follow on the socialist road, but instead, create a capitalism of his ​ own. 3

Mao died in 1976. His death was met with sympathizes from the likes of fascist-butcher Pinochet, and so on. But the specific point we want to make is that his death was no loss to the international community. However, what it did provide us with was an important lesson: don't be a revisionist! Mao's Thought, as Hoxha said, has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism. Because of Mao's stupidity, China, which was supposedly liberated from the enslavement of the imperialists, (it was ​ never enslaved by any imperialist or reactionary power to begin with, but that’s besides the point...) was not at all ​ emancipated, but rather, put into the hands of a vile imperialist clique, that of the United States, and it went on to fight against on all turfs, trying to go to war with also.

We will go furthermore into the question of the path China went down subsequent to 1949 in the next section. Down below is an outline, or rather, simplification, of the points made here.

● Mao Zedong was born into a bourgeois-household and he kept to the bourgeois nature of that household, he was a capitalist from the start and continued being a capitalist until the end. ● Mao Zedong did not join the Communist Party of China to spread socialism, or god-forbid, in his view, , but instead to accumulate as much power as possible for himself, and in doing so, he began to liquidate the genuine communist line of the party and suppress its backers; anyone who resisted his anti-communist line was ousted. ● Mao Zedong won in this struggle by using a , exploiting the old confucian and feudal values of the people for his own gain, and by having the people worship him, those who resisted him, even the most minor of complaints, were vilified and shot down. This, effectively, led rise to not only revisionism but an increasing number of dead comrades who took up arms, in both words and in action, against Mao and his revisionism. ● Mao’s death was not a bad thing for the international communist camp, because he was a revisionist, and the ‘revolution’ he led did not overthrow former state powers, and he especially did not build socialism, but rather, put the power into the hands of the bourgeoisie, with him at the head, so it was just a capitalist revolt, if even that.

Mao’s Grip On Power, and Bourgeois-Democratic Continuation

Mao famously said, in a nefarious and hedonist manner, "We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million ​ Chinese for the victory of the ,"[7] in 1957. A Marxist-Leninist would never treat the ​ ​ people as though they’re simple toys, ready to break at any time. A Marxist-Leninist, like Stalin, would stand by the people through whatever struggle there is, he would not sacrifice all of them in the name of a fascist uprising, that of which Mao pushed for.

Mao, and the bourgeoisie alongside him, were the masters of China. No one held power above or beside them. This is completely opposed to the democratic system we Marxist-Leninists advocate.

This system of bourgeois- continued until the 1960s, the people were kept down and exploited still, Mao unleashed not-well-thought-out, spur of the moment, campaigns, which continued the mass and starvation that leaked in China so much, which killed millions. 4

● Mao’s grip on power has been appropriated by the anti-communist west in order to slander communism, but in fact, Mao’s attempts to say on top and keep everyone else below him goes against the teachings of Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha, and was an anti-communist play. ● Mao’s grip on power, reiterating again, kept the people down and himself up, it put the power of bureaucrats over the people, and brainwashed the masses.

On Mao’s Invasion of Tibet

One can not forget about Tibet, which was a peaceful unaligned country home to thousands of years of culture and art, a nation at all points historically separated from China. The repeatedly tried to peacefully resolve the matter with Mao, but Mao basically bit his thumb at them.

In Tibet, the ’People’s Liberation’ Army, on command by Mao, and contrariwise to the dictates of communism, raped, pillaged, burned, ransacked, and marauded across Tibetan soil. Entire villages, like that of Damxung were besieged by the invading Chinese army. The notoriously murderous general had his men round up the Tibetan monks and slaughtered them, and then threw their lifeless bodies to rot in a ditch. Other tales say that the male monks were rounded up, some scalped, and shot, with their bodies being thrown beside their female counterparts. All the while Liu had the children of Damxung watch this massacre, not unlike Wounded Knee or the Nazi invasion of Poland. At the end Liu had his savage men burn Damxung to the ground. All of this was ordered from by Mao, saying in a July report to the PLA in 1950 “[my men] have full control […] over the rebellious ​ Tibet situation […] dead or alive” This is unheard-of brutality, and completely goes against everything ​ ​ we as communists fight for. We understand that there’s revolutionary , but it is to be minimalized at all costs, but because of Mao, violence was maximized to the highest degree

The Great ‘Proletarian’ Cultural ‘Revolution’, A Facade of Anti-Communism

To start, allow me to say something important, and I would like this thought to be implanted into everyone’s minds when reading this part… revolution is not what occured in China. China never had a revolution, using the definition Lenin lended us, and instead, merely had some tidbits of social reform. A revolution takes apart all existing social relations, all existing class , and replaces it with the new social relations and leadership of the Marxist-Leninist tradition. This didn’t happen in China. The old bourgeois forces remained in power, and we will show this later on.

First and foremost, we intend to actually start off with the economy, because as we know, when it comes to any analysis of a country, the economy comes first.

Mao's decentralization of the Chinese economy led to the obvious emergence of the power of the bourgeois right, which, as Comrade Tanner Staricka noted, “resulted in use of free markets and ​ eventually .”[8] So, yes, China was a free-market, capitalist model. ​ ​ That only discredits any bit of idea that China was even sort of socialist! 5

But, we can, and must, go further. We will be using equations here, formulated by comrade Tanner Staricka, to help solidify this point. To understand dialectic equations, we must firstly understand why it's so important to grasp mathematics when it comes to socialism. Math is the language of life, to be blunt. You see, science is intrinsic to communism, because is a science, but mathematics is what makes science be science. Science would be nothing without math, for math is the foundations of science, of life even. Math integrates itself within everything. As Tanner Staricka dove into in his essay, 'Math Is Everything', released in 2016, math controls everything and is a key to our existence. Hence, this is why mathematics is so paramount to communism and the debunking of the myth of so-called ‘Chinese socialism’. By no means am I a mathematician, but I do think I got this on track, but if you want a further examination into this question, look at the source I cited for this.

