Maoism or Hoxhaism?

I've been a longtime admirer of Mao, and considered myself a Maoist Third Worldist. It seems to me like that's the only line that's viable ATM.

I decided to read Hoxha's criticisms of Mao and it's pretty damning. It seems like a lot of Mao's revisionist views contributed to the eventual victory of capitalism in China.

Here are some quotes from Hoxha's "Imperialism and Revolution"

"Just as everyone should share what food there is," he writes, "so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class". (Mao) This idea has also been reflected in the national flag of the People's Republic of China, with four stars which represent four classes: the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie.

In his desire to provide a theoretical basis for this opportunist concept, and playing on the "transformation of the opposites", Mao Tsetung said that through discussion, criticism and transformation, antagonistic contradictions are transformed into non-antagonistic contradictions, the exploiting classes and the bourgeois intelligentsia can turn into their opposite, that is, become revolutionaries. "However, given the conditions of our country," Mao Tsetung wrote in 1956, "most of the counterrevolutionaries will eventually change to a greater or lesser extent. Thanks to the correct policy we have adopted towards counterrevolutionaries, many have been transformed into persons no longer opposed to the revolution, and a few have even done some good to it".

Capitalist rent has not been abolished by law in China, because the Chinese leadership has adhered to the strategy of the bourgeois-democratic revolution formulated in 1935 by Mao Tsetung, who said at that time: "The labour laws of the people's republic… will not prevent the national bourgeoisie from making profits … ". (Mao) In conformity with the Policy of the equal right to land", the kulak stratum, in the forms which have existed in China, has retained great advantages and profits. Mao Tsetung himself gave orders that the kulaks must not be touched, because this might anger the national bourgeoisie with which the Communist Party of China had formed a common united front, politically, economically and organizationally.


Other urls found in this thread:

Same tbh I even read a vast amount of MIM and MIM (Prisons) material because they just seemed to be the American communist party with the most interesting and creative line. A lot of people here write off Third Worldism without a thorough investigation of their arguments but perhaps they would benefit from reading the theory of those groups in order to refute it as the old school Maoists liked to do.

I'll be honest, I put off reading Hoxha for a while after getting into communism and I read what Maoist groups said about Hoxha and on the face of things their arguments made sense. But the more I learned about China and the more Maoist literature I read the more questions I had about what went wrong because certain events like Mao's support of Pinochet or Pakistan even Maoists have a hard time defending.

Once I did read Hoxha he just made a crazy amount of sense to me. It also explained the dissonance I was feeling between say when I read Lenin and Stalin and when I read Mao, it isn't just a matter of different writing styles, they have different outlooks. And I would say Mao is far more idealist in his outlook whereas the former two are firmly grounded in materialism.

Anyways, I wrote some pieces on my old blog about Maoist China if anyone is interested:


Alright, but Maosim isn't "whatever Mao did when he was in power". It's really more of a philosophical outlook and a guide to action. I also really don't where this "class collaborationism" meme comes from - New Democracy is just the NEP for Chinese conditions and every MLM group out there is hardcore anti-collaborationist, as they go so far to denounce Cuba and the DPRK as state capitalist.

really don't know*

Completely off topic (sorta) but is there such thing as “hoxhaism” or was he just a defender of the traditional ML “Stalinist” (anti-revisionist) line

Did the NEP allow for a national bourgeoisie? IIRC it allowed for speculation and small business.

Is national bourgeoisie the same thing as haute bourgeoisie?

How long was the New Democracy period supposed to last?

What do you think defines it outside of People's War, Cultural Revolution,Two-line struggle, Mass Line and Mao's philosophical work esp on dialectics? Do you think Maoism is consistently Leninist or is it actually something else?

Even historians sympathetic to Mao like Maurice Meisner acknowledge the fact that the Chinese national bourgeoisie were not expropriated without compensation as Lenin recommended. They gave the previous owners of the nationalized industries bonds that compensated them with interest and many of the former owners worked in the newly nationalized interest rates making higher then average pay.

Sounds just a little bit like class collaboration fampai.

This might explain why these groups are somewhat relevant and almost every group that Mao reached out to in the 60s isn't. Idk.

That's a good question. I consider Hoxha to be the most advanced anti-revisionist thinker of the Bolshevik leaders and his writings are interesting because he was writing up to his death in the mid 80s, so he definitely saw where things are going. He was god-tier at geopolitics and he wrote a fuckton I haven't been through it all and I've heard there's rumors about volumes of writings he made that hasn't been published yet.

