Anarchists are saboteurs of the socialist proletarian world revolution

Down with Anarchism !



Long live

the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism !

Long live the

socialist world revolution !





What is Marxism ?

   « Marxism is the science of the laws of nature `s and society `s development, the science of the revolution of oppressed and exploited masses, a science of socialism `s victory in all countries, the science of building the communist society» (I.V.Stalin).


What is Leninism ?

     «The Leninism is Marxism of an epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution. More precisely: the Leninism is the theory and tactics of proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in particular» (I.V.Stalin).


What is Stalinism ?

     «Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism in the period of transition from socialism " in one" country to socialism on a global scale, in general, and the period of transition from socialism "in one" country to communism in this country, in particular»



What is Hoxhaism ?

     «Hoxhaism is Marxism-Leninism about the victory of the people`s revolution against fascist occupation and its successful transition into the socialist revolution and building up socialism in a small country under conditions of the socialist world camp of Comrade Stalin;

Hoxhaism is furthermore the Marxist-Leninist theory and tactics of antirevisionist, antiimperialist and antisocial-imperialist struggle in the period of revisionism at the power, in general, and the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat under conditions of a capitalist-revisionist encirclement, in particular.»




What is Stalinism - Hoxhaism of today ?

Stalinism-Hoxhaism is

the theory and tactics of the world proletarian revolution, in general


the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the world proletariat, in particular.




What is the Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement ?


The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement


- is the World Movement of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism,

- is the revolutionary world proletarian movement


- for the victory of the socialist world revolution,

- for the destruction of world capitalism,

- for the establishment of the world proletarian dictatorship and

- for the creation of a socialist world.


( Comintern / SH)




Frederick Engels


“The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletariat revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state. But after its victory the sole organization which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfill its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune.”

– Frederick Engels, “Engels to Philipp Van Patten in New York,” London, April 18, 1883.


* * *

” . . . Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward . . . by Bakunin. The whole internal history of the International Workingmen’s Association is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International; the main hindrance in their way was Marx”.

(Friedrich Engels: Letter to Philipp van Patten, 18 April 1883, in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: op. cit.; p. 268).

* * *

” . . . was the expulsion, at the Hague Congress, Sept. 1872, of the Anarchists from the International, and the man who did most to secure that expulsion was Marx”. (Friedrich Engels: 'On the Occasion of Karl Marx’s Death')



Frederick Engels

The Bakunists at Work







A Collection of Documents




Socialism and Anarchism






” . . . after the proletariat has conquered political power it must utterly destroy the old state machine and substitute for it a new one consisting of the organisation of armed workers. . . . The anarchists . . . deny that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state power, its revolutionary dictatorship”.

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ‘The State and Revolution: The Marxist Doctrine of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution’, in: ‘Selected Works’, Volume 7; London; 1946;, p. 106).

* * *

“Until sufficiently strong, experienced and influential Communist Parties have been built, at least in the principal countries, we shall have to tolerate semi-anarchist elements at our international congresses, and to a certain extent it is even useful to do so. It is useful in so far as these elements serve as a ‘bad example’ for inexperienced Communists, and also in so far as they themselves are still capable of learning something. All over the world anarchism is splitting up,. . . into two trends: . . . one in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the other opposed to it. We must allow this process of disintegration among the anarchists to mature and become ripe. . . . It goes without saying, however, that the semi-anarchist elements can and should be tolerated only within certain limits. In Germany we tolerated them for quite a long time. The Third Congress of the Communist International submitted an ultimatum to them. . . . If, now. they have voluntarily resigned from the Communist International, all the better. . . . They have saved us the trouble of expelling them”.

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ‘A Letter to the German Communists’, in: ‘Selected Works’, Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 291).

* * *







Anarchism or Socialism (July 1906)



also available in PDF-Format


Anarchism or Socialism

(July 1906)


Quotations of Stalin on Anarchism

“The Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, . . . a real struggle must be waged against real enemies”.

(Josef V. Stalin: op. cit.; p. 299).





History of Anarchism in Russia

E. Yaroslavsky




Anarchism as counterrevolutionary theory and practice

"Albania Today" 1973, No 3





How the anarchists betrayed the October Revolution


As a text for introduction we recommend in first line the study of Lenin's famous book:


"Left-Wing"-Communism - an infantile disorder

especially Chapter IV - The struggle against which enemies within the working class movement helped Bolshevism develop, gain strength, and became steeled


The anarchists think ONLY of destroying the old state machine. However, they do not care about, WHAT and HOW to put in the place of the destroyed state machinery. The October Revolution was victorious because it was based on the experiences of the Paris Commune, namely to establish the STATE power of the proletariat. The complete abolition of the state can only be achieved after classes have been abolished. This was the aim of the October Revolution, namely to establish the socialist state which leads to the withering away of the state. Rejecting the establisment of the armed proletarian state that means betrayal of the October Revolution.

