Down with Brazilian Neo-Revisionism!
written by our Portuguese comrades
On March 25 of 1922, the Brazilian section of the Communist International was founded. Like many other communist parties which were formed during this historical period, the foundation of the Communist Party of Brazil (CPB) was inspired by the Great October Revolution which had happened 5 years earlier.
In 1922, Brazil was governed by a bourgeois-conservative political regime known as “República”, which had been established in 1889. The “República” represented the Brazilian pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist oligarchs which made huge profits through the exploitation of Brazilian people in favor of the American and British monopolies. It also defended the interests of the great landowners and of the powerful Catholic hierarchy which exercised decisive influence over almost every aspect of the country’s political and social life. Despite the existence of a supposedly “representative parliament” and of the other phony institutions which are so dear to all bourgeois “democracies” in order to mislead the working classes, the truth is that during its first years the Brazilian “República” never hesitated before using armed repression against trade unions and strikes organized by the Brazilian proletariat which lived (and still lives …) in the more abject misery.
However, as time passed, Brazilian ruling classes felt that their power was sufficiently consolidated and allowed some kind of “opening” towards some “progressive” tendencies. Indeed, this pretense “opening” was perfectly integrated in the bourgeois-democratic scheme which consists in giving the working classes a false impression of “freedom” while hiding the exploitative class character of the state. And it was during this period of “opening” that the CPB was born. At first, the reactionary dominant classes which were ruling Brazil at the time were not much worried about the existence of the CPB. After all, it was a very small party with an also extremely reduced influence among the masses. Moreover, the lack of capitalist development in many areas of the country and the enormous and regressive influence that Catholic Church exercised over Brazilian toiling classes prevented Marxist-Leninist ideology from strengthening and expanding itself. In addition to these external limitations, we have to note the existence of anti-Marxist tendencies inside the CPB, namely the Trotskyist influences which were being felt within the entire communist movement. There were also pro-anarchistic currents which were preventing the party from assuming a correct Marxist-Leninist road.
In fact, some erroneous tendencies were explicit in the conclusions of the Party’s first Congresses, especially during its Second Congress which took place in 1925 and in which was considered that the main question with which the Brazilian communists had to deal was the contradiction between the agrarian capitalism with feudal tendencies and the modern industrial capitalism. Of course, CPB’s leaders were right about calling the attention to this contradiction which was a real and existing one. Nonetheless, the party leaders committed a mistake when they completely ignored Brazil’s almost total dependence from foreign imperialism and the country’s situation as a de facto neo-colonial American protectorate:
“The imperialism of the United States of America used the slogan «America for Americans », embodied in the «Monroe doctrine», in order to establish its undivided domination over the whole Western hemisphere. The economic penetration of the United States of America into this hemisphere was carried out both by means of military force and political blackmail and by dollar diplomacy, by means of the stick and the carrot. Thus in 1930, investments of American and British capital in Latin America were equal, whereas after the Second World War, the United States of America became the real master of the economy of this region of the globe. Its big monopolies took control of the key branches of the economy in Latin America.
The countries of that continent (Latin America) became part of the «invisible» empire of American imperialism, which began to make the law in all of them, to appoint and dismiss the heads of state and the governments, to dictate their internal and external economic and military policies. The monopoly companies of the United States of America drew fabulous profits from the exploitation of the rich natural resources and the toil, sweat and blood of the Latin-American peoples: for each dollar invested in the various countries of this continent they took 4-5 dollars profit. This situation still prevails to this day.
Although the capital investments by the imperialist states in Latin America led to the setting up of some modern industry, particularly the extracting industry as well as light and food processing industry, these investments have been a very great hindrance to the general economic development of the Latin-American countries. The foreign monopolies and the neo-colonialist policy of the imperialist states have given the economic development of these countries a distorted, onesided form, a mono-cultural character, turning them simply into specialized suppliers of raw materials: Venezuela — oil, Bolivia — tin, Chile — copper, Brazil and Colombia — coffee, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic — sugar, Uruguay and Argentina — livestock products, Ecuador — bananas, and so on.
This one-sided character made the economy of these countries utterly unstable, utterly incapable of rapid and all-round development, completely at the mercy of the changes and fluctuation of prices on the capitalist world market, Any decline in production and any manifestation of economic crisis in the United States of America and the other capitalist countries was bound to be reflected negatively, indeed even more drastically, in the economies of the countries of Latin America, too.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
But even with this kind of errors, the CPB was able to adopt a relatively correct line in accord with the directives of the Communist International. At that time, the leaders of the CPB remained faithful to the principles of communist ideology and the party’s activity was explicitly based in the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
Precisely because of its adherence and loyalty to Marxism-Leninism and to Comrade Stalin, the CPB was growing in strength and influence among the Brazilian working masses. The CPB had ceased to be that tiny party of the time of its foundations and had become a party in expansion and whose ideology attracted great numbers of Brazilian workers.
Seeing this, Brazilian ruling classes reacted. Taking advantage from the fascist wave which was occurring in Europe, the Brazilian bourgeoisie organized a coup d´état of fascist inspiration and imposed a harsh and cruel tyranny over Brazilian workers. The new regime which was installed would last 8 years (1937-1945) and was based in Portuguese fascism. Taking this into consideration, it is easy to see that difficult times were arriving for Brazilian communists. In fact, during the 30’s and 40’s, many authoritative regimes of the same kind of that of Brazil were established in several countries of South America, like that of Perón in Argentina. These regimes had many of the characteristics of European fascisms, especially in what respected to anti-communism. However, they also had some differences which would made life complicated to the expansion of Marxism-Leninism in Brazil and in other South American countries. The main difference between the European fascisms and the South American fascisms of the first half of the XX century was the intense populist character of the last ones. It is true that European fascisms had also a certain populist component, but they never reached the degree of populism of South American fascisms. The regime which was installed in Brazil even adopted an “anti-imperialist” phraseology, which was due to the fact that the 1937 coup d’état was supported by the Brazilian national bourgeoisie against the interests of the Brazilian bourgeoisie of the compradore type which was closely linked with British and American imperialisms.
This exercised an extremely negative effect over the CPB mainly because of two reasons: in first place, the party was immediately illegalized and Brazilian communists were implacably repressed under the new fascist-populist regime. The CPB suffered greatly due to the armed attacks that Brazilian fascists launched against the party and many Brazilian communists died in prison or were killed by fascist forces (in spite of this, the CPB never abandoned the revolutionary struggle and remained loyal to the principles of proletarian internationalism. For example, during the Second World War, many Brazilian communists went to Italy in order to help the struggle against nazi-fascist forces, in what represented an effort to counterbalance the pro-Axis stance of the Brazilian populist-fascist regime).
The second reason was an ideological one which derived from the already mentioned populist nature of the new regime. In fact, together with violent military repression of the Brazilian communist movement, the fascist-populist regime also used the old method of the poisonous counter-revolutionary ideological influences. For example, the “popular”(read fascist) regime launched its propaganda saying that it had “nationalized” the “main sectors of the economy” apparently “in favor of the interests of Brazilian people”. Of course, this was nothing but a disgraceful amount of lies. The fake “nationalizations” that were made by the fascist-populist Brazilian regime were only intended to benefit the interests of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie which now controlled the state power.
Adding to this, the Brazilian populist-fascists tried to disguise themselves with “democratic” cloaks to give the impression that the members of Brazilian national bourgeoisie were much worried about the welfare of the hungry Brazilian workers. In order to do that, they distributed free food and free medical services among the masses. They also implemented the so-called “minimum wage” and a highly imperfect system of alleged “social security”. What the great majority of the Brazilian workers did not understood was that all this was made with money which came from the taxes paid by the exploited working classes. The Brazilian national bourgeoisie used this kind of masquerades to spread illusions among the toiling masses without sacrificing its profits.
Of course that the main purpose of the Brazilian populist-fascists was to deviate the oppressed and exploited classes from the path of Marxist-Leninist revolution, from the path of socialism and communism, and unfortunately there were immense numbers of Brazilian workers which were totally misled by this new fascist-populist regime because of its alleged “popular” policies and “anti-imperialist” rhetoric, with many of them simply abandoning any adherence to Marxism-Leninism.
When Comrade Stalin died and Khrushchevist revisionism started to spread its capitalist and bourgeois degenerated influences, the CPB was still recovering from the great losses that the populist-fascist regime had caused to the party. However, the ultra-revisionist thesis of the XX Congress of the CPSU caused a great debate within the party, with two opposed tendencies being formed. The first one was that which adopted Khrushchevist revisionism, thus denying the brilliant legacy of Marxism-Leninism and of Comrade Stalin. This first tendency represented those who irremediably betrayed the socialist revolution and who chose the side of the soviet social-imperialist bourgeoisie. The second tendency was seemingly the tendency of anti-revisionism, was the tendency of the Brazilian communists who apparently refused to follow the road of Khrushchevite betrayal.
In 1960, the V Congress of the CPB took place. By that time, everybody inside the party knew that scission was inevitable. The environment during the Congress was explosive. The representatives of the second tendency fiercely fought against the revisionist majority, but they could not prevent the adoption by the CPB of the Declaration of March of 1958, whose “theses” embraced the anti-Marxist theories put forward by soviet revisionism:
“The Declaration and the “theses” support the broad union of the social and political forces, including the big landowners, which are opposed to American imperialism and to conquer, within the bourgeois regime, a national-democratic government. The theses affirm that: “This government can be accomplished through the pacific pression of the masses (in this mention of “pacific pressure” we can easily perceive the influence of the Khrushchevist theory of the “peaceful transition to socialism”) and of the anti-imperialist tendencies in order to fortify and to expand the nationalist factions of the present government (that is, the bourgeois sector, J.A), with the overthrow of all those who are at the service of foreign imperialism and their replacement by nationalist elements. Under the pression of the masses, this government will start to achieve democratic and anti-imperialist reforms. (…)”
Essentially, this is the political line which is being followed by the party.
