To Other Aspect: No Investigation, No Right to Speak

The archetype of dogmato-revisionism has always been Enver Hoxha’s so-called “anti-revisionism”. In dogmatically applying Marxist theory he created a stagnant idea of revolution that ended with 1917 material conditions and class relations. This has spawned the Euro-chauvinist, and closeted racist ideology we know today as Hoxhaism. To be more specific, I’m referring to a writing by “Other Aspect” in which he reposts a historical transcript with very little (if any) interpretation.[1] Instead of doing an investigation he merely asserts that Mao is wrong by presenting the text. If we follow what is presented, then we are to believe Mao was bad because he criticized Stalin.

Let us begin from a correct stand point. Mao made errors, and he carried out some reactionary ideas. The most famous of these reactionary ideas was the Three Worlds Theory. We acknowledge that Mao made errors, some of those errors were intentional and severe. This stands in complete contrast to Hoxhaism, which itself is a gigantic error. Hoxhaists believe in what I call the Two Whatevers of Hoxhaism: “Whatever Stalin said was right, whatever a Marxist of colour says is wrong.” They flinch from ever criticizing Stalin for anything, because they essentially don’t believe he ever did anything wrong. Their cult around Stalin is reactionary, and dangerous to Marxist theory itself.

This first piece of writing accurately expresses what I mean when I say they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to Mao Zedong Thought.

“We leave it to the discretion of our dear comrades who still harbour respect and faith in Mao, and to what is said as Mao-Tse-Tung thought or Maoism.”[2]

This line clearly expresses that they do not know the difference between Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought. The latter is whatever Mao himself theorized, the former is any theory produced by a follower of Mao Zedong Thought which contributed to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. For example, the ideas of Chairman Gonzalo of the Shining Path cannot be attributed to Mao Zedong Thought, because Mao did not theorize them. It should also be noted that Maoists do not uphold the ideas of Mao which are wrong, like Three Worlds Theory. Already, Other Aspect has begun from a false premise, one no different than the other dogmatic-revisionists of Hoxhaism. They do not know anything about Mao Zedong Thought, or Maoism.

The cult mentality of Hoxhaists around Stalin is demonstrated right in Other Aspect’s own words:

On numerous occasion he did not fail to eulogies Stalin and writing to him that Soviet Party being the headquarters and Stalin the captain, and immediately after the 20th CPSU Party Congress like Khrushchev turned all guns again same Stalin whom he had called in 1939 as “…Stalin is the leader of the world revolution. This is of paramount importance.”[3]

What we have here is an inability to accept that Stalin was capable of, and did make errors. Mao supported Stalin when he was revolutionary, and was leading the way. Mao did not support Stalin when his actions became reactionary, and counter to the goal of reaching communism. When Stalin supported Israel and Lysenkoism, he made huge errors. The statement here by Other Aspect is that Mao supported Stalin, and then he did not. Thus he must be a reactionary for not supporting him. This of course relies on the premise that Stalin never made any errors; nor did he make any large enough to warrant withdrawing support. The cult mentality of Hoxhaists is revealed in their inability to see any flaws or mistakes in comrade Stalin.

Secondly, Other Aspect slanders Mao by falsely associating him with Khrushchev. Mao made criticisms of Stalin, yes, there is no denying that. Everyone makes mistakes including Stalin. What Other Aspect doesn’t do is show how the attacks by Khrushchev are different from the criticisms by Mao. The logical fallacy here, is the assumption that: since both men said negative things about Stalin, they must both be the same and equally invalid. This is as false as it is dishonest. The hidden assumption here is that Khrushchev’s lies are the same as Mao’s rightful criticisms. Again we are faced with the Stalin cult mentality of Hoxhaists. The first of the Whatevers: “Whatever Stalin did was right…”. Because Hoxhaists don’t believe Stalin was capable of making errors; any criticisms of him must be invalid and therefore a reactionary attack.