The anarchists differ two "types of October": The Bolshevik October and the alleged "anarchist" October with their slogan: “Soviets without the Bolsheviks!” In truth, the anarchists used this slogan (by the way, in co-operation with the White Guardists !!) to re-establish capitalist rule in Russia.

The model of the anarchists was that of the "Self-administration" of the Soviets in contrast to the Marxist-Leninist model of the Soviets as democratic organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Anarchists were generally enemies of the October Revolution. In particular, they were anti-Marxist-Leninist enemies of the state of the armed dictatorship of the proletariat.

The anarchists argue like this:

"The Bolshevik October is the conquest of power by the party of the revolutionary intelligentsia, the installation of its 'State Socialism' and of its 'socialist' methods of governing the masses. The Bolshevik practice of the last ten years shows clearly the counter-revolutionary role of their dictatorship of the Party." (1927 - "The Two Octobers" - by Piotr Archinov)

The anarchists equated the dictatorship of the proletariat with the "dictatoship of the Bolshevik party". Moreover, the anarchists struggled against the Bolshevik party as an alleged "instrument of the exploitation and oppression of the masses".

In particular, the anarchists accused the Bolsheviks of turning the Soviets into such organs which served the establishment of a new bourgeois state ( with a "socialist" cloak).

Lenin gave the right answer to the anarchists:

"The nearer we appraoch the complete military suppression of the bourgeoisie, the more dangerous does the element of petty-bourgeois anarchy become. And the fight against this element cannot be waged solely with the aid of propaganda and agitation, solely by organising competition and by selecting organisers. The struggle must also be waged by means of coercion." (Lenin, Volume 27, page 266)

The defeat of the Kronstadt mutiny proved that these were not empty words.

The counter-revolutionary mutiny in Kronstadt which began on February 28, 1921, was organised by the Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and whiteguards.


Lenin on the

Kronstadt - Munity

"I have not yet received the latest news from Kronstadt, but I have no doubt that this mutiny, which very quickly revealed to us the familiar figures of whiteguard generals, will be put down within the next few days, if not hours. There can be no doubt about this. But it is essential that we make a thorough appraisal of the political and economic lessons of this event.

We saw the petty-bourgeois, anarchist elements in the Russian revolution, and we have been fighting them for decades. We have seen them in action since February 1917, during the great revolution, and their parties’ attempts to prove that their programme differed little from that of the Bolsheviks, but that only their methods in carrying it through were different. We know this not only from the experience of the October Revolution. We must bear in mind that the bourgeoisie is trying to pit the peasants against the workers; that behind a façade of workers’ slogans it is trying to incite the petty-bourgeois anarchist elements against the workers. This, if successful, will lead directly to the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat and, consequently, to the restoration of capitalism and of the old landowner and capitalist regime." [Lenin, Volume 32, Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.); Report On The Political Work Of The Central Committee Of The R.C.P.(B.) - March 8, 1921]

"And the Kronstadt events revealed their connection with the international bourgeoisie." (Lenin: Speech In Closing The Congress - March 16, 1921

"International capital (...) admitted that if the slogan becomes “Soviet power without the Bolsheviks” they will all accept it.

If the slogan of the Kronstadt events is a slight deviation to the left—Soviet power with the anarchists, begotten by distress, war, the demobilisation of the army—why is Milyukov in favour of it? Because he knows that a deviation leads either to the proletarian dictatorship or to the capitalists.