This line will lead the proletariat and the working masses towards disastrous objectives; it incentives the proletariat and the working masses to deposit their hopes in the development of capitalism and of the bourgeoisie; to believe in the possibility of profound and consequent reforms within the frame of the present regime; to renounce the idea of the revolution. It is a pro-capitalist line, which defends the subordination of the proletariat in face of the bourgeois interests. With this line, the Brazilian people will not be able to liberate the country from imperialist dependency or from the remnants of feudalism, it will not be able to open the path to socialism in Brazil.” (João Amazonas, Uma Linha Confusa e de Direita, June 16, 1960, translated from Portuguese language).
“The official politics adopted by the party after the Declaration of March and its “theses”, corresponds much more to the interests of the bourgeoisie than to those of the proletariat. Under the guise of the struggle against dogmatism, the radical demands were abandoned and the party limited itself to reforms, to the struggle for a national-democratic government, always within the limits of the present system. Some of the basic objectives of the revolution, like the question of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal power under the leadership of the working class; the expropriation and nationalization of the American corporations and capitals or even the agrarian reform have practically disappeared from the party’s documents and activities. The party’s orientation is very similar to that of the reformist bourgeoisie, and this situation turns difficult or even impossible the adherence of the masses to the party’s influence.” (João Amazonas, A Linha Atual e as Reformas, June 23, 1960, translated from Portuguese language).
Furthermore, the Brazilian revisionists led by Carlos Prestes illegally changed the party’s statutes and program without the knowledge of the anti-revisionist militants. Of course, the Marxist-Leninists which were still in the party harshly criticized this attitude, but the truth is that the scission was already consummated. The revisionist faction changed the party’s name to “Brazilian communist party” in order to distinguish itself from the anti-revisionist section which continued to use the name “Communist Party of Brazil”. It was during this period that João Amazonas emerged as one of the main leaders of the seemingly anti-revisionist faction of the CPB.
From the early 60’s until the middle 70’s, the CPB adopted Maoism as its official ideology. This was due to the apparent opposition between Mao Zedong and Khrushchev, and the main leaders of the CPB, including João Amazonas, made frequent trips to Beijing where they were received by Mao Zedong himself. In other articles, we have analyzed the causes, characteristics and consequences of Maoist revisionism and we have concluded that the “anti-revisionist struggle” that Mao Zedong supposedly led against Khrushchevite revisionism was completely phony
Therefore, we will only call the attention to the fact that the application of the Maoist anti-socialist tactics and principles caused many communist parties and militants to commit serious mistakes. The CPB was no exception to this rule. With the formalization of the party’s adherence to Maoism, CPB’s leaders followed the sadly famous Maoist principle of the “people’s war” and of the “encirclement of the city by the countryside”. This Maoist principle leads to the denial of the irreplaceable, essential and decisive role of the proletariat in the socialist revolution. With the explicit objective of starting the formation a “peasant army”, the leaders of the CPB transferred many party officials to the countryside.
Meanwhile, the tragedy of fascism was knocking at the Brazilian people’s door again. Since the end of the fascist-populist regime in 1945, the country had been governed through more or less advanced bourgeois-democratic regimes. In 1961, the country’s presidency was assumed by João Goulart, a bourgeois politician of progressive tendencies which tried to implement some democratic measures like the agrarian reform or the expansion of political and social rights. However, American imperialists feared that bourgeois-democratic João Goulart would make Brazil follow a more independent political and economic course. Consequently, they started to conspire and united with the more backward sections of the Brazilian army. It is obvious that this fear of the American imperialists was baseless. Goulart was nothing more than a bourgeois-progressive politician whose timid reforms would never be able to surpass the limits of the capitalist system. Nonetheless, there was always the possibility that Goulart would ally with the main rival of American imperialism – the social-imperialist Soviet Union. For this reason, João Goulart was expelled from presidency in 1964 through a coup d’état ordered by the most reactionary and pro-fascist Brazilian generals which were directly supported by Washington.
Brazilian communists had already experienced fascism between 1937 and 1945. But this new fascist regime which was established in 1964 was much more ferocious and bloodthirsty than the previous one.
Contrary to the fascist-populist regime which represented the interests of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie, the new military regime totally subordinated the country to Washington’s dictate in favor of the pro-American bourgeoisie which made unimaginable profits during this period. The Brazilian bourgeoisie of the compradore type sold Brazil’s immense natural resources at ridiculous prices to the American multinational corporations and promoted the entrance of foreign credits, thus accentuating capitalist-imperialist control over the crucial branches of Brazilian economy.
It is true that since its independence from Portugal in 1822, Brazil was always one of the most indebted countries of the world, almost completely infiltrated and dependent on foreign credits, situation which has been aggravated even more since the second half of the XXth century:
“After the Second World War, the imperialist metropolises began to make direct large-scale investments in the various branches of industry, mining, farming, to buy up national enterprises, etc. They extended their domination over whole sectors of production, and stepped up the plunder of the countries of Latin America to the maximum. At the same time, they encouraged provision of loans and financing at high interest rates, thus binding these countries even more tightly to the foreign domination and to the domination of the United States of America, first of all. Brazil alone has debts to the foreign banks amounting to almost 40 billion dollars and Mexico nearly 30 billion dollars.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
It is also true that Brazil always had (and still has…) one of the most unequal societies of the world. However, during the military regime, these characteristics were taken into unbearable extremes. The already exceptionally high country’s debt soared even more and the military-fascist regime started to apply an economic program of a neoliberal kind, in accord with the interests of the American imperialist bourgeoisie. This economic program of social-Darwinist inspiration accentuated Brazil’s situation as nothing more than a mere American neo-colony, putting Brazilian proletariat on the verge of the most absolute penury:
“In the countries of Latin America an oligarchy, a very powerful monopoly big bourgeoisie dependent on imperialist economic policy and direct imperialist interference, has been created, which together with the big landowners has state power in its hands and, always with the support of American imperialism and together with it, ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the working class, the peasantry and the other strata of working people who live in abject poverty.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
In fact, according to bourgeois sources, during the military regime the average salary of a Brazilian worker suffered an acute decline and the distribution of wealth was scandalously disproportional. It was common to see skeletonized indigents begging for alms near to the sumptuous entrances of the spectacular palaces where the pro-American bourgeoisie and the fascist generals lived. Due to the racist theories and ideologies that were invariably present throughout Brazil’s history (and which are still used by Brazilian white dominant classes in order to incentive race-based divisions within Brazilian exploited classes), it is not surprising to note that the acute worsening of live and work conditions that happened under the military dictatorship particularly affected the black and indigenous proletariat, whose social and economic situation was equivalent, or even shoddier, to that their ancestors had experienced during the times of black and indigenous slavery.
This ultra-rightist and pro-fascist military dictatorship would last around 21 years and would impose a savage terror over Brazilian workers in general and Brazilian communists in particular. It is not an exaggeration to affirm that the great majority of the mortal victims of the military- fascist dictatorship in Brazil were militants of the CPB, and this is understandable because the CPB founded and led the most relevant armed movement of resistance against the fascist dictatorship – the Araguaia guerrilla, which was active during the late 60’s and early to middle 70’s. The Araguaia guerrilla was born from the CPB’s already mentioned purpose of building a “peasant army” along Maoist lines. The guerrilla’s intention was apparently revolutionary, its objective was to overthrow the fascist regime through armed struggle. Nonetheless, the Araguaia guerrilla committed errors since the very beginning and those errors derived mostly from the anti-Marxist Maoist influences which were dominant within the party.
