GENERAL-LINE

Comintern (SH)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proletarians of all countries – unite!

World proletariat – unite all countries !

The Strategy and Tactics

of the

Socialist

World Revolution

 

General - Line

of the Communist International

(Marxist-Leninists)

( Stalinist-Hoxhaists = since 2009)

renamed on November 7, 2009:

founded on December 31, 2000

 

First German version, published in 2001/02

improved English version in 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015

written and translated by Wolfgang Eggers

authorized by the

Executive Committee of the Comintern (SH)

 

 

CHAPTER VIII

 

Historical teachings

of the Comintern

and the Communist World Movement

( paying particular attention to the critical assessment of the

Seventh Congress of the Comintern and criticism of the role of Dimitrov)

1. Against the right opportunism within the Communist World Movement

2. Against the „left“ opportunism within the Communist World Movement

3. Against the re-conciliationism and the centrism within the Communist World Movement

 


 

OVERVIEW


The History of the Communist International and the world communist movement are inseparably linked with the History of the world socialist revolution.

 

The Third International (1919 - 1943) - called the "Comintern" - continued the Marxist legacy of the First International and the Second International, namely as long as it had not yet deviated from Marxism, thus, so long as it had not yet turned into an open tool of the international counter-revolution (1914).

The Communist International was founded by Lenin, emerged from the victory of the October Revolution (1917) in the end of the First World War, and organized all internationalist forces of the world proletarian revolution on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.

The Communist International linked the center of world revolution with all revolutionary movements around the world and was the international collective propagandist, agitator and organizer of the world socialist revolution.

The Communist International became the highest form of class organization of the world proletariat and was the leader of the communist movement.

With the goal of the dictatorship of the world proletariat, the Comintern united the proletariat of the Soviet Union with the proletarians of all countries who were still fighting for the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat. By this symbiosis, the Soviet Union became a powerful, open base and mighty lever of the world revolutionary movement. And the Soviet Union, in turn, received its necessary support from the world revolutionary movement - organized by the Comintern.

Only the Comintern embodied the true unity of the revolutionary workers and the liberation movements of the oppressed and exploited peoples of the world.

The glorious history of the CPSU (B) Lenin and Stalin gave significantly distinction to the glorious history of the Comintern, which began its work on Soviet ground and finished its work from there.

The Comintern of Lenin and Stalin occupies an honorable place in the history of world communism.

 

The Comintern grew up to be a strong umbrella organization of the communist parties of the countries, which were affiliated to the Comintern as its Sections.

With the VI. Congress and under the leadership of Stalin, the Comintern reached its most powerful stage and even transcontinental detachments of the Comintern were formed. However, with the Seventh World Congress, Dimitroff prevented the further development of the Comintern towards a globalized, monolithic world Bolshevik party.
Instead, the Comintern was disintegrated and only the communist parties remained as separate isolated parts.
The dissolution of the Comintern bequeathed the world proletariat a period in which the victory of the socialist world revolution was questionable.

The continuation of the history of the Comintern is an important step for the victory of the socialist world revolution and socialism on a world scale, namely a victory in the fight for the elimination of the inevitability of the danger of its own bourgeois degeneracy and repeated dissolution. This danger exists as long as imperialism dominates the world.

 


Nobody in the world has been fighting for the re-establishment and reconstruction of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin so thoroughly, as the Comintern (SH).

Not until the turn of the millennium, 57 years after its dissolution in 1943, the Communist International was re-established - exactly on December 31, 2000.

This foundation of the Comintern (SH) is an event of great historical importance. From that day on the great work of the Comintern had been continued actively and honorably.

The Comintern (SH) was founded because the Comintern history teaches that the world proletariat can not be victorious without its world party. Without revolutionary leadership of a Bolshevik world organisation, the matter of the world-proletarian revolution is doomed to failure.

Only a party of a new type of Stalinism-Hoxhaism is functioning under the present conditions of globalization, to lead the world proletariat in the decisive battles against the global power of the world bourgeoisie, and to eliminate the danger of the inevitability of its own bourgeois degeneracy. The Stalinist-Hoxhaist party of new type is not an umbrella organization of seperate, independent Communist Parties of individual countries (as it was the case with the Comintern), but a unique, one and only monolithic Bolshevik world party - equipped with its own global system of democratic centralism and global party structure (from the party cell to the ECCI).

Our party-banner - "hammer, sickle and rifle" - demonstrates not only the continuity in the further perfecting of the invincible communist ideology, but also the resoluteness in eliminating the possible risk of the destruction of the Comintern, and last not least, it is an expression of over 150 years vitality and life force of the tradition of the communist movement.

The Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement was born out of the struggle against the neo-revisionism. The Neo-Revisionists operate under the guise of "Marxism-Leninism" and "anti-revisionism" for the restoration of modern revisionism. The victory of the old glorious Marxist-Leninist World Movement of Comrade Enver Hoxha can only be defended and successfully be continued by defeating the neo-revisionism, thus by the global destruction of various poly-centrist camps and centers of the neo-revisionists.

The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement is the communist world movement of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism: Marx - Engels - Lenin - Stalin - Enver Hoxha.

The Stalinist-Hoxhaist movement is the globally centralized and coordinated movement of the proletarian fight-detachments of countries on all continents for the victory of the rule of the world proletariat on a world scale.

We call the today's Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement the most conscious and the most revolutionary movement for the global socialist transformation of society, that is the only real movement which globally terminates and eliminates the present condition of the world capitalist system.

The Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement is a chain-link and current result within the history of Bolshevization of the world communist movement.

To study the history of the world revolution in its various stages and from its inception until today, we need to follow up the course of the main front line of the historic struggle of the antagonist classes on a global scale. In particular, we need to examine the historical global relations of classes in terms of their attitude toward the world socialist revolution. We must study the historical development of the relationship between revolution and counter-revolution on a world scale and have to extract its inner principles. Most important here is the elaboration of the law of development of the world camp of the proletarian class face to face with the world camp of the bourgeoisie - that it its international history, its trend of further globalization, in present and future. After all, it is the special long-term objective of the world communist movement to eliminate the inevitability of class struggle between these two world camps, and in general, the global abolition of the class society.

In short, using the dialectical and historical materialism, we have to study the development of the world communist movement and the history of the Communist International on the basis of the changing global relations of classes in their past and present. Only then can we draw the correct conclusions for our future strategy and tactics.

 


What are the stages of the proletarian world-organisations in their historical development ?

 

The First International was the international organization of the world proletariat in the pre-imperialist stage of capitalism.

The Second International was the organization of the world proletariat in the beginning of the imperialist era, before the First World War and before the establishment of the first proletarian state.

The Comintern was the organization of the world proletariat in the period of socialism in "one" country.

The Cominform was the organization of the world proletariat in the period of the emergence of the Stalinist world camp.

The Comintern (SH) is the organization of the world proletariat in the period of the revolutionary transition from world capitalism to world socialism, and from world socialism to world communism.

 

What is the dialectical-historical principle of the permanent renewal and advancement of the proletarian world-party ?

Karl Marx defined this iron principle as follows:

"Thus, instead of dying out, the International did only pass from its first period of incubation to a higher one where its already original tendencies have in part become realities. In the course of its progressive development, it will yet have to undergo many a change, before the last chapter of its history can be written." [ Karl Marx: "Mr. George Howell’s History of the International Working-Men’s Association", in: Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, Volume 19, page 147, German edition. - , 1878]

"The Communist International had not ceased to exist and it will not cease to exist" (Lenin ).

The International is indestructible, because the world proletarian revolution is indestructible [ Comintern (SH) ].

 

 

 

The First International

 

In the 19th Century, the efforts for organizing an international association of the first revolutionary forces of the proletariat in the capitalist countries began. The former main task and the general-line of Marx and Engels was, to create an instrument for the organization of the international proletarian struggle - the foundation of a world organization of the socialist proletariat, thus the First International.

It was Karl Marx who issued the historical birth certificate for the communist world movement with his famous inaugural address.

It was Karl Marx who created the world communist movement in the spirit of proletarian internationalism.

It was Karl Marx who combined both the theoretical and practical international class struggle of the proletariat with the prior-ranking, world-revolutionary aim:

"To conquer political power has become the great duty of the working classes." (Marx, Inaugural-Adresse, 1864).

"My life will be devoted (...) to the triumph (...) of the universal rule of the proletariat." (1872, MEW, Marx - Volume 23, page 256, English edition).

The foundation of the First International is the most significant achievement in the history of the workers' movement of the 19th century.

The First international was the highest organisational expression of the first period of the international workers' movement - namely expressively under the banner of communism. The First International paved the way for the Second and Third International, and last not least for the Comintern (SH), as the communist world party of the world proletariat in its global struggle for the overthrow of world capitalism, for the construction of world socialism and finally creation of the classless world society.

In his famous book "Civil War in France" (1871), Marx himself called the First International:

"the international counter-organisation of labour against the world-bourgeois conspiracy of capital."

And Lenin appreciated the historical significance of the First International in the following quotations:

"The First International (1864-72) laid the foundation of an international organisation of the workers for the preparation of their revolutionary attack on capital. The Second International (1889-1914) was an international organisation of the proletarian movement whose growth proceeded in breadth, at the cost of a temporary drop in the revolutionary level, a temporary strengthening of opportunism, which in the end led to the disgraceful collapse of this International.

The Third International actually emerged in 1918, when the long years of struggle against opportunism and social-chauvinism, especially during the war, led to the formation of Communist Parties in a number of countries. Officially, the Third International was founded at its First Congress, in March 1919, in Moscow. And the most characteristic feature of this International, its mission of fulfilling, of implementing the precepts of Marxism, and of achieving the age-old ideals of socialism and the working-class movement - this most characteristic feature of the Third International has manifested itself immediately in the fact that the new, third, 'International Working Men's Association' has already begun to develop, to a certain extent, into a union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

 

The revival of the democratic movements in the late fifties and in the sixties recalled Marx to practical activity. In 1864 (September 28) the International Workingmen's Association - the celebrated First International - was founded in London. Marx was heart and soul of this organisation, and author of its first Address and of a host of resolutions, declarations and manifestos. In uniting the labour movement of various countries, striving to channel into joint activity the various forms of non-proletarian, pre-Marxist socialism (Mazzini, Proudhon, Bakunin, liberal trade-unionism in Britain, Lassallean vacillations to the right in Germany, etc.), and in combating the theories of all these sects and schools, Marx hammered out a uniform tactic for the proletarian struggle of the working class in the various countries. Following the down fall of the Paris Commune (1871) - of which Marx gave such a profound, clear-cut, brilliant, effective and revolutionary analysis (The Civil War in France, 1871) - and the Bakunist-caused cleavage in the International, the latter organisation could no longer exist in Europe. After the Hague Congress of the International (1872), Marx and the General Council of the International transferred to New York. The First International had played its historical part, and now made way for a period of a far greater development of the labour movement in all countries in the world, a period in which the movement grew in scope, and mass socialist working-class parties in individual states were founded." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 21, page 49, English edition). [ In 1876 the First International was officially disbanded at a conference in Philadelphia - remark of the editor]

"In 1864 Marx founded the International Working Men's Association, and led this society for a whole decade. Engels also took an active part in its affairs. The work of the International Association, which, in accordance with Marx's idea, united proletarians of all countries, was of tremendous significance in the development of the working-class movement. But even with the closing down of the International Association in the seventies, the unifying role of Marx and Engels did not cease. On the contrary, it may be said that their importance as the spiritual leaders of the working-class movement grew uninterruptedly. After the death of Marx, Engels continued alone as the counsellor and leader of the European socialists." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 2, page 26, English edition)

"In the sixties the struggle shifted from the field of general theory to one closer to the direct labour movement: the ejection of Bakunism from the International. In the early seventies the stage in Germany was occupied for a short while by the Proudhonist Mühlberger, and in the late seventies by the positivist Dühring. But the influence of both on the proletariat was already absolutely insignificant. Marxism was already gaining an unquestionable victory over all other ideologies in the labour movement. By the nineties this victory was in the main completed. Even in the Latin countries, where the traditions of Proudhonism held their ground longest of all, the workers' parties in effect built their programmes and their tactics on Marxist foundations. The revived international organisation of the labour movement - in the shape of periodical international congresses - from the outset, and almost without a struggle, adopted the Marxist standpoint in all essentials. But after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines hostile to it, the tendencies expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels. The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. And the second half-century of the existence of Marxism began (in the nineties) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself.( Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 15, page 32, English edition)

 

"The recent Congress in Stuttgart [18-24 August 1907] was the twelfth congress of the proletarian International. The first five congresses belong to the period of the First International (1866-72), which was guided by Marx, who, as Bebel aptly observed, tried to achieve international unity of the militant proletariat from above. This attempt could not be successful until the national socialist parties were consolidated and strengthened, but the activities of the First International rendered great services to the labour movement of all countries and left lasting traces." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 13, page 82)

Lenin called "the International, the International led by Marx, which had begun to 'rally the legions' of the proletariat, to unite "the world of labour", which is 'abandoning the world of those who enjoy without working'." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 18, page 27, English edition).

 

"The First International, founded by Marx, existed from 1864 to 1872. The defeat of the heroic workers of Paris - of the celebrated Paris Commune - marked the end of this International. It is unforgettable, it will remain for ever in the history of the workers' struggle for their emancipation. It laid the foundation of the edifice of the world socialist republic which it is now our good fortune to be building. (Lenin Collected Works, Volume 29, page 240, English edition)

"The First International laid the foundation of the proletarian, international struggle for socialism."

The Second International marked the a period in which the soil was prepared for the broad, mass spread of movement in a number of countries.

The Third International has gathered the fruits of the work of the Second International, discarded its opportunist, social-chauvinist, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois dross, and has begun to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The epoch-making significance of the Third, Communist International lies in its having begun to give effect to Marx' cardinal slogan, the slogan which sums up the centuries-old development of socialism and the working-class movement, the slogan which is expressed in the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This prevision and this theory - the prevision and theory of a genius - are becoming a reality."

(Lenin, The Third International and its place in history, April 15, 1919, Volume 29, page 307, English edition)

And the implementation of the dictatorship of the world proletariat - this is the great slogan of our Comintern (SH) !

The tendency of the globalization of the contradiction between Capital and Labour began to become effective in its very first stage of development, especially after the crisis of the fifties. This underlines the early beginning of the international Labour movement and the objective necessity of the foundation of the First International.

The success of the First International was based in the historical situation of the international awakening of the proletariat, based in the really existing workers' movement. The opportunists praised its spontaneism which was limited in reformist demands – leaving the power of capital untouched. In the contrary, Marx developed the First International as an revolutionary instrument of basically overcome and eliminate the world capital.

The First International united the economic with the political class-struggle. Whereas, economic struggle is a school of "guerrilla war between capital and labor, is a school of communism."

The proletariat realized that capitalism can not be overthrown without the formation of an united front of the workers of all countries. Therefore, the vanguard of the working class must form its own revolutionary political world organization in the fight against the rule of the bourgeoisie and for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The constant material and moral support for the striking and locked-out workers in different countries, increased and promoted the spread of the influence of the First International throughout the international labour movement. But the real importance of the First International was that it propagated the final aim of world communism. Above all, the success of the First International was the fact that it guided the broad masses of workers in the political struggle for the conquest of workers' power. The First International was the first organisation in the history of the workers' movement that coordinated the united proletarian actions internationally. This was above all the merit of Karl Marx, who was at the head of the First International. For Engels, Marx was the only one "who was clear about what had to be done and what had to be founded. Marx was the man who heralded the slogan 'Proletarians of all countries, unite!' in the year of 1848."

If the First International would had done nothing else than making the proletariat conscious about the fundamental principle

"the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class itself",

as Marx put it in the "Statutes", this would already be great enough . But the First International did more: it roused the spirit of international solidarity, and developed an independent international foreign policy of the working class.



While Marx guided the First International, he wrote at the same time the famous "Capital" of which Engels said; "No book had been of such importance to the workers as this book" (Engels, Volume 16, page 235, German edition). Marx applied many knowledges to his practical work of the First International that he gained in his book "The Capital" ( partly literally). The "Capital" was the most significant theoretical work and the First International was the most important practical work of Karl Marx.

Both the "Capital" and the First International were created at the same time and formed a theoretical and practical unity of the most powerful, invincible weapon of the proletariat (not only) in the 19th century. As long as the capitalist world slavery exists, the inseparability of these two great works will be of world-historical importance.

All wrong concepts that have been represented in the First International, expressed the passivity and subjugation of the proletariat under the capital. Karl Marx pushed away all these anti-proletarian influences within the First International. He pointed to the theoretical role and importance of the economic struggle of the workers and simultaneously he subordinated the economical struggle under the political aims - namely the liberation of labour from capital and the revolutionary overthrow of the entire capitalist world system:

" It is not the logically impossible "equalization of classes", but the historically necessary, superseding "abolition of classes" (abolition des classes), this true secret of the proletarian movement, which forms the great aim of the International Working Men's Association." (MEW, Volume 21, page 45, English edition).

There would not be a First International, if it would not be penetrated by Marxism, the revolutionary theory of the proletariat. No revolutionary movement - without revolutionary theory. No revolutionary movement without its revolutionary leadership, the revolutionary world party. These teachings of the First International are still important today. They will be also applied in regard of the Comintern (SH). There would not be a Comintern (SH), and no Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement, without the theoretical basis of the further development of Stalinism-Hoxhaism, thus without the development of revolutionary theory in the period of globalization in the late 20th and early 21st century.

Our first two Classics, Marx and Engels, were not only the founders of scientific communism, but also the practical leaders of the world communist movement, in which they verified their scientific ideas.

The organizational struggle of Marx and Engels for the First International was primarily a struggle for the proletarian party. The victory of Communism is impossible without communist organizations, particularly without its highest form, the proletarian International.

In the resolution on the political activities, Marx and Engels wrote:

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes." (Resolution of the London Conference, MEW, Volume 22, page 427, English edition)

"We seek the abolition of Classes. What is the means of achieving it? The political domination of the proletariat." (Marx-Engels, September 21, 1871, MEW, Volume 22, page 417, English edition)

 

Marx was the real organizer, leader, the soul of the International. He wrote her programmatic documents and a large number of calls, declarations, resolutions, reports and other documents, which represent the most important stages of the glorious history of the First International. Marx was in fact the head of the General Council, the executive organ of the First International and the head quarter of the international labor movement. Marx was the leader of the international proletariat. He developed the ideological and organizational principles of a centrally guided world party. He united the various sections of the proletarians of all countries under the international banner of Marxism, under the banner of proletarian internationalism. The creation of a world proletarian party that unites the proletarians of all countries, is a basic condition for the emancipation of the workers. The First International was the highest form of the political and ideological organisation of the united international proletariat. The First International was the highest organisational expression of the world- revolutionary character of the only revolutionary class in the world, whose mission is to lead the proletarian revolution to victory and to establish the dictatorship of the international proletariat. The First International was the organisational form in which the working class expressed its independent, international and political leadership of the whole world society.

Marx based himself on the unequally developed different workers' movement in different countries and merged them into a single, great army of workers of Europe and America under the unified leadership of a centralized world organization in order to direct them to a single common goal - towards communism.

Engels underlined the special role of the Communist League that it played for the foundation of the First International:

"The present-day international workers’ movement is in substance a direct continuation of the German workers’ movement of that time, which was the first international workers’ movement of all time, and which brought forth many of those who took the leading role in the International Working Men’s Association. And the theoretical principles that the Communist League had inscribed on its banner in the Communist Manifesto of 1847 constitute today the strongest international bond of the entire proletarian movement of both Europe and America. After the centre of gravity had shifted from Paris to London, a new feature grew conspicuous: from being German, the League gradually became international. Like the open Association, so also the secret League soon took on a more international character; at first in a restricted sense, practically through the varied nationalities of its members, theoretically through the realization that any revolution to be victorious must be a European one. One did not go any further as yet; but the foundations were there. "

Engels wrote on Oktober 8, 1885:

"The international movement of the European and American proletariat has become so much strengthened that not merely its first narrow form — the secret League — but even its second, infinitely wider form — the open International Working Men’s Association — has become a fetter for it, and that the simple feeling of solidarity based on the understanding of the identity of class position suffices to create and to hold together one and the same great party of the proletariat among the workers of all countries and tongues. The doctrine which the League represented from 1847 to 1852, and which at that time could be treated by the wise philistines with a shrug of the shoulders as the hallucinations of utter madcaps, as the secret doctrine of a few scattered sectarians, has now innumerable adherents in all civilized countries of the world, among those condemned to the Siberian mines as much as among the gold diggers of California; and the founder of this doctrine, the most hated, most slandered man of his time, Karl Marx, was, when he died, the ever-sought-for and ever-willing counsellor of the proletariat of both the old and the new world. " (Frederick Engels: On The History of the Communist League 1885 Nov 12-26, 1885)

Before the First International so there was only the "League of Communists" which had clearly defined itself as an organization of proletarian internationalism.

Also, the founding of the German Social Democratic Workers Party (SDAP) was geared to the principles of Marxism in close co-operation with the guidance of Marx and Engels. At its foundation, on the 9th of August in 1869, the SDAP became a Section of the First International. So the First International played the decisive role for the creation of this first Marxist Party of Germany, which was simultaneously the very first Marxist party in the world. And also all the other Sections were established by the initiative of the First International - without exception. In the period before the establishment of the First International there was no single Marxist party in the world. The First International was - so to say - the "mother" of all the first Marxist parties.

In many respects, these circumstances are similar to those of the founding of the Comintern (SH) and its Sections. Their essential difference, however, is that there were no Marxist parties before the foundation of the First International, while, at the founding of the Comintern (SH), the Marxist-Leninist parties were degenerate as a result of neo-revisionism. The consequences were equal - namely both these world parties were forced to initiate the founding of their own Sections by themselves.

In both cases, the Sections were created by the proletarian International. And in both cases the founding of the proletarian International was not the result from the merger of parties in individual countries. Thus, the creation of Sections of the First International and the Comintern (SH) differs from that of the Second and Third Internationals.

The existence of the proletarian International does not at all end with the creation and strengthening of proletarian parties in each country. It is not at all the destination of proletarian parties to fill the shoes of the proletarian International. This revisionist thesis was the deathblow of the Comintern.

A proletarian International is as indispensable and irreplaceable as its own Sections. The proletarian International is and remains at the heart of proletarian internationalism and international communism.

It is a matter of fact that there was - now and then - the significant initiative of German comrades concerning the founding of the proletarian International. The reason is easily to be explained. This is historically rooted in the immortal, great, internationalist spirit of both the founders and leaders of the First International - Carl Marx and Frederick Engels.

 

Marx and Engels created and defended the democratic centralism of the First International in the fight against the anarchist Bakunin, who wanted to transform the First International in a "free federation of autonomous sections". Today, the splitting activities of the ICMLPO are determined by these similar federalist concepts. The ICMLPO rejects the re-establishment of the Comintern, and therefore, carries the enemy's position of poly-centrism instead of centralism. Just as Marx and Engels waged a victorious struggle against Bakunin, the Comintern (SH) will struggle against all branches of the neo-revisionists.


In its first stage of existence, the proletarian International is primarily confronted with the question: "Are you for or against the proletarian International?" In alignment with the motto "what is not allowed can not be", the question of the re-founding of the Comintern was opportunistically ignored by the adversaries of the Comintern for more than a half century.

In the course of its growing authority within the proletarian masses, the proletarian International, itself, will prove this question to become superfluous.
However, in its advanced stage, the proletarian International will be confronted with another question: "How can the proletarian International be eliminated, complementary from outside AND inside?"

The opportunistic "theory", that the founding of the Communist International must allegedly presuppose "advanced" Communist (mass) parties, is historically disproved by the foundation of both the First International and the Comintern (SH). It is well-known that both have NOT emerged from the merger of Marxist parties. This proves that this "theory" is only a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie, to impede and prevent the re-founding of the Communist International for decades. Despite of all these bourgeois-revisionist "theorists", who try to deny or refute the indispensability of the Communist world party, the bourgeoisie could not prevent that the First International was re-established after its dissolution. The Second International emerged from the First International, the Comintern resulted from the Second International, and last not least, the Comintern (SH) arose from the Comintern. This historical development of the proletarian International was not, is not, and will never be stoppable.

It is noteworthy that Lenin defined the "Stuttgart Congress" (1907) of the Second International expressively as "the twelfth congress of the proletarian International ". We can therefore conclude that the names of all the previous Internationals can be basically summed up by the general term used by Lenin: "proletarian International". The world proletariat grows historically and so does the proletarian International. The different names of the Internationals are thus only expression of the special stages of the historical development of the one and only proletarian International. And that means nothing else than that all the previous Internationals form an inseparable unified whole. So if we defend the foundation of the First and Second International, and also the foundation of the Comintern and the Comintern (SH), then this means consequently that we defend the "proletarian International" as a whole - thus in all its historical stages of development - without excluding the one or other historical stage of the proletarian International. In this way, we Stalinist-Hoxhaists classify the First International and its founding on the scientific basis of the historical and dialectical materialism.

Many different anti-Marxist tendencies and organizations ( openly or hiddenly) swear by the First International, and they all pretend to fight "for" its Marxist goals. The Comintern (SH) struggles against all these Anti-Marxist currents and organizations on the basis of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. We Stalinist-Hoxhaists are of the opinion that we can not defend the foundation of the First International [1864], if we would not simultaneously defend the foundation of the Second International [1889], the foundation of the Comintern [1919] and the foundation of the Comintern (SH ) [2000]. Those who ignore or deny the inseparable context of these decisive four years- 1864, 1889, 1919 and 2000 - will understand neither the dialectical nor the historical meaning of the First International.

Today, it is not at all self-evident that there is a Communist International (Stalinist-Hoxhaists) which celebrates the 150th anniversary of the First International. In the whole time, since the establishment of the First International, the world proletariat fought without the proletarian International for a period of nearly a 100 years ! If the proletarian International would have existed uninterruptedly for 150 years, then the world of today would not be the same. In retrospect, there is no more important lesson of the 150th anniversary of the First International than that of Lenin's presage: "Essentially the Communist International did not fall - lives on till this day and will also live on in future!” 

The prospering of the Comintern (SH) confirms the truth of these words of Lenin, and they are our obligation and program at the same time.

 

What happened on the 100th anniversary in 1964 ? The revisionist criminals who dissolved the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin, 20 years ago, took the credit for the First International as its allegedly "legitimated heirs".
In fact, in their ceremonial documents the modern revisionists kept quiet about the glorious Comintern of Lenin and Stalin. They only mentioned the "Declarations of the Communist and Workers' Parties of 1957 and 1960" (in which the revisionist poison of the XX Congress of the CPSU was already incorporated), to "prove" their continuation of the ideas of the First International (see: speech of W. Ulbricht).

On their celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the First International these revisionist traitors (including the Maoists !) lost not a single word about the fact that the defense of the First International can be nothing else than the struggle for the re-establishment of the Communist International. Instead, in 1964, there was a power struggle between the two major revisionist parties - of the Soviet Union and China - who were both in agreement a) to prevent the re-establishment of the International, b) to split and liquidate the world communist movement and c) to extinguish the fire of the socialist world revolution.

In the fight against this betrayal of modern revisionism, new Marxist-Leninist parties were founded under the leadership of comrade Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour of Albania. But the Marxist-Leninist world movement was still not able to re-establish the foundation of the Comintern. This happened with the turn of the century - by the founding of the Comintern (SH) - thus at a time, when the Marxist-Leninist world movement was almost completely liquidated after the collapse of the last socialist country - of Albania.



The First International was the first organization of the international proletariat which united the labor movement with scientific socialism; which combined the struggle for direct daily interests with the struggle for the communist ultimate goals. With the First International, the basic principles of the "Communist Manifesto" were implemented, namely a) to struggle in the current movement also for the future of the movement , and b) to struggle primarily for the overall interests of the entire world proletariat.

However, the First International did never confuse the achievement of the independence of the working class with its sectarian isolation from all other progressive movements outside the labor movement. One of the most important knowledges of Marx and Engels was the new form of class struggle that is fundamentally different from all previous forms of class struggle: "that the present-day oppressed class the proletariat, cannot achieve its emancipation without at the same time emancipating society as a whole from division into classes and, therefore, from class struggles. And Communism now no longer meant the concoction, by means of the imagination, of an ideal society as perfect as possible, but insight into the nature, the conditions and the consequent general aims of the struggle waged by the proletariat." (Frederick Engels: On The History of the Communist League 1885 Nov 12-26, 1885)

Marx and Engels, who fought for the support of any progressive, democratic movement all over the world, taught the proletariat and its pioneers in the First International, to take the position of a truly internationalist solidarity with the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples. The First International was in the forefront of the liberation of the oppressed peoples. Marx and Engels created the principle of proletarian internationalism - namely to connect the own struggle of proletarian emancipation with the struggle of emancipation of the oppressed peoples.

Lenin proved to be the best follower of the First International when he taught "that there is no other way of combating national hatred than by organising and uniting the oppressed class for a struggle against the oppressor class in each separate country, than by uniting such national working-class army to fight international capital." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 1, page 156, English edition)

Marx and Engels condemned the narrow-minded nationalism, and simultaneously they taught that the national question can only be solved by the internationalist struggle of the proletariat. They called on the workers in the oppressor countries, to support the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples, because the economic power of the bourgeoisie is based - to a great extent - on the exploitation of the colonies: "Any people that oppresses another people forges its own chains." – (Marx, MEW, Volume 21, page 89, English edition).

Marx created the "Provisional Rules of the Working Men's international Association" in which he emphasized:
„That the emancipation of labour is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists, and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical and theoretical, of the most advanced
countries“.(MEW, Volume 20, page 14, English edition)

Unification of the proletarians of all countries for the overthrow of world capitalism, for the international conquest of workers' power, for the construction of a socialist world with the final aim of creating a classless society - this was already manifested in the founding documents of the First International - thus according to the "Communist Manifesto" in which the world-historical mission of the working class was defined for the first time.

And in his last speech, on the Hague Congress, Carl Marx proclaimed:

"Let us bear in mind this fundamental principle of the International: solidarity! It is by establishing this life-giving principle on a reliable base among all the workers in all countries that we shall achieve the great aim which we pursue. The revolution must display solidarity, and we find a great example of this in the Paris Commune, which fell because there did not appear in all the centres, in Berlin, Madrid, etc., a great revolutionary movement corresponding to this supreme uprising of the Paris proletariat.
For my part I will persist in my task and will constantly work to establish among the workers this solidarity which will bear fruit for the future. No, I am not withdrawing from the International, and the rest of my life will be devoted, like my efforts in the past, to the triumph of the social ideas which one day, be sure of it, will bring about the universal rule of the proletariat." (MEW, Volume 23, page 256, English edition).

Dear Carl Marx, be sure that the Comintern (SH) is sure of it !!!

Since the founding of the Comintern (SH) in 2000, we carry forward the flag of the inexorable triumph of world domination of the proletariat in all countries of the world. For this aim, Carl Marx and Frederick Engels fought all their life long, especially in the time of the glorious First International.

As the only organisation in the world, the Comintern (SH) preserves today the revolutionary heritage of the First International and fights for the realization of its goals. The triumph of the world domination of the proletariat is based on the correct implementation of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism!

 

 

 

The Second International


The First and Second International were formed during the years of the emerging world proletariat in Europe and North America, and the First International ended with the victory of the European counter-revolution over the Paris Commune.

The world historical events of the Paris Commune were impetus of germ cells of internationalist attachments of the proletariat which emerged during increasing class struggles in all the capitalist countries. The Second International was the era in which the basis was created for a wide spread of the movement among the masses in a number of advanced countries. With the help of the reformist leaders of the social democracy, the bourgeoisie succeeded in changing the Second International into a tool of the counter-revolution, a tool for the preparation and support of the imperialist First World War (social-chauvinist "defense of the fatherland", political truce with the domestic bourgeoisie, etc.).

The period of the II. International is of important ideological significance - the transitional period from Marxism to Leninism. In life-times of Engels the II. International was guided by Marxism. The III. International was guided by Marxism-Leninism.

The period of the II. International is of important organisational significance - the transitional period from the International Working-Men’s Association to the Communist International.

The period of the II. International is of important significance of the breadth of internationalization of the revolutionary proletarian movement - the transitional period between Paris Commune and October Revolution, the transitional period of the socialist workers' world movement to the communist movement of the world proletariat.

"The First International laid the foundation of the proletarian, international struggle for socialism.

The Second International marked a period in which the soil was prepared for the broad, mass spread of the movement in a number of countries. The Second International (1889-1914) was an international organisation of the proletarian movement whose growth proceeded in breadth, at the cost of a temporary drop in the revolutionary level, a temporary strengthening of opportunism, which in the end led to the disgraceful collapse of this International.

The Third International has gathered the fruits of the work of the Second International, discarded its opportunist, social-chauvinist, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois dross, and has begun to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat." ( Lenin: "The Third International and its place in history", April 15, 1919)

Engels and Lenin have both got a place of honor because of their great merits concerning their work for the Marxist alignement of the II. International. Engels and Lenin were - one after another - the leaders of the international communist and workers' movement in this historical period of the II. International. In this period Lenin created the further development of Marxism = Marxism in the beginning period of imperialism and the proletarian revolution (= Leninism). In the struggle against revisionism, under the new conditions of imperialism such as social-chauvinism and social-patriotism, Marxism-Leninism became the ideology of the revolutionary international proletariat.

This historical fact is overlooked all too often unjustly. We Stalinist-Hoxhaists cannot speak about the First and the Third International without the historical meaning of the II. International.

The Second International was up to the year of 1914 dominated by the spirit of Marxism, though the II. International could not any longer be prevented from its increasing process of decay - caused by the dominant betrayal of the opportunists and revisionists. However, and after all, the "Basle-Resolution of 1912" still highlighted elements of the spirit of the revolution which would inevitably break out in consequence of the imperialist war. This law corresponded perfectly to the teaching of Marxism.

Our Stalinist-Hoxhaist world party must learn not only from the teachings and experiences of the I. and III. International but also from the revolutionary experiences of the Second International, and much more from its opportunist process of decay.

If we defend the Second International, we defend primarily the work of Engels and Lenin in it, in particular their fight against the traitors of the Second International.

Engels was the one who implanted the revolutionary Marxist spirit of the Second International - from the beginning until his death in 1895. And - some years after - it was Lenin who defended and further developed this revolutionary Marxist spirit as one of the leaders of the Second International.

Unfortunately, these two Classics have not worked together personally, but their revolutionary work that they accomplished in the Second International is to be categorized as a great, common, immortal, communist work.Friedrich Engels played a crucial role in the preparation of all the Congresses from 1889 to 1893. 1889 Engels was involved in the draft and implementation of the Programme of the Second International.1893 Engels took part at the Zurich Congress of the "Second International" - as honorary chairman .

Engels was not only the best and most fameous guide of the Second International but also the undisputed ideological leader of the international socialist labour movement - after the death of Karl Marx.

Engels' leadership-role in the international labour movement intensified significantly with the founding of the Second International. His fight for the merger of the new international association of socialist and labour parties - on the basis of Marxism and the dissemination of scientific communism among the proletarians of all countries - is reflected in many of his writings and letters. 

In the end of the 80s the proletarian parties and organizations strived increasingly for a strengthening of the international unity - to join their forces for the overthrow of capitalism. The conditions for the creation of a new international organization of the proletariat had matured. Engels wrote on 4 January, 1888, to the Romanian Social-Democrat Nadejde: "These progresses are so great that, at least for the European party, a common international policy has become possible and necessary." 

In the early days of the Second International, Friedrich Engels struggled relentlessly for the defense of Marxism against opportunism. He spread further scientific communism in the international labour movement and strengthened the socialist parties that had joint since 1889 in the Second International. He gave important advice to the Second International for preparing its strategy and tactics. In the spirit of international solidarity, more practically, he also provided material support to the parties and the workers of different countries for their strikes and campaigns against the bourgeoisie.

Founding Congress of the Second International in Paris

Engels recognized the danger early enough that the desire of the workers, to merge internationally, could be misused by opportunists, who aimed for their leadership-role at the top of the international labour movement. This foresight was motive to pause his scientific work, even his work on the third volume of the "Capital". And so he was actively involved in the preparation of the Paris Congress of 1889. 

"Engels (who was then 68 years old) entered the fray like a young man," Lenin later wrote about that time (Lenin, Volume 12, page 367 ).

Engels was confronted with the most important task to secure the international unity of the proletariat on the basis of scientific communism, and he made every effort to ensure the victory of the Marxist forces and to thwart the machinations of the opportunists - the Possibilists in France and the leaders of the Social Democratic Federation in England. 

The letters to Paul Lafargue, 21, 23 and 25 March 1889 and Wilhelm Liebknecht, 4, 5 and 17 April 1889 show, with which vigor Engels was guiding the preparation of the Paris Congress of 1889. 

Engels himself provided an extensive organizational work and supported the French Marxists in the preparation of the Congress with numerous concrete advice and hints. He warned and urged Paul Larfargue to adopt the appeal for the convention of the Congress and to ensure that the foreign comrades sign it. He rewrote it, managed its translation into English and translated it into German by himself. Together with Eleanor Marx, he contributed to the publication and dissemination of the appeal. Engels' efforts were crowned with success. On 17 July 1889, he was able to write to his friend Friedrich Adolph Sorge:

"Our Congress hits home and is a brilliant success."

The Paris International Socialist Workers' Congress of 1889 was the founding congress of the Second International. 

This Congress based itself - in all material respects, from the very start - on the ground of Marxism. The Congress oriented the international labour movement to the struggle against militarism and war, the formation and strengthening of political parties and trade unionist mass organizations in all countries. This Congress called the struggle for democratic rights, using all legal means of struggle and stressed the goal of the labour movement: the conquest of political power.

Engels described the Decision to demonstrate international solidarity on First of May 1890, and the Decision on the eight-hour day - as the "best thing that our Congress has done."

With this Decision the great world holiday and fighting-day of the international working class - was born. The decision on the May Day celebration, adopted on the founding Congress of the II. International, was - as Engels stressed repeatedly - of great importance for the mobilization of the masses and the strengthening of international proletarian solidarity. In the preface to the fourth German edition of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party "(1890) Engels stated with pride that the call: "Proletarians of all countries - unite!" which was spread all over the world by Marx and Engels in 1848, found approval of the workers all over the world. This was proven by the great demonstrations in the May of 1890. In his greeting addresses ("To the Austrian workers on 1 May 1893", "To the German workers on 1 May 1893", "In spite of all!" [greeting address to the French workers on May 1, 1893] .. and others) - written on occasion of the May-demonstrations - Engels called for the international proletariat to make the every-year May-Day a traditional parade of the growing proletarian world army. This parade shows the increasing resoluteness of strengthening the proletarian internationalism.

His extensive correspondence with the leaders of the international workers' movement was needed to generalize the experience of the revolutionary labour movement of various countries and to explain its consequences. The letters of Engels show us how much Engels struggled for the ideological and organizational strengthening of the parties, and how he appeared irreconcilable in opposite of all varieties of opportunism. On the other hand he helped the leaders to overcome dogmatic and sectarian errors.

Consistently and principled Engels defended the doctrine of the revolutionary party of the working class and the need for an independent proletarian class policy. The ideological unity of all parties and their discipline, Engels emphasized, are based on the high consciousness and internationalist activity of its members, are based on the participation of each party member in the development of an internationalist politics and tactics of the parties.

Engels repeatedly made all the socialist parties aware that it was necessary to creatively apply the Marxist theory. Theoretical platforms

"are useless if they do not fit to the real demands of the people."

International Marxism is a "living theory of action, working with the working class on every possible stage of its development." 

Marxism is not "a collection of dogmas which are memorized and recited like a mantra or a Catholic prayer."

The correct application of Marxist theory requires, as Engels pointed out repeatedly, to work out the tactics of the international proletarian parties on the basis of concrete historical situation in each country and thereby generalize the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the masses scientifically.

On 4 September 1892, he wrote to Karl Kautsky: "In our tactics - one thing is indispensable for all countries and for all times: to convince the workers to create their own independent party in opposition of all the bourgeois parties."

Leitmotif in all the letters of Engels is his passionate struggle for the international unity and solidarity of the working class. Engels assumed that it is necessary and possible to achieve the best accordance of the fundamental questions of class struggle within the international labour movement. He tirelessly worked for the cooperation of socialist parties and for their education in the spirit of proletarian internationalism. He always pointed out that the national tasks of the labour movements must be inseparably connected to the general, over-all internationalist tasks.

Engels was relentlessly keen to consolidate the II. International and secure the international workers' unity on a Marxist basis. With this intention he took active part in the preparation of the international socialist Congresses. His letters to Paul Lafargue from June 12 and 28, 1891, to Laura Lafargue from July 20, and August 17, 1891, and to Friedrich Adolph Sorge from August 9 and 11, 1891, and other letters - give evidence of Engel's great attention which he gave to the preparations for the International Socialist Workers' Congress in Brussels (which took place from 16 to 22 August 1891). 

International Socialist Workers' Congress in Brussels

(16 to 22 August 1891) 

In the preparation of the next Congress of the Second International in Brussels, in 1891, Engels was also significantly involved. Some letters reflect his support of Marxist parties in developing the right tactics to convene the Congress. He isolated the opportunists and secured the victory of the followers of Marxism (see the letters to Paul Larfargue from September 15 and 19, 1890, to Friedrich Adolph Sorge from September 27, 1890, to Leo Frankel from September 25, 1890, etc.).

In his writing "On the Brussels Convention and the situation in Europe", Engels' prominent role as leader of the international proletariat became apparent.

He opposed all the attempts of the opportunists, especially the Possibilists who undermined the unity of the international labour movement. To the Marxist leaders, he gave specific instructions to correct errors which were committed in the preparation. The efforts of Engels and other leading Marxist forces of the international workers' movement finally resulted in the fact that the Brussels Congress took place on the ground of Marxism - from the very beginning. The Brussels Congress, which called upon the workers of all countries to fight the caving for war and war-alliances, which demanded for protective labour legislation, and which took other important decisions, - all this was of great value for the further development of the international workers' movement. Engels welcomed the results of the Congress. On 2 September, 1891, he told his friend Friedrich Adolph Sorge: "The Marxists have won all along the line - both according to principle and tactics ..." 

International Socialist Workers' Congress in Zurich

(16 - 12 August 1893) 

Even in the preparation of the Zurich International Socialist Workers' Congress Engels seized the initiative when it mattered to face the renewed attempts of the opportunists to divide the international working unity. When he learned that the Congress of Trade Unions had decided (in Glasgow) to decline the invitation to the Socialist Congress in Zurich and - instead - to call its own, separatist labour congress on the question of the eight-hour day, then Engels developed a plan that enabled the frustration of the realization of this sneaky decision. He recommended to adopt resolutions of protest, which should not only come from the socialist parties, but also from the unions. This is - he wrote on 11 September, 1892 to August Bebel - "a magnificent opportunity ..., to make plain to the English and to show them that the class-conscious proletariat has no intention to subordinate under the line of people for whom the wage system is an eternal and unshakable world construction. "

Engels 'efforts and the efforts of the revolutionary forces of the international workers' movement were successful. The workers of Germany, France, Spain and other countries of the continent declined the invitation of the reformist leaders of Trade Unions. The Congress - which was plotted by the opportunists - did not take place.

A highlight of the Zurich Congress was Engels' last appearance on the trial. He gave a passionate speech in which he emphasized the need of common agreements to strengthen the unity and clout of the international proletariat. In his closing speech at the International Socialist Workers' Congress in Zurich, Engels said:

"We have to tolerate the debate - otherwise we woul become a sect, however our common position must be respected."

His impressions of the Zurich Congress are reflected in letters to Laura Lafargue (21August 1893), to Friedrich Adolph Sorge ( 7th October 1893) and in other letters. 

Engels devoted considerable attention to the development and strengthening of international relations between the socialists of different countries. He considered the exchange of information between the various socialist parties about their activities, their mutual support in the press as important means to promote the merger of the international labour movement. Engels called for mutual exchange of experiences - as objectively and comprehensively as possible. He criticized several times the "Vorwärts", the central organ of the German Social Democracy, because of its inaccurate and superficial coverage of the labour movement in England and France. To Paul Larfargue, August Bebel and other leaders of the labour movement, he wrote extensively on the need for careful selection of the foreign correspondents for the socialist newspaper.

Also the personal contacts between the leaders of socialist parties contributed significantly to the strengthening of international cooperation. Engels himself was the initiator of a series of international meetings of Socialists. Engels repeatedly pointed out, how important it was, that representatives of the fraternal parties attend party-congresses and rallies in other countries. 

In his letter to Laura Lafargue, 20 June, 1893, Engels said explicitly that relations between the socialist parties can only be based on the principle of full equal rights. 

An "international organization can only exist between nations whose existence, autonomy and independence in internal affairs are therefore already included in the concept of internationalism." 

But he turned decidedly against the unfounded claims to hegemony in the international labour movement, raised by diverse parties at times. Not the subjective desires of their leaders determine the position of this or that party in the international labour movement, Engels said, but what counts is the objective role which the party plays in the liberation struggle of the working class. Engels did not deny, that individual parties can form the revolutionary vanguard of the international movement in one or another stage of the struggle, however he pointed out, that the overthrow of capitalism on an international scale can by no means be the matter of an individual party.

"... Neither French nor German, nor English," he concretised this idea in his letter to Paul Larfargue on June 27, 1893, "will enjoy the fame, having overthrown capitalism all by itself; ... The liberation of the proletariat can only be an international action ..." 

Engels was aware that the labour movement had reached such a level that joint action of the different national formations of the working class were possible. However, he stressed that these steps would have to be discussed by all participants in advance and carried out only in voluntary cooperation. 

"The absolute condition for any international action," he wrote to Paul Larfargue, "has to be that agreements are made in advance about the content and form. It seems to me inadmissible that a nationality takes the initiative - publicly all alone - and that it then calls the other to follow. " 

Engels repeatedly alluded to the big mistake to separate the solution of problems of the labour movement in any country from the collective tasks of the entire international proletariat. He urged the Socialists to think always about the necessity, that each individual step is also important for the class brothers in other countries. Every party is required to take this into account.

Engels pointed out that the activity of the one party inevitably affects that of all the other parties - that ...

"... a success conquered by one country reacts powerfully on all the others."

Based on this, Engels recommended, socialist parties must coordinate their tactics with one other. 

He condemned those Socialists who did not notice that the labour movement does not always develop according to their subjective notions, and found that, for example, in the United States of America the struggle of the working class differs in many ways from that of the European continent, and that not a few leaders of the Socialist Workers' Party of North America did not notice the different conditions of development - with the cosequence that they detached from the masses of the struggling proletariat.

Engels attched great value to the further strengthening of the international proletarian relations, international congresses and conferences, but above all to the direct contacts and meetings of representatives of the parties. As particularly important he considered the establishment of permanent links between the two largest departments of the working class on the continent - the French Socialists and the German Social Democrats. This connection, he considered as a strong barrier against the aspirations of the chauvinist reactionary forces in the two countries, but simultaneously as a bulwark against the increasing opportunism. In the socialist parties, mainly in the German Social Democracy, the most influential party of the Second International, openly opportunist, reformist current appeared towards the end of the 19th Century in form of revisionism, which revised the principles of Marxist revolutionary theory openly.

Engels and other revolutionary Marxists therefore set themselves the most important task, namely, increased propaganda of Marxism, its intensified defense against distortions and vulgarization, fighting against the ruling classes in Europe, who attempted to decompose and split the international workers' movement with the help of the opportunists.

Despite his advanced age, Engels contributed an enormous theoretical and political support to the international labour movement. The publication of the third volume of the "Capital" - in the end of 1894 - was primarily a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of the socialist parties. 

Engels tirelessly called on the parties of the Second International to defend and to continue the revolutionary traditions and heritage of the First International. 

He urged the Socialists of the II. International to study and to apply to the revolutionary experiences of the First International, while he expected that the Second International would enrich the experience of the I. International. 

The Second International, however, did not justify the hopes that Engels had put into it. 

In the first years of its existence it was really an internationalist genuine Marxist fighting organization when Engels was on its side with giving advice and levelling criticism.

However, after Engels' death - and in the course of the imperialist development of capitalism - , the reformists and revisionists, and the hidden opportunists, the centrists, increased their influence steadily. 

In 1914 this opportunism led finally to the ignominious collapse of the II. International. 

Nevertheless, Engels' activity in spreading Marxism and proletarian internationalism in the labour movement fructified the prosperity of the Second International in its early years.

The II. International was a contribution to the education of the truly revolutionary elements in the parties of many countries, who upheld the banner of Marxism and proletarian internationalism

- especially Lenin and the revolutionary wing of Russian social democracy. 

And it was Lenin who called: "The Second International is dead, overcome by opportunism. Down with opportunism, and long live the Third International!" (Lenin)

 

 

The Comintern

 

The October Revolution was a victory of the Bolsheviks over the betrayal of the Second International.

The III. International was founded by significant support of the Bolshevik party of Lenin and Stalin after the betrayal of the Second International.

The III. International took over the fruits of the First and Second International and freed them from opportunistic refuse, in order to carry the dictatorship of the proletariat from Russia to the whole world - up to the colonial countries. The foundation of the III. International was the precursor to the international Soviet Republic.

While the Comintern was founded after the end of the First World War- thus with the beginning of the socialist revolutions -, it ceased to exist in the end of the Second World War. This happened just in a time when its necessity for the world revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat hit its peak. In the moment, when the Soviet Union was in the very act of becoming a world power, and when world imperialism reached its weakest point in history, when the victory of the socialist world revolution was thus in its grasp - just in this time, when the Comintern was about epoch making, it was liquidated by the prevailing forces of the right opportunists. The dissolution of the Comintern was a disservice of the revisionists for the survival of world imperialism.

The treacherous pact with social democracy facilitated the subsequent later takeover of power by the modern revisionists. The restoration of capitalism was the second disservice of the revisionists in favor of world imperialism - the destruction of socialism.

The general-line of the Comintern (SH) is the synthesis of the revolutionary experiences, spirit and content of the general-line of the I., II. and III. International and the anti-revisionist line of the Cominform - and last not least of the revolutionary experiences, spirit and content of the Marxist-Leninist World Movement guided by comrade Enver Hoxha.

The Comintern (SH) was founded in the struggle against several neo-revisionist camps, which liquidated the Marxist-Leninist world movement after the fall of the socialist Albania. There was no other way than to recreate the Comintern for the construction of a new communist world center.

This new communist world center had to fulfill the task of the preparation of the ideological, political and organisational revival of the communist world movement - the creation of the new Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement, nam ely in the tradition of the Marxist-Leninist World Movement of comrade Enver Hoxha.The Comintern can only develop through class struggle with the whole capitalist-revisionist world.

The Comintern (SH) is the anti-revisionist vanguard of world revolution in the present stage of globalized class struggle:

a) The Comintern (SH) defends the communist world movements in the time of both the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin and the socialist Albania of Enver Hoxha. The defense of the Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist and Hoxhaist type of socialism can be nothing else, than the world-socialist completion in the conditions of the world dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World movement needs to base its struggle for world socialism on the lessons of the Communist World Movement of the former period of socialism in "one" country. But moreover, we must be conscious about the fact that the Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement is the leading movement of the current revolutionary world proletariat and not of the revolutionary world proletariat in the former time of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement is a movement of world socialism.

b) The Comintern (SH) considers the achievements, experiences and lessons of the communist movement from the whole first period of socialism in "one" country as an essential component for the preparation, implementation and protection of the socialistworld revolution. However, all these former lessons, in itself, are not sufficient. We are in uncharted globalized waters, and the renewed Communist World Movement has to learn to swim like a fish in the water.

c) The Comintern (SH) uses the destroyed system of the Stalinist world camp as a model for the purpose of complete destruction of the capitalist world camp. Breaking through the sole reign of world capitalism is totally insufficient for us. We will not stop halfway. Our goal is not the restoration of two co-existing world camps. The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement is the movement for the unrestricted world domination of socialism - thus a movement for the total removal of the existence of capitalism.

d) The Comintern (SH) crowns the October Revolution with the victory of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat.

The general-line must constantly develop and determine new forms of the compounds of international cooperation of the world revolutionary forces. The general-line defines how the world-revolutionary forces are to be united to a strong "monolithic bloc". The general-line defines how the world-Bolshevist party has to lead the world-Bolshevist movement.

 

The definition of the international communist movement

We call the world communist movement, the oldest, the most experienced, most conscious, most radical, most dynamic, most powerful, purest, indestructible, and the only revolutionary form of the class movement of the world proletariat opposite to all forms of the counter-revolutionary movements of the exploiting classes, particularly opposite to the world bourgeoisie.

The communist world movement is the revolutionary leading force within the workers' world movement.

Only the communist world movement transforms the movement of the world proletariat into the inexhaustible, self-contained driving force which finishes the state of the world-capitalist exploitation and oppression in a revolutionary way; which brings about the state of world socialism; and which creates the communism.

The international communist party is the conscious exponent of the class movement of the world proletariat.

 

 

The four historical stages of development of the world communist movement

The Comintern (SH) divides the history of the communist movement in following four stages:

1. the Marxist world movement

a) the First International - founded and guided by Marx and Engels

b) the Second International (however only as long as it was Marxist - at first by the contributions of Engels and later by Lenin -, thus in a time when the Second International had not yet been sunken into the swamp of the opportunistic anti-socialism);

2. the Bolshevik world movement

a) under the leadership of Lenin (Comintern)

b) under the leadership of Stalin (Comintern and Cominform)

3. the Marxist-Leninist world movement of Enver Hoxha - (creation of cooperation among the Marxist-Leninist parties, however without re-establishment of the Comintern)

4. The Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement under the banner of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha [ under the leadership of the Comintern (SH) ].