So, dialectic equations, this is where we get into the complex stuff. The base equation of capitalism, as Tanner Staricka taught us, is M (-m-Ed)+SV=C)]. This is the basic system that existed in China. But ​ ​ what does this mean? M represents the capitalist-class; the minority, m represents the majority; the ​ ​ ​ ​ , Ed represents education, SV represents surplus profit, and C, of course, is capital. The ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ bourgeoisie exists because of the fact their propagandic education makes the proletariat submissive, and when the proletariat is lured into labor, the bourgeoisie employs them and extracts , and thenceforth that surplus value is turned into capital. Capital is achieved by the masses' submission to the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie make the proletariat submissive, exploit their labor, and their labour creates capital. continually concentrates into the hands of private individuals.[9] ​ So that system existed in China. When Mao took power in China, the first phase was New-Democracy, which was just state-capitalism. Basically, Mao, and as an extension, Maoism, says socialism can only be achieved with collaboration from all classes and perfect harmony thus arising from that said collaboration. This is why ⅔ of the Chinese government was in the hands of the bourgeoisie. But we can go further. The main production relations were that of a joint state-private ownership, that is, the workers were still forced under the heel of the bourgeoisie, just this time, it was the private bourgeoisie ganged up with the state-monopolist bourgeoisie. The state invested in private enterprise, and the state supplied some form of management, but nothing fundamental changed, the capitalist still made profits and exploitation still existed.

As for the Maoite claims of collectivism, allow me to remind you that collectivism was basically applied akin to as it was during the old Chinese dynasties.

Mao also once said that:

"We cannot say the bourgeoisie is useless to us; it is useful, very useful [...]"[10] ​ This was true, he definitely said this, because Mao was a capitalist, and a social-fascist, and helped the bourgeoisie obtain profits. Mao himself was also bourgeoisie. His descendants are bourgeoisie too, following his tradition. China was never socialist. It isn’t socialise now. Mao was never socialist. 6

There’s another point that some infantile Maoites might bring up, the question of crisis. They’ll say that China never had a single economic crisis under Mao, but economic crisis is inherent under capitalism. This is a really stupid argument and I’ll debunk it below with logic, something Maoites never seem to ever study. Then again, they never read the classics of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin anyway.

Capitalism as a whole is never able to overcome crises because capitalism always ends up in the crisis of an overproduction of capital goods and general equilibrium is ergo impossible, but China was able to lessen the effects of capitalist crises because of it’s somewhat retainment of state-ownership and state-planning, but by no means was the anarchic system of capitalism done away with in full. While there was no major economic crisis in China, there were many political crisis, with the consistent rise and fall of political leaders. Starting with comrade Wang Ming, and comrade , then with and Hua Guofeng, then , etc. So economic crisis was done away with because capitalism can be reformed, and it was reformed in China, because China was capitalist, but Mao was too dumb to repair the political crises.

China was a capitalist superpower by the 1960s, and was part of the capitalist centres of the world, actively exploiting the peripheres, and the Chinese bureaucrats were beneficiaries of .

So now, after having gone as far as we desired regarding the economy, allow us now to turn to the politics; the overall authoritative governance, of China, during this era.

As Jiang Jing once said, at a rally on December 18, 1966, she said:

"The public security bodies, the Procurator’s Office and the Supreme Court have all come from the capitalist states, and they stand above the Party and the government. In the final analysis, they exercise surveillance [...] They are all bureaucratic agencies."

It cannot get anymore clear cut than this, it is obvious that Mao had the bureaucrat-capitalist class at the head of duties, duties which were put up against the people, they surveilled the people, and it can be said that the information garnered from the people (presumably genuine communists) by these agencies were carried over to Mao, whom the bureaucrats claimed loyalty to, and from there, that information was used to execute specific tasks, most likely sabotage or , against these people. Does this not remind anyone of the Gestapo, from Hitlerite Germany? It surely reminds us of it.

After all, just like the Nazis in Germany, Mao is responsible for, with help from his secret police, the deaths of millions of people. Mao was a tyrannical capitalist, likewise, Hitler was also. Though the extent of the murders Mao is responsible for isn’t nearly known, we do have a base number — that is, a number that we have collected at the very least. At best, he killed over 76 million, at worst, well over 100 million. Looking at the excellent historical text, 'Mao: The Unknown Story', Mao was a tyrant, worse than Hitler, who killed millions during peacetime, more than any other leader, more than Nixon for example. Mao wanted to turn China into a "nuclear superpower", and in that imperialist framework, close to 38 million died as a result of starvation and also overwork. This is something that we Marxist-Leninists would never want, but it was certainly something Mao wanted. 7