In first place, the headquarters of the Araguaia guerrilla were installed in the Amazonic jungle because the party leaders considered this to be the most adequate place not only to hide from the attacks of the fascist army, but mainly to serve as a center to the future development and expansion of the “peasant army”. As we can note, the fundamental and primary role that the proletariat must have in every genuine socialist revolution is totally rejected by the Araguaia guerrilla organized by the CPB. In truth, the leaders of the CPB thought that the guerrillas would experiment an exponential growth thought the recruitment of the Amazonian indigenous peasants into this “army”. But they were mistaken. Despite the extreme poverty and oppression in which the native peasants lived, the great majority of them rejected any kind of involvement with the Araguaia guerrilla. This can be explained if we take into consideration the fact that those indigenous peasants lived (and still live…) in a state of an almost total primitiveness. It is probable that they did not have complete consciousness of the poverty in which they lived and of the exploitation to which they were subjected, even because great part of them had very few contacts with what we commonly call “civilization”. Moreover, we must also underline the vacillant and hesitating nature which is inherent to the peasantry. In fact, the Classics of Marxism-Leninism teach us that it is the proletariat which must conquer the peasantry to the side of revolution and socialism and not the contrary. The proletariat is the only class which is genuinely revolutionary; it is the only class truly crucial to the success of the proletarian revolution. It is obvious that this does not invalidate the fact that, due to the exploitation and oppression to which it is subjected, the poor peasantry is the class most likely to accomplish the role of proletariat’s best ally in the revolution. Therefore, the CPB and the Araguaia guerrilla suffered from the Maoist ideological evils which were pointed by Comrade Enver Hoxha:
“Mao Tsetung did not base himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory which teaches us that the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie in general, is vacillating. Of course, the poor and middle peasantry plays an important role in the revolution and must become the close ally of the proletariat. But the peasant class, the petty bourgeoisie, cannot lead the proletariat in the revolution. To think and preach the opposite means to be against Marxism-Leninism. This was proved in our country during the National Liberation War. (…)
Experience shows that the peasantry can play its revolutionary role only if it acts in alliance with the proletariat and under its leadership. The Albanian peasantry was the main force of our revolution, however it was the working class, despite its very small numbers, which led the peasantry, because the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the ideology of the proletariat, embodied in the Communist Party, today the Party of Labour, the vanguard of the working class, was the leadership of the revolution. That is why we triumphed not only in the National Liberation War but also in the construction of socialism.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
“In his writings, Mao has expressed and continues to express that «the peasantry is the most revolutionary force on which the revolution must be based». Contrary to the Marxist theory, Mao puts the decisive role of the proletariat in the revolution in second, if not third place. «This is how the Chinese revolution was carried out, therefore this theory must prevail » he says. «Long live Marx!» says Mao Tsetung, but for him, Marx's theory about the leading role of the working class is not valid. In other words, according to Mao, it is impossible for the working class to lead the revolution, and the poor and middle peasantry to be its ally in the revolution, but the opposite must occur: the peasantry must lead the revolution and the working class be its ally.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, January 1, 1976, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
“It must be re-emphasized that Mao stressed the primary role of the peasantry in the revolution, and in this direction it turns out that he was not in agreement with the leading, hegemonic role of the working class. His vacillating ideas, such as those about the peasantry, are reflected throughout the entire liberal line of Mao Tse-Tung.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, October 12, 1976, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
If we analyze the class origins of the Araguaia guerrilla, we will also note that it faithfully followed the erroneous principles of the social-fascist “Mao Zedong Thought”. In truth, the majority of the “soldiers” who constituted the Araguaia guerrilla were bourgeois college students, many of them influenced by the adventurist and foquist theories which romanticize the “peasant army”. These “revolutionary” students, whose “anti-revisionist” formation left much to be desired, to say the least, were trying to follow the example of the fascist “Red Guards” during the Maoist Cultural Revolution, which were also mainly students. What those “revolutionary soldiers” of the Araguaia guerrilla couldn’t or didn’t want to understand was that the “Red Guards” had absolutely nothing to do neither with Marxism-Leninism nor with anti-revisionism. The “Red Guards” were nothing more than Mao’s private army in the struggle he led with the purpose of re-conquering his personal tyrannical power within the bourgeois-capitalist Chinese “Communist” Party. The “Red Guards” acted without any kind of truly revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist directives; they acted in an anarchist manner at the sole benefit of Mao’s faction inside the CCP, which manipulated those students through Maoist fascist ideological notions in favor of the imperialist interests of the Chinese national bourgeoisie.
Guevarist and Castroist tendencies were also heavily felt within the ranks of the Araguaia guerrilla. In fact, since the late 50’s, the revolutionary and communist movement in Latin America has been suffering a very serious handicap because of these treacherous influences whose purpose is to deceive the exploited classes through social-bourgeois theories:
“Who was Che Guevara? (…) He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist Leninist as they try to present him. (…) I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism. (…)
The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism.” (Enver Hoxha, The Fist of the Marxist-Leninist Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, the Offspring of Modern Revisionism (From a conversation with two leaders of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) of Ecuador), 21st October of 1968, edition in English).
These quotations from Comrade Enver Hoxha correctly indicate the anti-Marxist character of the Guevarist ideology which was influencing great numbers of the students which took part in the Araguaia guerrilla. Moreover, the Araguaia guerrilla also explicitly admitted that its activities were also inspired in the liberal-bourgeois Cuban “revolution” of 1959, which Comrade Enver firmly criticized:
“We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists. They were liberation fighters against the Battista clique and triumphed over it precisely because that clique was a weak link of capitalism. (…)
In Latin America, Castroism, disguised as Marxism-Leninism, is leading people, even revolutionaries, into left adventurism. This trend appears to be in contradiction with modern revisionism. Those who are ideologically immature think thus, but it is not so. The Castroites are not opposed to the modern revisionists. On the contrary, they are in their service. The separate courses each of them follows lead them to the same point.”
(Enver Hoxha, The Fist of the Marxist-Leninist Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, the Offspring of Modern Revisionism (From a conversation with two leaders of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) of Ecuador), 21st October of 1968, edition in English).
We must also call the attention to the fact that, due to fascist censorship, the majority of the Brazilian workers did not even know the existence of the Araguaia guerrilla. This represented a severe limitation to the expansion and growth of the guerrilla’s activities but the CPB’s leaders were never able to overcome this censorship, in what constitutes one more proof of the serious deficiencies and feebleness of the links between the Araguaia guerrilla and Brazilian proletariat.
We are trying to underline the major mistakes committed by the CPB during its Maoists phase because this is important to understand the party’s neo-revisionist degeneration. As we will see, the petty-bourgeois character of the Maoist tendencies and the ideological errors caused by them were never totally surpassed, not even after the party’s apparent denunciation of the Maoist theory of the “three worlds” and consequent adoption of the Albanian line. In truth, Maoist ideology favors the interests of the national bourgeoisies of the neo-colonial countries (as Brazil) which want to exploit their respective peoples without interference and without having to divide the profits with the foreign imperialist bourgeoisies. These national bourgeoisies in ascension desire to occupy a better place inside the capitalist world market, indeed, many of those bourgeoisies even have imperialist ambitions, as is the case with the Brazilian national bourgeoisie. However, instead of understanding this and trying to definitively erase Maoist currents inside the party, thus assuming a correct and pure Marxist-Leninist line, the leaders of the CPB chose the way of neo-revisionist betrayal, they chose the side of Brazilian national bourgeoisie.
Indeed, the defeats that the CPB would suffer due to its leaders’ incapacity to overcome Maoist social-fascist tendencies started to be felt during the course of the Araguaia guerrilla. As we have mentioned, the Araguaia guerrilla developed during the period of the fascist military dictatorship in Brazil; and from the moment that Brazilian fascist generals were informed that an armed movement which was fighting under the banner of communism was operating in the Amazonic jungle, they immediately started the repressive maneuvers. Between 1972 and 1976, the generals sent 3 expeditions of 25.000 men with the sole purpose of exterminating the Araguaia guerrilla. Together, these 3 expeditions totally smashed it. Indeed, nearly all the party leaders were killed during this period in the ambushes prepared by the Brazilian fascists. Moreover, the PCB was deprived of many of its militants which had also perished in the clashes with the army.
It is obvious that the military resources of the guerrilla were much more limited than those of the Brazilian fascist army. However, this cannot be used as an excuse to the total and complete defeat suffered by the Araguaia guerrilla. In fact, this defeat can be attributed to the many ideological deviations which affected the CPB in general and the Araguaia guerrilla in particular. The embracing of Maoism played a major role in the guerrilla’s defeat, because it could never rely on a truly proletarian and communist ideology in order to expand into another regions and, foremost, to make the Brazilian proletariat the leading force of the movement. Historical experience teaches us that when a party faithfully follows a correct and loyal Marxist-Leninist line, there are no obstacles insurmountable to that party. On the contrary, it is precisely when a party abandons Marxism-Leninism that the errors and mistakes of all kinds start to emerge and lead that party towards its capitulation and defeat in face of the bourgeois ideologies, influences and forces.
For example, in the beginnings of the National Liberation War in Albania there was also an accentuated disproportionality of forces. The nazi-fascist armies which invaded Albania had resources and armaments which were incomparably superior to those of the National Liberation Army organized by the Communist Party of Albania under the leadership of Comrade Enver Hoxha. And despite this, the Albanian communist forces were successful; they overcame all obstacles and defeated the Axis forces which wanted to subjugate Albania. The Albanian partisans went through unspeakable difficulties, many times they fought against their enemies in a state of total hunger and poverty. For instance, the Albanian partisans had to defeat the ferocious attacks of the Axis’ armies during the encirclement of the winter of 1943. That was a frozen winter, and the Albanian communists had to lead the struggle in the mountains under awful conditions. But in spite of all this, the Albanian partisans accomplished their aim of defeating the encircling forces, after which they launched the final offensive which would lead to the total destruction of the nazi-fascist forces and which opened the door to the implementation of the Albanian proletarian dictatorship with the PLA as its leading Marxist-Leninist party.
Of course, the Albanian communists could only achieve all this because their line was a totally correct Marxist-Leninist line, without opportunisms of any kind:
“Despite the innumerable difficulties we encountered on our road we scored success one after another. We achieved these successes, in the first place, because the Party thoroughly mastered the essence of the theory of Marx and Lenin, understood what the revolution was, who was making it and who had to lead it, understood that at the head of the working class, in alliance with the peasantry, there had to be a party of the Leninist type. The communists understood that this party must not be communist only in name but had to be a party which would apply the Marxist-Leninist theory of the revolution and party building in the concrete conditions of our country, which would begin the work for the creation of the new socialist society, following the example of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union of the time of Lenin and Stalin. This stand gave our Party the victory, gave the country the great political, economic and military strength it has today. Had we acted differently, had we not consistently applied these principles of our great theory, socialism could not have been built in a small country surrounded by enemies, as ours is.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
It is always important to remember that the Albanian partisans were mainly peasants, but this did not prevent the Albanian communists from putting the Albanian proletariat at the head of the national liberation struggle and of the socialist construction:
“The Albanian peasantry was the main force of our revolution, however it was the working class, despite its very small numbers, which led the peasantry, because the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the ideology of the proletariat, embodied in the Communist Party, today the Party of Labour, the vanguard of the working class, was the leadership of the revolution. That is why we triumphed not only in the National Liberation War but also in the construction of socialism.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
As we had referred, it happened the contrary with the Araguaia guerrilla, whose leaders were not capable of reject the anti-Marxist Maoist principle which negates the role of the proletariat while absolutizes the role of such an hesitant class as the peasantry. In August of 2001, João Amazonas published a booklet entitled “Memories of the Araguaia” in which he affirms that:
“Was it fair a struggle like that of the Araguaia? Yes, it was fair. Indeed, it was heroic. (…) The Araguaia guerrilla had an enormous importance in the process of defeating the military regime and of the country’s democratization.” (João Amazonas, Memórias do Araguaia, 2001, translated from Portuguese language).
