From Albania Today, 1978, 6

Broadening and Deepening of the Struggle Against All the Currents of Modern Revisionism – An Historical Necessity

By Fiqret Shehu – Member of the CC of the PLA and Directress of the “V. I. Lenin” High Party School.

The historical experience of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism over the last decades, too, fully confirms Lenin's teaching that the only correct Marxist line in the world communist movement is to explain to the proletariat and all the working people the absolute need to break with revisionism and opportunism, to educate the masses through a consistent struggle against these trends, to expose their betrayal of the cause of the proletariat and the peoples and all the infamy of the policy they pursue

From the time modern revisionism first emerged, the Party of Labour of Albania, with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, has considered it to be an anti-Marxist ideological trend that would serve as an agency of imperialism and the entire bourgeoisie in their strategy to impede the revolution, perpetuate capitalism and fight socialism. Since that time, indeed, ever since it was founded, our Party has considered the struggle against every anti-Marxist trend as one of its principal tasks. At the 7th Congress of the Party, too, in making a scientific Marxist-Leninist analysis of current world problems, Comrade Enver Hoxha pointed out the danger of revisionism at the present stage of its evolution to the cause of the revolution and socialism. He put forward the view of our Party that in the present situation, the struggle against revisionism and opportunism constitutes an imperative duty for the genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties and he argued that this struggle represents an historical necessity of our time.

The treatment of these problems in the light of the theses of the 7th Congress of the PLA will be the subject of this paper.

Present-Day Revisionism – A Component Part of the Bourgeois Superstructure

Two to three decades have gone by since the time when one of the first and most dangerous manifestations of modern revisionism, Titoite revisionism, emerged, and since, with the emergence of Khrushchevite revisionism, revisionism was transformed into a retrogressive trend of world-wide proportions. During this period, it has gone through a process of its formation and evolution until it reached the present stage, when more than ever before, it has become a favourite agency of the bourgeoisie in its efforts to paralyze the revolutionary energies of the proletariat and the peoples in the struggle for socialism, freedom and independence, and to weaken and shatter the confidence of the world proletariat and all progressive mankind in the future socialist and communist society.

At its present stage, revisionism can be differentiated not only from Bernstein revisionism, but also from the modern revisionism of its former phase by several main features.

One feature of revisionism today is that it has become very widespread as revisionism in power, and that in the countries where the revisionists are in power the economic base is now completely capitalist and the superstructure is typically bourgeois in essence and in content, regardless of the labels stuck on it and the forms in which it is presented. In this way, these countries have become an integral part of the world capitalist system.

A feature of revisionism under the present conditions is that even in the countries of classical capitalism, it has become a component part of the bourgeois political and ideological superstructure which serves to mislead the proletariat, to control and sabotage the efforts of every revolutionary movement in order to channel and keep them within the framework of the bourgeois order and bourgeois law.

Another feature of present-day revisionism is that, while it emerged as an anti-Marxist trend in the ranks of the communist movement, now it has been transformed into a bourgeois current in the workers' movement, identical in essence with social democracy.

Thus, revisionism has reached such a stage of degeneration on the national and international scale that today the revisionists are opposing Marxism-Leninism with all their “theories” and practices more openly on all fronts, are carrying the banner of the oppression and exploitation of the peoples, of the disruption of the revolution and the liberation movement, and of the deception of the masses in general. They have become devoted and zealous defenders of the old capitalist world which historically and objectively has long outlived its time.

As regards its extension revisionism has now reached a culmination stage. After this, its utter discredit, inevitable defeat and ruin are bound to follow. But these will not come about automatically or spontaneously, but as a result of continuous struggle by the working class and revolutionary peoples of each separate country and of all the countries, under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Parties. In order to carry out this struggle successfully, it is necessary to know the "theories” and practices, the strategy and tactics both of modern revisionism as a whole and of its principal trends.

At the present stage also, in essence, the strategic aim of modern revisionism is the same as that of the revisionists of the time of Bernstein and Kautsky, and as that of all enemies of Marxism-Leninism and socialism. Thus, the common strategic aim of present-day revisionism is to ensure class conciliation and "social peace” between the two classes of capitalist society with diametrically opposed interests, – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, to subordinate the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the bourgeoisie, to undermine the revolution and perpetuate capitalism in the bourgeois-revisionist countries, to restore capitalism wherever genuine socialism is under construction.

To attain this counterrevolutionary strategic aim, the revisionists of all countries try to present Marxism-Leninism as "outdated” and, under the guise of implementing it in accordance with the "specifics” of the time and place, pretend to be "re-assessing" the ideas of the classics of Marxism-Leninism so that they can be "adapted" to the new conditions which have been created in the world. In fact, they are attacking and doing their utmost to discredit our revolutionary doctrine and transform it from a spiritual weapon of the proletariat in the revolution and struggle for socialism, into a theory of opportunist social reforms in the service of the bourgeoisie.

Today revisionism presents itself as several anti-Marxist currents and variants. The principal ones are Soviet revisionism, Yugoslav revisionism, "Eurocommunism”, and Chinese revisionism, that have come out and crystallized as anti-Marxist, counterrevolutionary trends at certain turning points in world developments, in order to come to the aid of the bourgeoisie. We are not going to dwell here on an analysis of the historical conditions or the objective and subjective factors which led to the emergence of various trends of revisionism. We wish to stress only that in periods of crisis, the international bourgeoisie and imperialism always strive to make use of the renegades from Marxism-Leninism in order to ease their burden and get them out of trouble. This is the explanation for the phenomenon of the formation of the revisionist variant called "Eurocommunism” and the open emergence of Chinese revisionism in the present conditions of the grave crisis which has the world capitalist system in its grip, a crisis which is not only economic, but also social and political, ideological and moral. Meanwhile, Yugoslav revisionism has been set into motion and has activized itself with special zeal. Soviet revisionism, for its part, has been searching for new "theories” and tactics to preserve its Marxist-Leninist facade, in order to disguise its social-imperialist strategy.

Although all the revisionists proceed from the same counterrevolutionary strategic aim, each current presents itself with its own clearly defined political and ideological features, with its own characteristics: each has a separate strategy in conformity with the interests of the bourgeoisie it serves, its “own” bourgeoisie, and that of the sphere of influence in which the country it operates in is situated; each adopts special tactics as a function of its own strategy; each uses its “own” formulas and theories in order to attack, denigrate and eliminate Marxism-Leninism; each offers the proletariat and the peoples an alternative of “its own” form of "socialism".

