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)

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]

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)

 

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.

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.

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

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, 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 our stances towards the Modern DPRK?

Juche is inseparable from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We Marxist–Leninist 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. On Nationalism, Kim Jong Il, 2008

2. On the Juche Idea, Kim Jong Il, 1982

 

3. korea-dpr.com — Guiding Ideology 

 

4. The Juche Philosophy is an Original Revolutionary Philosophy, Kim Jong Il, 1996 

5. 10 Principles for the Establishment of the Monolithic Leadership System of the Party, 2013

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

 

 

 

 

 

It is absolutely correct and acceptable to use the term “Stalinism”, by the Movement for the Reorganisation of KKE 1918-1955 (2007)

[Source]

The “Movement for the Reorganisation of KKE 1918-1955”, continuing the ideological and political traditions of the international communist movement in the time of Comintern-Comniform and the revolutionary KKE 1918-1955; in contrast to the Khruschevian revisionism and all the opportunist organisations that invoke Stalin in order to deceive the communists, but at the same time attack him; considers the term “Stalinism” absolutely correct and adopts its use.

We believe that the use of the term “Stalinism” as a scientific concept is both correct and necessary because:

1. It signifies the further development of Marxism-Leninism in the era of socialist construction in the Soviet Union as well as in the countries of the socialist camp after the Second World War. “Stalinism theoretically showed the path to socialism and practically realised it” (N. Zachariadis, 1939).

2. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism constitutes the indivisible unity of the revolutionary outlook of the proletariat and its party.

3. Stalinism is nothing more than the Marxism-Leninism of our era.

4. The international communist movement, including revolutionary KKE 1918-1955, were using the term “Stalinism”.

5. The elimination of socialism and the liquidation of the international communist movement by the

Khruschevian revisionists were committed in the name of “Marxism-Leninism” and the struggle against Stalin and Stalinism.

6. From the middle of 1950’s right up until nowadays, all the attacks of the bourgeois, fascist, Trotskyite, old and new, revisionist reaction (social democratic, Titoist, Khruschevian, etc.) have been always focused on Stalin and his work, Stalinism.

7. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism most clearly determines the revolutionary ideological and political orientation of the communist movement.

8. The use of the term Stalinism distances the revolutionary communist movement not only from the Trotskyites and the Khruschevian revisionists but also from the various opportunistic organisations which although typically invoke the name of Stalin, at the same time, directly or indirectly, attack him from rightist premises in the name of a speculative “criticism on Stalin’s mistakes”.

This new variant of contemporary revisionism hidden behind the “criticism on Stalin’s mistakes” has three basic, albeit untold, goals:

1. To drag the revolutionary communist movement to an anti-Stalinist course.

2. To keep it fragmented.

3. As far as Greece is concerned, to prevent the reorganisation of the KKE 1916-1955, a task that can be fulfilled only through the uncompromising and consistent defence of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, proletarian internationalism and the work of the unyielding communist leader Nikos Zachariadis who was the first in the international communist movement to discern and stand up against Khruschevian revisionism before the 20th Congress (as early as 1955) by organising and directing the struggle of the Greek communists against it.

The work of Stalin and Stalinism, the Marxism-Leninism of our era, is an invaluable weapon for the communists in their struggle against Khruschevian revisionism and the various opportunist liquidators and for the proletariat in its struggle against capitalism-imperialism.

Finally, we conclude with the response given to the social-democrats by the great communist leader and secretary of Comintern, Georgi Dimitrov: “The social-democrat lackeys often call us “Stalinists” and they think that in this way they insult the communists. But we are proud of this honorary appellation as we are proud of the appellation “leninists”. There is no greater honor for a revolutionary than being a true Leninist, a true stalinist, a devoted disciple of Lenin and Stalin until the end. And there is no greater happiness for the communists than fighting under the guidance of Stalin for the triumph of the international proletariat's just cause. Not everybody can be a stalinist. The honorary appellation “leninist-stalinist” has to be won through bolshevik struggle, persistence and unlimited devotion to the cause of the working class” (G. Dimitrov “Stalin and the international proletariat”, 1939).

Movement for the Reorganisation of KKE 1918-1955

American “Patriotic Socialism” — A Reactionary Deviation