January 10, 2024

Famous Fraudulent Stalin Quotes Debunked

 Alleged Quotation: 


 
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
 

Refutation:

 
The only source for Stalin saying anything even approaching "it's not who counts the votes..." is Bazhanov's book (first published in 1980 and translation into English in 1990). But, even here, what Stalin is reputed to have said is quite different:
 
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

However, this quote seems to evidence Stalin's concerns to prevent electoral fraud. The exact opposite intention of the "who counts the votes..." quote.


Alleged Quotation:


"The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"
 

Refutation:


Wrong again! This lie has been repeated enough to become fact!

The myth holds that Stalin, on being asked to win over Catholic support by French Premier Pierre Laval responded "How many divisions does the Pope have?". The source for this myth is "The Gathering Storm", by Winston Churchill, 1948, Widely quoted and repeated as fact. 

This myth is propagated to target religious individuals; meant to emphasis Stalin's cynicism and "might makes right" attitude. 
 
This quote was actually said by German Chancellor Otto von Bismark in 1872 to Prussian official Adalbert Falk when Falk was charged with enforcing Bismark's anti-Catholic laws. This was part of the Prussian "kulturkampf" against political Catholicism. 
 
No concrete evidence exists for it ever being said, and why would Stalin, in a majority Orthodox nation need to curry Catholic support?
 

Alleged Quotation:

"Death solves all problems — no man, no problem."
 

Refutation:

 
"No man, no problem." comes from a work of fiction, the novel Children of the Arbat (1987) by Anatoly Rybakov where he had a fictional Stalin say it. In his later work, the Novel of Memories, Rybakov admitted that there was no source for the quote and that he had made it up as fictional dialog.
 

Alleged Quotation: 

 
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
 

Refutation:

 
He never said it!
 
Falsely attributed to Stalin in order to make people believe he was totally uncaring and unconcerned about the fate of millions... The line instead comes from the book Französischer Witz by Kurt Tucholsky (1932): 
 
"The war? I can't find it too terrible! The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!"
 
 

December 31, 2023

January 2024 Announcements and Updates

Revolutionary greetings, and happy new year!

Since our original incarnation in 2022, we have made significant progress in our content and level of ideological development.

With the arrival of 2024, I believe it would be important to articulate certain developments with this project in addition to certain plans which I wish to implement within the time frame of this year.

New developments

New ideological materials from Marxist theorists (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, etc.) have been added and more will be included in the near-future. 

Currently, we are actively working on compiling important quotations from the aforementioned authors and including them in dedicated sections. The page relating to quotations by Enver Hoxha has already been completed, and similar sections dedicated to quotes from Lenin and Stalin will be added shortly. These pages may be accessed from the Theory & Resources tab (formerly known simply as Theory).

Other, more trivial details about this website are being improved as well. 

Intentions for 2024

We intend on expanding the scope of our content so as to document current events and ideological issues in much greater detail than previously. This is only appropriate considering the emerging socioeconomic realities which may be faced this year.    

Additionally, it is our ambition to expand the reach of this website and its content via reestablishing our presence on external platforms. In the middle of 2023, we faced difficulties and setbacks in this regard due to internal conflicts along with the hostility incited against us by online revisionist groupings. Please view our Links tab in the coming weeks.

Suggestions, relevant questions, and productive criticism may be directed towards the address provided on the Contact tab.           

November 16, 2023

Only under the Leadership of a genuine Marxist–Leninist Party can the objectives be achieved

[source]

From a talk between Enver Hoxha of the PLA and Ernst Aust of the CPG/M–L, November 30, 1979

First Comrade Enver Hoxha welcomed the guest who had come to our country to take part in the celebration of the 35th anniversary of the Liberation of Albania. They held a long conversation in the course of which Comrade Enver Hoxha expressed the opinion of the Party of Labour of Albania about a number of the more important political problems. Among other things he said:

First of all, I want to thank you most sincerely for coming to our country and your participation in this important celebration for our people and our Party, the 35th anniversary of the Liberation of socialist Albania. You have been here at other times, too, and know our country and our Party, and know the feelings which we nurture for you.

At this meeting I would like to discuss a number of problems which we think are of interest both for you and for us.

The stronger the Marxist-Leninists are, the more they are monolithic, with extensive activity and always with a firm and clear line, the more the day-to-day struggle of the proletariat here in Europe will assume a revolutionary political colour and essence. The strikes, demonstrations and demands of the European proletarians, which are taking place at the moments of the great crisis through which imperialism and world capitalism are passing, will more and more assume a political character.

As you know, the economic strikes and demonstrations which are taking place at present in the countries of the European Common Market frequently end peacefully, in agreements between trade-union bosses or the worker aristocracy and the employers.

We think that work must be done to change this sterile struggle, this modus vivendi. We consider this struggle harmful to the proletariat and favourable, undisturbing, and to some degree surmountable for capitalism, because the results of it are temporary and do not harm capitalism much financially, because the concessions it makes as a result of the demands and the struggle of the proletariat are just crumbs from the enormous surplus value which it extracts from the exploitation of the working class and the mechanization of production.

The contradictions between proletarians and capitalists, between the rank-and-file unionists and the worker aristocracy, the union bosses, are becoming more profound and we must strive to make them more and more so. We think that capital and the worker aristocracy are bound together in a knot which must be severed like the Gordian knot. This knot consists of the laws which are nothing but the chains with which the proletariat has been bound to prevent it deviating from the course advantageous to capital. Therefore, the question which presents itself is to study the enslaving character of these laws which constitute the wall with which the present struggle of the proletariat is colliding, and in this direction you have many possibilities to study the situation to find and attack the weak points, to breach this wall and then to launch a frontal attack on the breach in order, eventually, to bring down the whole wall.

Of course, this is not easy. If systematic actions are not undertaken in this direction, and especially, when a great deal of explanatory work is not done with the army of proletarians, then successes cannot be achieved. Hence, the conditions demand that we should work inside the existing unions, but should also work to establish our own unions, which we must defend and use as a political weapon against capital and the union bosses to defend those economic rights which the working class has won through struggle, but we must also struggle for the true rights of the workers, that is, for their political rights.

However, these can be achieved only when the proletariat and its party, in the first place, clearly understand the theory of Marx and Lenin about the character of capital and the role of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution.

West Germany is the most powerful capitalist state of "United Europe", the wealthiest country of this monopoly capitalist union. West-German imperialism is a ferocious imperialism, an ally of the United States of America, an ally in NATO and a member of the European Common Market. Next to the United States of America it is the "ally" which plays the main role in NATO and it dominates the Common Market from every stand-point. The other members are afraid of it, and therefore, there are contradictions between them.

This domination, which is also exerted over the German people themselves, at the same time enables West-German capital to show itself somewhat more "generous" towards the proletariat. And in fact, the standard of living in West Germany is higher than in the other countries of "United Europe", its currency is stronger, the demagogy about its pseudo-democracy is greater and the level of German technology is among the highest.

Precisely in this difficult situation, in which it is the merit of your Party to be struggling, the Party must provide complete and factually based explanations about the mechanism of the political-economic oppression which German capital exerts, because you have to do with a proletariat with a high level of education and qualification, with farmers who have sufficient land and work with mechanized means, and you have to do with an intelligentsia with traditions, but imbued with the most varied reactionary ideological views which, as we know, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels combated and exposed over a wide front.

Imperialism is continually inventing new fascist and revanchist counter-revolutionary theories, both open and disguised, which respond to the situations which those who create them are experiencing, and it spreads them not only in Germany, but everywhere in the world, concocting and encouraging new outlooks, new ways of life, which are adapted to the technology, the industrial development and capitalism in decay. Imperialism, especially in your country, combines all these theories and outlooks with the Teutonic spirit, with the old Bismarck Junker outlook and Hitlerite national-socialist savagery.

Our doctrine, Marxism-Leninism, explains and clarifies all these situations which have developed and are developing.

 

It has foreseen everything, while also providing a correct solution for the fundamental problems of each epoch, the problems of the materialist and dialectical development of history. Only a rabid enemy of Marxism-Leninism can act as the Chinese revisionists are doing.

Amongst other things, at the Congress of Writers and Artists of China which ended recently, through the vice-president of the League, they declared that in the 19th century Marx and Engels could not have foreseen the development of productive forces through the wide-scale use of electric power and nuclear energy. Lenin was able to recognize this and that is why he said that communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country, but, say the Chinese, he was not acquainted with electronics, and consequently, his theory, too, is of no help in today's conditions of development.

On the other hand, this Chinese revisionist made himself the apologist of imperialism by stating, to the astonishment of all, that this system is not in decay or in decline, but is advancing, developing production, science, technique and the productive forces, therefore, he concludes, this new situation of the imperialist countries has brought forward new problems to be studied. "Mao Zedong thought" provides this "aid". In other words, according to this revisionist, we must reject Marxism-Leninism.