All the other so called "left" movements - whether they call themselves "communist", or "Hoxhaist", "Stalinist", "Marxist-Leninist", Trotskyite, Maoist, Anarchist, Council Communist, or what so ever - they are definitely not part of the world communist movement.

They belong to a variety of anti-proletarian currents of agencies of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie within the world communist movement. In the one or another way, they try to adapt the world-communist movement to the capitalist world under the guise of "communism" or "socialism". The exploitive and oppressive classes use these currents for the infiltration into the communist world movement, for its paralyzation and control, for hindering its influence within the workers' world movement, for its re-integration into the capitalist society, for its assimilation and final dissolution.

The communist world movement overcomes its periods of crisis in a world-revolutionary manner - and only in a world-revolutionary manner. That means in demarcation line against the revisionists, opportunists and all the lackeys of world imperialism.

The Comintern's history teaches: If you do not permanently purify and clean the ranks of the Communist International, it is impossible to win in the world socialist revolution, let alone maintain its victory.

The road to the development and consolidation of the Communist movement and the Communist International, leads via its cleansing from all elements of opportunistic movements. These are "communist movements" in words and anti-communist movements in deeds.

The whole History of the Communist International and the Communist world movement reflects its struggle against all open and hidden world-forces of anti-communism.

Well known, the international class enemy tried and tries to beat the world communist movement and the Communist International at their "own game". In open battles the Communist International and the world communist movement can not be defeated.
The bourgeoisie is thus forced to "win the fortress from inside".

The bourgeoisie tried to combat the Comintern not only from outside (such as by the so-called "Anti-Comintern Pact"), but also from inside (to paralyze, to disorient, to divert it from the correct line, to decompose and to dissolve it).

The main danger and the main reason that led to the dissolution of the Communist International, was clearly the rightist opportunism - more precisely, the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to the social democratism.

This paved the way for the later conquest of the power of the modern revisionists who were recruited from the Comintern to a considerable extent.


Revisionism arose when Marxism had already triumphed over the open enemies.

Neo-revisionism arose when Marxism-Leninism triumphed over modern revisionism.

The historical lessons of international communism in its struggle against opportunism is an invincible weapon of the revolutionary world proletariat. They are a cornerstone for the forging of the Stalinist-Hoxhaist Comintern and for a strong, imperishable Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement.


The history of international communism is particularly the history of the struggle against revisionism. It is the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeois ideology that has entered in the guise of "Marxism-Leninism" the world stage of the class struggle. The liberation of the proletariat from the bourgeois ideology is forged primarily in the blazing fire of international class struggle against revisionism and all its different complementary camps and branches.

The struggle against revisionism was always done with the method of the classics of Marxism-Leninism:

Unmasking, demarcation and separation from bourgeois influence in order to get rid of it;

independent development and strengthening of the world-proletarian class consciousness through learning the lessons of the classics of Marxism-Leninism in the class struggle;

The aim is to eliminate the inevitability of bourgeois influence in the world proletariat and within the international communist movement.


Today, the liberation of the world proletariat is impossible without complete destruction of neo-revisionist influences. The neo-revisionism is the pacemaker of bourgeois influence in today's world-revolutionary movement.

The neo-revisionism is "anti-revisionism" in words and revisionism in deeds.

In other words, the alleged "anti-revisionism" of the neo-revisionists is the newest ideological weapon of the world bourgeoisie for the purpose, to thwart, to weaken and to liquidate our struggle for the abolition of the inevitability of revisionism.

This is the major current lesson which we must learn from the history of the Communist International and the Communist world movement and their struggle against opportunism. Further uncovering the truth about the history of the Comintern and the debunking of the crimes of the bourgeois historians is an urgent task that can decide on victory or defeat of the world revolution. If this important task would have been solved halfway satisfactorily, we would have long since been a functioning Communist International.

This concerns primarily our poor and incorrect application of the world-Bolshevik principle of criticism and self-criticism, this is the law of the development of the Comintern, of the international communist movement and of all communists. The concealment of the Comintern has to be pulled down and the original documents will be translated into all languages ​​and distributed. This mission is in the special interest of the general-line of the Comintern (SH).

 

 

 

 

Our summarized statement about the end of the Comintern is as follows:

At the height of its historical significance, the Comintern has been lacking of vigilance.

History has proved that the Comintern was not able to get rid of the growing influence of social democratism in its own ranks.

Obviously, the Comintern did not offensively enough defend the world-revolutionary line of Lenin and Stalin. The necessary purification from anti-proletarian elements within the Communist International and the Communist World Movement was prevented by the rightist opportunists under the disguise of alleged "anti-sectarianism".

The rightist turn of the Comintern and its turning away of Marxism-Leninism took place in the course of the Seventh World Congress.

In the moment, when the Comintern was put to test, the Comintern exhausted its weakened force, and capitulated under heaviest pressure of fascism and war. The best fighters of the Comintern lost their lifes on the battlefields against ther imperialist war and in the dungeons of the fascists, or they were abased, degraded and removed by the rightist leadership of the Comintern.

The dissolution of the Comintern was a historically lasting defeat for the world proletariat and the world revolution, was a victory of the international forces of the Anti-Comintern, was a decisive factor in the historical growth of modern revisionism.

 

 

The modern revisionists celebrated and still celebrate the capitulation of Dimitrov and the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern as THEIR anti-Stalinist "victory", as the beginning of the end of the glorious Comintern of Lenin and Stalin.

And the Maoists applaud together with the modern revisionists. They regard the capitulation of Dimitrov and the Seventh World Congress also as their "victory":

"Dimitrov gained immortal merits at the 7th World Congress for the anti-fascist struggle. His definition of fascism was outstanding. Later on, when the world revolutionary development did not come as it was expected, and when capitalism has entered a period of relative stability, it would have been correct to dissolve the Comintern" - ("MLPD" - German Maoists).

It's pure liquidationism !

 

 

Concerning our statement to the dissolution of the Comintern already 12 years have passed by, since we have published our general-line the first time. So we have revised our position self-critically and define it here more precisely, namely in the following 10 points:

 

 

10 reasons against the dissolution of the Comintern

 

 

1.

The existence of a Communist International is neither dependent on the ups and downs of capitalism, nor dependent on the ups and downs of inner party struggles. It is always and in any case absolutely indespensable for the fulfillment of the revolutionary mission of the world proletariat. Consequently, it is never allowed to cancel its existence, neither in times of capitalist crises, nor during fascism, nor in times of imperialist wars, etc, nor during inner crises.

Precisely in particularly most difficult and harsh conditions of the class struggle, in situations and periods in which the world proletariat and the peoples have the worst to suffer under the yoke of capitalism (such as under Nazism and World War II), precisely then is the Communist International indispensable, precisely then is such a dissolution close to a crime. Precisely in 1943, when tens of millions of masses bleeded to death, were murdered, starved and died of thirst, it is impossible to dissolve the Comintern and to leave the world proletariat and the peoples to their fate. Especially in the most extreme conditions, the leadership of the Communist International is needed for the revolutionary liberation of the world proletariat and the peoples - namely to smash down and end the brutal, bloody rule of the world bourgeoisie.

Maintaining the Communist International (respectively its fastest reconstruction in case of its liquidation), is absolutely a historical necessity. All the tactical considerations are absolutely subordinated. The principled question of the existence of the Communist International is not to be mixed up with the tactical questions of the Communist International. Decisions whether the Comintern lives or dies, only for the purpose of a temporary advantage (or to avoid an intermediate disadvantage), and the sacrificing of principles in the interests for a moment - are downright opportunist decisions. Nobody can deny or annul this truth by the accusation of "dogmatism".

 

2.

The existence of the Communist International is not only limited in the absolute necessity of overthrowing the capitalist world domination, by means of the world socialist revolution. That necessity exists uninterruptedly during the whole period of the existence of world capitalism.

However, the Communist International is also needed for the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat and for leading the construction of world socialism.
The Communist International will therefore be indispensable during the entire historical period of world socialism, namely to eliminate the danger of the restoration of world capitalism, and finally to lead the world proletariat toward world communism.

Without Communist International there is no overthrow and destruction of world capitalism.

Without Communist International there is no victorious construction of world socialism.

Without Communist International there is no transition to world communism.

Any "justification" for the premature dissolution of the Communist International can therefore be nothing more than a justification for the prolongation of the world domination of the bourgeoisie, for the delay of the dictatorship of the world proletariat, and finally for the postponement of World Communism.

 

3.

In the event that our Communist International will be forcibly liquidated or from the inside decomposed by the bourgeoisie, in the event that the Comintern falls victim to its own degeneration, in the event that it is turned into an instrument of the class enemy, then: it is our duty to ruthlessly slap it out of the hostile hands.
Only if this should not succeed - we must rebuild the Communist International in any case - and that , of course, restored on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism.

 

4.

If we would dissolve our own Communist International, for any reason whatsoever, this contradicts the basic idea of proletarian internationalism. We would cease to be Communists. The own liquidation of our communist organization is tantamount to capitulation to the class enemy. This means nothing else than the disarmament of the world proletariat and cession the field to the international counter-revolution.

No Communist International is worth anything, unless it can defend itself. But the Communist International does not learn to defend itself at once. This is an ever lasting process of learning from its own experiences.

The Comintern (SH) will never be dissolved by itself. The Communist International is a dying breed in the period of world communism. It will die off not a sole day earlier.

 

5.

Countries of the dictatorship of the proletariat are particularly bound to proletarian internationalism. This means that they are obliged to protect the Communist International by all means. Maintaining the existence of the Comintern is also self-evident task of exclusively all the other Sections of the Comintern.

It is not only the right but also the duty of a country of the dictatorship of the proletariat to withhold its support for an already degenerated Communist International. Naturally, this applies to all other sections of the Comintern. This does not release neither the socialist country, nor all the other sections of the Comintern from the obligation to do everything in their power, to support the immediate reconstruction of the Communist International , respectively to take the initiative.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is in essence an internationalist dictatorship and serves primarily the liberation of the whole world proletariat. Without survival of the Communist International and the world communist movement, the socialist world revolution is doomed to the defeat. Only the world revolution - or at least the victory of the socialist revolution in several countries - can guarantee the survival of socialism in "one" country. The existence of the Comintern and the support of the world proletariat is therefore also important for the maintenance of the existence of socialism in "one" country. Why then consent to the dissolution of the Comintern ?

The CPSU (b) of Lenin and Stalin has always triumphed over the liquidators and capitulationists. Neither before nor after the October Revolution, there was a smallest reason for the dissolution of the CPSU (B). Is this particularly valid for the Bolshevik Party of the Soviet Union or, generally, also valid for all Bolshevik parties? Of course, the fight against liquidationism and against capitulationism is obligatory for all Bolshevik parties. In our view, that what applies to the Bolshevik Party of a sole country, must apply even more to the world-Bolshevik party which bears responsibility for all countries, for the whole world proletariat. It follows:

As little as the CPSU (B) has dissolved itself, so little were the Comintern allowed to dissolve itself, and so little neither the CPSU (B) nor all the other sections should have given their consent to its dissolution.

 

6.

The Comintern (SH) defends all comrades who have rendered outstanding services to the maintenance or re-establishment of the Comintern. Some of them have even paid for their lives.

Simultaneously, we condemn all capitulationist, liquidationist and conciliatory elements who have initiated, organised or tolerated the dissolution of the Comintern. Secondly, we condemn all the opportunist, revisionist and neo-revisionist elements who argued openly or hiddenly against the reconstruction of the Comintern, with the intention to hamper or sabotage its revival.

Every adulation of the historical merits of the Comintern is suspicious, especially if its dissolution is tolerated or justified, or if it is combined with reasons of refusal against its necessary reconstruction.

7.

Our criticism is thus clear: we do not only criticize the dissolution of the Comintern as an act of capitulation. Primarily, we critisize its long-lasting negative effect for the comeback of the Comintern. The fact that the dissolution caused a half-century long delay of reconstruction, demonstrates impressively that this wrong historic decision had effected a fundamentally false course of organizing the Communist World Movement - namely the toleration of the renouncement of the Communist International. The dissolution of the Comintern was a painful lesson in the history of the international communist movement. It must never be repeated.

 

 

8.

Only within a diseased Comintern, which was infected by the bacillus of the "left"-wing social democratism, could such moods of self-dissolution occur and be spread all over the world.

A healthy Communist International, which is guided by Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism, wastes no precious time in thinking about its own dissolution.

A healthy Communist International holds on and sticks to the socialist world revolution with all its strength.

A healthy Communist International shall never lay down its arms in face of the onslaught of world counter-revolution and imperialist wars!

Therefore, our general-line demands all members of the Comintern (SH) to combat every liquidationist tendencies and to stifle at birth.

 

9.

The dissolution of the International implied the inevitable danger of weakening the idea of proletarian internationalism and the emergence of nationalist tendencies within the communist parties of the various countries ("own national road to socialism"; see: Titoism; Browderism etc.).

The dissolution of the Comintern favored the tendency for national separation and isolation, which necessarily contained two risks:

First, the danger of the growing influence of national isolation and, secondly, the risk of neglection of propagating together, preparing together and carrying out together the world socialist revolution.

These are universally tendencies of the dissolution and can be traced in the history of all Internationals.

The ECCI justified the dissolution of the Comintern with the dissolution of the First International by Marx and Engels. The equating of quite different historical conditions for the dissolution of the I. and III. International - is contradicting the correct method of the dialectical and historical materialism and leads unavoidably to false conclusions. The dissolution of the Comintern may not be justified by the dissolution of the First International. There is no justification for the genuine communist internationalists to dissolve their revolutionary world-party.

 

 

10.

The ECCI Presidium of the Comintern argued: “The Communist International has become a drag on the further strengthening of the national working-class parties.”

The Communist International, as the directing centre of the socialist world revolution, may never become a drag ... neither on the entire emancipation of the world proletariat, nor on the emancipation of the proletariat in the single countries.

The Sections are not such "matured" children who are eligible for the dissolution of the Communist International, after standing on their own feet.
And the Communist International is not such a "mother", who leaves her children in the lurch after she has started a family.

The task of the Comintern is not yet completed and fulfilled by the fact that it led Bolshevik parties to maturity. On the contrary. The Communist International takes never leave of its Sections - under no circumstances. Sections and Comintern, they never leave each other in the lurch - never !

The unification of the Sections is the prerequisite for the most essential and central task of the Comintern: to lead all Bolshevik parties collectively toward the victory of the world socialist revolution. Otherwise, the dictatorship of the world proletariat will not be established, and the inevitability of world imperialism cannot be abolished.

 

 

 

* * *

Starting from all these principled considerations, we cast doubts, both on the justification of the ECCI for the dissolution of the Comintern (on 20 May 1943) and on the consent of the CPSU [b], (21 May 1943). The very first task of all communists all over the world is to prevent the dissolution of our communist world party. In case of the Comintern this task was not fulfilled. The decision of the dissolution of the Comintern was unanimously accepted. Can we be true defenders of the Comintern, can we be true members of the Comintern (SH) if we would accept a dissolution unresisting and unprotesting?

* * *

The Comintern (SH) draws the following key organizational lessons from the fatal dissolution of the Comintern:

The general-line of the Comintern (SH) states that the old model of the organization of the Comintern - an umbrella organization of independent, national communist parties - is no longer appropriate. According to the present conditions of the globalization of the world proletariat it will be superseded by a new global model of a world party.

The Comintern (SH) considers itself as

the sole Stalinist-Hoxhaist party of the entire revolutionary proletariat

- with its own Sections in each country.

The tendency of the dissolution of the Comintern (SH) and the danger of the transformation from Sections to independent, national splinter groups is countervailed by the tendency of growing together by means of the strengthening of the principle of democratic centralism.


[ LINK 1 : Resolution of the ECCI - Recommending the Dissolution of the Comintern ]

 

[ LINK 2: Statement of the Presidium of the ECCI on the Dissolution of the Comintern ]

 

[ LINK 3 : Stalin on the Dissolution of the Comintern ]


 

 

 

 

 

The Comintern was an international bulwark against social democratic influence in the world communist movement.

Its dissolution prevented the Comintern from its transformation into an international bulwark against modern revisionism.

The dissolution of the Comintern paved the way to the establishment of the power of the modern revisionists.

The foundation of the Comintern (SH) was a couragous step, a milestone in the history of overcoming the aftermath of modern revisionism and for the honorable continuation of the glorious Comintern of Lenin and Stalin.


 

The rightist leaders of the Comintern argued that the objective of the October Revolution was allegedly "already reached" - through the false pretense of the "conclusive and irrevocable victory of socialism in the Soviet Union."

With this sleight, the modern revisionists certificated a "carte blanche" on their own behalf for the proclamation of the slogan of the "peaceful road" to socialism by "peaceful coexistence" . This was like a licence to keep the world proletariat away from the socialist world revolution. If the victory of socialism would be "conclusive and irrevocable", then the socialist revolution would not be necessary any more - then the overthrow of the bourgeoisie would be superfluous and capitalism would peacefully give way to socialism, etc. These are of course well-known anti-Marxist "cabinet pieces" from the bag of tricks of the old opportunists. They have only been cleaned up by the leaders of the Comintern, and whitewashed with modern "Leninist-Stalinist" color. The cult of the personality of Lenin and Stalin was carefully interweaved with the "Soviet-cult" - with intent to deceive the Sections, the communist world movement and the whole world proletariat.

They also claimed that all communist parties would supposedly be "mature" enough to exert so much influence on the "vast masses", that socialism would be possible "without" the destruction of the capitalist system. This would be allegedly "possible", for example by obtaining majority relations in the parliaments, the trade unions, public institutions, etc. Why is a Comintern still needed , if a world power like the Soviet Union would "guarantee" to all countries the "peaceful road" to socialism?

But how should a world power like the Soviet Union be able to survive, if only the international victory of the October Revolution, if only the dictatorship of the world proletariat can really guarantee socialism in "one" country ? History showed that even a powerful socialist country cannot abrogate the laws of the socialist world revolution in the period of world imperialism:

«The Leninism is Marxism of an epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution" (Stalin) [underlined by the Comintern(SH)].

The denial of the proletarian revolution, and instead, making a deal with the bourgeoisie by means of establishing the government of the "popular front" - that was the worst betrayal in the history of the Comintern.

Of course, the rightists were conscious about their betrayal at the time of the dissolution of the Comintern. The victory of the socialist world revolution - these were the ideas of Lenin and Stalin - as long as they were the leaders of the Comintern. This was the correct line of the Comintern and ALL its previous decisions rested on it.

To regard the Soviet Union as the absolute "guarantor" for the future of communism, to regard the October Revolution not as the beginning, but as the "completion"/"termination" of the world revolution, to absolutize the international power of the October Revolution, to propagate one's "own way" to socialism, to propagate the "peaceful coexistence" with the bourgeoisie - these were all the lies that were later further developed and continued by the modern revisionists. The Comintern was in the way of both the rightist leaders of the Comintern and the rightists in the CPSU (b). They wanted to get rid of the Comintern fraudulently, and so they celebrated its bureaucratical dissolution as a "great victory".

Stalin, however, founded the Cominform - and that WITHOUT the old Comintern's leaders. This is prove enough that Stalin had struggled successfully against the "irrevocable" dissolution of the Comintern.

 


But what ought to be the most urgent tasks of the Comintern ?

a) It would have been the honorable task of the Comintern to link the struggle against fascism and war with the organizing of the overthrow of the rule of the world bourgeoisie. The Comintern emanated from the First World War to begin with the preparation of the socialist world revolution. But during World War II, the Comintern was dissolved - before having fulfilled its world revolutionary task.

b) The world proletariat would have needed a Communist International:

- which liberates itself from the influence of "left" social democratism;

- which unfolds and organizes the global fight against modern revisionism;
- which prevents the modern revisionists from seizing power;
- which struggles against restoration of capitalism;
- which smashes the capitalist-revisionist encirclement; etc....


c) The world proletariat would have needed a Communist International:

to crush the revisionist camp, and to crown the October Revolution with the world revolution.


The modern revisionists proved to be the biggest obstacle for the reconstruction of the Comintern. Khrushchev liquidated the Cominform in 1956, which Stalin had founded in September 1947.

 

With the socialist Albania as the new world center and the new Marxist-Leninist world movement with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, the path of the world socialist revolution was continued - despite all obstacles.

This underscores the resilience of the truly Marxist-Leninist forces, and that the Marxist-Leninist world movement is always able to build up its own new world center by overcoming the spontaneism of the movement and without to sink into new swamps of opportunist movements, namely by sticking strictly to the teachings of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism.

Without a revolutionary world center, without a global prime mover, is the world communist movement doomed to move forward in a snail's pace, doomed to vegetate and to die back.

Wherever the world-proletarian movement will form its leading centers, the world proletariat will always and in principle unite around its Communist International. The Communist International organizes solidarity, supports every internationalist, proletarian center of world revolution, and carries the world-revolutionary banner throughout the world. The Communist International creates all the necessary conditions and gives enough momentum so that new centers of world revolution can emerge on all continents.

In defiance of the opportunists, the focus on the support of the revolutionary center of international class struggle - that has been always the line of the Communist International. This general-line was applied in the Paris Commune, in the October Revolution, in the Soviet Union and in Albania.
In future, revolutionary world centers will not be created in a single country or expanded from there. In future, the new revolutionary world centers will develop globally - thus from all continents. Globalized world centers can only be supported by a globalized world organisation - by the Communist International, and not by a single communist party of this or that country, as this was the case in the past.

The more the world-proletarian movement will approach the world revolution, the more important the role of the world proletarian revolutionary party will be.

Lenin created the III. International on the ground of the Soviet Union, which became the new revolutinary leading center of the world proletariat. The opportunists of the Second International combated the transition of the revolutionary world center from the West to Russia.

The weakest link of the world imperialist chain became the strongest link in the international communist movement. But history teaches that even the strongest link in the international communist movement is ultimately doomed to failure if it is isolated from all other chain-links. The strongest link of the world communist movement is the driving force, and the Communist International is the decisive centralist organization for the transition of the world communist movement into the dominating world movement.

Only with the victory of the socialist revolution, the communist movement will be transformed into the dominant movement of the world proletariat.

And only under the dictatorship of the world proletariat, the inevitability of the danger of the weakening or even degeneration of the Communist world movement will be eliminated.

Any weakening of the Comintern also meant a weakening of the Soviet Union and vice versa, any weakening of the Soviet Union meant the weakening of the Comintern. This is an universal principle of the relationship between the proletarian world organization and the world centers of class-struggle which was excellently mastered by Lenin and Stalin. The strenghtening of the Communist International means strengthening of the support of the recolutionary world center and vice versa. This dialectic of the socialist world revolution is part of the general-line of the Comintern (SH). And it is logically the general-line of the counter-revolution to undermine and paralyze the implementation of this essential principle of the international class struggle of the world proletariat. Therefore, one must never sacrifice the world-revolutionary center to the world revolution. Just as, conversely, one must never sacrifice the world revolution to the world-revolutionary center. It is the task of the Communist International to coordinate optimally the special forces of the revolutionary world center with the general forces of the global world revolutionary movement. To harmonize both these revolutionary poles of forces up to their fusing - this is the guarantee for the victory of the socialist world revolution in a global scale.

At the time of foundation of the Comintern (SH), there was neither a revolutionary world center under the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor a Comintern - supported by communist parties, and even not a single genuine Marxist-Leninist party. There were still only weak remainders of the former Hoxhaist Parties.

By the supremacy of world capitalism, the communist world movement entered completely into a new situation. In the course of the globalization of the conditions of the class warfare, there was the necessity of the creation of new globalized organizations of class struggle of the world proletariat.

We are thus entering the period of the prevailing globalization of communist organizations, the globalization of the world communist movement, a new phase of the global preparation of world socialist revolution. The times, in which the single communist parties of the countries had dominated in the communist world movement are gone forever. In the coming period of the socialist world revolution, in the period of the world socialism, the world proletariat needs a new type of global communist organisations and movements. These global communist organisations will determine the future appearance of the communist world movement.

The Comintern based its whole existence solely on the world-revolutionary center which was formed by a single country, on the Bolshevik Party of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin. Back then everything had to be organized all alone by the Bolsheviks: the October Revolution, its extension towards the German November Revolution ( to break there through the next weak link of the world imperialist chain), then the foundation of the Comintern, the socialist construction of the Soviet Union, its military defense, etc.. Under all these restricted circumstances, it was exceptionally difficult to organize the victory of the socialist world revolution. All the more, we hold high the banner of proletarian internationalism which was raised by the Soviet peoples. Their support for the Comintern and the socialist world revolution is an ever lasting historical merit and an honorable duty for the communist world movement, for the revolutionary world proletariat and all revolutionary peoples - namely to do everything for the glorious renaissance of the Soviet peoples.

The conception of the Comintern (SH) has, however, a determined globalized character. Everything will be organized and created on a global scale. The whole world proletariat is actively involved, inclusively all its allied forces. All tasks of the socialist revolution can be organized globally and be solved much more effective, efficient and sustainable by the world-proletarian world party.
The Comintern (SH) bases its power on the unification of all global forces of the world revolution. This enables the Comintern (SH), to become the leader of the ruling world proletariat.

But at first, the Comintern (SH) has to cope with the aftermath of the traitors of the modern revisionists and the upcoming of the neo-revisionists.

In spite of modern revisionism in power, the red banner of the world revolution was raised by the new Hoxhaist world center. And even after the defeat of socialist Albania, the Marxist-Leninists have not striked sail. The banner of the world revolution will always be raised by a new world center and carried toward victory.

The crucial key to the continuation of the path of the October Revolution was Enver Hoxha's historic speech at the Moscow Conference (1960). That was the birth of the new Marxist-Leninist world movement. Thus the break through of the revisionist chain began. The creator of this new anti-revisionist world chain was Enver Hoxha and the socialist Albania became its international center, its main chain-link.

The Maoists latched their Chinese revisionist chain-link into the anti-revisionist world chain. This way they tried in vain to disrupt the anti-revisionist world chain from inside. The capitalist-revisionist encirclement squashed the Albanian world center of anti-revisionism, shortly after this Maoist attack was successfully thwarted by Enver Hoxha.

The Comintern (SH) holds tight the anti-revisionist world chain of Comrade Enver Hoxha. The neo-revisionists will never succeed to snatch it from us.
As the new world center of anti-revisionism, the Comintern (SH) wins back one anti-revisionist link after the other and will smash the neo-revisionist chain to smithereens at its weakest link.

Comrade Enver Hoxha, and the socialist Albania, as the world center, formed the Marxist-Leninist world movement
- by educating the young and inexperienced new Marxist-Leninist parties in their liberation struggle from the revisionist world movement;
by helping them to become independent Marxist-Leninist parties, ideologically, politically and organisationally;
- by bilateral and multi lateral consultations, discussions, exchange of experiences;
- by joint, coordinated actions; etc.

Enver Hoxha equipped the young Marxist-Leninist world movement with the old Bolshevik spirit of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin. This revival of the old world-revolutionary spirit of the Comintern - initiated by comrade Enver Hoxha - supported us in our decision for the re-founding of the Comintern. Everything that comrade Enver Hoxha did and thought, served the goal of improving the cooperation between the Marxist-Leninist parties and the leading center of the socialist world revolution - the socialist Albania. The historical model for this new international, anti-revisionist relationship among the Marxist-Leninist parties, in general, and the relationship between socialist Albania and the Marxist-Leninist World Movement, in particular, this was the relationship between the Communist International and the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Only because Enver Hoxha believed that the organizational requirements for the re-establishment of the Comintern would be still not ripe enough, the neo-revisionists accuse us that we would "deviate" from the Teachings of Comrade Enver Hoxha, and that we would have acted "contrary" to comrade Enver Hoxha, if we re-established the Comintern in spite of his statements. This is nonsense. Comrade Enver Hoxha had never argued against the correct principles of the Comintern and its revolutionary spirit. In the contrary. He was never an principled opponent of the re-establishment of the Comintern - in contrast to the modern revisionists. The neo-revisionists are thus forced, to defend the formal word-for-word fidelity of comrade Enver Hoxha against the revolutionary character and principled content of Hoxhaism in the question of the re-establishment of the Comintern. Not we Hoxhaists separate the revival of the revolutionary spirit of the Comintern from the consequent need of the organizational re-founding of the Comintern. This is only what the Neo-Revisionists want to do, because they are enemies of the re-establishment of the Comintern, enemies of the socialist world revolution. A revolutionary spirit is worth nothing if it is not transfered into practice, if it is not standing on independent, organizational feet. The revolutionary spirit of proletarian internationalism cannot be spread all over the world without a revolutionary proletarian world organisation. The old revolutionary spirit of the Comintern can therefore only be defended and revived by the re-establishment of the Comintern. There is no other way in the situation of today. This is the consequent continuation of the path of comrade Enver Hoxha, is the only correct Marxist-Leninist conclusion and therefore basis of the general-line of the Comintern (SH). Not we Stalinist-Hoxhaists distort the teachings of Enver Hoxha about the necessity of the continuation of the world-revolutionary ideas of the Comintern, but the neo-revisionists.

"Defending" the revolutionary spirit of the Comintern in words - however betraying it in deeds - that is the true attitude of the neo-revisionist traitors.

 

 

At the Seventh Congress, all the Stalinists, the elements of the Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites and the conciliators still gathered together in one and the same room.

After the modern revisionists were in power and after they had split the world communist movement - (that is, since the speech of Comrade Enver Hoxha at the meeting of the 81 parties in Moscow, on November 16, 1960) -, a joint meeting of Marxist-Leninists and modern revisionists was unimaginable, impossible and totally out of question.

The achievement of an ideological, political and organizational demarcation between the revisionists and the Marxist-Leninists was an international victory of Marxism-Leninism over the modern revisionists in power.

Today, the Neo-revisionists try their best to turn back the hands of time, to adapt the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist World Movement to the revisionists and to absorb them in the revisionist movement.

Those who reduce the international teachings of comrade Enver Hoxha on regionally limited importance, are preventing the emergence of a new international Stalinist-Hoxhaist center and its internationally coordinated transmission belts.

The Hoxhaism is the doctrine of the autonomy of the Marxist-Leninist world movement and its independent proletarian class organizations, for the struggle against the revisionist world movement and its organizations.

From this emerged the period of capitalist-revisionist encirclement of the Marxist-Leninist world movement and the socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha.

Today, we are concentrated on the targeted detonation of the revisionist / neo-revisionist encirclement of the independent Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement and its center, the Comintern (SH). The general-line commits the Comintern (SH) to accept only those Sections which consequently and exclusively follow the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism.


Today, three main trends can be distinguished in the international labor movement:

First, the revolutionary labor movement, the Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement of the proletariat and its allies, the peasants and other working people, which, year after year get millionfold involved into the revolutionary movement by the economic, poltical, ideological, cultural and social world crisis.

Second, the revisionist, reformist, social-imperialist and social-fascist movements of the labor aristocracy, which is the main social basis and agency of the bourgeoisie within the labor movement.

Third, the movement of the centrists who waver between the two centers of the movement back and forth. Their layers consist of the classic intelligencia, the petty bourgeoisie, especially of those radicalized elements which became proletarized or which are threatened to become proletarized. They embody the elements of split and disorganization of the workers' and communist movement. This "colorful" movement struggles ultimately only with radical "left" words for the proletariat.

The Stalinist-Hoxhaist movement (1) directs its fight against streaming (2) and (3):

Firstly, against the right-wing opportunism.

Secondly, against the "left"-wing opportunism.

Thirdly, against centrism and conciliationism.


(the end of the paragraph "OVERVIEW")


 

 

 



1.


Against the

right opportunism

within the communist world movement


Marxism was the victory over reformism, over the Social Democracy.

The victory of the October Revolution was the victory of Marxism, over the reformist ideology.

Marxism always emerged stronger from the struggle against opportunism.

The Second International (1889 - co-founder = Friedrich Engels) degenerated in the course of its adaption to the right opportunism. Since 1951, there is the successor organization, which calls itself "Socialist International" - a unification of social democratic parties-, which has nothing to do with socialism. This organisation is through and through bourgeois and anti-socialist. From the beginning, this so called "Socialist" International is an instrument of the world bourgeoisie within the Social Democratic world movement . Its necessary revolutionary destruction is a stated goal of the Comintern (SH).

The Comintern ceased to exist, because its leaders adapted themselves to the right opportunism. We are going to re-construct the Comintern on the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism.

The attack by the rightists against the Communist International did not begin with the Seventh World Congress, but the Seventh World Congress sealed the slipping into the opportunistic camp by means of an overwhelming majority.

The general-line of the Comintern (SH) focuses primarily on the danger of right opportunism, without underestimating the danger of the involved "left" opportunism and centrism. It is always not just a fight against a single, against the prevailing opportunism, but rather against the interaction of all opportunist currents against the world-Bolshevist line of the Communist International. This struggle is a dialectical struggle, in which the main opportunist streaming can either appear in a more open or hidden form. The opportunist current which will be most underestimated is the most dangerous opportunist current. It is an ever-growing battle area against all opportunist currents which struggle either united or independently against our world-revolutionary ideology, movements and organizations.

 

The special feature of the struggle against the Stalinist leadership of the Comintern in the so-called "Third Period" of the Comintern was that the right opportunists and the Trotskyists acted in common, thus in a united "Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites":

 

 

 

 

The "Third Period" of the Comintern

and the repudiation of the "criticism" of the

Bloc of the Rightists and Trotskyites

 

With the Seventh World Congress the rightist leaders of the Comintern took over the power. They attacked Leninism-Stalinism under the guise of their alleged fight against "sectarianism" namely for the purpose of the adaption and replacement by the bourgeois ideology of social democratism.

 

Officially, the VII. World Congress was celebrated under the guise of Stalinism, but internally it was already infested with the right opportunism. The world proletariat, the victorious Soviet proletariat, the masses - they all were not informed about the earnestly endangered situation within the Comintern. This was carefully hidden from public view.

The Russian proletariat enthusiastically welcomed the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern.

At first, a message of welcome greetings was read out by the delegates of the large factories of the Red capital of the world proletariat. As regards the fight against fascism, comrade Sokolow gave priority to the crucial role of the world revolution. Thus speaks a true revolutionary leader of the shock brigade of the world proletariat:

"Comrades, allow me to convey flaming, hot greetings of the proletarians of the red capital of the world proletariat to the head quarter of the world proletarian revolution, the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern, and in shape all parties of the workers, the working class around the world. Under the leadership of our Bolshevik Party, led by the leader of our Party, Comrade Stalin, we have achieved tremendous success on all fronts of socialist construction. (...) These victories we have won because we have the party of Lenin and Stalin. We know, comrades, that the revolution is going on in other countries. In Germany and Austria, there were revolutions. But all of them have been suppressed because the enemies of the working class, the reactionary social democratic leaders, have betrayed these revolutions. The proletarians are now fighting against fascism. In our country the enemies of the working class, the Trotskyites, the opportunists of all sorts led the fight against our party after the fall of capitalism, after the working class had come to power. These elements wanted to drag our country back to capitalism. But since Comrade Stalin stands at the head of our party, this greatest leader of the party and the working class, who has armed the whole Party, we smashed the Trotskyists and all opportunists, and therefore we have won the tremendous successes in our country . Comrades, everything we do is, serving one and only task: THE TASK TO STRENGTHEN THE CENTRE OF THE WORLD REVOLUTION.

All working people of our great socialist motherland have in mind the words of Comrade Stalin, that we are the shock brigade of the world proletariat, (...) It is the pledge of our victory that we have a Communist International " (Minutes of the Seventh Congress, speeches of welcome, Comrade Sokolov, reprint Publisher "Neuer Weg" , Stuttgart, 1976, Vol I. page 17-18, translation from the German edition).

And Comrade Penkin shouted to the delegates:

"We call the proletarian youth around the world for the fierce battle for the world proletarian revolution and for the defense of the fatherland of the world's working people. We offer our compliments to our class brothers, to the victims of fascist terror, to the prisoners of capitalism. Long live the Communist International, the organizer of the international proletarian revolution "(ibid. page 29).

The Young Communist Nina Kamnewa described Stalin as the "iron-chief of the world revolution" in her welcome message and ended with the call: "Long live the proletarian revolution ! Long live the Communist International with Stalin at the head, for storming the citadels of capitalism" (ibid., page 23).

With these pioneering Soviet pledges to world revolution began the Seventh World Congress. But the leaders of the Seventh Congress had secret liquidationist plans.

Everything should look as if the "sectarianism" was combated from the correct Marxist-Leninist point of view (though sectarianism admittedly existed, sectarianism was not at all the prevailing and most dangerous opportunist streaming. In the contrary, the most dangerous streaming was the right opportunism !). What was combated in truth ? This was not allegedly "sectarianism", but instead, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism ! The predominant method of the leaders of the Seventh Congress was to cheat the world proletariat, was the method of "speaking with two tongues", was hypocrisy.

The vulgarization of the false "central" slogan of fighting "against sectarianism" served to discredit the correct line of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin.

That was the time of the usual method of the Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites to camouflage their counterrevolutionary, fascist mercenaries' services against the Soviet Union.

And this central method of the Seventh Congress was then exactly the same with which the modern revisionists, later on, had conquered their power :

Marxism-Leninism in words - capitalism in deeds;

building socialism in words - restoration of capitalism in deeds;

anti-fascism in words - social fascism in deeds;

anti-imperialism in words - social imperialism in deeds;

anti-revisionism in words - revisionism in deeds,

etc., etc.

The lip service "for the defense" of the Stalinist line against sectarian excesses on the VI. World Congress and the hidden rightist attack against the Stalinist line of the Comintern in deeds - thus before, during and after the Seventh World Congress - that had been the common thrust of the "Bloc of the Rightists and Trotskyites" and the conciliators within the Comintern.

The today's anti-Stalinist-Hoxhaist elements, they all use the thrust of this hostile line furthermore against the "Third Period" of the Comintern.

The impact of this criticism of the so-called "Third Period" is still very widespread throughout the world. Therefore, the general-line of the Comintern (SH) clearly states:

The great contributions and merits of comrade Stalin for the strengthening of the Comintern, the Stalinist line of the Comintern in the so called "Third Period" [especially the decisions of the VI. World Congress] is to defend unconditionally, and all the opportunist critics must be pilloried. This statement serves expressively the defense of comrade Stalin, and not mistakes which had been made in the course of the implementation of the Stalinist line of the Comintern, and which cannot and will not be swept under the carpet.

Concerning the "Third Period", the VI. World Congress stated in 1928:

"After the first world imperialist war, the international labour movement passed through a series of historical phases of development, expressing various phases of the general crisis of capitalist system.

The third period:

The intensification of all international antagonisms (antagonisms between the capitalist States and the U.S.S.R., the military occupation of Northern China--which is the beginning of the partition of China--the mutual struggles between the imperialists, etc.), the intensification of the internal antagonisms in capitalist countries (the swing to the Left of the masses of the working class, growing acuteness of the class struggle [- underlined by the Comintern (SH)], and the wide development of colonial movements (China, India, and Syria), which are taking place in this period, will inevitably lead,--through the further development of the contradictions of capitalist stabilisation,--to capitalist stabilisation becoming still more precarious and to the severe intensification of the general crisis of capitalism". (The International Situation and the Tasks of the Communist International - decisions of the VI. World Congress of the Comintern).

The Third Period was the period of the end of the relative capitalist stabilization and the increase of international class struggles, which the VI. Congress had correctly formulated:
"On the one hand growth of capitalism in some countries, on the other hand decay of capitalism in other countries". The VI. World Congress of the Comintern prepared the world proletariat for its major counter-offensive in the course of the world economic crisis and in consequence of the expected offensive of capitalism. The rightists tried to underestimate, to deny, to undermine and to stop the revolutionary upsurge of the working class. They feared the coming of the world socialist revolution. Above all, they feared that the Comintern would gain more prestige and influence within the world proletariat by the revolutionary slogan "class against class". So they discredited the decisions of the Comintern on the "Third Period" as a sort of "irresponsible dogmatic fantasy of some sectarians". (Still to this day, the creation of Red Unions are scorned as "sectarianism", although Red Unions and the revolutionary break-through of the legal reformist barriers of the Yellow Unions, were expressively and principally promoted by Stalin and Enver Hoxha - of course, without refusing the further necessary work in the yellow unions; for the purpose to destroy the reformist influence of the reactionary leaders on the masses of members of the Yellow Unions).

The rightists were supported by the propaganda attacks of the world bourgeoisie against the Comintern and Stalin countered:

"Hirelings of the imperialists and authors of forged letters are spreading rumours in the West to the effect that the Comintern is an organisation of conspirators and terrorists, that Communists are touring the Western countries for the purpose of hatching plots against the European rulers. Among other things, the Sofia explosion in Bulgaria is being linked with Communists. I must declare what every cultured person must know, if he is not an utter ignoramus, and if he has not been bribed — I must declare that Communists never had, do not have, and cannot have, anything in common with the theory and practice of individual terrorism; that Communists never had, do not have, and cannot have, anything in common with the theory of conspiracies against individual persons. The theory and practice of the Comintern consists in organising the mass revolutionary movement against capitalism. That is true. That is the task of the Communists. Only ignoramuses and idiots can confuse plots and individual terrorism with the Comintern's policy in the mass revolutionary movement." (Stalin, Works, Volume 7, page 254, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

Stalin warned explicitly against the danger of the rightists, especially that the conciliators defended the rightists in their struggle against the decisions of the VI. World Congress:

"In opposing the expulsion of the Rights, Humbert-Droz and Serra refer to the resolution of the Sixth Congress which says that Right deviations must be overcome by means of an ideological struggle. That is perfectly true. But these comrades forget that the resolutions of the Sixth Congress by no means limit the struggle of the Communist Parties against the Right danger to measures of an ideological order. While speaking of methods of ideological struggle against deviations from the Leninist line, the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, in its resolution on Bukharin's report, at the same time declared that:

"far from precluding, this presumes the utmost strengthening of iron inner-Party discipline, unqualified subordination of the minority to the majority, unqualified subordination of the lower bodies, as well as of other Party organisations (groups in parliament, groups in trade unions, the press, etc.) to the leading Party centres."

It is extremely strange that Humbert-Droz and Serra forget this thesis of the resolution of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern. It is extremely strange that all conciliators, both those who consider themselves conciliators and those who repudiate the name, when pleading the Sixth Congress resolution systematically forget this important thesis of the Communist International.

(...)

At the present time, in the shape of the Rights we have real (not imaginary) violators of the fundamental principles of the Communist International [ underlined by the Comintern (SH)] . Why, then, do they keep silent? Is it not because they want, under the guise of a verbal defence of Comintern decisions, to smuggle through a defence of the Rights and a revision of these decisions?

(...)

the Sixth Congress certainly did not suggest rehabilitating conciliators. On the contrary, it charged us with waging a systematic fight against conciliation. And precisely because this obligation has not been carried out by the conciliators, we have now, after the Sixth Congress, the decision of the E.C.C.I. Presidium of October 6, 1928, on the Rights and the conciliators."

[ Stalin, speech - delivered at a Meeting of the Presidium of the E.C.C.I., December 19, 1928 Bolshevik, No. 23-24, 1928; J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 11, pp. 307-24,]

It is clear why the Rightists and the conciliators criticized the so-called "Third Period":

It was the criticism at Stalin's Bolshevik line. And it was thanks to Stalin, that he struggled without leniency against the Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites . He has relentlessly unmasked them, and he provided for their final exclusion from the Comintern.

Stalin demanded:

Firstly, to wage an unceasing struggle against Social-Democratism in all spheres -- in the economic and in the political sphere, including in the latter the exposure of bourgeois pacifism with the task of winning the majority of the working class for communism. ” [we ask: Is this "sectarian" ? - remark of the Comintern(SH)]

"Secondly, to form a united front of the workers of the advanced countries and the labouring masses of the colonies in order to stave off the danger of war, or, if war breaks out, to convert imperialist war into civil war, smash fascism, overthrow capitalism, establish Soviet power, emancipate the colonies from slavery, and organise all-round defence of the first Soviet Republic in the world. ” (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, p. 179, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

After the VII. World Congress, the Comintern did not fulfill these Stalinist tasks . The Comintern turned neither into an instrument of world civil war, nor turned it into an instrument for the overthrow of world capitalism. The Comintern neither established Soviet power, nor fulfilled its task to destroy colonial slavery.

One ought to assume, that the Seventh World Congress would have implemented the Stalinist Comintern program which was decided by the VI . World Congress. But this was not the case. Since the Seventh World Congress, the Comintern acted as if there was no Comintern program at all.

The core of the "Third Period" was the Comintern program. All attacks on the "Third Period" are thus attacks on the program of the Comintern. The general line commits the Comintern (SH) to defend the Stalinist program of the Comintern against all enemies.

Stalin:

The cardinal significance of the programme of the Comintern is that it scientifically formulates the basic tasks of the communist movement, indicates the principal means of accomplishing these tasks, and thus creates for the Comintern sections that clarity of aims and methods without which it is impossible to move forward with confidence. .

(...) (The Program) takes as its point of departure not some particular capitalism of some particular country or portion of the world, but the entire world system of capitalism, counterposing to it the world system of socialist economy..

(...) (The Program) puts forward the slogan of a federation of Soviet Republics which consists of advanced countries and colonies that have dropped, or are dropping, out of the imperialist system, and which is opposed in its struggle for world socialism to the world capitalist system.

(...) (The Program) stresses opposition to Social-Democracy as the main support of capitalism in the working class and as the chief enemy of communism.” (July 13, 1928 - Stalin, Works, Volume 11, page 180 and 181, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

[ Later on, the Hoxhaism added modern revisionism as the main bourgeois agency within the labor movement and as the main opponent within the Communist World Movement.]

What has the whole world communist movement done until 2000, to meet this basic task of Stalin, namely implementing the Comintern program?

With exception of Albania, nobody has put the Comintern program at the center of the party's policy, let alone promoted and implemented. Without the initiative of the Comintern (SH), the program of the Comintern would have disappeared into obscurity. The propagation and correct implementation of the Comintern program of 1928 (of course modified according to the present conditions of globalization) is a key task of the general-line of the Comintern (SH).

The modern revisionists had neither interest in the world socialist revolution, nor in world socialism. So it was especially the modern revisionists, Trotskyists, etc., who made sure that the world program of the Comintern disappeared from the scene. One of the first betrayals of the modern revisionists was the revision of the teachings of the socialist world revolution which were central part of the Stalinist program of the Comintern.
With the creation of the myth of the Seventh Congress, the anti-Stalinists praised the name of Dimitrov, whereas the names of Lenin and Stalin were buried in oblivion. Later on, the anti-Stalinists treated the "Third Period" like a "blooper".

 

The criticism of the so-called "Third Period" is also directed against the correct slogan "class against class". Stalin said:

"Under capitalist conditions the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency, an inclination that has not yet taken shape, it is true, and is perhaps not yet consciously realised, but nevertheless a tendency of a section of the Communists to depart from the revolutionary line of Marxism in the direction of Social-Democracy. When certain groups of Communists deny the expediency of the slogan "Class against class" in election campaigns (France), or are opposed to the Communist Party nominating its own candidates (Britain), or are disinclined to make a sharp issue of the fight against "Left" Social-Democracy (Germany), etc., etc., it means that there are people in the Communist Parties who are striving to adapt communism to Social-Democratism." (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, page 199, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971)

With the sham battle against the "Leftists", the rightists opened their campaign against the Comintern's line of Lenin and Stalin. Of course, in the first flight of enthusiasm, there were certain "left" overemphasized speculations concerning the actual dimension of revolutionary upswing of the masses that was expected. The history of the Marxist-Leninist struggle against "Leftism" teaches:

"Leftist" hyperbole creates favorable conditions for the strengthening and consolidation of the rightist deviation.

Some comrades dampened the enthusiasm and advised against too high expectations in the Third Period. If these new circumstances of the Third Period would not occur (the coming world revolutionary situation), then the rightists would not be able to exploit it for their hostile purpose: The rightists misused the correct Leninist-Stalinist line in the fight against sectarian deviations in order to overestimate the fight against sectarianism in words. However, in truth they fought against the Leninist-Stalinist line of the Comintern. Otherwise than with a systematically launched overestimation of the expected counterrevolutionary forces in the Third Period, the right-opportunists could not increase their influence and gain a foothold within the leadership of the Comintern. Underestimation of the counter-revolution and simultaneous overestimation of the revolution - that was the way with which the opportunists conquered the majority. Please note that the opportunists did not dare to openly attack the decisions of the VI. World Congress.

It is one of the important experiences in the two-front war: if we fight against the rightists, on the one hand, we may not neglect our fight against the "left" opportunists on the other hand - and vice versa.

Stalin:

"Sometimes, while fighting against the Right deviation, they turn away from the "Left" deviation and relax the fight against it, on the assumption that it is not dangerous, or hardly dangerous. This is a grave and dangerous error. It is a concession to the "Left" deviation which is impermissible for a member of the Party. It is all the more impermissible for the reason that of late the "Lefts" have completely slid over to the position of the Rights, so that there is no longer any essential difference between them." ( January 26, 1934 - Stalin, Works, Volume 13, page 321 - 322,German edition, KPD/ML, 1971)

The peculiarity of the two-front war in the third period was the struggle against the united front of the entire Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites. Stalin smashed this bloc to pieces.

The criticism of the leaders of the Seventh Congress against the so-called "sectarianism" was actually a critique of Marxism-Leninism, a critique of the world socialist revolution and a capitulation to the bourgeoisie, a serious betrayal of the world proletariat, a renunciation of the proletarian world view, a declaration of war against Stalin. Stalin directed the main blow against Right opportunism, but the Seventh World Congress directed the main blow against the so-called "sectarianism" (in truth against Leninism-Stalinism).

"Stalinism = Sectarianism " ! "Sectarianism" - what a comfortable word ! It is sufficient that the doctrine of Stalinism is smeared with a little bit sectarian color - for the purpose to cover it with the bugbear of "sectarianism". And that's it ! "Sectarianism" - this bugbear was the final stroke against Stalinism. This slogan heralded the historical hour of birth and cradle of modern revisionism. And the most interesting point about it is this: further theoretical verifications, explanatory statements or justifications were neither needed nor used. With the help of the comfortable accusations of "sectarianism", the way for the rise of modern revisionism was paved by Dimitrov. The modern revisionists crowned themselves with "Marxism-Leninism" while they beat bloody every revolutionary Marxist-Leninists with the whip of "sectarianism", who would dare to overthrow the modern revisionists from the throne. Finally, the modern revisionists turned from traitors of the theory of social-fascism to true social-fascists !

"Thus, they proved once again that the slogan of 'the creative development of Marxism and the struggle against dogmatism' is the favourite slogan common to every variant of revisionism". (Enver Hoxha, »Euro-Communism is Anti-Communism«, page 43, German edition of the KPD/ML, 1980)

 

Stalin:

"Our task must be—while not in the least relaxing the fight against the "Left," Trotskyite danger—to lay the emphasis on the fight against the Right deviation and to take all measures to make the danger of this deviation as obvious to the Party as the Trotskyite danger." (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, page 206, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971)

 

The so-called "Third Period" of the Comintern was not a period of stagnation or decline. In the contrary, it must be characterized as the period of the highest exertion of all the international, world-proletarian class forces. This was the strongest period in the entire history of the Comintern, the period of the global intensification of the class struggle.
However, the subsequent period of Dimitrov was a period of capitulation, disintegration and liquidation of the Comintern. A dissolution of the Comintern after the VI. Congress would have been unthinkable. But according to the Seventh World Congress this appeared to be inevitable.

The world communist movement was at the time of the VI. Congress in the stage of their biggest rise. And just at this stage, gradually signs of fatigue appeared accompanied by all sorts of waverings to the "Left" and to the "Right". The conciliationism grew, and all this caused the beginning deceleration of the development of the Comintern. The international communist movement lost momentum. It was the right deviation, which enlarged the teething problems of the Comintern and inhibited the upswing. And what did the elements of the Right deviation do, together with those who limited themselves by pure lip service against the Right deviation? They saved their hide by means of their counter-attack, by their struggle against the so called "sectarianism".

The revisionist Togliatti argued:

"I am of the opinion that the definition of the communist policy as a policy of 'class against class' was essentially mistaken and conducive to dangerous sectarian isolation."

(Togliatti, "Problemi del movimento operaio internazionale 1956 - 1961, Editori Riuniti, Rome 1962, p. 325).

This was not just the line of Dimitrov and Togliatti [ Ercoli]. Even those revisionists, as Ulbricht, they called for "shifting away from sectarianism and a move towards work within the masses". ( Minutes of the Seventh Congress, Volume II, page 512, German edition).

Dimitrov's attacks on the alleged "sectarianism" were also recorded by Mao Tsetung grateful. Mao accused the Comintern of "sectarianism" and "dogmatism".

The Yugoslav revisionists also maintained these accusation towards the Comintern as

" a chain of dogmatic and sectarian mistakes. The Comintern damaged the communist movement. The schematic and sectarian concepts, the communist parties were afflicted with, found their way also into the Program of the Communist International approved at its 6th Congress in 1928. Thus, it is clear why this document of importance for the development of the world communist movement could not help the various communist parties to concretize their strategy and tactics, and in siome cases it even proved harmful" (An oitline of the History of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, published by the CC of the LCY, Prishtina 1963, p. 156).

All these accusations of "sectarianism" against the Comintern came from various enemies, open reactionaries and bourgeois radicals, petty-bourgeois elements, right opportunists, revisionists and Trotskyites.