1. Among the revisionist trends in power, Soviet revisionism constitutes a great danger for the revolution, socialism and the freedom and independence of the peoples. Comrade Enver Hoxha clearly defined this danger at the 7th Congress of the PLA, when he said, “Soviet revisionism represents the most complete and highly elaborated ‘theory’ and practice of the revisionist counterrevolution, which has revised the Marxist-Leninist theory in all fields and on all questions.”1

In fact, after borrowing from the arsenal of the old revisionists and putting into circulation the ideas of the "peaceful road” and the "parliamentary road” to socialism, which became the ideological nourishment of the revisionists of all countries, after bringing out the "theories” of the “party of the entire people” and the "state of the entire people”, and having carried out in practice the destruction of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist order in the Soviet Union and replaced it with the dictatorship of the new bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the capitalist order, – the Soviet revisionists set to work to perfect their "theories" on those questions of Marxism-Leninism which they had distorted since the notorious 20th Congress of CI'SU as well as to find new "theories” that would serve them in carrying out the revisionist strategy and policy, on the national and international planes, in the phase of their total degeneration. At the present time the Soviet revisionists not only continue to propagate theories which have already been exposed as anti-Marxist, such as the theories about the “party of the entire people” and the “state of the entire people", which were necessary to them in the implementation of their counterrevolutionary policy, to negate the hegemonic role of the working class, to deceive the working class and all the working people in the Soviet Union and turn them away from the class struggle, to advertise their "socialist democracy” and the "levelling out of classes”, which have allegedly been achieved at the present stage of "developed socialism”, but they have even codified them in the Constitution.

On the external plane, while clinging to the positions of "peaceful coexistence” and “class conciliation” at an international level, too, the Soviet revisionists go so far as to proclaim the halting of the armaments race as the highest ideal of mankind and to declare openly that "mankind now has no greater and more vital problem”2 than that of the easing of international tension (!), as if the problem of liberation from capitalist exploitation and the construction of socialism were not the loftiest ideal and the greatest and most vital problems of our epoch, which will save mankind from every kind of suffering and misery, and hence from the burden of armaments and any predatory war.

In general, the Soviet revisionists commit their distortion of Marxism-Leninism on the international plane, proceeding from their special strategy which is aimed at ensuring the hegemony of their social-imperialist state over the whole world; from the typically imperialist expansionist policy of this state; from the positions of the Great Russian chauvinism and national oppression, which has become part and parcel of the policy which the fascist and the social-imperialist Soviet state is pursuing. The notorious theories on "limited sovereignty”, on the “vital interests of the socialist community”, on the “economic integration and co-ordination of the foreign policy of the socialist countries”, etc. serve this strategy. The "theories” on the “non-capitalist road of development” and on the "road of socialist orientation” which allegedly many developing countries are following and which are propagated by the Soviet revisionists so that through them the Soviet Union can penetrate into those countries as the "Great Socialist” country which "takes them under its protection”, but which, in fact, aims at putting them under its domination as an imperialist state and turning them into its vassal countries, just as it has done with the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe, also serve this hegemonic strategy. But, whereas in reality the Soviet revisionists are as ferocious and dangerous to the peoples of the world as US imperialism, in “theory” they try, through demagogy, to present themselves as defenders of Marxism-Leninism and fighters against imperialism and revisionism. Their aim, in the context of their strategy, is to deceive the proletariat and the peoples, and to keep the other revisionist parties, especially those of the vassal countries, attached to their course, while at the same time trying to prevent a complete break with the parties of the “Eurocommunist” trend. The slogans which the Soviet revisionists are spreading at present about their so-called “anti-imperialism”, “anti-pluralism” and "anti-liberalism”, and about the "necessity of implementing proletarian internationalism”, their coming out as “champions” of Leninism at a time when the Eurocommunists and other revisionists in unison are attacking Leninism in general and the principle of proletarian internationalism are also intended to serve this aim. With their political tactics and stands, the other revisionist currents, especially Eurocommunism and Chinese revisionism, arc objectively assisting Soviet revisionism to maintain its Marxist-Leninist facade. Meanwhile, the Marxist-Leninist phraseology and the demagogy which they employ, as well as their misuse of the authority which the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet Union of the time of Lenin and Stalin had won, create certain difficulties for the struggle of some genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties against this dangerous revisionist variant.

The great danger of Soviet revisionism lies also in the fact that it presents its pseudo-socialism as "developed socialism”, as the final phase of socialism, which is preparing the material-technical foundation of communism, as the phase of the disappearance of class and national distinctions and of the transition towards "social homogeneity”, "the new historical community” and “national homogeneity”, towards the “unified Soviet people”, which are new terms concocted by the Soviet revisionists proceeding from Great Russian bourgeois nationalist aims, in order to deny the existence of different classes in present-day Soviet society and of the Soviet peoples of various nationalities.

What does this Soviet "developed socialism” represent?

In its real essence and content this so-called "developed socialism” is nothing, but one of the forms of developed capitalism which is hidden behind the "socialist” veil. Here we are not going to go into how the process of changing the character of the socio-economic order in the Soviet Union from a socialist order into a capitalist order was carried out. Our aim is to show that this regressive process has reached such a stage that the economic order in the Soviet Union is now completely capitalist and that, “the Soviet economy,” as Comrade Enver Hoxha has said, “has already become integrated into the system of world capitalism."3 However, "developed socialism” or, to be more precise, the developed Soviet capitalism differs from that of the countries of classical capitalism on account of the very high degree of the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the state: in the Soviet Union state monopoly capitalism embraces virtually the whole economy, whereas in the countries of classical capitalism it does not have such wide extension.

From this characteristic of Soviet capitalism as well as for the reason that it is not represented by individual capitalists or by groups of monopolists united in concerns, trusts, etc., but the top bureaucratic Soviet bourgeoisie, which presents itself in the form of “collective capitalism”, stems its other characteristic which has to do with the fact that whereas in the countries of classical capitalism the appropriation of the surplus value by individual capitalists is done in proportion to the amount of capital of each capitalist, in the Soviet Union and in the other revisionist countries, as Comrade Enver Hoxha shows in his analysis of this problem, the surplus value goes to each representative of the top stratum of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie through the relations of distribution, on the basis of the position he occupies in the state, economic, scientific, cultural, etc., hierarchy. On the other hand, the economic relations with the countries of the capitalist system, through the export of Soviet capital to the other countries and the inflow of foreign capital to the Soviet Union, are carried out by the Soviet state which represents and defends the interests of the top bureaucratic bourgeoisie. However, in the process of the export of capital and goods to various countries and in the process of the inflow of foreign capital into the Soviet Union, the interests of the imperialist superpowers, as well as those of the Soviet Union and the other developed capitalist countries and of other big powers with imperialist tendencies clash, competition between them arises, and so does rivalry for world hegemony and the tendency to oppress and exploit the countries and the peoples of the world becomes more pronounced. The Soviet Union has been completely integrated into this complex of international capitalist economic relations as part of the world capitalist system, which seeks to grab the maximum profit and as much surplus value as possible for the Soviet bourgeoisie from the working- class of other countries.

