Introduction

The history of the revolutionary communist movement has always seen with it opportunist, revisionist, and counter-revolutionary factions and doctrines attempting to accompany it, make it impotent, and ultimately lead to its total elimination in favor of openly bourgeois and reactionary ideology.

The modern day has seen the consolidation of a new trend in modern revisionism — Maoism, known more fully as “Marxism–Leninism–Maoism.” Basing itself largely on the teachings of the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong and his eclectic inventions, this doctrine seeks to uproot the revolutionary teachings of Marxism–Leninism and supplement it with its dubious “anti-revisionism” and “political innovations.”

The abandoners of Marxism frequently uphold the notion that its ideas are “obsolete” due to the dynamic nature of material circumstances, that its ideas must be replaced, not adapted. The contemporary adherents to Maoism profess a stance which does not differ from this.

Marxist–Leninists have been waging struggle against Maoists for decades since the rise of Mao Zedong to power in China. With the current condition of capitalism, the masses are seeking a socialist, revolutionary alternative to this system. Yet a large portion of them are deceived by the Maoist dogma, it claims to be an “advancement” on Marxism, etc.

Marxist–Leninists must expose the failings of Maoism with all its intricacies, and prove its bourgeois, counter-revolutionary, and revisionist realities.

1. The progenitor of Maoism — Mao Zedong Thought

To speak of Maoism if we did not firstly speak of its namesake, Mao Zedong, would necessarily be incorrect and crass. Following the retreat of the Communist Party of China (CPC) from urban centers during the Long March, leadership of the party was quickly assumed by Mao Zedong.

His initial actions were of a mixed nature. Following the tactical retreat that was the Long March, Mao began to openly detach himself from Leninist theory, introducing idealist traditions from China’s philosophical past. Around this time during the early history of the Communist Party of China, Mao and his supporters made a critical theoretical error concerning the role of the peasantry in the revolution.

In opposition to the Marxist–Leninist model in agrarian countries whereby the communist party forms an alliance with the peasantry with the proletariat still maintaining a commanding role, Mao thought quite differently:

"A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for thousands of years. The rural areas need a mighty revolutionary upsurge, for it alone can rouse the people in their millions to become a powerful force. All the actions mentioned here which have been labeled as "going too far" flow from the power of the peasants, which has been called forth by the mighty revolutionary upsurge in the countryside It was highly necessary for such things to be done in the second period of the peasant movement, the period of revolutionary action. In this period it was necessary to establish the absolute authority of the peasants.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Mao Zedong, Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan, 1927

This is in great contrast to the Leninist understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat:

“But the essence of proletarian dictatorship is not in force alone, or even mainly in force. Its chief feature is the organization and discipline of the advanced contingent of the working people, of their vanguard; of their sole leader, the proletariat, whose object is to build socialism, abolish the division of society into classes, make all members of society working people, and remove the basis for all exploitation of man by man. [...]” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Vladimir Lenin, Greetings to the Hungarian Workers, 1919

Thus, Mao took on the view of the Russian Narodniks; the revolution would be an instance of the peasantry encircling the cities and establishing their own class rule. However, it is only the proletariat who can lead socialism. The peasantry are a stratum with inherently contested class interests, and one which is in constant decline as the productive forces augment and they are further integrated into the proletariat.

Mao Zedong would incorporate many of these anti-Marxist elements into this ideology — “Mao Zedong Thought” — throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Although allegedly a mere application of Marxism–Leninism to the material peculiarities of 20th century China, Mao Zedong Thought took on a far more eclectic character, being comprised of influences which included ancient Chinese philosophers such as Confucius, bourgeois radicals, and lastly Marxist theorists:

“To get some experience of class struggle  —  that’s what I call a university. They argue about which university is better, Peking University or People’s University. For my part I am a graduate of the university of the greenwoods, I learned a bit there. In the past I studied Confucius, and spent six years on the Four Books and the Five Classics. I learned to recite them from memory, but I did not understand them. At that time, I believed deeply in Confucius, and even wrote essays [expounding his ideas]. Later I went to a bourgeois school for seven years. Seven plus six makes thirteen years. I studied all the usual bourgeois stuff  —  natural science and social science. They also taught some pedagogy. This includes five years of normal school, two years of middle school, and also the time I spent in the library. At that time I believed in Kant’s dualism, especially in his idealism. Originally I was a feudalist and an advocate of bourgeois democracy. Society impelled me to participate in the revolution. […] When I joined the Communist Party I knew that we must make revolution, but against what? And how would we go about it? Of course we had to make revolution against imperialism and the old society. I did not quite understand what sort of a thing imperialism was, still less did I understand how we could make revolution against it. None of the stuff I had learned in thirteen years was any good for making revolution. I used only the instrument  —  language. […] But when it came to starving, and to [the precept] ‘The superior man can endure poverty,’ he almost lost his life, the people of K’uang wanted to kill him. There were those who criticized him for not visiting Ch’in in his journey to the West. In reality, the poem ‘In the Seventh Month the Fire Star Passes the Meridian’ in the Book of Odes refers to events in Shensi. There is also ‘The Yellow Bird’, which talks about the affair in which three high officials of Duke Mu of Ch’in were killed and buried with him on his death. Ssu-ma Ch’ien had a very high opinion of the Book of Odes. He said the 300 poems it contains were all written by sages and worthies of ancient times when they were aroused. A large part of the poems in the Book of Odes are in the manner of the various states, they are the folk songs of the common people, the sages and worthies are none other than the common people. ‘Written when they were aroused’ means that when a man’s heart was filled with anger, he wrote a poem!” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Mao Zedong, Talk On Questions Of Philosophy, 1964

1.1. Mao’s halting of socialist construction

When the reactionary Kuomintang was defeated and the People’s Republic of China was declared in 1949, the international communist movement was largely unaware of Mao’s increasingly trenchant revisions to Marxist theory. Nearly all aspects of the new supposedly Marxist–Leninist state were arcane:

“One of the greatest difficulties in assessing the life and work of Mao Tsetung and the line and history of the Chinese Communist Party is that the Communist Party of China has consistently withheld information on the actual state of affairs in China, on the theories of Mao Tsetung and the line of the Communist Party of China, and has developed various ways and forms of creating a great mystery about what was going on in China – in the Party, in the state and in the economy.”

“One example of this is the case of Lin Piao. When he died, his death was not written about in Peking Review. This was not for reasons of state secrecy, as all sorts of bourgeois visitors were informed of his death. But it never was announced in Party channels. As a result, we upheld that Lin Piao was alive because it was simply unimaginable to us that such a thing would not be mentioned in Party literature and instead simply broadcast to all visiting bourgeoisie. Further consultation has revealed that we weren’t the only Party which had difficulties on this front.”

“When we began research on China, we ran into this immediately. Even the simplest questions are shrouded in mystery. For example, which units own the land in the Chinese communes? It seems that land and the means of production are owned in China’s countryside by very small units, even smaller than the commune, but discussion on this and on its significance is lacking in Chinese economic literature. What is the actual state of ownership of the means of production, what happened to the bourgeois class, etc., etc.? No discussion of this takes place. We have only found one or two articles that even approach the discussion of such matters. Often the only sources on China are bourgeois sources or by inference.”

- Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought are Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist, 1979

These factors made it nearly impossible to enumerate the opportunist and revisionist nature of the newly-empowered Communist Party of China.

Immediately following the constitution of the People’s Republic of China at the end of the 1940s, Mao’s government would quickly begin to institute policies in favor of the exploiting strata. The national bourgeoisie, which maintained some momentarily progressive character during the national liberation war against the Japanese imperialists, was still heavily treated with and favored despite it rapidly becoming a retrogressive force. The only stratum which the Communist Party was not cordial towards were the “bureaucratic capitalists.”

Although the CPC attempted to cultivate embryonic forms of collectivization and workplace management among the proletariat and lower peasantry, this was of little meaning to the much more industrialized and affluent costal cities. In these regions, the state adopted a far more collaborative relationship with the national bourgeoisie by which they were able to manage their industry in a nearly unfettered manner with the only exceptions being cases of clear corruption and other illegal activity.