Weariness and exhaustion produce a certain mood, and sometimes lead to desperation. As usual, this tends to breed anarchism among the revolutionary elements. That was the case in all capitalist countries, and that is what is taking place in our own country. The petty-bourgeois element is in the grip of a crisis because it has had it hard over the past few years.That is the meaning of the Kronstadt events in the light of the alignment of class, forces in the whole of Russia and on the international scale. That is the meaning of one of our last and crucial battles, for we have not beaten this petty-bourgeois—anarchist element, and the immediate fate of the revolution now depends on whether or not we succeed in doing so. If we do not, we shall slide down as the French Revolution did. This is inevitable, and we must not let ourselves be misled by phrases and excuses. We must do all we can to alleviate the position of these masses and safeguard the proletarian leadership. If we do this, the growing movement of the communist revolution in Europe will be further reinforced. What has not. yet taken place there today, may well take place tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but in world history such periods, as between today and tomorrow, mean no less than a few years.All of you, learning the lessons of our revolution and of all preceding revolutions, must understand the full gravity of the present situation. If you do not allow yourselves to be blinded by all sorts of slogans such as “Freedom”, “Constituent Assembly”, “Free Soviets”—it is so easy to switch labels that even Milyukov has turned up as a supporter of the Soviets of a Kronstadt republic—if you do not close your eyes to the alignment of class forces, you will acquire a sound and firm basis for all your political conclusions. You will then see that we are passing through a period of crisis in which it depends on us whether the proletarian revolution continues to march to victory as surely as before, or whether the vacillations and waverings lead to the victory of the whiteguards, which will not alleviate the situation, but will set Russia hack from the revolution for many decades." (V. I. Lenin: Speech Delivered At The All-Russia Congress Of Transport Workers - March 27, 1921)

* * *

"I have already said that the fundamental features of our economy in 1921 are the same as those in 1918. The spring of 1921, mainly as a result of the crop failure and the loss of cattle, brought a sharp deterioration in the condition of the peasantry, which was bad enough because of the war and blockade. This resulted in political vacillations which, generally speaking, express the very “nature” of the small producer. Their most striking expression was the Kronstadt mutiny.

The vacillation of the petty-bourgeois element was the most characteristic feature of the Kronstadt events. There was very little that was clear, definite and fully shaped. We heard nebulous slogans about “freedom”, “freedom of trade”, “emancipation”, “Soviets without the Bolsheviks”, or new elections to the Soviets, or relief from “Party dictatorship”, and so on and so forth. Both the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries declared the Kronstadt movement to be “their own”. Victor Chernov sent a messenger to Kronstadt. On the latter’s proposal, the Menshevik Valk, one of the Kronstadt leaders, voted for the Constituent Assembly. In a flash, with lightning speed, you might say, the whiteguards mobilised all their forces “for Kronstadt “. Their military experts in Kronstadt, a number of experts, and not Kozlovsky alone, drew up a plan for a landing at Oranienbaum, which scared the vacillating mass of Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and non-party elements. More than fifty Russian whiteguard newspapers published abroad conducted a rabid campaign “for Kronstadt ”. The big banks, all the forces of finance capital, collected funds to assist Kronstadt. That shrewd leader of the bourgeoisie and the landowners, the Cadet Milyukov, patiently explained to the simpleton Victor Chernov directly (and to the Mensheviks Dan and Rozhkov, who are in jail in Petrograd for their connection with the Kronstadt events, indirectly) that that there is no need to hurry with the Constituent Assembly, and that Soviet power can and must be supported—only without the Bolsheviks.

Of course, it is easy to be cleverer than conceited simpletons like Chernov, the petty-bourgeois phrase-monger, or like Martov, the knight of philistine reformism doctored to pass for Marxism. Properly speaking, the point is not that Milyukov, as an individual, has more brains, but that, because of his class position, the party leader of the big bourgeoisie sees and understands the class essence and political interaction of things more clearly than the leaders of the petty bourgeoisie, tbe Chernovs and Martovs. For the bourgeoisie is really a class force which, under capitalism, inevitably rules both under a monarchy and in the most democratic republic, and which also inevitably enjoys the support of the world bourgeoisie. But the petty bourgeoisie, i.e., all the heroes of the Second International and of the “Two-and-a-Half” International, cannot, by the very economic nature of things, be anything else than the expression of class impotence; hence the vacillation, phrase-mongering and helplessness. In 1789, the petty bourgeois could still be great revolutionaries. In 1848, they were ridiculous and pathetic. Their actual role in 1917-21 is that of abominable agents and out-and-out servitors of reaction, be their names Chernov, Martov, Kautsky, MacDonald, or what have you.

