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

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.