/marx/ - Marxism

I still assert that the fact no one can actually defend Tito's record in power beyond "he kept Yugoslavia united" or "he had a non-aligned foreign policy" (both of which fall apart upon inspection) is quite telling.

When your greatest admirers are people like Indira Gandhi, Deng Xiaoping and Winston Churchill (who literally claimed Tito was on the same side of the barricades as him) then chances are you're a pretty bad communist, especially when your followers can't even seem to defend you from a Marxist POV.

I haven't encountered this with any other tendency. I've debated with Brezhnevites, Maoists, Castroists, etc. who are all able to defend the domestic and foreign policies of their countries from a "Marxist" perspective, but all I get from self-proclaimed Titoists is "CONSUMER GOODS WERE AVAILABLE IN YUGOSLAVIA UNLIKE THE HELL THAT WAS ALBANIA" or whatever. There's no Marxist analysis, just nationalism.

>>1517
Literally the king of "AIDF" people here.

But yeah to quote Hoxha: "The slogan of 'non-aligned countries' gives the false impression that a group of states which have the possibility of 'opposing' the superpower blocs is being created. It gives the impression that these countries, all of them, are anti-imperialist, opposed to war, opposed to the dictate of others, that they are 'democratic', and even 'socialist'. This helps to strengthen the pseudo-democratic and anti-popular positions of the leading groups of some states which are participating among the 'non-aligned', and creates the impression among the peoples of these countries that when their chiefs establish or dissolve relations of any kind and nature, with the imperialists and the social-imperialists, openly or in secret, they do this not only in the capacity of 'popular governments', but also in the capacity of a group of states 'with which even the superpowers must reckon'." - Report Submitted to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, 1977, p. 175.

Hard to see how this is wrong or "dogmatic" or whatever. The Non-Aligned Movement included everyone from Nkrumah and Nyerere, Suharto and Pinochet, Castro and Mengistu, etc., there's no way you can call the vast majority of its member-states "non-aligned," let alone capable of a principled anti-imperialist foreign policy.

>>1520
"Albanian Internet Defense Force"

Basically there's a real group called the Jewish Internet Defense Force, they're Zionists who mobilize on Facebook and elsewhere to try and blot out all critical discussions on Israel. I don't think the people who call us the "AIDF" seriously think we're some organized entity, they're just referring to the fact that we post a lot, it's meant to be a joke.

Although "AIDF" itself shouldn't really be used by communists considering it was coined by shitty chauvinists who consider Albanians to be "kebab" to be removed from Europe, but yeah.

>>1517

>tito
>communism
kek

>>1663
"We Jugoslavs have discarded classic deviations between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism. History has erased such a distinction. Life now pushes toward the evolutionary progress... I think that even in the United States there is a tendency toward socialism. A big change began with your New Deal and your economy retains many of its features. For example, state intervention in the economy is much larger."
(Tito, quoted in Cyrus Leo Sulzberger. The Last of the Giants. New York: Macmillan. 1970. p. 270.)


"For, from its 7th congress of April 1958, the Yugoslav party held that Communists 'should no longer be concerned primarily with questions relating to the overthrow of capitalism', that it was possible to achieve socialism without a revolution and that Communist parties need not enjoy a power monopoly in pursuit of socialism."
(Geoffrey Stern. The Rise and Decline of International Communism. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 1990. p. 177.)

"The climax of the CPY's anti-Marxism-Leninism was reached at its Sixth Congress (1952), when the party changed its name to League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY), a symbolic return to Marx's League of Communists. In a report to the congress, Tito assailed the Soviet Union: the USSR was responsible for creating international tensions; it had transformed the once independent East Central European countries into 'mere colonies in the heart of Europe'; Stalin was pushing North Korea into 'an aggressive war'; it was imperative to revise the 'imperialist division' of Poland and Germany, which 'favored' the Soviet Union; in the USSR, 'the condition of workers was worse than in even the most reactionary capitalist country'; Stalin's extermination of non-Russian nations 'would make Hitler envious.' Every speaker at the congress competed with Tito in hurling hostile epithets at Stalin. Kardelj accused the USSR of imperialist ambitions on a worldwide scale and stated that the 'Soviet government undoubtedly bears the largest part of responsibility for the condition of the permanent cold war.' He scorned 'various naive pacifists in the West,' advocated the unification of Germany on the basis of free elections in both parts of the country, and hinted that Yugoslavia might formally join an anti-Soviet defense pact."
(Milorad M. Drachkovitch (ed). East Central Europe: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. 1982. p. 355.)