Mao called upon teachers to be killed and slaughtered[11], but as Tanner Staricka has taught us, ​ ​ education is one of the most important things society as to offer. Like how mathematics is within everything, education is important for garnering that understanding. As philosophical comrade Tanner Staricka once said, "Education is the way to go.... learning is the only option we have [...]”[12] ​ ​ So when Mao went off and ordered the execution of so-called enemies of the state, which he classified as teachers, this only damaged, on a huge magnitude, , and went against a basic understanding of the necessity of education. Don't get us wrong, we know that all enemies need to be either neutralized or eliminated, but teachers are not the enemy. The enemy is the bourgeoisie and the revisionists, such as the Maoites. That's why we, time and time again, have called for a war against the Maoites. That's why we've also bested the Maoites on a number of occasions. It's our duty, after all, and as Tanner Staricka has taught us, to eliminate the enemy of all costs.[13] ​ Under Mao, the suffering of the peasant class was unimaginable. Never before in any socialist country were so many sacrificed, tortured, and murdered. Peasants were forced to industrialize, to advance farther than they could, and from overwork, they died. Mao simply did not care for the peasants and wanted top-down industrialization, to become a superpower, something Stalin or Hoxha, just to give an example, who were actual Marxist-Leninists, unlike the phony-communism of Mao, you see, they would never do that! This is proof that the leadership of Mao was just anti-people, anti-communism ergo. We Marxist-Leninists look back to China, and being the internationalists we are, weep for the sufferings of the peasants under Mao.

There was no justice at all in China under Mao, the courts were essentially demolished in totality and in their place were unhinged mob trials. Anyone who dared step outside the norm of worshipping Mao as an al-righteous deity was literally in danger of being executed. Many died. It's been said that these courts were nothing more than useless and starkly bizarre instruments of violence, used by cultists to reinforce their primitive worship of Mao. We, as Hoxhaists, are inclined to concur with this characterization.[14] ​ Now, speaking of imperialism, here we can get into Chinese imperialism.

As pointed out by Comrades L.M. Gudoshnikov, R.M. Neronov, B.P. Barakhta, in their path breaking work, ‘China: and After’: ​ ​ “The decade that has elapsed after the beginning of the 'cultural revolution' is also marked by an anti-socialist distortion of the economic base of the state which resulted from an attempt by the Mao[ites] to achieve their aim of turning China, by the end of the present century into a super-power with a big [...]”

This is an objective fact, the Chinese were trying to build up a huge military power in order to dominate the world, not to be on par with the United States, but to best them. To do this, they backed the United States, to have trade, and to have cash to buy and build weaponry with, not to mention the arms trades they did, this was all for war, and the cash not used was used to build up the Chinese empire in other ways, suching as pushing it into the wages of modern-Chinese and bureaucrats. This is in complete contradiction to the desires of us genuine communists. 8

It was a fact that during the so-called ‘Cultural Revolution’, the military was never reformed, even though the military was the one force that kept the bureaucracy in check, ergo, it is fair to say that the so-called bureaucracy that Mao said he wanted to overthrow was never overthrown, but that’s not the point. The point is, the bourgeois military remained exactly the same as it was.[15] ​ Not only this, but the Chinese invaded , which is imperialism. Imperialism is using your military for expansionism, as Lenin said, and China did just that. Thousands more died as a result.[16] ​ So no doubt, Mao’s so-called ‘Cultural Revolution’ was made for the sole purpose of purging his political enemies (genuine socialists) and to cling onto his power. Stalin, and Hoxha’s, cultural revolutions were entirely different, and were pushing for the continuation of socialism, while Mao was attempting to crush the actual socialists in China and maintain a fascist-brand of capitalism.

The fundamental point of a cultural revolution is to do away with the old elements of the old society, the customs, culture, ideas, etc., and bring into being a new superstructure with new socialist relations intertwined within it, in order to be in tempo with the socialist substructure.

Just for reference, Stalin’s cultural revolution was put into action like this, after the ground as laid for a socialist economic substructure, it was necessary for culture as a whole to change. There must be two apparatuses for socialism, an apparatus of authoritative strength on a socialist basis but also an apparatus of culture and customs with socialist elements woven into them. After socialism was built economically, and all privileged and parasitic people were eliminated, free education was granted to people, free healthcare was granted, and was completely eradicated. This all-around change prevented the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union for some time. This was very different from the so-called 'Cultural Revolution' in China where the economy was decentralized, the workers were mega-exploited on a scale never before seen, where reactionary Confucian values flourished, and there was widespread repression of the workers. Stalin, in opposition to what Mao did, denounce the so-called cult of personality around him, and said the cult of personality, if it ever arose, would be damaging to the “spirit of the party”, whereas Mao was calling on the people to be devoted to his thought. Mao also wanted his texts to be propagated as being better than that of Marx’s, Lenin’s, and even Stalin’s, but nothing could be further from the truth. Stalin never did this because he knew it would separate himself from the people.

And Hoxha’s cultural revolution, while we don’t intend to blabber on about this, we do want to say what it did for the glorious Albanian people. After the complete liberation of Albania from expansionist powers began the industrious path towards socialism. The old powers were done away with, and in its place, arose the power of the people. All elections held for the people's councils were placed everywhere, and with the results emerged a new governing administrative body, steeled by a new state-power, that of the awesome proletarian class. Albania is a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the liquidation of capitalist relations in totality has been safeguarded, and the restoration of capitalism, thanks to Hoxha and , has been perfectly resisted. The Albanian Party of Labor was a party of the people, relying on providing the necessities and coming to the concerns of the masses. The government was, effectively, under the control of the masses, and there was widespread participation in the government and political duties by the masses, because the line of the 9 government and society followed alongside the line of the masses. The economic base of glorious Albania was not the only thing to change, in fact, like Stalin’s great Soviet Union, the culture and ideology of the people fundamentally changed. Also, religion and all religious influences had been completely eradicated, which is good, unlike in Mao’s China, where Mao was worshipped AS a god. ​ ​ The Chinese 'Communists' proclaimed the Soviet Union as being a huge hegemonic imperial power, and whether or not that claim is true, we won't take into consideration here, because the point is, with China placing this title upon the Soviet Union, they from there onwards began to collaborate and side with another imperial power, that is, the United States, not only to destroy the Soviet Union and other progressive countries, but also bring about the complete and utter destruction of the world socialist camp. China called out our allies in , and in Korea, and in Chile, in that they unjustly called out comrade Fidel [17], called out Kim-il-Sung[18], and called out comrade ​ ​ ​ ​ Allende[19] and took part in the coup that ousted and ultimately killed not only our dear brother ​ ​ Allende, but also harmed a subsequent 30,000 people[20]. The Soviet Union, by contrast, never did ​ ​ such a thing. So the question is now, who really was the foremost enemy of the world’s people, was it truly the Soviet Union, as Maoites theorized, or, in actuality, was it China? We beg to say China.