And today, we Stalinist-Hoxhaists support the upswing of the revolutionary movement of the working class in the course of the global crisis of world capitalism, we never capitulate before the world bourgeoisie, and we fight with all our might for the world socialist revolution on the basis of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. That is the reason why we are criticized as so-called "sectarians" by the neo-revisionists who follow the footsteps of the leaders of the 7th World Congress.

You can not be a true communist, if you do not defend the Sixth World Congress and simultaneously criticize the Seventh World Congress. These accusations of so called "sectarianism" stem from the ultra-revisionists, from social-fascists - thus from sworn enemies of communism. We Stalinist-Hoxhaists, who defend the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin, must take up a courageous stance to the treacherous leaders of the Seventh Congress. If we would abandon our criticism towards these forerunners of modern revisionism who had occupied the leadership of the Comintern, then this would be a service for our class enemies.

 

 


The attack on the Leninist-Stalinist theory of social-fascism

 

How do we Communists define social-fascism ?

"Socialism in words - fascism in deeds".

"Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. These are not antipodes but twins"

(Stalin; Works, Volume 6, page 253, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

 

The upswing of the revolutionary class struggle of the world proletariat in the "Third Period" (see: world-capitalist crisis in 1929) was prevented by the bourgeoisie - both through the forces of the fascists and the forces of the social-democracy.

In the summer of 1929, the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) presented the following theses:

"In Germany we have a new experiment of the largest party in the Second International, the German Social-Democratic Party, being in power. As a result of their own experiences the German workers are abandoning their illusions concerning the Social-Democratic Party. The Social-Democratic Party has revealed itself as the party which, on coming into office, has strangled the workers strikes with the noose of compulsory arbitration, has helped the capitalists to declare lockouts and liquidate the gains of the working class (eight-hour day, social insurance, etc.). By the construction of cruisers and by the adoption of its new militaristic programme, breaking with all the remnants of pre-war traditions of socialism, social-democracy is preparing the next war. The leading cadres of social-democracy and of the reformist trade unions, fulfilling the orders of the bourgeoisie, are now, through the mouth of Wels, threatening the German working class with open fascist dictatorship. Social-democracy prohibits May Day demonstrations. It shoots down unarmed workers during May Day demonstrations. It is the social-democracy who suppresses the labour press (Rote Fahne) and mass labour organizations, prepares the suppression of the CPG and organizes the crushing of the working class by fascist methods. This is the road of the coalition policy of the social-democracy leading to social-fascism. These are the results of the governing activities of the biggest party of the Second International."

At the time of Comintern, the theory of social-fascism was that the social democratic parties were in words for socialism, however in deed, they were the stepping-stone of the fascists.

Both these fronts of the bourgeoisie (social-democratism and fascism) had shared the same goal - namely anti-communism. Thus, these bourgeois twins were both counter-revolutionary enemies of the revolutionary proletariat.

It is well known that the social-democratic leaders used their own fascist methods to combat the communists.

Based on the theory of social-fascism, the Comintern tried to push back the bourgeois influence in the working class. This was the only way to overcome the split of the working class. And precisely because of this, the Comintern was accused by all its enemies, namely to be (by itself) "responsable for the split of the working class and consequently for the seizure of fascism".

Dimitrov and the VII. World Congress did not resist this increasing pressure on the part of the social-democracy against the Comintern. They discarded the thesis of social-fascism and violated thus the decisions of the VI. World Congress. This was a heavy betrayal at the Comintern. Thus, the Marxist-Leninist, proletarian united front-strategy of the Comintern was abandoned. This was replaced by an opportunistic bloc with the Social-Democrats, thus by a bourgeois popular front-strategy.

Those comrades who defended instead the Marxist-Leninist principles of the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, those comrades who defended the establishment of the world dictatorship of the proletariat, the socialist world revolution etc. - they were all removed as "sectarians" .

A block formation between social-democracy and communism that had caused the dissolution of the Comintern and weakening of the world proletariat on the one hand, and the strengthening of the Second International and the world bourgeoisie on the other hand - this was a criminal act which could only be celebrated by the revisionists.

What was the crime? The struggle of the Comintern for overcoming the prevailing social democratic influence in the world-proletarian movement was sabotaged. The strategic goal of the Comintern was undermined, namely striving of communism as the prevailing ideology of the world proletariat.

It was later, Enver Hoxha, who enhanced the Stalinist theory of social-fascism.

Hoxhaism means:

defense and advancement of the Stalinist theory of social fascism by its application to modern revisionism.

 

Nowhere in the world, the betrayal of social democracy was sharper combated than initially by the Bolsheviks in Russia and then in Germany by the Communist Party of Ernst Thalmann. Ernst Thalmann stood in the way of the revisionist leaders of the Comintern, because he applied consistently the Stalinist social fascism-thesis in the German KPD. More or less openly or secretly the rightist Comintern leaders Pieck and Ulbricht combated the Stalinist course of Ernst Thalmann as alleged "sectarianism". Basically, these traitors at the social fascism-thesis were partly responsible for the death of Ernst Thalmann.

Nowhere in the world was the communist influence on the (social democratic) working masses stronger than in Germany. After all, the German working class could not forget and tolerate the killing of their leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht through the social democratic murderers. Precisely because of the increasing pressure of the Communists, the bourgeoisie had doubts in the continuation of the social democratic parliamentary form of the Weimar Republic. The German bourgeoisie was forced to search a new form of dictatorship. The bourgeoisie resorted to the Nazis in order to get rid of the Communists. The bourgeoisie exactly suspected what would happen :

The theory of social-fascism was, indeed, the key to the demise of capitalism. This way, the barrier of the social democratism could be overcome by the communists. The theory of social-fascism was the key to the victory of the socialist revolution and paved the way for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not the bloc-formation with the Social Democratic leaders, but only the dictatorship of the proletariat would bring about the final victory over the twins of social-democratism and fascism. That is the principled position of the Comintern (SH).

Insofar, all the critics of the Stalinist-Hoxhaist theory of social-fascism play directly or indirectly into the hands of fascism. All these critics are on the other side of the barricade, they are enemies of the world proletariat and the socialist world revolution and must be fought resolutely and relentlessly.

Without successful defense of our theory of social-fascism there is no victory of the world socialist revolution.

.

The victory of the Right deviation in the Comintern meant the ideological collapse of the Comintern, and thus a tremendous strengthening of social-democratism. The strengthening of social-democratism and the turn to modern revisionism transformed the Comintern into a pillar of capitalism, and the world-revolutionary proletariat was deprived of its vanguard, of its General Staff. Over 57 years, the world proletariat had to renounce its Communist International. This lack of leadership had serious consequences for the entire development of the world communist movement, for the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, and also for socialist Albania of Enver Hoxha, the further development of the world socialist revolution, the development of world communism. If the world-revolutionary line of the Comintern would have been continued correctly up to this day, then the world of today would certainly be another one.


And die Maoists ?

"A fatal error was the establishment of the 'theory of social-fascism" by the Executive Committee of the Comintern. The Seventh Congress of the Comintern had to overcome the sectarian politics." ("MLPD" - German Maoist party).

This is actually an open attack on the 4th and 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. This is congruent with the bourgeois politics of the reconciliation of classes of the modern revisionist. The Maoists support completely their condemnation of the theory of social-fascism.

The Communist International, ended where it began to allow the subordination of the class of the world proletariat under the class of the world bourgeoisie. The general-line of the world revolution was retransformed through the moult-process of revisionism into a renewed general-line of the agency of the world bourgeoisie within the international communist and workers' movement. The capitulation of the leaders of the Comintern before Social-Democratism was particularly evident in the conciliatory change of course of the proletarian, anti-fascist united front tactics. This line was then reacted more openly later of Khrushchev. So this is a continuously ongoing line of the embourgeoisement of the revolutionary movement that, in the different stages of the class struggle, has only changed its shape, but not its essence. It is the line of the same enemy, the same class, namely, the bourgeois line of reconciliation of classes by means of social-democratism and modern revisionism in the communist movement - with the same result of their development towards social-fascism.

Later on, for example, the renegade Togliatti transformed the right-opportunist line of the Comintern into the "theory" of euro-"communism." The right-opportunist ideas of the euro "communists" can be traced up to the decisions of the Seventh Congress of the Comintern.

The hostile attitude of Tito towards the Comintern is also well known. Tito was one of the first who called Stalin's Comintern policy "dogmatic and sectarian." Tito accused the Soviet Union, that it would misuse the Comintern for its own purposes. Thus, he parroted the anti-Sovietism of the whole world bourgeoisie for a hand full of Dollars.

It is therefore that all the modern revisionists of the world agreed in their criticism of Stalin's Comintern policy - which they characterized as an "appendage of his great power politics". In condemning the alleged Stalinist "Gleichschaltung" (enforced conformity) of the world communist movement, all anti-Communists were in total agreement - including the Trotskyists. When the Trotskyists were defeated by Stalin, and when it was thus impossible for them to transform the Comintern into a Trotskyist organization, they founded their own Trotskyist Fourth International, where they could celebrate Trotsky as "true" leader. They acted as the big "defenders" of the Comintern of Lenin, which was allegedly "abused" by Stalin . They have never done anything else than to replace Marxism-Leninism by Trotskyism. The Trotskyism of the past differs from Trotskyism of today only in that it tries to replace the Stalinist-Hoxhaism by the neo-Trotskyism.

The Trotskyites are one of those elements who try to combat the Hoxhaist theory of social-fascism. They try to protect the mask of the ugly social-fascist head of the modern revisionists - namely of those who rehabilitated the Trotzkyites after the murder at Stalin.

We Stalinist-Hoxhaists need no new "4th", "5th" or "6th"... International. We only wanted to continue the correct line of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin. That was the reason why we had chosen the name "Comintern / ML". And then, in 2009, we changed our name and called us Comintern (SH), namely in order to distinguish ourselves from all the opportunistic currents - that hide themselves behind the name "Marxist-Leninists".

Incidentally, the Titoists are not the only one's who were blaming the Comintern that it would allegedly "patronize" the Communist parties or even "impose its will" on them. The Titoites represented the anti-internationalist view that the Comintern would not be allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of the individual Communist parties (as if the communist parties were not sections of the world party). These opportunistic forces in the Communist parties insisted on their "independence", as long as the Stalinist line of the Comintern dominated. However, with the Seventh World Congress, when the rightists gained the upper hand, they tried to force all the Communist Parties with all might under the opportunistic line of the rightists. It is not at all astonishing that nearly all the communist parties who agreed with the dissolution of the Comintern became social-fascist parties later on.

 

If you want to defeat social-fascism you must eradicate its ideological bourgeois source - revisionism, disguised anti-communism.

 

 

The Seventh World Congress

- A gathering of delegates who were previously selected by the rightist leaders of the Comintern to overthrow the Leninist-Stalinist line of the Comintern.

Here are some selected examples of contributions of speakers at the Seventh World Congress, which will show that the representatives of the various Sections openly parroted the slogan of the so called "struggle against sectarianism" which was beforehand launched by the rightist leadership of the Comintern. We limit ourselves to the letters A and B (names of speakers), for reasons of space. This subjugation of the Sections under the rightist leaders of the Comintern runs through all speeches of the VII World Congress. (Source: full original protocols of the VII World Congress - Volume I and II).
With their hand covering their mouth, the 7th Congress veered away from the line of the 6th Congress. Hiddenly, the line of the 6th Congress was criticized, namely its allegedly "hostile line against the masses". This correct line was replaced by the demagogic "mass line" of the right populists, for the purpose to pave the way towards the bourgeois people's front policy.


Examples:

ACKERMANN, Anton (Germany): his so called "self-criticism" was like this:

"With false and exaggerated slogans we have made useless sacrifices".
(Protocols of the 7th World Congress - Volume I, Page 158).

After the dissolution of the Comintern, this traitor Ackermann wrote an anti-Stalinist article: "Is there a special German road to socialism?" In this article, a German policy was advocated - independent from the Soviet Union. This facilitated the cooperation of the revisionists with the social democrats. As a Berianist he was expelled in 1954 by Ulbricht. However, the SED rehabilitated him in 1956 - when the process of the de-Stalinization was finished .

ALBINO (Portugal): "At time of the VI World Congress the PCP was a sectarian group, completely torn off from the masses .." - "Many comrades still maintain a sectarian point of view." - "On the basis of the struggle for democratic rights and freedoms, we must apply the united front tactic." (Protocols, Volume I, page 292, 294)

Bakdash Khalid [Ramzi]; (Syria): "We must also fight against the 'cowards' of sectarianism. They are a problem for the realization of the Popular Front. They provoke a split in the united front..." (Protocol VII World Congress, August 19, 1935, 15th Day of Congress). Khalid Bakdash has become revisionist and committed to the bourgeois policy of party-pluralism in the whole Arab world - under the rule of the Baath Party.

BODENMANN (Switzerland): "The main weaknesses and deficiencies of the party are that it has not as yet been able to completely overcome the sectarianism." (Protocols, Volume I, page 212)

BROWDER (USA): Also Browder participated in the Seventh World Congress. Shortly after that, Browder liquidated the CPUSA and renounced membership of the Comintern under the pressure of U.S. imperialism. His liquidatory influence on the Comintern contributed essentially to its dissolution. This underlines the hostile activities of US-imperialism against the Comintern though the US-imperialists were not members of the so called "Anti-Comintern-Pact".

Thus, it is a matter of historical fact that exclusively all forces of the whole world imperialism agreed to combat the Comintern in words and deeds. They all contributed more or less actively to its dissolution. And this would have meant: not to limit the defense of the Comintern only against the members of the Anti-Comintern-Pact. It would have been the correct task of the Comintern to create a united world front against the whole world imperialist anti-Comintern-front. Browder was one of those elements who tried to foreclose such a united world front against the liquidation of the Comintern. Historical fact is that the world hegemony of US-imperialism took place without the indispensable existence and resistance of a functioning Communist International. This is one of the most important "merits" of Browder in the service of American imperialism - in the postwar period. [ We refer also to the previous liquidatory period of factionalism within the CPUSA and especially to the concerning speeches of comrade Stalin ].

The US-imperialists became the world center of anti-communism and they had not to count any more neither with the resistance of the Comintern as the world center of communism nor with the resistance of many of its Sections. The Comintern (SH) holds the view that the dissolution of the Comintern facilitated the development of the world hegomony of the US-imperialists, in particular, and the regeneration and strengthening of world imperialism, in general.

[ remark: 1937 (only 7 years before the dissolution of the Comintern) - Hitler and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern-Pact with the following wording:

"Recognizing that the goal of the Communist International, called Comintern, is decomposition and rape of existing States by all available means,
In the belief that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations endangers not only their internal peace and social well life, but also threatens generally world peace,
We desire to work together to fight against the communist decomposition.... " ]

Here we must not ignore the Sections of the Comintern. Of course, the Anti-Comintern-Pact was an aggressive pact against the Comintern, in general, and against the Sections, in particular.

The special dissolution of the CPUSA was thus in compliance with the overall interests of both the imperialist camps.

The dissolution of the Comintern was not only in the interest of the countries of the Anti-Comintern-Pact but also in the interest of the entire imperialist world.

With the dissolution of the Comintern, Dimitrov had obviously played into the hands of the entire world of imperialism. And the VII World Congress was the open door.

Enver Hoxha wrote in "Euro-Communism is Anti-Communism":

"The first current which preceded the modern revisionism in power was Browderism. He was the first herald of that line of ideological and political capitulation which American imperialism was to strive to impose on the communist parties and the revolutionary movement. Upsets and splits occurred in some of the old communist parties of Latin America, and these had their source in the activity of opportunist elements who, weary of the revolutionary struggle, grasped at any means with which American imperialism provided them to quell the revolts of the peoples and the revolution, and to spread decay in the parties, which were working for the education and preparation of the peoples for revolution". (Enver Hoxha, German edition pages 24 and 31).

Hoxhaism means:

Fire on modern revisionism as the main support of capitalism within the working class and as the chief enemy of communism.

At the time of Comintern, Browderism praised socialism in words, however in deeds, Browderism paved the way for the world hegemony of US-imperialism.

Browderism means liquidation of the communist organisations from inside and fire support for the imperialists who tried to liquidate the communist organizations from outside. Indirectly, Browderism and Anti-Comintern-Pact played in each other's hands. The Comintern adopted Browderism instead of unmasking its liquidatory character.

It was a fatal error of the Comintern that it did not purify its own ranks from this hostile ideology of the bourgeoisie.

 

BUENO (Cuba): "Meanwhile, the party trod the path to the final overcome the sectarian groups in the party. It has been able to overcome their weaknesses in the proper treatment of this important task [!]". (Protocols, Volume II, page 593)


_________


It is supported by documents, that the ECCI had forced massive changes in the composition of the leading cadres of individual Sections, before convening of the Seventh World Congress. The Stalinists were systematically replaced by right-wing elements. Those leaders of the communist parties who still wanted to defend the previous 6th Congress, had been forced to resign under massive pressure. This process of replacement lasted over one year. Only those delegates were authorized, who supported unquestioning the rightist line of the ECCI. The composition of the Seventh Congress had been carefully planned and prepared in advance for the purpose to ensure an overwhelming majority of votes.Also the composition of the ECCI was changed by purely "administrative" actions. Namely those comrades were tampered who criticized the new line of the Comintern. The rightists shunned an open ideological struggle.

We have to take into consideration all the events which happened before/during/ after the 7th Congress. In this time the trials against the Bloc of the Rightists and Trotzkyites were initialized. And this had essential influence on the development of the Comintern and its leadership.

We must also assume that the counter-revolutionary elements in turn abused the cleansing campaigns for the purpose to foist their evil deeds on honest Communists.

 

 

Who keeps the myth of the revisionist Seventh World Congress alive ?

The question of the reconstruction of the world communist party could not yet be solved by the Marxist-Leninist world movement under the leadership of Comrade Enver Hoxha. Many questions remained unexplained. The withholding of information, the systematic disinformation, the falsification of documents - all of which was part of a systematic struggle of the bourgeoisie to prevent the re-foundation of the Comintern. The Stalinist-Hoxhaists set themselves the goal of solving the problems of the re-foundation of the Comintern.

Fascism was defeated. So, what is the Comintern still good for ? This was the most common argument of the revisionists with which they rejected the need for the re-establishment of the Comintern.
So, is it not a decisive difference ? Whether you regard the Comintern of Dimitrov as historically "finished" anti-Hitlerfascist mission, or as a task for the reconstruction the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin - for the purpose of the socialist world revolution. The most dangerous enemies of the Comintern are those who celebrate their victory over the alleged Stalinist "sectarian and dogmatic line" of the Comintern, as well as those who defend the Stalinist line of the Comintern only in words, but who deny it in deeds.

The revisionists tried to reduce the Comintern to a peaceful democratic tool in the fight against fascism. This myth diverts attention from the real mission of the Comintern, namely to organize the world-proletarian armed revolution for the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat. The Comintern is a tool which the world proletariat is using for the violent overthrow of the world bourgeoisie.

Therefore, Stalin's merit to the purification and strengthening of the Comintern is demonized today. Indeed, the entire bourgeois, reactionary, anti-Communist world, up to the revisionists, "left" opportunists and Trotskyists, they all fear the renaissance of the powerful Leninist-Stalinist spirit of the Comintern. The revisionists uphold the class-reconciliatory spirit of Dimitrov, whereas we Stalinist-Hoxhaist resurrect the spirit of the world revolutionaries, Lenin and Stalin, - "class against class".

It is the task of the Stalinist Hoxhaists to expose the lies of the revisionists on the history of the Comintern and to smash the myth of Dimitrov. The myth of Dimitrov was one of the biggest obstacles for the reconstruction of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin. We will not stop halfway with our criticism. We will provide evidence for further revisionist crimes. However, we will not solve this task successfully, if we do not succeed to unmask those elements who misuse their so-called "anti-revisionist critique" at Dimitrov as a hidden critique at comrade Stalin.

 

 

How should we judge on Dimitrov?

Primarily, we have to destroy his myth which was created by the modern revisionists !

Simultaneously, the modern revisionists praised Dimitrov while they demonized comrade Stalin.

 


Our criticism of Dimitrov is not exhaustive. We make no claim to infallibility. Our level of information is still insufficient, so that we cannot exclude mistakes which would be caused by both the overestimation and underestimation. Of course, we are always willing to self-criticism. We are convinced that the future will provide clearer assessments about Dimitrov, than this is possible for us at this moment.

In no way we ought to condemn honest comrades, just because they believe that they must defend Dimitrov against the revisionists. We must be patient with such comrades. We must convince them in solidarity that Marxist-Leninists are not allowed, to free Dimitrov from blame. We must help them to get rid of the revisionist myth around Dimitrov. If we kick these comrades in the teeth, then they would run the risk to fall into the arms of the neo-revisionists. We must avoid any sectarian attitude of criticism, namely to put these comrades on the same level with neo-revisionist leaders. And we should never forget that we, ourselves, have needed many years of investigations before we were able, to unmask the revisionist development of Dimitrov.

 

We do not want to reduce this question to the personality of Dimitrov. To a greater degree we focus our question upon the ideologically completed rightist change on the Seventh World Congress, which was not represented alone by Dimitrov. However, he was doubtedless the key figure.

We thus follow the opinion of Comrade Stalin, who said:

"Those comrades who in discussing the problem of the Right deviation concentrate on the question of the individuals representing the Right deviation are also wrong. Show us who are the Rights and the conciliators, they say, name them, so that we can deal with them accordingly. That is not the correct way of presenting the question. Individuals, of course, play some part. Nevertheless, the question is not one of individuals, but of the conditions, of the situation, giving rise to the Right danger in the Party. Individuals can be kept out, but that does not mean that we have thereby cut the roots of the Right danger in our Party. Hence, the question of individuals does not settle the matter, although it is undoubtedly of interest. (Stalin, Volume 11, page 198, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

It is our duty to bring up Dimitrov's serious right-wing errors which had occured in the Comintern and later on in Bulgaria [ Formation of a Balkan Federation against the USSR ] and in the Communist World Movement.

The revisionist historical falsifications about Dimitrov must be unmasked, repudiated to the strongest extent and fiercely combated by us.

It is impossible to anchor the Comintern (SH) on a solid ideological basis of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism, if we would sail under the rightist flag of Dimitrov, if we would return the serious errors of Dimitrov under the rug. This is not Bolshevist. This is not in accord with the loyalty to true proletarian internationalism. If we really want to stay true to the mission of the fraternal union of the proletarians of all countries, then we have to search for the truth, we have self-critically to uncover the errors without fear. We must answer the question why the Comintern was dissolved, and why the world communist movement had not been led by a communist world party between the year 1943 and the year 2000. The determined and relentless struggle for the Communist International of the world proletariat is an inalienable part of the teachings and struggles of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. As communists, we can analyze the Communist Internationals critically. Only one thing is absolutely inadmissible: A Communist may never put in question the indispensability of the permanent struggle for the Communist International.

It is a crime against the world proletariat, if one tries to whitewash the betrayal against the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin, ie if one tries to paint over the betrayal with new "Marxist-Leninist" color, for the only purpose of deceiving the world proletariat for the second time.

This vulgarization is also inadmissible related to our demarcation line opposite to the VII World Congress of the Comintern. Our criticism of the VII World Congress must not be abused for the purpose, to justify all those crimes which the opportunists had committed against the Comintern in former times.Undoubtedly the VII World Congress was a fundamental turning point, which introduced a rightist line, which turned the Comintern program of 1928 upside down, which knocked the whole Leninist-Stalinist strategy and tactics on the head, which trampled the decisions of the previous World Congresses under foot, and which targetted the liquidation of the Comintern.

Dimitrov hid his revisionist line behind the Bolshevist line, especially in the initial phase.

It is well known that he had completed successfully the school of Bolshevism in the USSR. However, history shows that there are good and bad pupils. He was useful as long as he was forced to strictly implement the Stalinist line. He became a danger for the Comintern to the same degree as he deviated more and more from the Leninist-Stalinist line of the Comintern. His deviations from Bolshevism and reconciliationism with Menshevism became all the more obvious in his last stage of life - thus increasingly after the dissolution of the Comintern.

The definition of the ideology of Dimitrov is the adaptation and transformation of the Bolshevist Comintern of Lenin and Stalin into its social democratic degeneration.

Once he was criticized by the Soviet Union, he practiced formally "self-criticism", with the consequence that he - shortly after that - headed repeatedly to the muddy waters of modern revisionism. Dimitrov took always advantage of the fact that his famous personality was still tolerated to a certain degree in the USSR, because there were already a certain amount of revisionist influence within the leadership of the CPSU (B) by which his inviolability was relatively ensured.

The diaries of Dimitrov are hyped as so-called "key documents of the world communist movement after 1933". We Stalinist Hoxhaists consider the publication of the diaries as anti-Stalinist propaganda - launched by the revisionists on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

In the diaries, all the entries, between January 1935 and August 1936, are missing, thus the Seventh Comintern Congress and his election as General Secretary of the Comintern. Some pages were cut out. Who knows what else might have been tampered in the diaries? The diaries for the period 1944 - 1949 remained unpublished, probably because Dimitrov deviated from communism all the more in that time. Thus, such a publication could unnecessarily damage the myth of this "proletarian world leader of the Comintern".
It was certainly not a coincidence that the Comintern (SH) was founded at the same time as the "diaries" Dimitrov were put into circulation. With the establishment of the Comintern (SH), we have begun to publicly denounce Dimitrov's betrayal at the Stalinist line of the Comintern. Therefore, it was high time for the revisionists to publish the diaries, for the purpose to protect Dimitrov against Stalinism more than ever
.

One of the greatest crimes of the revisionists is the so-called "de-Stalinization of the history of the Comintern". On what rests this falsification of the history of the Comintern ? It rests on Dimitrov himself who began with the preparation of the de-Stalinization of the Comintern already on the 7th Congress.

After Dimitrov's death, the revisionists deleted from his letters everything that had to do with Stalin. They covered all traces to Stalin, respectively they set the public world on a wrong track.

The revisionist historical falsifications about Dimitrov are essential part of the general historical falsifications of the Comintern. The cult of personality around Dimitrov served the modern revisionists for the purpose of dismantling the great achievements of Comrade Stalin within the Comintern. All traces of Stalinism should be obliterated from the history of the Comintern. The revisionists talked badly of the positive influence of Stalin on the Comintern, and they perfidiously twisted his principled Leninist line into a so called "dogmatic and sectarian deviation", into a "hostile" line within the Comintern.

"Either a Comintern without Stalin - or not any Comintern !"

That was the criminal slogan of the liquidators of the Comintern. That was the counter-revolutionary general line of the entire world bourgeoisie and its lackeys in the world-camp of the working class - both inside and outside of the Comintern. Since certain documents of the Comintern are kept under lock, we can only seek the truth in such documents which have been already published. Therefore, our assessment on the Seventh Congress, in particular, and on Dimitrov, in general, must be still regarded with reservation and modified.

According to the researches of Dobrin Mitchev, of the Institute of History of the Communist Party of Bulgaria:

On 10 March (1934 – Ed.) … Georgi Dimitrov wrote to Stalin. In his letter he explained that during the year he had spent in prison he had thought a great deal about the problems of the world workers’ movement. He had been concerned above all, he specified, with questions about the strategy and tactics, the methods, the action and the functioning of the Communist International.

The discussion took place a little later, in the presence of Manuilsky and others.

In the course of the interview, Georgi Dimitrov explained, developed his ideas, which were contrary [ ! ] to those of Stalin. The discussion was ardent, difficult, impassioned”.

(Dobrin Mitchev, in: Jean Méroy: ‘Dimitrov: Un revolutionnaire de notre temps (Dimitrov:

A Revolutionary of Our Time); Paris; 1972; p. 184-85).


While analyzing the documents, we admit that Dimitrov has not only made ​​mistakes.

He certainly has made ​​some positive contribution to the Comintern, because he was finally responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the Stalinist Comintern. However, his merits are of course not the same as those which the revisionists ascribe to him. Rather, it is those initial merits, which the revisionists try to conceal because they were obviously associated with the name of Stalin. There is not just a Dimitrov since the VII World Congress. It is our task to critically analyze and assess the complete work of Dimitrov, thus all his activities before the Seventh Congress, for example his contribution within the Red International of the Labour Unions.

It is significant that most of the bourgeois historians initially condemned Dimitrov as a "loyal vassals" of Stalin, thus in the time when Dimitrov became general secretary of the Comintern. However, we may not draw off our attention that Dimitrov always dabbled in a reconciliatory attitude towards deviationists. Nevertheless, to a certain degree and in the initial phase, Dimitrov seemed to have tolerably implemented the line of comrade Stalin.

That changed at latest with the fundamental ideological turn of the VII World Congress. Since than, Dimitrov was conspicuously celebrated by the bourgeois historians. Last not least, this is also due to the fact that Dimitrov, in his diaries, had suggestively dissociated himself from the condemnation of the criminal bloc of the Trotskyites and Rightists within the Comintern. Obviously, he had reason enough to fear these trials.

It is no coincidence that Stalin settled a score with the crimes of the Trotskyist and rightist conspirators who had also occupied senior positions in the Comintern. These criminals wanted to drive a wedge between the Comintern and the Soviet Union. They wanted to overthrow the bulwark of world revolution and bring about the restoration of capitalism. For the USSR, the danger of the restoration of capitalism already existed from the very beginning. And from the beginning, there was also the danger that the Comintern could be transformed into an instrument of the international class enemy.

 

From the question of Stalin to the question
of Dimitrov

When the revisionists launched the so called "Stalin-question", and this was answered unequivocally by Khrushchev at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, it was time to defend comrade Stalin as 4th Classic of Marxism-Leninism. Enver Hoxha was the first ever who openly defended Stalin - namely on the historical Meeting of 81 Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow in 1960. In no uncertain terms, the defense of Stalin was the unflinching answer of the Marxist-Leninists to the attack of the modern revisionists ! From now on, the "Stalin-question" became the ultimate line of demarcation between modern revisionism and Marxism-Leninism. In defense of Stalin, the new Marxist-Leninist world movement developed under the leadership of Comrade Enver Hoxha. Enver Hoxha showed that Stalin had always a proper Bolshevik attitude in all the crucial questions - inclusively in the question of the Comintern. Learning from the Leninist-Stalinist Comintern, that means, to bear the palm ! In the so called "Stalin-question" we have won a brilliant victory in the fight against the modern revisionists, and this we owe above all to Comrade Enver Hoxha. This includes in particular the victory over Maoism in the so called "Stalin-question".

Enver Hoxha - the 5th Classics of Marxism-Leninism - was the most reliable defender of the Comintern's policy of Stalin. Just as Stalin was the most reliable defender of the Comintern's policy of Lenin - the 3rd Classic of Marxism-Leninism. And again, Lenin was the most reliable defender of the First International of Marx and Engels and the most consistent critics of social-chauvinist betrayal of the leaders of the Second International.

Modern revisionism is: Anti-Stalinism under disguise of Marxism-Leninism.

Neo-Revisionism is: Anti-Stalinism-Hoxhaism under disguise of Stalinism and reconciliation with Hoxhaism.

Related to the history of the Comintern, neo-revisionism cannot be defeated without a profound Stalinist-Hoxhaist critique at Dimitrov.

The Dimitrov-question has not been posed by the modern revisionists. We Marxist-Leninists raised this question, namely after we had declared Enver Hoxha as the 5th Classic of Marxism-Leninism. The critical analysis about Dimitrov is a result of our struggle against neo-revisionism - based on Stalinism-Hoxhaism. The Dimitrov-question arose in continuation of the anti-revisionist struggle of Comrade Enver Hoxha, that dates back to the times of the Comintern. From the unmasking of Togliatti (alias "Ercoli"), it is not far to the critique at Dimitrov. Togliatti was, as Dimitrov, a leader of the Comintern, like most others who became foregone leaders of various forms of modern revisionism. They all fought against the Stalinist Comintern-policy which we Stalinist-Hoxhaists vehemently defend.

Not about Dimitrov 's report to the Seventh World Congress brought us to the criticism of him, but non-conformity between his anti-fascist entitlement and social-fascist reality of modern revisionism at power. If we consider the shocking results of our analysis of the historical retro-perspective of modern revisionism, we came to the conclusion that the modern revisionists sowed the seeds of the destruction of Stalinism long before the XX Congress of the CPSU. And indeed, by thoroughly studying of the report of Dimitrov on the VII World Congress - we found what we were looking for !

 

 

 

Replacement of the

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

by the "Popular Front"

How did comrade Stalin define the task of the United Front ?

It is the task of the Comintern and its Sections...

... to form a united front of the workers of the advanced countries and the labouring masses of the colonies in order to stave off the danger of war, or, if war breaks out, to convert imperialist war into civil war, smash fascism, overthrow capitalism, establish Soviet power, emancipate the colonies from slavery, and organize all-round defence of the first Soviet Republic in the world.”

What are the roots of the united front idea ?

"Lenin put the united front tactics into operation precisely for the purpose of helping the vast masses of the working class in the capitalist countries, who are infected with the prejudices of the Social-Democratic policy of compromise, to learn from their own experience that the Communists' policy is correct, and to pass to the side of communism." (Stalin, Works, Volume 10, page 300, German edition, KPD/ML 1971)

 

In contrast: Dimitrov blamed those comrades as so called "Ultra-Leftists" who strictly adhered to the dictatorship of the proletariat, thus to a "workers' government, which has overthrown the bourgeoisie by an armed uprising" (Quote from Dimitrov's report [chapter: "About the government of the united front"], protocols of the VII World Congress).

A bourgeois democrat may see it like this, but never the Marxist-Leninists. Any form of Marxist-Leninist workers' government is based on the principles of armed dictatorship of the proletariat. And the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be built otherwise than by the violent socialist revolution, by the overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, by the fall of fascism, by the destruction of imperialism and its whole world order. Only revisionists deny this truth and denigrate it as "ultra-leftist".

The "Popular Front" transforms the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat into the "tail-end" of the bourgeoisie ( “harmless minority” of “tamed communists”). The "Popular Front" is thus a manoeuvre to revive the bourgeoisie with the aid of the working people, and its purpose is to make the revisionist leaders who “withdraw” from Marxism-Leninism and from the socialist revolution harmless appendages of a bourgeois government, to shield this government from the people. Feeding the people with promises - that is the “cunning mechanism” of every coalition government. However, history taught, that feeding the people with promises has everywhere ended in failure.

Lenin defined the "coalition government" like this:

"Revolution enlightens all classes with a rapidity and thoroughness unknown in normal, peaceful times. The capitalists, better organised and more experienced than anybody else in matters of class struggle and politics, learnt their lesson quicker than the others. Realising that the government’s position was hopeless, they resorted to a method which for many decades, ever since 1848, has been practised by the capitalists of other countries in order to fool, divide and weaken the workers. This method is known as a “coalition” government, i.e., a joint cabinet formed of members of the bourgeoisie and turncoats from socialism" (Lenin, "Lessons of the Revolution", collected works, Volume 25, page 237, German edition).

That is why it always happens, under all sorts of “coalition” Cabinets that include “socialists”, that these socialists, even when individuals among them are perfectly honest, in reality turn out to be either a useless ornament of or a screen for the bourgeois government, a sort of lightning conductor to divert the people’s indignation from the government, a tool for the government to deceive the people.” (Lenin, "One of the Fundamental Questions of the Revolution", collected works, Volume 25, page 381, German edition).


In "The Popular Front for the struggle against fascism and war", Dimitrov defined the historical mission of the proletariat as the "vanguard of the unfinished democratic revolution" and not any more as the vanguard of the socialist revolution:


"It (the Popular Front - Ed) creates the most favorable conditions for the fulfillment of the historical role of the proletariat to stand at the forefront of the struggle of their own people against the handful of financiers, the big capitalists - as the vanguard of the unfinished democratic revolution and all movements of progress and culture. " (Dimitrov, selected works, Volume 3, page 38, German edition).

»Creating a world popular front against war and fascism" (Dimitrov, ibid, page 41), and "its program of defending the interests of working people, the defense of democracy and peace against fascism and the fascist warmongers" (ibid., page 40)

In: "The Popular Front for the struggle against fascism and war" from November 1936, Dimitrov said: "If (...) the existing government for any reason, (...) would pedalling back, (...) then the working class, by strenghtening the structure of the Popular Front , strives for the replacement of government by such a government which implements the program of the Popular Front vigorously (...)" (Dimitrov, Volume 3, pages 50-51, German edition ).

Dimitrov didn't even mention the term "class struggle", let alone "socialism" , the "armed socialist revolution" or "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Every Marxist knows:

No Popular Front government can be peacefully transformed into the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Every Marxist knows:

Only the guns in the hands of the workers can guarantee the proletarian character of the Popular Front.


Every Marxist knows:

the government of the Popular Front can only function upon the ruins of the bourgeois state. There is no proletarian state without the violent revolutionary overthrow and complete destruction of the bourgeois state.

Replacing a bourgeois government by a proletarian government without victory of class struggle over the bourgeoisie - is anti-Marxist, is social democratic. Historically, the concept of the VII World Congress failed, namely to peacefully transform the Popular Front government into a dictatorship of the proletariat.

And Lenin teaches:

»Only scoundrels or simpletons can think that the proletariat must first win a majority in elections carried out under the yoke of the bourgeoisie, under the yoke of wage-slavery, and must then win power. This is the height of stupidity or hypocrisy; it is substituting elections, under the old system and with the old power, for class struggle and revolution." (Lenin, »Greetings to Italian, French and German communists«, Volume 30, page 58, English edition).


Abandonment of the violent overthrow of world imperialism, substituting the dictatorship of the world proletariat, substituting the socialist world revolution by a government of the Popular Front under the yoke of the old world-bourgeoisie, under the yoke of globalized wage-slavery - this is the height of stupidity and hypocrisy related to the present crisis of world capitalism.

Certainly, we need a world-front against war and fascism, just today is this world-front urgently needed, but this can only be a world-front of communism, a world-front of the socialist revolution. Without this world-communist front, without the world revolution, ANY OTHER world-front will never be able to abolish the inevitability of war and fascism. This problem can only be solved by the world-revolutionary overthrow of capitalism - because capitalism is the source of war and fascism. History teaches us that capitalism cannot be removed by a Popular Front in a way as it was propagated by Dimitrov.

Dimitrov has rejected the most important cornerstone of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism - the armed proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of ther proletariat. And this in spite of the founding documents of the Comintern, in spite of all decisions of all previous world congresses which base on the unshiftable and indispensable necessity of the armed socialist, proletarian revolution on the dictatorship of the proletariat. In contrast, the Seventh World Congress discarded the necessity of the victory of the October revolution on a world scale, and on top of it, condemned the dictatorship of the proletariat as "sectarian". This is nothing else but revisionist betrayal at the socialist world revolution - betrayal at the world proletariat - betrayal at Marxism-Leninism !

Why is that "sectarian" when we Communists combine the fight for the united front against fascism with the aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat ?

What is so "sectarian" if we want to eliminate the most brutal form of class rule of the bourgeoisie with the socialist revolution ? And we emphasize here: the revolutionary overthrow of the rule of the bourgeoisie as whole class and not limited to the policy of rolling back the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie !

The politics of the Popular Front, namely to impose merely restrictions on the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie - that's just a trick to implement, unnoticed, the adaption towards ("left"-wing) social democratism. This trick is still used by the revisionists of today. The Comintern should have never allowed to be misused as an instrument of subordination of the world proletariat under the world bourgeoisie. However, this was the aim of the opportunist policy of "anti-fascism" in a unity front with the bourgeoisie. And this kind of class-reconciliatory "anti-fascism" paved the way towards modern revisionism.

Dimitrov has disregarded the simple truism , namely that it is essential to distinguish between the bourgeois-democratic concept of anti-fascism and the proletarian-socialist concept of anti-fascism. More than that: Dimitrov obliterated the principled difference between bourgeois-democratic and proletarian-socialist concept of anti-fascism with the aim to adapt the revolutionary concept to the reformist concept - comparable with the treacherous concept of the Second International which Lenin completely unmasked.

If you want to change the world then there is only the one way with two contrary directions:

The reformist direction leads always and inevitable back to world capitalism. The revolutionary direction leads forwards to world socialism.

You cannot simultaneously run into two contrary directions. Therefore, you have to decide in which direction you want to go.

The theory of running simultaneously into two contrary directions is idealistic, is anti-Marxist. The “popular front” of Dimitrov is based on such an idealistic theory of achieving harmony of classes within an antagonistic class society. Dimitrov strived for balancing the antagonism of class society "under the control of the popular front". The majority of the masses would "force" the antagonist classes to finally "annihilate each other". This would be then the opportunist "mass-line" for the "peaceful socialist way" towards the classless society by the motto: "constant dripping [of the masses] wears away the stone [antagonism of classes]". History proved the contrary. Even the transfer of the concept of the "popular front" on a world scale would not and could not change its bourgeois class character.

In contrast, we Stalinist-Hoxhaists are opponents of such so-called “third ways” thus somewhere between the reformist and revolutionary way. Marxism-Leninism teaches that every alleged “third way” ends up unavoidably and without exception in reformism, and again, reformism ends up unavoidably in capitalism.

 

 


What is the difference between the bourgeois and proletarian concept of anti-fascism?

The bourgeois-democratic "anti-fascism" is at best the elimination of fascism "on time" because it is based on the unity with the capitalist class. Repeatedly, capitalism, gives birth to fascism according to the immanent capitalist law of the brutal capitalist system of exploitation and oppression.

In this form of "anti-fascism" the class of the proletariat is in the position of subordination under the class of the bourgeoisie. The social democratic and revisionist forces (which consist mainly of the upper shifts of the proletariat, the labour aristocracy, intelectuals and other petty-bourgeois elements) enter into alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie against the most reactionary and fascist elements of the monopoly-bourgeoisie. For short: This kind of so called "anti-fascism" is necessary for the regeneration of the collapsing capitalism - caused/accelerated by the law of maximization of profit. By means of this so called "anti-fascism" the world bourgeoisie takes the carrot-and-stick approach of class-reconciliation for the purpose to buck the unavoidable transition from world capitalism to world socialism.


The aim of the proletarian anti-fascism is the revolutionary destruction of capitalism and thus eliminating the cause of fascism. The proletarian anti-fascism bases on the inevitable demise of world capitalism and the inevitable victory of the world communist revolution.

The proletarian anti-fascism is the way towards elimination of the inevitability of fascism through the socialist world revolution, the global overthrow of the whole class of the world bourgeoisie, through the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat upon the ruins of the imperialist world system, through the establishment of the world socialist system.

There is no interstage between both these kinds of anti-fascism. You can only decide either in favor or against the bourgeois or proletarian anti-fascism. Any centrist position, in between, is in the service of the bourgeoisie and therefore harmful for the proletariat.

The result of the opportunistic united front policy, ie this "deal" with the liberal bourgeoisie, ends up as follows:

- common shaking off the yoke of fascism at the price that the bourgeoisie retains the power;

- demagogic phrase: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie supposedly "share" their power temporarily;

empty promises: holding out the perspective of an allegedly "peaceful road to socialism".

Every Marxist knows:
Anyone who tries to propagate the bourgeois anti-fascism behind the mask of alleged "socialist" anti-fascism, is not a Marxist, but a traitor to Marxism, is a revisionist.

The exploiters and oppressors will never renounce or share their power. Voluntarily, they will never subordinate themselves under the exploited and oppressed classes. Therefore, the proletarian anti-fascist concept can be nothing else than the destruction of fascism and social-fascism through the hegemonial power of the revolutionary world proletariat.

 

 

Dimitrov and his criticism on the so called

"sectarian, stereotype revolutionary phraseology"

From this perspective, we must understand Dimitrov's anti-Marxist criticism of the alleged "sectarianism". In this particular context, Dimitrov uses quite aware the term of the so-called "avoidance of revolutionary phraseology" :

"We have intentionally thrown out the stereotype phrases of the revolutionary perspectives both from the reports and decisions of the Congress" (Speech of Dimitrov in its final Session on 20 August 1935; protocols of the VII World Congress, page 977, translation from German edition).

This clear sentence speaks volumes and characterizes the provocating and insulting manner in which Dimitrov cowardly denounced the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Well, in the truest sense of the word, Dimitrov had really "thrown" the Classics of Marxism-Leninismk "over board" - and the phraseology of this apostate sounds like the triumph over the end of the Leninist-Stalinist Comintern.

The "Stalinism", liberated from the shell of the "revolutionary phrase", is nothing more than the naked, unconcealed revisionism of Dimitrov.

With the enforcement of the new course, the biggest obstacle had been "overcome" - the Stalinist course of the VI World Congress ! The accusation of "sectarianism" and "revolutionary phraseology" was applied against no other than comrade Stalin.

We can not prove the truth of the one words of Dimitrov by means of other words of Dimitrov. We must measure his words by his deeds, and not according to his words.

In truth, he was not at all "the leader of the world proletariat" , but most of the time which Dimitrov had spent as the general secretary, was preparing, implementing and terminating the dissolution of the Comintern. Indeed, Dimitrov became the liquidator and receiver in insolvency of the Comintern.

According to the new course of the VII Congress, the supposedly "sectarian" Comintern line of the RILU was abandoned without any ado or fuss - and the RILU summarily disbanded. The RILU did not fit into the new concept of the "united front" of Dimitrov.

The RILU was the own child of the Comintern. RILU was not founded by sectarians. RILU was created under the guidance of Lenin. Historical fact is: Under the leadership of Lenin, the RILU was built. Under Stalin's leadership the RILU gained strength by its Bolshevization. And under the leadership of Dimitrov the RILU was liquidated and dissolved. Even in the case if the critique of Dimitrov would be correct, Marxist-Leninists would never eliminate their sectarian faults by means of the dissolution of their communist organisations ! However Dimitroff did it.

How can the decisions of the VI World Congress be called "stereotypical revolutionary phrases" whereas the RILU has implemented the Stalinist united front policy in the factories substantially correct and successful? The fact is: The influence of RILU within the workers' world movement increased in times of the Stalinist VI Congress. In contrast, the influence decreased particularly after the VII Congress under the leadership of Dimitrov.
May everybody prove whether even a single Stalinist task [ essential decisions, made BEFORE the VII Congress] had been fulfilled AFTER the VII World Congress - at least rudimentary. Since there is nothing to prove, comrades, because the course change of the Seventh World Congress was already the death sentence on the Comintern. The VII Congress heralded the beginning of the end of the Comintern.
That what Dimitrov tried to sell as a "continuation" of the traditional line of the Comintern, "only modified by new conditions", was in truth the sellout of the Comintern for the thin pottage of the class-reconciliation of the Popular Front. The opportunist leaders of Comintern put the traditional Leninist-Stalinist course, the revolutionary spirit of the Comintern, to sleep which was tantamount to the ruination and downfall of the Comintern. With the abolition of the Comintern, the revisionists hoped to close this chapter for all times. They wanted to leave the past behind them, namely as soon as possible. They tried to put the Kybosh on the Comintern. The leaders of the Comintern let the activities lapse successively or put them on hold - until the Comintern vanished into thin air. The Comintern had done its historical part and should not be needed any further. The Comintern was doomed to remain superfluous forever.

Back to the RILU:

Enver Hoxha supported the policy of the new Marxist-Leninist parties who base themselves expressively on the Stalinist decisions of the Sixth World Congress - namely the strengthening of the revolutionary forces of the trade unions within and without the Yellow Unions. Insofar, Enver Hoxha was therefore not for the dissolution of the RILU, and this means that he was not supporting the liquidationist line of Dimitrov in the question of the unions. Enver Hoxha has supported the Marxist-Leninist parties in their Stalinist course of their union activities. He drew a clear demarcation-line against the reformist and social-fascist trade unions. Simultaneously he gave the advice to avoid sectarian deviations in the revolutionary struggle against the Yellow Unions. Stalin had given the same advice.

Quite the contrary - Dimitrov. He has sought the blessing of the "anti-sectarianism" at the Seventh World Congress, and thus in 1937, he needed no longer bother with the political justification of the dissolution of the RILU. Concerning the revision of old Comintern decisions - there was no more need for consideration of decisions from below. And, after the VII World Congress, there was not a single decision from below. The remainders of Marxism-Leninism which the VII World Congress had spared, were later on completely removed by Dimitrov. The question of the unions was not an isolated case. This question is mentioned here on behalf of all other questions of the international class struggle.

Let us never forget what Lenin had stated in "The terms of admission into the Communist International" (this is, of course, totally in contrast to Dimitrov's dissolution of the RILU = openly anti-Leninist !! ):

"10. It is the duty of any party belonging to the Communist International to wage a determined struggle against the Amsterdam 'International' of yellow trase unions. Its indefatigable propaganda should show the organised workers the need to break with the Yellow Amsterdam International. It must give every support to the emerging international federation of the Red trade unions which are associated with the Communist International" (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 31, page 209 - 210, English version - Second World Congress of the Comintern - underlined by the Comintern (SH).


Dimitrov used a correct definition of sectarianism supposedly in defense of the Stalinist Comintern line. But in reality, his maneuver served the further strengthening of the right opportunism, against which the main front of the battle had to be waged:

"In particular, sectarianism reflects the overestimation of the revolution of the masses, the overestimation of the speed of turning away from the positions of reformism, in attempts to skip difficult stages and complex tasks of the movement" (Dimitrov, Protocols of the VII World Congress, German edition, reprinted by the publisher "Neuer Weg", Stuttgart, 1976, Vol I, page 374).

Let us fight fire with fire ! Let us transform this definition of Dimitrov into our Stalinist-Hoxhaist criticism on the VII World Congress:

In particular, the right opportunism manifests in the underestimation of the revolutionization of the masses, in the underestimation of the speed of their turning away from the positions of reformism, in the attempts, to delay the revolutionary tasks of the anti-fascist movement - clinging tightly to (or rather surrender to) difficult stages and complex tasks of the movement.

 

Two contrary positions of the unity front policy

We distinguish two fundamentally different ideological positions of the united front policy:

 

1. Marxist-Leninist position:


- united front of the working class in the struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie - with the aim of communism;

- delineation from the so called "united front" of the opportunist leaders and isolation of their harmful effect on the masses; fight against "left" and right deviations, against all kinds of opportunism, against social democracy, revisionism and neo-revisionism;

every kind of concession to some variant of opportunism in the united front policy is absolutely not allowed;

- dissociating the peasantry from the influence of fascism, and generally, isolating the petty bourgeoisie from the influence of the capitalist class;

with the maximal aim: to transform the most progressive elements into a reserve of the proletarian revolution;

with the minimal aim: at least neutralization of the wavering shifts of the society;

- providing an ever broader mass movement for the revolutionary overthrow;

- creation of a common anti-fascist front with the peoples who are subjugated by imperialism;

- advancing the united front of the working class as a lever for the world proletarian revolution;

- transforming the policy of the anti-fascist united front into the establishment and defense of the dictatorship of the proletariat - for the construction of socialism.

- elimination of the inevitability of fascism and war;

- alliance with anyone in favor of the working class, the socialist revolution and communism;

- rejection of any alliance that could hurt the working class and that could restrict its revolutionary influence;

- imperative leadership of the unity front by the communists, by Comintern and her affiliated Sections in every country


2. the opportunist position:

a) the right-opportunist variant:

- abolition of fascism by a peaceful policy of the united front; ( united front as a peaceful instrument instead of an instrument of class war );

- liquidation of illegal party structures in favor of opportunistic legalism;

- dissolution of the Comintern;

- the Marxist-Leninist line is fought as "dogmatic" and "sectarian", and isolated from the masses (blamed to be allegedly "in the service" of the fascists).

- embracing and strangulating the "sectarian" communist movement by means of its assimilation in the spontaneous movement;

- subordination to the spontaneous movement = subordination to the bourgeoisie;

- "The movement is everything, the goal nothing !" (Bernstein);

- "Popular Front" is not needed for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, but serves as a "substitution" of the revolution (the bourgeoisie saves her bacon by means of the "Popular Front"! );

- widening of the united front by means of the alliances with the "left"-wing of the bourgeoisie;

- basic concessions to the bourgeoisie;

- waiver of the class struggle - instead, reconciliation between opressing and oppressed classes;

- after the fall of fascism truce with the bourgeoisie;

- bourgeois democracy (parliamentarism), combined with the "option" of peaceful transition into (bourgeois) "socialism";

- rejection of a genuine soviet republic of workers, peasants and soldiers;

- abandonment of Marxism-Leninism, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and abandonment of the socialist world revolution ;

- renunciation of communist organizations and actions (communist ideas may be "allowed" for the past and future, however in the capitalist present - which will be maintained - communist activities will not be tolerated);

- change through rapprochement up to merger with revisionist and social-democratic (anti-communist) organizations and actions;

- slight temporary concessions to the working class (carrots and sticks);

- elimination of fascism "on time" - with simultaneously maintaining the capitalist system;



b) the "left"-opportunist variant:

- fundamental rejection of the Marxist-Leninist united front tactics ( sectarianism - exceptionally used in the true Marxist-Leninist sense of the word);

- waiver of the creation and strengthening of the proletarian mass base;

- rejection of implementing the united front policy within reactionary and counter-revolutionary mass organisations;;

- premature shouldering arms and "making" revolution single-handedly without carrying along the masses.