"The most interesting and striking person we dined with [during a visit to New York in 1949-50] was Canadian Minister of External Affairs Lester Pearson. In the UN circles he was considered one of the most intelligent of Western diplomats—and rightly so. Half in jest, he remarked, 'I don't suppose I'll ever be a Communist, but if I were, I'd be a Yugoslav Communist!' Regarding the Soviet Union, he said: 'The Russians have the atom bomb now, but we Westerners are stronger. We could occupy them, but it would demand enormous sacrifice and who'd know what to do with them? They're such awful nationalists, they'd never simmer down.'"
(Djilas, Milovan. Rise and Fall. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1985. p. 264.)

"By late 1949 and early 1950, theoretical thinking among our top people not only had abandoned Stalin, but also was working its way back to the roots, from Lenin to Marx. Kardelj maintained that one could prove anything with quotations, but that it was impossible to separate Lenin from Stalin completely. After all, Stalin was an outgrowth of Lenin.

As we made our way back to Marx, we often paused in our critical ponderings on the Leninist type of party."
(Ibid. p. 267.)

"A representative Labour delegation, headed by Morgan Phillips and Hugh Seton-Watson, had spent some time in Yugoslavia in 1950, holding candid talks with our leadership. These talks, which I conducted in large measure, had done much to bring us closer. Official relations with the Labour government also grew more open and cordial. Thus the British Labourites, along with other European socialists, provided a bridge toward collaboration with the West, while also freeing us from our ideological prejudice that only Communists truly represent the working class and socialism."
(Ibid. p. 273.)

"Filled with curiosity and joyous anticipation, we went to see Churchill at his London house, an establishment no larger or more luxurious than the average middle-class villa at Dedinje—the type that our top Yugoslav officials acquired after the war. We found him in his bedroom, in bed. He begged our pardon for receiving us thus and at once invited us to dinner. We had a prior engagement for dinner with the British government, and so had to decline, with genuine regret. Churchill then said, 'I have a feeling that you and we are on the same side of the barricade.' We confirmed his feeling, whereupon he inquired with delight, 'And how is my old friend Tito?'"
(Ibid. p. 275.)

These quotes alone demonstrate what sort of "Marxists" the Yugoslavs were.

So what exactly would you criticise him for, other than breaking with Stalin and distancing Yugoslavia from planned economy? (Which is not negative).

>>1670
Tito didn't just wake up one day and go "Gee, Stalin's a big fat meanie, I'm going to go break with him." As with Khrushchev's denunciations of Stalin, Tito's attacks were not so much about Stalin personally as about the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

The Yugoslavs called on the workers of the world to unite and achieve "socialism" via peaceful, parliamentary methods, as the Soviet revisionists called for. The Yugoslavs called for a "reappraisal" of the role of the vanguard of the working-class in leading socialist society. The Yugoslavs were one of the co-founders of the "Non-Aligned Movement" which was a demagogic maneuver meant to disguise the fact that its member-states were in no sense actually non-aligned (much less united against imperialism.) Like the Soviet revisionists, the Yugoslavs preached that class struggle comes to an end under socialism and that the dictatorship of the proletariat, having "fulfilled its historical mission," dissolves.

The Yugoslavs held an anti-Marxist attitude on the question of nationalities, e.g. declaring that "Muslims" were a nation (akin to attempts to claiming back in the day that Jews were a nation, a position debunked by Lenin and Stalin.)

And considering that Yugoslavia distancing itself from planned economics meant that all sorts of phenomena indicative of capitalism arose, such as large-scale unemployment and inherent disparities between regions. The system of "workers' self-management" did not give power to the workers and in fact isolated them from each other, with each enterprise acting against one-another. Furthermore the policy of accruing billions in debts to Western banks meant that the working-class faced austerity measures to pay them back (just as the Romanian revisionists enforced austerity measures on their own working-class in that same decade), and the economic disputes between the republics during that decade was a major contribution towards the bloody breakup of the federation.

>>1671
>The Yugoslavs called on the workers of the world to unite and achieve "socialism" via peaceful, parliamentary methods
Was this meant to be critique?

>Vanguarde
Why exactly is the original definition of the Vanguarde relevant after the revolution has alreay happened?