When reading this quotation, we conclude that João Amazonas considers the Araguaia guerrilla as having been a “fair” and even “heroic” movement. But what does the adjective “heroic” means in this case? Being “heroic” is not synonym of being Marxist-Leninist. The bourgeois students which took part in the Araguaia guerrillas might have sometimes acted heroically when they were struggling against the military-fascist forces. But it does not mean that because of this they had automatically got rid of their bourgeois nature and had become authentic Marxist-Leninists. Indeed, they continued to be bourgeois because the Maoist and Castroist influences which where dominant within the Araguaia guerrilla prevented them from reaching a higher level of struggle and conscience and from achieving a really proletarian and communist discernment. In truth, those influences never allowed the CPB to become a genuinely Marxist-Leninist party, and the best proof that we have to buttress these affirmations is precisely the fact that, despite João Amazonas’ declarations, it is obvious that the Araguaia guerrilla was a total failure; and it never accomplished its aim of “defeating the Brazilian military regime”. This could have never happened if the CPB and the Araguaia guerrilla had adopted and followed a truthful and honorable Marxist-Leninist line.
By the middle 70’s, the Araguaia guerrilla had definitively ended and the CPB was in a state of serious weakness. As we had already said, the party had lost the immense majority of its old cadres and was internally disorganized. The number of its militants had also drastically decreased due to the fascist repression which was waged not only against the Araguaia guerrilla, but also against the very feeble structure that the CPB still had in some urban areas.
Once more, historical experience brings valuable lessons from which all Marxist-Leninists should learn. And one of the more relevant of these lessons indicates that a weak party which suffered tremendous losses is much more vulnerable to bourgeois and anti-socialist tendencies and ideologies than a strong and well-organized Marxist-Leninist party. This was the case with the CPB. After the defeat of the Araguaia guerrilla, it seemed that the CPB was declining in an apparently unstoppable manner. However, the party recovered because nearly all the members of an organization called Marxist-Leninist Popular Action (MLPA) decided to join the CPB. But what organization was this? In fact, the Marxist-Leninist Popular Action was “Marxist-Leninist” only in name. This was an organization which had its origins in the so-called “Catholic left”, but which had also adopted many of the principles of Maoism. In a few words, the MLPA was an half-Maoist, half-religious (Catholic) organization.
Of course, everybody can imagine the massive quantity of anti-communist, anti-Marxist, bourgeois and social-fascist ideologies and principles that the entrance of the MLPA’s members within the ranks of the CPB represented. And we must underline the fact that it was not just one or two MLPA’s members that were accepted in the CPB. No. An academic article entitled “The impact of the crisis of socialism in the PCB, 1988-1992” refers that:
“The CPB could only recover from the defeat it had suffered mostly because of the adherence to its ranks of the immense majority of the members of the Popular Action (PA), a group of Christian origins which was close to Maoism and that had approached the CPB. (…) the members of the PA would represent about half (!!!) of the effectives of the new Central Committee of the CPB.” (Ridenti, The impact of the crisis of socialism in the PCB 1988-1992, Department of Sociology of the University of S. Paulo, 1995, page 78, translated from Portuguese language).
Reading this paragraph, it turns clear that the most important organs of the CPB were under the influence of the MLPA’s former members. Due to its religious background, the MLPA was linked to the movement of the “leftist Catholics”. But how can this movement be defined? The “leftist Catholics” are nothing more than a treacherous maneuver organized by the Catholic hierarchy with the purpose of misleading the workers, making them believe that the ultra-reactionary and pro-fascist Catholic Church is “progressive” and even “revolutionary”. Like any other bourgeois movement, the objective of the “leftist” Catholics is to prevent the proletariat from adhering to and embracing Marxist-Leninist ideology, the only ideology which is free from bourgeois influences and able to lead the world proletariat towards communism. The movement of the “leftist” Catholics is closely related to the famous “Liberation” Theology, which claims to “reconcile” Marxism and religion. These kind of political-religious movements have great influence in Latin America and they try to deny the Marxist-Leninist principle according to which all religion is opium which empoisons the exploited workers’ minds and preaches conformism and acceptance of the capitalist-bourgeois system. These movements try to inculcate the idea that religion can play a “progressive” social role and can help the oppressed masses overcoming their despair. Indeed, many of the supporters of these “theories” even affirm that the purpose of this “progressive” religion is to establish “socialism”. It is obvious that this is nothing more than a bunch of ridiculous lies. This kind of “movements” and “theories” remind us of the old “Christian socialism” which was refuted by Marx himself.
Despite their phony “socialistic” disguise, the “leftist” Catholics and the “Liberation” Theology continue to defend the existence of a metaphysical world which is ruled by a omnipotent “God”. As every Marxist-Leninist knows, all theories which accept the existence of supernatural beings or worlds allegedly “behind human comprehension” are always backward and reactionary because according to communist ideology there is nothing behind material world.
Every “theory” which tries to fabricate some “Gods” or “divine creatures” is intended to deviate the attention of the proletariat from the oppression and exploitation that they suffer everyday at the hands of the ruling classes. All “theories” that are directly or indirectly inspired on religion try to justify the existing exploitative social-economic order and to “alleviate” the tragedies and miseries of the toiling classes through fake promises of paradisiacal afterlives.
However, as time passed, the exploited classes began to understand that religion was nothing more than an instrument used by the ruling classes with the objective of validating and buttressing their oppressive and tyrannical class power. This tendency accentuated even more with the development of capitalism, and religion started to be rejected by the most conscient workers. With the 1917 October Revolution and with the expansion of Marxist-Leninist materialist ideology, religion entered in severe decline. In order to reverse this tendency, religious forces invented a new “progressive” face to hide the ultra-reactionary character of their ideologies. This is particularly true in what respects to Catholic religion. After all, Catholicism is one of the most retrograde and anti-communist religious systems. Comrade Enver Hoxha once said that the Vatican is one of the main centers of the international counter-revolution and this is totally true. The Vatican supported all kinds of fascisms and reaction with the objective of annihilating Bolshevism, but this unmasked its anti-socialist nature right in the front of the oppressed and exploited masses. Groups like the “leftist” Catholics are an attempt to maintain the perverse power which Catholic Church still holds over the minds and thoughts of the proletariat of many Latin American countries like Brazil.
It is interesting to note that the MLPA combined catholic/religious influences with Maoist influences. This is one more proof that reactionarism inevitably attracts more reactionarism. The truth is that this combination of Catholicism with Maoism is not so weird after all; indeed, it is even quite natural. After all, Maoism has also religious origins because the “Mao Zedong Thought” is based on Confucianism which, by its turn, has its major roots in Buddhist religion. And foremost, both Catholicism and Maoism have the same purpose: to keep the world proletariat in a state of slavery, so that it can be easily exploited by the bourgeoisie which is searching for the maximization of profits and for the eternal perpetuation of its outrageous class privileges.
The only way to achieve the liberation of the proletariat is through the application the principles of the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist ideology towards the building of a classless and stateless society. There is no other manner. Besides the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist movement there are no “revolutionary” or even “progressive” movements. All the other “theories” and “thoughts”, be they religious or not, are necessarily reactionary because they all uphold the capitalist-imperialist system in one way or the other. Every true revolutionary knows this. Nonetheless, the leaders of the CPB happily allowed the entrance of the members of the MLPA in the party.
As we have been seeing, the CPB committed several mistakes and endured the evil influence of many anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary tendencies. But this situation got much worse with the acceptance of the members of the MLPA. João Amazonas (practically the only old leader that managed to survive the repression) was the most prestigious of all party leaders and he could have tried to prevent this mass adherence, but he didn’t do that. One of the main arguments used by the leaders of the CPB was that without the adherence of the MLPA’s members, the CPB could have disappeared. But this argument is not convincing. In the course of its struggle for the accomplishment of the proletarian dictatorship, it is normal that the Marxist-Leninist party suffers heavy blows coming from the reactionary forces. Nonetheless, if the party is an authentically revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist party, it will always find a way to surpass the situations of weakness through the establishment of close links with the proletariat and the other oppressed and exploited classes, through the strengthening of its militant activities, through the internal reorganizations which may take place in the party and, more important than anything, through remaining completely faithful to the principles of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Indeed, situations of party recover from the losses which the counter-revolution inflicted upon it can be a perfect occasion to correct the ideological deviations and tactical errors that have been affecting that same party.
Concluding, the CPB was in a difficult situation because the deviations from Marxism-Leninism during the Araguaia guerrilla motivated its defeat; but instead of trying to rebuild the party and to correct the ideological errors basing themselves in the teachings of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism, the leaders of the CPB decided to make concessions to bourgeois-religious ideology and to openly authorize its infiltration within a party which should be the vanguard of the Brazilian proletariat. They wanted to fortify the party, but they only brought more weakness to it because the true strength of a proletarian party resides in its unwavering loyalty to Marxism-Leninism.