In these conditions it is our duty to arm ourselves by studying and thoroughly mastering Marxism-Leninism in order to clearly distinguish the false, so-called Marxist- Leninist theories such as "Mao Zedong thought", the theories of the "Eurocommunists" who would be better called Eurorevisionists, and other such theories.

As we see, we are facing many enemies whom we must fight together in Marxist-Leninist unity of revolutionary thought and action.

Our struggle is serious and complicated. It is a stern political, ideological and economic struggle and, in certain conditions, even an armed struggle. On this occasion, I want to stress that for us Marxist-Leninists the revolution has begun, it is a process in development, therefore we must carry it through to the end, The fundamental issue of this revolution is the seizure of state power by the proletariat by force, by violence, because the capitalist bourgeoisie which holds state power does not relinquish it willingly or through reforms.

Of course, we Marxist-Leninists are realists; we are organizers and know that the revolution is prepared objectively and subjectively. Sacrifices will be required, we and the peoples will shed our blood, we will have to be clear in our thinking, prudent and courageous in actions, fearless on attack and careful in retreat. We must also know when we can make compromises, of course, only when these are advantageous to the revolution. On this question and in everything else, both in strategy and tactics, we are guided by Marxism-Leninism.

We must take full account of the political circumstances, clearly discern the splits in the ranks of the enemies and exploit them in favour of the revolution and erode the material, political and military power of the enemies.

World capitalism, social-democracy and modern revisionism have always fought, distorted and misrepresented proletarian internationalism, the collaboration of communists, and the unity of thought and action of the communist and workers' parties. On us, the Marxist-Leninist parties, devolves the urgent task of putting all these things on the right road.

The so-called joint meetings which social-democracy, modern revisionism hold from time to time are worthless, formal, and are held to feel the pulse of the partners who take part in them. At these meetings each participant aims t o benefit himself at the expense of the others. Of course, we Marxist-Leninists need meetings, but we have no need for meetings just for the sake of meetings, fruitless meetings, meetings which allegedly affirm our existence. First of all, we need meetings to exchange experience, to co-ordinate the cardinal actions for a given situation, we need meetings of a militant character in which unity prevails and not meetings in order to quarrel and split.

The holding of these meetings depends on the seriousness of the parties, on the problems which require joint solutions, as well as on the moments when these solutions should be applied. Therefore, we think that slogans about "general meetings of communist parties (Marxist-Leninist)" should not be issued without first carefully weighing up and deciding the problems which will be discussed in them.

In our opinion, these meetings, whether bilateral, trilateral, multilateral, or general, are determined by the objective needs of the struggle, by the need to exchange experience and for special consultations about related problems which all of us face. Our Party clearly defined this view at its 7th Congress.

Now I come to another question. If we look at the present state of the communist parties (Marxist-Leninist) of Europe, along with the good results achieved in strengthening them, it seems to us that since some of them are new, they are still not properly consolidated politically, ideologically and organizationally.

We, the older parties, with greater experience, must help them. Our opinion is that this assistance cannot be provided properly by a meeting or a communique which might emerge from it, but bilateral and trilateral contacts should take place and these require patience, explanations, and real knowledge of the situations in which each party operates.

Our common problems here, in old Europe, are capital ones, but they are problems not only of Europe, but of the whole world, of all peoples, because no part of the globe, no class, no party, whatever its type and the ideology on which it is based, can isolate itself from the events which are taking place all round the globe or fail to take part in this complicated struggle. Naturally, the intensity of the struggle may not be the same everywhere and this has its own objective and subjective reasons.

We Marxist-Leninists cannot fail to see and study this revolutionary development in all its complexity, with the positive and negative aspects which it presents, and basing ourselves on this, construct our strategy and tactics.

Capitalist and revisionist Europe looks united, but it is and it is not. The interests of Western capitalism seem harmonized and co-ordinated in NATO, in "United Europe" and the European Common Market, but amongst the states which comprise these organisms there are profound contradictions and rivalries, the law of the jungle, crises, inflation and unemployment, fear of the social-imperialist Soviet Union and, above all, fear of the revolution, prevail there.

The situation in the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries of Eastern Europe, which take part in the Warsaw Treaty and COMECON, is similar.

There are confrontations between the two blocs as well as between states within the blocs, but still without weapons; the rivalries between them are becoming more and more profound. There is fierce economic competition, a frenzied arms race and struggle for the weakening of one bloc by the other.

Hence, in this situation there is unequal economic development, there are capitalist and revisionist states which are wealthy and less wealthy, dependent and less dependent, as well as states which are completely dependent, but which pose as free, independent, sovereign states as Tito's Yugoslavia, Rumania and others describe themselves. The multinational companies dominate their political and economic life. The superstructure of these states responds to this structure. In all the capitalist countries of Europe disguised fascism has its own forms and forces of organization, social-democracy has its numerous parties and modern revisionism also has its parties.

All these parties are political instruments of capital, imperialism and social-imperialism. They represent and defend the interests of various capitalist groups of one or the other bloc, of one or the other capitalist or revisionist state. Decay, rivalry and ideological and political confusion reign throughout them. All of them, with their structures and superstructures, are fighting jointly in the framework of alliances, but also in disalliance and rivalry, in order to safeguard the regime of oppression and exploitation of capitalism as a world system and of capitalism within each state; they are fighting to suppress and exploit the working class and the peoples, to put down the revolution, whether anti-imperialist or proletarian, anywhere in the world.

These are the situations in which we, the Marxist- Leninist parties, the genuine communist parties, the leadership of the proletariat and the proletariat of all countries, are fighting.

The enemies strive to keep the European proletariat split and disorganized and all we Marxist-Leninists can see this. This is the main aim of all the parties of capital, social-democracy and modern revisionism. Only the doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin assures the proletariat of unity of its ranks and its allies. That is why the bourgeoisie, capitalism, revisionism and socialdemocracy pervert, distort, fight and deny Marxism-Leninism.

In these conditions our primary task is to defend Marxism-Leninism, to apply it correctly in revolutionary ways in the conditions of each country, but not in isolation from the struggle of other peoples, to make correct analyses of particular and general situations and to form alliances while safeguarding the individuality of the Marxist- Leninist party. This is the principle of our struggle from which we must not budge, because only in this way can the struggle which capitalism is waging against us be successfully opposed.

The alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry, the progressive intellectuals, the unemployed of various strata, and the proletarian-worker emigrants who work in each separate capitalist country, is essential. Without this alliance, in this situation our struggle will remain restricted. In Germany there are many such forces, indeed, there are Albanians who have come mainly from Kosova, who, amongst other problems, have the problem of unemployment.

The Kosovars are courageous, they have the tradition that when they give their word they do not go back on it, have many fine characteristics which they preserve and a strong sense of friendship. If they make you their friend they will never forget you and will lay down their lives for you.

In order to achieve such an alliance, first of all, there must be struggle for unity of action of the proletariat, which is not achieved all that easily, because of the obstacles which the parties of the bourgeoisie, such as the social-democrats and the Christian-democrats and the demagogy of renegades from Marxism-Leninism, the modern revisionists, raise and the traditions which they have implanted. Unity is strong when it is established from below, from the base, proceeding from the real problems and needs of the workers, from the needs of the rank-and-file unionists, and in this way, according to the problems and circumstances, forms of organization for unity of action are created and the split with their reactionary union bosses becomes obvious.

The pronounced political content of the demands in strikes and demonstrations in which the new revolutionary leaders will emerge, will strengthen this unity. In the course of this struggle new forms of organization and leadership will emerge too.

Unity, this is the key problem of our Marxist-Leninist parties, the motto of which has always been and still is: "Workers of all countries unite!" This is achieved when attention is paid also to the slogan: "Workers of one country unite!"

This unity implies ceaseless struggle against those who combat it, hence, against the local capitalists and capitalist superstructure, implies struggle against the organization and ideology of political parties of the bourgeoisie and against capitalist exploitation.

Our struggle, then, is a great and extensive one. It is not easy, on the contrary, it is difficult. Naturally, this all-sided struggle does not discourage us or make us pessimistic, but gives us courage. Nevertheless, it cannot be coped with by the forces of the Marxist-Leninist party alone which, while standing firm on principles, must not be sectarian or opportunist either in thought or in action, otherwise it will withdraw into its own shell or become a revisionist party.

Therefore, our Party thinks that the problem of the unity of the working class and the forming of alliances on sound foundations with other strata and forces for specific issues, for minimum programs, in order to go over eventually to alliances of a broader character and more far-reaching programs, are decisive problems.

We think that a mature Marxist-Leninist party with some experience can and must accomplish these tasks.

First of all, of course, it is essential that it should thoroughly understand all these major problems and then solve them correctly from the political, ideological and organizational stand-points, in conformity with the concrete conditions of its own country, so that the objective and subjective factors operate for the mobilization of the masses in revolts, uprisings and revolution.

Such a thing occurred in Iran, but there the Islamic bourgeois party and not the Marxist-Leninist party led the uprising. Of course, Germany, France, or Italy are not like Iran, which is a weak link of capitalism and imperialism.