>Non-aligned movement member-states were in no sense actually non-aligned (much less united against imperialism.
Can you explain? You want to tell me Cuba and Yugoslavia were supporting Imperialism? The non-aligned movement helped countries such as Yugoslavia, India, Egypt and Cuba (Yugoslavia and Cuba being at dangerous geopolitical positions during the Cold War) ensure their souvereignty and cooperation with other states, without having to side with one of the Cold War participants.

>dictatorship of the proletariat dissolves
Would you mind giving me the source to this?

>There was no large-scale unemployment (taling Tito's era) and there were job openings for everyone who wants to work, there just was no obligation to do a job assigned to you against your will, as in the Eastern Block states.

>workers' self-management did not give power to the workers and in fact isolated them from each other
What do you base this observation on?
Self-management gave rights to the working-class, only few workers in other countries enjoy and kept them from being exploited. (Speaking of Titoism being no Socialism)

>Muslims were a nation
Muslims have never been pronounced a nation in Yugoslavia, but an ethnicity. This also catered for satisfaction amongst of a good part of the population (the status of Yugoslav Muslims until that time was offensive to Muslims and from the times of the SHS kingdom)

>IMF debt
This is something I agree with. This was a big flaw of the system. Which system is flawless after its establishment? I'm not going to point at the flaws of Eastern Block countries, because they are irrelevant for this discussion.

>disputes between the republics
I am talking the Tito-era, and Tito understood to manage the relationship between the republics and keep Yugoslavia in balance. After all it is hard to rapidly get republics such as Macedonia or the AP of Kosovo on the same level as Slovenia or Croatia.
Also I am sure (but this is speculation) that radical nationalism would have vanished, had there been a second president like Tito and had therefore been a next generation of Yugoslavs, not being split through WW2.

>>1677
No country/ no system did this. Neither Stalin nor Hoxha.
Also look at China, is that what the entire process from capitalism to communism is?

>>1673
>Was this meant to be critique?
Well yes, because as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin pointed out, as well as countless Marxists from Marx's day onwards, you cannot "reform" the bourgeois state into socialism, you must smash the bourgeois state via a proletarian revolution. To preach otherwise is to disarm the working-class, as occurred in Chile.

>Why exactly is the original definition of the Vanguarde relevant after the revolution has alreay happened?
Because the mass of society remains non-communist, because there is a difference between understanding the need to overthrow capitalism on one hand, and the way in which to build socialism and communism on the other. The vanguard is guided by Marxism-Leninism, not Anarchism, Utopianism, or other erroneous (at best) positions.

>Can you explain? You want to tell me Cuba and Yugoslavia were supporting Imperialism? The non-aligned movement helped countries such as Yugoslavia, India, Egypt and Cuba (Yugoslavia and Cuba being at dangerous geopolitical positions during the Cold War) ensure their souvereignty and cooperation with other states, without having to side with one of the Cold War participants.
Cuba was a neo-colony of the Soviet social-imperialists. It intervened in Ethiopia and Angola, gave support to the occupations of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and portrayed the USSR under the revisionists as a country which the "non-aligned" countries should stand by in solidarity with.

India and Egypt persecuted communists. Under Stalin a correct position was maintained towards those two regimes, denouncing their repressive and anti-communist essence. The Soviet revisionists instead claimed that both countries were "building socialism," praised the likes of Nehru, Indira Gandhi (who carried out a sterilization campaign on India's poor) and Nasser (as well as the Ba'athists, the Burmese military junta, and other anti-Marxist "socialists"), etc.

>Would you mind giving me the source to this?
"Marx invariably contrasts capitalism and communism with the utmost clarity, and makes it clear that two phases may be distinguished in the future system - socialism and communism - and that between that system and capitalism there lies a transition period in which the state takes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It clearly follows, therefore, that under socialism there no longer is a dictatorship of the proletariat, there are no classes or class exploitation, etc., and Stalin's idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism is nothing but an anti-Marxist thesis, one more feature of his reactionary state-capitalist ideology, in which the term dictatorship of the proletariat really means the dictatorship of the bureaucracy."
(Horvat, Branko. An Essay on Yugoslav Society. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press. 1969. p. 57.)

This was the position taken up by the Soviet revisionists as well. To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of the 1970s: " "The dictatorship of the proletariat... undergoes changes in the process of building a socialist society. As the exploiting classes in one or another country are eliminated, the function of suppressing their resistance disappears, and the process begins by which the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat grows into an all-national organization of the laborers of the socialist society. Having secured the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR and the transition of society to the construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission. From the point of view of the tasks of internal development, it has ceased to be necessary in the Soviet Union."