Martov showed himself to be nothing but a philistine Narcissus when he declared in his Berlin journal that Kronstadt not only adopted Menshevik slogans but also proved that there could be an anti-Bolshevik movement which did not entirely serve the interests of the whiteguards, the capitalists and the landowners. He says in effect: “Let us shut our eves to the fact that all the genuine whiteguards hailed the Kronstadt mutineers and collected funds in aid of Kronstadt through the banks!” Compared with the Chernovs and Martovs, Milyukov is right, for he is revealing the true tactics of the real whiteguard force, the force of the capitalists and landowners. He declares: “It does not matter whom we support, be they anarchists or any sort of Soviet government, as long as the Bolsheviks are overthrown, as long as there is a shift in power; it does not matter whether to the right or to the left, to the Mensheviks or to the anarchists, as long as it is away from the Bolsheviks. As for the rest—‘we’, the Milyukovs, ‘we’, the capitalists and landowners, will do the rest ‘ourselves’; we shall slap down the anarchist pygmies, the Chernovs and the Martovs, as we did Chernov and Maisky in Siberia, the Hungarian Chernovs and Martovs in Hungary, Kautsky in Germany and the Friedrich Adlers and Co. in Vienna.” The real, hard-headed bourgeoisie have made fools of hundreds of these philistine Narcissuses—whether Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary or non-party—and have driven them out scores of times in all revolutions in all countries. History proves it. The facts bear it out. The Narcissuses will talk; the Milyukovs and whiteguards will act.

Milyukov is absolutely right when he says, “If only there is a power shift away from the Bolsheviks, no matter whether it is a little to the right or to the left, the rest will take care of itself.” This is class truth, confirmed by the history of revolutions in all countries, and by the centuries of modern history since the Middle Ages. The scattered small producers, the peasants, are economically and politically united either by the bourgeoisie (this has always been—and will always be—the case under capitalism in all countries, in all modern revolutions), or by the proletariat (that was the case in a rudimentary form for a very short period at the peak of some of the greatest revolutions in modern history; that has been the case in Russia in a more developed form in 1917-21). Only the Narcissuses will talk and dream about a “third” path, and a “third force”.

With enormous difficulty, and in the course of desperate struggles, the Bolsheviks have trained a proletarian vanguard that is capable of governing; they have created and successfully defended the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the test of four years of practical experience, the relation of class forces in Russia has become as clear as day: the steeled and tempered vanguard of the only revolutionary class; the vacillating petty-bourgeois element; and the Milyukovs, the capitalists and landowners, lying in wait abroad and supported by the world bourgeoisie. It is crystal-clear: only the latter are able to take advantage of any “shift of power “, and will certainly do so.

In the 1918 pamphlet I quoted above, this point was put very clearly: “the principal enemy” is the “petty-bourgeois element”. “Either we subordinate it to our control and accounting, or it will overthrow the workers’ power as surely and as inevitably as the revolution was over thrown by the Napoleons and the Cavaignacs who sprang from this very soil of petty proprietorship. This is how the question stands. That is the only view we can take of the matter.” (Excerpt from the pamphlet of May 5, 1918, cf. above.)

Our strength lies in complete clarity and the sober consideration of all the existing class magnitudes, both Russian and international; and in the inexhaustible energy, iron resolve and devotion in struggle that arise from this. We have many enemies, but they are disunited, or do not know their own minds (like all the petty bourgeoisie, all the Martovs and Chernovs, all the non-party elements and anarchists). But we are united—directly among ourselves and indirectly with tbe proletarians of all countries; we know just what we want. That is why we are invincible on a world scale, although this does not in the least preclude the possibility of defeat for individual proletarian revolutions for longer or shorter periods.

There is good reason for calling the petty-bourgeois element an element, for it is indeed something that is most amorphous, indefinite and unconscious. The petty-bourgeois Narcissuses imagine that “universal suffrage” abolishes the nature of the small producer under capitalism. As a matter of fact, it helps the bourgeoisie, through the church, the press, the teachers, the police, the militarists and a thousand and one forms of economic oppression, to subordinate the scattered small producers. Ruin, want and the hard conditions of life give rise to vacillation: one day for the bourgeoisie, the next, for the proletariat. Only the steeled proletarian vanguard is capable of withstanding and overcoming this vacillation.

The events of the spring of 1921 once again revealed the role of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks: they help the vacillating petty-bourgeois element to recoil from the Bolsheviks, to cause a “shift of power” in favour of the capitalists and landowners. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries have now learned to don the “non-party” disguise. This has been fully proved. Only fools now fail to see this and understand that we must not allow ourselves to be fooled. Non-Party conferences are not a fetish. They are valuable if they help us to come closer to the impassive masses—the millions of working people still outside politics. They are harmful if they provide a platform for the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries masquerading as “non-party” men. They are helping the mutinies, and the whiteguards. The place for Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, avowed or in non-party guise, is not at a non-Party conference but in prison (or on foreign journals, side by side with the white guards; we were glad to let Martov go abroad). We can and must find other methods of testing the mood of the masses and coming closer to them. We suggest that those who want to play the parliamentary, constituent assembly and non-Party conference game, should go abroad; over there, by Martov’s side, they can try the charms of “democracy” and ask Wrangel’s soldiers about them. We have no time for this “opposition” at “conferences” game. We are surrounded by the world bourgeoisie, who are watching for every sign of vacillation in order to bring back “their own men”, and restore the landowners and the bourgeoisie. We will keep in prison the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, whether avowed or in “non-party” guise.