Nevertheless, the representatives of Islam were able to inspire the masses who overthrew the Shah and not only wiped out his feudal power, maintained by means of modern weapons, but also struck a heavy blow at American and the other imperialisms.

The American imperialists, placed in difficult positions, do not know who to support or how to act, whether or not to intervene in Iran with arms. Armed intervention on their part would be catastrophic, not only for the United States of America, but also for the whole capitalist world.

The Moslem believers in Iran are on the move. Not all the masses believe in Mohammed, but they all want liberation from the yoke of imperialism. Of course, the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, want to use the existing situation for their own interests. What will happen later? That i s another problem the development of which we shall watch. Nevertheless, we Marxist-Leninists draw some conclusions, seeing that the people came out in the streets, overthrew the Shah and succeeded in bringing the army, which was armed to its teeth, over to their side.

It is well known that whoever oppresses others also oppresses his own people. If the oppressed people in Iran rose against their oppressor, then why should the other oppressed peoples not rise against their own oppressors and the oppressors of others? Capitalism propagates the impossibility of this, while at the same time it organizes oppression in a thousand visible and invisible forms.


At the present time an exceptionally difficult political and economic situation has been created for imperialism and for American imperialism, in particular. Apart from other things, the problem of the dollar has become one of its weak points, because the German mark, the Japanese yen and the French franc are paying for the dollar.

Hence, the countries which use these currencies do not want the dollar, but the franc, the mark, the yen, etc.

The struggle of the proletariat, led by the Marxist-Leninists against imperialism, the local capitalism, the bourgeois state and its political parties, cannot fail to lead to blows between these latter and the proletariat and its allies. Provided our actions are revolutionary there can be no other outcome.

The reformists avoid coming to blows, indeed they vote for and support the strengthening of the armed forces, the police, and other forces protecting the capitalist system. The reformists are only for certain reforms, sufficient to deceive the proletariat and the masses; they are for their own participation in the capitalist state, hence, they are for the capitalist order.

They describe anyone who rises against the bourgeoisie and its lackeys as terrorist and anarchist. We Marxist-Leninists are against terrorism and against anarchism, both in theory and practice. However, we are preparing the revolution, hence we are bound to come to blows with the army of the bourgeoisie. For this reason the bourgeoisie is already preparing the terrain and indoctrinating the masses psychologically to create the impression amongst them that we, the communists and proletarians who rise in insurrection against the system of oppression and exploitation, are allegedly terrorists, anarchists, murderers and bank robbers and label us with other epithets which are perfectly appropriate for terrorist and anarchist gangs, but in no way appropriate for communists. It is the capitalist system which creates these gangs, which causes the degeneration of their members and encourages them to operate under pseudo-revolutionary, pseudo-proletarian and pseudo-communist labels. Originally, many members of these gangs were honest people, unemployed and homeless and suffering great hardships, but this miserable life and capitalism itself drive them to commit acts of terror, robbery and murder. In some cases these gangs are an embarrassment to the power of the bourgeoisie, but mostly they serve the bourgeoisie and so it increases them continuously and leaves them free to operate. This is the army of fascism with which the proletariat has clashed and will always clash whenever it rises in revolutionary struggle. Such gangs are the auxiliary aids of the army, the police and all the organs of coercion of the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, it is a primary task of our communist parties (Marxist-Leninist) to educate and train the proletariat and the masses day by day by engaging them in minor actions and then in bigger actions against the bourgeoisie and the various forms of oppression which it employs, especially against the army and the other means of oppression of the capitalist order. This is no easy task. For this reason the Marxist-Leninist party does not separate its revolutionary strategy from its revolutionary tactics. The essence of our struggle is to make the soldier, the son of the people, a political person so that he will not be an automaton, but will consciously sabotage the orders, discipline, and armaments of the army, erode the power of the reactionary officer caste, refuse to open fire on the people and, at the culminating moment, turn his weapons against the system, against his superiors, and join the insurgents, as occurred in Iran.

In the countries of Europe this is a thing that cannot be realized immediately, therefore, the communist parties (M-L) here have to do a great deal of work. It is clear that their subsequent activity will be easier when the genuine parties of the working class have carried out adequate work with the sons of the people before they are recruited to the army.

We must sabotage the imperialist war. This is done by preparing the masses and co-ordinating the struggle against the capitalist structure and superstructure with the struggle to sabotage the army of the bourgeoisie. The Marxist-Leninist party turns imperialist war into civil war.

This is what Marxism-Leninism teaches us, therefore, the ways and means must be found for us to develop and concretize this great lesson in practice.

This will be achieved only when we prepare the soldier for such an action, when he understands this action and is conscious of its importance, when he sabotages the munition plants and depots and the infra-structure of the bourgeois army and when, at the same time, the Marxist-Leninist party through struggle and in the course of fighting has organized the army of the armed people and, at the head of the proletariat, launches direct attacks to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and place power in the hands of the people, which is the main objective of the revolution.

All this complex struggle of the Marxist-Leninist parties, the proletariat, and the working masses cannot be waged in the same way and with the same intensity, with the same forms and methods in all the countries of Europe and the world. This is understandable and an objective fact. The situations are not the same and cannot be developed in the same way everywhere, but Marxism -Leninism, the ideology which guides us and must guide us, is the same, the objectives which we must achieve are the same, while the forces in movement and in confrontation have been defined by Marxism-Leninism on the basis of the dialectical and historical development of human society. Hence, it is up to the working class in alliance with the peasantry and other exploited strata, under the leadership of its own Marxist-Leninist communist party, to carry out the revolution and take power into its own hands.

Only a genuine Marxist-Leninist party is able to study and understand these great and important problems correctly, to organize the struggle, the revolution, and achieve the objectives which history has allocated to the proletariat and to the party as the leading and guiding force of the proletariat.[emphasis added]

We think that only a party of the Lenin-Stalin type can lead the proletarian revolution to its successful conclusion and build the new society, socialism and communism.

Assimilation by the militants of the ideology of Marx and Lenin and its rigorous application in practice with iron proletarian discipline have great importance.

The proletarian revolution demands iron proletarian discipline. Therefore, the vanguard party of the working class is characterized by unity of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist thought and action.

There must be only one line and not two in a Marxist-Leninist party. In the party there is genuine democracy within the principles and norms established, there is open and constructive discussion in which the opinions which may exist about various problems are thrashed out, there is sound Marxist-Leninist comradeship and sincere communist love for one another. Bureaucracy, liberalism and sectarianism are combated, always within these norms, and the cult of individuals, favouritism and other evils and all sorts of other hangovers inherited from the old bourgeois-capitalist society are combated.

Militancy demands great sacrifices, even up to the ultimate sacrifice, from us communists. Not all communists understand this. There are some who understand it narrowly, restricting their efforts to superficial propaganda which causes no problems or dangers to "democratic" legality and the adoption of some feeble political stands without militant mobilization and without concrete results.

The revisionist parties are parties of "permanent»"paid officials, commercial parties which act in politics in the way they run their capitalist enterprises. For example, the French revisionist party, the Italian revisionist party and others have their own trusts and receive open subsidies from the state and secret subsidies f r om the capitalist groups. Their "militancy" is a facade which deceives the proletariat and supports the capitalist apparatus and system, hence, does capital no harm.

The period through which we are passing is glorious and revolutionary, but also difficult for our parties. Our struggle must be waged with closed ranks so that we are not infiltrated by the enemy, either through provocateurs or agents, or ideologically, in order to split us. "Mao Zedong thought" is one of these weapons which is being employed at present for this purpose.

The existence and activity of a party in legality and the possibilities which the capitalist bourgeoisie may provide for it to work must not create unhealthy illusions.

We must use these possibilities to develop the revolutionary work, but the party through its sound nucleus can act better in illegality by exploiting the various forms of work which the possibilities of bourgeois "legality" permit, but not for a moment forgetting the tooth and nail struggle with the army of the bourgeoisie which will attack us.

We must not understand the problem of illegal work in a sectarian way and shut ourselves away in isolation, neglecting all the forms of the struggle which "legality" permits, although we must not forget that this legality is ephemeral. The legal work of the party is known to the enemy; whereas its illegal work, which is combined with and guides the legal work, must not be known to the enemy. The legal struggle must, without fail, achieve certain limits, certain results which serve the revolution, create the objective factors for it, prepare the wide-scale mass attacks against the oppressive capitalist system and its state.

The Party of Labour of Albania is in power. Socialist Albania is the only state of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We are encircled by savage enemies who are also your enemies and the enemies of all mankind, but all of us together also have countless friends in the world with whom we are united in struggle for the one aim, for the revolution.