After having analyzed the regressive tendencies which were exerting influence inside the CPB, we will now turn to another episode of the party’s history – its supposed abandonment of Maoism and alleged adoption of the Albanian line. In the middle 70’s, the relations between the CPB and the Communist Party of China had significantly cooled. Despite the bourgeois currents that existed in the CPB, the revisionist path which the CPC was taking was so flagrantly social-imperialist that the leaders of the CPB decided to outwardly “break” with Maoism, which until then had been the party’s official ideology.
At first sight, the CPB criticized the Maoist “theory of the three worlds”, rightly qualified it as revisionist and approached the Party of Labour of Albania. It was during this period that the CPB became one of the sections of the Marxist-Leninist world movement led by Comrade Enver Hoxha.
Socialist Albania of comrade Enver Hoxha was a trustworthy proletarian dictatorship which remained faithful to Marxism-Leninism while consistently struggling against the imperialist-revisionist world (including Maoist China); and the PLA was a valiant and proud party of the Stalinist type which never wavered in its objective of eliminating all bourgeois classes and tendencies through proletarian violence in order to build a socialist and later communist society. Furthermore, the Marxist-Leninist world movement was the only world movement genuinely revolutionary and proletarian which carried on the glorious banner of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism in the struggle against revisionism.
Therefore, this rupture with Maoism accomplished by the leaders of the CPB was apparently a very correct attitude. Indeed, we might even think that this adherence to the Marxist-Leninist world movement could represent the correction of all those errors and mistakes caused by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois tendencies inside the CPB during the Maoist phase and the Araguaia guerrilla and which had brought so many sorrows upon the party. After all, we must not forget that when Khrushchevism conquered power in the Soviet Union and revisionism was dominant within the Communist movement, the CPB chose the side of anti-revisionism and preached opposition to Khrushchev, entering in rupture with the pro-revisionist factions of the Brazilian communist movement. Consequently, it is logical to presume that if the CPB had followed Socialist Albania during the Sino-Albanian split in 1976-1978, this could be interpreted as a return of the party towards its anti-revisionist roots. But was this presumption true? Did the CPB’s allegiance with the Marxist-Leninist world movement of Comrade Enver Hoxha mean a genuine rectification of the party’s line in favor of anti-revisionism and of Marxism-Leninism? We don’t think so. In our opinion, the adherence of the CPB to the Marxist-Leninist world movement of Comrade Enver Hoxha was merely superficial and external, it was not consequent in what respected to the party’s internal situation which continued to be dominated by anti-communist and pro-capitalist tendencies.
It is very interesting to hear what the bourgeoisie has to say about this subject:
“The adoption of the Albanian line did not mean the political radicalization of the CPB. In 1978, all Left had institutional action through the MDB, the moderate opposition to the military government (…).” (Wikipedia, Partido Comunista do Brasil, translated from Portuguese language).
This is what the Wikipedia, a world famous bourgeois, pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist source of information, affirms. It’s known that when the imperialist bourgeoisie qualifies a certain party as “radical”, that may not mean much. For example, between a Guevarist party and an authentically Marxist-Leninist party, the imperialist bourgeoisie has no problems about qualifying both as “radical”. However, when that same bourgeoisie explicitly says that a determined party which calls itself communist is not radical, that already means something. It means that the party in question, despite its “communist” name, is so perfectly integrated in the so-called “politically correct” circles of the capitalist system that the bourgeoisie does not even bother about considering it “radical”. All this indicates that, behind its “communist” and even “Hoxhaist” designation, the CPB continued to be under the counter-revolutionary influence of bourgeois ideologies. Indeed, since the end of the Araguaia guerrilla, the CPB had been increasingly approaching bourgeois legalism. Instead of urging Brazilian proletariat to take weapons and wage an armed and violent struggle against Brazilian fascists with the purpose of establishing the proletarian dictatorship in Brazil, the CPB cowardly embraced bourgeois parliamentarism. All the empty talk about the supposed “role played by the CPB in the defeat of the military regime” does not correspond to the reality. On the contrary, not only the success represented by the defeat of the Araguaia guerrilla strengthened the power of the Brazilian fascists, but also the anti-Marxist currents within the CPB caused the party to play the bourgeoisie’s game during the period of the fake “democratization” which marked the end of the fascist form of bourgeois dominance in Brazil.
Despite their savage reactionarism and pathological anti-communism, American imperialists and Brazilian fascists soon understood that Brazil could not be governed through fascist methods forever. They had the notion that fascism inevitably involves the risk of provoking the acquisition of a revolutionary conscience by the proletariat, and that the “democratic” form of bourgeois dominance is more able to mislead the working classes and to spread illusions among the proletarians with the aim of making them renounce to the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship, to the socialist revolution and to the building of a communist society. With this in mind, American imperialists and Brazilian fascists started to prepare the false “process of democratization” which would keep Brazilian exploited masses under capitalist slavery. In his books, Comrade Enver Hoxha totally unmasked these reactionary plans and expressly mentioned Brazil’s situation:
“In order to avert the revolutions, the American imperialists and the local capitalists resort to two main methods. One is to establish military-fascist regimes through a «pronunciamento militar» (military putsch) when they see that their positions are more immediately threatened. This is what they did in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia and elsewhere. The other method is to organize democratic- bourgeois regimes with marked limitations and large gaps in fundamental freedoms, as in Venezuela, Mexico, or as they are doing now in Brazil, trying, in this manner, to ease the revolutionary tensions and give the impression that the bourgeoisie of these countries and, to an even greater extent, the administration of the United States of America and its president are allegedly concerned about «human rights».”(Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
In first place, the reactionary forces organized an “opposition” even during the period of the military-fascist regime. This “opposition” appeared in the middle to late 70’s, it was named “Brazilian Democratic Movement” (BDM) and was, of course, completely controlled by the anti-communist forces. The BDM was a pro-capitalist organization which united the factions of the Brazilian “liberal” and “progressive” bourgeoisie which was interested in the replacement of the fascist form of capitalist dominance by a bourgeois “democracy”. It is obvious that the Brazilian fascists willingly allowed the existence of the BDM in order to use it as an instrument to prevent the emergence of strong and influent anti-fascist and socialist parties which could represent a real menace to the bourgeois desires of a “peaceful transition to democracy”. Through the BDM, Brazilian bourgeoisie was able to lead and guide the “anti-fascist” opposition towards purely formal changes which would not affect the perpetuation of the loathful capitalist system while giving the impression that “the road to Brazil’s return to democracy is being prepared”. In truth, the so-called “anti-fascist opposition” was a complete fiction; it was composed by the members of the Brazilian bourgeoisie which understood that the “democratic” form of bourgeois rule could be more beneficial to capitalism than its fascist form.
The struggle against fascism is a priority for all genuinely Marxist-Leninist parties. However, it must be conducted and accomplished accordingly with the teachings of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism, accordingly with the principles of the proletarian communist ideology, and not through the participation in the phony “opposition” which was fabricated by the fascists themselves. In fact, the CPB had been participating in the BDM since the late 70’s, at a moment in which the party was already a section of the Marxist-Leninist world movement of Comrade Enver Hoxha. As the Brazilian revisionists admit:
“(…) before the CPB’s legalization in 1985, we were electing federal deputies through the BDM.” (Documents of the CPB, A Política de Estruturação do PCB – Documentos Básicos, 2006, page 227, translated from Portuguese language).
So, the CPB was praising the Albanian proletarian dictatorship while simultaneously it was collaborating with the bourgeois movements under fascist control whose purpose was to maintain the stability of the exploitative capitalist system. Needless to say that João Amazonas played a decisive role during all these happenings. As the indisputable leader of the CPB, he was not only aware of these counter-revolutionary stands adopted by the party, but he was also one of the main responsible for them.
Nowadays, the president of the Brazilian neo-revisionists claims that:
“During the last 25 years, the CPB achieved a better contribution to national politics. It had a major role during the campaigns in favor of the country’s democratization (…) which led to the defeat of the military dictatorship through elections.” (Renato Rabelo, Textos para o debate político atual, 2010, page 8, translated from Portuguese language).
This statement is a clear proof of the ultra-revisionist road which was followed by the CPB. Country’s democratization? The transition from the fascist form of capitalist dictatorship to the “democratic” form of capitalist dictatorship has absolutely nothing to do with genuine democracy.
The communists must not only fight against the fascist form of bourgeois dictatorship, but also against its treacherous “democratic” form, even because both forms of bourgeois dictatorship have the same objective: to perpetuate capitalist exploitation. And we must also note the complete acceptance of the most abject bourgeois parliamentarism when the author of the paragraph refers to “the defeat of the military dictatorship through elections”. As if fascism could be eliminated through bourgeois elections!!! Fascism is a direct product of capitalism and will exist as long as capitalism exists. While the capitalist-bourgeois system is not annihilated, there is always possibility of implementation of fascist rule. The military dictatorship in Brazil could only be truly defeated if the CPB had conquered political power, installed the proletarian dictatorship and had led Brazilian proletariat towards the building of a classless and stateless society. Only in this case could we talk about the “defeat of the military dictatorship” because only socialist revolution abolishes the inevitability of fascism. Otherwise, the fascist form of capitalist dictatorship is always possible, accordingly with the desires of the bourgeois class which may have more or less interest in using the fascist form of its rule. Only someone who has totally abandoned Marxism-Leninism and is submerged in an ultra-revisionist delirium can affirm the contrary.