The dangerous thing is that the present-day Soviet state presents its economic expansion as “aid” which the "developed socialism” is providing for other countries and peoples for their economic development and social progress. But there can be no "socialism” of any sort, either “developed” or "underdeveloped”, in a country where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are violated and abandoned, where the working class is not in power, where the state is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, and where there is no genuine Marxist-Leninist Party which plays its undivided leading role in the entire life of the country.

2. Another variant of revisionism is Yugoslav revisionism, which as the oldest in power and the first to come out in support of world capitalism and undertake the fight against Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism, has "traditions” as an agency of the international bourgeoisie. This makes it one of the most dangerous trends.

The danger of Yugoslav revisionism is that it offers ready-made anti-Marxist and anti-socialist concepts and practices to all opportunists, to all those who embark on the road of betrayal of the interests of the proletariat and the peoples, thus remaining always a favourite weapon of imperialism in its fight against socialism and liberation movements. In fact, all the other modern revisionists, ranging from the Khrushchevites to the Chinese revisionists, have found inspiration in the opportunist trend of Yugoslav revisionism and many of the revisionist chiefs describe the "self-administration system” as a proven model of "socialism”.

But, what is the Yugoslav "system of self-administration”, “self-administrative socialism”?

In practice, Yugoslav “self-administrative socialism” is nothing but capitalism decked out in Marxist phraseology, a sort of “socialism” which is being built with the dollars of US imperialism and the other imperialist powers, which is described, even by world capitalism, not only as “a new form of the construction of socialism” but also as “a new system which is making headway in the non-aligned countries”, some of which claim to be building socialism. The Yugoslav self-administrative system is identical with the "democratic socialism” of the social-democrats, with that type of “socialism” which the bourgeoisie need to oppose genuine socialism. It is such that it can also serve as a model of that “new society” which world capitalism is looking for as a modus vivendi, in order to "escape” from the catastrophe which is threatening it, from crisis and revolution, and prolong its existence.

Even without dwelling here on the economic aspects which are characteristic of present-day Yugoslavia, on the relations of property and distribution existing there, the phenomena of anarchy and competition, the problems of the crisis which has the Yugoslav socio-economic order in its grip, if we simply confine ourselves to recalling the aid in dollars which world capitalism is providing for “self-administrative socialism”, the real content of this form of "socialism” which the Yugoslav and other revisionists and even the world bourgeoisie offer the proletariat and mankind becomes quite clear. For it is known that the imperialists never give anyone dollars for nothing but only to get back surplus value and to draw maximum profits through the capital they invest in various countries. They do not give their “aid” in order to build socialism but to bury it. In this direction, too, the example of Yugoslavia is quite clear: the foreign capital invested there was one of the decisive factors which assisted its development on the capitalist road. And the fact that Yugoslavia is deeply in debt to different firms and states, the fact that more than 170 enterprises are organized with joint Yugoslav and foreign capital with 49 percent of the shares belonging to foreign capitalist firms proves that Yugoslavia has already become part of the world capitalist system.

As a theory, “the self-administrative socialism” which the Titoite revisionists began to speak about in the early '50s, thus concretizing their anti-Marxist idea of specific socialism, through which they propagated the absolute necessity of many kinds of socialism, is by no means an "invention" of the Yugoslav revisionist theoreticians. In reality it is a variant of petty bourgeois socialism preached by Proudhon, Bakunin, by the "worker opposition” and other opportunists. It is a revival and practical application of the anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist and Bukharinite ideas about "giving factories to the workers", "workers' self-management”, the elimination of centralism, etc. etc., which were exposed and rejected by Marx and Lenin in their time.

Yugoslav revisionism poses a great danger to the proletariat and the peoples also because of the special strategy and tactics which it propagates, presenting Yugoslavia as a non-aligned country, as well as because of the role which the leaders of this revisionism have played and are still playing as contacts between different trends of revisionism and especially between the main revisionist trends in power and US imperialism. The theory of the “non-aligned world” invented by the Yugoslav revisionists, by means of which they seek to occupy the leading place in this “world”, serves precisely the strategy of dominating it in order to play a splitting role among the developing countries, to disorientate the progressive forces of those countries and to divert them from the anti-imperialist struggle. In this way, through this "theory”, which is advertised as universal “theory" for the destruction of imperialism” and which is completely identical with the "theory of three worlds" and counterrevolutionary from start to finish, the Yugoslav revisionists are effectively playing their role as an agency of US imperialism to keep the developing countries under the neo-colonialist yoke of this imperialism which is helping Yugoslavia in every way to carry out its strategy which serves the strategy of US imperialism, but which is also in favour of Soviet social-imperialism and Chinese hegemony, as this “theory” aims at paralyzing the revolutionary liberation energies of the peoples.

3. The revisionist variant called "Eurocommunism” represents that pseudo-Marxist trend which comes out un-disguisedly in defence of the hated capitalist order and against Marxism-Leninism, the proletarian revolution and socialism. A characteristic of this variant is that it presents its attack on Marxism-Leninism as adaption of an alternative concept of “socialism” and of a strategy of "transition to socialism” appropriate to the conditions of developed capitalism. In fact, this concept and this strategy are expressions and indicators of the complete degeneration of the revisionist parties of this trend, which have now become component parts of the capitalist ideological and political superstructure. Thus, despite the fact that these parties are not represented in the bourgeois governments, their chiefs are active and enthusiastic members of the bourgeois states, and, together with the most reactionary parties of the bourgeoisie, have become administrators of the affairs of the bourgeoisie. In the ideological field, they come out openly in defence of the capitalist structure and superstructure with all their concepts, because this is demanded of them by the bourgeoisie, which, in order to overcome the grave crisis which has seized it, is also putting its “fresh detachments” into motion.