More on the reactionary, anti-communist, of the Chinese revisionists we dare to get more into now. So, what defines something as being reactionary? Being reactionary means to be right-wing. And being anti-communist is self-explanatory.

The Maoite Theory of The Three Worlds is basically this, it calls for the world’s people to unite with the United States and its allies to defeat actually existing socialism in , the Soviet Union, Albania, Vietnam, Cuba, , and so on. This is what Mao pushed for, this is what all the Chinese, so-called ‘communist’, ruling-class part-takers pushed for.

But Mao’s anti-communism don’t just stop with and of the United States, it extends also to the Shah of Iran, a United States puppet responsible for the deaths and torture of thousands, it extends to the regime in South Africa, it extends to of the , who was also propped up by the United States, it extended to the Canadian leaders of the times, it extended to the Junta Militar in , to Mobutu Sese Seko, to the leaders of Britain, to Chiang Kai-shek, to Pinochet of Chile, who as we mentioned killed thousands, it extended to anti-Hoxha resistance forces, and so on and so forth [21]. ​ ​ Mao famously said that “the rightists in power might use my words to make themselves powerful for a ​ certain time [...]“[22], showcasing that even he acknowledged he was an anti-marxist who mouthed ​ ​ anti-communist phrases all the time, and it also showcased that right-wingers; capitalists, were in power, which is unimaginable for any socialist country. Class struggle ends once socialism comes afoot, because the dominant class is the proletariat, the bourgeoisie are stamped out in totality and the only way they can arise again is if they were never entirely overthrown in the first place, like they were in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea, and most importantly, Albania, or if the bourgeoisie, on the behests of the world imperialist camp, have a safe haven elsewhere.

Mao also said, regarding Richard Nixon, a staunch anti-communist who committed against the Vietnamese and pushed for war against the Soviet Union: 10

“I like rightists [...] People say that you are rightists—that the is on the right—that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right. [..] They also say the Christian of West Germany is to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.”[23] ​ Mao also famously said, to , that:

"Our state now is, as Lenin said, a capitalist state without capitalists. This states protects capitalist rights, and the wages are not equal. Under the slogan of equality, a system of inequality has been introduced."[24] ​ So, even Mao could admit that China, by 1975 mind you, which was nearing the end of the so-called ‘Cultural Revolution’ was not socialist, the opposite he claimed. He said himself that China was a nation that protected capitalist rights and had an unequal wage system.

Deng Xiaoping, largely seen as being one of the most obtuse of all revisionists, said:

"We should disseminate Mao Zedong Thought [...]

Deng also said many times that Mao was brilliant, there’d be no China with Mao, Mao was an excellent Marxist-Leninist, and etc. Not only this, but Deng once said that Mao told him, “I give you ​ the power of command.” Deng and Mao were friends, no doubt, and backed each other's policies. If ​ Mao was alive today, and saw modern (reactionary) China, he’d support every action of it, because ​ ​ Mao was a proto-Dengist. These quotes are clear-cut and confirm this.

This proves Mao supported Deng, and Deng was a revisionist, thus Mao must henceforth be a revisionist. Anyone who disagrees with this denies basic reality.

So, stepping away from that, there is another point to get to: international resistance to Mao, primarily from the communist camp. , a brave and dedicated communist revolutionary, who liberated Cuba from the claws of the United States, at a time where Mao was collaborating with the United States, called out Mao’s misunderstanding of dialectics, and requested that senile Mao actually sit down and read something from Engels[25], which was clear from the start that Mao ​ ​ never attempted. Fidel also once said Mao was a “fascist” and “absolutist”, which is correct. ​ ​ ​ ​ Fidel Castro was not the only communist who called out Mao, but so did , who as we all know, wrote and released one of the best works debunking the lie that Mao was a communist and that China was a force for good; a socialist-country, this was all said in ‘Imperialism and The Revolution’. We need not get into this, we suggest you read this fantastic work yourself.

Amadeo Bordiga, an important and well-known leader of the international communist movement, also let out a fantastic critique of Mao, saying:

“Damn those who talk about dogmas [...] Mao Tse Tung compared it with ‘cow shit’. Well, appetit!”[26] ​ Basically, Boridga is telling Mao, a dogmatist to the line of the Monroe Doctrine and Confucius, to eat shit! As funny as that is, we’d be inclined to agree. Mao was, after all, a social-fascist. 11

Raya Dunayevskaya, another committed communist, also said something incredibly important in their work, ‘Mao Perverts Lenin’:

“So permeated to the marrow of his bones is Mao with that it is doubtful he is even conscious that he is [...] perverting in toto the Hegelian-Marxian theory of development through ​ ​ contradiction.”[27] ​ ​ This quote really would grind the gears of Maoites, learning that some of the most smartest philosophers admitted that Mao was a reactionary Confucius who didn’t even understand the basics of Hegel and Marx, which, of course, we Hoxhaists have read.