>Self-management gave rights to the working-class, only few workers in other countries enjoy and kept them from being exploited.
No it didn't, "workers' self-management" existed in a system with high unemployment, the sending of many laborers abroad to Western Europe in search of work, and in conditions which made the way "socialist" enterprises in Yugoslavia work hardly different from those of their Western counterparts.

"But how to explain the case of the Union Bank of Belgrade, one of the largest banks in the country, which holds one-fifth of the aggressive savings deposits? ... the governor of the Central Bank explained that... his proposal that a system of special reserves be held in securities of the Central Bank had been rejected by the bankers for fear of a 'disguised centralization of funds.' Another amusing and highly revealing story was reported in the same period. From this small Balkan country no fewer than two hundred firms submitted competitive bids to build a factory for Libya. Only one-third of those enterprises would suffice to carry out such construction in Yugoslavia itself.

A few weeks later, many Yugoslav households and industries felt tangibly what J.K. Galbraith has called the 'natural inclination' of the modern corporation toward 'a brutal and anti-social egotism,' even under the conditions of socialist self-management. From one day to the next, the Electric Power Community, representing power companies in the different republics, cut off power for four hours, blaming shortages on the weather. An angry government hastened to make it clear, however, that the companies had given no advance warning and that for a considerable time the thermoelectric (coal using) plans had been working below optimal capacities. The power companies had deliberately kept the output of thermoelectric plants at low levels and overused hydroelectric power. Why? Simply because of prices and costs. Since water-generated electricity costs one-third to one-fifth as much to produce as thermal power, and since the rates charged to the customers are nevertheless the same, this meant a large—and unauthorized—profit for the electric companies. Furthermore the electric power system is not truly unified. As Borba, the leading Belgrade daily, pointedly remarked: 'Certain power communities behave in this field as if they owned it. Poor connections among the various regions, mutual bargaining and relations, which have nothing to do with real business relations, explain the curious fact that in some republics power supply has often been cut while at the same time there has been plenty of power in other republics.'"
(Paul Lendvai. Eagles and Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1969. pp. 89-90.)

>Muslims have never been pronounced a nation in Yugoslavia, but an ethnicity.
"Ethnicity" in this case is effectively the same thing as calling it a nation. The Yugoslavs engaged in similar wordplay with the Kosovar Albanians, only in that case it was deny their requests for Kosovo to become a republic within Yugoslavia equal to other republics.

>Which system is flawless after its establishment? I'm not going to point at the flaws of Eastern Block countries, because they are irrelevant for this discussion.
Actually the other Eastern European regimes, following the Soviet revisionists and influenced by "workers' self-management" in Yugoslavia, likewise accrued gigantic debts. It was a big part of why the Polish and Romanian regimes faced discontent in the 70s and 80s, because said "socialist" regimes were imposing austerity measures on their populations to pay back Western debts.

>I am talking the Tito-era,
As am I. There were various issues between the republics. The Ranković affair in Serbia, the treatment of Kosovar Albanians as practically an enemy nation during the 1940s and 50s, etc.

>>1679
Lenin and Stalin did in fact call for the continuous revolutionization of society. This was the whole point of calls to deepen the cultural and ideological revolution in Albania made in the 60s. The "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" of Mao was a caricature of that concept.

>>1686
Hoxha noted it was a "putsch on an all-China scale," the student-based "Red Guards" and not the CCP (let alone the working-class in general) led it under slogans like "bombard the Headquarters." Mao's "Three Worlds Theory" was one example of how the "GPCR" was not a struggle of leftists against rightists, but of different revisionist factions, some more right-wing than others.

>>1697
>Personally I don't really think Mao believed much in the three worlds theory.
In 1973-74 he met with Moussa Traoré, Kenneth Kaunda, and other "third world" leaders explaining his views. Then he had Deng Xiaoping formally announce the "Three Worlds Theory" to the United Nations. Ironically the Chinese started to move *away* from Mao's views on this issue in the early 80s, e.g. from 1982 onwards the Chinese started describing the USSR as a socialist state (albeit still one with a negative foreign policy.)

Before that about-turn the Chinese had spent the years 1977-80 portraying the USSR as a carbon-copy of Nazi Germany and the world situation as analogus to that of the 1930s, with Deng declaring that the USA and China were in a common front against the USSR.