I see him as a defender of the ML line at a time when revisionism was ascendant and really things just got worse as the decades wore on. I know the Stalinist-Hoxhaist "comintern" which is run by the remnants of a ML party aligned with Hoxha consider him to be the fifth classic of Marxism and in their opinion you can't be a Leninist and not be a Hoxhaist.

The MLM folks say the same thing about Mao, they say its not possible to be a revolutionary communist without adopting Mao and elements of his thought. Not sure if "Hoxhaism" proper has a proscriptive policy that makes it different from traditional ML. I know Hoxha was tougher on religion then any communist leader.

The Albanians had their own cultural revolution, banned religion and took measures to bring income inequality down to the lowest level in the world. Does that count as "Hoxhaism" I don't know but it sounds like a good idea.


Why not both?

Ain't Hoxha's critique of Mao fulla vague bullshit like "they let the peasants run the revolution" instead of actual constructive criticism? It's almost like he did his research on communist China after already deciding he didn't like Maoism. Unruhe even goes as far as to call Hoxha a Euro-chauvinist.


Both are outdated nonsense.

Bottom line: Maoism = idpol

What the fuck??? Why did Mao support fucking Pinoshit?

wow, that's new, never saw that coming

After the US got bogged down in Vietnam he came up with this theory that the US was a declining super-power whereas the USSR was the new rising super-power that was a danger to whole world.

Even still I don’t know if there was any point to China recognizing Pinochet’s government beyond making America happy. China was among the first nations that recognized his government. Tragically a lot of Chilean communists who were big fans of “red China” as they used to say in those days turned to the Chinese embassy for help after the coup only to be turned away. I don’t think it accomplished anything beyond ruining China’s image in the region.

The explanation of Maoists for what happened there was pretty autistic and tbf Mao’s three world’s theory was autism in the first place. I wonder if Pinocuck fanbois ever wonder about why Maoist China helped keep their guy in power.

Pinochet visited the PRC twice and said he was well-treated:

Wow, that's actually fucking unbelievable. Fucking sectarianism making communists act like retards

Hoxhaposter, do you know if Hoxha ever wrote anything on revolutionary praxis in 1st world countries?

Yes, he did:


How can Mautists not be fucking ashamed of this?

Didn't Mao's China also recognize Israel early on?

What that dumb fat basement dwelling fuck canuck does is never relevant to anything

Hoxhaism really only exists in historical context. Hoxhaism generally isn't significantly different from other forms of anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism (including even a lot of MZT groups). Hoxhaist as a label arose from the Sino-Albanian split and isn't really useful outside of that context.

A lot of Hoxha's criticisms of Mao were absolutely justified and shared by most Maoists (both of the MZW and MLM varieties). As someone else in this thread said, Maoism is less about the person of Mao as it is certain philosophical and practical innovations. Whether one takes them as a quantitative or qualitative break from Marxism-Leninism is the basis of the disagreement between MZT and MLM groups.

I think it's worth remembering not to give much credence to the "Stalinist-Hoxhaist" "Comintern." It's ~5 people living in Germany who criticize Mao for being a Confucian who mixed Marxism with Chinese mysticism, which is baseless and just plain racist.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is generally defined by what you listed, alongside a few other things like New Democracy. I would say that describing New Democracy as "just the NEP for Chinese conditions" is a bit of an unfair characterization. I think it probably stems from the oft-repeated idea that the NEP existed to provide a capitalist stage before collectivization, which isn't really true. There isn't any necessity of there being a capitalist stage if a socialist revolution happens in a feudal state, the NEP existed to allow the economy to recover after the devastation of the civil war. New Democracy, as opposed to being a policy for the specific set of conditions in a country at a given point is more of a principle. New Democracy says in essence that in certain countries pre-revolution (like China), the interests of the national bourgeoisie, peasants and proletariat all for the most part line up, i.e, it is in the interest of all three of these groups in an occupied nation to expel the occupiers. This of course doesn't mean that there aren't contradictions between them and their interests, it just means that it is more in there interest to work together at that time. New Democracy, then, is the temporary alliance of the proletariat and peasantry with the national bourgeoisie.

I hadn't intended to write so much about New Democracy but I think it's worth clearing up for this discussion. Vital for understanding New Democracy is an understanding of Mao's idea of the people vs the enemy. As Mao says in "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People":
"[W]e must first be clear on what is meant by 'the people' and what is meant by 'the enemy'… At the present stage, the period of building socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour, support and work for the cause of socialist construction all come within the category of the people, while the social forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist construction are all enemies of the people."