Mao’s connection to Confucius is so obvious, unless of course you have been indoctrinated by the long list of Maoite lies. In Mao’s ‘On Contradiction’ he brings up the example of “heaven and Earth” as ​ ​ ​ ​ opposites, although us communists that are real materialists (of the Dialectical nature) know better than to discuss heaven, a purely idealist notion. But why would Mao say this? It is because Mao was not interested in furthering communist thought, he was simply a reactionary Confucian. It was Confucius who discussed the idea of the dialect of heaven and Earth! Such an easy connection flies over the impolitic heads of Maoists, who most often can not even describe the concept of the negation of the negation. Us Hoxhaists know better than to delve into metaphysics and idealism.

But besides that, we have more criticism. Among the communists today, another prominent one is Tanner Staricka, a former founding member of the now defunct United Workers Party, former party philosopher and Vice Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Liberation, and current member of the International Stalinist-Hoxhaist Party, who is currently in the process of writing a paramount book, also has had some great criticisms of Mao and Chinese imperialism, saying that:

“As Marxist-Leninists, we advocate building socialism with the Dictatorship of the proletariat under democracy and central planning. Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha all had this [...] and both resulted in socialist states, but Mao on the other hand, had a decentralized economy which resulted in use of free markets and eventually state capitalism.”[28] ​ ​ Tanner Staricka has also said, commenting on why Hoxha was great than Mao, that:

“Hoxha recognized the revisionism of the Yugoslavs before Mao, Hoxha successfully initiated his own cultural revolution, while understanding the reasoning behind Mao’s failures [...] Hoxha exposed revisionism wherever it existed [Mao, Tito, Khrushchev, etc].”[29]] ​ So all and all, we can see that the so-called ‘Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution’ was, internally, just flat-out bad, and only read rise to the Bourgeois Right, and externally, had massive international resistance from the communist camp. Mao, during this period, only brainwashed furthermore people, held onto dictatorial power, killed off thousands of honest-hearted dissents, and collaborated with western powers to destabilize the socialist world, to add, this period also effectively turned China into a hegemonic — if not, outright imperialist — power itself.

● This event was neither ‘Proletarian’ nor ‘Revolutionary’, and was in fact ‘Bourgeois’ and ‘Counter-Revolutionary’. It most certainly not ‘Great’ either. 12

● This event is hated by the Chinese people, and with good reason, because it destroyed essential elements of that the people still adhered to, and in an ultra-left manner, attempted to rid not only the culture, not in tempo with what the people were prepared for, but also the people themselves, who resisted the campaigns. ● This event was only made up by Mao in order to consolidate his power and to have the Chinese people be brainwashed into zealously backing every thought or word that uttered from his mouth. He was seen as a god, akin to how Hitler was treated, which is an all-around anti-communist principle and edging, if not already touching, outright . ● During these set of events, Mao began to rub shoulders with the imperialist powers of the world in order to defeat actually existing socialism, like in the USSR and Albania. ● This event is not, as some Maoites call it, the farthest advance towards communism, this title goes to Stalin’s Soviet Union & Hoxha’s Albania, both of which were genuine examples of a socialist society, in opposition to the revisionism pushed by Mao.

Sources:

[1]. Mao: The Unknown Story, by Jon Halliday and Jung Chang ​

[2]. [Ibid] ​

[3]. The Passion of the Mao (2006), Directed by Lee Feigon ​

[4]. Early revolutionary activity of Mao Zedong, Wikipedia ​

[5]. Mao: A Reinterpretation, by Lee Feigon ​

[6]. [Ibid] ​

[7]. Mao: The Unknown Story - History by the Slice, by Doug Peterson ​

[8]. The Anti-proletariat MLM movement: The Revisionists, Tanner Staricka ​

[9]. Dialectic Equations part 1 (Capitalism), by Tanner Staricka ​

[10]. China’s Capitalist Revolutions, by Proletarian Revolution No. 53 ​

[11]. The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder, by The Heritage Foundation ​

[12]. https://www.instagram.com/p/_-XpE9EgQi/ ​

[13]. https://www.instagram.com/p/BGVTIXSEgQj/ ​

[14]. China: Cultural Revolution and After, by L.M. Gudoshnikov, R.M. Neronov, B.P. Barakhta ​

[15]. Sino-Vietnamese War, by Wikipedia ​

[16]. China: Cultural Revolution and After, by L.M. Gudoshnikov, R.M. Neronov, B.P. Barakhta ​

[17]. Talk At The Enlarged Meeting Of The Political Bureau, by Mao Zedong ​

[18]. Kim il-Sung (obituary), by The Telegraph ​ 13

[19]. China's relations with Chile under Allende: A case study of Chinese foreign policy in transition, by ​ William A .Joseph

[20]. Pinochet Ruled Unfit for Trial, by ABC News ​

[21]. https://www.instagram.com/p/BQlT9amllRy/ ​

[22]. (Quoted by Tanner Staricka) ​

[23]. Mao Zedong meets Richard Nixon, February 21, 1972, Declassified Transcript ​

[24]. CONVERSATION BETWEEN CHINESE LEADER MAO ZEDONG AND CAMBODIAN LEADER POL ​ POT, By Wilson Center Digital Archive

[25]. Sino-Cuban Relations during the Early Years of the Castro Regime, 1959–1966, by Yinghong Cheng ​

[26]. The Spirit of Horsepower by Amadeo Bordiga ​

[27]. Mao Perverts Lenin, by ​

[28]. The Anti-proletariat MLM movement: The 21st century Revisionists, by Tanner Staricka ​

[29]. , by Tanner Staricka ​

Part Two: Maoite Revisionism As It Stands Today

By The Hoxhaist Warrior Maoites Working Against International

People like to say, in particular the Maoite community, that it is only them who are leading revolution in the world today, but, that is not the case at all. It is in actuality the Hoxhaist community today that is leading international proletarian revolution, while the Maoite community, as to be expected, is working against revolution.