This refusal to accept Stalin as an imperfect figure continues:

But, it was not the end in 1958 Mao again did a U turn and in October 25, 1966 said “The revisionist leading clique of the Soviet Union, the Tito clique of Yugoslavia, and all the other cliques of renegades and scabs of various shades are mere dust heaps in comparison, while you, a lofty mountain, tower to the skies.”[4]

Mao had criticisms of Stalin, but his overall view of him was positive. Other Aspect sees this as flip-flopping, but really it’s just their inability to understand that Mao can criticize him and support him. Again we run into the problem of Hoxhaists blindly believing that Stalin can’t make errors; so Mao must be flip-flopping by making a criticism, but over all supporting him. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? Their entire view is: Mao made criticisms of Stalin therefore he’s reactionary, or therefore it’s proof that Hoxha was right in calling Mao a reactionary.

Over all this post was largely nonsense. Other Aspect merely gave a criticism of the ComIntern and declared it a reactionary thing to do. Are we to believe that neither Mao, nor the Chinese are allowed to criticize the policy of the ComIntern when it relates to China? Is China not allowed to be involved in debates about policy which are about them? If we follow the logic of this post we can only come to the conclusion that they’re not allowed to speak. Such is the Euro-chauvinism and Stalin cult mentality of Hoxhaists.

We are again faced with the lack of knowledge of Hoxhaists on Mao Zedong Thought:

The Wang Ming line was in fact Stalin’s line. It ended up destroying ninety percent of our strength in our bases, and one hundred percent of [our strength] in the white areas.[5]

What is important here, is the fact that Other Aspect, doesn’t bother to say what the Wing Ming line was. If they had, then we’d have known why it was wrong. If we knew that, we’d also know why one of Hoxha’s criticisms of Mao was wrong. Wang Ming and the 28 Bolsheviks came back from Soviet training insisting that the industrial working class must be the lead in the revolution. China at the time was almost entirely feudal. There was no industrial working class to speak of to organize. When a rebellion was lead by Wang Ming it utterly failed. They were nearly wiped out by the Kumantong. Mao rallied the remaining forces and led them on the Long March to avoid total destruction. Settling in the countryside Mao did an investigation and discovered that the peasants were the majority exploited class in China. China was not Europe, China was feudal, not capitalist. The Wang Ming line, the Soviet line was to reject this and dogmatically insist upon the industrial working class. As we can see from history and the successful Chinese Revolution, Mao was proven correct.

In some areas Stalin has admitted he was wrong and that Mao was correct. At one point Stalin did wrongly oppose the Chinese Communist Revolution:

[Excerpt from Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War quoting Mao’s private reaction to the first of two telegrams Stalin sent him urging him to personally go to Chongqing (Chungking) for negotiations with Chiang Kai-shek.]

“In the first cable (dated August 22 [1945]), Stalin said that China must hold to the road of peaceful development, that he believed the Nationalists and the Communists should reach a peace accord because a civil war would destroy the Chinese nation, and that, accordingly, he thought both Zhou [Enlai] and Mao should go to Chongqing. After receiving Stalin’s cable, an angry Mao remarked, ‘I simply don’t believe that the nation will perish if the people stand up and struggle [against the Nationalist government].’”

—UP, p. 7. Ed. note: Later on (in early 1948) Stalin admitted that he was wrong in initially opposing the Chinese revolution in the period after World War II. Milovan Djilas reports him as saying: “True, we, too, can make a mistake! Here, when the war with Japan ended, we invited the Chinese comrades to reach an agreement as to how a modus vivendi with Chiang Kai-shek might be found. They agreed with us in word, but indeed they did it their own way when they got home: they mustered their forces and struck. It has been shown that they were right, and not we.” [Djilas, Conversations with Stalin, p. 182.] Later still, on July 27, 1949, as the Chinese revolution was on the verge of complete victory, the authors of Uncertain Partners say that while speaking to a CPC delegation in Moscow Stalin “admitted that he was not ‘too well versed’ in Chinese affairs and may have caused obstacles in the Chinese revolution.” [UP, p. 73.][6]

Even when Stalin admits he was wrong, Hoxhaists still refuse to acknowledge it.

