Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Enver Hoxha on China (as a imperialist superpower in making)

POST REPLY
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 May 2012, 18:41
From Enver Hoxha's Imperialism and the Revolution, 1979

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... mp_ch5.htm

A valuable source for those who want a Marxist perspective on China today, and especially the "developments" initiated by the so called CPC that in the end led to contemporary China indeed becoming a imperialist superpower.

Quote:
....

With the policy China is pursuing, it is becoming even more obvious that it is trying to strengthen the positions of capitalism at home and to establish its hegemony in the world, to become a great imperialist power, so that it, too, occupies, so to say, the "place it deserves".

...

We are now witnessing the efforts of another big state, today's China, to become a super power because it, too, is proceeding rapidly on the road of Capitalism. But China lacks colonies, lacks large-scale developed industry, lacks a strong economy in general, and a great thermo-nuclear potential on the same scale as the other two imperialist superpowers.

To become a superpower it is absolutely essential to have a developed economy, an army equipped with atomic bombs, to ensure markets and spheres of influence, investment of capital in foreign countries, etc. China is bent on ensuring these conditions as quickly as possible. This was expressed in Chou En-lai's speech in the People's Assembly in 1975 and was repeated at the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of China, where it was proclaimed that, before the end of this century, China will become a powerful modern country, with the objective of catching up with the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Now this whole plan has been extended and set out in precise detail in what is called the policy of the "four modernizations". But what road has China chosen so that it, too, will become a superpower?

At present, the colonies and markets in the world are occupied by others. The creation of an economic and military potential equal to that of the Americans and Soviets, within 20 years, and with their own forces, as the Chinese leaders claim they will do, is impossible.

In these conditions, in order to become a superpower, China will have to go through two main phases: first, it must seek credits and investments from US imperialism and the other developed capitalist countries, purchase new technology in order to exploit its local wealth, a great part of which will go as dividends for the creditors. Second, it will invest the surplus value extracted at the expense of the Chinese people in states of various continents, just as the US imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists are doing today.

China's efforts to become a superpower are based, in the first place, on its choice of allies and the creation of alliances. Two superpowers exist in the world today, US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. The Chinese leaders worked out that they must rely on US imperialism, on which they have pinned great hopes of getting assistance in the fields of the economy, finance, technology and organization, as well as in the military field. In fact, the economic-military potential of the United States of America is greater than that of Soviet social-imperialism. This the Chinese revisionists know well, though they say that America is declining. On the course which they are following, they cannot rely on a weak partner, from which they cannot gain much. Precisely because it is powerful, they have chosen the United States of America to be their ally.

...

The group ruling today in China lays great stress on the "third world" in which, not fortuitously and not without a purpose, it includes China, too. The "third world" of the Chinese revisionists has a well-defined political aim. It is part of the strategy which aims at transforming China into a superpower as quickly as possible. China wants to rally round itself all the countries of the "third world" or the non-aligned. countries or the "developing countries", in order to create a large force, which will not only increase the overall Chinese potential but will also help China to counterpose itself to the other two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, to carry greater weight in the bargaining over the division of markets and spheres of influence, to gain the true status of an imperialist superpower.

...

However, like every country with imperialist aims, China is fighting and will fight harder still for markets in the world. It is striving and will strive harder still to spread its influence and extend its domination. These plans are apparent even now. China is opening its own banks, not only in Hong Kong, where it has had them for a long time, but also in Europe and elsewhere. It will strive especially to open banks in and export capital to the countries of "the third" world.. For the present it is doing very little in this field. China's "aid" amounts to the building of some cement factory, railway, or hospital, for its possibilities are limited. Only when the American, Japanese and other investments in China begin to yield the fruits it desires, that is, when its economy, trade and military technology are developed, will China be able to embark on a venture of real large-scale economic and military expansion. But to achieve this, time is needed.

...

The more China develops economically and militarily, the more it will want to penetrate into and dominate the small and less developed countries by means of its exports of capital, and then it will no longer charge a 1-2 percent interest for its credits, but will act like all the others.