In truth, far from having contributing to the country’s democratization, the CPB did exactly what Brazilian bourgeoisie wanted the party to do. During the “process of transition to democracy” which was wholly organized by the American imperialists and by the Brazilian bourgeoisie, the CPB played the role of the “communist opposition”. The military regime was known by its fervent anti-communism, therefore the Brazilian bourgeoisie had to include a “communist” party in the “anti-fascist” opposition of the BDM. This was intended to give a more “progressive” and “revolutionary” outlook to the pro-capitalist BDM in order to deceive the workers about the true class nature of the false “anti-fascist opposition”. After all, if even the “communist” party was participating at the BDM and was electing its representatives to the bourgeois organs which were allowed by the Brazilian fascists, it is crystal clear that the workers in general and the proletariat in particular would feel tempted to think that the BDM was really an genuine anti-fascist movement whose aim was the “country’s democratization”. And we must underline that the “anti-revisionist” phraseology of the CPB only served to mislead the Brazilian proletariat even more. In fact, in those countries where the “communist” parties are openly revisionist, the bourgeoisie has more difficulties in using them to deceive the proletariat in order to accomplish its reactionary class interests, because the proletariat knows the truth about revisionist betrayal, it knows what the revisionists want and who are they favoring.
On the contrary, in the case of the CPB, the party’s revisionism and opportunism were much more difficult to unmask because at the time the bourgeois “Brazilian transition to democracy” was taking place, the CPB still used an “anti-revisionist” and even “Stalinist” mask. Outwardly, the party leaders still considered comrade Stalin as one of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism.
Nowadays, we know that the fact of a determined party or political organization considers comrade Stalin as one of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism does not necessarily mean that the party or organization in question are really anti-revisionist. Indeed, there are plenty of revisionist and bourgeois-capitalist parties and organizations which use comrade Stalin’s name to achieve their evil intentions of deceiving the world proletariat.
However, during the referred period of the “Brazil’s democratic process” in the early to middle 80’s, things were not so clear and many workers thought that the CPB was a truly proletarian and socialist party trying to establish the dictatorship of the Brazilian proletariat. And who can criticize them? After all, the CPB was a member of the Marxist-Leninist world movement led by Comrade Enver Hoxha. The party’s external positions were correct and revolutionary because they corresponded to those of Socialist Albania. But in what respected to internal positions, it can be affirmed that if Maoism had ceased to be the CPB’s official ideology, that did not mean that Maoist revisionism had ceased to have a dominant sway within the party. This can be proved when analyzing the party’s stands relatively to Brazilian national bourgeoisie. In fact, the class which was playing the most important role in the Brazilian transition to bourgeois “democracy” was precisely Brazilian national bourgeoisie, which saw the military regime as a product of the interests of the Brazilian pro-American bourgeoisie, whose connections with American imperialism were preventing Brazilian national bourgeoisie from becoming the main ruling class in the country.
The Brazilian national bourgeoisie was already preparing Brazil’s transformation into an imperialist power and that’s why it tried to conquer the power through this spurious “process of democratization”. This aim of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie is very similar to that of the Chinese national bourgeoisie, whose course we have already analyzed in other articles and whose interests were represented by social-fascist “Mao Zedong Thought”. Just like the Chinese national bourgeoisie, the Brazilian national bourgeoisie also wants to get rid of the influence of the traditional imperialist powers in order to open the path towards an imperialist Brazil. And the CPB fully supported the plans and purposes of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie in its quest for the replacement of the fascist regime at the service of American imperialism and of the pro-American Brazilian bourgeoisie by an equally hateful and oppressive regime which would spread illusions among the Brazilian proletariat thanks to its apparent “democratic features” while defending the class interests of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie whose greatest dream is to lead Brazil’s transformation into an imperialist power, which would allow that class to exploit the oppressed Brazilian proletariat without having to share the profits with nobody, not even with American imperialism or with the factions of the Brazilian bourgeoisie associated with it.
In 1985, the Brazilian military-fascist regime finally ended and in 1986 the CPB was officially legalized (although it had been electing deputies and participating in the “opposition” allowed and controlled by Brazilian bourgeoisie since the late 70’s). In 1989, the CPB was included in the political coalition entitled “Popular Front of Brazil” which was completely organized and dominated by the Workers’ Party (WP). But what kind of party is the WP? What class does it represents? Despite its left-sounding name, the Workers’ Party has absolutely nothing to do with the working class. It is an entirely bourgeois party which represents the Brazilian national bourgeoisie in pursuit of Brazil’s transition to imperialism. The WP dominates Brazilian political scene since the 90’s and the party’s “progressive” phraseology is a valuable instrument used by Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie to advance the interests of Brazilian imperialism and to prevent the happening of the socialist revolution through giving Brazilian proletariat some small crumbs from the capitalist super profits.
In truth, Brazilian national bourgeoisie soon understood that the horrendous poverty and misery which affected and still affects Brazilian working masses could be a danger to the maintenance of the capitalist system, even because the “democratic transition” had not changed the country’s social and class structures; Brazil continued to be a highly indebted country with enormous wealth inequalities. Therefore, the Brazilian national bourgeoisie tried to disguise itself with “leftist” cloaks because that would be very beneficial to conquer the support of the toiling masses during the country’s transformation into an imperialist power. The ascension of the WP is included in the so-called “leftist turn in Latin America”, and its essence is comparable to that of the similar processes which occurred in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Of course, the “leftist turn in Latin America” and the “Bolivarian revolutions” have not the slightest vestige of socialism, they are only attempts of those countries’ respective bourgeoisies to get rid of the monopolist and exclusive influence of American imperialism while putting themselves under the control and dominance of Chinese social-imperialism (although the situation in Brazil is different because there is a very large and powerful part of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie which has its own imperialist ambitions and does not want to be under the limiting domination of the Chinese monopolist-imperialist bourgeoisie). Later in this article we will develop this theme and we will try to unmask the reactionary, bourgeois and social-imperialist character of the WP’s governments which is carefully hidden behind “socialistic” phraseology and which is knowingly accepted and embraced by the neo-revisionists of the CPB.
By now, we will only underline the fact that in 1989, three years before the final destruction of the Albanian proletarian dictatorship, the CPB was already openly supporting the “patriotic” section of Brazilian national bourgeoisie. It is very important to note that the CPB’s direct involvement and contribution to the defense of the interests of the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie and to the perpetuation of capitalist oppression and exploitation started much before the “crisis of the anti-revisionist movement”, it started much before the famous 8º Congress of the CPB in 1992. It was only after the mentioned Congress that the CPB’s leaders bluntly denied Comrade Stalin’s legacy and straightforwardly assumed ultra-revisionist positions, thus openly assuming their choice in favor of anti-communism and of internal and external reaction.
In fact, before its 8º Congress, the CPB still maintained correct external positions. For example, the party considered Gorbatchev’s Perestroika as being the logical consequence of the pro-capitalist path which Soviet Union had been following since comrade Stalin’s death, as being nothing more than the accomplishment of the final purpose of Soviet revisionism, that is, the restoration of classical capitalism. Accordingly with the articles published by the CPB during the late 80’s and early 90’s, when Soviet social-imperialism and its social-fascist satellites were collapsing, the Soviet Union had known two different stages: the first one had lasted until Comrade Stalin’s death and was genuinely socialist; while the second stage began with Khrushchev’s seizure of power and was characterized by being an anti-socialist and revisionist stage. We can note that this analysis made by the CPB was right and was Marxist-Leninist because, due to its alliance with the Marxist-Leninist World Movement, the CPB was still able to defend revolutionary positions in what respected to international matters. However, this situation experienced a total change with the disappearance of the last remnants of socialism in Albania in 1992.
The seizure of power by Albanian revisionists had started just after Comrade Enver’s death, when they felt sufficiently confident to destroy the Albanian proletarian dictatorship. While Comrade Enver was alive, they didn’t even dare to try to accomplish their evil intentions and plans because if they had done so, Comrade Enver and the loyal Albanian Marxist-Leninists would have immediately and implacably smashed them. That’s why they had to wait until Enver’s death in order to put their plans into practice. The degeneration of Socialist Albania at the hands of the loathful Albanian revisionists caused great sorrow and disappointment among all the genuine anti-revisionists all over the world that during more than 4 decades had seen how Comrade Enver’s Socialist Albania invariably adopted correct Marxist-Leninist stands relatively to the major revolutionary questions of each time, how it was building socialism and communism in a principled manner free from all kinds of right or “left” opportunisms or bourgeois influences. The courageous way in which Comrade Enver and the Albanian Marxists-Leninists defended Comrade Stalin, in which they fiercely struggled against international reaction and revisionism of all stripes, from Titoism/Khrushchevism to Maoism, and the intrepid independence that Socialist Albania maintained relatively to both imperialist superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) inspired many honest communists which demarcated themselves from the revisionist and pro-capitalist courses which were being followed by the great majority of the communist parties of their respective countries. For all these anti-revisionist militants, Socialist Albania with Comrade Enver at the head was the guiding light towards a socialist society and a communist world. Comrade Enver’s death submerged the anti-revisionist movement in a deep grief, but in general, the anti-revisionist militants had hope that the correct Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist course followed by Socialist Albania would continue without interruptions. Unfortunately, few years after Comrade Enver had passed away it became evident that the traitor Ramiz Alia and the Albanian revisionists (with the support of world imperialism and social-imperialism) had completely denied Enver Hoxha’s teachings and were directing Albania towards a social-fascist path which eventually caused the fall of the last veritable socialist state in the world during the early 90’s.