We fight to expose and disarm the external enemies through our correct, principled and courageous policy which arouses respect among the peoples and fear among the enemies, both because of the good opinion which it creates about Albania and because of the recognized fact that the Albanian people know how to fight and defend themselves if they are attacked. So, for the enemy the question presents itself like this: you may well try to enter the war but how will you come out of it?! The enemy may and does have many sophisticated weapons, but Albania is strong. One of the main aims of our struggle in the international arena is to increase our friends, to assist our co-fighters and to disarm and expose the enemies. We never forget the enemies, we do not overestimate them, but neither do we underrate them, we face them without batting an eyelid, because we are determined to fight to the end, to defend ourselves against them whether in the international arena or within our own country, in ceaseless struggle against the influence which they are doing their utmost to impose on us.

Our Party is constantly working to strengthen the situation within the country in every direction. We have some difficulties, but, of course, we have more successes.

The Chinese revisionists caused us serious difficulties in the economy, but we are struggling to overcome them and we shall do so . . .

We are also encountering some difficulties in trade exchanges with the capitalist states, but we shall surmount these, too, without making even the slightest political concession, without toning down the political struggle even for a moment and without accepting the smallest credit from them. In our payments to them we shall continue to be correct, as we have always been. We shall accomplish everything with our own forces, with prudent and well-considered steps. We will always be opposed to exaggerated optimism.

The continuous strengthening of this sound situation within the country is and will continue to be the main objective of our Party. We are working to ensure that the development of our socialist economy and culture and the strengthening of the defence of the Homeland continue to advance. Above all, we are working to safeguard and strengthen the Marxist-Leninist unity of the Party within its own ranks and the unity of the Party with the people.

We are struggling to promote new cadres, that is, to prepare the leading cadres for the future, because the Party must always be young, continually rejuvenated with fresh blood. This unity has been created and tempered and will be further tempered only on the course of Marxism-Leninism.

Our close, sincere, equal relations on the course of Marxism-Leninism are a vital issue. We must defend Marxism-Leninism, must master and apply it even better than hitherto by fighting harder and more effectively in creative ways for the proletarian revolution and for genuine socialism. We must fight together, shoulder to shoulder, with closed ranks and assist each other as much as we can. We, as Marxist-Leninists in power, will help you in your revolutionary struggle. On the other hand, you help socialist Albania where the Party of Labour is in power, where the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established and the new socialist society is being built successfully, according to the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Our Party thinks that a stern struggle must be waged against the various kinds of modern revisionism and this struggle must be linked closely with the struggle against American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, capitalism and its parties in each separate state and on a world scale. We emphasize the struggle against the various kinds of modern revisionism, because this is the most recent and least unmasked variant of social-democracy in the period of imperialism, of capitalism in decay, the period of anti-imperialist revolutions and proletarian revolutions.

In essence, the various kinds of modern revisionism have the same ideological views and the same objectives:

The rejection of the Marxist-Leninist theory as a theory allegedly unsuitable for our times;

The rejection of the revolution and the seizure of power through violence;

The integration of capitalism into "socialism" by means of reforms in pluralism and in collaboration, in harmony and coexistence of classes and their ideologies;

The preservation of the existing capitalist state structures as well as of religious beliefs, while accepting only some minor formal change.

Although Togliatti's polycentrism has been achieved in general, there will be further splits and fragmentation.


Today we see a number of variants of modern revisionism:


1. Soviet modern revisionism which "dominates" in a series of revisionist parties within its sphere of influence which, in general, are the former communist parties.

This revisionist grouping disguises itself with Leninism, but fights it both as a theory and as a revolutionary practice.

The parties of this revisionist grouping operating in the capitalist countries are in opposition, but they are also making efforts to participate in the capitalist governments of their own countries. Their demagogy is very dangerous.


2. "Eurocommunism", the banner of which is carried by the Spanish, French and Italian revisionist parties as well as others which have openly rejected the Marxist-Leninist theory and the idea of the revolution, defend parliamentarianism, pluralism, reformism i n theory and in structure, reject the class struggle, preach class peace, struggle for participation in the capitalist governments and legal collaboration with capitalism, while integrating themselves into its structure and superstructure.


3. Chinese revisionism with "Mao Zedong thought" as a pseudo-Marxist, eclectic, Bukharinite, revisionist, opportunist theory with tendencies for world hegemony both in ideology and policy. Although not well crystallized, "Mao Zedong thought" is a theory of the developing Chinese bourgeoisie, which has aggressive, war-mongering, social-imperialist tendencies. This pseudo-Marxist theory rejects Marxism-Leninism while disguising itself as a theory of the revolution; likewise, it tries to disguise the struggle which Chinese revisionism is waging for world hegemony and neo-colonialism, rejects the class struggle, has a pronounced Asiatic but also world character and comes out openly against proletarian internationalism.


4. Titoism, a revisionist current which operates with out disguise against Marxism-Leninism, places itself openly in the service of world capitalism, is the builder of an anarcho-syndicalist pseudo-socialist structure with all the anti-socialist and anti-Marxist-Leninist features. Titoism is a friend and supporter of the "Eurocommunists" and is trying to become their leader, but without success.

This current is also making efforts to influence China, to set it more firmly on the capitalist course, and this i n fluence has begun to have effect in several directions, although China aims to create and is creating its capitalist system in its own way.


5. Various eclectic social-religious, social-bourgeois, anti-Marxist currents which pop up continually like toadstools after the rain.

Our parties must bear in mind that these revisionist variants, which are all on the attack against socialism and the revolution, also have their theories with which they want to manipulate the masses within the country and outside it, on the international plane. The theories of "three worlds", "the non aligned", "the developing world", or theories like that which claims that "socialism is being built everywhere" are opium for the peoples, are antipopular theories which are emerging as a reaction to the anti-imperialist situation and serve precisely to protect the capitalist system from the attacks of the masses, to hinder the anti-imperialist movement and struggle of the peoples.

These pseudo-liberation theories create illusions and try to paralyse the revolutionary drive of the masses by creating the opinion among them that they are at work, "in struggle", and that what they are doing, or appear to be doing, is sufficient.

Through the pompous conferences, the broad meetings, through the exchanges of government delegations and parties of these countries amongst themselves and the great publicity which accompanies these numerous manifestations, the bourgeois press is striving to confuse and daze world opinion and sometimes even the new, unformed Marxists.

All these things constitute the complexity of our struggle. In our fundamental fight, in our strategy and tactics, in our daily struggle and activity we must always take all these actions of our enemies into account and unmask them openly and without respite. It is for this reason that we must temper our parties every day, must arm them with our Marxist-Leninist theory and must safeguard and strengthen the Marxist-Leninist ideological unity of the party. In this way alone we can and will find our bearings correctly in our complicated, but glorious struggle, because this is the great struggle for the liberation of peoples from capitalist bondage, the struggle for the triumph of the proletarian revolution on all continents.

October 08, 2023

Enver Hoxha on the State of Israel

"Israel, a state spawned by imperialism and reactionary Zionism in the Near East, is like a pistol amidst the Arab peoples and states, in this zone of economic and military importance. This region has been a centre of clashes between British, French, American and various other imperialists. While oppressing the Arab peoples, trampling their freedom, independence, rights and sovereignty underfoot, all these wolves have mercilessly exploited the wealth of the countries which make up this region, and in order to perpetuate this exploitation they have built up a broad network of agents, some of whom they placed at the head of these peoples and defended with their colonial armies and their gun-boat diplomacy. However, with the passage of time, hrough the struggle of the Arab peoples themselves, which is part of the general struggle against Nazi-fascism yesterday and against imperialism today, these peoples won their freedom and independence, created and consolidated their sovereign states."

"Some of them, however, are headed by cliques of capitalists and mediaeval feudal lords, who not only keep their peoples under savage oppression, but are blind tools, sold out to the British and American imperialists. The king of Jordan, from a family traditionally agents of Britain, the former monarch and Imam of Yemen, the king of Saudi Arabia and others, are of this type."

"Today Israel and Jordan are two allegedly independent states, but in reality they are two hotbeds of danger created by American and British imperialism, which hinder the Arab peoples in the development and strengthening of their independence. Israel has continually provoked the Arab countries, has continually created armed border incidents, has attacked Egypt and Syria and has the tendency to expansion and domination."

"Recently it has provoked Syria and is preparing for war. There is a smell of oil and gunpowder. Whenever the interests of the imperialist monopolies in this zone are threatened, the provocateur Israel launches military actions. This is what occurred when the Suez Canal was nationalized by Egypt, this is what is occurring now when the interests of the Anglo-American monopolies and the routes to their oil concessions are threatened."

(Enver Hoxha, The Anti-Imperialist Struggle of the Arab Peoples is Just, 1967)

September 04, 2023

William Z. Foster on Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism

“Stalin has further developed Marxism-Leninism through many invaluable theoretical accomplishments. His
principal contributions to Marxian theory lie in indicating the path of the actual building of socialism in the U.S.S.R. Thus, his powerful polemics against Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin and their counterrevolutionary affiliates comprised the greatest ideological struggle of our times. They clarified every aspect of the vast and unique problem of building socialism in one country, and surveyed the whole position of international capitalism. They resulted in a decisive victory for the leadership of the Communist Party and, thereby, of socialism.”  