In Mao's opinion, at the time of the founding of the PRC, the contradictions between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie was "non-antagonistic," as opposed to the antagonistic contradictions between the proletariat and the imperialist bourgeoisie, or even the national bourgeoisie and imperialist bourgeoisie at times. The idea then was to create a state led by the proletariat (as it must be) that represents also a temporary alliance between the other classes with similar interests. The little stars on the flag of the PRC originally represented the proletariat, peasantry, national bourgeoisie and urban petty bourgeoisie. This is first and foremost, however, a /temporary/ alliance led by the proletariat that can be abrogated at any time (as it was in the GPCR).

The Three Worlds Theory was fucking bullshit and among Mao's biggest theoretical blunders. It's been rightfully criticized by basically everyone.

I think I was gonna talk about something else in this post but I forget so fuck it

A certain pseud and Jewish jihadist from this board have said the same thing.

I've been away from Holla Forums for like a year at least and I have no clue what you mean

also who the fuck got rid of the mautism flag, now I gotta use the fucking PRC flag and look like a Dengist

Anal Water claimed Mao's dialectics were "monist" and Chaya said Mao was a Daoist in her long-winded response to Roo.

Do you think Roo is a real Maoist or just a poseur?

Do you mean Unruhe? I'm not sure who the other two people are.

Unruhe isn't even a Marxist, let alone a Maoist. Third Worldism has a fundamentally different analysis from Marxism and the two aren't reconcilable.

Explain. In what ways are they opposed?

It applies the labor theory of value to a worldwide scale and comes to the conclusion that the predicted deterioration of working conditions is only going to happen in the countries with net value extraction, therefore creating revolutionary conditions before anywhere else. I don't know what's anti-Marxist about that.

Unless you speak of these more esoteric/post-colonial types of Third Worldists whose arguments are not based in materialism.

I mean, how would you respond to an argument like: "Third Worldism is true because Third World people are naturally more communal since they don't have the mass produced consumer culture and social alienation of the West"?

I think Mao's practical innovations are fine and good (and I don't think you as a Hohxaist wouldn't be opposed to them, except maybe New Democracy), but I always found Maoism from a philosophical perspective the most interesting. It's refreshing to also get an "Eastern take" on Marxism (by that I obviously don't mean Confuzianism), making Maoism a break but also a continuation of Marxism-Leninism as it unconditionally includes the world proletariat. I think the GPCR is one of the interesting communist movements of the 20th century, and by that I don't mean I agree with everything done in that time. I also enjoy the works of Althusser and Badiou so I was always sympathetic to Maosim while I never grasped what the point of Hoxhaism was. Hoxhaism is so reclusive due to its obsession with purity. I think it's quite ironic that Hoxha wrote against Kim Il-sung yet both the DPRK and Albania chose practically similar paths, except that the DPRK utilized rampant Korean nationalism to survive the crisis of the 90s.

It's true. I also agree that the fact that capitalism was a success story in the West while it was experienced as oppressive for colonized people makes them more prone for anti-capitalist movements. I also think it's practically impossible for the Third World to become fascist without direct imperialist collaboration ala Pinochet or Duerte, because there is no "myth" of the "good old times", if anything, Third World nations in their identity have to go beyond capitalism and reinvent some anti-, post- or proto-capitalist system. Capitalism is hardcoded into the West's identity, specifically the Anglo-Saxon part, where capitalism is seen as inseparable from and interlocked with freedom, democracy and civil liberties.

On the other hand, Marxist should never treat these cultural identities als absolutist, mechanistic and reductionist, Dialectical Materialism still works, and capitalism still possesses the ability absorb untapped markets and introduce the law of value everywhere, but we can still recognize superstructural identities shaping modern antagonisms - to deny that they exist is Leftcom retardation, but they are not the end of everything.

Who is to say that those proto-capitalist times (the "good old days" for the East) won't result in some other kind of oppressive system? It's not like old China or old India were anything close to communistic.

