“After liberation… the tendency advocated by ‘Mao Tsetung thought’ that the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolution had to continue for a long time, was kept alive in China. Mao Tsetung insisted that in this stage the premises for socialism would be created parallel with the development of capitalism, to which he gave priority. Also linked with this, is his thesis on the coexistence of socialism with the bourgeoisie for a very long time, presenting this as something beneficial both to socialism and to the bourgeoisie.” – Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 427.
“Mao Tsetung and the other leaders of the Communist Party of China have always spoken disparagingly of the delegates from the Comintern to China, calling them ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ people, who ‘did not know the Chinese reality’, etc. Regarding each country as an ‘objective reality in itself’, ‘closed to others’, Mao Tsetung considered the assistance of the delegates from the Comintern unnecessary and simply impossible. In his speech to the Enlarged Working Conference of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in January 1962, Mao Tsetung said: ‘China, as an objective world, was known by the Chinese and not by the comrades from the Comintern who were engaged with the question of China. These comrades from the Comintern knew little or nothing, about Chinese society, the Chinese nation and the Chinese revolution. Thus why should these foreign comrades be referred to here?’” (Ibid. p. 441.)
Mao Tse-Tung was an anti-communist whose ideology was a bastardization of both Marxism and Leninism. The Chinese “revolution” was moderately progressive, but it was at best a bourgeois-democratic one.
Maoism, as a revisionist ideology, cannot fail to lead to an anti-communist path in Nepal, as we can see in the attempts of the “Prachanda Path” Maoists who are turning Nepal into a neo-colony of Chinese social-imperialism. The pro-Chinese orientation of the Nepalese Government along with their vocal support of Dengism have exposed this to the whole world.
As early as 1938 Mao was propagating his reactionary national “socialism” through such quotes as these: “Before it can be applied Marxism must acquire a national form. The concept of abstract Marxism simply does not exist. There only exists concrete Marxism. What we call concrete Marxism is a Marxism that has acquired national form…” (Mao, At the New Stage, pp. 73-75).
This nationalist deformity of Marxism-Leninism plagues other forms of revisionism. It is likely that the Naxalites and Philippine Maoists will also move onwards towards an anti-communist path, as Maoism has in Peru, the USA, China and so forth. The Marxist-Leninists of Nepal should not be fooled by the Maoist attempts to consolidate a capitalist comprador regime.