The very ideology that Maoites hold onto is revisionist, as was proved in Part One. As Part One proved, ⅔ of the so-called 'Communist' Party's political organs were controlled by the bourgeoisie, Part One also showed that intelligence was combated and metaphysics flourished, Part One proved that private property prevailed in all areas and thus exploitation, too, prevailed, and so on. Exploitation is anti-Marx, and anti-Stalin. It’s bad. The very was devoid of socialism, thus, the very ideology spouted by Mao was also devoid of socialism. China never had socialism, and Mao himself never had socialism. As Tanner Staricka once bravely said:

"Any refutation [that Mao wasn't revisionist] is purely on aesthetics over rationality."[1] ​ People are only Maoites today because they think Maoism looks cool, with its red uniforms, portraits of degraded people worshipping the sun in the sky as though its Mao, the guns that counter-revolutionaries grasp, and so on — these Maoites prefer to see these things than basic facts and logic. The very underlying basis of Maoites is a falsehood and is anti-science.

14

The Peruvian ‘People’s War’

In , the Maoites there are obviously American agents. The CIA was behind the creation of the Shining Path, which is a terrorist group in Peru, which does it's actions under the pretext of communism. The CIA was attempting to do all it could to prop up the Shining Path as a way to stop the great reforms that the Velasco administration had put into place.

The Shining Path was working in the geopolitical interests of the USA, that's because they were a CIA plot. The Shining Path did everything they could to destabilize the left-leaning regimes in Peru, and attempted to cut down on all actual revolutionary groups in Peru, such as Tupac Amaru, which was aligned with Fujimori and other anti-imperialists, and not only that, but the Shining Path has only stayed afloat because of drug sales, and we all know the USA's relation with drugs. The Shining Path has never had any popular mass base and everybody in Peru hates them. This is because even the Peruvian people know they are simply a CIA plot.[2] ​ Fujimori was merely fighting against the CIA, and yet, he is demonized by fellow communists as being a brute; a dictator, but we can say that he was nothing of the sort, and was fighting for the sovereignty of his country, his people and race, and he did not do anything too extreme, such as torture, which the Shining Path committed on thousands of people. Fujimori was able to stabilize the country, he did away with CIA terrorists, he, as an individual, was a figurehead in the overall struggle for a better economy, of which he was successful, for he was able to cut inflation by more than 7,600%, among more things.[3] The CIA saw this as bad, because no longer was Peru dependent on ​ ​ the USA for economic gain. This is why the CIA wanted to oust him. This is why they condemn him.

Another point that needs to be made is that Abimael Guzmán, or, as he called himself, 'Chairman Gonzalo', in 2014, released a book... but the Maoites have been saying that psychological and physical torture has been applied to him, that he has been denied visits from lawyers, doctors, friends and relatives, and so forth so if this was all true, how could he ever be able to release a book? We’d argue that no torture has ever been applied to Gonzalo, that he’s never been denied visits from anyone, and that the book he wrote probably vindicates the CIA. So why was the book able to be released? Obviously, it is because the CIA permits it.

There’s more we can get into, but we think this suffices.

The Filipino ‘People’s War’

The Maoites in the Philippines are among the most counter-revolutionary force.

Duterte is a force for good in the Philippines, and trying to overthrow him only means a capultation to imperialism. Duterte is a force for good because he loves his beautiful country and his race, he's a transparent leader, he's giving it all to fight corruption, he's investing a lot in the economy and stuff, he's strong-willed and intelligent, and he's dealing with the drug crisis in the best way possible.[4] ​ He’s also an atheist, which is good because god, as much as liberals wouldn’t want you to believe, is in fact not real. Hoxha proved this, and he eradicated religion for that reason. Yet, Jose Sison, the Maoite counter-revolutionary leader, calls upon the people to support god, the christian church, and 15 so on[5]. The church is full of perverts[6], and Jose is defending them to his utmost ability. Duterte is ​ ​ ​ ​ calling upon people to stop the disgusting shit that comes from the church. This proves once against that Maoites are metaphysicians and perverts. But that’s not the point we are making here, the point is, Dutertre is helping in the fight of eradicating stupid religion, while the Maoites are pushing for it and all the horrors it entails. As for why it’s a capultation to imperialism to yearn to overthrow, it’s because it is a fact that the United States, and also China as we will get to soon, would love to see nothing more than the overthrow of Duterte, because what that means for them is easier economic interests.

From our research, we can wholly say with absolute certainty that the only reason why the Maoites are trying to overthrow Duterte is because they’re doing so on the behests of China[7], because ​ ​ China is against Duterte, just like the United States.

The Indian ‘People’s War’

The Maoite Naxals have been working against the anti-imperialist Indian country ever since their conception, and even with the state of Kerala being a [8], the Naxals still try to ​ ​ slaughter the Indian masses. The Naxals are directly responsible for a lot of excesses and terror.