- contempt of the revolutionary alliance with the poor peasants;

- waiver of reserves from the middle class;

- solely proletarian leadership is equated with the waiver of alliances of the united front;

- fundamental rejection of compromise, no willingness to tactical concessions if it is beneficial for the revolution;

- skipping of revolutionary stages;

- the Marxist-Leninist position of the united front policy is combated as a "right-opportunism";

Lenin:

"The more powerful enemy can be conquered only by exerting the utmost effort, and by necessarily, thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skillfully taking advantage of every, even the smallest, 'rift' among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this do not understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern Socialism in general." (Lenin: "Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder")

 


c) the centrist variant :

- centrists = lackeys of the opportunists in the united front policy (concessions to the opportunists);

- making waverings, fractionism, disunity etc. within the united front policy as a matter of principle (Justification of the opportunist position in the united front - under the guise of a "Marxist-Leninist" phraseology);

- reconciliation between the Marxist-Leninist and the opportunist position of the united front policy ( or: playing off against each other);

- fusion of Marxist-Leninist and opportunist organizations

 


Democratic and socialist struggle against war and fascism are to be linked together dialectically - the democratic struggle is subordinated under the socialist struggle.

One must not confuse or mix up the various historical conditions of a democratic and a socialist struggle against fascism and war. We assume that - independently of these two different objectives - the sovereign leadership of the working class is always indispensable.

The main difference between the opportunist and the revolutionary anti-fascist unity front is this:

The opportunist tactics content itself with the role of the proletariat as the main driving force. The revolutionary tactics means more than that. The revolutionary tactics requires the leadership of the proletariat for the transformation of the anti-fascist struggle into the socialist revolution. Fascism will be replaced by socialism. Fascism will be replaced by proletarian democracy and not by bourgeois democratism. Fascism will be replaced by the proletarian Soviet system and not by bourgeois parliamentarism. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (independently from its different forms) will be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anti-fascism is not the restoration of parliamentarism, but destruction of capitalism - inclusively the destruction of the whole political bourgeois superstructure.

A bourgeois revolution (as against Tsarism), if not led by the working class, can basically be not much more than a reformation, as Lenin emphasized. And aim of the bourgeois "anti-fascism" is not about the elimination, but not much more than the reformation of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The solution to the question of classes remains thereby unaffected.

The main point is the leadership of the anti-fascist struggle through the revolutionary proletariat. This means at first that the proletariat - as a souvereign class - leads its own independant anti-fascist class-struggle. And secondly, it means that the proletariat is the leader of the anti-fascist forces of all the other classes - namely the representative of the anti-fascist interests of the whole society, of the whole mankind.

It's about the question of alliance with whom and not with whom.
In the democratic anti-fascist struggle, the allies of the proletariat can not be exactly the same as in the socialist anti-fascist struggle. If circumstances permit, the revolutionary proletariat leads directly and without further ado the socialist revolution against the bourgeoisie, mainly with the poor peasants and the rural proletariat.

However, if the circumstances do not allow this directly, then you have to care for additional allies to achieve the goal in a roundabout way. But once all the hurdles are taken and all obstacles are out of the way, then nothing prevents us from getting to take the socialist revolution in attack. And that means nothing else than that some of our former allies mutate into our opponents. Then we must expose and fight them in the eyes of the masses.

Once our allies are willing and able to follow the working class on the road to socialist revolution, then the day "X" begins with the armed uprising - and thus without any delay - and without putting down the weapons afterwards. Outside of armed revolutionary class struggle, or where the Marxist-Leninist doctrine went missing, the victory over fascism and war will be only a naive short dream; and socialism will remain not more than a revolutionary phrase.

The Seventh World Congress was of the mistaken view that - with the victory of socialism in the USSR - fascism would cease to be inevitable. In contrast, Marxism-Leninism teaches that the inevitability of fascism will only cease if socialism is victorious on a world scale.

The Seventh World Congress spread the dangerous thesis that the world revolution became superfluous and expendable: first, by the so called "omnipotence" of the united front against fascism and war, and secondly by the so-called "irrevocable" victory of socialism in the Soviet Union. Let's begin with our criticism on the so-called "omnipotence" of the anti-fascist united front.


 

The revisionist character of the

UNITED FRONT POLICY
OF DIMITROV



It is said that the thesis of Marxism-Leninism that imperialism inevitably brings forth fascism, would be "outdated".

It is said this thesis would be refuted by the theses of Dimitrov, namely that the mobilization of a powerful anti-fascist united front of the vast masses could shield from fascist terror, and that his theses would mean the end of the inevitability of fascism by means of the "pressure from below". This is wrong.

Stalin teaches:

"Owing to pressure from below, the pressure of the masses, the bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial reforms while remaining on the basis of the existing social-economic system. Acting in this way, it calculates that these concessions are necessary in order to preserve its class rule. This is the essence of reform. Revolution, however, means the transference of power from one class to another. That is why it is impossible to describe any reform as revolution. That is why we cannot count on the change of social systems taking place as an imperceptible transition from one system to another by means of reforms, by the ruling class making concessions." (Stalin, Works, Volume 14, page 22, German edition, KPD/ML 1971)

The anti-fascist united front policy of Dimitrov confines itself to the goal of forming a bourgeois popular front (with the Social Democrats, for example) to fight for the elimination of fascism. This bourgeois popular front had specifically NOT the goal to revolutionarily destroy the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system of exploitation. The bourgeois popular front refuses categorically to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat on the ruins of the fascist state. The classic target of the violent armed socialist revolution of the proletariat had been expressively abandoned and replaced by the "peaceful" united front tactic of Dimitrov. In essence, Dimitrov limited himself to the bourgeois democracy as the goal of his anti-fascist struggle. This is proved by historical facts, though hidden behind revolutionary phrases.

The anti-fascist concept of Dimitrov thus differed fundamentally from the revolutionary concept of the Bolsheviks against the brutal reactionary counter-revolution of Tsarism. The bourgeois revolution against Tsarism did not end halfway with the democratic February Revolution. It was continued until the victory of the Socialist Great October Revolution under the leadership of the Russian proletariat. The October Revolution swept away the bourgeois "democracy" and realized the proletarian democracy through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

So you can not equate the objectives of the October Revolution and the objectives of the "Popular Front" of Dimitrov without pulling the wool over the eyes of the anti-fascist masses. The one matter was the violent revolutionary road to socialism - that was the aim of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin! The other was the so called "peaceful" way to socialism - that was the "Comintern" under the leadership of Dimitrov.

One can only go one way, either the way of Lenin and Stalin OR the way of Dimitrov. Both ways are diametrically opposed and incompatible. For us Stalinist-Hoxhaists there is - unlike the revisionists - no "peaceful" transition to socialism.
That is why the "peaceful" way towards socialism is not basis of the revolutionary, proletarian united front against fascism. And it can also be no unity with the Second International for the "peaceful" way to socialism. The unprincipled "happy medium" - together with the bourgeoisie - will be strictly rejected by the Comintern (SH). We draw a line of unbridgeable demarcation to all political organizations which defend the revisionist unity front policy of Dimitrov.

With support from the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin all people's democracies have had the real possibility of the socialist revolution and the establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was facilitated through the victory of the Red Army over Hitler-fascism - through the weakened position of the national bourgeoisie of the Eastern countries, in particular, and through the weakened position of world imperialism, in general.

Only Albania, which was guided by genuine Stalinism, created the dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, all the other people's democracies, which were guided by the spirit of revisionist united front of the Comintern, who united themselves with the parties of the bourgeois social democracy, who turned away from comrade Stalin, who followed Krushchev, etc. - they all have NOT built up socialism, but social-fascism. In these revisionist countries, the workers and peasants were exploited and oppressed by the new bourgeoisie and her social-fascist state.

Only a people's revolution, which struggled for the violent destruction of the brutal dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, paved the way of the transition to the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But that would be no longer the anti-fascist Popular Front movement of Dimitrov which is based on the collaboration with the bourgeoisie. That is in the contrary, a revolutionary movement for the overthrow of capitalism, a movement that is not only socialist in words but also in deeds.

And at this crucial point we ask the question: what does it mean to split the united front of the working class against fascism and war ?

Dimitrov charged communists with the crime of "leftist" disrupters. Moreover, he waged his struggle primarily against the so called "sectarians" and not primarily against the rightist leaders of the social democracy. Communists were eliminated who refused to follow his reconciliatory course towards social democracism.

The Seventh World Congress treated those Communists as breakers and enemies who continued to fight for the socialist revolution - in opposition to the revisionist Popular Front policy of Dimitrov.

We ask:

Can the definition of Lenin of the united front of the working class in the struggle for socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat be equated with the united front of the working class for a democratic-bourgeois revolution?

Can the first one be subordinated under the second one?

Can the united front of the working class for the temporary, time-limited elimination of war and fascism be equated with the united front of the working class for the elimination of the inevitability of war and fascism?

We think that one can not equate.

Therefore, the united front of the working class in the struggle for the elimination of the inevitability of fascism and war can never be a "divisive, subversive activity". On the contrary:

The aim of the Communists is: transforming the liberation front of the people against fascism and war seamlessly (ie without an intermediate stage - as Lenin said) into a higher quality for the elimination of the inevitability of fascism and war, namely into a united front which makes priority of the socialist revolution, the destruction of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was Dimitrov who refused this. And it was Enver Hoxha who mastered it.

For what purpose did Dimitrov use the Popular Front ?

He needed the Popular Front because he hoped to weaken the revolutionary forces through exceeding concessions towards social democratism. He hoped to convince the workers that the reformist unity front policy would be better than the "sectarian" (revolutionary) tactics. In contrast of Dimitrov, we, on our part, need the unity front policy for the purpose to convince the workers to the contrary. We defend the revolutionary unity front tactics of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism which Dimitrov betrayed. Unity is important for us, but more important is the defense of Marxism-Leninism against opportunism. We want unity of all revolutionary forces in the struggle against fascism and not collaboration with the leaders of social democratism in a Popular Front.

Dimitrov ceased to be a communist after he had willingly sacrificed our communist struggle for the abolition of the inevitability of fascism and war. He sacrificed it in favor of " an elimination on time" , in favor of strengthening the influence of opportunism and weakening the influence of Stalinism. This truth can not be covered up with revolutionary phrases.

If Dimitrov invokes the following quotation of Lenin, he did not do it in the spirit of the socialist revolution (as Lenin did it, of course). He misused it for the purpose to justify his revisionist Popular Front policy by means of Leninism. Sacrificing the final interests to the momentary interests, splitting both these tasks, subordinating the final aims under the transitional objectives - all these methods are the well known "united front" policy of the modern revisionists: "Fusion in words - Fission in deeds!"

What is the quotation of Lenin which Dimitrov had misused ?

"The workers do need unity [ namely for the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]. And the important thing to remember is that nobody but themselves will 'give' them unity, that nobody can help them achieve unity [ and no Popular Front which rejects the violent revolutionary struggle for socialism - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]. Unity cannot be 'promised' - that would be vain boasting, self-deception; unity cannot be 'created' out of 'agreements' between intellectualist groups. [... and also not out of 'agreements' between labour aristocracy and intellectualist groups - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]. To think so is a profoundly sad, naive, and ignorant delusion.

Unity [ for the struggle of the socialist revolution - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]must be won, and only the workers, the class-conscious workers themselves can win it - by stubborn and persistent effort [namely not together with the bourgeoisie but for her revolutionary overthrow - remark of the Comintern (SH) ].

Nothing is easier than to write the word 'unity' in yard-long letters, to promise it [ with the unity front policy of Dimitrov - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]and to 'proclaim' oneself an advocate of unity [ as this is usually for all opportunists and revisionists - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]. In reality, however, unity can be furthered only by the efforts and organisation of the advanced workers, of all the class-coscious workers [who, of course fight for the matter of communism - remark of the Comintern (SH) ].

That is not easy [ especially, if there are rightist elements who sacrifice revolutionary unity to reconciliation with the bourgeoisie - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]. That requires effort, perseverance, the solidarity of all class-conscious workers [ ... and not solidarity with the bourgeoisie - remark of the Comintern (SH) ]. But without that effort there is no use talking about working-class unity. [ Lenin, Volume 20, page 319, English version; - remarks by the Comintern(SH) ].


Dimitrov: "The entire course of events since the Seventh Congress of the Comintern irrefutably confirms the vital necessity of the fastest implementation of its historical slogans about the unity of the working class and the popular front ..." (quoted from: Dimitrov, Volume 3, page 56, "The Popular Front for the struggle against fascism and war," German edition).

In a directive of the ECCI (on May 9, 1941) to the Yugoslav Communists it was stated :

"The communist world revolution must be presented as a series of measures to obtain true democracy .... 30% of all leaders of the communist movement must occur as frontline fighters for democracy ... and to cultivate good relations .... to religious circles" (Hoppe, "Darium of the world revolution", page 261, 1967, Oberpfaffenhofen Ilmgau Publisher).

What would Lenin probably answer ?

"The fact is that ' bourgeois labour parties', as a political phenomenon, have already been formed in all the foremost capitalist countries, and that unless a determined and relentless struggle is waged all along the line against these parties - or groups, trends, etc. [ including the anti-fascist struggle - remark of the Comintern (SH) ] , it is all the same - there can be no question of a struggle against imperialism, or of Marxism, or of a socialist labour movement [ or of the struggle against fascism - remark of the Comintern (SH) ] " (Lenin, collected works, Volume 23, page 118, English edition).

"In every crisis the bourgeoisie will always aid the opportunists, will always try to suppress the revolutionary section of the proletariat, stopping short of nothing and employing the most awful and savage military measures. The opportunists are bourgeois enemies of the proletarian revolution, who in peaceful times carry on their bourgeois work in secret, concealing themselves within the workers' parties, while in times of crisis they immediately prove to be open allies of the entire united bourgeoisie, from the conservative to the most radical and democratic part of the latter, from the free-thinkers, to the religious and clerical sections" (Lenin, collected works, Volume 21, page 110, English edition).

"Liberalism, rotten within, tried to revive itself in the form of socialist opportunism." (Lenin, collected works, Volume 18, page 584, English edition).

 

Everybody knows the bitter historical results of the so called "Popular Front" of Dimitrov. The bourgeoisie needed the revisionist concept of the Popular Front for the purpose to prevent the proletariat from overthrowing the bourgeoisie and to acquire political power by means if its revolutionary anti-fascist united front. Without the revisionists, the bourgeoisie would not be in a position to exercise significant influence over the working masses.

And so the anti-fascist united front of the revolutionary proletarians were cheated by the revisionists. Dimitrov concealed this truth at the Seventh World Congress, and for that reason we criticize the VII World Congress. We communists will never forget that the workers came from the rain (= fascism) to worse (= social fascism). This was a double crime against the working class! This crime against the proletariat and the peoples can not be undone. But we would bear the name of Stalinist Hoxhaists wrongly if we do not do anything to prevent such a double crime in the future with a vengeance.

Hitler's fascism was not the last fascism, in particular, and fascism will be restored unavoidably, in general, if the proletariat would furthermore follow the revisionist "anti-fascist" united front tactics of Dimitrov.
To eliminate Nazism, one would have to eliminate the German imperialism. Stalin brought the Hitler-Fascists to their knees with socialist weapons and thus created excellent conditions for the destruction of the German imperialism. However, the overthrow of the German bourgeoisie was impossible without the socialist revolution of the German proletariat. But the revisionists as Ulbricht, Pieck and Co have thwarted the historic opportunity of the revolutionary establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The merger of the German social-democrats and modern revisionists caused unavoidably the social-fascist and social-imperialist development of the German Democratic Republic and its subjugation under the Soviet imperialist super power. This taught us Hoxhaism which was irrefutably proved by history.

The social-fascism of the modern revisionists was not the last social fascism, and will not be the last social-fascism, if the world proletariat would follow furthermore the class-reconciliatory line of Dimitrov. In order to prevent social-fascism, the revolutionary proletariat had to overthrow the revisionist Cliques in their countries by means of the socialist revolution - namely under the leadership of a truly Bolshevik Party.

The Stalinist-Hoxhaist restoration of the dictatorship of the proletariat is now on the agenda of the anti-fascist united front of the world proletariat. The fatal experience of the fusion of social democracy and modern revisionists in the past has shown that there can be no unity or fusion with the neo-revisionists at present and in future. Those who want to form a world-front of anti-fascism together with the revisionists and neo-revisionists (let alone the "united front" with social-fascist states!), will never be able to abolish world capitalism and its replacement by world socialism. That is the Stalinist-Hoxhaist lesson of the betrayal of Dimitrov.

Not by means of Dimitrov, but by means of the teachings of the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism, can fascism / social-fascism be abolished irretrievably on a global scale. Therefore, the general-line of the Comintern (SH) says expressively:

The revolutionary world proletariat has to destroy world imperialism to eliminate the inevitability of world fascism. The revolutionary world proletariat has to eliminate world's social imperialism to eliminate the inevitability of world's social fascism. The essence is that fascism cannot be abolished without the victory over social-fascism.

This is the path of the Comintern (SH) which will finally guarantee the victory over fascism. The Dimitroff'sche way, however, leads into the capitulation, leads to the maintenance of the domination of the world bourgeoisie. On the way of Dimitrov the fall of world imperialism will not be shortened but delayed - with the familiar consequences of the further repetition of war and fascism.

Hitler's fascism was defeated, but not destroyed. The German imperialism, which nurtured fascism, stayed maintained as a basis of international capital, as a basis for the restoration of fascism.

Today, the bourgeoisie is engaged in the restoration of fascism against the insurgent exploited classes - partly with nationalist occurrence, which is, more or less, hidden behind many masks. Last not least world-fascism is hidden behind the global mask of the so-called "anti-terrorism" and so-called "anti-imperialism". The restoration of fascism and the globalization of war and fascism by the world bourgeoisie must be combated by a new global front of anti-fascism - as a powerful lever for the socialist, proletarian world revolution.

Hitler fascism is still alive because of German imperialism has survived. The imperialist world order developed new covert and overt forms of fascism. Fascism got "harmless"-sounding etiquettes for the purpose of deceiving the masses. The neo-fascism serves the bourgeoisie to restore fascism.

Just as capitalism evolves into world capitalism, fascism also evolves into world fascism. Accordingly, the anti-fascism evolves into anti-world-fascism.
Just as fascism emanated from nationalist roots, world fascism emanates from roots of the bourgeois world order.
Just as the nationalist roots must be uprooted by the countries under the leadership of the proletariat, the cosmopolitan roots must be uprooted by means of the common struggle of the peoples under the leadership of the world proletariat.

Crucial for the anti-fascist struggle in the present conditions of globalization that is the trend of globalized fascism. This trend developed towards a dominant trend. The social-fascist elements of the Social Democratism and revisionism, and also that of the eco-fascism, they all together pave the way towards world fascism with the intention to save the capitalist world order from ruin - against the uprising of the world proletariat and the toiling masses. Fascism is the outmost emergency brake to stop the socialist world revolution. You can not fight against today's globalized fascism with exactly the same methods as in the time of Hitler's fascism . That would be a disaster with a yet larger scale. Anti-fascists and anti-imperialists ! Turn away from the path of the VII World Congress ! No fooling pacts with the bourgeoisie ! Forward with the socialist world revolution !

The elimination of the inevitability of social fascism begins with the destruction of the influence of revisionism in one's own country and this struggle is finally completed on a world scale through the victory of the socialist world revolution. The era of revisionism in power ends as an epoch of social fascism in power.

Fascism differs from social fascism only in its open and hidden form - in essence they are the same. It goes without saying that the Comintern (SH) - conditioned by globalized character of fascism - will have a far greater importance than the Comintern in the fight against Nazism. Suffice it to say that, today, we have additionally to cope with social-fascist states which was not yet the case at the time of the Comintern . The elimination of the inevitability of world fascism thus requires an anti-fascist struggle of a more complex global type, of a powerful lever of world socialist revolution. To eliminate the inevitability of the social-fascist ideology , ie particular its spread throughout the world, means last not least to destroy the inevitability of the ideology of neo-revisionism on a world scale. So if one does not want to learn from the mistakes of the VII World Congress, then one will inevitably go the bourgeois way, the capitalist road, will perish, so as the Comintern of Dimitrov perished.

The nature of the decisions of the Seventh Congress that was the limitation to a temporary elimination of fascism and thus undermining the removal of its inevitability. Thus, the decisions of the Seventh Congress served the maintenance of the power of the bourgeoisie,in general, and as a pioneer of the later social fascism in power, in particular.

At the Seventh World Congress the revisionists were yet too weak to act against socialism openly. The revisionists were forced to hide behind Stalinism because Stalinism was much too strong as to be beaten on an open battle-field. And what did the Albanian communists do? They simply turned the tables. Everything in the policies of the VII World Congress served to hide the rightist turn behind the veil of socialism. But the Albanians literally took this cloak as correct line - and thus against the intentions of the revisionists namely to turn the Comintern hiddenly to the right. This can be easily concluded from the following interersting quotations of comrade Enver Hoxha:

"Fascism had eliminated not only the national independence of the occupied countries, but also all democratic freedoms, and had even buried bourgeois democracy itself. Therefore, the war against fascism had to be not only a war for national liberation but also a war for the defense and development of democracy. As regards the communist parties, the achievement of these two objectives had to be linked with the struggle for socialism." [Enver Hoxha: "Euro-communism is Anti-communism", page 56, KPD/ML, 1980, German edition - underlined by the Comintern (SH)].

Enver Hoxha called for the "tasks of the war for independence and democracy with the struggle for socialism". (Enver Hoxha: "Euro-communism is Anti-communism", page 56, KPD/ML, 1980, German edition).

Enver Hoxha criticized those who, "had not properly understood and did not apply the directives of the 7th Congress of the Communist International" ( ibid. page 57)

Today, the Comintern (SH) can criticize even clearer the false-faced decisions of the Seventh Congress. Indeed, the critical attitude of Comrade Enver Hoxha against the VII World Congress were ultimately proved by his Marxist-Leninist actions. Namely he interpreted the guidelines of the Seventh World Congress in the sense of Stalinism and implement them accordingly into an anti-revisionist practice. That is why we defend Enver Hoxha.

Only in Albania, the victory in the anti-fascist war of liberation turned into a victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the people's revolution and its transition to the socialist revolution for the construction of socialism in Albania. But after the death of Enver Hoxha, the the struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of the social-fascist dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie under the leadership of Ramiz Ali clique did unfortunately not lead to the desired result of the restoration of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Albania. The struggle for this revolutionary aim will go on, and is supported by the Comintern (SH). The Albanian proletariat was defeated because the PLA of Comrade Enver Hoxha had been smashed by the social-fascist counterrevolution. The revisionists in power hiding behind the name of Enver Hoxha with the intention to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat from behind and to build up social fascism for the restoration of capitalism. The fragmented communist movement in Albania is still undermined by the remainders of social-fascist elements. Therefore it is the task of the Albanian Hoxhaists to free themselves from neo-revisionism and centrism. The task of the Albanian communists of today is the creation of their Albanian Section of the Comintern (SH), which stands on the solid ground of Stalinism-Hoxhaism. Other than by a self-critical renunciation from Dimitrov, the Albanian communists can not march forward and reconstruct socialism on the proud way of Enver Hoxha!

That is what it means, to learn from the false decisions of the Seventh Congress,

that is what it means to march forward on the honrable path of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin,

that is what it means, to gain a global victory over the ideology of neo-revisionism,

that is what it means, to be a true Stalinist-Hoxhaist who holds high the treasure of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism in the struggle against world fascism.

At the Comintern of Dimitrov is "only that" criticized what would not harm its deviation from the line of Stalinism. This is not at all a Marxist criticism if it tries to distract from unmasking the right-opportunist line of the Comintern. It is rather a criticism which does not defend the spirit of the Leninist-Stalinist Comintern, but only its "Leninist-Stalinist" empty shell without which revisionism can not molt itself into neo-revisionism. It's about the need to unmask the neo-revisionist line in addressing the issue of the right deviation of Dimitrov and of the VII World Congress - and nothing else. The neo-revisionists criticize only that what leaves them an open backdoor in order not to jeopardize the process of molting of the right-opportunist line of the Comintern. Anything that promotes this neo-revisionist molting process, prolongs logically the survival of revisionism, in particular, and moreover the dying process of capitalism, in general.

Breathing pauses which prolong the dying process of capitalism rather than to shorten - are through and through reactionary. Vice versa: Breathing pauses which are unavoidable within the complicated process of the destruction of capitalism - are revolutionary. Driving the world revolution to death - without using necessary breathing pauses - is sectarian. The revisionists appreciate revolutionary breathing pauses in words, however in deeds, they take reactionary breathing pauses. The one line is in the service of the bourgeois counter-revolution, the other is of advantage for the revolutionary proletariat. So it is with the breathing pause that is wrested from fascism. Never breathing spaces for the counter-revolution - that is the revolutionary line of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism. However, by his right-opportunist line, Dimitrov supplied the bourgeoisie with a breathing pause in favor of her regeneration. To cover up the class antagonism of these two lines, to consider both lines as a "joint" anti-fascist line, or as a line "above" all classes - that was the treacherous line of Dimitrov and his VII World Congress. The neo-revisionists defend this false line under the guise of their alleged "anti-revisionism". Herein lies the specific danger of neo-revisionism and the need to combat it. Neo-revisionism leads to neo-social-fascism if we fight not consistently enough against the neo-revisionists. It is now the neo-revisionists who justify - or openly support - every social-fascist act, only for preventing the victory of the socialist world revolution.

For the revisionist policy of the XX. Congress of the CPSU, the VII World Congress was in particular a kind of signpost towards social-fascism, namely in so far, as the VII World Congress declared the elimination of a specific, a concrete, a given fascism, thus the Hitler fascism, falsely as a general "elimination of the inevitability of fascism". Without establishment or maintenance of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is no elimination of the inevitability, neither of fascism nor of social-fascism. Only the Soviet Union and Albania have won a truly socialist victory, because they waged their struggle against fascism on the solid ground of Marxism-Leninism. However, the Comintern had won no socialist victory over fascism, precisely because it was dissolved beforehand. With its dissolution, the Comintern helped the bourgeoisie to gain a breathing space, and has thus contributed to more favorable conditions for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. However, neither the world bourgeoisie nor her opportunistic lackeys can endlessly prolong capitalism through breathing pauses because the exploitive and oppressive classes are inevitably forced to make finally room for the revolutionary world proletariat. The inevitability of world socialism is an objective law of social development of mankind.

The road to proletarian socialism was wide open - Stalin's Red Army smashed Nazi-Fascism. It would have been indispensable that the Comintern increase tenfold its efforts for the active support of the socialist triumph of Stalinism all over the world - for the socialist world revolution. In that situation, all the needed revolutionary weapons were available for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. There were soldiers, workers and peasants who could create a Soviet Republic upon the ruins of fascism - but there were no genuine leading Bolshevik parties. Instead, that the workers launch the final blow against the totally weakened, war-weary and economically bled bourgeoisie, thus instead of taking up revolutionary arms for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers were subjected to the Popular Front alliance with the bourgeoisie. The Comintern was already dissolved and its Sections were paralyzed by the revisionist leaders. And without the Comintern, without its Bolshevik Sections, it was impossible for the working class to seize power and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, the revisionists of the bourgeoisie helped back on their feet, who liquidated the revolutionary workers' organizations, respectively, merged them with the social democratic organizations to bring them better under control.

After the war, the conditions for the socialist world revolution had never been better, but by the growing influence of the revisionists, the workers were prevented from establishing their dictatorship of the proletariat on the ruins of fascism.

In the society of classes, class struggle is raging - "Who - Whom?" Finally, this class struggle will be decided through the world proletariat - by means of the revolution and not by means of reformism. Fascism is the most brutal form of class rule of the bourgeoisie - to the point of holocaust. Fascism is never reformable. Therefore, there is no "reformistic victory" over fascism. Fascism must be smashed - namely through not other than revolutionary violence of the oppressed and exploited people.

 

Kautskyism sneaked through the back door of the VII World Congress

Betraying the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, to barter them away, to combat it as "sectarianism" etc - Dimitrov was not the first renegade who had treaded this way. Before him, Kautsky ( Otto Bauer and all the other renegades ...) had already treaded this way. It is all too obvious that the old Kautskyism sneaked through the back door of the VII World Congress.
The "theory" of Kautsky was only dressed in a Stalinist shell.

In essence, the Popular Front government of the type of Dimitrov is not much different to the old reformist "People's State"-idea of ​​social democratism. It is noteworthy that Dimitrov, without any self-criticism, abandoned his criticism of the interim government after the VII World Congress ( whereas he had yet defended this criticism at the Seventh World Congress). Anyway, to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of a "peaceful" way, corresponded exactly with the same opportunistic line of Kautskyism:

Kautsky:

"Between the period of the democratic state - governed purely by the bourgeoisie and then purely governed by the proletariat - lies a period of transformation of the one into the other. This equates to a political transition period in which the government is normally a coalition government " (Karl Kautsky," The Proletarian Revolution and its program, "Stuttgart, 1922, page 106, German edition).

However, Marxism-Leninism teaches that the proletarian state can only be built on the ruins of the bourgeois state. In this respect, all the Classics of Marxism-Leninism have principally rejected such kinds of coalition government of the "peaceful" transition from capitalism to socialism:

"The class that has conquered political power, does so with the knowledge that it takes it over single-handedly" (Stalin, Problems of Leninism).

We Marxist-Leninists reject any "deals" made from the bourgeoisie and not barter away the socialist revolution for a coalition with the bourgeoisie !

There are comrades who compare Dimitrov's tactics against fascism with Lenin's tactics of the NEP, namely for the purpose, to give Dimotrov's tactics a "Leninist" touch.
This comparison is uneven and misleading. The NEP was a successful step to create a socialist Russia. Dimitrov shook hands with the forerunners of fascism , and thus facilitated the survival of capitalism. Lenin, in contrast, shook hands only with those capitalists who supported the construction of socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat was never shared with the bourgeoisie - namely at no point in time within the whole period of the NEP. But Dimitrov supported a Popular Front government which was shared with the bourgeoisie.

In 1947 Dimitrov began to collaborate with Tito, this first Revisionist in power. Dimitrov signed a "friendship treaty" between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. The goal was a federation between the two countries. Romania was invited by Dimitrov in 1948. These Anti-Soviet plans were, of course, not coordinated with Moscow. Therefore, Stalin passed criticism on Dimitrov. This criticism can be read in the "Pravda" (10th February 1948).

 

In the history of class society there are definitely examples where a new ruling class was temporarily defeated by the old ruling class, and where the emerging classes finally defeated the old classes not until a second or third attempt. There are also some examples where old classes shared their exploitive power with new classes. In the past, all the new classes have nearly completely adopted the old exploitive superstructure of the former society. The old exploiting classes were only substituted by the new exploiting classes. However, the proletariat is no exploitive class and strives for the elimination of exploitive classes. Well, everybody knows that the exploitive bourgeoisie had never and will never share willingly the power of its exploitive state with exploited classes and least of all with the proletariat. In a bourgeois state there is no place for the government of the revolutionary proletariat and in a proletarian state there is no place for the reactionary bourgeoisie. Thus, there is no "hybrid-model" of a state which would unite interests of antagonistic classes. Therefore the proletariat must destroy the exploitive bourgeois state. Without the destruction of the borgeois state, and without the construction of the socialist (non-exploitive) state, the world proletariat cannot implement its ideas of the stateless society, thus world communism.

The triumphal procession of socialism in "one" country towards world socialism was delayed and interrupted by the modern revisionists - in a period of the restoration of capitalism. Undoubtedly, the modern revisionists could have been defeated if the world proletariat would have been guided by the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. The socialist Albania is a brilliant proof for the power of Hoxhaism over modern revisionism. The history of Albania shows: revisionism gains upper hand if Hoxhaism is betrayed. The lessons are clear: There is no dictatorship of the proletariat which the bourgeoisie leaves untouched. There is neither a peaceful way towards nor during socialism. The class struggle against the bourgeoisie is a struggle of life and death within the whole era between capitalism and communism. The proletariat must not give an opportunity for the regeneration of the bourgeoisie, neither after the destruction of fascism, nor after the defeat of socialism, nor ever.

Our goal is not socialism "on time". The world proletariat does not want a sort of socialism, which ends earlier or later in capitalism. The world proletariat only wants a socialism which leads it actually straight to communism. And this is only such a socialism, which is constructed and defended on the solid ground of the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism.

The world proletariat does neither want to sink in opportunistic marsh nor end in the revisionist swamp. The world proletariat will dry it out for evermore. But the revolutionary world proletariat will not ask the neo-revisionists for their "helping" hand ! Instead, we must destroy neo-revisionism - completely destroy it and not only beat it ! That means we must give it no respite for the revival of the power of revisionism.
If we let free space for the strenghtening of neo-revisionism by our reconciliation then we will never be able to overcome the inevitability of revisionism.

So if we want to destroy revisionism then we must mainly destroy neo-revisionism, namely both the specific, concrete forms of neo-revisionism (ie: Neo-Titoism, Neo-Krushchevism, Neo-Maoism etc. ), which emanated specifically from the historical branch of modern revisionism (ie: Titoism, Krushchevism, Maoism etc. ) and the neo-revisionism (generalized) as part of the whole system of the ideology of the bourgeoisie, which has molted (= desquamated; as a dialectical process of the negation of the negation) in the course of the whole preceding history of revisionism.

Revisionism is the adaption of the bourgeois ideology to the Marxist ideology.

Neo-Revisionism is the adaption of the bourgeois ideology to Stalinism-Hoxhaism.

There is, therefore, no further development of Stalinism-Hoxhaism without sharpest demarcation from neo-revisionism.

The molting of revisionism is precisely its survival concept. In particular, the molting of revisionism is always needed for its further adaption to the advanced development of Marxism ( up to Hoxhaism). Without advancement of Marxism the communist movement cannot further develop. And without revisionist advancement of adaption to further developed Marxism (Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism), the bourgeoisie is unable to defeat the communist movement for the purpose of maintaining her capitalist rule.

And in the case of Dimitrov, he misused Stalinism as a cloak for revisionism. Thus, the ideology of Dimitrov is part of all the other revisionist ideas which developed their stage of adaption to Leninism further towards the stage of adaption to Stalinism.

Can we define our Stalinist-Hoxhaist demarcation line against the revisionist deviation of Dimitrov and the VII World Congress more clearly ?

It is without saying that the Stalinist-Hoxhaist criticism on Dimitrov and the VII World Congress is the most powerful criticism at the revisionist Change of the Comintern. At least, it will be very difficult for our opponents if they want to refute our criticism.

At a time when Stalin was very active at the Sixth Congress, he advised as early as 1928 in his essay "On the Right danger in the CPSU (B)" against people

"who are striving to adapt communism to Social-Democratism ...

... A victory of the Right deviation in the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries would mean the ideological rout of the Communist Parties and an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism. And what does an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism mean? It means the strengthening and consolidation of capitalism, for Social-Democracy is the main support of capitalism in the working class" (Stalin Works,Volume 11, page 199 , German edition).

And, far-seeing, Stalin established a connection with the right danger in the Soviet Union:

" ... the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency ... to depart from the general line of our Party in the direction of bourgeois ideology" (Stalin Works,Volume 11, page 200, German edition).

"... a victory of the Right deviation in our Party would mean a development of the conditions necessary for the restoration of capitalism in our country" (Stalin Works,Volume 11, page 201, German edition).
These words of Stalin can be transferred exactly to the right deviation of the general-line of the Comintern.

Dimitrov expected a process of polarization within social democracy - caused under the pressure of fascism. Accordingly, he divided the social democracy in a "progressive" and reactionary part, even in a reactionary and "progressive" part of the leadership of the Social Democrats, with the goal to be able to unite initially with the "left" wing of the Social Democracy [remark of the Comintern (SH): later on, the modern revisionists created the term of the "right-opportunist" Social Democratism which ought to be "combated" by merging with all the "progressive" rest of the Social Democrats.]

The fact is that there has never been a sole left leader of the Social Democrats since the betrayal of the Second International. So, the adaption to the "left" wing of social democracy, this was clearly the starting position towards complete class reconciliation - a classical centrist position for the strengthening of the rightist and centrist leaders of the VII World Congress. The big problem was it, how to succeed in the balance between the adaption of communism to social democracy, on the one hand, and feigning "the continuation of the Leninist-Stalinist tradition" of the Comintern, on the other hand. And there was nobody who mastered this balancing better than Dimitrov. He successfully paved the way for reconciliation between communism and social democracy with all the disastrous consequences of which Stalin had warned in 1928.

Only in an inner revolutionary process, a truly left wing of the Social Democrats could succeed in splitting and dividing the Party of the Social Democrats. And only in this case the genuine revolutionary workers would have left their Social Democrat Party in protest and would go over to the Communist Party. But the VII World Congress did not want this case to be understood as the actual united front of communist and social democratic workers. In fact, the defectors were no Social Democrats but Communists !

The united front tactic is a tactic that allows us communists, to extend our influence to wider shifts of the people. But in no way we must confuse tactics and ideology. An ideological united front between antagonistic classes, between the bourgeois and the proletarian ideology, can never and will never exist. Such a "united front" would always and inevitably result in the subordination of the proletarian ideology under the bourgeois ideology.

The ideology of the working class is not divisible, just as the working class is not divisible. This means that we must never put down our proletarian weapons of ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie, against the Social Democracy, revisionism, opportunism etc., if we form our tactical united front against fascism and war.

Without previous ideological disarmament of the bourgeoisie and her lackeys, there is no military victory over fascism and war. On the contrary, particularly in the situation of the United Front, we have to increase our struggle against the anti-people character of the reactionary bourgeois ideology - including our fight against social fascism. This fight must never be weakened - in no sole moment - because our class-enemies will turn every of our weak points to their favor. Only if the Social Democratic workers have totally understood the critical standpoint of communism about the reactionary character of social democracy (in word and deed), can we speak of a united front in the communist sense.

There can be no question, if the Social Democratic workers and the communist workers would jointly unite under the bourgeois ideology, then they would fall into the arms of the revisionists. And, indeed, this was the historical case after the merger of the Social Democrat and the Communist party.

It is totally true what Stalin had said:

"By developing an uncompromising struggle against Social-Democracy, which is capital's agency in the working class, and by reducing to dust all and sundry deviations from Leninism, which bring grist to the mill of Social-Democracy, the Communist Parties have shown that they are on the right road. They must definitely fortify themselves on this road; for only if they do that can they count on winning over the majority of the working class and successfully prepare the proletariat for the coming class battles. Only if they do that can we count on a further increase in the influence and prestige of the Communist International." (Stalin, Works, "Political Report of the CC to the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU (B), Volume 12, page 222 - 223, German edition; KPD/ML 1971).

There is no doubt. Those who had betrayed this correct directive of Stalin had been, last not least, Dimitrov and the VII World Congress.

The party of the Bolsheviks fought under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin throughout their history tirelessly against social democracy, as Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour tirelessly fought against modern revisionism throughout its history. This is exactly the same historical battle field, on which Marx and Engels began their struggle against anarchism within the First International and on which the Comintern (SH) finally struggles against today's neo-revisionism. The development of the course of opportunism was always forseen and combated betimes. And so Stalin did not put the emphasis on the fight against "sectarianism" - as Dimitrov at the Seventh World Congress - but he called the Social Democratism mainstay of the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement:

"The draft [of the Comintern-Program - remark of the Comintern (SH) ] stresses opposition to Social-Democracy as the main support of capitalism in the working class and as the chief enemy of communism, and holds that all other trends in the working class (anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, guild socialism, etc.) are in essence varieties of Social-Democratism." (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, page 181, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971)

Especially after the victory of the October Revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, the Social Democrats were forced to take an openly hostile anti-Marxist-Leninist stance. Social Democratism was ousted from deceiving the proletariat by means of their former position of the classical "Marxism". This has immensely facilitated the necessary rejection of the revolutionary world proletariat from the bourgeois influence of social democratism.

As the dictatorship of the proletariat in Albania triumphed over revisionism, the modern revisionists were forced to leave their treacherous "Marxist-Leninist" position, modern revisionism took over increasingly the former position of social democracy, which in its turn represents the open reactionary imperialist point of view. This, in turn, facilitated immensely the rejection of modern revisionism on the part of the revolutionary proletariat.
Today, the neo-revisionists fill in the blank, which the modern revisionists had left behind.

 

After the fall of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Albania a new world situation arose.
Particularly the social democracy and modern revisionism had finally fulfilled their historical mission, namely, to destroy socialism in power. Now that the world bourgeoisie dominates over the whole world, she is again in the privileged position to "flirt" with communism, particularly as regards the question of world revolution and the Communist International. It remains to be seen when the bourgeoisie begins to build up new agencies within the Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement.

The neo-revisionists feverishly trying to put foot on a world scale, and to bring about a hypocritical international "Marxist-Leninist" united front. That is a danger which we should not underestimate - although the various groups of neo-revisionism have unbridgable disagreements among themselves. Today they are not only dangerous currents in their own countries, but they increasingly form international agencies within the fragmented revolutionary world camp.

We will not come forth with our old trenches. Our fortifications had been slighted by the bourgeoisie. So we need to dig new ideological trenches - namely trenches that run in a globally uniform battle-line. This is the only way we can attack the international enemy and defend ourselves - from all sides, on each point of the earth, and at any time. This includes our ideological trench of the international struggle against the betrayal of Dimitrov and the VII World Congress.

If we succeed in carrying off a victory in the Dimitroff question, then it will be all the harder for the neo-revisionists, to get us booted out as so called "sectarians". With their silence, the neo-revisionists have already broken with the Comintern and its Bolshevist spirit for a long time. From now on, the neo-revisionists have to leave officially the banner of the Comintern because we will force them, to openly distance themselves from the world-revolutionary general-line of the Comintern (SH). Today, nobody can call oneself a "supporter" of Stalin and Enver Hoxha, if following the neo-revisionists simultaneously. Without a quite clearly delineation from neo-revisionism one can not support the Comintern (SH) because it is the only genuine carrier of the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism, the globalized bulwark of the socialist world revolution.


With entering into the bourgeois-democratic popular front government, the Communists were obliged to abandon the socialist revolution ( which was combined with the implied engagement to bring capitalism back on track ). The bourgeois anti-fascist united front was thus a front, to get rid of both the right-extremist terrorism and the "left-wing extremist terrorism" (the armed workers' power!). This results in the current tactics of the bourgeoisie, to "prevent extremism" for the "defense" of the bourgeois democracy. And as a result the ban on communist organizations which fight for the socialist revolution and the armed workers' power, rather than to stand peacefully with both feet on the ground of the "democratic order" (of capitalism). The bourgeois anti-fascist united front is nothing more than a truce, a truce between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie on time, ultimately banning the arming of the proletariat. That was the real reason why the VII World Congress disciplined all the Sections to honor this ceasefire between both the classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Those comrades who broke ranks and did not agree with this truce, were branded as "sectarians" or even as "traitors".

If this Armistice would really help the proletariat to regenerate his revolutionary forces in a given moment of class struggle again to emerge stronger and to be better prepared for the victory of the world revolution, then we could agree with this tactical line. But we would never sacrifice our principled line in favor of the tactical line. Nobody forces the world proletariat to capitulate. All the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism have shared this view.

The Seventh World Congress was a world congress (- if you do not retro-perspectively look at it under the magnifying glass of the disastrous presence and if you would brush the serious historical crimes of the modern revisionists under the carpet -) which could be purified from its rightist deviation by means of radical measures and relentless efforts of the Stalinists. Certainly this would have not only been possible, but also necessary in regard of the darkness of the present world situation. The Communist International must never again become a springboard for the revisionists, who turn their back to Communism as renegades.

Not once was the Comintern mentioned by Stalin later on - neither on the XVIII nor on the XIX Congress of the CPSU [B]). One thing is certain: Stalin had never praised the VII World Congress as an alleged "milestone or victory of Marxism-Leninism" - as the modern revisionists have done it extensively !

In Moscow, the right-wing ECCI lived off the fat of the land.The ECCI speculated for the power and the victory of the Soviet Union. In the preparation of the great spectacle of the VII World Congress, especially those leaders were working feverishly on the deviation of the Comintern, who later betrayed their parties and the proletariat in their own country. That all these leaders had been agreed about the change of course already before the VII World Congress, became apparent by the noise about "unity" during the Congress. Already in the approach, we can reveal the typical appearance of all the later revisionist party congresses where any Marxist-Leninist criticism from below was furiously and mercilessly surpressed combated and where the revisionist successes were celebrated as merits of "Marxism-Leninism".

Lenin on the Second Congress of the Comintern (June 1920):

"It is the duty of parties wishing to belong to the Communist International to recognise the need for a complete and absolute break with reformism and 'Centrist' policy .... such a state of affairs would lead to the Third International strongly resembling the defunct Second International" (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 31, page 209, English edition).

"The purging of the workers' parties, the revolutionary parties of the proletariat all over the world, of bourgeois influences, of the opportunists in their ranks, is very far from complete.
Opportunism in the upper ranks of the working-class movement is bourgeois socialism, not proletarian socialism. It has been shown in practice that working-class activists who follow the opportunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeois themselves. Without their leadership of the workers, the bourgeoisie could not remain in power [ especially not after the destruction of fascism - remark of the Comintern SH) ]. We must leave this Congress firmly resolved to carry on this struggle to the very end, in all parties. That is our main task".

Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 31, page 231, English edition).

Firstly, the agencies of the world bourgeoisie within the workers' world movement pave the way for world fascism. Secondly, after that they pave the way for an anti-fascist alliance with the world proletariat to "overcome" world fascism, thirdly they pave the way for maintaining the power of the bourgeoisie. This is substantially predictable, after there was the experience of a Seventh Congress of the Comintern. And even if the bourgeois agencies within the communist and labor movement should be shipwrecked, if world fascism is replaced by world socialism, then they will try later on to undermine the world power of the proletariat. Then the world bourgeoisie would smash world socialism by means of social-fascism and regain her world power. As we have already stated: The bourgeoisie - and let her be the most democratic and most republican bourgeoisie - she will never be grateful to the proletariat for the liberation from fascism. The bourgeoisie will never be grateful if the proletariat would abandon the socialist revolution in favor of peace of classes, because she is always anxious to defend the dominance of her class power. She would leave nothing to the proletariat - unless its chains of wage-slavery. But to raise the hopes of the proletariat in this direction, and to promise the possibility of peaceful transition to socialism, that would be a betrayal at the working class, and only revisionists would be able and bent on this.Therefore, the revisionists and neo-revisionists pursue and fight us Stalinist Hoxhaists.

The spearhead of fascism is directed against the revolutionary proletariat, the gravedigger of the dying, rotting and parasitic capitalism. Therefore, the capitalists must (if they want to survive) wage their struggle mainly against the aspiring revolutionary proletariat by means of fascism, although conscious about the bitter experience that socialism is the worst enemy of fascism. Then, the socialist country , the Soviet Union, gave the anti-fascist struggle of the working class and the occupied countries the necessary military assistance and support to liberate from fascism by the people's revolution. But this important task could not any more be coordinated with the Comintern because there was no more Comintern! The world proletariat and the peoples of the world under the leadership of the Comintern would have to fight together with the socialist country at the top for the realization of the socialist revolution in the capitalist countries, and the victory of the anti-fascist popular revolutions in the oppressed countries.

From the historic struggle against a certain fascism in a country against Hitler's fascism, develops a global fight against fascism. It is waged for the global elimination of the inevitability of fascism, for the world revolution,for the overthrow of world imperialism. Today this is the only correct way of Bolshevik globalization of anti-fascism, the way of Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha, the general-line of the Comintern (SH).

However, this was not the general-line of the Comintern after the VII World Congress. To fight for democracy, is an honorable and legitimate task of any anti-fascists. But the sacrifice of socialism in the struggle for democracy, for this we practice rightly criticizing the Seventh World Congress. The proletariat has paid a high price for the lessons of this fraud, namely with the supression through social-fascism. A democratic struggle which is not subordinated to the socialist struggle and which does not serve to come closer to the world socialist revolution, is only a benefit for the bourgeoisie and harmful for the proletariat.

On the way of the VII World Congress socialism could not be realized. If we have learned that, then we have already learned a lot.

So it was thus not the so-called "heroes of the Seventh Congress" with their pandering to the social democracy, but Stalin and the ARMED (!) Red Army, which ended the imperialist war as winners, and also smashed fascism victoriously. Stalin contrasted his armed unity-front-tactics with the revisionist unity-front-tactics of the Comintern of Dimitrov. Dimitrov capitulated, and Stalin triumphed.


Every honest antifascist fighter must ask oneself, what on earth would become of the decisions of the Seventh Congress WITHOUT the victory of Stalin's Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War? This is by no means a speculative or purely theoretical question. On the contrary. This question can only be answered concretely, if we return to the historical starting point, namely as the VII World Congress of the Comintern proclaimed the fateful " final victory of the Soviet Union."

Today we are not alone confronted with single fascist/social-fascist states. Primarily, we have to destroy fascism in a globalizing world - and this time expressively without the invincible Soviet Union of Stalin. The destruction of fascism in conditions of the existence of a socialist country cannot be equated with the destruction of fascism in conditions without the existence of a socialist country. The revolutionary weapons of the Red Army had won over both fascism and the betrayal of the Comintern of Dimitrov. But in the hands of the modern revisionists these weapons became powerless, and they were misused to protect both the restoration of capitalism and the myth of Dimitrov.

So, how is the problem of the destruction of the world fascism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat to be solved today ? The general line of the Comintern (SH) answers this question clearly and distinctly:

The fascist violence of the world bourgeoisie will be smashed by nothing but through the revolutionary violence of the world proletariat and the peoples.

To this end, the revolutionary world proletariat raises globally its own huge and invincible anti-fascist Red World Army. And, in the end, these are the only "arguments" which will "convince" all the revisionists and neo-revisionists: The Stalinist-Hoxhaist weapons of criticism at Dimitrov and the Seventh Congress of the Comintern transform themselves into critical weapons of the Stalinist-Hoxhaist world army against all the forces which try to stop the world proletariat on its road to the victory of the socialist world revolution.

We ask: The entire VII World Congress of the Comintern had expressively commited itself to the necessity of the united front against fascism an war. Why then did the Comintern dissolve itself ? beforehand ? Everybody knows that, in 1943 (- up to 1945 !!), fascism and war still raged and raged. We have no other term for this contradiction - than capitulation to fascism and betrayal at the anti-fascist united front of the world proletariat and of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin.


We have already mentioned above, that the Comintern can not give up its principled world-revolutionary general-line in favor of the ups and downs of instantaneous situations.In the tactical decisions of the Seventh Congress all the correct assessment of the current and future tasks of the revolutionary proletariat must absolutely remain tied to the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, in general, and to the implementation of the decisions of the VI World Congress (program 1928) in particular. Instead, the opportunistic leaders of the Comintern had sacrificed the principles and the decisions of the Sixth World Congress in favor of the spur of tactical moments. And moreover, if we want to weaken the enemy camp with our United Front, to neutralize wavering elements, to win the Social Democratic workers for our united front etc., then we never do allow our own disorganization. We should never invite the leaders of social democracy, revisionism or neo-revisionism to destabilize the communist camp, and never renounce voluntarily our communist autonomy and leadership in a united front. When one accuses us of the claim to leadership of the Communists in the united front, we answer: the united front against fascism - of course under the leadership of communists - what else ?! What else, as exclusively with communism, we create our mass base, but never with the demagogy of the bourgeois politicians and their revisionist lackeys ! Only for the case where we are too weak, where we are not yet sufficiently rooted in the masses, where we have not formed and educated the vanguard of the proletariat etc., we will fight for the unity of class struggle as minority among the masses. From the very bottom we must fight for the conquest of the leadership of the united front, because the communist leadership in the anti-fascist united front does not come from nowhere. We will never stop in our polemic against all bourgeois forces and currents, especially when they dress up as a "Marxist-Leninist" or even as "Stalinist-Hoxhaists".

But this was not the situation in times of the Comintern. Thanks to Stalin, the Comintern already commanded millions of times and worldwide mass influence. In such a excellent and formidable situation, the dissolution of the Comintern and its mass organizations demonstrates the full extent of the betrayal at the millions of masses who were fighting for the world socialist revolution and who were left out in the lurch - without Comintern. It is especially harmful if the rightist leaders of the Comintern resorted to demagoguery of "mass struggle" with intent to liquidate it.

We must never allow that the rightist leaders are whistling the revolutionary masses back to capitalism - and the rightist leaders of the Comintern have done this crime under our Stalinist banner of communism, under all the banners. In words to lead the masses on the "revolutionary road" by means of the "united front" - and instead of that, to practically form an alliance with the bourgeoisie, to adapt to the bourgeoisie - this is the revisionist line on the issue of mass struggle and the united front. That is definitely the death of every revolutionary mass movement.

Except in the Soviet Union and Albania, there was the merger of Communist party with the Social Democratic Party. With this counter-revolutionary "united front tactics", the modern revisionists prevented the working class from seizing power and from establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. On an international scale, this revisionist fusion blocked the common road towards the socialist world revolution which can only be victorious under the leadership of genuine Bolshevist parties.

Therefore, the Comintern (SH) comes to the conclusion that this fusion was by no means a coincidence. We must define this act as an immanent part of a long-term tactics. The modern revisionists organized the complete liquidation of the entire world Communist movement long before the XX Congress of the CPSU. In truth, the world bourgeoisie began with the dissolution of the Comintern. The historical process of liquidation of the world communist movement took place in three steps:

1) Dissolution of the Comintern = liquidation of the world party;

2) Merger of the Communist parties and the Social Democratic parties = liquidation of the Sections of the Comintern;

3) Where this merger could not be implemented on a straight and immediate path, the transformation of the Communist Party into a revisionist party took place in sub-steps of decomposition (particularly in the motherland of communism, thus in the Soviet Union, and in Albania which was not a member of the Comintern and where no social democratic party did exist previously but an unfaltering, genuine Stalinist party).