>>1698
>In both the USSR and China revisionism happened because of the imperialist-collaborationist leadership and the neo-bourgeoise elements. In other words it happened from above and the masses weren't ideologically powerful enough to prevent it.
The biggest problem here is that it was Mao himself who, by calling on students to "bombard the headquarters," deprived the working-class of its vanguard. Then it was Mao who rehabilitated Deng and had Hua serve as his successor.

One does not "directly empower the masses" by arming student militias and having them copy the army as the foremost "revolutionary" institution in society.

>>1710
>I think realpolitik is important in maneuvering the international political landscape especially in the era when Soviet revisionism was in full swing. To deprive the USA and the USSR of allies by trying to have them align with China seems like a viable tactic. In terms of the UN speech, it's analogous to trying to convince national bourgeoisie to fight against the international bourgeoisie. You can't talk to them about liquidating them as a class, but instead need to gain their alliance for a time until the international bourgeoisie is overthrown. So he wanted political allies basically.
Well at least you admit that Mao did, in fact, uphold the "Three Worlds Theory." Now you're trying to justify it.

As Hoxha noted, you can't rely on one imperialism to oppose another. By painting Mobutu, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the King of Jordan, etc. as "allies" in the struggle against the USSR, by denouncing all attempts by the people of these countries to oppose these regimes as creating divisions within the "united front against hegemonism," is blatantly anti-Marxist.

It is also blatantly anti-Marxist to divide countries into "first," "second" and "third" worlds based on realpolitik. It is scarcely different in practice from how the Soviet revisionists preached their version of "peaceful coexistence" which involved the communist parties giving up class struggle on behalf of the revisionists, who likewise could have claimed to be practicing realpolitik.

>Mao died in 1976
Yes but the fundamentals of the opportunist policy of allying with US imperialism began under Mao as early as 1971. After briefly continuing and intensifying it in 1977-80, the Chinese began taking a more "balanced" approach in the 80s, trying to be on the good side of both the USA and USSR while still mostly serving the interests of US imperialism in places like Cambodia.

>What are you supposed to do if the vanguard becomes revisionist?
To struggle against it, of course. But in China the CCP was not a Marxist-Leninist vanguard, its principles were those of "Mao Zedong Thought" which was in itself revisionist. And it was through his theories on class collaboration, on there eternally being "two lines" within the party, etc. that allowed him to later rehabilitate those he had earlier attacked as capitalist roaders. I also don't see how it's a shining example of combating the revisionists when the Gang of Four (ostensibly the continuers of Mao's "struggle") were defeated a year afterwards.

>Arming and organizing people into militias, especially educated people, politically empowers them.
"But the main thing was the fact that neither the party nor the proletariat were in the leadership of this 'great proletarian revolution'. This grave situation stemmed from Mao Tsetung's old anti-Marxist concepts of underestimation of the leading role of the proletariat and overestimation of the youth in the revolution... Thus the working class was left on the sidelines, and there were many instances when it opposed the red guards and even fought them. Our comrades, who were in China at that time, have seen with their own eyes factory workers fighting the youth. The party was disintegrated. It was liquidaited, and the communists and the proletariat were totally disregarded." (Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, 1979, p. 391.)

>>1716
Again, Deng delivered a speech to the UN elaborating on exactly what the "Three Worlds Theory" meant. He was giving the official position of the Chinese state.

According to one source:
>In March 1974, when the Political Bureau convened to choose who should lead the delegation to the United Nations, Jiang Qing disagreed with the decision to choose Deng Xiaoping. On 27 March Mao Zedong wrote to Jiang Qing: “Choosing Deng Xiaoping is my idea; it is best that you do not object.” Deng Xiaoping’s speech to the special U.N. session was approved by the Political Bureau and reviewed by Mao Zedong. On 4 April Mao Zedong commented on the speech, “Good. I endorse it.”

>Also, Stalin sided with imperialists against other imperialists in WWII didn't he? Was that a deviation from Marxism-Leninism as well?
As Hoxha pointed out on exploiting contradictions between enemy camps, "The principle is that these contradictions must always be exploited in favour of the revolution, the peoples and their freedom, in favour of the cause of socialism. The exploitation of contradictions amidst the enemies should lead to the growth and strengthening of the revolutionary and liberation movement, and not to making it weaken and fade.... On this question, the Chinese revisionists continue to hold their known standpoint of the fight only against Soviet social-imperialism, which, according to them, is the more dangerous, more aggressive and more bellicose. They relegate US imperialism to second place and stress that the United States of America 'wants the status quo, that it is in decline'. From this the Chinese revisionists arrive at the conclusion that an alliance with American imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism can and should be reached."
(Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, 1979, pp. 281-282.)

