Prefaces and commentaries of individual volumes of the Collected Works
and separately published books

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENGLISH


 

Preview

Eurocommunism

is

Anticommunism

English translation of the original Portuguese edition

 


The publication of Enver Hoxha’s book “Eurocommunism is Anticommunism” in Portuguese language is of great importance.

It is a scientific criticism on revisionism which is done in a very straightforward manner. Specially now, when all means are used by the bourgeoisie in order to corrupt Marxism, the opinions of the outstanding leader of the Party of Labor of Albania represent a safe guideline to all defenders of scientific socialism. In this book, Enver Hoxha analyses a great variety of modern revisionist tendencies, especially eurocommunism. Enver affirms that the emergence of eurocommunism should not be seen as a simple betrayal of determined persons or groups, but as a “social phenomenon originated by bourgeoisie’s pressures over the working class and its struggle”. Concretely, Enver shows the objective and subjective conditions which allowed the emergence of eurocommunism; he refutes and destroys its false conceptions through a solid Marxist-Leninist argumentation.

The degeneration of eurocommunist parties started some time ago, during the period of Second World War. In the struggle against fascism, these parties stopped half-way, they hesitated in advancing revolutionary struggle. They defended democratic freedoms, but they kept this task away from the socialist objective; they were not able to link the short-term objectives with the general interests of the proletariat. They misled themselves with bourgeois “democracy” and supported the idea of accomplishing socialism through elections, through the parliament.

These weaknesses would be very useful to the bourgeoisie, which would encourage them in benefit of its interests. During that epoch, just after the war, imperialism was in great trouble. Fascism’s defeat represented a heavy blow to capitalism’s positions in the whole world. Working peoples raised their consciousness in search for emancipation. The immense prestige of Soviet Union and of the socialist system was widely spread.

A very powerful socialist camp which included the USSR and the popular democracies of Europe and Asia was formed. Communist parties consolidated their influence among the masses. Revolutionary forces were increasingly growing while the supporters of capitalism were becoming more and more isolated. However, world imperialism quickly elaborated a strategy to destroy the revolution, to annihilate the communist parties and to abolish the proletarian dictatorship. It used economic, political, ideological and military pressures and did it at a global scale. In this strategy, the role played by the opportunists and by the revisionists was that of the Trojan horse: they should act within the ranks of the workers’ movement in order to destroy its organization and revolutionary activities, to deprive the proletarians from their major class headquarters, to promote ideological confusion and political disorientation.

Without conditions to frontally attack Marxism-Leninism, the revisionists try to present themselves as “Marx’s followers” and they pretend to “develop” proletarian theory in an allegedly “creative manner”.

They replace revolutionary struggle by “historical compromises” with bourgeois parties and by “democratic ways” of capitalist reformism. They highlight the changes which occurred in society with the purpose of hiding the fact that the rules which determine its development remain exactly the same.

Their treason has reached such a degree that Enver Hoxha affirms that “the programs of the revisionist parties are programs of bourgeois, socialist and social-democratic parties which are wallowing in the same waters”. The predecessor of contemporary revisionism was Earl Browder, who even defended the transformation of the Communist Party of the United States into a cultural and propaganda association whose objective would be to improve American “democracy” towards socialism. Enver Hoxha analyses its evolution and proves that these ideas have many similarities with the conceptions which had already been exposed by Mao Zedong during this period.

Browderism affirms the class differences in the USA had ended, and supported “national unity” between bourgeois and proletarians. These “theories” caused great damage in the USA and in some Latin-American parties. Blas Roca, a leader of the Cuban “Communist” Party even wrote a book only to defend these capitulationist points of view. Codovilla, in Argentina, and many other leaders in Uruguay and Chile also decided to support this ideological garbage. In Brazil, Prestes praised Browder’ s “news”, but he was forced to lay down his enthusiasm in face of the vigorous answer coming from the world communist movement to this open betrayal of the revolutionary theory. Enver also unmasks “Maoism” – which tried to present itself as an opponent of revisionism – but which ultimately revealed to be nothing more than an amount of ideas which, under the pretext of adapting Marxism to Chinese conditions, denied Marxism’s fundamental principles. Enver equally proves that Titoism has played a major role in the imperialist strategy, because it divided the socialist camp during a crucial moment of the struggle between capitalism and socialism, when the correlation of forces at a world scale was favorable to the proletariat.

Enver Hoxha underlines the noxious role of Khrushchevite revisionism, which conquered power in the USSR, restored capitalism there and transformed the first socialist country and the center of world revolution into an imperialist and counter-revolutionary country. Soviet revisionists became a new bourgeoisie in power, they exploit the workers of their own country and spread their venomous influence throughout the entire world. Khrushchevist treason fostered opportunism everywhere and became a very aggressive current of international proportions. This book from Enver Hoxha focuses on eurocommunism – which is, indeed, anticommunism - and shows the various ways in which it heavily influences the French, Spanish and Italian parties. These counter-revolutionary renegades are trying to “sweeten” capitalism as much as they can. They argue that the proletariat has supposedly “integrated” within capitalism in such a degree that it has no more interests in revolution. And that the changes occurred in society have caused the other social sectors, particularly the intellectuals, to equalize themselves with the proletariat. They talk about “structural reforms” which would allegedly permit changes in the correlation of social forces, thus allowing the gradual transition to socialism through democratization of bourgeois society. They assume that these changes would even be supported by the majority of the bourgeoisie.