Thus, a transformation of the revolutionary anti-fascist liberation struggle into the victorious socialist revolution could only be guaranteed in a sole country, in Albania.The young socialist world camp of Comrade Stalin was transformed into a world camp of modern revisionists and thus destroyed. This was a major defeat for the socialist world revolution and the transition to world socialism.

Enver Hoxha listed some parties of Western Europe, which - after heroic anti-fascist struggle - switched sides into the camp of the bourgeoisie:

"The communist parties of Western Europe did not prove capable of utilizing the favourable situation created by the Second World War and the victory over fascism. (...) in the course of the opposition and fight against fascism, in certain conditions, the possibilities would be created for the formation of united front governments which would be entirely different from the social-democratic governments. They were to serve the transition from the stage of the fight against fascism to the stage of the fight for democracy and socialism. In France and Italy, however, the war against fascism did not lead to the formation of governments of the type which the Comintern wanted. After the war, governments of the bourgeois type came to power there. The participation of the communists in them did not alter their character" (Enver Hoxha, »Euro-Communism is Anti-Communism«, page 57, KPD/ML, 1980,German edition).

The former representatives of the Comintern, from France and Italy, were also the leaders of the Communist parties in France and Italy. Previously, many meetings and discussions took place between them and Dimitrov. They sat together for many years in the ECCI where the tactical approach and the implementation of decisions were discussed and prepared. The Euro-communism did not come out of left field. That was the result of methodical implementation of the Seventh Congress in Western Europe by the renegades of the Comintern.

On the so-called "Brussels Congress" of the "Communist Party of Germany" (which, in reality, took place in Moscow [ !!! and thus was not at all a valid Congress of the German Party ] immediately after the VII World Congress and which was discussed with Dimitrov personally and with other representatives of the Comintern) the course for the "peaceful path to socialism" was already prepared by the modern revisionists Ulbricht and Pieck. All these preparations took place also with other Sections of the Comintern immediately after the VII World Congress. And all these subsequent revisionist leaders that were involved as representatives of the Comintern in the drafting of the guidelines of the Seventh Congress, were not in the least interested in defending the world revolutionary heritage of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin. None of them was in the least interested in violent overthrowing the bourgeoisie by means of the socialist revolution. Most of the leaders of the revisionist parties were former representatives of the Comintern and thus did not come out of left field. These are the irrefutable historical facts.

The Eastern European parties (former leaders of the Comintern, like Gomulka, in Poland, etc.) - in the neighborhood of the Soviet Union - could not take off their revisionist cloak as fast as those of Western Europe. They were forced to hide their revisionist betrayal for a longer time. But all of these former rigthist leaders of the Comintern did not differ in their revisionist nature. They had all been involved in the implementation of the decisions of the Seventh Congress. And thus, the revisionist governments had gained a foothold in all the countries of the people's democracy (except Albania).

Only one year before the VII World Congress, in an interview with HG Wells, Stalin declared the indispensability of revolutionary violent overthrow of fascism. The bourgeoisie as a class must be smashed - including social democracy - which tried to maintain the old society by means of reconciliation of classes through the back door of fascism. The social democratism was thus the stepping-stone of fascism:

Stalin:

"Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the old system by means of violence. What will you do with the fascists? Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will have no effect upon them at all. Communists do not in the least idealise the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class : Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ig nore facts.

A popular insurrection, a clash of classes was not, could not be avoided. Why? Because the classes which must abandon the stage of history are the last to become convinced that their role is ended. It is impossible to convince them of this. They think that the fissures in the decaying edifice of the old order can be repaired and saved. That is why dying classes take to arms and resort to every means to save their existence as a ruling class. " (Stalin Works, Volume 14, German edition, KPD/ML 1971, page 17; - July 23, 1934).

In today's fight against world fascism, the Comintern (SH) can not ignore Dimitrov 's renunciation of the Marxist-Leninist principle of the indispensability of the socialist world revolution. Dimitrov walked in the footsteps of Kautsky, who even then still rejected the revolutionary uprising against the capitalist dictatorship, while this dictatorship had already assumed a fascist shape.

The people's democracies failed to completely smash the old capitalist system, because they have never built up the necessary dictatorship of the proletariat in contrast to Albania. In essence, the modern revisionists have removed only the debris of the retreating Nazi occupiers through democratic reforms. They had to dress this pure reformist process in a "socialist" covering, to ensure their political power and reconstruction aid from the Soviet Union. The revisionists of the people's democracies were nothing more than parasites of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin and then they have transformed themselves into vassals of the Soviet revisionists. It was all alone the Soviet Union that expelled the fascist occupiers from their country with military force. The thus liberated states received all possible help to take their path to socialism. But the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin could impossibly export the October Revolution, and of course also not the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. We repeat: This was parasitism against the Soviet peoples - veiled in "socialist" phrases. This parasitism, subsequently passing into rottenness, was nothing else than social fascism. Later on, the revisionists did not hesitate to accept dollars rather than rubles for the maintenance of their rule. If we do not denounce the VII World Congress, we go in circles and nothing changes. In the epoch of world socialism, we do not want to let the same parasites grow as it happened after the VII World Congress.. How can we draw lessons from the Comintern, if the revisionist crimes remain unaffected? Are we then still the same leaders of world communism, if we lead the world proletariat back into the same dead end ? Certainly not ! We will never allow that comrades speak with a forked tongue. Hypocritical praises on the Comintern (SH) within our own ranks, this is like stabbing us in the back. Thank goodness - these hypocritical times during the period of the dissolution of the Comintern will never return !

On 26 1 1934, approximately 1 year before the VII World Congress, Stalin delivered the following estimation of the aggravation of the political situation in the capitalist countries (in his report to the XVII. Congress):

"The masses of the people have not yet reached the stage when they are ready to storm capitalism; but the idea of storming it is maturing in the minds of the masses — of that there can hardly be any doubt. This is eloquently testified to by such facts as, say, the Spanish revolution which overthrew the fascist regime, and the expansion of the Soviet districts in China, which the united counter-revolution of the Chinese and foreign bourgeoisie is unable to stop.

This, indeed, explains why the ruling classes in the capitalist countries are so zealously destroying or nullifying the last vestiges of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy which might be used by the working class in its struggle against the oppressors, why they are driving the Communist Parties underground and resorting to openly terrorist methods of maintaining their dictatorship.

Chauvinism and preparation of war as the main elements of foreign policy; repression of the working class and terrorism in the sphere of home policy as a necessary means for strengthening the rear of future war fronts — that is what is now particularly engaging the minds of contemporary imperialist politicians.

It is not surprising that fascism has now become the most fashionable commodity among war-mongering bourgeois politicians. I am referring not only to fascism in general, but, primarily, to fascism of the German type, which is wrongly called national-socialism—wrongly because the most searching examination will fail to reveal even an atom of socialism in it.

In this connection the victory of fascism in Germany must be regarded not only as a symptom of the weakness of the working class and a result of the betrayals of the working class by Social-Democracy, which paved the way for fascism; it must also be regarded as a sign of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, a sign that the bourgeoisie is no longer able to rule by the old methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, and, as a consequence, is compelled in its home policy to resort to terrorist methods of rule—as a sign that it is no longer able to find a way out of the present situation on the basis of a peaceful foreign policy, and, as a consequence, is compelled to resort to a policy of war. Such is the situation." [ Stalin, Works, Volume 13, pages 261 - 262, German edition, KPD/ML 1971 - underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

We can not fight against fascism, if we would unite with the anti-communist Social Democrats and the revisionists. The anti-fascism of social-democracy was, is, and will remain a means of defending the existence of the shaken capitalist system from the proletarian revolution.

And those who unite with the social fascists - (and it is the neo-revisionists who do this !) - they work their way up to enemies of the world proletariat, traitors to the socialist world revolution, to the 5th Column of anti-communism.

Stalin emphasized the indispensable role of social democracy for the bourgeoisie, in the context of the preparation for fascism and imperialist war:

"And the most important thing in all this is that Social-Democracy is the main channel of imperialist pacifism within the working class -- consequently, it is capitalism's main support among the working class in preparing for new wars and intervention.

But for the preparation of new wars pacifism alone is not enough, even if it is supported by so serious a force as Social-Democracy. For this, certain means of suppressing the masses in the imperialist centres are also needed. It is impossible to wage war for imperialism unless the rear of imperialism is strengthened. It is impossible to strengthen the rear of imperialism without suppressing the workers. And that is what fascism is for.

Hence the growing acuteness of the inherent contradictions in the capitalist countries, the contradictions between labour and capital.

On the one hand, preaching of pacifism through the mouths of the Social-Democrats in order more effectively to prepare for new wars; on the other hand, suppression of the working class in the rear, of the Communist Parties in the rear, by the use of fascist methods, in order then to conduct war and intervention more effectively -- such are the ways of preparing for new wars.

Hence the tasks of the Communist Parties:

Firstly, to wage an unceasing struggle against Social-Democratism in all spheres -- in the economic and in the political sphere, including in the latter the exposure of bourgeois pacifism with the task of winning the majority of the working class for communism. [ and not for the bourgeois democracy ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ].

Secondly, to form a united front of the workers [ and not of with the bourgeoisie ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ] of the advanced countries and the labouring masses of the colonies in order to stave off the danger of war, or, if war breaks out, to convert imperialist war into civil war, smash fascism, overthrow capitalism [ by means of the violent socialist revolution ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ], establish Soviet power [ and not a bourgeois People's Front government - instead: indispensability of the armement of the dictatorship of the proletariat ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ], emancipate the colonies from slavery, and organise all-round defence of the first Soviet Republic in the world." [ Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.); Stalin Works, Volume 11, pages 178 - 179, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971; underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

And VI. Congress ( in the program of the comintern in 1928) underlined not only the necessity of the open struggle against social democracy on all fields, but also stressed expressly the struggle against the dangerous, masked forms of the "left"-wing of the social democracy:

"In its systematic conduct of this counter-revolutionary policy, social democracy operates on two flanks. The right wing of social democracy, avowedly counter-revolutionary, is essential for negotiating and maintaining direct contact with the bourgeoisie; the left wing is essential for the subtle deception of the workers. While playing with pacifist and at times even with revolutionary phrases, “left” social democracy in practice acts against the workers, particularly in acute and critical situations (the British I.L.P. and the “left” leaders of the General Council during the general strike in 1926; Otto Bauer and Co., at the time of the Vienna uprising), and is therefore, the most dangerous faction in the social democratic parties. While serving the interests of the bourgeoisie in the working class and being wholly in favour of class co-operation and coalition with the bourgeoisie, social democracy, at certain periods, is compelled to play the part of an opposition party and even to pretend that it is defending the class interests of the proletariat in its industrial struggle. It tries thereby to win the confidence of a section of the working class and to be in a position more shamefully to betray the lasting interests of the working class, particularly in the midst of decisive class battles.

The principal function of social democracy at the present time is to disrupt the essential militant unity of the proletariat in its struggle against imperialism. In splitting and disrupting the united front of the proletarian struggle against capital, social democracy serves as the mainstay of imperialism in the working class. International social democracy of all shades; the Second International and its trade union branch, the Amsterdam Federation of Trade Unions, have thus become the last reserve of bourgeois society and its most reliable pillar of support."

(Program if the Comintern, chapter II. The General Crisis of Capitalism and the First Phase of World Revolution. - 2. THE REVOLUTIONARY CRISIS AND COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL- DEMOCRACY).


The report of Dimitrov to the Seventh World Congress completely kept quiet about the indispensability of the struggle against the "left" wing of social democracy, referred to the Stalinist line. Thus Dimotrov followed in the footsteps of Bukharin who had previously ignored the criticism of Stalin in the question of reconciliation with "left"-wing of social democratism. Did this most dangerous enemy of the proletariat end in smoke ?
Was the "left"-wing of the social democratism a "figment of sectarianism" ? Must the "left" wing of social democracy (this dangerous enemy of the proletariat as Stalin stressed) suddenly be defended from fascism because it had allegedly turned itself into an "ally" of the proletarian united front ?
Was the "left" wing of the social democratism only dangerous before the fascist seizure of power and not any more dangerous after the seizure of fascism? Nothing of all this. The simple truth was that Dimitrov himself had completely adopted the position of the "left"-wing social democratism ! Thus, Dimitrov saw the united front tattics of the revolutionary proletariat through the eyes of a "leftist" social democrat.

Any modified form of the rule of the bourgeoisie can never abrogate the nature of her reactionary ideology - neither the ideology of social democracy nor that of revisionism. The more the bourgeois ideology is hidden behind the mask of "Marxism-Leninism", the more dangerous it is. ( ... and all the more it is necessary to be unmasked and combated!)

From the point of view of the neo-revisionists it is self-explanatory that they perceive the correct general- line of the Comintern (SH) as a "sectarian general-line". And this is comparable with the right-opportunist point of view of Dimitrov who perceived the Stalinist line as a "sectarian general-line" (while he has hidden this truth behind praises of Stalin).

The more the opportunists float with the tide - so much the more every Marxist-Leninist line appears as an alleged "dogmatic and "sectarian" line in their eyes. This shows that a principled struggle against all hues of opportunism can only be waged on the basis of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism.
(In contrast, the "left"-opportunists condemned the Stalinist line of the united front tactics. From their point of view it was allegedly "right-opportunistic").

Stalin stressed in 1929:

"In Bukharin’s theses it was stated that the fight against Social-Democracy is one of the fundamental tasks of the Sections of the Comintern. That, of course, is true. But it is not enough. In order that the fight against Social-Democracy may be waged successfully, stress must be laid on the fight against the so-called “Left” wing of Social-Democracy, that “Left” wing which, by playing with “Left” phrases and thus adroitly deceiving the workers, is retarding their mass defection from Social-Democracy. It is obvious that unless the “Left” Social-Democrats are routed it will be impossible to overcome Social-Democracy in general. Yet, in Bukharin’s theses the question of “Left” Social-Democracy was entirely ignored. That, of course, was a great defect. The delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) was therefore obliged to introduce into Bukharin’s theses an appropriate amendment, which was subsequently adopted by the congress."

(Stalin Works, Volume 12, page 19 - 20, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

These important teachings of Stalinism have been totally violated by the decisions of the VII World Congress (up to the dissolution of the Comintern).

During the whole VII World Congress it was only the delegate from Austria who said in connection with the Austro-Marxism:

"(It) would be wrong, to denote all the leaders of the Social Democrats as traitors" (Minutes of the Seventh World Congress, Volume I, page 301, Thirteenth Session, speech of the Austrian comrade Wieden).

We ask ourselves: Were there any leaders of the Social Democrats who were no traitors at that time ? Perhaps leaders of Austro-Marxism? At the Seventh World Congress the Austro-Marxists were no longer stigmatized as traitors because the Comintern had already adopted the position of the `left 'wing of social democracy ( - lump together ideology and united front tactics). [Later on, when the revisionist parties in the capitalist countries took over the positions of the social democratic parties, who - on their part - had completely rejected the positions of Marxism, this process emanated especially from the ideology of Austro-Marxism - (from the "left"-wing of social democracy) ]

In contrast, the program of the Comintern stated:

"Austro-Marxism represents a special variety of social-democratic reformism. Being a In part of the “left-wing” of social-democracy, Austro-Marxism represents a most subtle deception of the masses of the toilers. Prostituting the terminology of Marxism, while divorcing themselves entirely from the principles of revolutionary Marxism (the Kantism, Machism, etc., of the Austro-Marxists in the domain of philosophy), toying with religion, borrowing the theory of functional democracy” from the British reformists, agreeing with the principle of “building up the republic,” i.e., building up the bourgeois State, Austro-Marxism recommends “class co-operation” in periods of so-called “ equilibrium of class forces,” i.e., precisely at the time when the revolutionary crisis is maturing. This theory is a justification of coalition with the bourgeoisie for the overthrow of the proletarian revolution under the guise of defending “democracy” against the attacks of reaction. Objectively, and in practice, the violence which Austro-Marxism admits in cases of reactionary attacks is converted into reactionary violence against the proletarian revolution. Hence the “functional role” of Austro-Marxism is to deceive the workers already marching towards Communism, and therefore it is the most dangerous enemy of the proletariat, more dangerous than the avowed adherents of predatory social imperialism." (VI. The Strategy and Tactics of the Communist International in the Struggle for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1. IDEOLOGIES AMONG THE WORKING CLASS INIMICAL TO COMMUNISM)

We must rightly doubt the sincerity of a world party, which creates its revolutionary program on a world congress, and which throws it into the trash bag on the following World Congress .

 

Now we come to our criticism of Dimitrov's definition of fascism.

For this purpose, we present at first our own definition of fascism. Then we make recourse to quotations of Enver Hoxha about the term of "fascism". We proceed with the definitions of the previous World Congresses. And after that we will confront all this with the deviating definition of Dimitrov.

 

 

 

 

Dimitrov's revisionist

FASCISM DEFINITION

 

AT FIRST:

What is our own definition of world fascism?

When the imperialist world order is existentially threatened by its inevitable decay and by an imminent overthrow in times of revolutionary world crises, then the more moderate forms of the dictatorship of the world bourgeoisie are turned into their most brutal forms that we generally summarize under the concept of world fascism.

Fascist world society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps: the fascist and anti-fascist world camp, into two great classes directly facing each other - the fascist world bourgeoisie and the anti-fascist world proletariat.

In general, fascism is the most brutal counter-revolutionary instrument of the ruling class of the bourgeoisie in the era of world imperialism, to continue the unconditional subordination of the proletariat and all other exploited classes under the monopolistic-capitalist system of exploitation - namely unristricted by all ultimate means (up to mass extermination).

Thus, if all other means against dangerous explosions of class conflicts fail, then fascism exerts its terrorist rule over the whole life of society. All sorts of "Gleichschaltung" (Nazi-fascist system of absolute control) are established by the absolutely dominating counter-revolution in all areas of the state (police state, state terrorism), the economy, politics, society, science etc. In particular, fascism serves to the unconditional, uncompromising and arbitrary elimination of all recalcitrant world forces, especially that of the revolutionary world proletariat.

(The world proletariat is the only revolutionary, anti-fascist force which causes the downfall of the capitalist domination of the world bourgeoisie by means of the socialist world revolution, which makes itself the dominating ruling class, which replaces the era of world capitalism through the era of world socialism, and which strives for the aim of the classless society - for world communism).

[ Definition of the Comintern (SH) ]

 

QUOTATIONS OF ENVER HOXHA ON FASCISM

Enver Hoxha speaks of fascism, if the fundaments of capitalist power are existentially threatened. 1976, in his report to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, he stated:

"When it finds it impossible to cope with the revolts of the workers and people in the pseudo-democratic forms or with the «talking-shop» methods of parliaments, then the bourgeois state clamps down on them with its laws, its violence, its buldgeon. That is what is happening now in most countries where the crisis has sharpened the contradictions between labour and capital, and the revolt of the working people at the situation created is becoming ever more powerful.

In these situations the danger of fascism is becoming ever more threatening. It is a known fact that when capital finds itself driven into a blind alley and under the heavy blows of the working class, it is compelled either to declare itself bankrupt or to establish its fascist dictatorship and head for war."

And Enver Hoxha complements his statement with a quote from Lenin's works, vol 24, page 213, English edition):

"For it is the great significance of all crises that they make manifest what has been hidden; they cast aside all that is relative, superficial, and trivial; they sweep away the political litter and reveal the real mainsprings of the class struggle."

Enver Hoxha:

"Terrorism is the preliminary preparation for fascism to come to power."

"In many capitalist countries where the crisis is great, terrorism, which is supported by capital, is assuming major proportions. In order to emerge from the crisis and crush any possibility of insurrection and revolution by the working class and the people, the reactionary forces in these countries are preparing the terrain for an authoritarian state, for the fascist dictatorship. If the working masses, we Marxist-Leninist parties and the progressive peoples fail to understand that the fascist dictatorship comes as a result of the difficult situation which the power of the capital is experiencing and do not fight it, then,, sooner or later fascism will be established, because the crisis will continue, since capitalism will strive to protect its income at the expense of the working masses who will become more and more impoverished. Being unarmed, because they do not understand why such a thing is occuring and do not fight against it and the other actions of the capital, these masses will accept the bondage of a fascist circle, thinking that it will be a way out of the crisis. In fact it is not a way out for the working class and the working people, because fascism represents the most ferocious dictatorship of capital, which will oppress the masses of the peoples even more than it is doing today. It is the last resort of exploiting capital."

"Fascism is the most brutal dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

(Enver Hoxha, »The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the Crisis of World Capitalism «, Social Studies, Volume. 3, page 23, 1986, Tirana, engl. ed.).

"When they see the game is up, the capitalists throw off all disguise and establish the fascist dictatorship."

(Enver Hoxha, speech of the first secretary of the Central Committee of the PLA - 10. 03.1974 before the voters in the constituency 209 of Tirana, 1974)


Additional distinctive traits and characteristics of fascism:

- Fascism ...

... is both the worst of the rule of the bourgeoisie and the replacement of the decaying parliamentarism (whether as a coup, or within a longer or shorter period of transformation). This enhancement and replacement of one form of bourgeois rule by another is not only due to her weakness, but also to the highest degree a sign of degeneration of the bourgeoisie, which eventually perish through her own domination.

- Fascism ...

... is the cruelest and most terrorist rule of the exploiters and oppressors in the history of class society.

- Fascism ...

... is expression of the dehumanizing of the decaying, parasitic and moribund capitalism.

- Fascism ...

... is the last and desperate means to escape the impending demise of imperialism - through economic, political and military terror for the purpose of increase of extreme exploitation and oppression.

- Fascism

... is the last act of desperation and powerlessness - in face of the ever deepening crisis of world capitalism.

- Fascism

... unchains the ultimate driving forces of the capitalist "wolf"- law, to increase the maximum profits of the monopoly bourgeoisie infinitely. Especially in times of crises, everything and everybody who narrows, hinders or disrupts profit maximization, is radically eliminated - and, if necessary, with fascist violence.

- Fascism ...

... has a class-related background. The setting capitalist class wages a desperate, self-destructive, and outmost violent struggle against the unavoidably rising class of the proletariat which eliminates the inevitability of imperialism war and fascism.

- Fascism ...

... is absolutely necessary (unavoidable) for the bourgeoisie, to cope with the irresolvable escalation of the contradiction between capital and labor. The bourgeoisie is unable to stop the proletarian revolution without the means of fascism. However, the more fascist terrorism, the more revolutionary anti-terrorism. The escalation of the conflict of capital and labour cannot be eliminated without the revolutionary, violent destruction of capitalism through the world proletariat.

Imperialism wages fascist wars inwardly, and plundering wars outwardly.

- Fascism ...

... grows from the almighty driving forces of monopolism, especially the monopolism of the financial capital. The inner conflicts among monopolists aggravate in such degree that they are unable to prevent the bursting of the chains of the productive forces. When the knell of capitalist private property sounds, fascism strikes hard. However, not fascism is the basis of imperialism, but the monopolistic private property. Fascism is the last and ultimate weapon for the protection of the property of the monopolists.

.

- Fascism

... takes possession of the bourgeois state power for the purpose to protect the through and through rotten imperialist system against its gravediggers ("expropriation of the expropriators" [Marx]).

The handful of almighty financial capitalists and representatives of the monopoly bourgeoisie are forced to boost their maximal profits, if they do not want to fall by the wayside. They do this with a more aggressive plundering the working masses, by brutal predatory wars against the peoples and expropriation itself larger, medium and smaller capitalists ("One capitalist always kills many dead," etc., etc.. Marx).

With their pursuit of maximum profit, the monopoly bourgeoisie provokes the interference of the state. This hunt ends at a point where capitalism destroys itself.

This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction" [ Karl Marx, Volume 37; Capital Volume III Part V - Chapter 27. “The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production”, English edition).

In order to survive, however, the revolutionary proletariat can not wait until this point. Therefore, the proletariat is forced to seize premature power, to free itself from the shackles of the monopolistic relations of production. That is the reason why the handful of financiers fear their downfall and that's why they provoke fascist violence. Given the deepening global economic crisis, the international financial capital and the world monopolists are forced to maintain their world order in an iron grip. This world-monopolistic order develops all the features of an open world fascism. The threat of world fascism comes mainly from the two super powers, the U.S.A. and China.

Due to the inhomogeneity of the development of different capitalist countries, the conflicts increase unavoidably, especially between both the imperialist super powers. To escape from the enormous pressure of rivalry, they take fascist steps to ensure the unhindered intensification of exploitation. Fascism is not least in the service of the violent enforcement of the renewal of the partition of the world and the defense or conquest of world domination.

Capitalism leads to fascism! - Capitalism must go!

Fascism plays the demagogic role of " the great savior of the world", of a "knight in shining armor" after the utter bankruptcy of parliamentarianism . The fascists lure the masses with carrot and stick against communism.

Fascism is the unconditional subjugation and destruction of all forces around the world, especially its communist proletarian leadership, whose only purpose is to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie. Anti-fascism means to organize the anti-fascist resistance, to attack fascism, to overthrow fascism, to destroy fascism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only guaranteed bulwark of the elimination of the unavoidability of fascism.

 


The world proletarian line

and the tasks in the struggle against fascism and social-fascism

 

This, of course, depends on certain conditions and premises. But it is primarily a question of principle.

We communists give a clear answer to the proletariat:

Smashing the fascist (/social-fascist) state power of the bourgeoisie and establishing the own new state power of the proletariat, which is the first, most important, fundamental characteristic of a truly anti-fascist (anti-social-fascist) revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of this term:

There is no other anti-fascist (anti-social-fascist) way for the proletariat than the way to the victory of the socialist revolution.

Whether the socialist revolution comes sooner or later, in which forms it will appear, and which hindrances the revolution has to overcome - all this depends on concrete conditions and circumstances. All that needs to be modified on the basis of concrete economic and political analyses of a specific, concretely existing type of fascist (/social-fascist) dictatorship, but the socialist revolution is basically inevitable and it will come.

 

 

The globally united front of all anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists tackles

9 tasks:

1.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists opposes all attempts of the world bourgeoisie and her agencies within the workers' and communist world movement, to uncouple the anti-social-fascist struggle from the anti-fascist struggle, respectively, to drive a wedge between anti-fascism and anti-social-fascism.

2.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists opposes all attempts of the world bourgeoisie and her agencies within the workers' and communist world movement, to fool the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists about the truth, that capitalism (inclusively state capitalism) is the source of fascism and social-fascism.

3.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists unmasks and combats all attempts of the modern revisionist, to disarm the world proletariat and all toilers by means of the ideology and politics of the "peaceful transition". This makes the masses defenseless in their struggle against the fascist and social-fascist terror. The tasks of the united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists can only be fulfilled by organizing the globally armed struggle against the organized armed struggle of the fascist/social-fascist world front.

4.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists unmasks and combats all the attempts of the neo-revisionists to misuse the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism in the anti-fascist and anti-social-fascist struggle, especially to "justify" the terror of social-fascism.

5.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists insists on the indispensability of revolutionary violence against fascist and social-fascist terror.

6.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists struggles for democratic rights of all exploited and oppressed classes, for proletarian socialist democracy but not for the exploiting "democratic" system of the bourgeoisie which leads back to fascism inevitably . Therefore, the struggle for democratic rights is inseparably part of the overthrow of world capitalism and its imperialist state system.

 

7.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists struggles for the abolition of the inevitableness of fascism and social-fascism by means of the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat, the global System of Soviets and the socialist world republic.

8.

The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists struggles for the eradication of the leftovers of all fascist and social-fascist forces within the period of world socialism.

9.

The Comintern (SH) is the global center of the international anti-fascist and anti-social-fascist movement. The Comintern (SH) unifies and leads the anti-fascist and anti-social-fascist forces of all countries towards the socialist world revolution.

 

The people's government:

If the people decide on a people's government then the disarmament and defeat of the counter-revolution and the destruction of the old bourgeois state power must absolutely be ensured. The power of the people's government bases itself on the power of the armed forces of the people, on the people's army. For this, the revolutionary consciousness of the masses needs to be sharpened in time, so that the majority of the people takes revolutionary actions and actually takes over the sole armed domination.
The proletariat must take the lead with its revolutionary party, to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the task of the Communists to make all these necessaries clear to the majority of the masses - namely as early as possible. This will protect the people from being taken by surprise through demagogical "bourgeois-democratic" chatter. And only this keeps the minority from turning the seizure of power into a dangerous adventure.

Lenin:

"Because of its class position in modern society, the proletariat can understand, sooner than any other class, that, in the final analysis, great historic issues are decided only by force, that freedom cannot be achieved without tremendous sacrifices, that the armed resistance of tsarism must be broken and crushed by force of arms." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 8, page 539 - 540: English edition).

It raises the question whether the decisions of the VII Congress gave the same or similar precise answer, or not ? We are of the opinion that the VII World Congress had avoided this precise answer, because:
neither the world revolution and its implementation in the spirit of the October Revolution, nor detailed preparations of the armed uprisings against the bourgeoisie in the countries, nor the required agitation and propaganda for this purpose, let alone the organizational preparation for seizing the power of the proletariat had been subject of the work of the Comintern after the VII World Congress.

All these 9 crucial world revolutionary tasks played virtually no role at all. They disappeared in the general tumbling of the Social Democratic class reconciliation. The so-called "broad" (opportunistic) "Mass Line" was opposed to the so-called "sectarian line" (revolutionary line), thus for the purpose to get better rid of it. And the leaders of the Comintern acted like this in face of the difficult, illegal conditions during fascism and war, when the bourgeoisie muzzled the revolutionary proletariat and banned its propaganda and agitation for the revolutions.

Fascism accelerates the process of ruin of capitalist society through its violent intervention in the life of the whole society. By means of the giant destruction and waste of the productive forces, in particular, the existence of the productive classes is threatened - without whom the bourgeoisie would not survive.

When the bourgeoisie has destroyed the livelihood of the working class, she is doomed to die. Even with the help of the fascist dictatorship, the bourgeoisie will not survive for all times. On the contrary, fascism accelerates the downfall of the bourgeoisie and the strengthening of the power of the proletariat.

Without capitalism, also the working class (as an exploited class !) could not survive. If the proletariat continues its life as an exploited class within the capitalist society, it is forced to help the bourgeoisie to get out of the mess - despite all the proletarian blood shed by fascism, and despite all the heavy loads that were imposed on it, despite all misery and destruction which fascism has left.

This solution is only feasible for the bourgeoisie if she can trust her reliable agencies within the workers' movement who keep the revolutionary forces in check. This bridge is built for the bourgeoisie by means of the opportunistic united front tactics. After the defeat of fascism, the opportunists come out of their rat holes:

"And it is just such sacrifice of the fundamental interests of the proletariat to the half-hearted, muddled aims of liberalism that makes up the essence of opportunism in tactics." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 12, page 177, English edition).

The bourgeoisie promises hypocritically that fascism will never return. And today? Today, the proletariat sees that these are nothing but empty promises. The bourgeoisie of today condemns fascism, but in the same breath she resorts to fascism. The fascism can impossibly be prevented by the bourgeoisie, even if she would.

 

The post-fascist society can only be constructed on the basis of class reconciliation. This new society cannot be revived without capitalism. Every socialist demand of the proletariat would inevitably result in the resistance of the ruling bourgeoisie. Waiting until the next fascism comes or, instead, the socialist revolution . Every anti-Fascist is faced with this choice earlier or later.

So the proletariat can not survive by capitalism in the long run. It can ultimately survive only by means of the abolition of capitalism, by the construction of socialism.

Marxism-Leninism teaches that the proletariat will arrive at the coast of socialism even by means of a spontaneous development - according to objective laws of the development of the society. But this course will be painful and
the proletariat would have to go a long way round. Therefore, we communists tell the proletarians, that they should shorten their path of anti-fascism by means of the socialist revolution. The decisive factor is not the elimination of the brutal forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and their replacement by more moderate forms (or with "socialist" appearance), but through the abolition of any form of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, through the abolition of capitalism and the construction of socialism with the goal of a classless society.

For this, the proletariat needs its own proletarian, revolutionary united front in which it unites all allied forces by means of utmost resoluteness, to achieve the socialist goals as the leading revolutionary class. This proletarian united front must be strong enough to prevent any attempts at recapturing the rule of the bourgeoisie.

If the VII World Congress - from the outset - would have rejected categorically the recognition of any form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it would never have come to the merger with the bourgeois social democracy. The social democratism ( also revisionism and other opportunist ideologies) is not only the ideology of the agency of the bourgeoisie within the workers' movement related to a certain, concrete form of rule of the bourgeoisie, but related to all forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie without exception, thus including the fascist dictatorship (in essence it is no different in terms of the bourgeois form of rule of social fascism).

"Socialism" to the capitalist rules of the game, this was the condition in the anti-fascist united front which the social democrat leadership had set to the Communists. And today the revisionists and neo-revisionists set the same conditions to us communists (inclusively the recognition of social-fascist states).

And today has long been known that these social-democratic rules of the game were accepted by the revisionist leaders at that time - namely up to the total integration into the system of world imperialism.

By means of the change of the Comintern, the bourgeoisie has learned and perfectly understood, to use finely spun nets for the re-integration of revolutionary forces into the capitalist system.

Therefore, we must never allow that the agencies of the bourgeoisie seek protection under the communist shield or even organize their subversive actions underneath of it, because they will not rest until they have completely absorbed the communist forces - or at least isolated and divided in small groups and sects . Every kind of "united front" which is dominated by opportunism serves to the disunity and decomposition of the revolutionary united front and to the formation of a social-fascist front.

That is why we say:

Social fascism is socialism in words and fascism in deeds. A social-fascist united front is socialist in words and a fascist front in deeds.

As history shows, it is the distinctive feature of social fascism in power to emanate even from restored capitalism.

To date, the proletariat was not able to overthrow social fascism by means of a socialist revolution, ie through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as capitalism prevails in the world, social fascism is inevitable. So we have also to abolish the inevitability of social fascism.

.

For us Stalinist-Hoxhaists is therefore an classless, neutral, and indifferent use of the term "anti-fascism" not allowed, since we have historically experienced, that there exists also a bourgeois anti-fascism alongside the proletarian anti-fascism. Proletarian and bourgeois anti-fascism/anti-social-fascism are as antagonistic, just as proletariat and bourgeoisie. They are irreconcilable and therefore they can never be part of a common united front. And an united front - "beyond" or organised "above" the classes - can impossibly exist within a class society.

The bourgeoisie hides her class interests behind the figurehead of the "anti-fascism" and poses her interests of a minority as "general interests of the entire society" at the expense of the majority of the society, of the proletariat and working people.

Only the proletarian anti-fascism is a socialist anti-fascism, thus the only anti-fascism, which is consistent with the general interest of society, namely the abolition of all classes and all forms of dictatorship of classes against classes - including fascism and social fascism.

The Seventh World Congress has expressly decided against the socialist anti-fascism, albeit with the aid of a "communist" cloak. Anti-fascism, which is not clearly and directly aligned with the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat can be nothing more than bourgeois anti-fascism.

Only if we analyze the classes within an anti-fascist united front or popular front, if we expose its class relations, we can distinguish whether it is a bourgeois or a proletarian united front.

Social democracy represents the "Democratic" People's Front, under the rule of the bourgeoisie.
The revisionists propagate the Popular Front with "socialist" figurehead, but with the express acquiescence of an integrated bourgeoisie.

Communism only accepts a Popular Front under the sovereign rule of the proletariat, without any involvement and participation of the bourgeoisie.

We Stalinist-Hoxhaists do not only use the term "anti-fascism", but also the term "fascism" exclusively as a term of classes. We reject the classless use of these terms because this would serve the deception of the masses. It is the ruling bourgeoisie who hides her class interests behind "classless" concepts ( of class reconciliation ). Therefore, we must refute any theoretical variant that attempts to use a "classless" concept, or which tries to distort our class-related concept - or even misuses our concept as a magic cap. If we Stalinist-Hoxhaists really would not have clear ideas about the principled class alliance within an anti-fascist front, then our united front tactic would be doomed to failure from the beginning, and this would mean the inevitable defeat of the proletariat.

For social democratism and revisionism, fascism means something entirely different than for communism. Fascism is not only directed against the revolutionary workers, but against the whole working class, against the masses. Therefore, in order to defeat fascism, the people must be guided by the proletariat, under the leadership of the Communist Party. The Social Democrats and the revisionists, these forerunners of fascism and social fascism, are unable to free the people finally from fascism and social-fascism.

 

FASCISM - DEFINITION OF THE IV WORLD CONGRESS

The correct definition of "International Fascism", decided by the Fourth Congress in 1922, was as follows:

"Closely linked to the economic offensive of capital is the political offensive of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Its sharpest expression is international fascism. Since falling living standards are now affecting the middle classes, including civil service, the ruling class is no longer certain that it can rely on the bureaucracy to act as its tool. Instead, it is resorting everywhere to the creation of special White Guards, which are particularly directed against all the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat and are being increasingly used for the forcible suppression of any attempts by the working class to improve its position.

The characteristic feature of 'classical' Italian fascism, which at present has the whole country in its grip, is that the fascists not only form counter-revolutionary fighting organizations, armed to the teeth, but also attempt to use social demagogy to gain a base among the masses: in the peasantry, in the petty bourgeoisie and even in a certain section of the proletariat. There is currently a fascist threat in many countries: in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, almost all the Balkan countries, Poland, Germany, Austria, America and even in countries like Norway. The possibility of fascism appearing in one or another form cannot be ruled out even in such countries as France and Britain.

One of the most important tasks of the Communist Parties is to organize resistance to international fascism. They must be at the head of the working class in the fight against the fascist gangs, must be extremely active in setting up united fronts on the question and must make use of illegal methods of organization.

But the reckless promotion of fascist organization is the last card in the bourgeoisie's hand. Open rule by the White Guards also works against the very foundations of bourgeois democracy. The broadest masses of the working people become convinced that bourgeois rule is possible only in the form of an undisguised dictatorship over the proletariat."

(Tactical Theses, protocols of the IV World Congress, 1922),

The program of the Communist International - our guide line - took reference to this definition of fascism.

We refer also to the Resolutions of the VI World Congress: “IV. CLASS STRUGGLE, SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, AND FASCISM”.):

"The characteristic feature of fascism is that, as a consequence  of the shock suffered by the capitalist economic system and of  special objective and subjective circumstances, the bourgeoisie --in order to hinder the development of the revolution-- utilises the discontent of the petty and middle, urban and rural bourgeoisie and even of certain strata of the declassed proletariat, for the purpose of creating a reactionary mass movement. Fascism resorts to methods of open violence in order to break the power of the labour organisations and those of the peasant poor, and to proceed to capture power. After capturing power, fascism strives to establish political and organisational unity among all the governing classes of  capitalist society (the bankers, the big industrialists and the  agrarians) and to establish their undivided, open and consistent  dictatorship. It places at the disposal of the governing classes armed forces specially trained for civil war and establishes a new type of State, openly based on violence, coercion and corruption, not only of the petty bourgeois strata, but even of certain elements of the working class (office employees, ex-reformist leaders, who have become government officials, trade union officials, and officials of the Fascist Party, and also poor peasants and declassed proletarians recruited into the "Fascist militia")." 

The Comintern and its individual Sections based themselves also on the definitions of the Eleventh and Twelfth Plenum of the ECCI and on the relevant definitions of the individual sections (for example, the German KPD of Thalmann).

We select the following example:

The Eleventh Plenary Session of the ECCI stated:

"The recent growth of fascism was possible only because of the support given by international social-democracy since the war to the bourgeois dictatorship, whatever its form. Social-democracy, which, by fabricating a contradiction between the 'democratic' form of the bourgeois dictatorship and fascism, blunts the vigilance of the masses in the struggle against the rising wave of political reaction and against fascism, and which conceals the counter-revolutionary nature of bourgeois democracy as one form of bourgeois dictatorship, is the most active factor and pace-maker in the development of the capitalist State towards fascism.

The successful struggle against fascism requires the Communist Parties to mobilize the masses on the basis of the united front below against all forms of the bourgeois dictatorship and against every one of its reactionary measures which clears the way for open fascist dictatorship. It requires the rapid and decisive correction of errors, which arise primarily from the liberal idea of a basic difference between fascism and bourgeois democracy, and between the parliamentary and the openly fascist forms of the bourgeois dictatorship; such ideas are a reflection of social-democratic influence in the Communist Parties." [ underlined by the Comintern (SH) ]


Then, the historical turning point came on the 13th Plenum of the ECCI, where Kuusinen announced the revisionist definition of fascism for the first time:

"Fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements [ !!! ] of finance capital."

[ Speech of Dimitrov, protocols of the VII World Congress, page 322, German edition - underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

This is a totally anti-Marxist definition !

The Marxist-Leninist definition of fascism as the most brutal form of the dictatorship of the class ( !! ) of the bourgeoisie [ class struggle = class against class !! ] was wiped out here with a stroke of the pen.

Fascism was deprived from its class character and reduced to a small layer within the class of the bourgeoisie ("elements").

The non-antagonistic contradictions among different layers within the whole class of the bourgeoisie were fraudulently split into antagonistic segments.

By means of this defraudation, Dimitrov opened the door to the reconciliation and alliance with the bourgeoisie ( in particular with the liberal bourgeoisie). This definition of fascism is thus a betrayal at the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and in essence identical with social democratism. It is through and through anti-communist because it is based on the false assumption that there would be allegedly a antagonistic contradiction between the "democratic" dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the fascist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. However, these are only two different forms of the same exploitive and oppressive character of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The relationship between form and content of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie was manipulated and distorted to dupe the masses.

We communists do not ignore the necessity of the use of the contradictions within the class of the bourgeoisie but we never take side with the bourgeoisie for the purpose to defend the one form of her dictatorship against the other one. And this is our criticism at the VII World Congress.

 

But before we go into more detail on the content of the revisionist definition, a formal question should be allowed, namely the organisational question of the radical exchange of the one definition of fascism through another one.

Why did Dimitrov favor a definition which was exclusively formulated on a sole plenum of the ECCI ? Why didn't he invoke the most relevant document of the Comintern, the program of the Comintern, and additionally all the correct definitions of the previous World Congresses ? Was it legitimate that the ECCI totally ignored the decision of the previous Congresses ? Is the Plenum of the ECCI not bound to the decisions of the World Congresses and the program ?

This is more than disregard of the decisions of the Comintern. It is a crime at the democratic centralism, at the Comintern, at the whole communist world movement and the revolutionary world proletariat. The Comintern was the Bolshevist party of the world proletariat with all its ideological, political and organizational characteristics. Dimitrov, however, did never really understand the deeper meaning of the world Bolshevist party and therefore he was unable to lead it. And in the end he drove the Comintern into the ground.

It is a typical feature of the revisionist degeneration, when all the resolutions of the world congresses were infringed, and replaced by means of ECCI decisions, even later by means of presidential decisions, and since 1941 by three (!!) top leaders of the Comintern. They had left only a sad caricature of the Communist International of Lenin and Stalin. Just one month after the VII World Congress, the Secretariat of the ECCI abolished the democratic centralism of the Comintern with its decision on reorganization which was an act of direct violation of the statutes of the Comintern. This decision was supposed to bring more "independence" for the Sections. The truth was, that the Sections were factually uncoupled from the Leninist principle of centralism and mostly isolated from the world party. The liquidation of the Comintern - that was the actual organisational consequence of the revisionist definition of fascism. And all this in the precarious moment as the whole world was aflame !

If you have a look at the time table of the World Congresses, then this list speaks volumes about the development of the Comintern up to its final dissolution :

First Congress 2. 3. - 6. 3. 1919

Second Congress 17. 7. - 7. 8. 1920 (period of 1 year and 5 months)

Third Congress 22. 6. - 12. 7. 1921 ( period after one year)

Fourth Congress 5. 11. - 5. 12. 1922 (period of 1 year and 5 months)

Fifth Congress 17 6 - 8 7 1924 (period after 1 year and 7 months)

Sixth Congress July - August 1928 (period of nearly 4 years)

Seventh Congress 25. 7 – 25. 8. 1935 (period of 7 years!)

Dissolution of the Comintern 20 May 1943 (period of 8 years!)

Only one Congress was held in the fifteen years after the Stalinist VI World Congress in 1928. The proceedings of the four plenary sessions of the Executive Committee were not published in full. Little of the correspondence between the Executive and the Sections was made public. There was no public Comintern statement directly concerned with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, the incorporation of Austria in Germany, the anti-Comintern pact, the Munich agreement, or the outbreak of war in 1939.

So much for the formal criticism.

 

 

 

 

We come now to our content-related criticism at the revisionist definition of fascism of the VII World Congress:


The definition of the VII World Congress is this:

"Fascism in power is described as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

In the time when fascism came up, neither Lenin nor Stalin have used such or similar definitions. Lenin was the undisputed Classic of Marxism-Leninism when the Italian fascism arose, and Stalin was the undisputed Classic of Marxism-Leninism when the Hitler fascists seized power. All 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism define dictatorship, domination, power, counter-revolution, etc., always in the context of the class society, thus of the ruling class. They never have limited the concept of dictatorship to a single "element" of classes or to a single person, to groups or layers: such as the oligarchy (financial oligarchy), the plutocracy, etc.

Basically, capitalist society rests upon the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and not upon certain power of "elements" or single strata . Through its "elements" the class does neither lose its power, nor its relative stability. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is both maneuverable (elastic) and relatively stable in all its features and characteristics - inclusively in the ability of changing its form (of course, the concrete events of class struggle play a decisive role in the course of this transitional process).

The mutual relationship between variability and relative stability is the indispensable condition of a class for the transitional process of different forms of its rulership, for the exchange of the democratic through the fascist dictatorship and vice versa.

Concerning the "most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital" - these elements, which are typical for the era of imperialism, exist independently from the different forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Thus, they exercise their powerful influence both in times of "democracy" and fascism. Imperialism has created both these "elements" and fascism. And there is no doubt about it that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class from the beginning up to the end of the capitalist class society.

Lenin defined correctly the period of imperialism like this:

"Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 22, page 297, English edition).

And Stalin defined Leninism as Marxism of the era of imperialism and (!) the proletarian revolution (!). The Comintern (SH) adds here expressively that this excellent Stalinist definition was also valid in the time of the VII World Congress. However, the VII World Congress rejected the proletarian revolution and replaced it by the bourgeois government of the people's front. Dimitrov has dropped the proletarian revolution from the era of imperialism and thus violated and revised Leninism.

Concerning the so called "elements":

The 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism speak unambiguously of the dictatorship of classes over classes and not of the dictatorship of "elements".

The first sentence of the Communist Manifesto states:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — bourgeoisie and proletariat."

Fascist society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other - the fascist bourgeoisie and the anti-fascist proletariat.

And the period of fascism is undoubtedly part of this epoch of the bourgeoisie - and not part of the "epoch of certain elements of the financial capital" !

We must clearly state that the definition of the VII World Congress was not in line with the exact definition of classes, as used by the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. The definition used by Dimitrov, has dropped the Marxist-Leninist concept of classes and replaced by the concept of "elements".

Marxism-Leninism does not deny the differentiation of classes. The differentiation of classes is an indispensable Marxist method, if it is based on a Marxist analysis of the class society. But it is opportunistic, if it is misused for the purpose to distort the basical contradictions of classes - and also for the justification of the pact with the bourgeois people's front government which omits socialism by silence.

We do not deny the existence and functions of certain elements within a class. Lenin taught:

"Bourgeoisies differ ... provide a vast variety of combinations of different groups, sections, and elements both of the bourgeoisie itself and of the working class" (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 17, page 413, English edition).

However, Lenin taught also: A differentiation of classes is anti-Marxist in the case, if an element is equated (or mixed up) with the whole class. And vice versa, it is also anti-Marxist, if a class is disintegrated (/absorbed) by a single element (a single element cannot fill the shoes of a whole class).

Lenin speaks of "... narrow down the concept of class":

"Sure enough, the stratum of the biggest capitalists economically dominates all the other strata, which it unquestionably overwhelms .. This is beyond doubt. Nevertheless, it is a stratum, and not a class." ( Lenin, Collected works, Volume 18, pages 58 - 59; English edition).

The struggle against fascism, the struggle against the monopoly-bourgeoisie, against the financial capital, etc. - all this is class struggle and not a struggle of strata - dissociated from class struggle. Of course are we fighting against "the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital", no question, and we do everything possible to direct as much forces as possible against them, but a victory over fascism is impossible without smashing the fascist state ( which protects these "elements" by means of brutal violence) by means of the revolutionary, anti-fascist weapons of the exploited and oppressed classes - under the leadership of the proletariat.

The disunity within the different fractions and elements of the bourgeois class makes the proletariat strong. Therefore, we do not deny the use of the manyfold collusions among the different elements of the bourgeoisie for the cause of the proletariat - as Marx and Engels have written in the "Communist Manifesto":

"Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie" (Marx, Engels: "Communist Manifesto" [Chapter I, Bourgeoisie and Proletariat]).

Please note: "...fighting the bourgeoisie", and not only fighting "the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital." (!)

This false definition contradicts the Marxist-Leninist principle of "class against class".

Only by means of the removal of the "worst elements", the proletariat gets not rid of fascism. The appearance of these "elements" are unavoidably part of imperialism and cannot be eliminated selectively. They can only be eliminated by means of the world-revolutionary destruction of imperialism.

The 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism speak of the overthrow of the bourgeois class through the proletarian class, of the destruction of the entire bourgeois state apparatus, of the destruction of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, of the armed socialist revolution, smashing the shackles of capitalist relations of production, of the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat etc. ( - and all this independently from the different forms (!) of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie )

Lenin emphasized:

"Let the Martovs, the Chernovs, and non-Party philistines like them, beat their breasts and exclaim: “I thank Thee, Lord, that I am not as ‘these’, and have never accepted terrorism.” These simpletons “do not accept terrorism” because they choose to be servile accomplices of the whiteguards in fooling the workers and peasants. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks “do not accept terrorism” because under the flag of “socialism” they are fulfilling their function of placing the masses at the mercy of the whiteguard terrorism. This was proved by the Kerensky regime and the Kornilov putsch in Russia, by the Kolchak regime in Siberia, and by Menshevism in Georgia. It was proved by the heroes of the Second International and of the “Two-and-a-Half” International in Finland, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Italy, Britain, etc. Let the flunkey accomplices of whiteguard terrorism wallow in their repudiation of all terrorism. We shall speak the bitter and indubitable truth: in countries beset by an unprecedented crisis, the collapse of old ties, and the intensification of the class struggle after the imperialist war of 1914-18—and that means all the countries of the world—terrorism cannot be dispensed with, notwithstanding the hypocrites and phrase-mongers. Either the whiteguard, bourgeois terrorism of the American, British (Ireland), Italian (the fascists), German, Hungarian and other types, or Red, proletarian terrorism. There is no middle course, no “third” course, nor can there be any." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 32, page 356, English edition - underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

That what Lenin correctly called the nessecity of "Red, proletarian terrorism" against fascist terrorism, was condemned "sectarianism" on the VII World Congress !!

And Dimitrov had chosen this "middle" course, though there is no "third" course, nor can there be any !

Dimitrov, in contrast to Lenin, used the definition of the VII World Congress to damp down and blur the class contradictions for paving the way towards class reconciliation - instead of the transformation of the anti-fascist revolution towards the socialist revolution.

When Lenin speaks of "narrowing the concept of classes" then we must state that the (third) superlative degree, which was grammatically chosen in the definition ("... most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist..."), is nothing else than the improper potentialization of narrowing the concept of classes.

Similarly, the definition contains adjectives which sound "very revolutionary". But this is only a demagogic trick to distract from the false concept of "elements" (narrowing of the concept of classes), and consequently to reduce the actual degree of the danger of the bourgeoisie as a whole class. The classification of fascism at power had been reduced to a very small amount of elements of finance capital. And additionally, with the utilization of a grammatical third superlative degree of adjectives, the named elements were purposely overemphasized, with the conclusion that the dictatorship of the whole bourgeois class was completely separated from the definition.

 

The definition of fascism - presented by the VII World Congress - is a revision of Marxism-Leninism and thus a revisionist definition. It is a milestone in the history of modern revisionism. The core of the revisionist nature of this definition of fascism is that the class of the bourgeoisie was divided: into a "progressive" part with which you can cooperate and another ("reactionary") part that you have to combat. The traditional (and still valid) program of the revisionists is based on the reformist slogan of "reducing of monopolies" , for example by means of obtaining parliamentary majority. Even not a "majority" can reduce the monopolistic elements by means of reformist measures as long as imperialism exists. These "elements" can only be destroyed in the course of the socialist world revolution. Besides, also Maoism defended the revisionist definition of fascism.

Coming to the conclusion:

When you hear today about the history of the Comintern, then it is not the right line of Lenin and Stalin, but the wrong line of Dimitrov. And when you hear something about the infamous united front tactics of the VII World Congress, then the quotation of the infamous definition of fascism takes centre stage of attention.

Therefore, the fight against the myth of the revisionist definition of fascism is an important part of the general-line of the Comintern (SH) in its revolutionary struggle against world fascism.

 


Some lessons about the struggle against the revisionist definition of fascism

 

The proletariat is not in a position to "tame", to control or even to eliminate the dominance of monopolies and fascism within the capitalist social order. And there is no "peaceful" way in which the inevitability of the "reactionary, chauvinist, most imperialist elements of finance capital" could be abolished. They can even neither be urged back nor reduced. In the long run, one can not urge the minimization of monopolies because the creation of monopolies is an immanent law of the development of capitalism and therefore inevitable. One can eliminate monopolism only with the socialist revolution by eliminating the class, to which the finance capitalists belong and from which they emerge. The finance capitalists do not sit "above" the class of the bourgeoisie, but they are her dominant force within imperialism.