Also, this:

I'm referring to the latter. Most Third Worldists (LLCO and Unruhe types) hold a really vulgar labor aristocracy line that breaks with Marxist class analysis

we need a modern Maoist-Hoxhaist alliance to smite the neo-revisionists and Dengists

They did not recognize them prior to 1994 but Ben Gurion recognized China in 1949! They've had a secret working relationship for a long time that Hoxha alluded to when he said the Chinese supported the Israelis in the Middle East. It has been said by some that China was willing to recognize Israel by the mid-50s but by that point Israel was no longer even interested since it did not want to piss off the US. It is not a coincidence that Israel and China today are very good friends imo

It has even been argued by some conspiracy theorists that China helped Israel in developing their nuclear weapons or vice-versa. I think its plausible but I haven't seen any hard evidence. A thorough investigation of Israeli-Chinese relations both officially and on the covert level from a communist or left-wing perspective would be very enlightening.

Hence the quotation marks in my post. They've put out some ok material in the past (all of it poorly formatted and translated) but the more hot-takes I read from their site the more suspicious I am of them. They honestly sound like their being run by the BND as they supported the Ukraine uprsing, the Venezuelan protests, denounced Assad's government and his
"chemical weapons attacks" and now they support Iran. I mentioned this because they are the only group who seems to see Hoxhaism as something distinct from ML.

Well, I think that's the problem I don't think the national bourgeoisie was ever actually overthrown in China. Maybe GPCR made some good moves in this direction but it did not succeed. I think the Maoists are wrong to claim that China came closest to communism, if it was socialist it was very much on the lower-stage of communism imo farther down on that ladder then the USSR was under Stalin.

Sung being more of a waverer then either Mao or Hoxha and far less pro-Soviet than Castro. He was a very strange person, I'm still not sure I understand everything about "what went wrong" in Korea. But when the Norks were aligned with the Soviets they were far less isolated then they are today. The DPRK would be far more open to the world if the West bloc led by the US would allow them to be. Apparently the Russians and Chinese fear their independence (or the US) as they went along with the UN resolutions against the country.

I'm just not seeing it, what does this Eastern take bring to Marxism that it did not have before? Likewise, I don't think its "racist" to say that Confucianism and various traditional forms of Chinese thought had an influence on their understanding of Marxism anymore then it is to posit that Marxism arose in a Judeo-Christian context and perhaps its founders carried into it some of that culture's assumptions for good or ill. Roland Boer has written some good stuff on China he says that it is the "most radically traditionalist country on earth" in the sense that its ultra-modern but still held in thrall to its millennial old traditional culture with its train of prejudices and superstitions–this is of course not absolute.

what about the ICMLPO

Well, Mr.FBI from what I can tell they don’t since the phrase “new phase of Marxism-Leninism” isn’t plastered all over there website like the MLM groups. At a glance I don’t think you would know that it was grouping of parties nominally following Hoxhaism. They did print an obituary for Castro which is somewhat odd since Hoxha never thought he was a sincere communist he did think he was an important nationalist revolutionary

Did Hoxha regard any other communist leader other than himself as legitimate?

Lenin, Stalin, Gottwald, Bierut, Yugov, Mao for at least a brief period during the Sino-Albanian alliance and Ho Chi Minh. There may have been a few others in the East bloc that he approved of prior to the Khruschevian "de-stalinization" era except Tito and Ceausescu.

I saw JMP (MLM guy) mention in some blog post that Hoxha argued that cults of personality were actually good and revolutionary or some shit. Any truth to this claim? What did Hoxha think about the cults of personality around Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and what did he think about the cult of personality around himself?

holy shit… AW for hoxhaist confirmed?

The CIA admitted that the bunkers worked.

what about Georgi Dimitrov?

Not that I've ever seen. And JMP is really an anti-Stalinist who defends the fact that many RIM member parties only uphold three heads (Marx, Lenin, Mao). Did he link to corroborating proof that Hoxha ever said this or was he talking out of his ass like usual?

That's still being debated. Most MLs even of the Hoxhaist persuasion uphold Dimitrov as a great comrade and leader but some like Bill Bland and the aforementioned "Comintern" believe that Dimitrov was a conduit of modern revisionism in the 1930s-40s.
I'm not sure where I stand on this but from what I can tell Hoxha never really wrote much about Dimitrov either way.

It's simple power politics, not "sectarianism". The Great Powers have always played their games over wealth and influence; a few of them painting their flags red does not change this.

This is bullshit.

At first Dimitrov is accused of blaspheming against Holy Scripture of Lenin without explaining what exactly is wrong (common revisionist practice; simple ad hominem), but it seems as if authors didn't even read Lenin themselves, if they decry "finance capital" - which (even in works of Lenin) refers to merger of banking and industry.