 “Stalin has raised the whole Marxist-Leninist structure still another stage higher by revealing the path to the actual building of socialism and the development toward communism.“  

“Leninism-Stalinism also was the theoretical basis of the international policy of the people’s front, the historically imperative tactic to unite the masses of workers, farmers, professionals and small business people in the capitalist and colonial countries in effective struggle against fascism and for democracy.”  

(William Z. Foster, “Lenin and Stalin as Mass Leaders” The Communist, Vol. XVIII, No. 12, December 1939)

[source]

August 20, 2023

Is Socialism "Totalitarian"?

As socialists and upholders of the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are often bombarded by liberals and reactionaries with accusations of "totalitarianism".  

Within the context of the Capitalist media and ideology, “totalitarianism” may seem like a concept which  is incontestable, for, as one indoctrinated in Liberal ideology would understand, there exists an eternal dichotomy between the “government” and the elements of society which are not the “government”, which includes most predominantly the “free market”. 

Thus, to one who is under the fetters of bourgeois ideology, it may seem only logical that a Socialist country such as the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be perceived as “totalitarian”, due to the abundant anti-Communist propaganda targeting it.

In most of bourgeois academia, “totalitarianism” particularly is defined as a societal situation in which there exists a “single, unifying ideology” which the government adheres to, government control of the economy, and a government monopoly on all public services, including housing, a personality cults venerating certain figures, mass usage of secret police and general mass surveillance of the population, extensive state terrorism, and a lack of consequential public elections.

Most Socialist states are accused of being “totalitarian”, and reactionaries of all sorts accuse Marxism generally of seeking total control of society, with various anti-Communist myths assisting to reinforce this falsehood.

However, “totalitarianism”, like so many other examples of reactionary anti-Communist ideology, is not only an easily refutable concept, but is in fact a projection of Capitalist society itself. That is, nearly all aspects of “totalitarianism” in reality, exist in Capitalist society, particularly in Imperialist countries such as the United States of America, to varying extents. 

“Totalitarianism” has been employed as a term for decades by both opportunist and pseudo-Marxist groupings (such as Trotskyists, who first called the Soviet government “totalitarian defeationists”, and others on the anti-Stalinist “left”) and reactionaries with the purposeful intention, not only to attack Socialism, particularly Stalinism, but to actively conflate it with Fascism.

Were the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc “totalitarian” in their political systems?
 
Before remarking about the hypocritical aspects of the Liberal conception of “totalitarianism”, it is firstly more pertinent to refute the claim that the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies of Eastern Europe were “totalitarian”, using the bourgeois definition of that concept. 

It is important to note that the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc, with the exception of Albania, beyond the year 1956 will not be accounted for, as that period contained the abandonment of the construction of Socialism, de-Stalinization, and other economic, political, and ideological deviations.

Among the most vulgar claims made by anti-Communist propagandists regarding the Soviet Union was that of its political and governmental system. The claims in this instance propagates the notion that Josef Stalin was a dictator who was omnipotent in all aspects of Soviet life, with faux elections, no institutions or legality which permitted criticism against the government and Communist party, and those who resisted the party line were simply purged by the secret police and either liquidated or damned to a GULag, with the more prominent dissenting officials being subjected to show trials supplemented by fabricated evidence of criminality and with confessions being attained via torture and other physically vile means. Thus, in the mind of the bourgeois ideologist, fulfilling one fundamental aspect of this “totalitarian” system, with Stalin allegedly maintaining totalistic domination of every aspect of Soviet society. 

Similar assertions are made about other Socialist countries in Eastern Europe, that being of politically despotic and stagnate police states.

Despite these claims, however, the political system of the Soviet Union was in fact in deep contradiction to this understanding.

In truth, the system of governance in the Soviet Union was among the most democratic and egalitarian societies ever achieved. Contrary to the falsehoods, the Soviet political system was based on a system of Soviet (council) democracy by which workers, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, etc. were enfranchised, and would regularly elect officials into representative posts into increasing central chambers of the government. This democratic system was even witnessed and documented in detail by outside observers, and was indeed codified in the 1936 Soviet Constitution, with, for instance, article 95 of the constitution stating:

“The Soviets of Working People's Deputies of territories, regions, autonomous regions, areas, districts, cities and rural localities (stanitsas, villages, hamlets, kishlaks, auls) are elected by the working people of the respective territories, regions, autonomous regions, areas, districts, cities or rural localities for a term of two years.”

Further, these officials were not necessarily required to hold membership in the Communist party, with non-party member holders of posts from citizen organizations, workplace groups, and other smaller groupings being permitted. Even former landlords and white guards from the time of the Russian Civil War were, upon Stalin’s insistence, largely permitted to vote in elections.

Stalin himself was elected in this democratic manner in multiple instances, and even attempted to retire from his post many times, but was refused on account of his popularity among the people.

Other aspects in Soviet society such as criticism of the government were not merely tolerated, but actively encouraged, with it being understood that a lack of criticism from the people was indicative of bureaucratism, disconnection, and a general lack of understanding of the socioeconomic condition of society, furthermore, criticism remained a core aspect of the internal Soviet government, namely in the form of Democratic Centralism. Similar to the freedom to partake in democratic elections, freedom of criticism was also provided in the Soviet Constitution of 1936.

It was even the case that the publication of statements and articles from the oppositionist elements of the Communist party was allowed, and was only ceased once they became an open threat to people’s power in the Soviet Union.

Other claims made by anti-Communists, such as the Moscow Trials being fraudulent, are likewise false, with those involved in the trials all having committed provable acts of subversion and sabotage against the people’s government.

One of the most common criticisms of the political system of the Soviet Union and the Socialist states of Eastern Europe was, however, their one-party states. Many say that elections were necessarily unfair in these countries due to their lack of the bourgeois democratic system of multi-parties, yet, this is untrue. This criticism is communicative of the Liberals’ lack of understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which fundamentally functions in a very different manner than the bourgeois dictatorship. Within the Socialist electoral system in Eastern Europe, individual candidates were chosen by the voters to represent them, and many were not even members of the Communist party, with many, particularly in the Eastern European People’s Democracies, being from ideologically distinct factions, such as former social-democrats. Furthermore, a one-party state is not any more restrictive or authoritarian than the multi-party arrangements in bourgeois democracies. The governments of countries such as the Soviet Union were ruled by the proletariat, and the proletarian dictatorship only required a single party to represent its class interests, any specific decisions regarding the development of Socialism in a dictatorship of the proletariat can be discussed and decided upon fully within the context of a single party. In most Socialist states, the citizens never particularly demanded more parties, and indeed, more parties beyond the leading Communist party would have made decisions regarding the Socialist state more cumbersome.

As we can understand, the political system of Socialist states in Eastern Europe were, even by the definition adopted by pro-Capitalist academics, not “totalitarian”, but were flourishing democracies with a degree of egalitarianism and industriousness to overcome the bourgeois pseudo-democracies a thousand-fold, with factors which inhibit democratic rule in the Capitalist world such as lucrativity, class, and so forth being either greatly reduced or excised entirely in the Socialist states.

Were Socialist economies and media “totalitarian”?
 
Beyond this, proponents of the concept of Socialism being “totalitarian” will often attempt to cite the media and economy of these countries, claiming they are exclusively under the control of the central government. To fully refute these claims, it has become unavoidable to note the projection and hypocrisy on the part of these Capitalist ideologists.

To Liberals, one of their most upheld concepts is that of the “free press”, that in order to maintain a functional “democracy”, the media must necessarily be free from the “fetters” of the “government” in order to give the electorate an “informed decision” on whom they should vote for. Thus, to the Liberal, the government being in control of the media, regardless of if it is a Capitalist or Socialist government, is inherently authoritarian and otherwise anti-democratic.

However, this is yet another example of the fallacious dichotomy between the “government versus the free market”. Liberals do not care if this media is controlled by mega-corporations which propagate imperialist fabrications to further their class interests and are motivated to a much more significant extent by making more abundant profits and concocting the most bombastic story about their national enemies rather than bringing the public truth about global events and issues.

The media in Socialist states was present for furthering the class interests of the people and providing the truth about the world. It may have been significantly influenced by the government, yet that was a government for-and-by the working class.

To understand how valid this Liberal understanding of the “free press” is, let us take the most obvious example of a Capitalist society on this planet currently, the United States of America.

