Essay:Analysis of Hoxhaist arguments: Difference between revisions
GermanMaoist (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
GermanMaoist (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Essay|author=GermanMaoist}} | |||
Hoxhaists often use false arguments to prove that ''Chairman Mao was a revisionist''. Comrades of the [[Maoist Students Collective]] have analysed [[Enver Hoxha|Enver Hoxha's]] critique against Chairman Mao and the People's Republic of China during the Maoist era. | Hoxhaists often use false arguments to prove that ''Chairman Mao was a revisionist''. Comrades of the [[Maoist Students Collective]] have analysed [[Enver Hoxha|Enver Hoxha's]] critique against Chairman Mao and the People's Republic of China during the Maoist era. | ||
==Can the Chinese Revolution be called a proletarian revolution?== | ==Can the Chinese Revolution be called a proletarian revolution?== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
The book “Imperialism and the Revolution”, written by [[Enver Hoxha]], is a polemic against both Soviet “social‑imperialism” and Maoist China. In it, Hoxha denounces [[Mao Zedong Thought]] as revisionist. In the book that Enver Hoxha wrote, he adresses the ''Three Worlds Theory''. | The book “Imperialism and the Revolution”, written by [[Enver Hoxha]], is a polemic against both Soviet “social‑imperialism” and Maoist China. In it, Hoxha denounces [[Mao Zedong Thought]] as revisionist. In the book that Enver Hoxha wrote, he adresses the ''Three Worlds Theory''. | ||
{{quote|“Mao Tsetung’s ‘thought’ is not Marxism-Leninism. It is a variant of revisionism, a mixture of old Chinese philosophy and petty-bourgeois revolutionism.”|author=Enver Hoxha|source=''Imperialism and the Revolution'', p. 249}} | {{quote|“Mao Tsetung’s ‘thought’ is not Marxism-Leninism. It is a variant of revisionism, a mixture of old Chinese philosophy and petty-bourgeois revolutionism.”|author=Enver Hoxha|source=''Imperialism and the Revolution'', p. 249}} | ||
===About the Three World Theory=== | |||
Enver Hoxha often addressed the Three World Theory, but the Three World Theory was not made by [[Mao Zedong|Chairman Mao]]; it was made by the [[revisionist]], [[capitalist-roader]] [[Deng Xiaoping]]. In 1974, Deng Xiaoping addressed the Three World Theory, but not from Chairman Mao’s perspective, rather from his own. Mao wrote about the Three Worlds in a different way and called it the "Three Worlds Delineated", which Chairman Gonzalo has explained perfectly. Deng Xiaoping viewed the "Three Worlds Theory" more in a diplomatic view, trying to justify working with the imperialist nations. The view of Chairman Mao about the Three Worlds Theory is different, he viewed the Three Worlds Delineated as a revolutionary idea, and called them as "the main force of revolution". | |||
Latest revision as of 14:28, 23 November 2025
 | This is an essay by GermanMaoist. It contains personal views or rhetoric written or shared by its author. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it a policy or guideline written by Revolupedia. |
Hoxhaists often use false arguments to prove that Chairman Mao was a revisionist. Comrades of the Maoist Students Collective have analysed Enver Hoxha's critique against Chairman Mao and the People's Republic of China during the Maoist era.
Can the Chinese Revolution be called a proletarian revolution?
The book “Can the Chinese Revolution Be Called a Proletarian Revolution”, written by Enver Hoxha, tries to prove that the Chinese Revolution was a “bourgeois-democratic revolution.” Enver Hoxha compared the Chinese Revolution with the French Revolution, which does not make any sense. Enver Hoxha quoted:
“It [the Chinese Revolution] was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, similar in many respects to the French Revolution.”
— Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Vol. 2: Can the Chinese Revolution Be Called a Proletarian Revolution?, p. 761
Analyzing the Chinese Revolution
The Chinese Revolution was not a bourgeois revolution. The Chinese Revolution was led by both the Peasantry and the Proletariat; those were the main classes that participated in the Chinese Revolution. The Chinese Revolution was also supported by the Petty-bourgeoisie and elements of the National Bourgeoisie. What the Chinese Revolution was, was a New-Democratic Revolution. A New-Democratic Revolution completes the tasks of a bourgeois revolution and is required for communist movements to overcome bureaucrat-comprador capitalism in semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries. The Chinese Revolution was based on Class struggle and advocated for establishing a socialist society led by the 4 Classes.
Analyzing the French Revolution
What is different from the Chinese Revolution is that the French Revolution did not advocate for Class struggle, but rather for a bourgeois takeover. The French Revolution smashed feudalism and monarchy, yet it replaced them with the rule of the bourgeoisie. After 1789, the new government was a bourgeois‑democratic government, while the new People's Government was not any Bourgeois government.
Conclusion
No, the two Revolutions are not similar as we have just compared them. There are smaller similarities, but it does not make both the same type of Revolution, since the Chinese Revolution was more reliant on Class struggle and partnership with the Petty Bourgeoisie and the National Bourgeoisie. Both are very different from each other.
Imperialism and the Revolution
The book “Imperialism and the Revolution”, written by Enver Hoxha, is a polemic against both Soviet “social‑imperialism” and Maoist China. In it, Hoxha denounces Mao Zedong Thought as revisionist. In the book that Enver Hoxha wrote, he adresses the Three Worlds Theory.
“Mao Tsetung’s ‘thought’ is not Marxism-Leninism. It is a variant of revisionism, a mixture of old Chinese philosophy and petty-bourgeois revolutionism.”
— Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 249
About the Three World Theory
Enver Hoxha often addressed the Three World Theory, but the Three World Theory was not made by Chairman Mao; it was made by the revisionist, capitalist-roader Deng Xiaoping. In 1974, Deng Xiaoping addressed the Three World Theory, but not from Chairman Mao’s perspective, rather from his own. Mao wrote about the Three Worlds in a different way and called it the "Three Worlds Delineated", which Chairman Gonzalo has explained perfectly. Deng Xiaoping viewed the "Three Worlds Theory" more in a diplomatic view, trying to justify working with the imperialist nations. The view of Chairman Mao about the Three Worlds Theory is different, he viewed the Three Worlds Delineated as a revolutionary idea, and called them as "the main force of revolution".