The supposedly leading role of the proletariat and even the lower peasantry was severely undermined at every instance. The dictatorship of the proletariat which was established in Bolshevik Russia even during the turmoil of civil war and imperialist invasion was never established in the People’s Republic of China. On the contrary, the CPC installed a system of “New Democracy” which would not be headed exclusively by the proletariat but by three other classes — the peasantry, petite-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie. This “New Democratic” state would work towards the “peaceful and gradual transition to socialism” and unite these opposed classes on the basis of a “common program” which included the recognition and defense of property rights for all classes in China, even the higher petite-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie:

“The basic principle for the economic construction of the People's Republic of China is to develop production and bring about a prosperous economy through the policies of taking into account both public and private interests, of benefiting both labour and capital, of mutual aid between the city and countryside, and circulation of goods between China and abroad. The state shall coordinate and regulate state-owned economy, co-operative economy, the individual economy of peasants and handicraftsmen, private capitalist economy and state capitalist economy, in their spheres of operations, supply of raw materials, marketing, labour conditions, technical equipment, policies of public and general finance, etc. In this way all components of the social economy can, under the leadership of the state-owned economy, carry out division and co-ordination of labour and play their respective parts in promoting the development of the social economy as a whole.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, 1949

Even after certain nationalization of merely the most backwards capitalists later in the early 1950s, the national bourgeoisie was still in control of many key industries. Supposedly working class labor unions and organizations were undermined by expressly bourgeois syndicates such as the All-China Federation of Industrial and Commercial Circles.

These developments are of little surprise considering the views of Mao Zedong concerning the nature of mutually antagonistic classes:

“’Let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend’ and ‘long-term coexistence and mutual supervision’—how did these slogans come to be put forward? They were put forward in the light of China's specific conditions, in recognition of the continued existence of various kinds of contradictions in socialist society and in response to the country's urgent need to speed up its economic and cultural development. Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land. Different forms and styles in art should develop freely and different schools in science should contend freely. We think that it is harmful to the growth of art and science if administrative measures are used to impose one particular style of art or school of thought and to ban another. Questions of right and wrong in the arts and science should be settled through free discussion in artistic and scientific circles and through practical work in these fields. They should not be settled in an over-simple manner. A period of trial is often needed to determine whether something is right or wrong. Throughout history at the outset new and correct things often failed to win recognition from the majority of people and had to develop by twists and turns through struggle. […] Nevertheless, it often happens that new, rising forces are held back and sound ideas stifled. Besides even in the absence of their deliberate suppression, the growth of new things may be hindered simply through lack of discernment. It is therefore necessary to be careful about questions of right and wrong in the arts and sciences, to encourage free discussion and avoid hasty conclusions We believe that such an attitude will help ensure a relatively smooth development of the arts and sciences.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Mao Zedong, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, 1957

Thus, as was the case with the later revisionist despot of China, Deng Xiaoping, Mao Zedong upheld the notion that socialism was not the pursuit of the proletariat, but rather a “collaborative” effort by all “progressive” classes in the nation willing to embark on it, even the higher petite-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie. In Mao’s view, the contradictions between classes were irrelevant to the China’s “specific conditions” by which is all elements of the Chinese nation could contribute to “socialist construction,” even the most rapine exploiters.

Even decades before the rise to power of the social-fascist clique of Deng Xiaoping, we see “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” being echoed and given its foundations with the chauvinistic, class collaborationist, and bourgeois nationalist sentiments held by Mao Zedong and his “Thought.”

The banner of the People’s Republic of China bears five stars — four of which small. The small stars represent, equally, the national bourgeoisie, petite-bourgeoisie, peasantry, and lastly the proletariat, all united around the largest star which represents the Communist Party of China. From its most elemental symbolism, it is clear that the Communist Party even under Mao never intended to be the vanguard for the proletariat under Marxist–Leninist theory, but rather a monolithic and collaborationist association of all the differing classes in Chinese society, removed from any concrete revolutionary theory. These are not the elements of a proletarian vanguard but a social-fascist, revisionist party.