Of course that this originated many problems inside the anti-revisionist movement, but instead of solving these problems while reaffirming their confidence in Marxist-Leninist ideology, the truth is that many prominent members and leaders of parties which qualified themselves as “Marxist-Leninists”, “anti-revisionists” and “Hoxhaists” chose the road of betrayal and deception, they chose the road of abandonment of the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist principles, of the abandonment of the path to revolution and to socialist and communist society. In few words, they chose the road of neo-revisionism, and the CPB also overtly followed the same social-fascist tendency.
However, as we have being trying to demonstrate throughout this article, the embracement of neo-revisionism by the leaders of the CPB was not something which happened suddenly. On the contrary, it was the culmination of a long process of ideological mistakes and of opportunist concessions towards multiple anti-Marxist and pro-capitalist influences and ideologies. It is true that the CPB adopted a correct attitude during the Khrushchevist betrayal in the late 50’s and early 60’s, choosing the side of the opposition to soviet revisionism. It is also true that the party espoused a very accurate position during the Sino-Albanian split, supporting Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha. But despite these honorable and correct stands, the reality is that the anti-socialist tendencies which had been developing within the party ultimately prevailed over the anti-revisionist origins of the CPB. Throughout the CPB’s history, it is noticeable a deep contrast between the socialist rightfulness of the party’s external/international positions as a section of the Marxist-Leninist world movement and the pro-bourgeois and even reactionary character of the CPB’s positions relatively to Brazil’s internal matters.
In the 7º Congress of the CPB which took place in 1988, Comrade Stalin still appeared side by side with Marx, Engels and Lenin. However, in the sadly famous 8º Congress of 1992, Comrade Stalin was already absent and the Brazilian neo-revisionists considered Marx, Engels and Lenin to be the only Classics of Marxism-Leninism, in what amounted to a typically revisionist attitude. Moreover, the party leaders criticized Comrade Stalin utilizing the same lies and calumnies used by the Krushchevists. In 1978, João Amazonas had affirmed in the CPB’s newspaper “Classe Operária” that:
“The works and the teachings of Stalin are alive within the peoples’ conscience.” (João Amazonas, Classe Operária, 1978, translated from Portuguese language).
But in 1992, comrade Stalin was unjustly accused of allegedly “exaggerating his role as the top leader of the CPSU” and for “having responsibilities in the revisionist takeover in the Soviet Union”. The Brazilian revisionists try to blame Comrade Stalin for supposedly “not having done enough to prevent the revisionist takeover and the subsequent defeat of socialism”. This is totally false. Comrade Stalin dedicated his life to the struggle against revisionism. Indeed, one of the main merits of Comrade Stalin is precisely to have kept the CPSU in a correct and Marxist-Leninist ideological line, free from both rightist opportunism and “leftist” opportunism. One has just to remember the struggles led by comrade Stalin against the multiple anti-socialist factions which existed inside the CPSU, from the Trotskyist faction to the Boukharinist faction. In truth, comrade Stalin was betrayed by his own “comrades” after his death. In an interview, comrade Enver Hoxha declared:
“Question: Why, in your opinion, did Stalin not prepare for his succession?
Answer: Stalin did think about this. At the 19th Congress he enlarged the Central Committee and the Political Bureau in order to consolidate the leadership of the Party after his death. But he was surrounded (…) by camouflaged enemies who constantly presented him with false reports. He told them: "After my death you will sell out the Soviet Union", but he did not succeed in combating them in time. Stalin was a great man. I knew him at close quarters. I had five meetings with him. He was a wise and level-headed man. He fought the enemies of the Soviet Union and of communism.
Before and after the Second World War, Stalin consolidated the position of the Soviet Union politically, economically and military. He had noted that his country was being undermined - and undermined gravely. Khrushchev and Mikoyan told me with their own mouths that they had organized a plot against Stalin, that they had had the intention of murdering him in a coup but feared the people. That is the kind of criminals and assassins they were. Even after Stalin’s death they continued to cry: "Long live Stalin!" and to say: "Stalin was a great man". But, at a certain moment, after having consolidated their positions, they came out against him in their notorious attack. They accused Stalin of all the crimes and faults which they had committed themselves. That we never accepted, and we declared so openly at the meeting of 81 Communist Parties in Moscow in 1960. That is why they accuse us of being Stalinists. But we are Marxist-Leninist-Stalinists and we put into effect all that is good for socialism in Albania.” (Albanian Life, nº 32, An Interview with Enver Hoxha, Tirana, December of 1984, edition in English).
In the main document of the 8th Congress of the CPB entitled “O Socialismo Vive” (Socialism Lives), Brazilian revisionists deny the most essential principles of Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist ideology:
“Brazil needs to build socialism, the country needs to create a socialist government guided by the most advanced forces of society, by the party or parties which follow a revolutionary and scientific theory …In what respects to strategy, this is the main purpose of the Communist Party of Brazil during the present epoch.” (Documents of the Communist Party of Brazil, O Socialismo Vive, 1992, page 31, translated from Portuguese language).
In this paragraph, it is the revolutionary principle of the necessity of a single party during socialism which is being negated. Once more, we see the striking similarities between Brazilian revisionism and Maoist social-fascism, which also defends the existence of various parties and classes under “socialism” in order to promote the maintenance of bourgeois exploitative domination:
“In his article «New Democracy », Mao Tsetung preached that after the triumph of the revolution in China a regime would be established which would be based on the alliance of the «democratic classes», in which, besides the peasantry and the proletariat, he also included the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. «Just as everyone should share what food there is,» he writes, «so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class ». (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
During the 8th Congress of the CPB, it was also affirmed that “Stalin gave priority to the party over the state”, and that “Stalin ordered many unnecessary and continuous waves of repression”. Those statements are irrefutable proofs of the openly ultra-revisionist fever that affects the CPB. What the Brazilian revisionists qualify as “unnecessary repression” and “overshadowing of the state by the party” has a name: proletarian dictatorship.
Every Marxist-Leninist knows that the measures adopted by Comrade Stalin during the time he was the leader of the CPSU were absolutely and indisputably necessary. Indeed, more than necessary, they were positive because they were the expression of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship whose aim was to totally destroy the very foundations of the capitalist system and of bourgeois-reactionary influences. The Brazilian neo-revisionists are very irritated about the fact that there was “repression under Stalin”. But of course there was repression under Stalin. By the time Comrade Stalin became the leader of the CPSU, the Russian bourgeoisie was still very powerful and was far from being eliminated. Even many members of the CPSU were heavily influenced by the old feudal-capitalist ideology. In these conditions, proletarian repression was desperately needed, even because only through the exercise of revolutionary violence the proletariat learns to defeat the bourgeoisie and to build a socialist and later communist society. The truth is that the proletarian dictatorship implies bloody clashes between the revolutionary and the reactionary forces, it implies the complete and quick expropriation and collectivization of the capitalist means of production in favor of the proletariat and the other working and oppressed classes, it implies the establishment of a planned economy, it presupposes an indomitable and ferocious struggle against everything related with the old bourgeois-capitalist exploitative system and yes, the proletarian dictatorship also necessarily involves the physical elimination of the anti-communist opponents. As Comrade Lenin stated:
“(…) this period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) inevitably is a period of an unprecedently violent class struggle in unprecedentedly acute forms, and, consequently, during this period the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie).” (Lenin, The State and the Revolution, Collected Works, pages 381-492, 1918, edition in English).
The revisionists consider these to be “extremist” positions, but they are the ones which willfully and deliberately defend a social-economic system which has been killing billions of people since its beginnings, which condemns the immense majority of the world population to live miserable lives under unspeakable conditions, which constantly provokes deadly wars, which imposes gruesome repression to hundreds of millions of people and which forcibly keeps the oppressed working classes under the noxious influence of a reactionary and backward ideology whose only objective is to increase the already fabulous profits that the world bourgeoisie steals and accumulates through the exploitation of the world proletariat. And while supporting the perpetuation of all these revolting evils, the revisionists still dare to accuse us Marxist-Leninists of being “extremists”!
Brazilian neo-revisionists qualify their explicit abandonment of Comrade Stalin as a “courageous criticism”, but they are totally mistaken. The true courage does not reside in the coward capitulation to the bourgeois-capitalist system. On the contrary, it resides in the staunch resistance against revisionism and in the resolute defense of communist ideology which is represented by the brilliant proletarian and revolutionary legacy of Comrade Stalin.
And Brazilian neo-revisionists went even further with their anti-communist zeal:
“We refuse the insidious accusations that the reactionary forces direct against us. We are not Stalinists. Nor are we anti-Stalinists. We consider Stalin’s figure in the historical context. (…) Besides of some incontestable merits, he showed failures and deficiencies, he committed mistakes which jeopardized the cause of the proletariat.” (Documents of the Communist Party of Brazil, O Socialismo Vive, 1992, pages 49-50, translated from Portuguese language).
“We are not Stalinists. Nor are we anti-Stalinists.” This statement is appallingly opportunist and treacherous because what is not revolutionary is necessarily counter-revolutionary. If you’re not Stalinist, that means that you’re necessarily and inevitably anti-Stalinist. Stalinism was the vital and decisive factor which permitted the survival of the proletarian dictatorship in Soviet Union. To deny Stalinist ideology means to deny the possibility of the successful socialist revolution; and the negation of the possibility of the successful socialist revolution is synonym of considering communism as an unrealizable utopia because the accomplishment of communism is dependent on the success of the socialist construction and on the revolutionary fierceness of the proletarian dictatorship.