In Italy, Berlinguer’s Eurocommunists defend that the transition towards socialism will be achieved through the line which was defined by the Republican Constitution, in alliance with christian democracy. In France, they support the formation of a “leftist bloc” with Mitterand’s socialists and with the other bourgeois forces in order to construct a “democratic, self-managed socialism”. In Spain, under the leadership of Santiago Carrillo, they became admirers of the monarchy – which is “democratic”, accordingly with them – and they do their utmost to adapt present bourgeois institutions to popular interests. They even say that the Spanish army – the same one that kept Franco in power during several decades – can be “educated” to abandon its rightist ideas. In face of all this, it is not astonishing that for eurocommunists the concepts of class struggle and of proletarian dictatorship are old-fashioned - after all, the have thrown away even the concept of proletariat in itself. They replaced the powerful weapon which a Marxist-Leninist, vanguard party by an amorphous agglomerate which is exclusively worried about parliamentary “struggle”. They replace the revolution by class conciliation.

In Brazil, the so-called Brazilian Communist Party – which is divided into several factions – is following this same path. Under the pretext of struggling for its legalization, the followers of Giocondo Dias fall into complete subservience towards the bourgeoisie. They are eager to subordinate everything to the official permission to have a seat on the parliament and they certainly dream about getting closer and closer to bourgeois power.

Recently, these revisionists went to the National Congress in order to present their statutes and program – which were elaborated in full accord with the standards established by all bourgeois parties. What's more "radical" in this document is the defense of "substantial change" with the objective of "modifying the character and functions" of state institutions. They conclude that "Mass democracy is the road to socialism in Brazil" and explain that socialism is "a social system in which political democracy is accomplished through economic and social democracy." And finally, they say their party’s militants should "accept the social theory developed by Marx and Lenin as a scientific method of reality analysis.”

Everything is very “inoffensive”, in total accord with bourgeois desires. To them, Marxism is nothing more than a mere method of analysis – it has nothing to do with revolutionary theory. And socialism is just a social system whose only aim is to accomplish democracy. However, unfortunately to the opportunists, life itself has rejected these falsehoods. True, we live in a different epoch from that of Marx and Engels. And capitalism has developed even relatively to the times of Lenin and Stalin. But can we talk about changes in what respects to the content of capitalist exploitation? Can we say that the material and social conditions which separate the proletariat from the bourgeoisie have changed? Is it true that capitalism’s oppressive and exploitative nature has changed? Can we affirm that workers are no longer dispossessed and laboring under the command of capital to provide added value to the capitalists? Of course not.

Particularly in the context of the present crisis – which is the most profound and comprehensive of its history – capitalism sees how all of its inner contradictions are intensifying, and this deepens even more the gap between workers and capitalists. Class struggle is becoming more acute every passing day and the revolution is, today more than ever, "an immediate problem that demands solution" - like Enver Hoxha says.
How can we speak about the alleged leveling of all social strata and about the integration of the proletariat in the "benefits'' of capitalism in face of the 10 million unemployed in the U.S., of the 2.5 million unemployed in France and of many others in Germany, England, Italy and in the rest of the capitalist world? How to explain the "wonders" of this social system to those workers who have their wages frozen by imposition of the capitalist governments which are lackeys of the exploiters and whose only purpose is to safeguard the profits of the bourgeoisie?


And what about the reductions in the existing achievements in relation to social security and relatively to health care, in particular? How can we speak about the supposed expansion of democracy when the bourgeoisie is currently adopting new fascist laws and is increasing police repression against workers?
Indeed, far from denying it, reality fully confirms Marxism-Leninism. In their desperate efforts to conceal this fact, revisionists of all kinds can only reveal themselves as agents of the bourgeoisie whose objective is to perpetuate capitalism. Enver Hoxha notes that "the strategy and tactics of the bourgeoisie, which were also adopted by the eurocommunists, try to divide the working class in order to prevent the formation of a single fighting force which they will be obliged to face."


Through his principled criticism on to revisionism, Enver Hoxha
is able to strengthen and to consolidate the steel of the revolutionary theory of the proletarian party – a necessary weapon to unite the working class in order to win genuine freedom and to construct socialism and communism. He states that “Revolution and socialism are the only things that the proletariat and the masses need to solve the irreconcilable contradictions of capitalist society, to end oppression and exploitation, to achieve true freedom and equality. And while there is oppression and exploitation, as long as capitalism exists, the thoughts and the struggles of the masses are always directed towards revolution and socialism.”


The fight against revisionism is a permanent task. Unmasked
and defeated at a given time, this weed later resurfaces with new clothes, always dressed with a revolutionary language to serve the bourgeoisie, preaching the reconciliation of classes. This struggle is an inalienable part of the class war in the ideological field.


Enver Hoxha has always been an outstanding defender of Marxism-Leninism and an uncompromising critic of revisionism. While leading the PLA, he faced a tough battle against Titoism, which took power in Yugoslavia and pressured the Party and the government of Albania in political, economic, ideological and military fields.


Likewise, since the infamous XXº Congress of the CPSU, he has been resolutely struggling against Khrushchevism and against the immense power of the Soviet Union, which was transformed into a social-imperialist superpower.
The book “Eurocommunism is Anticommunism” clarifies important theoretical problems and helps to understand the role of revisionism in the hegemonic strategy of the USSR and the USA. It is an essential reading for workers and for all those who study Marxism-Leninism.



Rogério Lustosa

Chairman of the “Semanário Tribuna Operária”