In the United States, merely six corporate entities hold ownership of 90% of the news outlets, with these news outlets being extremely supportive of American imperialist efforts and the internal Capitalist system. The Liberal claim of individual voters being able to “choose” what media is correct and extract from the “marketplace of ideas” in a libertine manner is hastily refutable when it is considered that nearly all major news outlets in the United States alone are all deeply in favor of Capitalism, of Imperialism, of the United States government, and of the status quo in general. The only ideological diversity in the Capitalist media is simply what “flavor” of Capitalism you would prefer; corporatocratic austerity, petit-bourgeois exploitation and disorganization, or welfare statism founded on the basis of superprofits extracted from the imperialized countries. Therefore, we can conclude that the “free press” in Capitalist states is no more “free” than a state-press, and unlike the press under Socialism, this de-facto state-press of the Capitalists is clearly anti-proletarian and imperialist, with it existing largely to help provide the ideological justification for Capitalism, or, in other words, reinforce the Capitalist superstructure of society.

As to the notion that a centrally planned economy is “totalitarian”, this omits the nature of the government under Socialism. Not only was a significant portion of the Socialist economies under control of agricultural collectives, the government which owned the industry was under the control of the people, with the Communist party alone having most of its membership strictly proletarian. The five-year plans were a popular effort, and democratically decided. To say that the “government”, and only the government, of the Soviet Union and other Socialist countries controlled the economy is an anti-dialectical statement, for it fails to comprehend the greater nature of the society under Socialism. The government under Socialism is ruled by the proletariat, and it exercises control over the economy indirectly via the state, yet this is worker-control nonetheless.

Why “totalitarianism” fails to transcend Capitalist hypocrisy
 
Finally, now that it has been shown that the concept of Communist “totalitarianism” is false, it is obvious now that “totalitarianism” is truly little more than Liberal projection concerning their own economic system.

Nearly all aspects of totalitarianism exist in Capitalist states. The media is under the control of billionaire-oligarchs and is used to maintain their class dictatorship, there exists a unifying ideology under Capitalism, that being, commonly, Liberalism, by which most bourgeois parties operate under, however, the propaganda of the bourgeoisie merely makes it seem as if we do not live under any particular ideology, with it insisting that the present bourgeois democracies are “the standard political system”.

While Liberals claim that “command economies”, or rather, centrally planned economies are an instrumental of governmental totality in society, at the same time, their Capitalist economies are controlled by oligarchs who maintain total control over the lives of their workers, being able to fire the, lower their wages, and extend their working hours on their own will alone. While Liberals will claim that the Soviet system of free and universal housing was totalitarian, they are perfectly willing to have millions go without housing and starve in the street merely if they lack the wealth, wealth which they are unable to achieve due to the greater issues inherent in Capitalism.

While it is said that Socialist states lack democracy, concurrently, most Capitalist regimes are effective one-party states whose leaders are determined by familiar ties and particularly wealth, with elections which exclude dissenting parties and with corporate “donations” having major influence. There supposedly exists a cult of personality under Socialism, yet Capitalist societies similarly worship leaders, being media-related, political, or historical.

"Totalitarianism" is a concept of Bourgeois propaganda which must be combated
 
In truth, “totalitarianism” is a totally Capitalist invention, and the only people who uphold “totalitarianism” are Capitalists themselves, or more particularly, Fascists.

Totalitarianism as a concept has no place in Marxist discourse, as it is used almost exclusively by Liberals and reactionaries to dismiss Socialism. The term “totalitarianism” is founded on an anti-Marxist and simplistic understanding of society, that the government is merely a static force with no relation to the economy and greater society, that the “free market” is indeed a provider of freedom, and so on.

As such, “totalitarianism” should be abandoned as a concept for what it is - solely Capitalist propaganda used to attack our revolutionary ideology.

  (First published in January 2023. Revisions made in August 2023)

 

July 25, 2023

Enver Hoxha on Imperialism

"To make the inter-imperialist contradictions absolute, to underestimate the basic
contradiction, namely the contradiction between the revolution and the counter-revolution, to make only the exploitation of contradictions within the camp of the enemy the centre of the strategy while forgetting the most important point — the strengthening of the revolutionary spirit and the development of the revolutionary movement of the working class and the peoples -, to leave the preparation for the revolution aside, all this is in absolute contrasts to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism. It is anti-Marxist to preach unity with the allegedly weaker imperialism for the struggle against the stronger one under the pretext of exploiting contradictions, to side with the national bourgeoisie in order to resist the bourgeoisie of another country. Lenin stressed that the tactic of the exploiting of contradictions between the enemies should be used to raise and not to reduce the general level of proletarian class consciousness, the revolutionary spirit, the confidence of the masses in struggle and victory.

The Party of Labour of Albania has consistently adhered to these immortal teachings and always consistently adheres to them."

Theory and Practice of the Revolution, 1977

"The principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" cannot be applied if it is a matter of the two imperialist superpowers: the USA and the Soviet Union. These two superpowers are fighting with all means against the revolution and against socialism, they undertake all possible efforts to sabotage the revolution and socialism and suffocate both in blood. The two superpowers are fighting in order to expand their rule and exploitation to different peoples and countries. Experience shows that they attack brutally first in the one region and next in another in order to reach for the peoples with their bloodstained claws and that they furiously form up for attack so that they can oust each other. As soon as the people of one country succeeds at shaking off the rule of the one superpower, the other immediately approaches. The Middle East and Africa fully confirm this."

Theory and Practice of the Revolution, 1977

"He who upholds the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet social-imperialists and considers it a just and necessary action cannot be considered a Marxist, he is an anti-Marxist. Those self-styled Marxist-Leninists who try to "argue" that the Afghan people and the elements of the middle and even of the top bourgeoisie who fight against the Soviet occupiers should not be described as patriots cannot be called Marxists, they are anti-Marxists. He who thinks and acts in this way has understood nothing of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism on alliances, on national liberation fronts and struggles"

Selected Works, Deepening of the World Economic Crisis

"We must return to these works and make an especially thorough and detailed study of Lenin's work of genius — Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. From a careful study of this work, we shall see how the revisionists, and the Chinese leaders among them, distort the Leninist thought on imperialism, how they understand the aims, strategy and tactics of imperialism. Their writings, declarations, stands and actions show that their View of the nature of imperialism is completely Wrong, they see it from counterrevolutionary and anti-Marxist positions, as did all the parties of the Second International and their ideologists, Kautsky and company, whom Lenin ruthlessly exposed.

If we study this work of Lenin's carefully and faithfully adhere to his analysis and conclusions of genius, we shall see that imperialism in our days fully retains those same characteristics that Lenin described, that the Leninist definition of our epoch as the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions remains unshaken, and that the triumph of the revolution is inevitable.

As is known, Lenin begins his analysis of imperialism with the concentration of production and capital and the monopolies. Today, too, the phenomena of the concentration and centralization of production and capital can be analysed correctly and scientifically only on the basis of the Leninist analysis of imperialism.

A characteristic of present-day capitalism is the ever increasing concentration of production and capital, which has led to the merging or absorption of small enterprises by the powerful ones. A consequence of this is the mass concentration of the work force in big trusts and concerns. These enterprises have also concentrated in their hands huge productive capacities and resources of energy and raw materials of incalculable proportions. At present the big capitalist enterprises are also utilizing nuclear energy and the newest technology, which belong to these enterprises exclusively."

Imperialism and the Revolution, 1978 

"History shows that every big capitalist country aims to become a great world power, to overtake and surpass the other great powers, and compete with them for world domination. The roads the big bourgeois states have followed to turn into imperialist powers have been various; they have been conditioned by definite historical and geographical circumstances, by the development of the productive forces, etc. The road of the United States of America is different from that followed by the old European powers like Britain, France and Germany, which were formed as such on the basis of colonial occupations.

After the Second World War, the United States of America was left the greatest capitalist power. On the basis of the great economic and military potential it possessed, and through the development of neo-colonialism, it was transformed into an imperialist superpower. But before long another superpower was added to this, the Soviet Union, which after Stalin's death and after the betrayal of Marxism-Leninism by the Khrushchevite leadership, was transformed into an imperialist superpower. For this purpose it exploited the great economic, technical and military potential built up by socialism.

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

Imperialism and the Revolution, 1978

July 02, 2023

On the Revisionist Notion of "Actually Existing Socialism"

 

Introduction

Among the lexicon employed by groupings of modern revisionists is that of “actually existing socialism”, commonly abbreviated to “AES”. The concept of “actually existing socialism”, by its most common meaning, refers to modern countries which are deemed by its proponents to be Socialist states, who they commonly believe to possess a ruling Communist party and government who remain stalwart to the goals of developing Communism and combating bourgeois influence.

The countries which are most frequently designated “actually existing socialism” in the modern epoch include the People’s Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Cuba. Other countries, such as Venezuela, are occasionally included in this grouping as well.

To the upholder of the concept of “actually existing socialism”, these five countries must be upheld unconditionally, with little criticism, and with total mental vacuity. Within the understanding of this concept, countries such as the modern People’s Republic of China represent the apex of socialism in the modern world, are total dictatorships of the proletariat, and are anti-imperialist powers whose governments are actively working for the overthrow of the the American and European imperialists and liberation of the proletariat globally.

However, like so many other concepts found within revisionist and opportunist trends, “actually existing socialism” represents an incorrect position.