The content of all the "theories” of the parties of the "Eurocommunist” trend is to spread reformist illusions among the ranks of the proletariat and the working masses, to present reforms as the partial attainment of socialism, to pose problems in a reformist way at a time when the revolution is on the agenda in Western Europe and the entire bourgeois and revisionist-capitalist world. The "theories" about the "democratic road to socialism”, the "strategy of the historic compromise", the slogan "unity in diversity", the attack on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the principle of proletarian internationalism, against Lenin and Leninism, etc., which the revisionist parties of this trend proclaim at their congresses and in their public statements, are also intended to divert the proletariat from the solution of major problems, which cannot be solved apart from the use of force.

Thus the head of the Italian revisionists, Enrico Berlinguer, makes statements in which he seeks to assure the bourgeoisie and the church that the party which he leads “is a ‘new’ party", a party which has been and is committed to seeking "a transforming unity with different social, political and ideological forces.”4 Meanwhile in the recent difficult situation when Italy appears as the most decadent capitalist country and is caught up in a grave political crisis, the Italian revisionists are calling on the people to defend the "public order and democratic security", the bourgeois Constitution and the Republican institutions,5 because otherwise the situation would reach a state of "civil war”, and they are scared to death of this like the bourgeoisie itself. And after putting up such a defence of the Italian bourgeois state institutions and Constitution, the heads of the Togliatti revisionism complain that "they treat us as watchdogs of capitalism, on the pretext that we call for the defence of the state.”6 But it is precisely because the Italian revisionist party acts as a watchdog of capitalism and plays its role very effectively in favour of perpetuating the bourgeois order, that even though this party does not take part officially in the government, the government relies on it and consults it about the "fate of the order”.

"In step with the Italian revisionists march the French revisionists",7 as Comrade Enver Hoxha has said. At their 22nd Congress, without a scruple they unfurled the anti-Marxist counterrevolutionary white flag, declaring through their chief Georges Marchais their abandonment of the class struggle, the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and the proletarian party.

The Spanish revisionist party also stands in the same position. At its 9th Congress it went so far as to change its, name from Marxist-Leninist to "Marxist, democratic, revolutionary”, which is not something simple, but an expression of its counterrevolutionary reformist policy. In fact, on the one hand, this also means officially breaking with the world outlook of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism, and, on the other hand, it is an attempt to separate Marx and Lenin and oppose them to each other. It is a monstrous attempt, like Kautsky's, which Lenin crushed, to turn the Great Marx, the founder of scientific socialism, into a bourgeois liberal.

This act is part of the position which the Spanish revisionists have taken in defence of the existing form of that type of the Spanish bourgeois state, the monarchy, which they consider a "positive force”, which is why, according to them, any discussion about "throwing out the monarchy to establish the republic" would be a "loss of democracy”. In this way they have become ardent apologists for the monarchist form of the bourgeois state and try to extinguish not merely any revolutionary movement, but even any feeling of sympathy for the republican form of the bourgeois state, let alone for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a new type of state entirely different from any type of state of society with antagonistic classes.

Despite some minor differences in presentation, the views and the standpoints of all the revisionist parties of the "Eurocommunist” trend towards the present-day bourgeois state and the dictatorship of the proletariat are identical in content. Likewise, their concept about the party, which according to them "does not claim to become the leading force of the state and society”8 and accepts "the coexistence in its ranks of different schools in the field of theory, culture and art, as well as in the field of scientific research, in all the sciences, including the humanitarian sciences, and that all of them must have the possibility of free confrontation."9 But this means to condemn the proletariat to "eternal" slavery, because it cannot emancipate itself, together with all the oppressed and exploited, from slavery, without ensuring the leading role of the party of the proletariat in the revolution and after its victory, and that the Marxist-Leninist ideology becomes the sole prevailing ideology after the revolution. But it is precisely the enslavement of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie which the revisionists, of all trends who preach political and ideological pluralism, want to preserve.

The entire strategy of the "Eurocommunists” is completely in the service of "their own” bourgeoisie and the European bourgeoisie. Defence of the interests of “its own” bourgeoisie and European capitalism, the transformation of the "United Europe" into a superpower, subordination of the interests of the European proletariat to the interests of European monopoly capitalism, – this is the counterrevolutionary strategy of "Eurocommunism”. The idea of a "political system of Western Europe based on Parliament and on the political and philosophical pluralism", which will allegedly be achieved on the basis of a "common strategy, not just of the ‘communists’, but of all the European "Left” as well as through co-operation with the countries of the "third world", serves this aim.10 With such a strategy, the "Eurocommunists” stand against the proletariat on the barricades alongside the Chinese revisionists, who are supporting the "United Europe" which West European monopoly capital is knocking together in every way, thus helping the “Eurocommunists” to carry out their counterrevolutionary strategy.

The danger of the revisionists of the "Eurocommunist” trend is apparent also in the alternative, the future society which they propose in the type of the "new society" allegedly socialist, which they offer. This "socialism” of theirs will be "pluralist socialism with a human face”, just like the "socialisms” which all bourgeois ideologists advocate. It will be a "socialism" which will be "achieved” during the so-called "stage of political and economic democracy”, when "the forms of public and private ownership will coexist”, when there will also be the creation of surplus value and private appropriation of it.”11 Such a recipe for "socialism” is recommended by one of the most cynical apostles of "Eurocommunism”, Santiago Carrillo, who preaches the idea that this "new society will be achieved, among other things, through the democratization of the Army, the police, and the entire oppressive apparatus of the bourgeoisie(!) And after all these sermons which do not affect the foundations of the bourgeois state power in the slightest, the “Eurocommunist” chiefs are afraid that the “defenders of doctrines" might call this “pure reformism”. But, in fact this is nothing but pure reformism, for, as V. I. Lenin said, "Capitalism and imperialism cannot be overthrown by democratic transformations, even the most ‘ideal’... Capitalism cannot be vanquished without taking over the banks, without abolishing private ownership of the means of production.”12 ..."Only the forcible overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the confiscation of its property, the destruction of the entire bourgeois state apparatus – the parliamentary, judicial, military, bureaucratic, administrative, municipal, etc, apparatus from top to bottom... can ensure the real submission of the whole class of exploiters”13 and make the proletariat the ruling class. Any fantasy about another road is simply the reactionary yearning of a petty-bourgeois.