 1.2. Mao’s betrayal of international communism
 

The events in the nascent People’s Republic of China took place in tandem with a global trend of revisionism and opportunism in the international communist movement. The rise to power of the revisionist group headed by Nikita Khrushchev in 1953 and dismantlement of socialism beginning in 1956 along with the policies of “de-Stalinization” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proved to be a historic setback for the international communist and workers’ movement, and precipitated the fall of socialism in nearly all of the people’s democracies of Eastern Europe.

The Communist Party of China, despite later claiming to adhere to anti-revisionist stances, soon began to follow a similar course that the revisionist Soviet Union took. In 1955, China reestablished diplomatic relations with Titoite Yugoslavia, a country which had entirely betrayed socialist construction, detached themselves from the people’s democracies in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union under Stalin, and allied with Western imperialists.

When the revisionist Khrushchev condemned the socialist government of Joseph Stalin during his so-called “secret speech” in 1956, Mao Zedong not only failed to present any notable opposition to it, but actively partook in the orchestra of slander against Marxism–Leninism and Stalin’s legacy:

“Further I said that I had wanted to visit him (Mao Zedong) in the very first days following my return to Beijing and to tell about the work of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and, in particular, about Comrade Khrushchev’s speech at the closed session regarding the cult of personality. [...] Mao Zedong said that the members of the CPC delegation who had attended the 20th Congress had told him something about the work of the Congress and had brought one copy of Comrade Khrushchev’s speech regarding the cult of personality. That speech has already been translated into Chinese and he had managed to become acquainted with it.”

“During a conversation about I.V. Stalin’s mistakes Mao Zedong noted that Stalin’s line on the China question, though it had basically been correct, in certain periods he, Stalin, had made serious mistakes. In his speeches in 1926 Stalin had exaggerated the revolutionary capabilities of the Kuomintang, had spoken about the Kuomintang as the main revolutionary force in China. In 1926 Stalin had given the Chinese Communists an instruction about the orientation to the Kuomintang, having viewed it as a united front of the revolutionary forces of China. Stalin said that it is necessary to depend on the Kuomintang, to follow after that party, i.e. he spoke directly about the subordination of the Communist Party of China to the Kuomintang. This was a great mistake which had held back the independent work of the Communist Party of China on the mobilization of the masses and on attracting them to the side of the Communist Party.”

“Through the Comintern, Mao Zedong continued, Stalin, having become after the death of V.I. Lenin the de facto leader of the Comintern, gave to the CC CPC a great number of incorrect directives. These mistaken and incorrect directives resulted from the fact that Stalin did not take into account the opinion of the CPC. At that time Wang Ming, being a Comintern worker, met frequently with Stalin and tendentiously had informed him about the situation in the CPC. Stalin, evidently, considered Wang Ming the single exponent of the opinion of the CC CPC.”

- P. F. Yudin, Record of Conversation with Mao Zedong, 1956

Later that year, Mao also remarked:

“In the Soviet Union, those who once extolled Stalin to the skies have now in one swoop consigned him to purgatory. Here in China some people are following their example. It is the opinion of the Central Committee that Stalin's mistakes amounted to only 30 per cent of the whole and his achievements to 70 per cent, and that all things considered Stalin was nonetheless a great Marxist. We wrote "On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" on the basis of this evaluation. This assessment of 30 per cent for mistakes and 70 per cent for achievements is just about right. Stalin did a number of wrong things in connection with China. The "Left" adventurism pursued by Wang Ming in the latter part of the Second Revolutionary Civil War period and his Right opportunism in the early days of the War of Resistance Against Japan can both be traced to Stalin. At the time of the War of Liberation, Stalin first enjoined us not to press on with the revolution, maintaining that if civil war flared up, the Chinese nation would run the risk of destroying itself. Then when fighting did erupt, he took us half seriously, half skeptically. When we won the war, Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 the pressure on us was very strong indeed. Even so, we maintain the estimate of 30 per cent for his mistakes and 70 per cent for his achievements. This is only fair.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Mao Zedong, On the Ten Major Relationships, 1956

Although Mao’s assessment that Stalin was merely “70 percent good, 30 percent bad” may seem sound, to one familiar with his rhetoric, slanders, and effective policies, Mao’s true view was more like 70 percent bad, 30 percent good.