Why the concept of "actually existing socialism" is false and revisionary

The most clear mistake of this concept of “AES” is that of what it believes is modern socialism. The very fact that “actually existing socialism” upholders view Laos, Vietnam, and particularly modern China as being socialist states indicates the reasoning behind their conclusions - what constitutes “actually existing socialism”, according to its proponents, is not actually based on objective economic relations that exist in these countries, but merely based on symbolism and rhetoric which their ruling parties maintain.

In other words, if the Communist Party of China were to rename itself to the “social-democratic party of China”, cease claiming to adhere to Marxism-Leninism, and other rhetorical and aesthetical changes, while still maintaining the exact same economic system, these revisionists would no longer consider China to be an example of “actually existing socialism”.

Inversely, if a country such as the Russian Federation, which is in all respects a capitalist state, where to officially readopt the Soviet flag, change its name to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, while still maintaining the same economic system, “actually existing socialism” upholders would suddenly consider Vladimir Putin to be the next Stalin and suddenly consider Russia to be “AES”.

Thus, from merely viewing one aspect of the revisionists’ concept of “actually existing socialism”, we can conclude that it is built off a fundamentally anti-Marxist conception, that analyzing really existing economic relations in a society is trivial, if not meaningless to actually determining if a country is socialist or not.

The history of the concept of "actually existing socialism"

To further attain sapience of the revisionism and opportunism of this “actually existing socialism” concept, it is critical to note that the concept of “actually existing socialism”, alternatively known as “real socialism”, itself was conceived in the revisionist, Brezhnevite Soviet Union and the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

With revisionism often being of a dogmatic form, the Soviet revisionists purposefully developed the concept of “actually existing socialism” as a means to legitimize their deviations from Marxism and social-imperialist efforts. Within the context of both the Albanian-Soviet and Sino-Soviet splits, the anti-revisionists of countries such as Albania were able to realize, and combat ideologically, the revisionism in the Soviet Union, its failures to conform with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and most critically its restoration of capitalism.

In reaction to this, the ideologists of the Soviet revisionist government and communist attempted to refocus the concerns of the communist movement from ideological content to vacuous adherence to the line of the Soviet Union and its allies merely for the sake of the Soviet Union claiming to represent a socialist state. From this, the Soviet revisionists used this concocted “real socialism” idea to denounce those who repudiated the capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union and its other reactionary policies.

Conclusion

From viewing the history of “actually existing socialism” as an ideological concept, it is clear to all that followers of “AES”, particularly those in the modern day, do not care for actual dedication to Marxism and the goals of revolution, but rather symbolism and demagogy. Furthermore, to those who focus most of their efforts on defending “actually existing socialism”, they have really adopted a position which is retrogressive to the communist movement generally.

The goals of revolutionary communism are not, nor have they ever been, to dogmatically and uncritically uphold a small selection of countries, regardless of if they are socialist or not, but to bring about revolution, and from it socialism, to one’s own country. While in certain instances, a socialist country, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, may be viewed as being the “flagship” of the socialist revolution, this, that is, the theory of Socialism in One Country, which we adhere to, is still distinct from the modern understanding of “actually existing socialism”.

Regarding the character of the five countries designated as “actually existing socialism”, they have all deviated greatly from Marxism. Countries, such as the modern People’s Republic of China, have even adopted a social-imperialist character. All of the economies of the countries of “existing socialism” are directed upon a profit motive, are run in the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie if not bourgeoisie-proper, and have “communist” parties who are motivated more by bourgeois nationalism and class collaborationism over the goals of revolution and socialism. Thus, just as it was during the Cold War a century ago, defending “actually existing socialism” means to implicitly defend social-imperialism, capitalism, and anti-Marxist trends as well as revisionism.

The concept of “actually existing socialism” has, for the totality of its existence, been used to further ideological stagnation in the Marxist movement, to affirm revisionism and deviationism, and to defend social-imperialism. The mentality which is brought about by following “actually existing socialism” is fundamentally an ill-productive one that will slow down the development of revolution. That is, this mentality greatly favors ideological stagnation and dogmatism over innovation and revolutionism.

For revolutionary communists everywhere, the chief aim of our movement should be the building of socialism via a revolution at home, in our own countries. Let us not stagnate our ideological development via worshiping this small assortment of supposedly socialist countries.

June 09, 2023

Analysis on the Juche Idea and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism

Introduction 

Topics relating to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and, more particularly, its proclaimed ideology — Juche — is one which generates controversy amongst modern revolutionary circles. Certain comrades perceive the DPRK as a modern socialist state and active proletarian dictatorship whom they openly uphold, whereas others regard the DPRK and its ideology of Juche as revisionist deviations from Marxist theory.
 
To understand the correct position on this issue, we must first articulate what Juche is from an anti-revisionist prospective. Therefore, what are the contents of this ideology?

The fundamentals of Juche

Juche, or more fully, the Juche Idea, has a definition in the Korean language which pertains to self-reliance and independence.  These concepts are among the most defining features of Juche. While it is the case that self-reliance in both economics and politics for the socialist state are desirable, we must understand the difference between self-reliance in the socialist sense, and the self-reliance advocated by Juche. For the former, the concept of socialist self-reliance was elaborated upon excellently by Enver Hoxha in his work Imperialism and the Revolution, during which he states:

"In no case do the capitalists provide their credits for the construction of socialism. They provide them to destroy socialism. Therefore a genuine socialist country never accepts credits, in any form, from a capitalist, bourgeois or revisionist country."

However, the concept of self-reliance and independence as promoted by Juche differs greatly from this understanding. In the text On Nationalism by Kim Jong Il:

"When independence of a country and nation is safeguarded and its independent development achieved, the destiny of the masses of the people, the members of the country and nation, can be successfully carved out and independent and creative life provided to them. In order to defend the independence of a country and nation and ensure its prosperity, it is important to have a correct understanding of nationalism. Only then can people achieve the unity of their nation."
Thus the "self-reliance" and "independence" as upheld by Juche is not the same self-reliance as upheld by non-revisionist theorists such as Enver Hoxha, which is employed to prevent the restoration of capitalism and consistent building of socialism, but is, fundamentally, the same "national independence" and autarkic economics as conceived by fascists and other reactionary figures such as Mussolini or Hitler. In more particular wording, this "self-reliance" and "independence" which is promoted both by fascism and Juche is one that omits class conflict and struggle in favor of class collaborationist and bourgeois nationalist aims.

Indeed, this class collaborationist manner of thought projected itself into North Korean economic and political policy.  From the early decades of the DPRK exclusively, the Workers' Party of Korea is known to have promoted a line of a "shared" class dictatorship with bourgeois elements and denied the need for a proletarian dictatorship (similar to the revisionist concept of New Democracy in Maoism).
 
As to the relationship between Juche and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, in the words of the Korean Friendship Association:
 
"Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism is an integrated system of the idea, theory and method of Juche and the great revolutionary ideology representative of the Juche era. The Juche idea is, in a word, an idea that the masses of the people are the masters and motive force of the revolution and construction. [...] By applying Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism, it holds fast to the principles of Juche in ideology, independence in politics, self-sufficiency in the economy and self­reliance in national defence, values the Juche character and national identity, and strictly adheres to them."

Hence from the description of this ideology which has been provided, we may understand that Kimilsungism represents Juche in its political application to society. But what is more, Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism is said to be applicable not only to the conditions of Korea, but universally!  

 The Juche deviation from Scientific Socialism

Many of the foreign supporters of Juche  — most of whom being self-styled "Marxist–Leninists" — regard Juche as simply Leninist doctrine applied to the material circumstances of Korea, and therefore accept its many dissimilarities from Marxism no matter how stark they may be. While this notion contains an aspect of truth, this is hastily refutable when considering the stance of the main theorists of Juche themselves. 

When reading the library of Juche material created by both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, we see near-omnipresent references to the "originality" of the Juche Idea and Kimilsungism:

"The Juche philosophy is an original philosophy which has been evolved and systematized with its own principles. The historic contribution made by the Juche philosophy to the development of philosophical thoughts lies not in its advancement of Marxist materialistic dialectics, but in its clarification of new philosophical principles centred on man. [...] The Juche philosophy is an original philosophy which is fundamentally different from the preceding philosophy in its task and principles. That is why we should not understand the Juche philosophy as a philosophy that has developed materialistic dialectics, nor should we attempt to prove the originality and advantages of the Juche philosophy by arguing one way or the other about the essence of the material world and the general law of its motion which were clarified by
the Marxist philosophy. " (Emphasis is mine)
To further articulate the nature which Kimilsungism and Juche view themselves in relation to "preceding philosophy" (that being Leninism):

"Lenin developed Marxism and advanced Leninism in accordance with the new historical conditions whereby capitalism had entered the phase of imperialism, with the result that he inspired the working class and the rest of the people to the struggle to destroy imperialist strongholds and to achieve freedom and liberation. This marked the beginning of transition from capitalism to socialism. Our leader [Kim Il Sung] created the great Juche idea after acquiring a deep insight into the requirements of a new era when the oppressed and humiliated masses of the people became masters of their own destiny. Thus he developed their struggle for independence onto a higher plane and opened up the age of Juche, a new era in the development of human history." (Emphasis is mine)
Therefore, in spite of the Western revisionists' thesis of Juche merely being an application of Marxism–Leninism to the peculiarities of North Korea, the founding ideologists of Juche instead hold that Juche represents not an application of Marxism, but an "original" ideology which transcends Marxism. Further, the Jucheist ideologists themselves hold that this "original idea" is not merely restricted in scope to Korea, but to all countries.  