The policy pursued by the Chinese was entirely opportunistic and self-serving. It meant that China would cease its aid to national liberation movements and would openly align with the interests of US imperialism and subordinate the interests of the working-class and liberation movements abroad to it. This was hardly the case in WWII, wherein communist movements played leading roles in resistance movements across Europe and in which the anti-colonial movement in Asia and Africa gained a new impetus.

>Also two line struggle has been substantiated by the historical evidence that there has usually always been a revisionist opposition faction in various communist parties.
Except that isn't the issue, the issue is that Mao at times called for tolerating different lines within the party. It wasn't a case of Mao calling for the defeat of different lines within the party, but of "balancing" one with the other, etc.

>And, Mao didn't rehabilitate Deng in the end, he was brought back after Mao died if I recall correctly.
You recall wrongly. He became First Vice-Premier in 1974.

>What happened when Stalin died that allowed someone like Khrushchev to come to power? Something failed, what was it?
One of Stalin's last speeches noted that the level of propaganda in the country (i.e. education in economics and politics) was still pretty poor compared to the needs of the country. Besides this, the USSR had to endure something no other country witnessed before: the seizure of state power by a revisionist clique and the restoration of capitalism under the signboard of "actually existing socialism."

Simply put, the idea that this could actually happen was seen as unthinkable by the Soviet populace and by many in the international communist movement. Coupled with obvious problems of bureaucracy (which, as Lenin said, cannot be defeated by "fine words" but through a long struggle) it doesn't seem difficult to understand why revisionism was able to triumph in the USSR and then exert its influence elsewhere in the world.

>>1720
The problems with trying to counterpoise a "good Three Worlds Theory" to a "bad Three Worlds Theory" is that throughout the early 70s the Chinese were already working with reactionary regimes, e.g. its refusal to break relations with the Pinochet junta after it took power, Mao's meeting with Mobutu, not to mention the Kissinger and Nixon visits in which the Chinese sought an accord with US imperialism over Vietnam, the exact same charge China had (justly) made against the Soviet social-imperialists throughout the 60s.

The very act of calling on the "second" (Canada, Belgium, Spain, etc.) and "third worlds" (Zaire, Chile, Indonesia, Jordan, Iran, etc., etc.) to unite also clearly meant that those living in African countries which had a neo-colonial relationship with the British or French were not to have mobilized against the regimes in power, since both the regime and its European patron had to "unite" against "the superpowers" (in reality the USSR.)

The entire theory was opportunist from its inception. This was proven in practice. It is no different than how the "peaceful coexistence" called for by Khrushchev and Brezhnev was "better" than the "New Thinking" called for by Gorbachev, even though the latter was clearly a "creative development" of the former while both were anti-Marxist and reformist.

>He wasn't calling for tolerance of the non-Marxists in the party, he was calling for struggle against and awareness of the inevitable non-Marxists in the party.
You say this but immediately concede that Mao was "soft on the right wing elements."

To quote Hoxha: "According to [Mao], the existence and struggle between two lines is something natural, is a manifestation of the unity of the opposites, is a flexible policy which unites in itself both loyalty to principles and compromise. 'Thus,' he writes, 'we have two hands to deal with a comrade who has made mistakes: one hand to struggle with him and the other to unite with him. The aim of this struggle is to uphold the principles of Marxism, which means being principled; that is one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is to unite with him. The aim of unity is to offer him a way out, to reach a compromise with him'." (Imperialism and the Revolution, pp. 399-400.)

That Mao was losing authority by the 60s is true, but this does not explain his clearly right-wing policies of the 40s and early-mid 50s, which logically followed from his talk about the eternal existence of "two lines in the party," etc.

>but what is the solution? "a long struggle"? What kind of struggle?
I don't have a ready-made answer titled "How to Prevent Revisionism From Triumphing Ever Again." The important thing right now, in conditions where the dictatorship of the proletariat does not exist in any country and as a result there is no present-day practical experience which can be analyzed and suggestions made as socialism is being built, is to seek out what mistakes or limitations existed in past societies under the dictatorship of the proletariat and how to avoid repeating them.