Then an absurd stance is taken:
But that is exactly how Communists united themselves with Republicans during Civil War in Spain; not to mention the whole WWII.

I did not read further, but it's quite clear that "Stalinists" here are of Trotskyite persuasion.

The fact that Hoxha attacked Kim Il Sung kind of proves he had some Eurochauvinist views IMO, since the two had very similar outlooks

It was Not "Eurochauvinist views" that caused Hoxha to criticize Kim il Sung
He criticized him on his Policy of Juche or "Self reliance" which Hoxha saw as Isolationist and against Internationalism

That's fucking stupid though, DPRK has consistently shown solidarity and material support for revolutionaries all around the world. Self-sufficiency enhances the DPRK's standing to support international socialism.

Albania was even more isolationist than the DPRK.

Then he hasn't read the basic texts of Juche which do embrace economic cooperation just not on a level that makes one party reliant on the other - and guess what happened, the entire Eastern Bloc which was reliant on the USSR collapse while the DPRK didn't.

There is literally not a single thing Kim Il-sung did that was revisionist, Hohxa's criticism evolves arround the lines of supposed class collaboration during the "NEP phase" of the DPRK, concerns which were unfounded considering the first three year plan of the DPRK. Other than that, the path the DPRK took is almost identical to that of Albania, taxes were abolished as well. The only thing that Albania did which North Korea did only partially was the "proletarizarion" of the army, partly abolishing military ranks and such, on the other hand North Korea does have a milita culture based on a "people's army" and - something Albania never did to that extent - a workplace democracy.

It's just that North Korea never saw the reason to go full confrontational with literally every socialist state, rather they played both USSR, then China, and then USSR again to ensure enough support to survive.

What happened to my posts? I didn't delete them. Weird.

Reading "The Kruschevites" right now. IMO Hoxha is up there with Marx, Lenin, Engels, and Stalin.

I don't think being critical of Stalin is bad at all tbh. What makes him an anti-Stalinist though? Not that familiar with his work.

Who fucking gives a shit, seriously?

No link but this is what he wrote (in an article about cults of personality and Bob Avakian):

Like most Maoists he blindly follows the 70% correct 30% incorrect appraisal that the Chinese gave Stalin. And like most Maoists he can't really say what those mistakes are beyond vague clichés like "he didn't trust the peasants enough" "he was too metaphysical" etc. JMP was a Trotskyist before he was a Maoist and an anarchist before that and it really shows. He wrote a pamphlet called Maoism or Trotskyism? as if that were the true burning question facing the Left especially the Leninist Left.

As far as I can tell he's never said anything about Grover Furr's work except for:

So, JMP admits that Furr has assembled a lot of evidence on the matter but dismisses it all as "crude empiricism"? Even if you think that you should look at the evidence and see what it says–only a philosopher would take JMP's approach. Of course JMP isn't alone among the Maoists in taking this course:

Furthermore, Mao himself could have outbursts worthy of the most inveterate Trotskyists:

Link on Mao quote:

Make the choice by which one sounds more stupid



Gee, I wonder which one…

xh in Albanian is like an English j

Mao looks barely better than Kuomintang.

In Hoxha's analysis, what are the class forces which gave rise to revisionism?

IIRC he speaks about a growing "complacency, apathy, bureaucratic routine" which eventually degraded the party, making it safe for various careerist, self-serving elements. A bourgeoisie mentality proliferated in the nomenklatura, the slogans of Lenin and Stalin became mere platitudes, the primary concern of the new Kruschevite leadership was "profitability" and "the good life".

The question I have, is how do you prevent a revisionist takeover from happening in a future socialist state?


Not exactly sure tbh. Every failure we have and every time revisionism has come to power has resulted in a deeper understanding of it theoretically and a more theoretical mature movement.

The material conditions for socialism are also better then ever. I think 21st century communists will have things easier then their 20th century counterparts.

When I said sectarianism I meant it as in a way that the only reason (so it seems) that Mao supported Pinochet was because he was an american puppet, and since the US was the enemy of the USSR, Mao just had to find some other way to oppose the SU. Really retarded if you ask me, no one that calls himself a socialist should suppport a tyrannical bourgeois dictator, who on top of that is an american pawn

Why were they violated though? If Hoxha doesn't have an answer, why do you think it happened?

Let's imagine you're Stalin circa 1950, with all the knowledge you have today. What do you do to destroy the incoming revisionism?

