Response to @smashing.nirvana and his challenging of Stalinism-Hoxhaism (Just Marxism-Leninism, btw) and to address the question on Class collaboration in Maoism:
Would this class-collaboration be counterrevolutionary, if the classes within the collaboration are all revolutionary, though not all equally revolutionary? The answer is now obviously ‘No.’ Then, what do the Leninists have to critique concerning the theory of New Democracy?
I’ll start by answering this. First of All, if you’re a leninist it’s a clear yes to the above. It’s the same reason 3rd worldism doesn’t work (even in MLM, which I will get to but for now, we stick to Mao Tsetung thought) in that with New Democracy, you have to trust that your collaboration with the bourgeoisie forces (who benefited from Imperialist means) are solely revolutionary which as we saw with Mao is a complete farce because that collaboration lead to 25% of the workers labour to profit the bourgeoisie who lead the collectives. Not only that but it divided the masses into smaller groups and send them to the countrysides, shifting the power into the peasantry, which Jake seems to forget made the peasantry a dominant force over the party which undermines the Dictatorship of the proletariat and negates the use of vanguardism, and thusly Leninism.
MLM (as he wants to refer to) was not around until 1993, but it rejects 3 world’s and claims to be a higher stage of Marxism-Leninism whilst using People’s War and New democracy which also undermines Marxism-Leninism, Class Struggle, and Dictatorship of the proletariat. So if this were a true debate from a real Marxist-Leninist, he would take into account that the maoism in MLM actually counteracts Marx, Lenin and Stalin as you can’t aggravate the class struggle and collaborate it at the same time because the collaboration between classes in the Party go directly against Lenin who completely rejected class unity (and was furthered by Stalin who created the Class aggravation, not Mao)
Now, in terms of New Democracy I refer to this paragraph which only accentuates my point:
“Maoism states that socialism can only be built through collaboration of all classes and parties via new democracy; a new democratic regime with such wrongful misconceptions based on “coexistence” and non-Marxist teaching. New democracy undermines the vanguard Marxist-Leninist party, undermines the proletarian dictatorship, and allows the bourgeoisie to remain in power. Dictatorship of the proletariat let alone socialism can never exist without strong leadership from the vanguard party; such political pluralism of Maoism is therefore detrimental to socialism, and once again an inherently ultra-leftist conception. Alliance with the bourgeoisie is alliance with anti-Marxism, and this alliance does nothing to strengthen socialism. New democracy and Maoism inevitably conclude that bourgeois ideology exists eternally and therefore should be given the possibility to “blossom like a hundred flowers.” And of course as it turns out, Mao’s attempts of new democracy never caused beautiful flowers to grow, but merely to “enable the bourgeois wasps to circulate freely and release their venom (Hoxha).” In fact, Mao’s allowance of bourgeois into the CCP was one of the very reasons for the cultural revolution. Combining the cultural revolution and new democracy we see cycles in Maoism. First there is a period of “great harmony” then great disorder, then the cycle repeats, given the incorrect and revisionist nature of Maoism. Maoism’s theories of revolution (e.g. new democratic stages of development) therefore boil down to metaphysics rather than dialectical materialism of Marxism. Mao treats the revolutionary process as an endless process, and as a result it’s no wonder there are the occasional quasi-Trotskyist Maoists that are able to demonstrate just how perverse Maoism is capable of being. Maoism does not realize the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead Maoism attempts to form itself on the basis of petty-bourgeois ideology; “class collaboration” in what can only be described as a “hybrid state.” Some Maoists will claim that Marx himself was petty-bourgeois and became a “class traitor,” and then became a revolutionary, which they use as “proof” that there can be collaboration with the petty-bourgeois. However, Marxist-Leninists don’t necessarily claim that members of the petty-bourgeois can’t accept Marxism, we merely reject the notion of collaboration; dictatorship of the proletariat, not dictatorship of the petty-bourgeois. Marxism-Leninism seeks a well disciplined and educated vanguard party to educate and lead the people, but attempting to give the petty-bourgeois this position is merely liberalism. Stalin noted that the Communist Party is the most advanced detachment of the proletariat, and so denying the Party their true influence results in failure. New democracy also gave a high amount of power to the peasantry, which is grounded in opposition to Marxism, which states that only through a strong leadership of the proletariat can the peasantry gain proper education. The peasantry are utilized as an ally of the proletariat when necessary, but to rely almost solely as them as Maoism does is nonsense. New Democracy turned out to be nothing more than a state-capitalist nightmare.” 
So yes, MLM and Maoism are incredibly anti-marxist and ML in practice. Now to his accusation of Stalinism-Hoxhaism of being an offshoot of Marxism-Leninism.
This shows clear lack of study on Jakes’ part.
Stalinism-Hoxhaism is Marxism-Leninism. Clear and Plain. The names Stalinism and Hoxhaism were intended to slander both great Comrades by the right wing as totalitarian. This notion is simply just propaganda, We are Marxist-Leninist just at a higher stage. Stalin furthered Marxism-Leninism with Socialism in one country, Class aggravation, and Implemented the Two Stage Theory which states that underdeveloped countries must first undergo a capitalistic development route before achieving socialism, which furthered Lenin’s use of the NEP and was eventually rid of to start socialist development which achieved socialist building solely. To which:
The adventure led from the illiteracy to literacy, from the NEP to socialism, from archaic agriculture to collective cultivation, from a rural society to a predominately urban community, from general ignorance of the machine to social mastery of modern technology.
Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union. 
It still maintained the Class struggle, The dictatorship of the proletariat, defended democracy, furthered Bolshevism in criticism and self criticism, as well as aware of the 4 contradictions: Contradictions between socialism and capitalism
between labour and capital
between oppressed peoples and Imperialism
between the imperialist powers
As for Hoxha, He furthered socialism in one country by adding the self-determination development of socialism and added Anti-revisionism to a further degree. All these 2 leaders did was use Dialectical materialist process and used the practice and teachings of Marx and Lenin to further the revolutionary movement and through necessary class struggle. As for class collaboration I leave with a real quote from Stalin unlike Jake in that:
“Some comrades have grasped the fact of the destruction of the classes, the creation of a classless society, as the argument of the thesis of the weakening of the class struggle theory is a counter. These people can not have anything in common with our Party. They are renegades and hypocrites who must be expelled from the Party. Not achieve the elimination of classes with the weakening of the class struggle, but its amplification to the final annihilation of all other kinds of agony, and organizing to defend the country against capitalist encirclement is not to be annihilated.”
Comrade Stalin’s Collected Works, Volume II, page 546.
So in conclusion; New Democracy defies Marxism-Leninism. MLM is nothing but a cherry picked Maoist ideology that ignores flaws that are obvious, and puts it over Marxism-Leninism to disguise the revisionist tendencies. To be a Stalinist-Hoxhaist means to further the Worldwide Proletariat Struggle, find weaknesses in the above mentioned contradictions and through Leninism (and the furthered theories of Stalin and Hoxha), and use them to further the class struggle against the tactics of an enemy, not to collaborate with them to serve an idealistic purpose.
written by Comrade Staricka, edited by Aaron B.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 212