We don’t have much to say on the Naxals, other than the fact that they are not communists and they hate Enver Hoxha, as evident from their Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Basic Course[9]. This alone ​ ​ proves that they are not communists, but instead, Maoites, a.k.a., anti-communist terrorists.

U.S. Maoite Community

The Maoites in the United States are among the worst of the Maoites. The Maoites in this country consist of the opportunists in the ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’, led by cult-leader Robert Avakian, which his henchmen, Carl Dix (what a vulgar , might I add), Raymond Lotta, Ardea Skybreak, and others, but these are not the only Maoites, there is also the ‘Leading Light Communist Organization’, led by Prairie Fire, and lastly, there are the multiple ‘Red Guards’ groups, all of which are headed by ‘Red Guards’ Austin’.

So to begin, we will commence with the ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’. As we noted, the ‘RCP’, as it is abbreviated, is led by Robert Avakian, also known as ‘Bob’ Avakian. By led, we mean he is the chairman of the ‘’ of the RCP. Bob Avakian is a cult-leader, and the RCP's political-line is obedient to the evangelical-cult-leadership of Bob Avakian. The RCP was one of the parties which first helped the foundations of the revisionist ideology of Maoism. This is what they are guilty of. Bob Avakian has constantly, day after day, went up against Hoxhaism, and the revolutionary experience in Albania. Because the Maoite, RCP, is a cult, it’s followers also hate Hoxha and Albania. Bob Avakian once referred to the hard-hitting analysis and debunking of the myths surrounding Mao nothing but a “simple-minded attack”, when in reality, Bob’s hatred of Hoxha ​ ​ and his stupid attack is nothing but a simple-minded attack. Bob’s rejection of the correct line presented by Enver Hoxha is proof-positive that he’s not a revolutionary, and as was found out by some of our comrades, he may have ties with the FBI, similar to how the Shining Path had ties with 16 the CIA. We say this because, one, the RCP was a major-league supporter of the Shining Path. Not only that, but Bob’s insane rambling speeches, his against white people, his distortions of actually existing socialism, are all reminiscent of how the FBI portrays communists in their Hollywood movies. But, besides that, we have other Maoite groups to get to.

Next, there is the Maoite-revisionist party known as the ‘Leading Light Communist Organization’. This is a rather small, but highly influential group, which has its own ideology, ‘Leading Light Communism’ which they define as Maoite-Third-Worldism. We won’t intend to try and debunk this garbage ideology, but we will say this. Third-Worldism was birthed by Maoism, and it is just as revisionist as the latter. We can run down Third-Worldism like this, these Maoites say that the people of the first-world are all evil, useful idiots and labor aristocrats — that is, by tearing the words of Lenin and stomping on them, to deform them to meet their conceptions — and that the people of the third-world are the bastions of hope for bringing socialist revolution about. This theory also posits this lie that the third-world is exploited by the first-world and as a result of that, the bourgeoisie uses the surplus taken from the exploitation of the third-world to buy off the working-class of the first-world.

But in reality, the third-world is merely underdeveloped, not exploited, and first-people face a large amount of struggle. U.S. millennials, of all generations, are the most exploited workers in all the developed countries today. Their debts are ever-higher and they earn much less their than forerunners did. This is why the millennials today are the most revolutionary, and also the ones who face the most character assassination. People, mainly old folk, look at millennials with contempt, claiming they are lazy, stupid, snowflakes, entitled, and etc., but usually when this type of slandering goes on, it means somebody’s afraid. The government fears the millennials, because the millennials have come to grips with the suppression of the youth such as themselves and the exploitation they face. Millennials are at the heart of oppression, are are beginning their awakening. They will bring revolution to the United States, so as long as the Maoites keep out and keep away their revisionism from the ripe minds of the youth and are defeated in full. The very existence of the millennials proves that there is massive potential for revolution in the first-world.

But the falseness and the utter social-fascism of the LLCO doesn’t stop there. Their leader, who has a cult of personality akin to Mao’s, who calls himself a ‘Commander’, has been found to be using donations, accumulated from the bare amount of money the Maoites who support them own, for supplementing his own personal drug addiction. So much for the “advanced revolutionary science” being revolutionary, it’s nothing of the sort. The LLCO is just a top-notch, well-thought-out measure used by a Maoite in order to avail his drug usage.

Not only that, but the LLCO has regularly avoided confronting the great analysis put forth by the American Party of Labor, one of the only genuine communist parties in the world today, debunking their Maoite nonsense. They called their excellent analysis simply "slop", showing once again that infantile Maoites are incapable of critical debate.

Jason Unruhe, a fanatic yet weirdly-prominent news reporter from his Youtube ‘Maoist Rebel News’, ​ is a follower of the harebrained political line of the LLCO. We want him to read our ‘Conclusion & A ​ 17

Challenge’ part, if he wants to comment on what we said, which would probably be him admitting ​ defeat seeing as what we said is factually sound, he can, and we can debate this.

So, the last real well-known Maoite group, with a good amount of support among some people, are the Red Guards. The Red Guards are self-proclaimed “anti”-fascist militant collectives in U.S. cities like Austin, Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Saint Louis. These groups are typically small and cultish, so basically, they are the typical Maoite front in America. They are known to endorse notorious terrorists and anti-communists such as Gonzalo of the Shining Path, the NPA in the Philippines, the Naxals in , all of which we discussed earlier.