This post by Other Aspect contained no substance at all. It merely showed an example of Mao criticizing Stalin, disagreeing over line and policy towards China as proof of Maoism being reactionary. All of this is based on the premise that Stalin can’t make errors, and that he did not make errors. Even then, China has a right to do an investigation of their own; which the Other Aspect blog did not do. The cultishness of Hoxhaism is laid bare here: Mao disagreed with Stalin, therefore he’s reactionary. There isn’t even an explanation as to how Maoism was supposedly wrong in this post’s context.

Before us is a prime example of the theoretical weakness of First Worldists; they refuse to investigate the past, they dogmatically hold onto theory, and they unquestioningly celebrate leaders. First Worldism is an utter failure because it tries to repeat the past. We must understand the past, learn from the past, but we must go beyond it. We do not go forward by trying to cobble together the fragments of the past.

Hoxhaism is nothing less than a reactionary dogma dedicated to the celebration of past leaders, not a revolutionary science as Marxism is.

[1] Mao Apologised to Yugoslavian Delegates, told Stalin blocked our revolution, Other Aspect
https://otheraspect.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/mao-apologised-to-yugoslavian-delegates-told-stalin-blocked-our-revolution/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mao Apologised to Yugoslavian Delegates, told Stalin blocked our revolution, Other Aspect

[6] Mao’s Evaluations of Stalin, A Collection and Summary
http://www.massline.org/SingleSpark/Stalin/StalinMaoEval.htm

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “To Other Aspect: No Investigation, No Right to Speak

  1. Thank you for spreading the anti-hoxha message, I can hear the butthurt all the way on the other end of the internet.

    Seriously, “Hoxhaism” is the most autistic ideology that has ever existed.

  2. To the writer of this blog post. It seems that he has not read the post at Other Aspect and entered in to a rage without reading.

    Just to clarify

    1. It is not a post written by Other Aspect by a reproduction of Note from Mao’s meeting with Yugoslavian delegates.

    2. The writer has just gone to criticise Other Aspect with reasons that can be just said as “No Investigation No right to speak”

    3. For a meaningful discussion one has to do a constructive criticism and not what can just be called as assortment of balderdash statements

    4. and thanks to the commentator who says “Thank you for spreading the anti-hoxha message, I can hear the butthurt all the way on the other end of the interne”

    So one who is critical of Mao automatically becomes “dogmato-revisionism”

    5. Any criticism of Mao has to precede with criticism of Stalin, even if it is out of context. This is the Maoist strategy…wow what a “Marxist” way of criticism

    • 1. There is a piece by Other Aspect, and a reproduction of a transcript.
      2. This point is false because I have laid out where Other Aspect didn’t understand what they were criticizing.
      3.You’re right, ” For a meaningful discussion one has to do a constructive criticism”, now provide one because I did.
      4. This has nothing to do with me, I never wrote it.
      5. I never made such a statement. You are a liar. I merely demonstrated that I can fairly criticize a leader, which you failed to do.

      You have provided nothing that demonstrates anything wrong with what I posted. You merely acted in denial of what I wrote.

    • “and thanks to the commentator who says “Thank you for spreading the anti-hoxha message, I can hear the butthurt all the way on the other end of the interne”

      So one who is critical of Mao automatically becomes “dogmato-revisionism”

      Dont strawmnan, where in my comment did I say that anyone who was critical of Mao was a revisionist. Im a MTW, Mao made mistakes just like Stalin did. I was directly referring to “Hoxhaists” in the comment and you know it because it was in the first line.

      You have just proved my comment true. Good job.

  3. These racists don’t want to believe that an Asian person made such important contributions to Marxism.

Comments are closed.