In fact, the question is not that the "Eurocommunists”, and the other revisionists do not understand the real political role they are playing when they talk about a "democratic road to socialism", or that they do not know the Marxist-Leninist teaching that without preparing for the dictatorship of the proletariat one cannot be a revolutionary. They assail the idea and the practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat because they are determined counterrevolutionaries, because they consciously wish to play the role of priestlings who lull the proletariat, the working masses, the peoples, with all sorts of political charlatanry, to turn them away from the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat. They consciously want to play the role of advocates of the bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie needs advocates and lackeys of all kinds, including those who call on the proletariat to line up with it for the "defence of the fatherland", and those who call for the preservation of the "democratic" order and the monarchy, bourgeois Constitutions, etc. That is why all the reactionary bourgeoisie and the church prefer this model of "pluralist socialism". And if out of all world reaction, the Soviet revisionists do not support and even oppose the "theories" and strategy of the "Eurocommunists”, this is not because they do not agree in essence with their counterrevolutionary views, which in fact are based on the anti-Marxist platform of the notorious 20th Congress of the revisionist party of the Soviet Union, but because some of the "Eurocommunist" "theories” are aimed at "independence” from the tutelage of Soviet revisionism, and infringe the idea of the role of the "mother party” and of the "great socialist state”, which the Soviet revisionists want to play in their relations with the other revisionists. This is the cause of the mutual criticism going on between these two revisionist trends, which is an expression of the social-chauvinist and social-imperialist positions of each of them.

4. Chinese revisionism, the trend which has come out in the open only recently, but which is, in fact, a very old anti-Marxist trend with deep roots, is a very great danger to the cause o£ the revolution and socialism, to the freedom and the independence of the peoples at the present time. A characteristic feature of this revisionist variant is that it proclaims the "theory” which it propagates to be the highest stage of Marxism-Leninism, the third stage in the development of Marxism. However as a "theory” Chinese revisionism is nothing but a conglomerate “theory”, one hotchpotch of all sorts of ideologies ranging from idealistic-mystical ones of antiquity to the theories of present-day bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologists of right and "left” opportunist views, ideas of Proudhon, of Bernstein and Kautsky, of Trotsky and Bukharin, of Browder, of Yugoslav, Soviet, and "Eurocommunist” revisionism, and so on.

The entire ideological platform of the Chinese revisionists, all the theses propagated by them concerning the cardinal questions of Marxism-Leninism and the question of the revolution and socialism in the context of each specific country and on the international plane, are anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary from start to finish. Likewise, the strategy and political tactics which are based on such an anti-Marxist ideological platform, as well as the actions inspired by it, are completely anti-proletarian and reactionary.

Thus, in regard to China itself, both during the Chinese revolution and after it, the standpoint of the Chinese leadership has been that of liberalism and bourgeois democracy both in theory and practice. At no time has it been for the hegemonic role of the proletariat and for waging the class struggle in favour of the working class. Instead in "theory” it has preached the thesis, "the countryside must liberate the city” which denies the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution and is a deviation from Marxism-Leninism, while in practice, it has acted in such a way that the petty bourgeoisie and even the middle bourgeoisie had a dominant role in the revolution. Whereas after the revolution, the Chinese revisionist leadership has followed the line of class conciliation and of permitting the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class, “it has maintained an opportunist benevolent stand towards the exploiting classes,” as Comrade Enver Hoxha has put it, “and in practice it has shared the state power with them.”14 At no time have the Chinese revisionists been for the undivided leading role of a party which was truly a party of the proletariat, a party of the Leninist type, but they have propagated and practiced the principle of political pluralism, the principle of the existence of many parties, including parties of the bourgeoisie, which, according to their views, should continue to exist in China as long as the "communist party” exists. Long ago they came out against the Marxist-Leninist ideology being the only prevailing ideology in a socialist country, and preached ideological pluralism in “Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools compete”, which is being loudly propagated today by the “Eurocommunists”, with whom the Chinese revisionists have points in common in their revision of Marxism-Leninism and many other questions, too.

On the international plane, the Chinese revisionists revised Marxism-Leninism proceeding from their strategic goal, which regardless of the fact that they come out with the banner of “anti-social-imperialism” and “anti-hegemonism”, is, in essence, identical with the strategic aim of the Soviet revisionists, and is intended to make China an imperialist superpower, to justify the typically imperialist and hegemonic policy of this great power which is doing everything it can to become a superpower. This strategy is served by the theory of "three worlds” which the Chinese revisionist leadership presents as a world strategy. In fact, the real content of the theory of “three worlds” is denial of the leading role of the proletariat in revolution and of its right to carry out the revolution, denial of the right of peoples to rise in liberation struggle against oppressive and rapacious imperialism. The theory of “three worlds” is diametrically opposed to Lenin's ideas concerning our historical epoch, where he speaks of the class which is at the centre of the epoch, its main content, the main direction of its development, that is, the main features which distinguish this epoch, which constitute the only basis on which correct revolutionary tactics can be built.

Thus, according to Marxism-Leninism, it is the proletariat which is the main social motive force of our epoch, while according to the Chinese revisionists, “the main motive force which drives the wheel of history forward is the 'third world'”. For every genuine Marxist-Leninist the fundamental content of the present epoch is the transition from capitalism to socialism, the historic task which requires solution is the overthrow of the capitalist order and the building of the socialist order, and the way to carry out this task is by the proletarian revolution. However, with its theories, the Chinese leadership denies all these fundamental features of our epoch and these cardinal issues of Marxism-Leninism, without scruple.

According to the analysis which our Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha have made of the Chinese leadership's deviation from Marxism-Leninism, the counter-revolutionary opportunist position of the Chinese revisionists can be seen clearly from the fact that, in spreading the idea of the “lack of a revolutionary situation in present-day Europe”, and saying that the task of the proletariat and other working people of Europe is to take the side of “their own” bourgeoisie for “the defence of the Fatherland” against "the threat of the war which social-imperialism is preparing”, they are preaching a policy of agreement between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which is the most harmful and dreadful policy for a country; they call on the proletariat to renounce the class struggle, the proletarian revolution, and the struggle to overthrow “its own” and the international bourgeoisie – the struggle for socialism.