I feel like whoever can figure out how to develop an immunity to revisionism will become the 6th head after Hoxha.

Pretty much this.

-Take measures to reduce income inequality

-Increase investment in heavy industry, R&D, and all-round industrial capacity in order to create the material basis to both raise standards of living enormously when the time comes and overtake the US economically

-Transform all Kolkhozes from collective to property to state property.

-Begin the transition of industrial enterprises (with perhaps the exception of those vital for military production) from state property to public property. This could be a very long process but I would commission this to be done.

-Ideologically prepare the party and military cadre for potential world war

-Put revisionists and spies to death when found like Stalin did in fact do during the Leningrad affair

-Increase political education of the masses and the cultural quality of media in the USSR

Now, I'm not saying Stalin didn't attempt to do these things, but understandably Stalin was only human and the USSR had lost many of its best and brightest in WWII. There maybe other issues to look into such as whether the woman question was sufficiently dealt with.

There's a lot to think about here, other then moving past commodity production which wasn't possible at the time I'm not sure which steps to take. Still there's something to be said for increasing the quality of socialism even if you haven't came to a point where you can transition to full-communism.

Abolish all personal taxes would be another although this actually was done in Albania

Don't you feel like Mao had the right idea, in the Cultural Revolution? It was applied terribly though. The idea is that you had to have a Cultural Revolution to eliminate any basis for non-proletarian consciousness.

Don't you think Mao's slogan of "attacking the headquarters" makes sense, in terms of preventing revisionism?

I like the idea of it. I have heard the Albanians had a similar event but I don't think it had the same character. One would hope you could instill proletarian consciousness without doing all the autistic shit that happened in the GPCR, as you note.

It makes sense if the party isn't following a proletarian course. One might wonder what made the GPCR necessary if Mao had allowed the CPC to take such a blatantly revisionist course. I don't think Mao did himself any favors with the two-line struggle and hundred flowers memes that gave those in the party's far-right like Deng a lot of breathing room. Its funny because Mao just wanted peoples power to come out and provide a check against these people and it seemed like what some of the people wanted was a full-on second revolution:

According to the man who gave birth to the Maoist Third Worldist meme:
>On the other hand, the ultra-left Leninist Sheng-Wu-Lien attacked the broad masses of people and demanded the overthrow of the party or at least 90% of it. With such a large target—the “red capitalist class” and the intellectuals—the Leninist ultraleft literally sought to persecute (or overthrow depending on one’s point of view) millions of people. In Hunan alone, the Sheng-Wu-Lien claimed two or three million people. Moreover, according to the Progressive Labor Party (U.S.A.), “the consensus of Red Guard sources and western scholars who have studied the question is that somewhere from 30-40 million people followed these [ultraleft] organizations.” Hence the Leninist ultraleft was in a real position to do damage to the Cultural Revolution. (The Political Economy of Counter-Revolution in China: 1976-1988 by Henry Park)

If revisionism is in power it might take more then occupying some signs or some buildings. Although the Chinese advocated a second October Revolution they stopped short of advocating the same in their own country. So, the question might be how does the working class successfully fight and win in a revisionist country?

So far we have only seen the working class coopted in order to overthrow the legacies of socialism and the DotP. There was an interesting workers rebellion in the USSR where the anger was specifically directed against Khruschev and called for the return of Stalin's policies. I
I've heard the same about other minor rebellions in the USSR but the working class did not win in its fight against capitalism with a red mask. I'm open to any thoughts you might have on the problem. I'm not sure you can just declare a peoples war every time someone you don't like gets some power such as whats happening in the splits of the Nepalese Maoists. But hey, maybe history will prove me wrong.

What do you think about this idea? Instead of rewarding government officials and party workers with bonuses, make their wages actually less than the wages of regular workers. In this way, you can ensure people only become government officials or party workers out of genuine belief in the ideology, and not careerism, self-interest, etc.

I don't have the screen but someone posted a text a while back saying that being a party worker was basically bad for your finances. You had a lot more opportunities to make money if you weren't in the party (at least in the Stalin years) and you were basically put under a microscope when it came to your personal behavior.

I agree with the idea though.

In Ireland, the socialist Sinn Féin had a policy where elected members of parliament were only allowed to take home the Average Industrial Wage and the rest of their wages was kept inside Party coffers. Despite this, the party has been slowly moving further to the right for over 20 years now.
Fucking chinks and their Mautism.

I'm missing posts in here as well

Mostly anything potentially hurting Mautist feelings