We shall employ every means to establish closer contacts with the masses of working people untouched by politics— except such means as give scope to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the vacillations that benefit Milyukov. In particular, we shall zealously draw into Soviet work, primarily economic work, hundreds upon hundreds of non-Party people, real non-Party people from the masses, the rank and file of workers and peasants, and not those who have adopted non-party colours in order to crib Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary instructions which are so much to Milyukov’s advantage. Hundreds and thousands of non-Party people are working for us, and scores occupy very important and responsible posts. We must pay more attention to the way they work. We must do more to promote and test thousands and thousands of rank-and-file workers, to try them out systematically and persistently, and appoint hundreds of them to higher posts, if experience shows that they can fill them.

Our Communists still do not have a sufficient understanding of their real duties of administration: they should not strive to do “everything themselves”, running themselves down and failing to cope with everything, undertaking twenty jobs and finishing none. They should check up on the work of scores and hundreds of assistants, arrange to have their work checked up from below, i.e., by the real masses. They should direct the work and learn from those who have the knowledge (the specialists) and the experience in organising large-scale production (the capitalists). The intelligent Communist will not be afraid to learn from the military expert, although nine-tenths of the military experts are capable of treachery at every opportunity. The wise Communist will not be afraid to learn from a capitalist (whether a big capitalist concessionaire, a commission agent, or a petty capitalist co-operator, etc.), although the capitalist is no better than the military expert. Did we not learn to catch treacherous military experts in the Red Army, to bring out the honest and conscientious, and, on the whole, to utilise thousands and tens of thousands of military experts? We are learning to do the same thing (in an unconventional way) with engineers and teachers, although we are not doing it as well as we did it in the Red Army (there Denikin and Kolchak spurred us on, compelled us to learn more quickly, diligently and intelligently). We shall also learn to do it (again in an unconventional way) with the commission agents, with the buyers working for the state, the petty capitalist co-operators, the entrepreneur concessionaires, etc.

The condition of the masses of workers and peasants needs to be improved right away. And we shall achieve this by putting new forces, including non-Party forces, to useful work. The tax in kind, and a number of measures connected with it, will facilitate this; we shall thereby cut at the economic root of the small producer’s inevitable vacillations. And we shall ruthlessly fight the political vacillations, which benefit no one but Milyukov. The waverers are many, we are few. The waverers are disunited, we are united. The waverers are not economically independent, the proletariat is. The waverers don’t know their own minds: they want to do something very badly, but Milyukov won’t let them. We know what we want.

And that is why we shall win." (Lenin: "The Tax in Kind" - 21 April, 1921)

* * *

Lenin unmasked the "Workers' Opposition" as the prolonged arm of the anarchist counter-revolution in Kronstadt within the party.

"Comrade Kollontai, for example, said bluntly: 'Lenin’s report evaded Kronstadt.' When I heard that I didn’t know what to say. My report tied in everything—from beginning to end—with the lessons of Kronstadt. If anything, I deserve to be reproached for devoting the greater part of my report to the lessons that flow from the Kronstadt events, and the smaller part to past mistakes, political facts and crucial points in our work, which, in my opinion, determine our political tasks and help us to avoid such mistakes in the future.

I now come to the Workers’ Opposition. You have admitted that you are in opposition. You have come to the Party Congress with Comrade Kollontai’s pamphlet which is entitled 'The Workers’ Opposition'. When you sent in the final proofs, you knew about the Kronstadt events and the rising petty-bourgeois counter-revolution. And it is at a time like this that you come here, calling yourselves a Workers’ Opposition. You don ’t seem to realise the responsibility you are undertaking, and the way you are disrupting our unity!

This is the petty-bourgeois, anarchist element not only among the masses of the workers, but also in our own Party; and that is something we cannot tolerate in any circumstances. (Lenin: (3) Summing-Up Speech On The Report Of The C.C. Of The R.C.P.(B.) ; March 9, 1921


Excerpt from:


1917 - 2017

100 years

Struggle against betrayal of the October Revolution

20th of June, 2017

written by Wolfgang Eggers

published by the Comintern (SH)





The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement

smashes all Anarchist movements in the world !