The view of the Chinese leadership which defines Soviet social-imperialism alone, and not the two superpowers, as the main and most dangerous enemy of the peoples, which presents US imperialism as "in decline” and "on the defensive”, as imperialism with which a "socialist” country can be united in a broad front for joint opposition to Soviet social-imperialism, etc., is also extreme opportunism and in fact denial of the proletarian revolution. According to this view, one can have a preference in assessing imperialism, one can treat the two imperialist superpowers differently: one superpower being allegedly aggressive, the other being on the defensive! Whereas, according to Marxism-Leninism, from the political point of view, imperialism as a whole is a tendency to violence and reaction, and, after the victory of socialism in a country, the problems must be solved not from the angle of preferring this imperialism to that, but proceeding solely from the interests of the development and consolidation of the socialist revolution. To claim, as the Chinese leadership does, that the preservation of US imperialism as less dangerous than the new Soviet imperialism is based on Lenin's analysis of the situation in 1917 when he spoke of the danger which the new German imperialism posed, while "forgetting” Lenin's other thesis put forward a year and a half later that American imperialism is behaving just as ferociously as German imperialism etc., and, moreover, to disregard the great danger to mankind which US imperialism represents today means, from the philosophical view-point, to act as a sophist, to consider questions separately, to draw historical parallels and not make concrete analyses of the question in the concrete conditions. Whereas, from the political point of view, such a position of the Chinese revisionists, which is an expression of their compromise with US imperialism, is open betrayal of the cause of the proletariat and socialism.

The views of the Chinese leadership about US imperialism as the imperialism with which one may allegedly collaborate “to cope with the danger of world war”, remind one of the preachings of Kautsky, who in his time spoke of the indispensable need to rely on US imperialism to stop the war. The basis of this identity of views is that both Chinese revisionism and Kautskyism prettify” imperialism as a whole, and US imperialism in particular, that both propagate a non-class policy and aim at ensuring "class conciliation” at an international level, too. And it is known that defence of class collaboration, denial of the idea of socialist revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle, adaption to bourgeois nationalism, and renunciation of the class viewpoint and class struggle are the ideological foundations of opportunism. These are also the ideological foundations of social-chauvinism, which is one of the characteristic features of the policy of the Chinese revisionists.

It is self-evident that, with a conglomerate "theory” like that of the Chinese revisionists, genuine socialism cannot be conceived, and neither can it be built with their practices. "Socialism” conceived on the basis of an anti-Marxist theory cannot be anything else but "petty-bourgeois” or "bourgeois” "socialism”, which, for ample reasons, finds the support and aid of the big bourgeoisie world-wide, especially of US imperialism, and finds support from such an old agency of imperialism as Yugoslav revisionism, as well as all sorts of other revisionists.

The ideological and political physiognomy, and the specific features of each present-day revisionist trend are such as to give rise to various distinctions and contradictions among them. These distinctions and contradictions between the revisionists, especially in today's conditions, arc expressions of contradictions among monopoly groups and within the bourgeoisie of the country or the area in which each revisionist trend operates. This is the basis on which the divergences and contradictions between the Soviet revisionists and the “Eurocommunists”, and especially the sharp contradictions between the Soviet revisionists and the Chinese revisionists, exist, each of them seeking to win over as many revisionist parties and different countries as possible to its side and its policy and to ensure for itself support and aid from the American and other imperialists. But without going at greater length into the contradictions which exist between various revisionist trends, we deem it necessary to stress that they must be evaluated correctly. They do not alter the essence of revisionism, either as an ideological trend or as a strategic goal. In fact all trends of revisionism are branches from one single trunk: in ideology they are variants of bourgeois ideology, and in practice, in the final analysis, they serve the same master, the reactionary world bourgeoisie.

Waging and Deepening the Struggle Against All Trends of Revisionism – An Imperative Duty for All Marxist-Leninists

In today's conditions, when the proletarian revolution is a problem taken up for solution and when the revisionists more than ever before are doing everything possible to organize ^historic compromises” on a national and international scale, to work together with imperialism to preserve the status quo "in this world which is the best that could exist”, when they consider the bourgeois law eternal and hold that “socialism” can be fitted into the framework of these laws, when they consider the present-day bourgeois state as a lever on which they can rely for the transition to "socialism” by means of reforms; when they preach the fusion of the proletarian ideology with all sorts of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, clerical, and other currents, in these conditions the struggle of the genuine communist parties to defend Marxism-Leninism and to expose revisionism as a whole and every revisionist trend assumes special importance. This struggle is in no way doctrinaire or academic, but is a struggle for a great cause: for the defence of the principles of the revolutionary theory of the working class, without which there can be neither proletarian revolution, nor socialism and communism; this is a struggle which aims to make clear that all the "doctrines” and "theories” which speak of a non-class socialism and a non-class policy, are nothing but a fraud.

For successes in waging the struggle against revisionism, in order to define a correct strategy and correct tactics in this struggle, it is important for the Marxist-Leninists to have a thorough knowledge both of the main features and the main counter-revolutionary common strategic, aim of present-day revisionism and of the distinctions and contradictions which exist among the different revisionist trends. And, proceeding from the fact that, irrespective of their individual strategies, the global strategy of all revisionists is the same, profoundly counter-revolutionary, and that the essence of revisionism is likewise the same, profoundly reactionary, the Marxist-Leninists wage a struggle against revisionism on all fronts, against all its trends.

The historical experience of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism over the last decades, too, fully confirms Lenin's teaching that the only correct, Marxist, line in the world communist movement is to explain to the proletariat and all the working people the absolute need to break with revisionism and opportunism, to educate the masses through a consistent struggle against these trends, to expose their betrayal of the cause of the proletariat and the peoples and all the infamy of the policy they pursue. Such a task is dictated by the fact that in this struggle, which is an expression of the antagonism and class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism, between the line of struggle against the world bourgeoisie for the victory of the revolution and socialism and the line of collaboration and unity with imperialism against the revolution and socialism, Lenin's well-known thesis that without fighting opportunism, imperialism cannot be fought successfully, always retains its validity and relevance. Indeed, this thesis assumes special importance under the present circumstances when there is no essential difference between revisionism in power and imperialism, between the strategy of the one and that of the other.

Now in particular, when the bourgeoisie is making extensive use of such agencies as social-democracy and revisionism in its struggle against the cause of the proletariat, the main conditions to achieve success in the socialist revolution is the resolute struggle on the part of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary parties against any influence of revisionism and opportunism among the ranks of the proletariat and all working people.