Ergo ipso facto, Juche openly regards itself as a deviation and revision from Marxism, albeit under the heavily euphemistic terms of "original" and "development". This open declaration of revisionism which Kimilsungism provides upon itself is, notably, uncommon amongst revisionist groupings. For instance, Maoists attempt to pose as "Marxist–Leninist–Maoists" and assert that their omission of the theory of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin in favor of the chauvinistic revisions of Mao and Gonzalo are in fact "dialectical developments" to Marxist theory. This is not the case with Juche.

It is relevant that we understand the difference between revisions and augmentations of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary theory is not "replaced" as the revisionist ideology of Juche maintains, rather, it is adapted and made more potent with the experience of revolutionaries over decades. When Lenin conceived of the concept of imperialism, he did not regard Marxism — whose founders of Marx and Engels did not live in the epoch of imperialism — as a "restriction" to be "replaced" with his own "original idea". Rather, he incorporated his developments into the already potent arsenal of Marxism; making the international revolutionary movement all the more stronger.  

The Juche reversion to Anti-Dialectical Idealism 

Juche ideology holds that one of its core aspects is that of being "man-centered". This prospective is taken to the extent that Juche maintains that man is the "master of everything". Kim Jong Il states:
"That the world outlook of the materialistic dialectics [dialectical materialism] is the premise for the Juche philosophy does not mean that the Juche philosophy has merely inherited and developed the materialistic dialectics. Although it would be impossible to acquire a scientific understanding of the world and transform it without the materialistic dialectical understanding of the adjective material world, you cannot draw the conclusion that man is the master of the world and plays a decisive role in transforming the world simply from the proposition of
materialism that the world is made of material and from the dialectical principle that the world ceaselessly changes and develops. Only on the basis of the clarification of man’s essential qualities which distinguish man radically from all the other material beings can man’s outstanding position and role as the master of the world capable of transforming the world be clarified. Only on he basis of man’s essential qualities as a social being with independence, creativity and consciousness as scientifically clarified by the Juche philosophy has the basic principle that man is the master of the world and plays the decisive role in transforming the world been clarified."
This quasi-bourgeois humanist  stance which is propagated represents a clear distortion of Marxist dialectical and historical materialism. While humanity represents the most advance species to exist on this world, man is nonetheless trenchantly, if not entirely, effected by the material circumstance which encircle us. Human will exclusively is not what advanced society forwards, but the development of the productive forces and advancement of class society and later class struggle.
 
To this end, Kimilsungism takes on the view that society is determined and advanced solely by the level of "will" which the "popular masses" maintain, rather than material circumstances. 

Jucheist "Anti-Revisionism": Revisionism in a new form

Juche, despite its vast amount of ideological revisions and deviations, still asserts itself to be of an anti-revisionist stance!

Yet when were the instances where the Korean Workers' Party made an effort to combat Maoist or Khrushchevite revisionism? We seldom hear of the "Sino-Korean" or "Soviet-Korean" splits. This is of course due to the fact that North Korea, since the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, has consistently aligned itself with revisionism in one regard or another. This is so much the case, that the Workers' Party of Korea remained servile to the social-imperialist Soviet Union to the end, with Kim Il Sung avidly supporting Micheal Gorbachev, remarking that:

“This new change now taking place in the Soviet Union [i.e. the final dismantlement of socialism] is unthinkable apart from the energetic activities of Comrade M. S. Gorbachev, a staunch Marxist-Leninist.”

Furthermore, it is often said  — commonly by the Western bourgeois media and academia  — that the DPRK itself has remained "Stalinist", in contrast to the "liberalized" (Khruschevite) Soviet Union. As to the truth of this assertion, while the DPRK never fully "de-Stalinized", it did not remain stalwart to the ideals of Stalin and other theorists and leaders of Marxism. Rather, it went on a direction analogous to that of Romania under the revisionist leadership of Nicolae Ceausescu. That is to say, Juche neither is Stalinist nor Khruschevite, but rather, like Ceausescuism, represents a bourgeois nationalist deviation from Marxism itself. North Korea, like former Ceausescuist Romania, is merely Stalinist in symbols exclusively, while revisionist in actions.

Hence, the notion that Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism is "anti-revisionist" is of similar validity to the notion that Maoists are "anti-revisionists". That is, the "anti-revisionism" of Kimilsungism is not anti-revisionism, but itself a defense of revisionism, as is the case with Maoist "anti-revisionism". This false "anti-revisionism" which is in truth a new form of revisionism is understood as being neo-revisionism.  
 

The "followers" of Juche outside of the DPRK

Juche, as noted previously, asserts itself to be an ideology which is of a universal scope. It is therefore important to remark on the few followers of the Juche Idea outside of the DPRK itself.
 
There exist very few parties which profess the Juche Idea as a leading ideology which are external to the DPRK. The closet there is to such a thing are dozens of paltry "study groups" spread across various countries, all of which are entirely absent of political influence and connection to the proletariat, and all function with nearly theistic, cultist reverence to the icons of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. There additionally exist "Korean Friendship Associations", made up largely of people who hold dual-memberships with various revisionist parties in Western countries.         

Most other foreign Jucheists are known to hold neo-fascist and racist views, with there existing a trend of so-called "White Nationalist Juche" which holds meager influence across various reactionary circles. It must be said that these adherents of Juche are not deviating from it (as Juche itself represents a deviation), but "faithfully and creatively applying" Juche to their "material conditions", with them likely being influenced by Kim Jong Il's works which bear titles such as "The Idea of a Multinational, Multiracial Society Means Destruction of the Korean Nation".    

Thus we can see clearly that from the lack of any notable Jucheist organization outside of Korea itself, Juche — being a chauvinistic deviation — is not at all universal, and the supposed "age of Juche" which Kim Il Sung "bestowed" upon the international proletariat remains a mere pipe-dream which is influenced by a revisionist's megalomania. 

What are Stalinists' Stances towards the Modern DPRK?

Juche is inseparable from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We Marxist–Leninist–Stalinists are unconditionally opposed to all forms of revisionism. For revisionism is capitalism in a new form, and has always resulted in tragic losses for the proletariat. Jucheist revisionism presents no exception. In the present DPRK, a similar process of open capitalist restoration as what was seen in Deng's China or the Khruschevite–Brezhnevite Soviet Union is taking place, even if at a slower pace. The DPRK, additionally, has in recent times proved itself to be a militant ally of the semi-fascist Putinist regime in the Russian Federation and the social-fascist state of China, with the North Korean government being the first nation to recognize the Russian "annexation" of lands in Ukraine and Donbas and has otherwise supported the Russian imperialist invasion of Ukraine which began in 2022.
 
This support for imperialism, even if counter to Euro-America imperialism, still breaches mere pragmatism. If the DPRK was truly socialist and a proletarian dictatorship, there would be a clear contradiction between the DPRK and Russo-Chinese bourgeois states. We, on the contrary, must unconditionally oppose the American imperialist military base which represents the "Republic of Korea" (South Korea) regime. Likewise, we understand that the Korean War, or Fatherland Liberation War of 1950–1953 was a revolutionary and anti-imperialist conflict between socialist and capitalist states. 
 

Conclusion

The Juche Idea and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism represent bourgeois nationalist, if not ultranationalist, deviations from Marxism and dialectical materialism. Juche is anti-materialist, idealist, chauvinist, and class collaborationist, to the extent of openly rejecting Marxism itself under the false banner of presenting itself as an "original idea". 
 
The only state that adheres to Juche — and likely the only one that ever will — has consistently allied with social-imperialists and, in the present day, open imperialist states such as the Russian Federation. 

To that end, the Juche Idea must be combated as we would with all other trends of modern revisionism. 
 

References

1. Imperialism and the Revolution, Enver Hoxha, 1978
 
2. On Nationalism, Kim Jong Il, 2008

3. The Workers’ Party of Korea and Revisionism, Bill Bland, 1999

4. On the Juche Idea, Kim Jong Il, 1982
 
5. korea-dpr.com — Guiding Ideology 
 
6. The Juche Philosophy is an Original Revolutionary Philosophy, Kim Jong Il, 1996 

7. 10 Principles for the Establishment of the Monolithic Leadership System of the Party, 2013

8. White Power and apocalyptic cults: Pro-DPRK Americans revealed, Nate Thayer, 2013