The revisionists have turned the anti-monopolistic struggle into an intermediate stage towards "peaceful" socialism which they call "anti-monopolistic democracy". The revisionists argue that the united front against fascism makes the working class and its allies strong enough, so that the bourgeoisie could be "forced" by means of overwhelming majorities, to "peacefully" allow the "transition to socialism". Supposedly, the working class would not be able to perform the victorious socialist revolution, so that an intermediate period would be required, in order "to facilitate" the way to socialism.

The trick is as follows:

One separates and uncouples the path from the target (according the thesis of Bernstein), centers demagogically the question of the way, and then one explains certain "intermediate stages" as steps of the way towards the "target". In this way, the socialist goal disappears in the distance until the cows come home.

Lenin, however, teaches that there can be no "intermediate rung" of the ladder from capitalism to socialism. Thus there can also be no "intermediate rung" for the elimination of the "reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

Lenin wrote already in 1921:

"A victorious proletarian revolution in German would immediately and very easily smash any shell of imperialism and would bring about the victory of world socialism".

Lenin called it "a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs" (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 32, page 335 and 336 English edition).

Imperialism is definitely the last stage of capitalism before the transition to socialism.

And also in contrast to the VII World Congress of the Comintern, it is said clearly and unambiguously in the Comintern program of 1928 :

"In these (highly developed capitalist countries) is the main demand of the program, the immediate transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat " [ the program of the Communist International, in: International Press Correspondence No. 133, 1928, Page 2641, German edition - underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

Did these conditions fundamentally change in the period of fascism ? Of course, they didn't. In the contrary. Capitalism was fully matured for the transition to socialism. The state-monopoly capitalism means the increased - even driven to the extreme - subordination of the State under the monopolies.

"Socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly"

(Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 32, page 336; English edition).

Stalin wrote in 1952, in: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR" (page 52, German edition, Moscow, 1952):

"The word 'coalescence' (of the monopolies with the state machine) is not appropriate. It superficially and descriptively notes the process of merging of the monopolies with the state, but it does not reveal the economic import of this process. The fact of the matter is that the merging process is not simply a process of coalescence, but the subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies. The word "coalescence" should therefore be discarded and replaced by the words "subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies."

We repeatedly explained that the power of the monopolies can only be eliminated by the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus by means of the armed revolution of the workers, and that anything else awakens illusions about the class nature of the state monopoly for the purpose, to deny the necessity of revolution.

The fascism-definition of the VII World Congress serves the world bourgeoisie, by being adapted to deny the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to explain the socialist world revolution as unnecessary - and to drop socialism in "one" country as a discontinued model. We Communists speak about the approach to the proletarian revolution, about the defeat of fascism by means of the overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, however, we refuse a united front government as a so called "preforming of the dictatorship of the proletariat" which comes about in pact with the bourgeoisie. Every government of a united front which is not built on the ruins of the bourgeois state, is a united front - based upon the bourgeois state. Lenin defined the united front as the front of the workers, united with its allies , inclusively the workers of the social democracy - but never the bourgeoisie and her agencies within the workers' movement.

Recognizing the antagonism and irreconcilability between bourgeoisie and proletariat only in words, however in deeds practicing a class reconciliatory policy - that is the core of every revisionist policy of classes. And in nothing but capitalism ended all history of the popular front decisions of the VII World Congress


Some comrades justify the admissibility of the anti-fascist alliances with the bourgeoisie in comparison with Stalin's alliance with the Allies in the Second World War. These comrades must thoroughly study the Albanian alliance against the fascist occupiers [ Enver Hoxha: “The Anglo - American Threat to Albania” (Memoirs of the National Liberation War) ].

These comrades also ignore the fact that it was about a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviet Union as the leading force of the socialist world. This special anti-fascist alliance was not a coalition in the sense of "association of like-minded", but a deal with enemies of communism, which was based on the 5 correct Marxist-Leninist principles of peaceful coexistence.

There are other comrades who criticize the correct definition of fascism - decided by the Fourth Congress, claiming it might only be related to the "anti-imperialist" united front. We can only say to these comrades that they do not understand the integrity and essential difference between the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist united front tactics of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Both proletarian united front tactics, as well as the united front tactics in union activities serve to the overall unity of the world proletariat, serve the strategy and tactics of the world revolution and are therefore inseparable. Both of them must be based on the same principles of Marxism-Leninism.
The same lessons that we have learned in some detail here about the anti-fascist united front tactics, must also be considered in great detail from the anti-imperialist united front tactics, otherwise you can destroy neither fascism nor imperialism. This means that today's Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement must draw conclusions from the revisionist betrayal at the anti-imperialist united front tactic, namely in such a way that the neo-revisionist restoration of modern revisionism is completely unmasked and combated, similar to the anti-fascist united front tactics.

Many comrades ascertain correctly that in the speech of Dimitrov consistently statements were made, which are not at all in contradiction to Marxism-Leninism. Admittedly, it is not easy to unmask the documents of the VII World Congress. However, this is not astonishing. In general, this phenomenon applies to nearly all speeches and documents of the modern revisionists. We do not criticize the Marxist-Leninist correct positions by themselves, but only the hypocritical way in which the revisionist betrayal was camouflaged with the help of these correct Marxist-Leninist positions. For example, correct positions were elsewhere refuted or abrogated by eclecticism and centrism. In addition, the speech of Dimitrov is so cleverly written, that "everyone" - even with diverging positions - can easily feel vindicated and identify ideologically. Constancy of principles had been confused with dogmatism, and exactly therewith began the process of ideological dissolution of the Comintern, which was followed by the organizational process of its dissolution.

We must judge the definition of fascism (in particular), and the whole speech of Dimitrov (in general), primarily by the actual historic consequences, namely not only the dissolution of the Comintern, but moreover the serious consequences of the crimes of the modern revisionists in their entirety.

 

The conciliators protected the rightist opportunists:

Bukharin's secret theses on the VI. World Congress of the Comintern were uncovered and removed by Stalin - such as the peaceful transition of capitalism into socialism ( Later on, the Maoists used the Bukharinism for setting up their Chinese social-imperialism).

The conciliator Dimitrov rushed to help Bukharin, however, Stalin successfully frustrated the conciliation towards the Right deviation:

It is impossible to overcome the Right, opportunist deviation without waging a systematic fight against the conciliatory tendency, which takes the opportunists under its wing.”

(Stalin: "The right danger in the C.P.S.U (B), Volueme 11, page 208, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

As long as Dimitrov had taken the Rightist opportunists in the Comintern under his wing, the Comintern could not free itself from the Rightist opportunism. Thus came what was to come:

A victory of the Right deviation in the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries would mean the ideological rout of the Communist Parties and an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism. And what does an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism mean? It means the strengthening and consolidation of capitalism, for Social-Democracy is the main support of capitalism in the working class.”

(Stalin: "The right danger in the C.P.S.U (B), Volueme 11, page 199 - 200, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

And that was also exactly the problem of the Comintern:

Firstly, the liquidation of the Comintern and then, secondly, the liquidation of the Soviet Union, and finally the liquidation of socialism in Albania and the liquidation of the Marxist-Leninist world movement - this is the story of the tactics of revisionism which was intended to restore the autarchy of world imperialism. This is reason enough to draw conclusions from the rightist turn of the Comintern. This may not happen a second time.

The Seventh World Congress made centrist concessions to the Social Democrats and even sought an alliance with the Second International. Lenin, however, led a fierce, all-round struggle against the Second International. The founder (!) of the Communist International had therefore not the goal to restore the Second International, because this was quite impossible. Lenin created "Terms of Admission into Comintern" (1920) as an irrevovable demarcation line against the Second International which were violated in the last years of the Comintern.

Stalin was asked: "Is it possible to unite the Second and Third Internationals?

ANSWER : I think it is impossible. It is impossible because the Second and Third Internationals have two entirely different lines of policy and look in different directions. Whereas the Third International looks in the direction of the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship, the Second International, on the contrary, looks in the direction of the preservation of capitalism and of the destruction of everything that is needed for the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship.

The struggle between the two Internationals is the ideological reflection of the struggle between the supporters of capitalism and the supporters of socialism. In this struggle, either the Second or the Third International must be victorious. There are no reasons for doubting that the Third International will be victorious in the working-class movement." (Stalin, Works, Volume 10, page 187, German edition, KPD/ML 1971)

Today there is still a so-called "Socialist" International (albeit inwardly rotten), but for 57 years there were no more a Comintern! Please notice:
The Communist International was founded five years after the collapse of the Second International. The striking difference between these two time periods gets our point across the whole extent of the consequences of the betrayal at the Comintern. Lenin wrote several volumes of his works in demarcation to the Second International. And how many volumes were written about the end of the Comintern until today ? Not even one Volume !

Our greatest lesson, therefore, is first of all to create a solid ideological foundation beyond the end of the Comintern. With our general-line, we are at the beginning of a modest fundament including all the unavoidable initial difficulties. We can still not speak about a satisfactorily completed Marxist-Leninist lesson about the end of the Comintern. We emphasize this again and again.

 

Dimitrov's attempts for an alliance with the ruling social democrats, with the Amsterdam International of Labour Unions and all his connection to social democracy, they all resulted historically in an adaption of communism to capitalism. These are lessons that must not be forgotten. If principles are not adhered to, the alliance and compromises take a wrong course, and endanger the line, the world party, and the proper progress of the world revolution. The laws of the world revolution, of the international class struggle, of the nature and role of the Bolshevist world party cannot be manipulated as Dimitrov wished, under the pretext of an allegedly «flexible unity front policy».
We know that the more we gain influence among the masses, the stronger the pressure of the bourgeoisie to the masses and to us communists. Bowing to pressure for the masses to leave the communists, is the goal of the opportunists.

The correct line of the VI. Congress relied on the intensification of the class struggle under the conditions of the world economic crisis in 1929.The broad implementation of these correct line met with great approval and sympathy among the working masses. The masses saw that the Communists gave them a revolutionary flag to fly - in contrast to the leaders of the Social Democracy. Stalin's idea of the new united front tactic was to build on these successes and expand the united front on a revolutionary basis. But after the VII World Congress the flag of Stalin was pulled down in the course of the growing pressure of fascism.

It was Dimitrov who did not adhere to principles of Marxism-Leninism. It was Dimitrov, who in his own country - attacked those comardes as so called "sectarians" whose "crime" was alone in it, to fight for the "object of the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (Dimitrov, Selected Works, Volume 3 - in Bulgaria; page 558, translation from German edition).

Dimitroff:

"The VII World Congress of the Communist International implemented the turn of the line of all the Communist Parties by tackling the basic task for the next period the struggle against fascism, as the biggest threat to the working class and the working people: for the peace and freedom of peoples." (Ibid, page 561).

Where is the revolution and socialism? They vanished in the haze. To this opportunism we can only say: There, where the communist flag is pulled down, the opportunists hoist their flag !

Not the Marxist-Leninists, but the eclecticists and opportunists replace the theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the "theory" and practice of "transitions" and "interval periods" to postpone the dictatorship of the proletariat off indefinitely.

The question of elasticity, applied to the united front policy by means of subjectivism , can mean nothing other than eclecticism.

A Popular Front government, which replaces the socialist revolution, or which neglects the creation of better conditions for the break out of a socialist revolution, is not a proletarian but a bourgeois popular front. A government of the proletariat is without a socialist revolution that defeated the bourgeoisie, not possible. If the capitalist state would be able to fulfill revolutionary demands, the proletariat would not need a socialist revolution.

If we can not prevent fascism by means of the revolution, then we must smash fascism by means of the socialist revolution. We will never stop on the half way of the Comintern of a Georgi Dimitrov. That is the general line of the Comintern (SH) in the question of the overthrow of fascism.

By means of waiving the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, Tito was later able to develop the capitalist theory and practice of the Yugoslav "self-administration".

Without conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, without conditions of the establishment of Soviet power, without overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the destruction of its state apparatus - thus under the conditions of capitalism, the proletariat can not achieve its own revolutionary measures and build socialism.

In capitalism, the state can not die peacefully. Dimitrov neglected this lesson by favoring the Popular Front government with the bourgeoisie.The slogan of the Popular Front is therefore only a hollow "revolutionary" phrase, because thus the pressure on the bourgeoisie is only limited by means of the recognition of a Popular Front government. For it, and only for this, the VII World Congress has needed the mass struggle, but not for violent socialist revolution. With the only correct slogan of the socialist revolution, the Popular Front government of Dimitrov would be made completely impossible.

Lenin did not found the III International with the intention to dissolve it one fine day. Not one step back to agreements between social-imperialists and defectors from the camp of socialism!

"Unless the revolutionary section of the proletariat is thoroughly prepared in every way for the expulsion and suppression of opportunism it is useless even thinking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the lesson of the Russian revolution which should be taken to heart by the leaders of the “independent” German Social-Democrats, French socialists, and so forth, who now want to evade the issue by means of verbal recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

To continue. The Bolsheviks had behind them not only the majority of the proletariat, not only the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat which had been steeled in the long and persevering struggle against opportunism; they had, if it is permissible to use a military term, a powerful “striking force” in the metropolitan cities.

An overwhelming superiority of forces at the decisive point at the decisive moment—this “law” of military success is also the law of political success, especially in that fierce, seething class war which is called revolution." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 30, page 158, English edition).

The VII World Congress flew in the face of these Leninist principles.

And Stalin taught in "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists" (December 1924), in respect of compromising parties, as follows:

"The preparation for October thus proceeded under the leadership of one party, the Bolshevik Party. But how did the Party carry out this leadership, along what line did the latter proceed? This leadership proceeded along the line of isolating the compromising parties, as the most dangerous groupings in the period of the outbreak of the revolution, the line of isolating the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.

What is the fundamental strategic rule of Leninism?

It is the recognition of the following:

1) the compromising parties are the most dangerous social support of the enemies of the revolution in the period of the approaching revolutionary outbreak;

2) it is impossible to overthrow the enemy (tsarism or the bourgeoisie) unless these parties are isolated;

3) the main weapons in the period of preparation for the revolution must therefore be directed towards isolating these parties, towards winning the broad masses of the working people away from them.

In the period of preparation for October the center of gravity of the conflicting forces shifted to another plane. The tsar was gone. The Cadet Party had been transformed from a compromising force into a governing force, into the ruling force of imperialism.

In this period the petty-bourgeois democratic parties, the parties of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, were the most dangerous social support of imperialism. Why? Because these parties were then the compromising parties, the parties of compromise between imperialism and the laboring masses. Naturally, the Bolsheviks at that time directed their main blows at these parties; for unless these parties were isolated there could be no hope of a rupture between the laboring masses and imperialism, and unless this rupture was ensured there could be no hope of the victory of the Soviet revolution. Many people at that time did not understand this specific feature of the Bolshevik tactics and accused the Bolsheviks of displaying "excessive hatred" towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and of "forgetting" the principal goal. But the entire period of preparation for October eloquently testifies to the fact that only by pursuing these tactics could the Bolsheviks ensure the victory of the October Revolution."

Those who only limit themselves on anti-fascist class struggle, are far from being Marxist-Leninists. Marxist-Leninists are only those who expand the antifascist class struggle on the dictatorship of the proletariat - namely not only in words but also in deeds.

The defamation of the dictatorship of the world proletariat - that was the worst betrayal since the VII World Congress.

And this betrayal manifested itself at the same time in relation to the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union:

 

 




"Irreversible" victory of socialism in "one" country.

Our crucial criticism at the decisions of the VII World Congress.

 


Now we come to one of the key criticisms at the VII World Congress, which we believe also decisive for the failure of the Comintern, and for the end of socialism in the first phase of its historical development. It was the complete rejection of the doctrine of Leninism on socialism in "one" country, namely in the most important Resolution of the VII World Congress - openly and unanimously adopted. This grave error is, in our opinion, the main flaw of the rightist deviation of the VII World Congress, from which all other errors arise, including the rightist deviation in the united front tactics against war and fascism.

This Resolution (subsequent to the speech of Dimitrov) defines the following false thesis on the task of the international labor movement (in Section I, a):

"Finalized and irrevocable victory of socialism in the country of the Soviet Union"

(Minutes of the VII World Congress of the Comintern, Page 984, Translation from the German edition).

In another Resolution (decided subsequent to the report of Manuilsky) this false solution was repeated, and even proclaimed as " world historical significance":

"ultimate and irrevocable victory of the Soviet Union"

(Protocols of the VII World Congress, Volume II, Page 1008, translation from the German edition).

And finally, the same wording in the Resolution subsequent to the report of Togliatti (Ercoli alias):

"With the final victory of socialism (...) relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries have entered a new phase."

(Protocols of the VII World Congress, Volume II, page 998, translation from the German edition).

The quotes from these 3 Resolutions clearly show that it concerns the central opportunist line of the VII World Congress. This was a quite clear and open turn of the old correct line of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin into its opposite .

In juxtaposition we quote the correct position of comrade Stalin:

"What is the final victory of socialism?

The final victory of socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and hence against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital. Therefore, the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of socialism. Anyone who confuses the first group of contradictions, which can be overcome entirely by the efforts of one country, with the second group of contradictions, the solution of which requires the efforts of the proletarians of several countries, commits a gross error against Leninism. He is either a muddle-head or an incorrigible opportunist." (Stalin, Works, Volume 7, pages 102 and 103, German edition, KPD/ML 1971)

"It imposes upon us the duty of working better and fighting better for the final victory of socialism in our country, for the victory of socialism in all countries." (Stalin, Works, Volume 13, page 336, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

For the final victory of socialism in one country has yet to be fought. For Stalin this ment nothing else than to fight for the world socialist revolution because the victory of socialism can only be secured and guaranteed on a world scale.

But with the resolutions of the VII World Congress, the Comintern would not need any more to fight for socialism, because socialism in the Soviet Union had already been supposedly "irrevocably triumphed." That was for the leaders of the Comintern the justification for the cancellation of their main task - namely to organize the world socialist revolution, and thus to secure the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union irrevocably.
The leaders of the Comintern left the struggle for socialism to the Soviet Union, and they confined themselves to "democracy and peace." Broader masses should be mobilized for "democracy and peace". They would then be led towards socialism by means of the Soviet Union. That was - so to speak - a new Comintern as a missionary for pure "peace and democracy" - "mass provider" as a kind of "supplier operation" for the Soviet Union. This corresponded exactly to the objectives of Kautskyism, namely to transform the International from an instrument of the international class struggle into an instrument of peace and reconciliation. Stalin, however, defended the Leninist doctrine of the necessary victory of socialism in all countries as a contribution for securing the final victory in the Soviet Union and in all the other socialist countries:

“The final victory of socialism in the first country to emancipate itself is impossible without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several countries, and the unfolding of the world revolution will be the more rapid and thorough, the more effective the assistance rendered by the first socialist country to the workers and laboring masses of all other countries.” (1924 - Stalin: "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists"; underlined by the Comintern [SH])

Dimitrov thesis of the "final victory" was related to the "peaceful transition" of Bukharin. This way, the dangerous Kautskyism was smuggled into the Soviet Union in the phase of the advanced construction of socialism. If you don't go forwards you go backwards. And the VII World Congress called this " final victory of socialism". After the "final victory of socialism" begins nothing but the restoration of capitalism and the curtain which was drawn over socialism's transition to communism. From Kautsky's "ultra-imperialism" to a certain "ultra-socialism" , namely the "peaceful transition of imperialism to socialism". This was the centrist model of the "definitive defeat of imperialism by means of the final victory of socialism"!

The "theory of the transition to the final victory of socialism in 'one' country 'to the next higher quality level of the" final victory of communism in' a 'country', this was later preached by the Soviet revisionists, in particular by Khrushchev.


Stalin emphasized three following 3 conclusions that have been completely disregarded in the resolutions of the VII World Congress ( namely 1 year before it took place):

"first conclusion":

"There is the danger that certain of our comrades, having become intoxicated with success, will get swelled heads and begin to lull themselves with boastful songs, such as: "It's a walkover," "We can knock anybody into a cocked hat," etc. This is not precluded by any means, comrades. There is nothing more dangerous than sentiments of this kind, for they disarm the Party and demobilise its ranks. If such sentiments gain the upper hand in our Party we may be faced with the danger of all our successes being wrecked." (Stalin, Works, Volume 13, page 333, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

This dangerous mood spilled over into the Comintern, too. The leaders of the Comintern let themselves be carried away to their swaggering resolution of the so called "irrevocable victory of socialism in the Soviet Union". They became arrogant and misused the authority of the Comintern. Stalin, however, warned the Comintern, not to become lulled, to increase vigilance, to preserve the state of combat readiness upright: not to become disarmed by the Social Democrats, but arming against social democracy, not demobilization, but mobilizing all forces against the adaption of the Comintern to the Social Democracy in general and its "left" wing in particular. The rightists misused the euphoric moods to transform the mass mobilization for the revolution into a mass mobilization for the restoration of capitalism. In this way, the revolutionary slogans degenerated to a fig leaf - which were then sentenced as so called "sectarian" slogans.

Stalin:

"We must not become infatuated with the successes achieved, and must not become conceited.

It is a very rare thing for ruling parties to have a correct line and to be able to put it into effect. Actually, there are now no such parties in the world; for they are all living without prospects, they are floundering in the chaos of the crisis, and see no way of getting out of the swamp.

To what does our Party owe its superiority? To the fact that it is a Marxist party, a Leninist party. It owes it to the fact that it is guided in its work by the teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. There can be no doubt that as long as we remain true to this teaching, as long as we have this compass, we shall achieve successes in our work." (Stalin, Works, Volume 13, page 335, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

What was the situation when Stalin said this ? In that time, Stalin was seriously worried about the right danger in the CPSU (B). Stalin forestalled the right deviation of the VII World Congress with these words:

"Hundreds of bourgeois governments have tried to destroy Marxism. And what has happened? Bourgeois governments have come and gone, but Marxism has remained"(Stalin, Works, Volume 13, page 335, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

But the indestructibility of Marxism, as the ideology of the proletariat, was never equalized with the indestructibility of socialism in "one" country" , neither by comrade Lenin nor by comrade Stalin (– thus as long as the power of world imperialism still exists).

This sleight of hand could only be produced by the right-wing leaders of the Comintern.

And here we have the essentially similar ideological battle line of the "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" against the correct Leninist-Stalinist theory of socialism in "one" country - the one as an open line , and the other hidden:

The right-opportunist elements declared the "definitiveness" and "irrevocability" of the victory of socialism in "one" country (although in a period when world imperialism prevails on an international scale). Therefore they are the ideological twins of the Trotskyists who declared the victory of socialism in "one" country initially "impossible" and later "unwinnable".

This is expression and result of the antagonistic contradiction between the position of Stalin and the positions of the "Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyists" within the CPSU (B) and the rightist and centrist leaders of the Comintern. The then ensuing clashes and counterclashes, the trails and purges, all this was inevitable - not only within the CPSU (B), but also within the Comintern. Stalin gained a victory over Bukharinism (Bukharin propagated the peaceful transformation of socialism).

The following quote of Stalin is of fundamental importance for the strategy and tactics of the world revolution, especially in the then current phase of fascism in power.This quote was directed not least against the right-wing threat in the Comintern.

Stalin:

"The working class of the U.S.S.R. is strong not only because it has a Leninist party that has been tried and tested in battle; further, it is strong not only because it enjoys the support of the vast masses of the labouring peasants; it is strong also because it is supported and assisted by the world proletariat. The working class of the U.S.S.R. is part of the world proletariat, its advanced detachment, and our republic is the cherished child of the world proletariat. There can be no doubt that if our working class had not had the support of the working class in the capitalist countries it would not have been able to retain power, it would not have secured the conditions for socialist construction, and, consequently, it would not have achieved the successes that it has achieved. International ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the workers of the capitalist countries, the fraternal alliance between the workers of the U.S.S.R. and the workers of all countries—this is one of the corner-stones of the strength and might of the Republic of Soviets. The workers in the West say that the working class of the U.S.S.R. is the shock brigade of the world proletariat. That is very good. It means that the world proletariat is prepared to continue rendering all the support it can to the working class of the U.S.S.R. But it imposes serious duties upon us. It means that we must prove by our work that we deserve the honourable title of shock brigade of the proletarians of all countries. It imposes upon us the duty of working better and fighting better for the final victory of socialism in our country, for the victory of socialism in all countries.

Hence, the third conclusion: We must be true to the end to the cause of proletarian internationalism, to the cause of the fraternal alliance of the proletarians of all countries. Such are the conclusions." (Stalin, Works, Volume 13, pages 335 - 336, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

Lenin and Stalin have fought against the opportunism of the false thesis of the so-called "final" victory of socialism in "one" country in many battles. They both knew and emphasized that the fate of the Soviet Union stands and falls with the necessary victory of the revolution in a number of other socialist countries. It was actually from the beginning always been the general line of the Comintern to strengthen the proletarian internationalism and to advance the world revolution and thus to defend the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union by the support of the world proletariat.

Not later than in 1956, the anti-Leninist thesis of the "final and irrevocable victory" is contradicted by historical facts, especially with the open betrayal on the XX. (Krushchevite) Congress of the CPSU.

The modern revisionists around the world came to the aid of the Soviet revisionists and carried the so called "irreversible" socialism to the grave by means of the restoration of capitalism. The modern revisionists talked the world proletariat out of Stalinism and the international proletariat was led astray.

This thesis of the "indestructibility" of Socialism in conditions of world imperialism has the character of capitulation and is liquidationist. It is even sectarian in some ways, because it assumes that socialism could be achieved without the socialist revolution, without the international proletariat, without the Comintern.

The task of the international labor movement was steered into the totally wrong direction through this false thesis. This thesis of the VII World Congress led directly to the isolation, weakening and liquidation of the Soviet Union. And with the Soviet Union, the world proletariat lost its base and lever of the socialist world revolution. This was a serious betrayal of the socialist world revolution and the Comintern. In this way, the question of socialism was declared "solved". The VII World Congress redundantized the hegemony of the world proletariat. Lenin and Stalin were convinced that the world proletariat is the only revolutionary force which will build up world socialism. Without the victory of the world proletariat is the final victory of socialism in "one" country impossible.

Addressed to such forces who claimed boastfully and self-deceitfully that they had already achieved allegedly the "full guarantee against intervention and the restoration of capitalism" , Stalin answered to Comrade Filippovitch, on February , 1938, concerning the Resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the CPSU (B):

"Lenin teaches us that "we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete Socialist society." Hence we can and must, by our own efforts, overcome our bourgeoisie and build Socialist society.

Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and those other gentlemen who later became spies and agents of fascism, denied that it was possible to build Socialism in our country unless the victory of the Socialist revolution was first achieved in other countries, in capitalist countries. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen wanted to turn our country back to the path of bourgeois development and they concealed their apostasy by hypocritically talking about the "victory of the revolution" in other countries. This was precisely the point of controversy between our Party and these gentlemen. Our country's subsequent course of development proved that the Party was right and that Trotsky and company were wrong. For, during this period, we succeeded in liquidating our bourgeoisie, in establishing fraternal collaboration with our peasantry and in building, in the main, Socialist society, notwithstanding the fact that the Socialist revolution has not yet been victorious in other countries.

This is the position in regard to the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

The second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between our country and other countries, capitalist countries; the problem of the mutual relations between the working class of our country and the bourgeoisie of other countries. This concerns the sphere of external, international relations.

Can the victorious Socialism of one country, which is encircled by many strong capitalist countries, regard itself as being fully guaranteed against the danger of military invasion, and hence, against attempts to restore capitalism in our country?

Can our working class and our peasantry, by their own efforts, without the serious assistance of the working class in capitalist countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of other countries in the same way as we overcame our own bourgeoisie?

Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?

Such are the problems that are connected with the second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the negative.

Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

From your letter it is evident that Comrade Urozhenko adheres to different and not quite Leninist opinions. He, it appears, asserts that "we now have the final victory of Socialism and full guarantee against intervention and the restoration of capitalism."

There cannot be the slightest doubt that Comrade Urozhenko is fundamentally wrong.

Now you can judge whether the passage from the book "Problems of Leninism" (1926) on the victory of Socialism in one country is out of date or not. I myself would very much like it to be out of date. I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist."

(On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. [18 January 1938 - 12 February 1938] - Stalin, Works, Volume 14, German edition, page 173, KPD/ML 1971).

Stalin wrote, concerning: “The Possibility of Building Socialism in our Country" (Reply to Comrade Pokoyev) – February 10, 1926:

"We are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital—for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another. In my opinion, your mistake and that of your comrades is that you have not yet found your way in this matter and have confused these two questions." (Stalin, Works, Volume 8, page 87, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

And the VII World Congress had confused these two questions, too.

Stalin:

"Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of a peasant country like Russia, are insufficient; for that, the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are required” (see "The Foundations of Leninism")

"What is meant by the impossibility of the complete, final victory of socialism in one country without the victory of the revolution in other countries? It means the impossibility of having a full guarantee against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the bourgeois order, without the victory of the revolution in at least a number of countries. To deny this indisputable thesis means departure from internationalism, departure from Leninism." (Stalin, Works, »Concerning Questions of Leninism«, Volume 8, page 59, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

The VII World Congress abandoned this principle, and therefore also the proletarian internationalism!

»Final victory of socialism in the Soviet Union" - it means in effect that the class struggle would be no more needed to ensure the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union (Bukharinism). To this denial of the class struggle, Stalin replied in 1937 as follows:

"We must smash and cast aside the rotten theory that with every advance we make the class struggle here must subside, the more successes we achieve the tamer will the class enemy become. This is not only a rotten theory but a dangerous one, for it lulls our people, leads them into a trap, and enables the class enemy to recuperate for the struggle against the Soviet government." (Stalin, Works, Volume 14, page 136, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).).

Gradual dying away of the class struggle in the Soviet Union, Unification of revisionists with social democratism - that was their counter-revolutionary alliance in service of the world bourgeoisie. The line of the VII Congress resulted in exactly this direction.

Dimitrov polemized with a preference against supposedly "revolutionary hollow phrases". But he himself had set up, with his "irrevocable final victory", the greatest revolutionary hollow phrase of the VII World Congress. In words occur against revolutionary hollow phrases - but he himself canted revolutionary hollow phrases to deceive the comrades - this is the true Dimitrov.
His "final victory" - this is a thoroughly reactionary and revisionist line. With this line he had proved a disservice to the world imperialists.

The Resolution of the Fourteenth Conference ("The Tasks of the Comintern and the RCP (B) in connection with the Enlarged Plenum of the ECCI" ), it says about the victory of socialism in one country:

The existence of two directly opposite social systems gives rise to the constant menace of capitalist blockade, of other forms of economic pressure, of armed intervention, of restoration. Consequently, the only guarantee of the final victory of socialism, i.e., the guarantee against restoration, is a victorious socialist revolution in a number of countries. . . .”

“Leninism teaches that the final victory of socialism, in the sense of a full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relationships, is possible only on an international scale. . . . ” “But it does not follow from this that it is impossible to build a complete socialist society in a backward country like Russia, without the ‘state aid’ (Trotsky) of countries more developed technically and economically”. [Resolution quoted by Stalin, Vol 8, page 63, German edition].

“Recently, in the Political Bureau, Kamenev and Zinoviev advocated the point of view that we cannot cope with the internal difficulties due to our technical and economic backwardness unless an international revolution comes to our rescue. We, however, with the majority of the members of the Central Committee, think that we can build socialism, are building it, and will completely build it, notwithstanding our technical backwardness and in spite of it. We think that the work of building will proceed far more slowly, of course, than in the conditions of a world victory; nevertheless, we are making progress and will continue to do so. We also believe that the view held by Kamenev and Zinoviev expresses disbelief in the internal forces of our working class and of the peasant masses who follow its lead. We believe that it is a departure from the Leninist position” (This document was quoted by Stalin in Volume 8, page 65, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971)

When Zinoviev had cloaked his disbelief in the victory of socialism in one country as alleged "internationalism", Stalin put the following question:

"Will it not be more correct to say that it is not the Party but Zinoviev who is sinning against internationalism and the international revolution? For what is our country, the country “that is building socialism,” if not the base of the world revolution? But can it be a real base of the world revolution if it is incapable of completely building a socialist society? Can it remain the mighty centre of attraction for the workers of all countries that it undoubtedly is now, if it is incapable of achieving victory at home over the capitalist elements in our economy, the victory of socialist construction? I think not. But does it not follow from this that disbelief in the victory of socialist construction, the dissemination of such disbelief, will lead to our country being discredited as the base of the world revolution? And if our country is discredited the world revolutionary movement will be weakened. How did Messrs. the Social-Democrats try to scare the workers away from us? By preaching that “the Russians will not get anywhere.” What are we beating the Social-Democrats with now, when we are attracting a whole series of workers’ delegations to our country and thereby strengthening the position of communism all over the world? By our successes in building socialism. Is it not obvious, then, that whoever disseminates disbelief in our successes in building socialism thereby indirectly helps the Social-Democrats, reduces the sweep of the international revolutionary movement, and inevitably departs from internationalism?" (1926 - Stalin, Works, Volume 8, page 66, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971).

For many years, this "leftist", Trotskyist and anti-Bolshevik line has been successfully combated under the leadership of Comrade Stalin - both in the CPSU (B) and in the Comintern. And this was the reason why the VII World Congress had to hide its turn away from Leninism-Stalinism behind the criticism of the "left" deviation. This hampered the Stalinist struggle against right opportunism in the question of the victory of socialism in "one" country. And this is still unclear for some comrades , but they cannot combat "left" opportunism by means of right opportunism. Therefore, these comrades are mistaken if they believe that they could "defend" Stalinism by means of these centrist Resolutions of the VII World Congress.

And, moreover, you cannot defend the Bolshevization of the Comintern if you defend the so-called "final victory of Bolshevism" - a revisionist slogan which was created by Dimitrov. He created this slogan as an "achievement" of the VII World Congress. The true meaning of this reactionary anti-Bolshivist slogan was, however, that the VII World Congress had declared the process of the Bolshevization of the 5th and 6th World Congress as definetely finished. In consequence, this meant the nullification of the Bolshevization of the Comintern.

The "Bolshevisation" of Bolshevism - this rhetorical play on words means logically nothing other than to downgrade, neutralize and eliminate Bolshevism. The opportunist leaders misused this term to purify the Comintern from its Leninist-Stalinist Bolshevization. Dimitrov used the term "final Bolshevism" in his Selected Works, Volume 3, Page 562, German edition). But with such "final" declarations it is impossible to eliminate Bolshevism. However, the Classics of Marxism-Leninism have never used such a term.

Lenin and Stalin acted always on the assumption that the process of the permanent Bolshevisation is a law of development of the Comintern. And with the Mao Tsetung-"thoughts", its creator tried to set a final point behind the development of Marxism-Leninism. Also Ramiz Alia proved as a follower of Dimitrov, when he preached the "final victory over revisionism" in Albania. It is clear that you can neither combat nor abolish revisionism by means of revisionism.

It is unclear, for some comrades, that it is impossible to defend the world revolution against the "Left" opportunism (Trotskyism) by means of Right opportunism. They do not understand that this is only possible by means of the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. The character of the authentic communist world movement was and is always, and at any time, determined by the common struggle for the socialist world revolution. The destruction of this main feature of the world communist movement was caused by the betrayal of the modern revisionists. And the neo-revisionists affirm the revolution only in words, but in deeds, these lackeys are in the hands of the revisionists.

With the VII World Congress, the Comintern abandoned its course towards the socialist world revolution. The VII World Congress paved the revisionist way against the socialist world revolution. And the Resolution on the "invincibility" of the Soviet Union and the "irreversible" victory of socialism in "one" country played a key role for this purpose. The VII World Congress had drawn a line under the whole world revolutionary history of the Comintern. It was a historically decisive stroke with all its aftereffects which are still visible today. We will create the new Stalinist-Hoxhaist World movement on the basis of our criticism at the VII World Congress. Only this enables us to follow the path of the great Comintern in a dignified manner - namely exactly at the point where the betrayal began.

The so-called "final victory" of socialism meant basically a rape of the world revolution. The proletarian internationalism was misused by the modern revisionists, namely for the purpose to strengthen one's own interests at the expense of other countries. The proclamation of the "final" victory of socialism in "one" country promoted inevitably the so-called "own path to socialism" at the expense of world socialism and the socialist world revolution. The historical consequences are well-known:

When the fascist occupiers were swept away from Eastern Europe, the backward decaying classes tried to survive under new masters. The revisionists of East Europe set out to Stalin's bootlickers to regain their privileges. The right deviation towards nationalism under the banner of "friendship with the Soviet Union" cultivated the ambition of the new bourgeoisie to establish her new rule over the working class and peasants. The Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin was betrayed in favor of own nationalist interests of the revisionists. Tito showed them how. Later, he was followed by all other the other revisionists.

Stalin said about the essence of the deviation towards local nationalism in his political Report to the 16th Congress on 27 June 1930:

"The essence of the deviation towards local nationalism is the endeavour to isolate and segregate oneself within the shell of one’s own nation, the endeavour to slur over class contradictions within one’s own nation, the endeavour to protect oneself from Great-Russian chauvinism by withdrawing from the general stream of socialist construction, the endeavour not to see what draws together and unites the labouring masses of the
nations of the U.S.S.R. and to see only what can draw them apart from one another.
The deviation towards local nationalism reflects the discontent of the moribund classes of the formerly oppressed nations with the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat, their striving to isolate themselves in their national bourgeois state and to establish their class rule there."
(Stalin, Works, Volume 12, page 324, German edition, KPD/ML 1971)

So we are of the opinion that this departure in the sense of local nationalism can also be applied to the Eastern European people's democracies. And we are also of the opinion that this development was influenced by the false thesis of the Seventh Congress of the Comintern. This was exactly the demanded "peaceful way towards socialism" by means of the so called "final" victory of socialism in the Soviet Union - thus without the need of the socialist revolution and without the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course this was only true, as long as the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin existed. With the separation from the rule of the social-imperialist Soviet Union at the beginning of the era of Khrushchev and Brezhnev took the matter a different course. We bring Czechoslovakia in 1968 to mind and also the great-Russian social-chauvinism of the new revisionist Kremlin Tsars against the Soviet peoples. Again, the thesis of the so-called "final victory of socialism" played an important role for the subsequent emergence of social-chauvinism in the degenerated revisionist Soviet Union, and of course for the rise of the Soviet social-imperialism to the second superpower in the world.

Up to the VII World Congress, the Comintern had seen the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union as an essential chain link in order to facilitate the victory of the working people over world capitalism. According to Lenin, it is the task of the victorious revolution, to do everything possible for the development and support of the revolution in other countries. Those who abandoned the Soviet Union as the base of the world revolution, set out on the path of treachery. And from this betrayal emanated inevitably the dialectical transformation of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin into a new base and center of the world imperialist counterrevolution.

The whole united front policy of Dimitrov is thus linked to the idealistic postulate of the "final victory of socialism in the Soviet Union."
With the demise of the Soviet Union and Albania, this united front policy of Dimitrov collapsed like a house of cards.With the VII World Congress, the world bourgeoisie hoped to hold in her hands a return ticket back to the station of capitalism, for the case, that her downfall would be heralded by the establishment of world fascism. But this return ticket expired historically, and has been declared to be invalid by the Comintern (SH). The end of the world bourgeoisie is inevitable, and the whole strategy and tactics of the proletarian world revolution is based on this absolute truth. The world revolution is not finished with the VII World Congress nor with the dissolution of the Comintern. Nobody will or can stop it.

Let the neo-revisionists argue the opposite as much as they want: There will be no "final victory of the world socialist revolution" before the era of world communism. Class struggle ends up with the classes, and not beforehand. With world communism is the socialist world revolution really completed. That is and remains the general-line of the Comintern (SH) !

 

 



Our critique of the right-opportunist Resolution of the VII World Congress

against the imperialist war


[ We recommend to compare the concerning correct Resolution of the 11th Plenum of the ECCI) and the RESOLUTION OF THE TENTH ECCI PLENUM ON THE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALIST WAR - especially: "6. To unmask social-democracy..." - which are in contrast to the revisionist Resolution of the VII World Comgress]


Also in the question of the imperialist war, the VII World Congress had completely left the Leninist road of the October Revolution.

In the Resolutions of the Seventh Congress there is nothing at all about the fact that the imperialist war creates the conditions for the socialist revolution, for the world revolution; that we Communists are expressly committed to connect the imperialist war with the world revolution; that you can only eliminate the inevitability of imperialism and wars by means of the dictatorship of the world proletariat and the construction of world socialism; that the October revolution will finally win in this way, and that one must proceed the Leninist path. The VII World Congress thus has finally abandoned the doctrine of Lenin on the anti-imperialist war.

Lenin:

"The opportunists have wrecked the decisions of the Stuttgart, Copenhagen and Basle congresses, which made it binding on socialists of all countries to combat chauvinism in all and any conditions, made it binding on socialists to reply to any war begun by the bourgeoisie and governments, with intensified propaganda of civil war and social revolution." [underlined by the Comintern(SH)]. The collapse of the Second International is the collapse of opportunism, which developed from the features of a now bygone (and so-called “peaceful”) period of history, and in recent years has some practically to dominate the International. The opportunist have long been preparing the ground for this collapse by denying the socialist revolution and substituting bourgeois reformism in its stead; by rejecting the class struggle with its inevitable conversion at certain moments into civil war, and by preaching class collaboration ... instead of recognising the need for a revolutionary war by the proletarians of all countries, against the bourgeoisie of all countries. The conversion of the present imperialist war into a civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan! [underlined by the Comintern(SH)]. Long live the international fraternity of the workers against the chauvinism and patriotism of the bourgeoisie of all countries! Long live a proletarian International, freed from opportunism !" (Lenin, collected works, Volume 21,"The War and Russian Social-Democracy", English edition)

"The war has been brought about by the ruling classes and only a revolution of the working class can end it." (Lenin, »War and Revolution«, Volume 24, page 420, German edition).

None of these Leninist principles can be found in the decisions of the Seventh Congress!

In the contrary:

Dimitrov described the claim - "that allegedly exactly those parties of the people's front and those states which advocate peace would lead to civil war and military involvements" - as "provocations of the Fascists" (! !) (Dimitrov, Selected Works, Volume 3, page 49, translation from the German edition ).

Lenin's thesis that the communist parties have to do everything possible for the civil war with compelling need, in order to achieve the termination of the war, and in order to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat - this was allegedly a "fascist provocation" in the eyes of Dimitrov ! And this for the alleged purpose that the pacifists should not be "deterred" through communism (?!).

"Renunciation of the class viewpoint and the class struggle, for fear of repelling the “broad masses of the population”(meaning the petty bourgeoisie)—such, doubtlessly, are the ideological foundations of opportunism". (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 21, page 35, English version).

In his essay, "The united front of struggle for peace", 1938, Dimitrov calls those comrades who propagate "the inevitability of war and the impossibility of preserving peace" = "left phrases threshers" and "ossified doctrinaires". (Dimitrov, Selected Works, Volume 3, page 15, translation from the German edition).
Thus, Dimitrov called Stalin's teachings (that the inevitability of imperialist wars remain in force ) "a fatalistic perception." (Dimitrov, Selected Works, Volume 3, page 15, translation from the German edition).

And what had Dimitrov written in 1941 in his article "The seventieth anniversary of the Paris Commune?" "To avoid the accusation, that the Communards would unleash the civil war, they have not begun immediately a sweeping military offensive against the reaction of Versailles" (Dimitrov, Vol 3, Page 213, translation from the German edition).

But if the proletariat must wage a civil war against imperialist war, in order to overthrow the rule of the fascist bourgeoisie by force of arms, then this is demonized as a "fascist provocation". The attitude of Dimitrov differs not essentially from the attitude of Kautsky. With his social-chauvinism, Kautsky argued for waiving the civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in one's own country. The Seventh World Congress had also decided such a waiver, albeit in disguised form, because the Soviet Union would have "favorable conditions for solving the problem with its own resources". In Togliatti's Resolution against the war, we also find the thesis of the so-called "final victory of socialism" in the Soviet Union (="full guarantee against intervention").

And thus the VII World Congress limited itself to a "peace-maker" instead of organizing the revolutionary civil world war against the imperialist war. In his Resolution, Togliatti rejected the Marxist-Leninist principle of the need, to eliminate the inevitability of imperialist wars by means of the world-revolutionary overthrow of world imperialism.

"It is the duty of every socialist to conduct propaganda of the class struggle, in the army as well; work directed towards turning a war of the nations into civil war is the only socialist activity in the era of an imperialist armed conflict of the bourgeoisie of all nations. Down with mawkishly sanctimonious and fatuous appeals for “peace at any price"! Let us raise high the banner of civil war! Imperialism sets at hazard the fate of European culture: this war will soon be followed by others, unless there are a series of successful revolutions. The story about this being the “last war” is a hollow and dangerous fabrication, a piece of philistine “mythology" (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 21, page 40, English version).

The struggle against fascism and the struggle against the imperialist war - thus the two main pillars of the Seventh Congress - were established on totally anti-Leninist basis.

The world-capitalist encirclement of socialism in "one" country makes the danger of military intervention unavoidable. Socialism in "one" country can neither prevent imperialist wars against other imperialists, nor imperialist wars against a socialist country - namely as long as world socialism is still not there.
In this sense, the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union could impossibly guarantee future prevention of imperialist wars - what is proved by irrefutable facts.
The invincibility of the ideology of the world proletariat must not be equated with the so-called "invincibility" of a socialist country which is surrounded by capitalist countries. History of socialism teaches us that socialism is in no way invincible as long as imperialism rules the world.

The preventability of imperialist wars can ultimately only be guaranteed by the armed victorious world proletariat . However, not before the era of world communism, the threat of war of man against man is abolished forever.

Stalin later refuted the false, right-opportunist line of the "termination of the era of the inevitability of imperialist wars" :

"Some comrades hold that, owing to the development of new international conditions since the Second World War, wars between capitalist countries have ceased to be inevitable. They consider that the contradictions between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp are more acute than the contradictions among the capitalist countries. These comrades are mistaken. They see the outward phenomena that come and go on the surface, but they do not see those profound forces which, although they are so far operating imperceptibly, will nevertheless determine the course of developments. The struggle of the capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their competitors proved in practice to be stronger than the contradictions between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp. The inevitability of wars between capitalist countries remains in force." (Stalin, »The economic problems of socialism in the USSR, 1952).

Of all this, nothing is to read in the minutes of the Seventh World Congress.

In the Resolution of Togliatti, you can neither find the word "revolution" nor the word "socialism" (with the exception of the Soviet Union).

We counter: No one is allowed to answer the question of the inevitability of imperialist wars without the question of the armament of the proletarian revolution and socialism. In an opportunistic manner, Togliatti had formulated the following sentence in his Resolution to the VII World Congress (according to the pacifist slogan: "peace, friendship, harmony of classes"):
"The Soviet Union defends the lives of the workers of all countries, the lives of all the oppressed and exploited; it means the defense of national independence of small nations; it serves the vital interests of humanity; it protects the culture against barbarism of war" (Resolution of Togliatti: "(II) The role of the Soviet Union in the struggle for peace", protocols of the Seventh World Congress, Vol II, page 1000, translation from the German edition).

We hardly believe that Lenin and Stalin would ever content themselves with such universal phrases, where neither the revolutionary transformation of the war nor the socialism was mentioned.

"On the basis of the final victory of socialism over capitalism and the consequent strengthening of the military strength of the country, the relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries have reached a new stage" (Togliatti, protocols, ibid, page 1000).

What was meant by this? A Soviet social-imperialist superpower which has itself waged imperialist wars such as against Afghanistan or so? The Seventh World Congress has paved the ideological foundation for the development of the social-imperialist Soviet Union. This truth has been confirmed in practice later.

During the German-Soviet non-aggression treaty, in the Comintern was spoken little about the "fascist warmongers" - in comparison with the previous Resolution of the VI. World Congress. Remarkably, nearly all documents have "disappeared" in this time period. It is a characteristic feature of opportunism that ideological principles are sacrificed in favor of tactical reasons. The German-Soviet non-aggression treaty did not and could not eliminate the nature of warmongering of the Hitler-Fascists.

Dimitrov's article: "The tasks of the working class in the war", dated 11 November 1939, began with quotations of Lenin and Stalin, but not for the purpose to propagate the revolutionary standpoint against imperialist wars, but only to justify his opportunistic "united front tactics".

Bourgeois sources say that the renegade and leading member of the Comintern - Walter Ulbricht - had openly propagated the support of the Hitler-Fascists "against the Anglo-French war bloc" (August Hoppe, Darium of the world revolution, 1967, Ilmgau-Verlag, page 245, German edition - The bourgeois author bases himself on the Comintern's magazin: "Die Welt", published in Stockholm on February 9, 1940").

Also Dimitrov directed his spearhead against the "aggressors England and France" (Dimitrov Works, Vol 3, Page 166, German edition) while keeping silence on the Hitler-fascist warmongers - after the "final victory of socialism in the USSR", when "the relationship between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries enter into a new phase."

Defense of socialism in "one" country can never be equalized with disarmament of the world revolution. And the dissolution of the Comintern inmidst the war against the Soviet Union was doubtedless a disarmament of the world revolution and thus weakening the defense of socialism in "one" country.

Stalin was completely right when he said:

"The U.S.S.R. cannot be defended if support is given to the disorganisation of the Sections of the Comintern." (Stalin, Works, Volume 10, page 73, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).


Despite the betrayal by the rightist leaders of the Comintern, Stalin dealt a devastating blow to the world imperialists. With the Great Patriotic War, Stalin broke through the capitalist encirclement of the world center of the world revolution. Historically, Stalinism was the biggest and farest step of the revolutionary transition from world capitalism to world socialism. Comrade Enver Hoxha followed Stalin by means of the victory of the Albanian liberation war over the fascist occupiers. But in the end, this path towards world socialism was blocked by world imperialism with greatest efforts, and in particular, with the help of the betrayal of the modern revisionists, that had been already initiated on the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern. The restoration of capitalism became the biggest obstacle on the path to world socialism.

Enver Hoxha continued successfully with the Leninist-Stalinist fight against the restoration of capitalism. The Hoxhaism produces evidence to the world proletariat, that socialism triumphs over modern revisionism if the working class is guided by the teachings of the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism. Hoxhaism is the doctrine of the victory of the working class over the modern revisionism, and secures the way to the victory of the world socialist revolution.

 

 

 

 

And this is supposed to be a “leader” of the Comintern !

Can there really be such “leaders”? (Stalin)

Stalin's struggle against the opportunists and conciliators

in the Comintern and its Sections

 

"I shall not stop to show that the Right faction is breaking with Marxism-Leninism and waging a desperate struggle against the Comintern. That was shown long ago. Nor shall I stop to show that the group of conciliators are violating the Sixth Congress resolution on waging a systematic fight against the Rights.

That, too, was shown long ago. The point now is that this situation in the German Communist Party cannot be tolerated any longer. The point is that to tolerate any longer an "order" of things in which the Rights poison the atmosphere with Social-Democratic ideological rubbish and systematically violate the elementary principles of Party discipline, while the conciliators bring grist to the mill of the Rights, would be to go against the Comintern and to violate the elementary demands of Marxism-Leninism."