At present the true communist parties have set themselves the task of refuting the opportunist thesis of the Chinese revisionists, who call on the proletariat to unite with “its own” bourgeoisie for the “defence of the Fatherland”, and to make clear to the masses of the proletariat the lesson set out in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” 130 years ago, by the founders of scientific socialism, K. Marx and F. Engels, “The proletariat of each country must, of course, first settle accounts with its own bourgeoisie.”15 Besides this, they have set themselves the task of refuting all the other revisionist "theories” which recommend to the proletariat that it should reach an agreement with the bourgeoisie, that the "upper strata of the society” should take measures to improve the living conditions of the “lower strata", and to explain to the proletariat and the other working masses that the theory of Marx, who revealed the essence of the capitalist economy, shows that the issue is not that the capitalist order should be patched up but that capital and the entire capitalist mode of production must be wiped out, that the road of salvation for the proletariat and all the working masses is not that of seeking some improvement of the conditions of oppression and exploitation from the capitalists and their lackeys, but that of organizing and carrying out the class struggle, a struggle which every genuine party of the working class leads and carries through to the final goal: the seizure of political power by the proletariat and the organization of socialist and communist society. The proletariat of each country accomplishes this task in its own country, first of all because, according to Marxism-Leninism, the first arena of the class struggle for the proletariat of every country is its own country.

However, the bourgeoisie of each country is part of the world bourgeoisie and, from the class point of view, stands in confrontation with the proletariat, which is the other main class of present-day capitalist society. Therefore, when it comes to the struggle against the proletariat, the bourgeoisie of each country unites with the bourgeoisie of all countries, as a class with common interests, to oppose the proletariat, as a class which has interests diametrically opposed to its own. For this reason the genuine Marxist-Leninist communist parties do not see the struggle of the proletariat against “its own” bourgeoisie and the struggle to expose revisionism and opportunism in its own country from a narrow angle, as a question confined within the national context, but as part of the struggle to cope with the attacks of the reactionary bourgeoisie in general and modern revisionism as a whole, to cope with the policy of international plots of imperialism, social-imperialism, all the bourgeoisie and present-day revisionism in order to expose them and triumph over them. However, the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie is initially a national struggle, “in form if not in substance”.16 This is precisely why Marxist-Leninists wage their struggle against all the enemies of the proletariat and the peoples: against modern revisionism, the bourgeoisie, imperialism, simultaneously, on a national and international scale, and in their struggle against the international revisionism of the present-day, too, they bear in mind that the same socio-political content manifests itself in one form or another, according to specific national features.

The Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries are aware that the evolution of revisionism in extent and depth, its wide extension as revisionism in power, is a great loss for the proletariat and a victory for the capitalist bourgeoisie. But they also know that this is a temporary victory for the enemies of the proletariat. He who is acquainted with our revolutionary science is clear about the main objective tendency of social development in our historical epoch and, on this basis, never loses sight of the prospect, but knows that despite the zigzags and temporary retreats of the revolution, the final victory of the proletariat is inevitable. In reality, the zigzags in the revolution, which can be seen today, are not a casual phenomenon unforeseen by the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Six decades ago, V. I. Lenin said: "History is moving in zigzags and by roundabout ways”17 and stressed: it is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong to regard the course of world history as smooth and always in a forward direction, without occasional gigantic leaps back.”18 On the other hand, every Marxist-Leninist revolutionary realizes that the bourgeoisie which emerged on the stage of history as a ruling class three centuries ago, which has its own ideology, which is far older than the socialist ideology and elaborated in an all-round way; the bourgeoisie which has long experience in the struggle against the proletariat and in smashing its different detachments one by one and in various ways in different countries, cannot fail to use the strength of the bourgeois state and all the experience it has accumulated, it cannot fail to sharpen up its weapons of every kind, ideological, organizational, military, etc., in order to maintain its positions, and avert the revolution and socialism. The activation of present-day revisionism and opportunism is precisely one of these weapons which the bourgeoisie is using in the present situation of the general crisis of capitalism.

Marxist-Leninists view the future with optimism even when the tide of counter-revolution is running high. And this is a revolutionary optimism which is based on the reality of our historical epoch. In fact the objective conditions for proletarian revolution and national liberation have now matured. In general, though the making of revolution is being impeded by various subjective factors, a revolutionary situation exists. The struggle of the proletariat has developed greatly in all the capitalist countries, both bourgeois and revisionist, in recent years, and this struggle is preparing the working class for the coming decisive class battles which will bring about the destruction of the capitalist order, together with revisionism, which are decaying and in decline. The recent years have been years of a general awakening of all the peoples, the peoples' movement for liberation has assumed a new vigour everywhere. These are favourable factors which must be exploited in order to strengthen and intensify the struggle against the revisionism and opportunism of each individual country and against revisionism and opportunism as a whole. This because without fighting revisionism, such historical tasks as proletarian revolution, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the organization of socialism cannot be carried out, and there can be no genuine freedom and independence for the peoples. Only through a resolute struggle of the proletariat, all the workers and the peoples, placing them under the leadership of a genuine revolutionary party of the working class in each given country, will the greatest political, ideological and moral task facing the proletariat, and all making today, be carried out, that is, the destruction of the old exploiting society and the uniting of all the working people around the proletariat, which in liberating itself at the same time liberates all the oppressed and exploited from any sort of slavery. And the proletariat achieves this because it acts in conformity with the objective laws of the development of society according to which, as scientific socialism shows, society is moving irrevocably towards the overthrow of the capitalist order and the establishment of the highest social order, communism. It is precisely this social development and progress, based on the objective laws of society, which is impeded by the most reactionary social forces today: the bourgeoisie, imperialism and revisionism, which must be swept away by a struggle aimed against all of them simultaneously.

A very important objective of the struggle of the Marxist-Leninists against the revisionists today, is the exposure of the alternatives to socialism and the various kinds of "socialism” offered to mankind by various revisionist trends and the bourgeois ideologists, who, in order to "extricate" the bourgeoisie from the crisis now following the fiasco of their previous alternatives of the "consumer society”, "industrial” society, “post-industrial” society, etc, are now propagating “new” kinds of socialism” such as "developed socialism", “self-administrative socialism”, "pluralist and democratic socialism”, with which, besides other things, they hope to discredit the idea and denigrate the practice of genuine socialism.

To expose these alternatives of the “new society”, to show that none of the varieties of “socialism”, which are offered by the revisionists as the best, “the purest, the most authentic socialism”, has anything in common with the scientific socialism conceived by Marx and Lenin, and applied in the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin and Stalin, or with the socialism which is under construction and advancing in Albania under the leadership of the Party of Labour of Albania with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, means to defend scientific socialism, genuine socialism from incontestable theoretical and practical positions. Because there is only one genuine socialism: the socialism which is achieved on the basis of the universal laws of the theory discovered and developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. The only genuine socialism is that which can be achieved only through class struggle, the culmination of which is violent revolution, and never through the schemes which the revisionists recommend, not through the reforms of the structure and superstructure which they propagate so noisily, not through the "parliamentary cretinism” which they have raised to a system, in order to use constitutional and parliamentary illusions as a veil to conceal their betrayal of the proletariat, and the revolution. The only genuine socialism is that which is achieved under the leadership of the proletarian party and necessarily by means of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The genuine socialism is inconceivable without carrying out the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, the confiscation of its property immediately following the revolution, without the planned centralized management of the economy by the socialist state, without the hegemonic role of the working class and without the alliance of the working class with the labouring peasantry under the leadership of the working class. If today, just as in the past, the revisionists of all trends are doing their utmost to reject such universal laws of Marxism-Leninism, to proclaim them obsolete and out-dated for the present conditions, this is evidence of the unprecedented depths of their betrayal of the cause of the proletariat, the revolution and socialism.

The Marxist-Leninists are aware that the struggle against revisionism is a protracted, all-round struggle which goes through different stages. They are aware that world proletariat will have to wage fierce battles, but they know, also, that the struggle for the ideals of communism is a struggle that is worth any sacrifice. And the struggle against revisionism arouses the energies of the proletariat and of all the working people, because it makes them more conscious of their role in society and teaches them to distinguish which is the economy that must be fought, teaches them how to fight for their interests. But, in order to triumph over capital, which is an international force, the international alliance of the workers is necessary. That is why the Marxist-Leninist parties strive to ensure the unity of the proletariat on a national and international scale. Whereas the revisionists of all trends carry out disruptive activity in the Marxist-Leninist movement and in the ranks of the proletariat and support all sorts of openly rightwing or "leftist” groups, provided only that they support their particular trend, express opposition to the other rival trend, and combat the Marxist-Leninist principles.

In the present situation, all sorts of attacks are being directed against the revolutionary theory of the working class and the great teachers of the proletariat, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Some people, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie who come out openly as such, proclaim the revisionists' betrayal, of Marxism-Leninism and socialism, the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, and the capitalist development of countries which label themselves “socialist” as the failure of Marxism-Leninism, as a proof of its inability to solve the problems with which mankind is preoccupied, and as the end of socialism. Another declares that “Marx is dead". Some intellectual dwarf, this time from the ranks of the ideologists, indeed one of the leaders of the revisionist parties, "discovers” “contradictions” and “gaps” in the work of the colossal classics of Marxism-Leninism. And going even further, from the Centre of "Marxist” studies of the CC of the French revisionist party, a voice is heard stating that "the road of France to socialism should not be sought in the works of Lenin, nor on the basis of those works”, but according to this "Marxist” voice of Jean Ellenstein, this road must be sought, believe it or not, in the work of Eduard Bernstein, the father of the old revisionism, which is known as Bernstein revisionism.

What accounts for this unprecedented race between the enemies of Marxism-Leninism to attack and fulminate against the proletarian ideology and its founders and elaborators, to slander them in cynical fashion? The explanation for this is that Marxism-Leninism expresses the historical truth, reflects the trend of the objective development of human society and provides scientific proof of the inevitability of the destruction of capitalism, that the Marxist-Leninist doctrine is a reliable weapon in the hands of the proletariat in its struggles to overthrow the old order and build the new society, it provides the proletariat and all oppressed and exploited with the revolutionary orientation concerning the most acute problems because Marxism-Leninism is a banner of struggle and victories for the proletariat and the peoples of all continents in their stern class battles and struggles for national liberation.

The onslaught which all the enemies of the proletariat have launched against Marxism-Leninism, and their efforts to "bury” it are not without precedent in history. More than 100 years ago, the Paris Commune was furiously attacked by world reaction. Right from the start, the bourgeoisie and its ideologists proclaimed the emergence of modern revisionism as defeat of Marxism-Leninism. While now as never before, from all sides they proclaim that it is all over: “Marxism is dead", "socialism is finished”. However, the Marxist-Leninists see that the revolutionary doctrine of the proletariat has coped and is coping successfully with the fierce anti-communist offensive, that the communist movement has not been and cannot be extinguished. Instead genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties have emerged from the ranks of the proletariat, parties which represent the new, the future. They see that true socialism isforging steadily ahead and developing in a country, Albania, which stands firmly on the positions of Marxism-Leninism.

The Paris Commune, which was the first experiment and the embryo of the dictatorship of the proletariat, lived only 72 days, but its name and work will be remembered through the centuries. The dictatorship of the proletariat and the genuine socialism in Albania, under the leadership of the Party of Labour of Albania with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, have been in existence and progressing for 34 years now, by loyally applying scientific socialism, will always be preserved and will develop until the final goal is achieved: the building of the classless society, communism. This is the future of all mankind which will inevitably be achieved through the consistent class struggle of the world proletariat waged according to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism.

1 Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, p. 266 (Alb. ed.). (Emphasis by the author.)

2 From “A new Epoch of World History”, the magazine "Problems of Peace and Socialism”, N° 11, 1977.

3 Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 93 (Alb. 1st ed.).

4 From the article, "Enrico Berlinguer Answers an ‘Open Letter’ from the bishop of Ivrea”, published in "Rinascita, October, 7, 1977.

5 From the newspaper “L'Unita”, March 19, 1978.

6 From an AFP news item, April 18, 1978, referring to the newspaper “Lotta continua”.

7 Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, p. 272. (Emphasis by the author).

8 From the book, "Eurocommunism and the State" by Santiago Carrillo, French ed., Flammarion, 1977, p. 150.

9 Ibidem, p. 150. (Emphasis by the author.)

10 Ibidem, pp. 156-157. (Emphasis by the author.)

11 From the book Eurocommunism and the State" by Santiago Carrillo, French ed. Flammarion, 1977, pp. 117 and 121. (Emphasis by the author.)

12 V, I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 23, pp. 16-17. (Emphasis by the author.)

13 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 31, p. 201. (Emphasis by the author.)

14 Enver Hoxha, "Imperialism and the Revolution", p. 348 (1st Alb. ed.). (Emphasis by the author.)

15 K. Marx – F. Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist Party", Selected Works, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 32 (Alb. ed.). (Emphasis by the author.)

16 K. Marx – F. Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist Party", Selected Works, vol. 1, 1975, p. 32 (Alb. ed.). (Emphasis by the author.)

17 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 173, (Emphasis by the author.)

18 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 22, pp. 377-378 (Emphasis by the author.)

Click here to return to the index of archival material.