These ‘Red Guards’ like to LARP, that is, ‘Live-Action-Role-Play’, in red masks and concede their playful actions by giving their weapons to police. These are really just liberals in red. This is in complete contrast to what we Hoxhaists do, we are working to build a movement for revolution, to destroy imperialism and revisionism, and through that, build a new socialist landscape within the United States where people have free healthcare, free education, where loans and debts are forgiven, and where the invincible thought of , , , , and Enver Hoxha is at the fore of everything we do. This is the world we Hoxhaists want to build, but the near-pacifists, and right-wing opportunists of the Maoite side are working against this. Does this not negate even the most basic of the teachings of Marx and Hoxha? Indeed it does. This shows that it is us, the Hoxhaists, who carry on the traditions of the communism, and who truly know Marx best.

Sources:

[1]. The Anti-proletariat MLM movement: The 21st century Revisionists, by Tanner Staricka ​

[2]. CIA, Sendero Luminoso: guerra política, by Andreo Matías

[3]. For Peru's Leader, Good May Outweigh Bad -- Fujimori Favored In Vote Despite Faults, by Kerry Luft ​

[4]. https://www.quora.com/Is-Duterte-a-good-president ​

[5]. Religious Friends, by Jose Sison ​

[6]. : Sexier Than Ever, video by The Amazing Atheist ​

[7] N/A ​

[8]. Socialist Kerala: A very different India, by People's World ​

[9]. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Basic Course, by (Maoist) ​ ‘[...] the Albanian Party of Labour switched over to an opportunist line attacking Maoism [..]’ (which is not true)

Conclusion & A Challenge For Maoites

By The Raging Stalinist, The Hoxhaist Warrior, and Comrade Joaquin Flare

We understand that what we say here may be controversial, and we simply don’t see why that would be the case, but that controversy is fine, because if someone says something controversial, 18 and people are in shock, that must mean what is being said is correct. What we’ve said hitherto has been completely backed up by facts and logic, and we hope that the committed Maoites and the newcomer Maoites will be able to read this, reject their revisionist past, and join in the fight for a communist tomorrow, backed up with the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism--Hoxhaism, the ideology utilized by they who know Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin and Hoxha best, and by the oppressed peoples of the world. We hope that we’ve been able to push for the Maoites to come join the ranks of the Hoxhaist parties of the world, fighting for justice, non-revisionist socialism, and equality, all the principles Maoites disdain, and we hope that we have helped the international communist bloc with this much-needed writing.

We have all come to the conclusion that Marxist-Leninist-Maoites, who claim adherence to Marx and Lenin, and not read a single ounce of their works, and this is evident from their infantile arguments and failure to engage in proper debate. We encourage all self-proclaimed Maoites to read this essay here, plus the works of Enver Hoxha and Tanner Staricka, in order to come to grips with reality, that Mao was a revisionist, that China was never socialist, that China was social-imperialist, and that Maoites are the biggest danger to world’s people today.

This also goes to people such as renowned revisionist, J. Moufawad-Paul, chauvanist anti-communist Christopher Winston (so-called ‘Black Red Guard’) conspicuous revisionist Jason Unruhe (so-called ‘Maoist Rebel News’), Jose Sison (leader in exile of a so-called Maoite ‘revolution’), , among others, we encourage you to read this work and join the side of the actual communist camp, instead of sitting at your homes, doing nothing, and failing to read the core classics of Marxism-Leninism.

We challenge all Maoites to read this work, earnestly and honestly, and come up with a response. Not a slander, not a perversion, not a bastardization, no, a genuine, non half-hearted response, that ​ ​ utilizes logic and facts, and we will respond if the guidelines we just set forth are met. We challenge all of you to do this, to read this, and tell us your thoughts, and if you have no thoughts, if you’ve been bested by the science that is of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism, we want you to join us, to become our brothers and sisters, and to write up your admission of epic defeat. Thank you.

19

Further Reading (Sources) ​ Collected by The Raging Stalinist and Comrade Joaquin Flare

On Mao / China China's "revolution" of 1949: a link in the chain of imperialist war, by International Review Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world, by Ilya Somin Capitalism: the Inevitable Product of Mao Tse-Tung’s 'Decentralized Socialism', by Dennis Strawn Chinese Revisionism, by The Espresso Stalinist Mao's Betrayal, by Wang Ming Problems of the Chinese Revolution, by Revolution in China and Tasks of the Comintern, by Joseph Stalin Fifty years on, one of Mao's 'little generals' exposes horror of the Cultural Revolution, The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder, by The Heritage Foundation Grandson of Mao Zedong wishes he was grandson of someone else, by Show What makes Mao Zedong such an evil person?, /r/AskHistorians, answer by [deleted] The "Cultural Revolution" in China, by L.P. Delyusin Mao: The Unknown Story, by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

On Maoism The Anti-proletariat MLM movement: The 21st century Revisionists, by Tanner Staricka Notes Towards a Critique of Maoism, Loren Goldner Mao Tse-tung revisionist theories, by The Worker Mao Zedong Thought Defends Bourgeois Nationalism, by Workers Herald Against Maoism: Dossier ('s Expansionism and Hegemonism), by Nguyen Duc Binh, Phuc Cuong Destructive Will and Ideological Holocaust: Maoism as a Source of Social Suffering in China, by Tu Wei-ming

On Hoxhaism Hoxhaism, by Tanner Staricka What is Hoxhaism?, by Tanner Staricka A Brief Guide to Hoxhaism, by The Red Star Vanguard Imperialism and The Revolution, by Enver Hoxha Intensify The Ideological Struggle Against Alien Manifestations and Liberal Attitudes Towards Them, by Enver Hoxha Hoxhaism: Notes, speeches & a program, by Enver Hoxha Program of the American Party of Labor by the American Party of Labor Anything by Comintern (SH) - (Stalinist-Hoxhaists)