(Stalin, Works, Volume. 11, page 269, German edition)


In this chapter we urgently recommend the study of Stalin: “The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)” - (Chapter III - Disagreements in Regard to the Comintern - April 1929; Stalin, Works, Volume 12, page 17 – 24, German edition)

Stalin's conclusion:

"Bukharin thinks that by conducting a struggle against the Right deviation and conciliation towards it in the Sections of the Comintern, by purging the German and Czechoslovak Communist Parties of Social-Democratic elements and traditions, and by expelling the Brandlers and the Thalheimers from the Communist Parties, we are “disintegrating” the Comintern, “ruining” the Comintern. We, on the contrary, think that by carrying out such a policy and by laying stress on the fight against the Right deviation and conciliation towards it, we are strengthening the Comintern, purging it of opportunists, bolshevising its Sections and helping the Communist Parties to prepare the working class for the future revolutionary battles, for the Party is strengthened by purging itself of dross." (Stalin, Works, Volume 12, page 23 - 24, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

 

In his report to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (B) - June 27, 1930 - Stalin struggled against the underestimation of the rightist danger as follows:

"Now that the Party has emerged victoriously from the struggle for the general line, now that our Party's Leninist line is triumphant along the whole front, many are inclined to forget the difficulties that were created for us in our work by all kinds of deviators. More than that, to this day some philistine-minded comrades still think that we could have managed without a struggle against the deviators. Needless to say, those comrades are profoundly mistaken. It is enough to look back and recall the handiwork of the Trotskyists and Right deviators, it is enough to recall the history of the struggle against deviations during the past period, to understand the utter vacuity and futility of this party philistinism. There can be no doubt that if we had not curbed the deviators and routed them in open struggle, we could not have achieved the successes of which our Party is now justly proud. (...) To what is the Party indebted for this decisive achievement? It is indebted for this achievement to the circumstance that in its struggle against deviations it always pursued a policy based on principle, that it never sank to backstairs combinations or diplomatic huckstering. Lenin said that a policy based on principle is the sole correct policy. We emerged victoriously from the struggle against deviations because we honestly and consistently carried out this behest of Lenin's." (Stalin, Works, Volume 12, pages 325-326, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

Stalin followed the correct line of Lenin also in the Comintern and its Sections:

Comrade Stalin dealt also with the struggle against the factionalism within the CPUSA which refused to accept the correct decisions of the VI World Congress and the ECCI:

The history of the Comintern shows that comrades who have moved away from the Comintern always begin with just such "manoeuvres." When Zinoviev moved away from the Comintern he began by counterposing the line of the Comintern to the decisions of the Executive Committee of the Comintern. He did that in order to conceal his fight against the Executive Committee by talk regarding the line of the Comintern. The same is true of Trotzky, who began his divergence from the Comintern by drawing a distinction between the line of the Comintern and the decisions of the Executive Committee and the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Comintern. That is the old, outworn path of opportunism, as old as the world itself.” (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 14, 1929)

"Comrades, the Comintern is not a stock market. The Comintern is the holy of holies of the working class. The Comintern, therefore, must not be confused with a stock market. Either we are Leninists, and our relations one with another, as well as the relations of the sections with the Comintern, and vice versa, must be built on mutual confidence, must be as clean and pure as crystal -- in which case there should be no room in our ranks for rotten diplomatic intrigue; or we are not Leninists -- in which case rotten diplomacy and unprincipled factional struggle will have full scope in our relations. One or the other. We must choose, comrades." (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 6, 1929)

In the history of the revolutionary movement of the working class we Bolsheviks have not infrequently had occasion to conduct a factional fight against opportunism. It was at the time when the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks found themselves in one common Party, when the Bolsheviks were obliged to organize a faction in order to break down the authority of the social-democrats, to organize a split against Social-Democracy and to create our own Communist Party. At that time factionalism was useful and essential. But now? Now it is a different matter. Conditions have changed basically. At present we have our own monolithic Communist Parties, sections of the Communist International. Now factionalism is dangerous and harmful, because it weakens communism, weakens the communist offensive against reformism, undermines the struggle of communism against social-democracy in the labor movement. Our American comrades evidently do not understand the fundamental difference between the past and the present. Our American comrades have done everything possible to transform the decision of the Sixth Congress into a scrap of paper." (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 14, 1929)

"Can you picture a Communist, not a paper Communist, but a real Communist, avowing loyalty to the Comintern and at the same time refusing to accept responsibility for carrying out the decisions of the Comintern? What sort of loyalty is that? What is the reason for this duplicity? This hypocrisy?" (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 14, 1929)

There have been numerous cases in the history of the Comintern when its most popular leaders (...) found themselves isolated as soon as they raised the banner against the Comintern.” (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 14, 1929)

The cleansing process of the Communist Parties now proceeding is a beneficent process, strengthening the Comintern and its sections. The philistines are afraid of this beneficent process, and in their fright talk nonsense regarding the disintegration of the Comintern, just because they are philistines. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, will always welcome this beneficent process, because it is at the same time an integral part of the great cause of preparing the working class for the approaching class struggles, which is now the main task of the Communist Parties of the world.” (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 14, 1929)

True bolshevik courage does not consist in placing one's individual will above the will of the collective, above the will of the Comintern. True courage consists in being strong enough to master and overcome one's self and subordinate one's will to the will of the collective, the will of the higher Party body. Without that there is no collective. Without that there is not, and cannot be, any collective leadership.” (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 14, 1929)

Without the ability to subordinate one's will to the will of the collective, without these qualities, there can be no collective, no collective leadership, no Communism. And that is true not only in respect to individual Parties and their central committees; it is particularly true in respect to the Comintern and its leading organs, which unite all Parties of Communists throughout the world. Is it not clear that we should never have had any decisions or any collective will, neither in the individual Parties, nor in the Comintern, if individuals, and minorities in general, did not submit to the will of the majority, to the will of the higher collective?” (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the American Commission of the Presidium of the ECCI May 14, 1929)

"As regards the rights of the Comintern and its intervention in the affairs of the national parties, I emphatically disagree with those comrades who spoke in favour of curtailing those rights. They want the Comintern to be transformed into an organisation situated beyond the stars, gazing dispassionately at what is going on in the individual parties and patiently recording events. No, comrades, the Comintern cannot become an organisation beyond the stars. The Comintern is a militant organisation of the proletariat, it is linked with the working-class movement by all the roots of its existence and cannot refrain from intervening in the affairs of individual parties, supporting the revolutionary elements and combating their opponents. Of course, the parties possess internal autonomy, the party congresses must be unfettered, and the Central Committees must be elected by the congresses. But to deduce from this that the Comintern must be denied the right of leadership, and hence of intervention, means working on behalf of the enemies of communism." (Stalin: Speech Delivered in the Czechoslovak Commission of the E.C.C.I., Works, Volume 7, page 57, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

 

The fight against the Right deviation in the CPSU (B) affected directly the Comintern.There, Bukharin had tried to suppress the question of "leftist" social democracy in his theses against the Social Democrats. And Stalin countered:

"It is obvious that unless the 'Left' Social-Democrats are routed it will be impossible to overcome Social-Democracy in general." (Stalin, Works, Volume 12, page 19, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

Stalin criticized Bukharin also because of his renunciation of the struggle against conciliation in the sections of the Comintern against the Right deviation.

Stalin:

The third question is that of the conciliatory tendency in the Sections of the Comintern. Bukharin’s theses spoke of the necessity of fighting the Right deviation, but not a word was said there about fighting conciliation towards the Right deviation. That, of course, was a great defect. The point is that when war is declared on the Right deviation, the Right deviators usually disguise themselves as conciliators and place the Party in an awkward position. To forestall this manoeuvre of the Right deviators we must insist on a determined fight against conciliation. That is why the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) considered it necessary to introduce into Bukharin’s theses an appropriate amendment, which was subsequently adopted by the congress.” (Stalin, Works, Volume 12, page 20, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

Stalin defended Ernst Thälmann against Bukharin:

"Thus, instead of the directive of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern about fighting conciliation being carried out, instead of a fight against the Right deviation and against conciliation, there was, in fact, a most gross violation of this directive, there was a fight against the revolutionary leadership of the German Communist Party, a fight against Comrade Thälmann, with the object of covering up the Right deviation and of consolidating the conciliatory tendency in the ranks of the German Communists.

And so, instead of swinging the tiller over and correcting the situation, instead of restoring the validity of the violated directive of the Sixth Congress and calling the conciliators to order, Bukharin proposed in his well-known letter to sanction the conciliators’ coup, to hand over the German Communist, Party to the conciliators, and to revile Comrade Thälmann in the press again by issuing another statement declaring him to be guilty. And this is supposed to be a 'leader' of the Comintern! Can there really be such 'leaders' ?" (Stalin, Works, Volume 12, page 22, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

(see: Resolution of the ECCI on Bukharin - 1929).

Further, Stalin criticized Bukharin, because of his evasive position on the issue of the fight against Brandler and Thalheimer in the KPD, and their exclusion:

"At bottom, it was the fate of the German Communist Party that was being decided. Yet Bukharin and his friends, knowing this, nevertheless continually hindered matters by systematically keeping away from the meetings of the bodies which had the question under consideration. For the sake of what? Presumably, for the sake of remaining “clean” in the eyes of both the Comintern and the Rights in the German Communist Party. For the sake of being able subsequently to say: “It was not we, the Bukharinites, who carried out the expulsion of Brandler and Thalheimer from the Communist Party, but they, the majority in the Central Committee. And that is what is called fighting the Right danger!" (Stalin, Works, Volume 12, pages 22 - 23, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

In 1918, Bukharin conspired as a counter-revolutionary "Left" Communist against Lenin and collaborated with the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries. Bukharin ordered them to assassinate Stalin.

Since 1920 he was a leaders of the Comintern (and represented in all ECCI plena). In 1928, he had conspiratorial contact with Kamenev during the VI. World Congress. Bukharin admitted that he had been involved as a conspirator and traitor in the leadership of the Comintern since 1932. He instructed the Right opportunists and the conciliators and established counter-revolutionary conspiratorial organizations against the Comintern. Since 1932, Bukharin contacted social-revolutionary terrorist groups to carry out bomb attacks on members of the Politburo of the CPSU (B) - inclusively on Stalin. As one of the heads of the "5th Column" of the counter-revolution, Bukharin worked into the hands of the Nazi-Fascists. He was initiator of a "palace coup", a leader of the "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" - everything for the implementation of the target: the overthrow of the Soviet power and its leaders. His last words were: "I consider myself to be responsible for the largest and most monstrous crime against the entire international proletariat. The waiver of the positions of Bolshevism means the transition to political counter-revolutionary banditry." (Bukharin, March 12, 1938).


If we have a look at the sneaky collaboration between Dimitrov and Ulbricht , then their attacks were hiddenly directed against Ernst Thalmann - behind hypocritical expressions of sympathy. The footprints of the assassination of Comrade Thalmann by the NAZIS, they can be traced up to the rightist treacherous leadership of the Comintern and the KPD.The Pieck / Ulbricht clique had prevailed with Dimitrov the revisionist course of the KPD to a time when Ernst Thalmann was in the fascist concentration camp "Buchenwald" (Besides, Honecker was an agent of the Nazi's in Buchenwald who sent communists to their doom).

Bukharin wanted to rebuke comrade Thälmann on the November Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B), because he was criticized by comrade Thälmann. In defense of Ernst Thälmann, Stalin said:

"It is connected with Bukharin’s demand prior to the November plenum of the Central Committe that Neumann be recalled from Germany and that Comrade Thälmann, who, it was alleged, had criticised in one of his speeches Bukharin’s report at the Sixth Congress, be called to order. We, of course, could not agree with Bukharin, since there was not a single document in our possession supporting his demand. Bukharin promised to submit documents against Neumann and Thälmann but never submitted a single one. Instead of documents, he distributed to the members of the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) copies of the speech delivered by Humbert-Droz at the Political Secretariat of the E.C.C.I., the very speech which was subsequently qualified by the Presidium of the E.C.C.I. as an opportunist speech. By distributing Humbert-Droz’s speech to the members of the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.), and by recommending it as material against Thälmann, Bukharin wanted to prove the justice of his demand for the recall of Neumann and for calling Comrade Thälmann to order. In fact, however, he thereby showed that he identified himself with the position taken up by Humbert-Droz, a position which the E.C.C.I. regards as opportunist." (Stalin, Works, Volume 12, pages 22 - 23, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

And comrade Stalin concluded:

"You see that these are not merely shades of difference in the ranks of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.), but quite serious disagreements on fundamental questions of Comintern policy."(Stalin, Works, Volume 12, pages 24, German edition, KPD/ML 1971). [Fight against conciliation opposite to the right deviation in the Comintern - remark of the Comintern (SH)]

Stalin distinguished the open opportunism from the hidden opportunism within the Comintern:

"I said that Humbert-Droz and Serra have landed in the quagmire of craven opportunism. What does that mean? It means that, besides overt opportunism, there is also covert opportunism, which fears to show its true face. And this is precisely the opportunism of conciliation towards the Right deviation. Conciliation is craven opportunism. I must, I repeat, note with regret that both these comrades have landed in the quagmire of craven opportunism." (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, pages 262 - 263, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

 

In all its severity, Stalin condemned the "grossest violation of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern by the Rights and, to a certain extent, by some of the conciliators" (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, page 271, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

Therefore, comrade Stalin urged the disciplined adherence to the Leninist conditions of admission - which were decided on the II World Congress of the Communist International:

"The 12th point of the twenty-one conditions says that the Party must be "organised on the most centralised lines," that within it must "prevail iron discipline bordering upon military discipline." You know that the Rights in the German Communist Party refuse to recognise iron discipline, or any discipline whatever, except their own, factional discipline. The question arises, can this scandalous state of affairs be tolerated any longer? At the present time, in the shape of the Rights we have real (not imaginary) violators of the fundamental principles of the Communist International. Why, then, do they keep silent? Is it not because they want, under the guise of a verbal defence of Comintern decisions, to smuggle through a defence of the Rights and a revision of these decisions?" (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, pages 271 - 272, German edition, KPD/ML 1971). [underlined by the Comintern (SH)]


However, further development within the Comintern showed:

The Trotskyists were expelled from the ranks of the sections and of the Comintern, but the rightists unfortunately not to the necessary extent ( the rightists obtained assistance by the conciliators) - and all this happened, although it was clearly stated in the decisions of the VI World Congress:

"In opposing the expulsion of the Rights, Humbert-Droz and Serra refer to the resolution of the Sixth Congress which says that Right deviations must be overcome by means of an ideological struggle. That is perfectly true. But these comrades forget that the resolutions of the Sixth Congress by no means limit the struggle of the Communist Parties against the Right danger to measures of an ideological order. While speaking of methods of ideological struggle against deviations from the Leninist line, the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, in its resolution on Bukharin's report, at the same time declared that:

'far from precluding, this presumes the utmost strengthening of iron inner-Party discipline, unqualified subordination of the minority to the majority, unqualified subordination of the lower bodies, as well as of other Party organisations (groups in parliament, groups in trade unions, the press, etc.) to the leading Party centres.'

It is extremely strange that Humbert-Droz and Serra forget this thesis of the resolution of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern. It is extremely strange that all conciliators, both those who consider themselves conciliators and those who repudiate the name, when pleading the Sixth Congress resolution systematically forget this important thesis of the Communist International." (Stalin, Works, Volume 11, page 270, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

All this happened already before the Seventh World Congress. And Stalin's quotes make it clear how much endangered the Comintern and some sections had been already before the VII World Congress. But instead of strengthening the Bolshevist line of the VI World Congress, instead of taking the instructions of comrade Stalin seriously, the threat of rightist and conciliators was far too much underestimated.

That is why Stalin fought even more consistently against arrogance, carelessness, sloppiness, patronage and cliquism, against cult of personality and bureaucracy and all the negative phenomena that were caused by the right opportunists and conciliators. The inevitable purges, mid-thirties, served not the least to the strengthening of the Comintern.

However, the Comintern did not seriously enough implement Stalin's directives for the Bolshevization and continued, instead, its dangerous, complacent, conciliatory course. Therefore, the Central Committee of the CPSU (B) released the following circulars shortly before the VII World Congress took place (January 18,1935). Indirectly, it was also directed against the euphoric moods of the so-called "final victory of socialism":

"We must put a stop to the opportunistic complacency which arises from the mistaken assumption that as we grow in the strength of our forces, our enemies become ever more tame and harmless. Such an assumption is fundamentally wrong. It is an echo of the the Right deviation, which assured all and sundry that the enemies would quietly creep into Socialism [ because of the final victory of socialism" - decided by the VII World Congress - remark of the Comintern(SH) ], that they would become real Socialists in the end. Bolsheviks must not rest on their laurels and become empty-headed. We do not need complacency, but vigilance, real Bolshevik, revolutionary vigilance. We must remember that the more hopeless the position of the enemies becomes, the more readily they will clutch at extreme measures as the only measures of the doomed in their struggle against Soviet power. One must remember this and be vigilant."

And in the CC - circulars of July 29, 1936, it is written:

"The inalienable quality of every Bolshevik under present conditions must be the ability to discern an enemy of the Party, no matter how well masked he may be."

Stalin had always called the enemy by name, regardless of the masks behind which he was hidden. And he voiced anonymous warnings against "other double-dealers", particularly "leading comrades of the center", "who have a share that foreign agents occupied responsible positions" (CC Circular 3 and 5 March 1937).
Stalin made no exception at the leaders of the Comintern. The hidden opportunists within the Comintern and within the individual Sections got scared, when they witnessed the Moscow trials. Many former leaders of the Comintern sat on the dock (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, and many others). Experiences teaches: one would have to demand the purges within the Comintern and within its Sections by means of the statutes. And among the many critics who condemned Stalin's relentless line of intensified class struggle, such as Togliatti, Pollitt, Thorez, Tito, etc., we quote here Walter Ulbricht, one of the worst rogues among the German revisionist:

"It was also corrected the position, represented by Stalin, that the class struggle aggravates with the ongoing successes of socialist construction in the Soviet Union" (XX Party Congress of the CPSU, in: Pravda, March 4, 1956).

And in the central organ of the SED, "Neues Deutschland", on the 18th of March 1956, Ulbricht wrote: "The existing opposing forces were no serious threat. The blow was virtually directed against a part of the Communists ... ".

Thus, Ulbricht had accused himself. In the Moscow Trials, Ullbricht was in fact not on the side of the accuser, but rather on the dock of the spies, saboteurs and assassins! Instead, he organized with Dimitrov and other renegades, the disorganization of the Communists Parties. Unoffended, with their "Comintern diplomatic passport," the UIlbricht-Clique and the revisionist cliques of many other communist parties made their bloody nuisance - inmidst of Moscow.


So, of course, Stalin had not tolerated all these attacks of the rightists. Even before the VII World Congress, at the time when it took place, and all the more after the VII World Congress, the biggest wave of purges rolled against the conspiracy of the Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites and the Comintern. Opportunistic elements in the Comintern were located and eliminated .

The fact is that since the end of 1932, the elements of the Trotskyists and Zinoviev concentrated their entire hostile activity against the party and against the government. Mainly, they prepared attempts on the life of the highest leaders of the CPSU (B). Primarily, they organized terror against Comrade Stalin and against his influence in the Comintern. Stalin's re-election in the Comintern leadership was thwarted. A planned assassination attempt on the 13th Plenum of the ECCI failed because Stalin was not present. After that, Trotsky appointed David Fritz (who had contacts within the Comintern), to shoot Stalin during the Seventh World Congress. This attempt failed and in 1936 David Fritz was sentenced to death.

 

The Cominform

(1947 - 1956)

(will be added later ...)

 

 

 


The Declaration of the Moscow Conferences of the Communist World Movement in the years from 1957 to 1960

The 1957 Declaration was undoubtedly a purely revisionist statement in regard of “peaceful transition to socialism” - namely the renouncement of the revolutionary violence and consequently abandonment of the armed dictatorship of the proletariat. The Declaration of 1957 was heavily influenced by the revisionist XX Congress of the “C”PSU (1956). And every Marxist-Leninist knows that the XX “C”PSU Congress had abandoned the path of Marxism-Leninism and had embraced the path of capitalist restoration and social-imperialist policy. The Declaration of 1957 dropped completely the unavoidability of the violent socialist revolution - thus one of the indispensable pillars of the proletarian ideology.

 

Khruschchev's kneeling before Tito was an open violation against the decisions of the Cominform - namely to unite the Communist World Movement against Yugoslav revisionism in first line. This betrayal happened already in 1955, thus during a time when the Cominform was still in force. This proves that - since the death of comrade Stalin - the Cominform degenerated obviously into an instrument of the Soviet revisionists - directed against the Communist World Movement. The PLA was the only communist party all over the world which struggled resolutely against this betrayal.

That's why the Comintern (SH) states:

The PLA was the most courageous force which defended the Stalinist spirit of the Cominform particularly after the death of comrade Stalin, and this, although the PLA was at no time admitted as member of the Cominform . From all these facts of revisionist betrayal at the Cominform we can draw our conclusions, both in regard of (a) the weakened Communist World Movement, and (b) of cherishing reasonable hopes for regaining strength of the movement by the initiative of comrade Enver Hoxha. In the 50ies began the process of the formation of the world camp of the modern revisionists against the Communist World Movement with the goal to organize its disintegration. For this purpose the Soviet revisionists misused the traditional leading position of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin and caused distrust among the communists all over the world. The true communists observed this revisionist development with growing distancing - up to the point as disappointment turned into suspicion and defensive stance. A process of detachment from the Soviet-revisionist leaders was unavoidably. And with the beginning of the 60ies the process of separation turned into an active process of open confrontation and the Communist World Movement found its own way by its self-actualization and strenghtening in the course of its struggle against the world camp of the modern revisionists. At first, Albania became the most consequent defender in Stalin's struggle against Titoism and then the PLA, with comrade Enver Hoxha at the top, defended the whole Communist World against the revisionist world. The result was the split of the Communist world movement into the camp of the modern revisionists and the camp of the Marxist-Leninists.

Only four years later, after Krushchev had high-handed dissolved the Cominform in 1956, the PLA took over the lead of the Communist World Movement by defending its Marxist-Leninist principles. The Comintern (SH) considers particularly the Speech of comrade Enver Hoxha on the Conference in Moscow, which took place in 1960, as the beginning of the historical period of the anti-revisionist, Marxist-Leninist World Movement under the leadersgip of comrade Enver Hoxha. This great period of the Marxist-Leninist World Movement ended after the death of comrade Enver Hoxha. It was liquidated by the neo-revisionist traitors within Albania and within the Hoxhaist Parties all over the World (since 1992 affiliated in the CIPOML).

In his speech delivered at the Conference of the 81 communist and workers' parties in Moscow in November 1960, Comrade Enver Hoxha made an all-round analysis of the main problems that were concerning the international communist movement and firmly upheld Marxism-Leninism. This speech is one of the most important phases of the principled fight which the Party of Labor of Albania has waged to expose modern revisionism. The battle the Party of Labor of Albania has waged against the revisionist views of the Khrushchevite Soviet leadership began immediately after the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Although this battle was not waged directly and openly at the beginning, the Party of Labor of Albania had made known all its reservations and objections to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Party of Labor of Albania tried in every way to avoid publicising its differences with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union lest that would put weapons into the hands of the enemies of communism. On the other hand, it was not yet cognizant of Khrushchev's real intentions, therefore it tried to settle the differences through talks and consultations in a comradely spirit. While maintaining a principled stand, it strove and hoped to make the Soviet leaders realize their mistakes and take the right path. The real treacherous features of the Soviet revisionists became more and more evident to the Party of Labor of Albania. The more their treachery was revealed, the harsher and more irreconcilable became the battle the Party of Labor of Albania waged against Khrushchevite revisionism in order to expose and crush it completely.

    At the June 1960 Bucharest meeting the Party of Labor of Albania came out in the open in defense of Marxist-Leninist principles and cried “Halt!” to the Khrushchevite revisionists who attempted to hatch up a dangerous plot against the entire international communist movement.   After the Bucharest meeting the Soviet revisionist leaders launched a savage attack against the Party of Labor of Albania in order to force it into line with them and their deeds. Under these conditions, the Party of Labor of Albania became more thoroughly convinced that its principled stand on all the basic issues of the international communist movement should be maintained with the utmost courage and determination. It did this at the 1960 November Conference in Moscow.

In his speech at the Conference, Comrade Enver Hoxha, openly, frankly and with Marxist-Leninist courage, submitted the principled views of the Party of Labor of Albania on the main issues of the international communist movement about which differences had arisen and sharply criticized N. Khrushchev's revisionist group, both for its erroneous anti-Marxist views and actions as well as for its brutal interference in the internal affairs of the Party of Labor of Albania and the savage attacks it had launched against it.

    The Party of Labor of Albania launched this absolutely principled criticism against the Soviet leaders in order to safeguard the unity of the international communist movement and the socialist camp, because unity cannot be preserved without exposing faults and alien manifestations, without condemning them forthrightly and without correcting them on Marxist-Leninist lines.

    At the Moscow meeting, the Khrushchevites did their utmost to refute the criticism against their revisionist views and divisive acts. Their attempt was in vain. The Khrushchevite revisionists were obliged to back down. Comrade Enver Hoxha's speech was a major contribution to the successful outcome of the Moscow Conference. Included in the Declaration were certain incorrect conclusions and erroneous theses. On these assessments and theses, the Party of Labor of Albania entertained quite contrary views which it had also expressed openly at the Conference. The delegation of the Party of Labor of Albania signed the Declaration considering its content correct in general. While making concessions on partial matters for the sake of unity, the Party of Labor of Albania made no concessions whatsoever on the main issues which were connected with the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism.

    The Party of Labor of Albania was of the opinion that unity in the international communist movement could be established if every party carried out the Declaration in good faith, and that the differences could be settled only by observing the norms governing the relations between Marxist-Leninist parties without making public these differences to the enemies of socialism. This is why the Party of Labor of Albania refrained from publishing Comrade Enver Hoxha's speech at the Moscow Conference at that time, but persisted in carrying out the Declaration which was approved there.

    Comrade Enver Hoxha's speech at the Moscow Conference clearly shows that from that time onward, the Party of Labor of Albania would wage an open battle against bourgeois and revisionist ideology. Nevertheless, this battle had not yet assumed that breadth and depth which it assumed later as a logical consequence of the embitterment of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism and of the degeneration of the Soviet revisionist leaders into a gang of renegades from and traitors to socialism. (Excerpt of the introduction to the historical speech of comrade Enver Hoxha which was published in 1971)

Of course, we defend the condemnation of Tito-revisionism which was subject of the Moscow Declaration. However we can not ignore the fact that in practice, the majority within the Communist World Movement had already begun to tread the path of reconciliation with the Yugoslav revisionists. Otherwise the Communist World Movement could have never condoned the dissolution of the Cominform, including all its important and indispensable decisions against the Yugoslav revisionism.

The Comintern (SH) points to the historical fact that the Moscow Declarations were created AFTER the revisionist XX Congress of the CPSU, and that the revisionist ideology was already (both hiddenly and openly) introduced in the Moscow Declarations. The Moscow Declarations concealed the merits of Stalinism and the name of comrade Stalin was not even mentioned.

We only take another single example to prove the revisionist trend:

The Moscow Declaration of 1960 stated: "The possibilities of restoration of capitalism is eliminated both in the Societ Union and all other socialist countries". This was total revisionism. Thus, the simultaneously declared so called "struggle against the main danger of revisionism within the communist world movement" was nothing more than a lips service and a deceptive maneuver to distract from the revisionist content of the Moscow Declaration. Therefore, the Comintern (SH) declares expressively that the historical Moscow Declarations can not be considered as the today's guide-line of the Communist World Movement because it was an eclectical mixture of Marxist-Leninist principles and revisionist betrayal.

In conrast, the Comintern (SH) consider the program (1928) of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin still as the major guideline of the general line of the Comintern (SH) because it is directly geared to the socialist world revolution, to the dictatorship of the world proletariat, to the socialist world republic, to world socialism and world communism and, last not least, the approval of the indispensable role of the Comintern in itself. The Comintern program can therefore not be replaced by the general line of the Moscow Declarations, which had abandoned the main goals of the Comintern program. The Moscow Declaration did not waste one word on the necessity of the reconstruction of the Comintern. Also the dissolution of the Cominform was not at all worth to be mentioned. As the successor of the Comintern, we criticize the Moscow Declaration mainly because it totally ignored the crucial significance of the global Bolshevist organisation of the world proletariat.


Regarding the main danger in the international communist movement, our general policy is ultimately subjected to historical changes of the international class struggle. Therefore the Comintern program had to be modified. Thus, it was totally correct that comrade Enver Hoxha declared the modern revisionism to be the new main danger in the international communist movement (and not any more the social democratism which was the main danger in the time of the Comintern).

Today's revisionism can only survive by shedding its skin - thus when it no longer hides behind the 4 Classics, as previously, but behind the mask of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism ! Disguised "Hoxhaism" is the main danger within the current communist world movement, and its demasking is the priority assignment.
.The dialectic of the history of the world communist movement indicates that the theoretical victory of Stalinism-Hoxhaism will force the neo-revisionists, to penetrate into the Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement - namely for the purpose of its liquidation.

Is the modern revisionism still the main danger in the Communist Movement ? We say: not any more.

In the course of our struggle against modern revisionism, in the course of the decaying revisionist countries, the danger of the neo-revisionism has emerged. Who caused the collapse of the Marxist-Leninist world movement ? The modern revisionists or the neo-revisionists ? The neo- revisionists ! ( albeit more or less support by some "leftist" elements of the remainders of the modern revisionists). And today, mainly the neo-revisionists struggle against Stalinism-Hoxhaism within the Communist World Movement. All this is reason enough to modify the previous definition when modern revisionism was the main danger. The general-line of the Comintern (SH) defines neo-revisionism as the main danger in the international communist movement of today.

And how do we Stalinist - Hoxhaists define the historical development of the main danger in the international communist movement?

(1) The battle of the First International under the leadership of Marx and Engels against anarchism,

(2) the battle against reformism of the Second International - first led by Engels and then continued under the leadership of Lenin, the battle of the Communist International against the Social Democratism ( more precisely: in the mean time mainly "left"-opportunism in the period before the main struggle against the right danger had begun) under the leadership first of Lenin and then of Stalin,

(3) the battle of the Cominform against modern revisionism under the leadership of Stalin continued by the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist world movement under the leadership of Enver Hoxha,

(4) and finally the battle of the Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement against neo-revisionism under the leadership of the Comintern (SH);

- These are the historical stages of the battles against the main danger within the international communist movement. Hence the change of the general-line against the respective chief danger of the agency in the world bourgeoisie within the communist movement.

1. The character of the main danger of the bourgeois influence within the world communist movement, therefore, is to adapt any further development of the ideology of the proletariat back to the bourgeois ideology. Our blow against the main danger must therefore always be redefined once the Marxism has adapted its line to fundamental changes in the development of class struggle against capitalism. Thus the world bourgeoisie is always forced to combat Marxism-Leninism on the formal ground of "Marxism-Leninism" - that is: always and in principle to fight Marxism-Leninism with the most advanced weapons of Marxism-Leninism.

2. The tactics of the main danger of the bourgeoisie within the communist movement is to force a false general-line on us, or even to maintain the unmodified general-line, although its modification has become inevitable. In general, the main threat is always provoked through such a deviation, by which the world bourgeoisie crusades against our general-line, namely to adapt it on the most successful way to the bourgeois ideology. With other words: the agencies of the bourgeoisie prefer precisely the mask which is most difficult to be unmasked.

For the transition from the flood of world socialist revolution until its ebb, during the phase of regeneration of the international class struggle and before the revolutionary crisis, the world bourgeoisie preferred mainly the Right opportunism ("Sensing the crisis and fearing it, the Right-wing elements are raising their head and trying to drag the Party back" - Stalin: Speech Delivered at the French Commission of the Sixth Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. ; March 6, 1926, Works, Volume 8, page 95, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

And vice versa: at the peak of the world socialist revolution, ie, in the phase of the raging international class struggle, the agency of the world bourgeoisie prefers mainly the "Left" opportunism (see upswing of world socialist revolution in the initial period of the Comintern).

The interchange of the most dangerous agency of the bourgeoisie within the communist world movement is facilitated - respectively implemented - with the help of centrism.

The general line of the international communist party is always particularly vulnerable for the adaption to the bourgeois ideology if it reacts on the interchange of main danger either too late or too early. It is then fatal if this interchange of the main danger remains unnoticed and thus the general-line unadjusted. The correct or false definition of the main danger in a given situation of international class struggle decides unavoidably over the victory or defeat of the communist world movement. Therefore Stalin taught us : The most dangerous agency of the bourgeoisie within the revolutionary proletarian world movement is always the one which had been ignored, overestimated or underestimated.

The Bucharest Meeting which was followed by the Meeting of 81 Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow meant the definitive separation between the Marxist-Leninists and the Khrushchev revisionists and the beginning of the open polemics between them. While the Party of Labour of Albania fought against Khrushchev revisionism principled, resolutely and courageously, the Chinese leadership, in contrast, showed waverings as against the Khrushchevites.

The Chinese revisionists took up a conciliatory stance and withdrew their polemics because they were convinced that all revisionists should be integrated into the anti-imperialist world camp. The Chinese have, in fact, developed their centrist course of reconciliation on the basis of the Declarations of 1957 and 1960, namely for the purpose to prepare the changing of the guard at the top of the Communist World Movement. So this was a haggling with Marxist-Leninist principles in the power struggle between the two major social-imperialist camps for supremacy in the world communist movement in general, and in particular for the influence on the only socialist country - Albania - that took over the leadership position in defense of Stalin and the communist movement. The Chinese revisionists were caught between a rock and a hard place, between the position of the modern revisionists, led by the Soviet revisionists, and the Marxist-Leninist position of Albania. After the replacement of Khrushchev and with the beginning of the Brezhnev era, the Chinese tried to stop their "polemics", whereas, in 1956, Mao had openly defended Khrushchev's condemnation of comrade Stalin. And while Enver Hoxha and the PLA began to liberate the world communist movement from the dominating influence of the Soviet revisionism on the Moscow conference in 1960, Maoism entered the world stage for the purpose to rescue modern revisionism on behalf of world imperialism. This was the reason why the Chinese revisionists worked out a new revisionist general-line.

 

 

 

 

"Only after the dissolution of the Comintern we enjoyed more freedom."

(Mao Zedong)

Critique of the Comintern (SH) at the Chinese, so-called

"Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement"

[1963]


This Chinese revisionist "Polemics" served to subjugate the communist movement of the auspices of Maoism. So far, the world communist movement was in the claws of the Soviet revisionists, and the Chinese revisionists were determined to get it in the own claws. This was not possible without the guise of fighting "against Soviet revisionism". The Chinese revisionists availed themselves preferably of the Marxist-Leninist criticism of Comrade Enver Hoxha and the PLA. The "Polemics" is thus not - as it claims - a general line of the international communist movement, but a general line of Maoism to misuse the world communist movement for the interests of the social-imperialist world domination of the Chinese bourgeoisie.

This "Polemics" was especially an attack against the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin. Dimitrov was not the only one who had trampled the old decisions of the Comintern under foot. Thus, Mao also defied the general-line of the Comintern and refused to implement the correct policies of the Comintern in his own country. Mao sabotaged the Comintern. Mao never followed the path of proletarian internationalism, but served the imperialist aspirations of the Chinese bourgeoisie. In 1931 Wang Ming was sent to China to lead the struggle against Mao's rightist opportunism. It was Wang Ming, who represented the Leninist-Stalinist line of the Comintern. He was the deputy secretary general of the Comintern. Wang Ming was the first Stalinist Chinese comrade, who debunked Mao Tse Tung's theory of the "encircling the cities by the village".Before 1935, Wang Ming was some years leader of the Communist Party of China, a courageous opponent of Maoism. Mao put Wang Ming away by means of accusations of "dogmatism" and the Comintern-line was replaced by the bourgeois line of Mao Zedong. Mao fought against the Leninist-Stalinist course Wang Ming as "foreign dogmatism" and treated him as a "puppet of Moscow in China." (Wang Ming came later under revisionist influence, so we have to criticize this).

Like all other revisionists, Mao praised Dimitrov and denounced Stalin in the same breath. Mao said:

"The line of Wang Ming was in fact the line of Stalin.The Comintern made ​​countless mistakes in the past. The early and late phase of the Comintern was quite ok, but the mean phase was not as good [ of course, Mao had the Stalinist phase in mind - remark of the Comintern (SH)].When Lenin was still alive, and the Comintern was fine when Georgi Dimitrov was responsible. The first Wang Ming line dominated our party for four years and the Chinese Revolution suffered the greatest losses. Only after the dissolution of the Comintern we enjoyed more freedom.There are two types of Chinese: one is a dogmatist, who fully accepts the line of Stalin , and the other is against dogmatism and therefore the one who refuses to follow Stalin's instructions. The Comintern has never practiced self-criticism because of this error. "(Mao Tsetung, from the protocols of his conversation with a Yugoslav delegation in Beijing, September 1956).

"The Chinese revolution won victories so because it defied the will of Stalin" (Mao, March 1958; "Debate of March 10," Selected Works).

It is necessary to underline and defend the determined criticism of Stalin which he had written in a letter to Molotov on July 9, 1927. Stalin wrote in this letter:

“… unfortunately we don’t have a real or, if you like, an actual Communist Party in China. . . . What is the current Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Nothing but an ‘amalgamation’ of general phrases gathered here and there, not linked to one another with any line or guiding idea. I don’t want to be very demanding toward the Central Committee of the CCP. I know that one can’t be too demanding toward it. But here is a simple demand: fulfil the directives of the Comintern. Has it fulfilled these directives? No.

There is not a single Marxist mind in the Central Committee capable of understanding . . . the social underpinning of the events now occurring. … The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat.

But … the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony.

That’s the reason why the Comintern’s directives are not fulfilled.

That is why I now believe the question of the Party is the main question of the Chinese revolution”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Molotov on July 9, 1927 , in ibid , pp. 140f ) .

 

 

In the "Polemics" (1963), the Chinese revisionists had not withdrawn their hostile attitude to the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin. On the contrary. In the "Polemics" (1963) the appraisal of the significance of the Comintern is completely missing, and no single thought was wasted about the necessity of a re-foundation of the Comintern.

We condemn Mao not only because he was active at the time of the Comintern as a splitter of the communist world movement, but also as splitter of the Marxist-Leninist world movement at the time of Comrade Enver Hoxha, namely as a splitter in the struggle against modern revisionism.

Mao continued his anti-Marxist-Leninist way steadily. He did not only inflict damage on the matter of the world revolution, but also the Chinese revolution, which he pretended to "protect" against alleged "sectarianism" and against the "dogmatism" - thus Stalinism.

Mao did not stop at physical destruction of Marxist-Leninist leaders of the Communist Party of China. It is said that Mao had also tried to poison Wang Ming - the deputy secretary of the Comintern ! ! Others sided with the Maoist camp under his massive pressure.

It can not be regarded as a coincidence that the crystallization of the "Mao Zedong Ideas" as a new branch of revisionism began even before the World War II. In 1935, his struggle against "dogmatism" and "sectarianism" started simultaneously with that of the VII World Congress of the Comintern. The only difference was that the VII World Congress waged the struggle hiddenly while Mao openly confessed that he waged his struggle against Stalinism. Mao, in 1935, secured its leading power in the Communist Party of China, namely in the same year, as the VII World Congress had enforced the power of the rightist leaders.

The rightist development of the Chinese Section of the Comintern was not an isolated case but similar phenomena happened in all the other Sections. This rightist influence of the VII World Congress spread all over the whole Communist World Movement, lasting until today. Dimitrov's line and Mao's line were exactly on the same wavelength. As long as the Comintern had followed the line of Stalin, it hindered Mao's bourgeois line. But thanks to Dimitrov's line of pacts with the bourgeoisie, the Maoism was strengthened.

​ ​With the dissolution of the Comintern Dimitrov paved the way for the emergence of various revisionist ideologies, not only for the Mao Zedong Ideas , but also for the Khrushchevism, Titoismus, Euro-communism, etc., etc. And this manifold anti-Stalinist trend is also reflected in the "Polemics". It should not be surprising that the idea of the communist International was buried in the "Polemics".

Observing the different revisionist camps (such the internastional interconnections of the Belgian Labour Party, the organisations which signed jointly the "Pjöngyang Declaration", and also the "Quito Declaration, the international supporters of the social-fascists in Cuba)", etc., etc., we register all the futile attempts to save the rotten national branches of revisionism through their eclectic "globalization" after they have already ruined their own country.

The socalled "national Marxism" is anti-Marxism, is bourgeois "Marxism", which is in antagonistic contradiction to the internationalist, proletarian Marxism. A global mixture of all revisionist ideas can therefore never replace the monolithic world-proletarian ideology.

There is the only unity among all varieties of national "Marxisms", namely, the unity in the fight against the internationalist Marxism. But this "unit" is doomed to failure, because the internationalist Marxism is invincible! This has proven the history over and over again.

Of course, nothing can be found in China's "general line" about the necessity and inevitability of the socialist world revolution and even less under the leadership of the Communist International.

With the XX. Congress of the CPSU, thus with Khrushchev's "possibility of different paths to socialism", the Chinese revisionists were essentially in accordance with the Khrushchevites and consequently also against the Comintern and its reconstruction. They agreed in all, to betray the line of Stalin, the path to communism. They were only in disagreement on the distribution of their power. To topple the Soviet revisionists from their pedestal, the Chinese disguised their own revisionism behind the anti-revisionism in general and behind the struggle against Soviet revisionism in particular. Anti-revisionism in words and revisionism in deeds - that is the physiognomy of Maoism.

The more open Khrushchev betrayed communism, the more resistance was produced, and the easier Mao could replace the Soviet revisionism through Chinese revisionism. The Chinese leaders tried to collect and organize all Anti-Krushchevites to mislead the anti-revisionist forces all over the world. The atmosphere of change in the end of the 60's and beginning 70's determined not only the new Marxist-Leninist movement in many countries but also all strata during the globally upcoming crises of the capitalist society. In this atmosphere of revolutionary changes - in alleged "demarcation" to the new capitalist-revisionist world camp, Mao played the role of the new "leader of the world revolution" for the purpose to deceive, paralyze, split and liquidate the Communist World Movement which was not in the service of the world proletariat but in the service of the world bourgeoisie. The period of criticism at modern revisionism was an excellent alibi to criticize correct Marxist-Leninist principles as putative "revisionist" positions ( primarily criticism of the "left" opportunists). All this served to the tactics of the international counter-revolutionary ideologues to create "revolutionary alternatives" of modern revisionism. This was the ideological breedings grounds for molting a new revisionism (neo-revisionism) under the guise of alleged "anti-revisionism". And for this purpose the Chinese revisionists delivered promptly the "revolutionary alternative" by means of their "Polemics" (1963) - as the bait was called.

Logically, the rocksteady Stalinist Albania with comrade Enver Hoxha at the head was a thorn in the Chinese side. For tactical reasons the Chinese Cliques feigned a concordant Marxist-Leninist line for the purpose to deceive Albania and the Marxist-Leninist World Movement. Once the Marxist-Leninist World Movement was ripe enough for the splitting, the Chinese revisionists prepared their coming into power and the elimination of the Albanians. The Chinese leaders considered the year 1978 as the best time to attack Albania from behind. Now, comrade Enver Hoxha started the open criticism against Maoism, especially against the so called "Theory of the 3 Worlds" - for the defense of the whole Marxist-Leninist World Movement. By the way, the seed of the so-called "Theory of the Three Worlds" was already planted in the "Polemics" (1963).

Finally the influence of the "Polemics" was pushed back, but not completely destroyed. A comprehensive criticism at the "Polemics", worked out on solid ground of Stalinism-Hoxhaism, was not yet published. The criticism of the Comintern (SH) at the "Polemics" is therefore overdue for the longest time. Maoism is thus still a dangerous ideology of bourgeois influence within the Marxist-Leninist world movement. Therefore, it is the task of the Comintern (SH), to struggle against the revisionist "Polemics" as an important contribution to the anti-Maoist struggle of comrade Enver Hoxha - namely until this international disguised revisionism is finally destroyed.

Revisionism survived with its ability to "retransform itself" by replacing its old "Marxist-Leninist" mask of the "four heads" through a new one, including the mask of "Hoxhaism" (neo-revisionism). At the international level this happened unavoidably after the Soviet revisionism had lost its international leadership. A new revisionist ideology had to be installed, to maintain the international influence of revisionism, thus more suitable to paralyze the advanced development of the Communist World Movement. And the growing influence of Maoism appeared in the form of the apposition of the portrait of Mao in the rank of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism. This demonstrates the dangerous influence of Maoism in the initial phase of the development of the new Marxist-Leninist parties in many countries of the world. This molting of revisionism succeeded mainly in the form of Maoism. And the struggle for the elimination of the Mao portrait and its exchange through the portrait of comrade Enver Hoxha (as the only genuine 5th Classic of Marxism-Leninism) reflects the essence of the further development of the Marxist-Leninist World Movement towards our new Stalinist-Hoxhaist World Movement.

If we look at the leading influence of Maoism and other revisionist international influences (eg, in Russia today), it is clear that the Soviet revisionism, even if it was already eliminated as a leading international center, was revived by means of Maoism. The restoration of Soviet revisionism is thus realized by the process of its molting (revival of Bolshevism in words and restoration of Soviet revisionism in deeds (this time hidden behind Stalinism)]. Such groupings like that around Nina Andrejewna [AUCPB - "All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks"] and all the other neo-revisionist groupings appeared on the Russian stage exactly after the collapse of the REVISIONIST Soviet Union - for preparing the restoration of Soviet revisionism and Soviet social imperialism. And as in Russia, Maoism proved to be able to resurrect revisionism globally.

As comrade Enver Hoxha said:

"The Chinese leadership has become a standard-bearer of right opportunism, revisionism." (Enver Hoxha: "Imperialism and Revolution", German edition, page 322)

After having prepared and paved the way for capitalism, the Albanian revisionism was forced to molt itself again, namely for the purpose to get control over the growing danger of the restoration of socialism. Once capitalism is seriously threatened in Albania, the revisionists must prepare their coming into power to prevent the socialist revolution and the restoration of socialism. To achieve this goal, the Albanian bourgeoisie needs to create her agencies within the growing Albanian communist movement. These bourgeois agencies resort to centrism and reconciliation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism - under the guise of alleged "united defense" of Enver Hoxha. But the Albanian communists can not defend comrade Enver Hoxha "together with" the revisionists, but only in the principled struggle against the revisionist traitors !

Coming back to

"THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT"

Before we come to the content, let's have a simple look at the heading.

General Line of the international communist movement is not identical with the general line of the Communist International. There are worlds in between !

There is no general-line of the international communist movement which is not worked out by the Communist International. There is no communist movement without its leading communist party. This principle is valid both on a national and international scale.

With the term "movement" the Chinese revisionists - strictly speaking - replace the foundation stone of the Communist International through the old revisionist foundation stone of the renegade Bernstein and moreover that of Confucius: “The way is the goal.”

Derived: "The international communist movement is everything - the Communist International is nothing!"

An international communist movement without Communist International, without an international goal without an international program without an international strategy and tactics, is sooner or later, doomed to remain in a persistent vegetative state, to wither away or even to transform itself into a bourgeois movement.

Such a "general line guides" the world communist movement towards revisionism spontaneism, adventurism, circle spirit, nationalism - into every direction but not into the direction of socialist world revolution. The Chinese revisionists represented a conception of communist movement in their "Polemics" that completely contradicts the teachings of the Bolshevik Comintern of Lenin and Stalin.

With their "Polemics" the Chinese revisionists tried to take all critics of modern revisionism under the wings of Maoism ( = newly disguised revisionism). But Maoism was by far not the only ideology which crept under the cloak of "anti-revisionism".

The agencies of the world bourgeoisie tried to recapture the anti-revisionist comrades (those who distanciated themselves from modern revisionism) and kept them away from Marxism-Leninism by means of hundreds of "leftist" ideologies: namely for the purpose to refill the dangerous gap which was caused by the ideological collapse of the Soviet revisionism.

The result was a fractious world communist movement, which had long suffered from deepest disunity. The weakness of the modern revisionism did not lead automatically to the strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist world movement, which was now simultaneously confronted with disputes of diverse "left" tendencies, schools, ideological currents and movements.

Several revisionist tendencies turned up within the international communist movement, more or less simultaneously and from all directions. There was a variety of small groups and organizations in many countries, who competed as "the only true Communist" parties against each other. The collapse of modern revisionism caused confusion and disorientation in the world communist movement, making the creation of new genuine Marxist-Leninist parties more difficult, and all the more difficult the refoundation of the Communist International.

The Chinese "Polemics" was originally expression of the struggle for predominance among the leading "communist" parties. Only later, when the class struggle began to globalize, due to the growing world capitalist crises, the "Polemics" then influenced the new Marxist-Leninist movements in almost all countries of the world outside the sphere of influence of the revisionist states.

Our critique about the "Polemics" in detail:

1. Stalin is not protected against the Anti-Stalinists. Stalin is not at all mentioned in the "Polemics". What a shame !

In our view, a general-line which is not based on Stalinism is an anti-Stalinist general-line, thus nothing more than a bourgeois-revisionist line.

2. The Comintern is not at all mentioned in the "Polemics". That's a shame.

Communists can neither talk about the international communist movement nor about a global general-line, without mentioning the indispensable role of the Communist International.

3. The "Polemics" defined both the Moscow Declarations as "the program of the international communist movement." Thus, the Chinese revisionists jettisoned the programm of the Comintern - namely without even mentioning it.

4. The "Polemics" deny the hegemony of the world proletariat as the only revolutionary global class.

5. The "Polemics" propagate the "revolution of the peoples" in place of the socialist proletarian revolution.

6. The "Polemics" ignore the struggle for the dictatorship of the world proletariat.

7. One of the fundamental contradictions (as defined in the Chinese "Polemics"), was the contradiction "between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp." This is false.

However under closer scrutiny, at the time of publication of the "Polemics", thus in 1963, the socialist camp definetly was not existent any more. In 1963 remained only one genuine socialist country and that was socialist Albania. In contrast to Albania, China has never been a socialist country. This means that the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp was no longer part of the other fundamental contradictions in the world. According the "Polemics", the socialist world revolution could only be realized "stepwise" by the "strengthening of the socialist camp" and not by the whole revolutionary world proletariat. The Chinese revisionists created thus a general-line which included unity with the revisionist countries of the former socialist world camp. In the "Polemics" were those "who violate this unity" with the revisionists condemned to be "splitters". The socialist world revolution cannot be victorious if the world proletariat does not destroy the revisionist world camp. And indeed, the PLA had never amended its own general-line in favour of the Chinese general-line which included the revisionist camp.

8. Enver Hoxha also criticized the Chinese "Polemics" in the following way (concerning the "Three-World-Theory"):

"In the past, the Communist Party of China has also quoted well-known Marxist-Leninist principles and theses in regard to the contradictions. For example, in the known document entitled, 'A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement', published by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 1963, the Chinese wrote: 'These or those necessary compromises between socialist and imperialist countries do not require that the oppressed peoples and nations also make compromises with imperialism and its stooges'. And they added: 'Never should anybody under the pretext of peaceful coexistence, demand that the oppressed peoples and nations renounce the revolutionary struggle'. The Chinese leadership was talking in this way then, because at that time it was the Khrushchevite leadership who wanted the peoples and the communist parties to agree that American imperialism and its chiefs had become peaceful and to submit to the Soviet policy of rapprochement with American imperialism. Now it is the leadership of the Communist Party of China which is preaching to the peoples, the revolutionaries, the Marxist-Leninist parties and the proletariat of the whole world, that they must enter into alliance with the imperialist or capitalist countries, and unite with the bourgeoisie and all reactionaries against Soviet social-imperialism. And the Chinese do not express these ideas in disguised phrases, but openly. Such vacillations and 180 degree turns have nothing to do with the principled Marxist-Leninist policy. They are characteristic of the pragmatic policy followed by all revisionists, who subordinate principles to their bourgeois and imperialist interests" (Enver Hoxha: "Imperialism and Revolution", German edition, page 353)

China still has many years after the XX. Congress defended the Soviet Union as a so called "socialist" country. China practiced conciliatory cooperation with other revisionist countries like Yugoslavia, and the Maoists like to suppress this fact today.
The molting process of Maoist centrism was mainly necessary because of the growing Marxist-Leninist world movement under the leadership of Enver Hoxha.

9. In the "Polemics", imperialism is blamed unilaterally for the splitting of the communist movement . But primarily this splitting goes to the account of the revisionist leaders in the Soviet Union and China, whereas imperialism and other revisionist countries, such as Yugoslavia, have undoubtedly made also their contributions to the degeneration of the communist world movement.

10. The necessary lessons of the struggle against social-imperialism and social-fascism are missing in the "Polemics". It is therefore no surprise that China became a social-fascist state and a social-imperialist super power.


The Chinese centrism was the only means to create the necessary demarcation between Marxism-Leninism (represented by Stalin and later on by Albania) on the one hand, and the foreign revisionist currents on the other hand ( within the camp of the Soviet revisionists). The goal of social-imperialist world domination could only be implemented by the bourgeois ideology of Maoism.

All those who define the centrism as immanent part of anti-revisionism;

who tolerate revisionism next to Marxism-Leninism;

who reconcile both these ideologies of antagonistic classes;

who shake hands both with the Marxist-Leninists and the revisionists;

who hide their own revisionism behind the mask of "anti-revisionism";

- they all can never be genuine anti-revisionists. They are the main danger in the anti-revisionist Communist World Movement. They are all "anti-revisionists" only in words and revisionists in deeds and, consequently, they end up sooner or later as revisionists in the lap of imperialism, thus as enemies of the socialist world revolution.

The "Polemics" talked a lot of hot air, but has indeed protected revisionism by the back door. The "Polemics" merely served as a tactical ploy, but not as a guide-line for real. As it turned out some years later, the "Polemics" - from the beginning - was conceptualized to revoke it to appropriate time. In the end, the "Polemics" led to nothing. Has there ever been any international conferences, meetings, agreements or decisions by the communist world movement ? No single one !And why not? China has not convened a single international conference because the leaders had not the slightest interest of it.

With the subsequent pulping of the "Polemics" the Chinese wanted to make it appear (after the fall of Khrushchev) that the victory over the modern revisionism would be the "final " victory. The slogan of the "final victory over revisionism," but it is a disservice to the entire bourgeois-revisionist world that will never stop fighting, as long as the Marxism-Leninism exists.This slogan is so dangerous because he actually preaches the capitulation to revisionism. Therefore, the theory of the "final victory over revisionism" must be bitterly fought. This fight is an important part of the general line of the Comintern (SH). As long as the Comintern (SH) exists, it will never capitulate to revisionism - no matter all the masks behind which the revisionists seek shelter.


The way to the unity of the Marxist-Leninist world movement had not been treaded by the revisionist "Polemics" of the Chinese, but by Comrade Enver Hoxha. In his "Theses on the unity of the Marxist-Leninist world movement" Enver Hoxha deliberately avoided the Chinese concept of "Polemics."
He spoke only of the "25 points of the CPC." This explains that Enver Hoxha never approved the Chinese "Polemics" equivalent with the general line of the international communist movement.

What were the antitheses of Enver Hoxha about the unity of the Marxist-Leninist world movement?