Mao Zedong did not seek to remain stalwart and defend the principles of Marxism–Leninism from revisionism, but introduce his own tendency of revisionism to render both revolutionary communism and Soviet revisionism superfluous upon the emergence of his chauvinistic doctrine.

The already-opportunist foreign policy of China would take on a transparently social-imperialist course near the end of Mao Zedong’s life. In 1974, the Communist Party of China, under wantonly increasing influence from the arch-revisionist Deng Xiaoping, elaborated a new concept known as the “theory of the three worlds.” This “theory” effectively declared that the primary contradictions of modern civilization are not those between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, between the imperialized and imperialists, between rival imperialists and so on, but exclusively between differing countries on the basis of their diplomatic allegiance with the two superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union:

“In this situation of “great disorder under heaven,” all the political forces in the world have undergone drastic division and realignment through prolonged trials of strength and struggle. A large number of Asian, African and Latin American countries have achieved independence one after another and they are playing an ever greater role in international affairs.”

“As a result of the emergence of social imperialism the socialist camp which existed for a time after World War II is no longer in existence. Owing to the law of the uneven development of capitalism, the Western imperialist bloc, too, is disintegrating. Judging from the changes in international relations, the world today actually consists of three parts, or three worlds, that are both interconnected and in contradiction to one another. The United States and the Soviet Union make up the first world. The developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other regions make up the third world. The developed countries between the two make up the second world.”

“The two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, are vainly seeking world hegemony. Each in its own way attempts to bring the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America under its control and, at the same time, to bully the developed countries that are not their match in strength.”
“The two superpowers are the biggest international exploiters and oppressors of today. They are the source of a new world war. They both possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. They carry on a keenly contested arms race, station massive forces abroad and set up military bases everywhere, threatening the independence and security of all nations.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Deng Xiaoping, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, 1974

This “theory” was little more than a hallow justification to fully align with Western imperialism and promote the hegemonic interests of the waxing Chinese bourgeoisie, much in the same way that Soviet social-imperialism had.

Employing this “theory,” the People’s Republic of China became one of the first “socialist” states to formally establish diplomatic relations with fascist Spain and Chile under Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship. This was in addition to developing warm relations with the United States itself.

1.3. Mao’s “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” — Neither Great, nor Proletarian, nor a Revolution

The rise to power of Mao Zedong constituted a new stage within a bourgeois democratic revolution — one which was opposed to feudalism and its particular instances of exploitation and oppression, yet still functioning within the class interests and politics of the landed capitalist strata.

Other bourgeois revolutions like that in France, as such, shared many characteristics with the one which transpired in China. From the radicalism and revolutionary zeal under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins, to the retrogressive setbacks and stagnation after the Thermidorian Reaction and rule of the Directory, and finally to the monarchic, imperial conquests under Napoleon Bonaparte.

All of these were part of the same revolution of the nascent bourgeoisie, and reactions to the ebbs and flows of the develop of such revolution and the state of feudalist reaction.

Likewise, the Chinese bourgeois revolution, beginning its course with the uprising and overthrow of the Qing Empire in 1911 and 1912 under the Kuomintang of Sun Yat-sen, the reactionary turn of the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek, and finally the new stage under Mao Zedong and his followers.

Another commonality between the French and Chinese bourgeois democratic revolutions was the omnipresent factional infighting. The French revolution saw internal feuding between the Jacobins, Girondins, Thermidorians, Hébertists, etc. Likewise, the Chinese analogous saw constant factionalism between the various ultra-“left” radicals along with the “socialist” and capitalist roaders of Mao Zedong, Liu Liu Shaoqi, and Deng Xiaoping over the issue of how to facilitate the development of capitalism in China.

The event which marked the apex of this factionalism in China was the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” which began in 1966 following the unsuccessful “Great Leap Forward.” According to the Communist Party of China, this “Cultural Revolution” was:

“[...] a new stage in China’s socialist revolution. After the basic completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production, the bourgeois Rightists in the country and the handful of bourgeois representatives within the Party are not reconciled to the demise of the system of exploitation, so they have launched repeated frenzied attacks on the proletariat in a vain attempt to stage a capitalist restoration. Under the guidance of Chairman Mao’s theory on classes and class struggle in socialist society, our Party has led the proletariat and other revolutionary sectors in successful counter-attacks against the Tchallenge of the bourgeoisie. The current great proletarian cultural revolution is an all-round test of strength between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and its agents in our Party.”

- Carry the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution Through to the End, 1967

This “new stage in China’s socialist revolution” was said to be against the “bourgeoisie.” However, this “revolution” was merely directed against other factions within the Party. In the years shortly before the Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong said of the true bourgeoisie:

“The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods. However, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie will change into a contradiction between ourselves and the enemy if we do not handle it properly and do not follow the policy of uniting with, criticizing and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy of ours.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Mao Zedong, On The Correct Handling of Contradictions Among The People, 1957

This “revolution” quickly revealed itself to be little more than an opportunist purge of party element and the “bourgeoisie” (Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping) which Mao had collaborated with since his rise to power in the proceeding decades. Mao incited the most violent yearnings of the peasantry and petite-bourgeoisie with rhetoric such as “bombard the headquarters.” In the end, this “revolution” did little then cause massive damages, liquidate the party, and created unrest following the proliferation of anarchic and ultra-“left” youth groups and cliques. The Cultural Revolution was a failure, one which was recognized even among many of Mao’s supporters.

Even following the official “end” of the Cultural Revolution around 1969, Mao still considered it a fundamental requirement for “socialism”:

“The present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is only the first; there will inevitably be many more in the future. The issue of who will win in the revolution can only be settled over a long historical period. If things are not properly handled, it is possible for a capitalist restoration to take place at any time in the future.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Mao Zedong, Directives Regarding Cultural Revolution, 1967

Mao Zedong, therefore, believed that a revolution was not a qualitative advancement and overturning of an entire mode of production led by a class, but a mere series of routine violent outbursts and liquidation of disloyal party members, all of which functioning as quantitative advancements towards a final “settlement” between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. This clearly indicates Mao’s deviations from historical materialism:

“Hence, the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution. Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.

Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon. Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of the "growing" of capitalism into socialism. Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.” [Emphasis mine: S.W.]

- Joseph Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, 1938

What is the inevitable conclusion of the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat? Socialism. Unlike what the eclectic Mao’s states, class struggle is not something which will be “settled” in multiple possible manners. Capitalism always generates exploitation among the working classes. From that moment, the destruction of capitalism will become an inevitability.

The central goal of the Cultural Revolution — the overthrow of the “bourgeoisie” and the prevention of their future rise to power — itself massively and clearly failed. Deng Xiaoping, although being forced to make an insincere self-criticism during the hight of the Cultural Revolution, was soon rehabilitated under in the late 1970s and greatly empowered politically, being able to propagate foreign policy positions such as “Three World’s Theory.”

Following the death of Mao Zedong and the arrest of the ultra-Maoist “Gang of Four” in 1976, Deng was able to take power in place of the impotent leader Huo Guofeng, solidifying a fascist dictatorship and fully implementing capitalism by 1978. The ruling clique of China under Deng and his successors firmly reject the Cultural Revolution and its legacy to this day.

1.4. Conclusions on Mao and Mao Zedong Thought

Although claiming adherence to Marxism–Leninism and the path of socialism, Mao Zedong revealed his clear limits as a defender of the bourgeoisie, opportunist, revisionist, and eventual reactionary.

The rise of the Communist Party of China was not a proletarian revolution, but a new stage in the Chinese bourgeois democratic revolution which began under Sun Yat-sun. Although initially progressive in many regards, the Chinese Maoists soon began to lose any element of historical progress when the conditions for socialism began to emerge. Mao Zedong directly led the way to social-fascism under Deng Xiaoping and his successors.

As a result of this, Mao Zedong Thought is truly little more than Mao’s chauvinistic inventions and revisions to Marxism presented as “Sinicized Marxism.”

We see from this that from its basis, the modern theory of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism is founded off these same chauvinistic, opportunist, and revisionist principles.

Workers of the World, Unite!