...

China cannot carry on positive revolutionary propaganda in the countries of the "third world", also, because it would come into collision with that superpower from which it is hoping to get investments of capital in China and advanced technology. China cannot conduct such propaganda, also, because the revolution would overthrow precisely those reactionary cliques ruling in a number of countries of the so-called third world, which China is supporting and helping to stay in power.

...

China cannot go ahead with its course of transforming itself into a superpower without intensifying the exploitation of the broad working masses at hdme. The United States of America and the other capitalist states will seek to secure superprofits from the capital they will' invest there, they will also press for rapid and radical transformations of the base and superstructure of Chinese society in the capitalist direction. The intensification of the exploitation of the multimillion strong masses to maintain the Chinese bourgeoisie and its gigantic bureaucratic apparatus and to meet the repayment of the credits and interest to the foreign capitalists, will undoubtedly give rise todeep contradictions between the Chinese proletariat and peasantry, on the one hand, and the bourgeois-revisionist rulers, on the other. This will bring the latter into confrontation with the working masses of their own country, a thing which cannot fail to lead to sharp conflicts and revolutionary outbursts in China.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 139
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2010, 21:39
Pioneer
Post 28 Jun 2012, 16:53
Well, in general I like Enver Hoxha and go along with his opinion; however, imo sometimes he tends to make mountains out of molehills and to find revisionism in every person or organisation that didn't act just like Albania. In this case, I think he fails to differ between Mao's China and Deng's China. Everyone can see that there was a clear change of policy when Deng came to power. Mao and the "Maoist" faction were against Deng, who was prosecuted during the Cultural Revolution and the campaign against "Right Deviationist Wind". One can blame Mao for not having punished Deng hard enough, but I think no one can seriously compare the two political.

Aditionally, I am a bit surprised that Enver Hoxha found very friendly and cherishing words for Mao even in his speech on the 7th Party Congress, quite short after Mao's death. I think, there is a contradiction that can't be solved: Either Enver's friendly words during Mao's lifetime were feigned - then Enver would just be a liar, what is not very likely, as he alway was a very frank and honest person who never concealed his opinion. Or - and this is what I think - Enver's bad opinion regarding China emerged only with the hostile and revisionist policy of Deng and his clique. Then, however, it is totally unlogical to blame Mao for it.
Soviet cogitations: 687
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Jul 2013, 14:30
Ralph wrote:
Aditionally, I am a bit surprised that Enver Hoxha found very friendly and cherishing words for Mao even in his speech on the 7th Party Congress, quite short after Mao's death. I think, there is a contradiction that can't be solved: Either Enver's friendly words during Mao's lifetime were feigned - then Enver would just be a liar, what is not very likely, as he alway was a very frank and honest person who never concealed his opinion. Or - and this is what I think - Enver's bad opinion regarding China emerged only with the hostile and revisionist policy of Deng and his clique. Then, however, it is totally unlogical to blame Mao for it.
Reading his two-volume Reflections on China makes it obvious that by the end of the 60's he had a great many issues with China.

* http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_boo ... _I_eng.pdf
* http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_boo ... II_eng.pdf

What you saw at the 7th Congress was what bourgeois commentators referred to as "ritual," a practice shared by every single self-proclaimed socialist state. It would have been "improper," as it were, for Hoxha not to praise China at that point, even though in that very same report he was attacking them (without actually naming them) by criticizing theories dividing the class struggle into "three worlds." It's not really any different from the Chinese praising Khrushchev and the USSR as late as 1960 in Long Live Leninism, which actually denounced modern revisionism without mentioning Soviet revisionism (and instead focusing on Yugoslav revisionism, whose lines were similar to those of the Soviet revisionists.)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 990
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 15 Jul 2013, 22:49
Ismail wrote:
Reading his two-volume Reflections on China makes it obvious that by the end of the 60's he had a great many issues with China.

He sure did have many issues with everyone apart from himself and his masters, the Soviets. He was a puppet because he barked just the way the Soviets wanted - after Tito-Stalin split, they barked the way the Soviets wanted. And barking made him think he's great, and many people mistakenly took his barking for something good or great about him - as quite some people here still do. Yet, he achieved an unbecoming honour of putting his country on the map as an example of the least developed and most backward of all in the world. He made Albania the laughing stock of the West as well as the Non-Aligned Movement.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 15 Jul 2013, 22:56
Hoxha was anti-Yugoslav for a longer time, it's just that in 1948 he had the opportunity to deal with the pro-Yugoslavs in the Al. Comparty ( Xoxe etc. ) who up to that moment had the most influence in Albania. Stalin's letters to Tito were godsent for him.
Soviet cogitations: 687
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 03:59
EdvardK wrote:
He made Albania the laughing stock of the West as well as the Non-Aligned Movement.
Ah yes, the "Non-Aligned Movement" which had such great figures as Nasser and Indira Gandhi (Soviet revisionist-aligned murderers of communists), Castro, and so on. I suppose Hoxha was wrong for denouncing such a glorious organization that did so much good for the world such as... what, exactly?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 990
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 11:36
Ismail wrote:
EdvardK: "He made Albania the laughing stock of the West as well as the Non-Aligned Movement." Ismlai: Ah yes, the "Non-Aligned Movement" which had such great figures as Nasser and Indira Gandhi (Soviet revisionist-aligned murderers of communists), Castro, and so on. I suppose Hoxha was wrong for denouncing such a glorious organization that did so much good for the world such as... what, exactly?

I am sorry, but how does my factual claim relate to your answer, I really can't see any connection. It is as if one is talking about apples, and the other replies about bananas.
Soviet cogitations: 687
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 15:24
EdvardK wrote:
I am sorry, but how does my factual claim relate to your answer, I really can't see any connection. It is as if one is talking about apples, and the other replies about bananas.
According to you he was a "laughingstock" of the international bourgeoisie. That's the only interpretation anyone can glean from you mentioning the West and the "Non-Aligned Movement," which was a collection of bourgeois leaders as well.

In other words, I don't see your point.
olu
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 May 2017, 14:33
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 17 May 2017, 14:55
hoxha seems to be right in china acomodating the west, and this is very visible for the past 40yrs, but imperialist, and a super power? it could very well be that china wants to be an imperialist superpower, but i dont see how that can happen. i dont think it's even possible to both acomodate the west, and become an imperialist super power, because as hoxha himself mentioned, in order to acomodate the west, you must first restrain yourself, this means that you cant interfere in world affairs. this is what china has been doing the past 40yrs, but you cant become an imperialist superpower without interfering in world affairs. in fact, it's necesary to engage in terorism, and interfere in world affairs if one were to become an imperialist superpower. china is afraid to do alot of things in fear of offending the west. in fact, i suspect that china is afraid of inventing its own computer or cell phone operating system out of fear of offending the west. if china cant even take small steps, how can it take big ones, especially like the kinds that hoxha mentions. if china cant even take back taewan, then how can they become an imperialist superpower. anyone whos been to hong kong knows how china has kowtowed to the west by essentially allowing hk to become a colony of the west. in hk, china is losing the war. hongers are radically pro western, and chinese products cant even enter the hk market, because the hk market must be reserved for its western masters. the west is constantly trying to overthrow china, meanwhile, china is afraid to even defend its own teritory. forget about challenging the west for supremacy far away. acomodating the west will not only prevent china from becoming an imperialist superpower, but could very well result in a ussr style colapse. in the past 40yrs, we've seen many chinese become very pro western but very few westerners become pro chinese. once again we can use the taewan issue as a gauge. how many westerners will consider taewan as part of china? china was doing ok in south sudan, ukraine, and libya, but it didnt take much effort for the west to disrupt the entire operation. china has not been able to counter that. when the chrump threatened not to recognize the one china policy, the only thing china seemed to be able to do was give the west more concesions.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.