"MONDAY
OCTOBER 10, 1966
THESES ON THE UNITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARXIST-LENINIST MOVEMENT
Following the split, unity is required.
The struggle against modern revisionism cannot be wag d without Marxist-Leninist unity.
The 1st and 3rd Internationals.
There are two concepts about unity:
1) Revisionist «unity» (with its variants).
2) Marxist-Leninist unity.
We must expose the former and consolidate the latter.
Does complete Marxist-Leninist unity of thought and action exist in the international Marxist-Leninist movement? Yes and no, but not to the extent and in the way it should, because of the growth of this movement and the lack of experience, because of the isolated positions of each Marxist-Leninist party or revolutionary group, and because
there is not complete identity of views on many capital common problems, as well as because of the organized and combined struggle which revisionism and imperialism are
waging against Marxism-Leninism.
Hence, it is necessary to find the forms and methods to overcome these obstacles.
The international communist movement must be guided by Marxism-Leninism interpreted and applied correctly in the present general conditions, and in the specific positions of each Marxist-Leninist party or group.
Hence, there is a need for an analysis of the current situation, which cannot be done by one party alone, the view of which would be the guiding light for the others.
It is necessary also to have consultations among Marxist-Leninist parties or groups from which correct guidelines will emerge for the struggle in the overall and specific
conditions.
Capital problems which should have a common definition, which tempers unity and boosts the struggle against modern revisionism:
1) The definite break with the revisionists requires a special meeting.
2) The birth of revisionism, its causes, etc., etc.
3) The question of Stalin.
4) The stand towards the Soviet Union, in the first place, and the other countries where the revisionists are ruling.
5) A more studied stand about more organized political, ideological, technical and material aid to the new Marxist-Leninist parties and groups, the national liberation struggle, about alliances with the progressive anti-imperialist bourgeoisie, and many other problems of this type of great importance to our common struggle.
All these and other things are known and applied in general, but not in a co-ordinated way.
On the question of Stalin and the causes of the birth of revisionism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere there are many ideas which are compatible, but also those which are not. If these things are not cleared up and a more or less identical opinion is achieved, contradictions may arise, and the beginning of the contradiction, a thing which is hindering the strengthening of our unity, exists.
The strategy and tactics of our struggle. The former must be the same for all, the tactics may be different, but must serve the former and be developed for the correct application of Marxism-Leninism.
— Why were the twenty-five points of the Communist Party of China issued and what is their fate?
— The tactics of the People's Republic of China and of the People's Republic of Albania.
The tactics of all Marxist-Leninist parties and groups which operate in the opposition or illegality. (...)
The Communist Party of China is avoiding general meetings.
a) It proposed the meeting of our nine parties. When we accepted, the CP of China cancelled it.
b) Without holding a meeting, it proposed the creation of an «anti-imperialist front even with the revisionists», and then retracted it.
c) It holds meetings with other parties, one at a time, which it is entitled to do, and after such meetings these parties come out with statements and articles which defend
everything which China says and does.
d) Now the entire concern of the Communist Party of China is that the Marxist-Leninist communist movement should accept that the ideas of Mao Tsetung lead the world, accept the cult of Mao, the Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the entire line of the Communist Party of China with its good points and its mistakes.
All these things pose many threats to unity.
We must be clear and must not be afraid to look the truth in the eye. Even with us, the Chinese comrades have begun to have silent differences, internally, but there is the danger that these differences will be enlarged.
Therefore, we must anticipate events. This we have done and must do. But how are we to explain things openly between our two parties? If these discussions are held on a
completely Marxist course, the problems will be solved, otherwise they will get worse; this is how it began with the Soviets and we did not solve anything. They were solved at the Bucharest Meeting and the Moscow Meeting. Things must not reach this point with the Chinese, but it might come to this against our will. Just as the opinions of one party cannot be accepted en bloc, neither can those of two parties be accepted en
bloc. All must state their opinion. Therefore, the joint meeting and the taking of joint decisions is important. The meeting will be informed of and study the forms of the
work and organization and set tasks for each individual party.
Up till now China has avoided this kind of meetings.
Why?
a) To avoid being accused of seeking hegemony, an opinion which is not correct.
b) Lest we, the others, take a wrong view of its stand about these meetings. (We have demonstrated our internationalism.)
c) It doesn't want partners in its decisions. Such a view and stand is dangerous.
d) It is avoiding this because it still lacks internal unity. Then it should tell us this.
In view of all these things:
Is it right and necessary for us to present this idea in broad outlines at our Congress? I think it is. This is normal, one of the forms of our struggle.
There is no one to oppose the idea in principle; the most they can do is to leave it to melt away from lack of action. But it is they who will be wrong, and not us. In these situations, we cannot hold such meetings without China. China might continue not to want them. Then it bears the responsibility for this. But even though it is not going to find this idea opportune, since we considered it correct from every aspect, we must put it foward. Let
the meeting be held when the conditions are ripe; let the struggle decide its organizational forms, etc. We have fulfilled any obligation to China on this issue once, and again on a second occasion. It is China that has postponed the
carrying out of this idea.
I think the problems which I put forward above and others like these are very important at present for strengthening the Marxist-Leninist unity of the international communist movement, and cannot be solved apart from joint meetings of the parties. Apparently China does not see it this way and thinks that it is sufficient if we all unanimously approve what is going on in China today, and that our unity is strengthened with this. A further controversy is being added to the others, and judging by the way the Chinese are operating tête-à-tête, we have to envisage that one fine day we might find ourselves isolated from them, although we are on the right road. Therefore, we must foresee all the clanger. What I propose are legal, correct forms."

(Enver Hoxha, »Reflections on China«, Vol. I, pages 287 - 292), Tirana 1979, English edition).


The Chinese revisionists were not willing to subordinate neither under the Comintern nor under the international communist movement - namely to serve to the overall revolutionary interests of the world proletariat. The Maoists bowed only down to the dictates of their own bourgeoisie. According to revisionism in general, and to the "Polemics", in particular, the world proletariat is allegedly not able to create its own internationalist ideology, its own world-party and its own world power. Thus, the Chinese revisionists have most scrupulously avoided the question of the Bolshevik organization of the world proletariat in their "Polemics". They have always denied the leading role of the world party.

The Comintern (SH) and its Sections represent the only correct position of the absolute indispensability of the centralized leadership of the world proletariat by its Bolshevist world-party. We are basically for the Communist International, that leads the world communist movement centralistically. We reject a leaderless, spontaneous, de-centralized world communist movement, as well as a world communist movement, which replaces the Communist International and its Sections through a revisionist "mother party" and its "daughter parties" relationship. We defend the leading role of the CPSU (B) of Lenin and Stalin, as well as the leading role of the PLA with comrade Enver Hoxha at the top. In contrast, we are opponents of the conception of a leading revisionist party and its lackey parties. The concept of "Mother- and Daughter parties" can by no means be equated with the concept of the Communist International and its Sections. We are opponents of every global, national or regional leadership which is not guided by the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism.

If we acknowledge the leading role of a Bolshevik Section in the own country, then this means simultaneously the acknowledgement of the superordinated world-Bolshevist leadership by the Communist International. That's the whole point! Democratic centralism is the organizational principle of proletarian internationalism, which the Chinese revisionists have always ignored, undermined or even combated.


Those who criticize basically the leading role of the CPSU (B) within the Comintern, those who replace the leading role through a poly-centristic position of "independence, equality" etc.. They are neither Leninists nor Stalinists.
And who denies the leading role of the PLA in the Marxist-Leninist world movement, is not a Hoxhaist. We neither acknowledge the "leading role" of Mao Zedong, nor do we share the leadership of comrade Enver Hoxha with Mao Zedong.

The victory of a global revolution without the leadership of the world proletarian party, that is guided solely by the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism, will never happen. In reality, the "Polemics" was not directed against the Soviet revisionist concept of "Mother-Party / Daughter-Parties" but basically against the concept of the Communist International. On a world scale revisionism can ultimately only be fought victoriously and imperialism will be defeated only if all anti-revisionists of the world unite in the Communist International. It is the experience of the history of the Communist World Movement that imperialism survives only by the destruction of the organized, centralized unification of the proletarians of all countries - namely by the hindrance or destruction of the Communist International. The isolation of the CPSU (B) from its brother-parties, the isolation of the PLA from its brother-parties - the isolation of the Sections from the Communist International, this was always the strategy and tactics of the international counter-revolution to paralyze the international communist movement. The world imperialism managed this only with the help of international cooperation with the revisionists. And so it was at first the Yugoslav revisionists, then the Soviet revisionists and finally the Chinese revisionists who tried to lead the PLA astray. Ultimately led the capitalist-revisionist encirclement only through the treachery of the Albanian revisionists after the death of Comrade Enver Hoxha to success.

 

The split of the Communist World Movement in the mid-60s


it is impossible to bring about the victory of the socialist world revolution and to fulfil the tasks of world socialism, it is impossible to strengthen the internationalist unity of the world proletariat, it is impossible to fulfil its world-historical mission without the complete break with Maoism, without explaining to the masses the inevitability of drawing a principled demarcation-line towards the revisionist Mao Zedong Ideas. We defeated the Soviet revisionism and we shall defeat Chinese revisionism as well. There cannot be any unification between the ideology of the Maoists and Marxism-Leninism! There cannot be any unification between the proletarian and the bourgeois ideology! Down with all currents of reconciliation between Marxism-Leninism and Maoism! So called “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” is neo-revisionism, is anti-revisionism in words and revisionism in deeds! Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism - this is definitely the genuine world-proletarian ideology of today. Anything else is bourgeois ideology and has to be defeated. The Comintern (SH) is sticking to the old correct line of the world communist movement: Revisionism was, is and still remains as the main danger in the world communist movement. Essence of revisionism is nothing but bourgeois ideology.

 

The so-called “Sino-Soviet split”

The so-called “Sino-Soviet split” was neither a split between two socialist countries, nor a split between a revisionist and a socialist country. It was the split of the two leading revisionist countries of the world. It was highest expression of a struggle between the CPSU - who wanted to maintain its dominance in the communist world movement - , and the CP China who wanted to establish its own dominance in the communist world movement - on the costs of the CPSU. According to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism the split of true socialist countries is impossible because the relationship of socialist countries is based on the same proletarian ideology which teaches unity instead of split.

Both Chinese revisionist bourgeoisie and Soviet revisionist bourgeoisie had plans of becoming imperialist superpowers that would exploit and oppress the world peoples even more this time under “socialist”, “Leninist” and even "Stalinist" masks and slogans (“socialists” in words, imperialists in deeds).

The true reason behind Soviet revisionists’ false “anti-Maoism” was not simply the necessity of discrediting a rival whose imperialist ambitions represented a danger to their dominance over the revisionist world. Rather over the entire world - especially over the revolutionary, socialist world – led by socialist Albania. The true reason was this: splitting and liquidating the communist world movement, isolation of socialist Albania and transforming Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism into a bourgeois ideology – namely in cooperation with the Chinese revisionists, especially by means of initiating the so-called “Sino-Soviet Split”.

- The tactics of “anti-Maoism” of the Soviet revisionists was indispensable for hiding their social-fascism inwards and social-imperialism outwards.

- And the tactics of the Chinese revisionists against the Soviet-revisionists was indispensable for hiding as well their social-fascism inwards and their social-imperialism outwards.

Both revisionist camps used the opponent camp first, as a shield to protect their own revisionism and secondly to dominate the communist world movement, inclusively the only socialist country in the world – Albania , for the common purpose to eliminate the danger of Stalinism, the danger of the regeneration of the socialist camp, the danger of the socialist world revolution and global spreading of world communism, and the danger of the anti-imperialist wars of the oppressed and exploited peoples.

Of course, both these international revisionist camps did not need to hide their revisionism behind the imperialists with which they both cooperated, however behind the revolutionary communist and workers' movement, especially behind socialist Albania. This meant that all these counter-revolutionary maneuvers were supported and in the interest of the whole world-imperialist system. The so-called false “Sino-Soviet Split” was thus totally in the service of anti-communism and is therefore unmasked and combated by the Comintern (SH).

It is clear that the death of Stalin led to the split of the world communist movement. The murder of Stalin was the clearest proof of this. The world bourgeoisie understood that the world communist movement would fall under the influence of modern revisionism. To prevent success of the struggle against modern revisionism by the world communist movement, the world bourgeoisie supported not only the Soviet imperialists, but also the Maoists. Chinese revisionism had the task of liquidating the world communist movement again if it would ever liberated from the domination of modern revisionism. But finally it became clear that the Maoist activities in this division could not by carried out openly. Maoism was therefore difficult to unmask for the world communist movement, as over 15 years it was hidden behind the struggle against modern revisionism before being unmasked in 1978 by the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head.

The world communist movement was freed from the influence of modern revisionism during the period from 1978 (China’s rupture with Albania) to the death of comrade Enver Hoxha in 1985.

Since 1985, it was under the influence of neo-revisionism - up to 2000. Since the year of the founding of the Communist International (SH), the world communist movement has been freed from the influence of neo-revisionism.

It is a crime to attack the great work of the Comintern and the Marxist-Leninist authority of Stalin, which played a major role in the creation and in the organizational, political and ideological consolidation of the communist and workers’ parties of the world. For its part, the Bolshevik Party was a powerful aid for those parties, and the Soviet Union, with Stalin at the head, was a great potential in support of the revolution in the international arena.” (Enver Hoxha, The Khrushchevites, Tirana, 1980)

The accusation of cult of personality against Comrade Stalin was only a pretext for the annihilation of Stalinism. "De-Stalinization" means the removal of Marxism-Leninism under the pretext of eliminating the so-called "cult of personality". The cult of personality was a weapon of propaganda cooperation between revisionists and imperialists. The fight against so-called "cult of personality" was not only the mask used by modern revisionists, but also one of the main causes of the split in the world communist movement, whose leader was Stalin, in order to promote "de-Stalinization" of the world communist movement and its replacement first by Titoism, then by Soviet revisionism and finally by Maoism.

The revisionsists used not only their criticism on “cult of personaility” for the purpose of de-stalinization” but also criticisim of so called “dogmatism”.

With the revisionist slogan of “dogmatism as the main danger in the communist world movement”, the modern revisionists intended to attack all that which was the main danger for the restoration of capitalism – namely Marxism-Leninism. "Anti-dogmatism" was always the weapon of the revisionists in the fight against Marxism-Leninism, behind which they hide their own revisionism.

Contrary to what the Soviet revisionists affirm, the Stalinist period was not an era of “terror and dogmatism”. Indeed, it was the exact opposite to this. It was an era in which the Soviet working classes enjoyed the greatest freedom, they were living in a genuine proletarian democracy and they were successfully building socialism. Indeed, by the time comrade Stalin passed away, all the necessary premises and basic conditions to the advancement from socialism to communism were ready. To have prevented the advancement from socialism to communism in the Soviet Union and to have destroyed socialism there are undoubtedly among revisionists’ greatest crimes for which they will answer in the future. The criticism directed by Soviet revisionism against Chinese revisionism and vice-versa try to evade and refuse the issue of building communism under the conditions of imperialist encirclement. Both the Chinese and the Soviet revisionists have betrayed the doctrines of Stalinism on the construction of communism. Both the Maoists and the Soviet revisionists were and are opponents of Stalinism in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet revisionists have betrayed the transition to communism, declaring the dictatorship of the proletariat as superfluous and propagating the "state of the whole people." Comrade Stalin teaches, however: while the transition to communism in one country is carried out under the conditions of imperialist encirclement, the class struggle against external and internal enemies of the country will be exacerbated. And that class struggle can only be performed by the working class and its Bolshevik vanguard party. Comrade Stalin teaches, therefore, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is indispensable in the period of transition to communism, namely in a country that is surrounded by imperialist powers. Instead, the Soviet revisionists have ceased the class struggle against imperialism. In the question of the transition to communism, the Chinese revisionists found it impossible to build communism in the conditions of imperialism. In contrast to Stalinism, they affirm that the transition to communism would be an obstacle for the destruction of imperialism on a world scale, claiming that the construction of communism would be opposed to internationalism. Allegedly, the transition to communism in “one” country would “discriminate” against other socialist countries which would be still not ripe for a transition to communism. These Chinese arguments attest to the fact that their entire way of thinking was largely effected by Trotskyism, which mistook the internal conditions of building socialism with international conditions. The Maoists denied the Stalinist theory of building communism in “one” country as a powerful lever of the socialist world revolution. And moreover, the Maoist denied even the Leninist theory of the possibility of the construction of socialism in “one” country. With other words, the Chinese revisionists did neither understand nor implement the Leninist-Stalinist theory of the socialist world revolution which relies on the construction of socialism and its transition to communism in “one” country – namely as a basis and lever of the socialist world revolution.

The Soviet revisionists rightly criticize the Maoists that the "theory of the impossibility of building communism in one country" is Trotskyist ideology and is borrowed from the "impossibility of building socialism in one country".

The only difference between Maoism and Soviet revisionism on the issue of transition to communism is that the Maoists deny this openly while the Soviet revisionists, in words they say “yes” to the transition to communism, but had abandoned it in deeds, not only the Stalinist road of communism, but socialism through capitalist restoration.

The Maoists, on their side, affirm rightly that capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union. But both use their “criticisms” with the sole purpose of better hiding their own revisionism. Therefore, both Maoism and Soviet revisionism denied in deeds the necessary transition to communism according to the teachings of Stalinism.

It is true that socialism had been fully accomplished, and that capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union under the cloak of the “transition to communism” (- see: program of the CPSU on the XXII Congress). On the contrary, capitalism had never been eliminated in China. To deny this would be one of the false arguments of the Maoists in 1964, for example. To firmly stress this is inevitable: without full development of socialism in the Soviet Union, Stalin would not have initiated the transformation to communism. Socialism in the Soviet Union WAS already fully developed and thus ripe for transition to communism – as Stalin teaches. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism teaches that the victory of communism in “one” country cannot be guaranteed without the dictatorship of the world proletariat and world socialism. Communism can be performed in “one” country but not guaranteed as long as the imperialist encirclement exists. Communism in “one” country can only be guaranteed in the period of world socialism. Full development of world socialism is required for the transition to world communism – thus expressively in all countries of the world. This is the only way how to change “one” communist country into one communist country (without quotation marks). The transition to world communism begins with the abolition of classes on a global scale which develops during the whole world-historical period of world socialism - between world capitalism and world communism. In the Soviet Union, all the objective and subjective conditions for the transition to communism had matured. Stalinism teaches that the transition of communism in “one” country is possible even under conditions of world imperialism as demonstrated by the Soviet Union which had fully developed the stage of socialism. Therefore, we can derive the thesis that communism in “one” country is doubtlessly not only possible but unavoidable during the period of world socialism. Stalinism-Hoxhaism teaches that Communism - on a world scale - does not mean that a country will achieve its transition to communism at the same time as all the other countries. Even in world socialism the law of unequal development of socialist countries is valid. And even in world communism certain differences will remain in the development of single communist countries until the complete development of world communism – namely when all nations have merged and finally disappeared.

The revisionist influence of the CPSU in the world communist movement was based mainly on open anti-Stalinism. The revisionist influence of the CP China in the communist world movement was based mainly on hidden anti-Stalinism. Open and hidden anti-Stalinism, this complementary tactical double play was the ideological base of the world bourgeoisie for the purpose to split the communist world movement.

In the history of the struggle of the world bourgeoisie against the communist world movement one of the main attempts was descrediting its leaders, first Marx and Engels, then Lenin and Stalin, and today Enver Hoxha.

These methods, discrediting the leaders for the purpose to split and liquidate the communist world movement, were perfected by Trotsky, the leader of the 5th Colonne of the bourgeoisie within the communist world movement.

The Soviet and Chinese leaders accuse each other of Trotskyism, but they all are united in applying methods of Trotskyists to annihilate the Marxist-Leninist world movement. They always penetrate within Marxist-Leninist parties to promote faction and division and to liquidate them. And the supposed “anti-Trotskyism” of Soviet and Chinese revisionists is only intended to keep proletarians, workers and other exploited and oppressed classes away from the authentic anti-Trotskyist struggle waged by Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha.

The 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism never considered division as "law of development of the world communist movement." The division of the world proletariat is an instrument of the world bourgeoisie to maintain its rule. Cleavage is not a fatal law of nature of the class struggle. To base ourselves on the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism is the most effective way to prevent cleavage by the bourgeoisie and to protect the unity of the world communist movement and to strengthen it. The history of the further advancement of the world communist movement was always connected with its purification from all the blisters and dividers in its ranks. That's the right world Bolshevist attitude that Chinese leaders never practiced. The "theory" of Maoist “division as a law of development of the unity of the world communist movement” is the "theory" of the Maoist so-called "struggle between two lines" and of the Maoist “theory” of the “hundred schools”. This is nothing but a bourgeois-revisionist “theory” - directed against the communist world movement.

The crimes of the Soviet revisionists was that they divided the world communist movement behind the so-called "fight against Maoism". The unity of the Soviet revisionists was based on the anti-Stalinism unity. Anti-Stalinists were never defenders of the world communist movement's unity, but its dividers and annihilators. Both Soviet revisionists and Maoists were divisors of the world communist movement, the Soviet revisionists hide this behind Leninism, while the Maoists hiding this behind Stalinism.

In the history of the communist world movement, there were situations when division was justified if the Marxist-Leninist line was irreversibly replaced by a revisionist line. Is the party is completely degenrated, then it is indeed the duty of all Marxist-Leninists to start a new Marxist-Leninist party and to fight against the old degenerated party. So proletarian and bourgeois divisions depend on the political line. Unavoidable divisions in the interest of the unity of the proletariat for the purpose to get rid of the opportunists, is justified. This serves to the strengthening of the communist world movemnt. Divisions which weaken the unity of the communist world movement, are only in the intrest of the bourgeosie. Therefore, cleavage in defense of Marxism-Leninism can not be equated with anti-Marxist-Leninist cleavage. Concerning cleavages within the communist world movement, the decisive historical question was always: "What class benefits and what class suffers damages because of the cleavage?" The revisionist parties pretend to “defend Marxist-Leninist unity”. But in deeds they have always misused it as a mask, behind which they have hidden their struggle against the unity of the communist world movement. The struggle among the different revisionist camps was always a struggle for the predominance within the communist world movement.
Of course, the Maoists kept the cloak of "Marxism-Leninism" to dominate the communist world movement. In truth the Maoists had no interest in supporting Marxist-Leninist parties. In the contrary, their tactics was the support of various "Marxist-Leninist" parties in the same country. With this tactics the international unification of the Marxist-Leninist Parties was made more difficult. There is only one working class, and can therefore be only a communist party. Maoists deny this and therefore are lackeys of the bourgeoisie, weakening the Marxist-Leninist movement to strengthen their positions.

The strength of the communist world movement required such Marxist-Leninist parties who are able to form the communist world movement by their international unification.

History proved that the communist world movement is weak without the leadership of the proletarian International. And vice-versa, the communist world movement was always strong un der leadership of the proletarian International.

All revisionists have in common that they deny the historical mission of the world proletariat, that they deny the necessity of the Communist International as the leading party of the communist world movement. The so called "split between the CPSU and the CP of China" was the tactics in the mids 60s for the purpose to weaken and split the communist world movement.

The split of the revisionist camp hindered and replaced consciously the debate between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism by a mock fight between two types of revisionism whose aims, purposes and even their positions were basically of the same nature – namely the struggle against Marxism-Leninism as the only ideology on which unity of the communist world movement is based.

The Soviet revisionists regarded China as a “socialist” country. Fact is that China was at no time socialist. The “People's Republic of China” was “socialist” in words and capitalist in deeds – thus a revisionist state led by a revisionist party. That is exactly the main point in what the so called "anti-Maoism" of Soviet revisionists fundamentally differed from the authentic anti-Maoism of comrade Enver Hoxha and of the Marxist-Leninist world movement!

There is not a “peaceful way” towards socialism or communism road while imperialism prevails in the world. However, the Soviet revisionists were of the opinion that they could build communism in "peaceful competition" between the two systems in the world (whereas the socialist camp ceased to exist after the death of comrade Stalin). The Soviet revisionists unarmed not only the working class in their own country, but also disabled the Soviet Union as a lever and base of the world socialist revolution of the world proletariat. Thus, the "communist" Program of the XXII. Congress of the “C”PSU served in fact only world imperialism and not world communism. There can be no peaceful competition - neither between capitalist states, neither between capitalist and socialist countries. As long as world imperialism exists, it never "irrevocably" loses its dominance. The world today demonstrates the core of this revisionist "theory of irrevocable victory of socialism" - which was defended at the VII World Congress of the Communist International. In 1964 there was no socialist camp anymore. There was only competition between capitalist states. In other words, Russian imperialists were trying to safeguard their domain against Chinese imperialism and so they depicted Maoists as being engaged in "separatist activities of the division." This was the division that existed between revisionist states. In the meantime, American imperialism has maintained its hegemony, while China had to break this control to gain supremacy.

With their adoption of the opportunist theories of “peaceful transition”, Soviet revisionists and Chinese revisionists aimed at accomplishing two purposes.

The first purpose was to keep world proletarians, workers and the other exploited and oppressed classes away from armed anti-imperialist struggle. This objective was crucial to Soviet and Chinese revisionists because of their plans of becoming themselves imperialist superpowers.

The second purpose they try to fulfill is to use the “necessity of peaceful coexistence” as a justification to their obvious allowance of Western imperialist penetration in their respective countries. This because both Soviet and Chinese revisionists believed they could use the willingness of their Western imperialist rivals to penetrate their countries as something that could foster their objectives of becoming imperialist superpowers.

When the anti-communist program of the Soviet revisionists was decided on the XXII Congress of the “C”PSU, there were heavy simultaneous attacks against comrade Enver Hoxha and PLA released on the same XXII. Congress - on one side - and reconciliation with the Chinese revisionists – on the other side. This proves that the PLA was the first and only party then communist world movement that criticized modern revisionism on the correct basis of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, whereas the Chinese revisionists always continued with their opportunist reconciliationist positions between Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism and anti-Stalinism of the Soviet revisionists. Chinese revisionism never really struggled against Soviet revisionism on genuine basis of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. In other words, the Chinese revisionists never supported the correct line of the PLA. The Maoists and the Soviet revisionists spread the lie that Albania had allegedly "parroted” Maoism. The truth is that the PLA never deviated from Marxism-Leninism until the death of Comrade Enver Hoxha, whereas the Maoists tried to enslave Albania to revisionist and social-imperialist China. But this attempt failed completely – just like before them the Soviet revisionists also failed to enslave Albania to revisionist and social-imperialist Russia. And also Titoite enslavement of Albania failed thanks to comrade Enver Hoxha.


The false "anti-Maoism" of the Soviet revisionists, social-imperialists and social-fascists was to hide their own betrayal of proletarian internationalism behind the “defence” of comrade Lenin. The "anti-Soviet revisionism" of the Chinese revisionists, social-imperialists and social-fascists was to hide their own betrayal of proletarian internationalism behind the “defence” of comrade Stalin. Proponents of proletarian internationalism were only the Albanian communists, against which the Soviet revisionists and Maoists acted together.


After the death of comrade Stalin, the international tactics of the modern revisionists was mainly based on this sham maneuver between the Soviet revisionist and Chinese revisionist camp as the two, open and hidden, anti-Stalinist world camps. Both the Soviet and Chinese camps were revisionist camps. They did not only serve the interests of the national bourgeoisie in Russia and China, but moreover, they served the world bourgeoisie in its struggle against the communist world movement. The so called "Sino-Soviet-Split" was as a bulwark against the socialist world revolution and the international spreading of world communism, in general, and against comrade Enver Hoxha, the PLA and the single socialist Albania, in particular. However, Hoxhaism teaches that the communist world movement must smash all the revisionist camps without exception. We can never share our principles with revisionists, and we can not defend the one revisionist camp for the purpose to struggle against another revisionist camp. It is impossible to defeat Soviet revisionism without the defeat of Chinese revisionism, and vice versa, it is also impossible to defeat Maoism without defeat of Soviet revisionism.

The struggle against revisionism is simultaneously a differentiated and manifold task: firstly we unmask the single camps of revisionism (in particular), and secondly we unmask their interactions against the international unity of the communist world movement; or with other words: we must analyze, unmask and smash the interdependence of both, national and international actions and "theories" of the revisionists, and both the open and hidden actions and "theories" of the revisionists. The revisionists are both, lackeys of the national bourgeoisie and lackeys of the world bourgeoisie in the struggle against the proletariat in the single countries (in particular), and against the world proletariat on a global scale (in general). Hoxhaism teaches that the unity of the communist world movement can be defended not other than by smashing the concerted action of hidden and open revisionism. This concerted action was disguised with the so called "Sino-Soviet-Conflict”, namely for the only purpose to dupe and liquidate the communist world movement with comrade Enver Hoxha at the head. Thus, the so-called "Sino-Soviet-Split" was a feigned "controversy" in the struggle against the unity of the communist world movement with comrade Stalin at the head.


The term “SINO-SOVIET SPLIT” was only a “pseudo-split”, a mock battle, for deceiving the communist world movement and the world proletariat. The so-called false “Sino-Soviet split” was the revisionist double play of splitting the communist world movement. The split of the revisionist camp was necessary for the splitting and liquidation of the Stalinist movement. The so called “Sino-Soviet split” was a double play of the world bourgeoisie to split and liquidate the world communist world movement by forcing the true communists to support either the Soviet or Chinese revisionist world camp. However, the Stalinist-Hoxhaists decided neither to take side of the hidden anti-Stalinist Maoists nor to take side of the open anti-Stalinist Soviet revisionists and unmasked and combated this revisionist maneuver victoriously on the basis of Stalinism-Hoxhaism.


The world bourgeoisie wanted always to “prove” that “the communist world movement will degenerate by itself and that it would be allegedly “too weak” of coming to power (see: liquidationism of Trotsky: “self-fulfillment of the law of communist self-destruction”; or Mao: “law of destruction-construction-destruction” - “split-unity-split”). These are all “theories” of so called “self-liquidationism” of communism and its movement. The communist world movement can only lose its danger for the world bourgeoisie if it is completely in the hands of the revisionist, no matter if the different revisionist branches share this leadership or not.


In truth, both Soviet and Maoist revisionisms and revisionists are liquidationist and capitulationist “theories” which aimed to replace the ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism by bourgeois ideology. All these liquidationist “theories” were already created since the 7th World Congress of the Comintern – namely to dispense of our own communist organizations and ideology in favor of the unity front with the bourgeoisie. The liquidators of today categorically deny the existence of Stalinism-Hoxhaism, because it is the main hindrance for them to liquidate Marxism-Leninism. The neo-revisionists are still unable to liquidate the weapon of Stalinism-Hoxhaism, and that's why they call it helplessly “a figment of imaginations”. However! Earlier or later the neo-revisionist liquidators will try to succeed with the implementation of the old example of the Sino-Soviet double play between open anti-Stalinism and hidden anti-Stalinism. They will learn to master the double play of open anti-Hoxhaism and hidden anti-Hoxhaism (neo-revisionism hidden behind alleged “Hoxhaism”). Therefore, we must prepare our ideological struggle against possible future splittings of our Stalinist-Hoxhaist movement by learning from the historical experiences of the so called “Sino-Soviet-Split”. Never unification with the open and hidden revisionists! No matter how loud the revisionists will call us “splitters” and sectarians”! We will always defend Hoxhaism as bravely as comrade Enver Hoxha had defended Stalinism – no matter what kind of double play will appear between open Anti-Stalinism-Hoxhaism and hidden Anti-Stalinism-Hoxhaism (neo-revisionism - hidden behind alleged “Stalinism-Hoxhaism”).


In truth it was a sham of the common struggle of ALL the revisionists against Marxism-Leninism, against Stalinism, against the socialist revolution of the world proletariat. The so called “Sino-Soviet Split” is expression of anti-communism and a counter-revolutionary act of liquidating the Stalinist world movement.


Alleged “Anti-Maoism” of the Soviet-revisionists was guided by the aim of Anti-Stalinism. And alleged “pro-Stalinism” of the Maoists was guided by the same aim – Anti-Stalinism. The coinciding nature of Chinese and Soviet revisionism was - anti-Stalinism. They differed only in its tactical form – thus open anti-Stalinism on the Russian side and hidden anti-Stalinism on the Chinese side. Both forms are complementary forms to serve the same aim – thus anti-Stalinism. The Soviet-revisionists wanted to eliminate Stalinism as a “foreign body” which “contradicts” with Marxism-Leninism [struggle against Stalinism was masked behind the accusations of so called “personal cult”]. The Maoists wanted (at first) to eliminate Stalinism just by supporting the revisionist line of Khrushchev. However, as they noticed that Khrushchevism was already discredited by its open anti-Stalinism and profoundly criticized by the PLA, the Maoists made a tactical 180 degree turn and aimed for replacing Stalinism through Maoism [namely the ideology of “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” (MLM) emanated from this anti-Stalinist goal. The one struggled against Marxism-Leninism behind the mask of “Leninism”. And the other struggled against Marxism-Leninism behind the mask of “Stalinism”. That is not the crucial point. The crucial point is:

The so called “SINO-SOVIET SPLIT” must be considered as a double play of the world bourgeoisie – namely serving her aim to prevent the downfall of world capitalism by the socialist world revolution, and last not least, to stop the establishment of world socialism through implementation of Stalinism.

The so called “SINO-SOVIET SPLIT” was the adequate tactics and inevitable answer to the then existing confusing situation within the communist world movement after the death of comrade Stalin. Together with the death body of comrade Stalin, the Soviet revisionist wanted simultaneously to bury Stalinism.


What was the confusing situation of the communist world movement?


The communist world movement had lost its greatest leader, comrade Stalin. This meant in fact that the communist world movement was set back for decades. Especially the weakness of the leaderless communist world movement was like a vacuum which could not be filled by a new leader of the world proletariat comparable with the great comrade Stalin. Unfortunately, there was no new Stalin. The crime of the Soviet-revisionists was thus not only the murder of Stalin but moreover the liquidation of all the other Stalinist leaders of the CPSU (B). With the elimination of the Stalinist leaders of the CPSU the Soviet-revisionists paved the way for filling the gap of leadership of the communist world movement with their own revisionist leaders. This way, the Soviet revisionists emerged as lackeys of the world bourgeoisie by weakening, splitting and liquidating the communist world movement. However, all these treacherous and counter-revolutionary acts were unmasked by the Stalinists with comrade Enver Hoxha at the head. And because of this victory of the Stalinists over Soviet revisionism, Maoism became the significance as an allegedly “anti-revisionist”, “pro-Stalinist” ideology. This sham maneuver within the communist world movement was the tactics of the so called “Sino-Soviet Split” for the purpose to deepen the split of the communist world movement, to push it away from Stalinist principles and to complete its liquidation.


At latest with the XX. Congress of the CPSU, the communist world movement was overwhelmed by increasing influence by the open anti-Stalinism of the modern revisionists. And it was the 7th Congress of the Comintern which paved the way for this revisionist deviation within the communist world movement in general and within the single communist parties in particular. Since the death of comrade Stalin it was more and more difficult for the Stalinists within the communist world movement to criticize and unmask the revisionist position of anti-Stalinism namely to follow the PLA and comrade Enver Hoxha at the head. This task was all the more difficult to fulfill, after the Maoists had tried to take the lead of anti-Sovietism. It is known from history of class struggle that the reformists and revisionists have always tried to seize, monopolize and take over the lead of class-struggle, uprisings and revolutions, for the purpose to break away the revolutionary leadership, to redirect class-struggle in peaceful waters, thus to protect the bourgeoisie from attacks of the revolutionary workers. For the purpose to prevent the socialist world revolution, the world bourgeoisie needs to take over the lead of the communist world movement – namely from inside. And because the Soviet revisionists were unable to completely take over the lead of the Stalinist world movement, the world bourgeoisie resorted to the Maoists to take over the leadership of the anti-Soviet-revisionist front within the communist world movement.

It was therefore inevitable for the world bourgeoisie to influence particularly the defenders of the Stalinist camp. Logically, this could not be mastered by the Soviet Revisionists themselves because they were more and more discredited. Therefore the Soviet-revisionists needed a counterpart – and this were the Chinese revisionists. “Anti-Soviet-revisionism” and “Anti-Maoism” - this was the ping-pong tactics between the Soviet-Revisionists and the Maoists. The true Stalinists should be split, and grinded down through a pincer movement between the Soviet revisionist and Maoist camp. The liquidation of the communist world movement was not possible by only one force of revisionism. It was only possible by means of two revisionist camps – the Soviet/Russian and the Chinese camp. The purpose was clear: the members of the communist world movement were forced to take sides either with Russia or China and NOT to take sides with the Albanian comrades as the only true leaders of the Stalinist world movement.


If we want to give a correct scientific answer to the question of the true intentions of the feigned "anti-Maoism" of the Soviet revisionists, we must at first basically distinguish the development of Soviet social-imperialism from that of the Maoist social-imperialism; and secondly we must analyze both the rivalry of the Russian and Chinese bourgeoisie within the system of world imperialism and their co-operation for defending the system of world imperialism against the communist world movement and the socialist world revolution of the proletariat. The teachings of Leninism on the nature of imperialism are valid for both the Russian and Chinese social-imperialism. One of the main features of Hoxhaism is the enrichment of the Leninist-Stalinist lessons on the theory of imperialism: Social-imperialism is scientific expression of the highest stage of restoration of capitalism. This was typical for the social-imperialist Soviet Union.

But not typical for Chinese social-imperialism.

In contrast, Chinese social-imperialism emanated from a former semi-colonial country [ also other former colonial and semi-colonial countries formed a new type of emerging imperialism such as India, Brazil, South-Africa etc.].

Both kinds of social-imperialism have similar historical roots: The Soviet social-imperialism is expression of the restoration of the Tsarist Empire while the Chinese social-imperialism is expression of the restoration of the Chinese Empire which is, by the way, older and with far more significance in world history. These similar historical roots are doubtlessly reflected in the restoration of hegemonic ideology of Russia and China, and thus strong enough to influence and dominate the ideological development of all the other countries in the world.

According to our scientific dialectical method of "unity and conflict of opposites" we analyze the contrast and consequently the conflict of Russian and Chinese social imperialism and its ideology. Both social-imperialist systems developed after the death of comrade Stalin and in contrast to Stalinism – however in different ways. Decisive is the fact that the Soviet social-imperialism and its development towards a superpower occurred after the Stalinist phase of the transformation of socialism to communism in the Soviet Union and after the creation of the Stalinist world camp. The Stalinist leadership of the socialist world system was misused for the development of Russian social-imperialism.

In contrast, the Chinese social-imperialism emanated from the struggle against the pre-domination of the Soviet social-imperialism within the revisionist world camp. According to our Stalinist-Hoxhaist scientific point of view, and in the strict sense, the Chinese imperialism did not emanate from the ground of the restoration of capitalism in a socialist country, in comparison with the revisionist and social-imperialist Soviet Union. The Chinese economy had even not reached the first stage of the Leninist NEP which was expressively based on the dictatorship of the proletariat and which in contrast, never existed in China.

China developed to an imperialist superpower without having been a socialist country, thus firstly by means of the support of the Stalinist world camp, especially by the economical aid of comrade Stalin and the Soviet Union. And after the revisionists had seized power, China received economical support by the revisionist world camp and additionally by the world imperialists, primarily by the USA which were interested in strengthening own hegemonic position through weakening the communist world movement and supporting cleavage in its ranks, in general, and through taking advantage of the conflict between the Russian and Chinese social-imperialists, in particular. The world imperialist system supported both the Soviet-revisionists and the Maoists, firstly for the purpose to control and balancing the deepening of their contradictions; and secondly, financial aid of the world imperialist system was only provided under the precondition that the Maoists and Soviet revisionists would strengthen their struggle against further global spreading of communism and against the danger of the socialist world revolution.


Last not least, the revisionist "Three-World-Theory" played a decisive role for the development of Chinese imperialism, especially its strengthening through Chinese neo-colonialism- namely through exploitation and oppression of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin-America. And all this utilization and combination of different sources (in addition to the utilization of the historical sources of the old Chinese Empire and its ideologists) of the development of Chinese social-imperialism is expression of the eclectic "amalgam", the special feature of Maoism. It was the "merit" of Mao Tsetung to transform a semi-colonial country into a colonial world power. More than that: Mao Tsetung paved the way for the restoration of a former hegemonic Empire – namely unparalled and thus for the first time in world history. And this was spirit and purpose of Maoism. The capitalist-revisionist world answered with "anti-Maoism" – namely to "kill two birds with one stone":

Firstly, to roll back the hegemonic character of Maoism and secondly to roll back the communist world movement (in combination and with help of Maoism).

Neo-revisionism is that kind of revisionism which has changed its skin relatively to modern revisionism. It is the veiled form of revisionism with which the bourgeoisie makes transition from avoiding the stage of socialism in "one" country to avoid the stage of socialism in all countries.

Under the banner of "struggle against dogmatism and sectarianism" (sectarianism, in particular, is the organizational expression of dogmatism), the Soviet revisionists struggled against Marxism-Leninism as the main danger.

The communist world movement cannot struggle against revisionism on the basis of the revisionist ideology.

The communist world movement can only struggle against modern revisionism and all other kinds of revisionism and neo-revisionism on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism.

When the Soviet-revisionists attacked Maoism, they simultaneously called China a "socialist" country and exchanged niceties and congratulations.

The Soviet revisionists created their agencies in China and the Chinese revisionists created their agencies in the Soviet Union, and both China and the Soviet Union created their own agencies within Socialist Albania and within the Albanian Marxist-Leninist World Movement.

The false struggles “against” Maoism on the one side and “against” Soviet revisionism on the other side are both expression of mutual rivalry for domination in the communist world movement. The one revisionist camp struggled for the maintenance of its domination and the other revisionist camp struggled for its removal and ran thus for its own domination. It was a battle for supremacy in between the revisionist Soviet Union and the revisionist China.

This shows that they are both counter-revolutionary camps which hide their own revisionism behind the alleged "struggle against revisionism" in the other countries. This dangerous tactic was unmasked by comrade Enver Hoxha.

There have been both Soviet agents in China and in the Maoist parties in the world [to decompose], and also spies from the Maoist parties who operated with their agents in the Soviet revisionist parties. Both agencies were simultaneously encouraging subversive acts in the Marxist-Leninist parties, not only in the PLA, but also in the fraternal parties.

The decisions of 1957 and 1960 were a compromise. They contained both Marxist-Leninist and revisionist objectives (Eclecticism paves the way to revisionism).

The discussions of 1957 and 1960 were a ticking time bomb between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism.

The whole later conflict, the escalation through to cleavage it was only a matter of time.

This resulted in the formation of the Maoist line, with the REQUIRED split between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism being systematically undermined.

Basically Maoism should bring the anti-Communist work to a successful end, accomplishing that which Titoism and Soviet revisionism had failed, namely to keep the world proletariat away from the world socialist revolution, to renounce Marxism-Leninism, and to prevent the reorganization of the Communist International.

It is striking and significant, therefore, the positions of the PLA and of Enver Hoxha are almost silent throughout the “debate” between the Soviet-revisionist and Maoist camp !!! This is the crux of the whole discussion and conflict between the Chinese and Soviet revisionists.

The only correct Marxist-Leninist standpoint of Albania was virtually avoided!!! Even in the Chinese documents Albania is hardly mentioned. China has the Albanian public position hardly represented!

The whole study of the arguments used by the Soviet revisionists as capitalists against their Chinese capitalist competitors (on one hand) and their Chinese allied counterparts against Marxism-Leninism (on the other hand - together against socialist Albania and Hoxhaism), serves the communist world movement to continue our war against Maoism.

The weak point of the communist world movement was the temporary cooperation with the Chinese revisionists.

Today, the argument of many Maoists is therefore:

"Until the death of Mao, we were friends, but after Mao's death you have betrayed our friendship!"

The point is Hoxhaism against Maoism, in particular in the period between the XX. Congress of the CPSU and the death of Mao Tstetung.

This is the period where Hoxhaism had already criticized Maoism internally, but not yet attacked openly.

Both the Soviet and the Maoist revisionists use their own revisionism to jeopardize and annihilate the only correct way to unity of the world communist movement.

Here, the Soviet revisionist world camp was based on the "Moscow Declarations" of 1957 and 1960 – and there, the Maoist camp on the revisionist "Polemic of the General-line” of the year 1963.

Both revisionist world camps accused each other as splitters. Here, both camps have made ​​ cleavage in the service of the world bourgeoisie and thus seriously damaged the unity of the communist world movement.

In times of Enver Hoxha, there was no unity with revisionists within the world communist movement, and today no unity with the neo-revisionists within the Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement.

The socialist world camp was only able to form a unity as long as it was guided by the principles of Stalinism.

The camp of the Soviet revisionists was explicitly based on the ideology of anti-Stalinism, claiming the “victory of Leninism” over the supposed "cult of personality" of Stalin.

The Soviet revisionist world camp led straight into the camp of world imperialism over the three ideological decomposition stations, starting with the Khrushchevism over the Brejnevism up to Gorbachev's “Peristroika”.

The Soviet revisionist world camp was characterized by the fact that it split the unity of the world communist movement and its Stalinist foundations in the way of the so-called struggle against the "left" opportunism, thus against alleged “dogmatism and sectarianism”.

The world camp of Maoism aimed to break the power of the Soviet revisionist world for the purpose to replace it. This Maoist camp held - in contrast to the Soviet revisionists - in words (formal false) “Stalinism” while fighting against it in deeds, to replace it with Maoism.

Maoism is characterized particularly by the fact that it split the anti-revisionist world camp.

So these two revisionist world camps were not for the unity of the world communist movement on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, but were together with Titoism the three mutually complementary spearheads of revisionism against Marxism-Leninism.

Hoxhaism was and is the only ideology that defended the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism and further developed them against the cleavage by the Titoists, by the Soviet revisionists and by the Maoists. It fought them victoriously and thus the unity of the Marxist-Leninist world movement was restored again.

The division in the middle of the sixtees was the largest division in the history of the world communist movement.

From these lessons the communist world movement will learn to prevent or overcome similar revisionist hidden methods of splitting in the future.

The repetition of such a big cleavage can be prevented or overcome in the future by means of the correct application of the lessons of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism.

Maoism has cleavage defined as a “law of development of the world communist movement” and thus resorted to the methodology of Trotskyism.

After overcoming the division by the Maoists, the Marxist-Leninist world movement was consolidated by comrade Enver Hoxha and characterized as the Hoxhaist world movement.

But since the death of Enver there was a new division. This time, the Comintern (SH) acted successfully for its overcoming. This proves that anti-communist splits were always avoided or overcome at a higher level of Marxism-Leninism – namely the level of Stalinism-Hoxhaism.

By the pressure from the Marxist-Leninists, the revisionists themselves were put in a defensive which they were forced to “justify”. They were forced to paint their revisionist positions with new red color and called them "Marxist-Leninist" positions. In countries where this pressure from the Marxist-Leninists was relatively weak, the revisionists had to do less effort to justify revolutionary phrases with their revisionist phraseology. In countries where the pressure on the revisionists of the Marxist-Leninists was particularly high, much more red color was needed to fool the masses.

The new revisionists are those who are trying to soften the demarcation line to the old revisionists, they are the ones who want to vary in the fight against revisionism and ultimately reach their cooperation. That was also the "anti-revisionist attitude" of the Chinese revisionists against the Soviet revisionism.

The plug end to the neck in opportunism of the Chinese leadership took with time (so as not to spoil the other revisionists) a disparaging, hostile attitude towards the Marxist-Leninist parties. They did not support the revolutionary activities of the Marxist-Leninist parties, but distanced themselves from them. They saw in the true Marxist-Leninist movement a serious obstacle to their conciliatory path towards the world bourgeoisie. That's why they have never known and could have never known seriously a Marxist-Leninist course. The Chinese leadership saw in the Marxist-Leninist world movement only an object for the Chinese propaganda, for the Chinese social-imperialist interests, on the other revisionist parties to whom they wanted a free approach to pressure and deceive the Chinese people and the revolutionary world public with the "firmness of principle" of Chinese leaders reportedly applauded.

Whatever revisionists fostered Chinese bourgeois class’ interests - for Mao Tsetung it was all that mattered – China would provide them with applause.

The break with the Chinese revisionism was so far a great victory for the Hoxhaist world movement, because it was expressed that there may be a unit with no new revisionism, even if it pretends to "stay" together with us to fight against revisionism.

It is known that the revisionists do not put in their united front tactics about the firmness of principle and standards of Marxism-Leninism for the mutual relations as a criterion to reason, but the unconditional recognition of the revisionist line.

This is a chauvinist and anti-Marxist criterion.

This amounts to an attempt to prevent the union of all true Marxist-Leninist forces in the world and to create divisions within the revolutionary workers' movement at national and international level.

The revisionists are not really interested in the unity, but only in an even more effective cleavage.

What the Khrushchevist revisionists permeated with the "mother party" and their "baton" was later copied by Mao Tsetung, namely to impose the Chinese revisionist line to all others.

They only wanted to have all subordinated to them, and only wanted to eliminate the only basis for unity – the absolutely necessary indispensable guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism.

The revisionists - and the conciliators with the revisionists - are enemies of the revolutionary unity and any entity which is not revolutionary is unacceptable for Stalinist-Hoxhaists.

The struggle against revisionism can not exist without Marxist-Leninist unity, cannot be performed without global collaboration of Stalinist-Hoxhaists.

For where the international solidarity of the anti-revisionism is missing or where this is poorly developed, the revisionists put their own "unity" lever, to cleave.

The principle, the fundamental lesson of this betrayal of the revisionists is loud and clear:

No to the united front with the revisionists ! United front against the revisionists!

In the united front of the world proletariat the communist world movement must always be guided solely by the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism.

The basis of the revolutionary united front tactic is the recognition and implementation, the inviolability of the hegemony of the world revolutionary proletariat!

But how do we Stalinists-Hoxhaists approach the unity of the communist world movement?

We provide first the cardinal question:

Alliance with which classes and why?

From this, the correct question in mind, we disclaim any unity with such forces that deny the proletariat leadership role in the revolution, who do not recognize the central role of the proletariat as the social main driving force of the present epoch, and instead fusion the proletariat with the reactionary bourgeoisie and all its allies and lackeys in a common pot.

We Stalinists-Hoxhaists disclaim any unity with those who contradict the class interests of the world proletariat.

Marxism-Leninism teaches that the true Marxist-Leninist party must achieve its strategic objectives skillful and revolutionary tactics of the unity must be used to conquer the natural allies of the proletariat, to exploit the inter-imperialist contradictions and must create alliances with such forces in particular frame and that for a specific time are interested in the promotion of the proletarian revolution:

"At the same time, this party must not efface its individuality, enter every sort of front and destroy itself. On the contrary it should always preserve its independence, principles and norms. It must, without fail, ensure its hegemonic role in the revolution through struggle and its correct policy. For the revolution to be crowned with success it must be led by its Marxist-Leninist party, but no one will give you hegemony: it must be won." (Enver Hoxha, In Struggle and Revolution the Marxist-Leninists Become Strong and Indomitable, Discussion with Comrade Pedro Pomar, 1967 in: Albania Today, 1977)

"Without making a clear-cut line of distinction between revisionist views and Marxism-Leninism, dogmatism and sectarianism cannot be combated successfully from a correct standpoint." (Enver Hoxha, Report to the IV. Congress of the PLA, 1961)

Consequently, it is clear that one can never struggle correctly against revisionist positions from positions of dogmatism and sectarianism.

That is just the reverse:

To lead the fight against dogmatism and sectarianism on revisionist positions is in truth the revisionist masking of its struggle against Stalinism-Hoxhaism.

It is also clear that one can not fight against dogmatism and sectarianism if one does not simultaneously lead an anti-revisionist struggle, as both offer each other the soil against Marxism-Leninism, the one and the other must be equally defeated.

Dogmatism, sectarianism, "left" opportunism are only the reverse side of the revisionist medal.

The so-called "struggle against revisionism" on the part of the sectarians, the dogmatists, and "left" opportunists - in turn, serves only revisionism.

It weakens Stalinism-Hoxhaism and makes it easier to revisionism to gain access through the back door when the "left" opportunism knocks on the front door and vice versa.

Both the right and the "left" opportunism work hand in hand against Marxism-Leninism.

One can not therefore fight the "left" opportunism without fighting the “rightist” opportunism, neither vice versa.

The communist world movement must therefore fight against both, must engage in a two-front war against opportunism, including against the conciliators and centrists who soften this inevitably necessary two-front war to divide, weaken and liquidate it. They do this sometimes with open revisionist masks, sometimes with "left" opportunism, and sometimes also with false “Marxist-Leninist” masks, as demonstrated by the history of Trotskyism [see: "The Bolshevik Trotsky and the Menshevik Trotsky”].

The struggle against Stalinism-Hoxhaism, the fight against sectarianism, dogmatism, the "left" radicalism, “left” opportunism under the fake “Marxist-Leninist” flag – this is a hoax from the neo-revisionists.

The liberation of the consciousness of the proletariat and the peoples from the inhibiting influence of revisionism, the dissemination of Marxism - Leninism which points out the only correct course for the struggle and victory, is a primary task today in order to carry forward the revolutionary process in each country and on a world scale.” (Enver Hoxha, Report to the VIII Congress of the PLA, 1981)

Those who denounce the principles of strength of the Comintern (SH) and their loyalty to Stalinism-Hoxhaism in a time of theoretical incoherence, in an era of neo-revisionist unprincipled "anti-dogmatism" has either not realized that there is no world socialist revolution without world revolutionary theory, or wants to prevent the world proletariat from acquiring the ideology of its liberation.

Those who instead try to keep the world proletariat away from the ideology of Stalinism-Hoxhaism or even want to "liberate" it like a puppet of world imperialism is betraying the world proletariat. The world proletariat can not be free without revolutionary theory, without the leadership of the Communist International, without a strong communist world movement.

(will be continued)

Those who demagogic denigrate the need for the leadership of the world proletariat as "paternalism", who demagogic represent Stalinism-Hoxhaism as something "harmful", that is, as something that is "forced" upon the will of the masses artificially, is not a defender of the interests of the masses, but a defender of the world bourgeoisie who will do anything to prevent the masses to put the teachings of their liberation into practice.


The experiences of the split of the communist world movement teach that the unity of the communist world movement can only be guaranteed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism.