Essay:Self-Criticism on the Line of "Anti-Revisionist Unity"
 | This is an essay by Saula Wenger. 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. |
Introduction
Between June to November 2025, Revolupedia maintained a line of "anti-revisionist unity." This was reflected in our principles, which in this period stated:
"We strive to include all revolutionary communists in our community, whether they be anti-revisionist Marxist–Leninists or Marxist–Leninist–Maoists. We understand the historical divisions between these two groupings to be a secondary contradiction to the present realities and struggle against capitalism, revisionism, and imperialism." [Emphasis mine: S.W.]
Note that in the principles, the euphemism "anti-revisionist Marxist–Leninist" was used instead of the correct term Hoxhaist so as to note offend anyone.[1] Such was the prevailing mentality behind this decision.
In short, Revolupedia was now "half-Hoxhaist", "half-Maoist". No tendency could control the discussion and each was supposed to be equally represented.
What was the basis of this change?
The basis
Revolupedia has undergone multiple ideological shifts since its founding in 2024. The project was born as a dogmato-revisionist wing of the Red Spectre organization, a group which harbored ultra-"left" sentiments which isolated them from the working class. After this organization disbanded fully in February of 2025, we moved to Hoxhaist stances.
This change in our ideological line toward "anti-revisionist unity" was done as a compromise. I, the leading administrator of Revolupedia, had adopted Marxism–Leninism–Maoism at the start of June of 2025 from my previous Hoxhaist position. I can see retrospectively that my prior rejection of Maoism was motivated by dogmatic lies propagated by Enver Hoxha.[2] Reading Mao's works immediately exposed Hoxha's claims against Mao as being vile lies and fabrications.
As the leading figure behind Revolupedia, my stances held immense weight upon the rest of the editorship. However, instead of the correct approach of trying to advanced Maoism to the rest of the editorship, I merely sought a "compromise" to preserve stability within the project.
Was my approach liberal? Indeed it was:
"Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism." —Mao Zedong
The results
After Maoists were allowed inside the editorship, their presence grow considerable. Soon, the majority of editors were Maoists.
The point of view of our articles changed from Hoxhaite perspectives to Maoist ones. Soon, most if not all of the activity was conducted by Maoists.
Experience has shown that Hoxhaism and Maoism do not mix at all. They are mutually contradictory. Maoism is the third and most advanced stage in the development of Marxism waging people's wars across the globe whereas Hoxhaism is a fringe dogmatist sect which totally rejects the advancements of Maoism. The Sino-Albanian split happened with reason.
Hence why we failed to maintain "neutrality" in the point of view of our articles. None was possible, for only one or the other could have prevailed. Maoism, being the superior tendency, naturally won.
Conclusion
On November 15, 2025, we decided to overcome "anti-revisionist unity" with a new, solely Marxist–Leninist–Maoist stance. The vote was made by a comrade with my encouragement, after they helped convinced me that "anti-revisionist unity" was unworkable.
At this point, literally all of the active editors were Maoists; Hoxhaist ones were almost completely dormant. It was unfair to the Maoists to have the project be "half-Hoxhaist" when no Hoxhaists were contributing. Nobody opposed the vote to make us a solely Maoist project.
From this point on, we will not tolerate postmodernist notions involving unity between mutually contradicting sectors. Hoxhaists no longer control the discussion. To all the Hoxhaists remaining in the editorship:
Embrace Maoism!