Comrade Stalin represents the most glorious side of socialist revolution. He symbolizes revolutionary abnegation and communist strength. Comrade Stalin’s fearless proletarian rule was an uninterrupted sequence of superb achievements; from the struggle against Trotskyist attempts to destroy socialism in the USSR to the heroic manner in which Comrade Stalin led the process of industrialization and of collectivization of the means of production, not to speak about the victory over Nazism, of which the CPSU guided by Comrade Stalin was the main architect. Contrary to what the Brazilian revisionists affirm, the Stalinist period was not an era of terror and dogmatism during which Marxism-Leninism knew stagnation. Indeed, it was the exact opposite to this. It was an era in which the soviet oppressed masses enjoyed the greatest freedom, they were living in a genuine proletarian democracy and they were successfully building socialism. Stalinism represents an irreplaceable and inestimable development of the Marxist-Leninist theory, and to deny Comrade Stalin’s contribution means to deny socialist revolution in itself.
The Brazilian neo-revisionists try to hide their treason behind some phrases about “Stalin’s incontestable merits”. But these statements are nothing more than revisionist shibboleths. And primarily, we should realize that this hateful “criticism” that Brazilian neo-revisionists direct towards Comrade Stalin should be considered as being also equally directed against Comrade Enver Hoxha because he was the most faithful follower of Comrade Stalin, and while he led the PLA, Socialist Albania was a truly Stalinist bastion defying the degenerated capitalist-revisionist camp and showing to the world proletariat that the successful construction of a socialist society is not only possible, but it is foremost an historical necessity.
In truth, to put it bluntly, in what respects to the CPB’s past as a supporter of Socialist Albania and of Comrade Enver Hoxha, the Brazilian neo-revisionists usually decided to keep a total silence about that matter. However, there were some exceptions to that generalized silence. One of them was an article written by João Amazonas in the first months of 1991 in the “Princípios” magazine (the CPB’s ideological magazine). At that time, the PLA was already openly embracing a pro-capitalist course, but instead of reaffirming his confidence in the teachings of Comrade Enver Hoxha, instead of trusting Marxism-Leninism, João Amazonas affirmed this:
“Can a little, backward and solitary country successfully build socialism and advance to communism? We think that this is unconceivable. (…) The theory of the victory of socialism in a single country is only valid to countries of considerable dimensions during periods in which the world revolutionary movement is in ascension.” (João Amazonas, “Princípios”, 1991, pages 41-42, translated from Portuguese language).
If there were still doubts about the neo-revisionist character of the CPB in general and of João Amazonas in particular, this phrase gives us the final answer. This statement directly denies the most fundamental teachings of Comrade Enver Hoxha as a Classic of Marxism-Leninism. We, Stalinist-Hoxhaists, consider that the teachings of the five Classics of Marxism-Leninism (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha) must be regarded and understood as a whole. And this is totally true, but we must also take into account the fact that each one of the five Classics gave his own special contribution to communist ideology in the context of a determined historical period, in the context of a determined stage of socialism. And we can assert that one of Comrade Enver Hoxha’s main contributions to Marxism-Leninism consists precisely in the possibility, represented by Socialist Albania, that even a semi-feudal and backward country without heavy industry and whose proletariat is still in an embryonic phase can not only resist to capitalist-revisionist encirclement and influences, but also successfully build socialism and communism relying in its own internal forces. Comrade Enver and the Albanian Marxist-Leninists always stressed that the internal factor prevails over the external factor (at least during the stage of socialism during which Socialist Albania existed). According to the words of Comrade Enver:
“The complete construction of socialist society is closely connected with the understanding and implementation of the principle of self-reliance in every step and every field of life. This great Marxist-Leninist principle of profound revolutionary content is not only a law for the construction of socialism, but also, in the present conditions, an urgent necessity for our country to cope successfully with enemy blockades and encirclement.
The principle of self-reliance has always been a guiding principle of our Party and people since the time of the National Liberation War, when we fought under the slogan, «Freedom is not donated, but won by the people themselves». Likewise, in the struggle for the construction of socialism and the defense of the Homeland, the Party follows and consistently implements this principle. The freedom won, all the successes achieved so far, our socialist and independent life, are practical verification of the Leninist conclusion that self-reliance, the internal factor, is the decisive factor, both in the struggle for the triumph of the revolution and the seizure of power, and in the struggle for the construction of socialism and the defense of the Homeland.
Our Party has always defended the principle that self-reliance is not a temporary policy imposed by circumstances, but an objective necessity for every country, big or small, developed or underdeveloped, a principle applying both in liberation wars and the proletarian revolution, and in the construction of socialism and the defense of the Homeland.” (Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, Tirana, 1976, edition in English).
“The Albanian experience proves that even a small country with a backward material and technical base can experiment a great and general economic and cultural development, can grant its independence and can also defeat the attacks of world capitalism and imperialism if that country is conducted by a veritable Marxist-Leninist party, if that country is decided to fight until the end for its ideals having confidence in their achievement.” (Enver Hoxha, Report to the VIII Congress of the PTA, Tirana, 1981, translated from the French language).
Concluding, the mentioned quotation from the neo-revisionist João Amazonas negates one of the main teachings of Comrade Enver Hoxha. As we Marxists-Leninists know, the negation of the teachings of one of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism means the denial of the teachings of all of them as a whole. And the negation of the teachings of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism means the denial of the Communist ideology.
In February of 1992, a meeting of “communist parties and revolutionary organizations” took place at Brasilia, Brazil’s capital. As we have already pointed out, this meeting happened during a very complicated period for the international communist and anti-revisionist movement. After all, 1992 was precisely the year in which Albanian revisionism achieved its aim of destroying the last remnants of socialism in Albania and of finally opening the country’s doors to capitalism of classical type.
It was also in the early 90’s that the ultra-revisionist “Quito Declaration” was published by the social-fascist ICMLPO with the purpose of negating the immense and inestimable Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist virtues of Socialist Albania led by Comrade Enver Hoxha and of poisoning the mind of the world proletariat with capitalist-bourgeois ideology in order to prevent the world socialist revolution. The anti-communist ICMLPO even includes a Brazilian “section” which is constituted by a party called Communist Revolutionary Party (CRP). The CRP was founded in 1966 and its members came mostly from a movement called “The Peasant League”. Unsurprisingly, this party also adopted the Maoist revisionist “theory” which defends the primacy of the role of the peasantry over that of the proletariat during the revolution. Since the end of the Brazilian fascist-military dictatorship, the CRP has been close to the petty-bourgeois organizations which support the social-fascist Lula. In essence, it is an anti-communist party which, just like the CPB, tries to perpetuate capitalism and to open the path to the imperialist ascension of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie.
But let’s return to our analysis of the historical and ideological course of the CPB.
One of the more emblematic moments of the referred meeting in Brasilia occurred when João Amazonas made his intervention through a speech entitled “For the unity of the communist movement”. In this speech, João Amazonas confirms and buttresses the openly pro-capitalist course which the CPB had been following and which is maintained until this moment. This speech is very important if we want to understand the process of transformation of the CPB into a candidly social-fascist party, and because of that we decided to analyze it deeply. After all, it was not by chance that in April of 2011 the party’s secretary who is responsible for the international relations of the CPB publicly qualified the mentioned Amazonas’ speech as being a “classic”. And this is true. Undoubtedly, the speech “For the unity of the communist movement” authored by João Amazonas is a classic. It is a classic of neo-revisionism and of anti-socialist treason.
Throughout the entire speech, we see that there is a constant concern about “struggling against sectarian and backward positions” and about refusing “dogmatic attitudes”. Of course, there is nothing wrong about fighting against sectarianism and dogmatism if this fight is waged from correct Marxist-Leninist positions, but at the same time, practical experience teaches us that it is a bad sign when someone who is supposedly a “communist” insists too much about the “struggle against sectarianism”. We, Marxist-Leninists, must always be suspicious about this kind of “comrades”.
In first place, João Amazonas starts his speech by saying that: “Our debate is free and open”. But this affirmation was nothing more than empty talk. There was never a true debate during the meeting, which was “free and open” only to the neo-revisionist and social-bourgeois currents which had become dominant inside the formerly revolutionary anti-revisionist movement. On the contrary, Marxist-Leninist ideology and genuine socialist struggle were carefully kept outside of this “free debate” and were never allowed to defend the merits of the world communist movement led by comrade Enver Hoxha.
João Amazonas mentions the “fundamental question of the unity of the communist movement” and after having opportunistically said that “The content of the struggle for the unity of the working class does not change. But the manner in which we take this question into consideration assumes multiple forms.” he made the following statement:
“By occasion of the last Congress of the III International, a strategic modification in what respected to the question of unity was decided considering the changes that took place relatively to the international situation. With the aim of reinforcing the unity of the working class, the Congress recommended that the communist movement should reproach the left-wings of the socialist parties and even of the radical-socialist party. The Congress accomplished this important modification basing itself on the Dimitrov’s report which struggled against the backward and sectarian positions, against the lack of understanding that the process of the struggle for the world unity of the working class must go through various transformations before it achieves its final objective.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
As we can see, Amazonas openly praises the Congress of 1935, affirming that it represented a “strategic change”, supposedly made “with the aim of reinforcing the unity of the working class”. It is important to note that Amazonas also mentions the sadly famous Dimitrov’s report which was presented during the Congress of 1935, affirming that it was useful in the combat “against the backward and sectarian positions, against the lack of understanding that the process of the struggle for the world unity of the working class must go through various transformations before it achieves its final objective.”
During many years, the Dimitrov’s report was “untouchable” for the great majority of the communist militants, even because it was put forward during the times of Comrade Stalin. However, as time passed and with the development of the anti-revisionist movement, many Marxist-Leninist parties and militants started to wonder about the true nature of the Dimitrov’s report and concluded that this report had a revisionist character.
The Dimitrov’s report emerged in a difficult moment to the communist movement. In 1935, fascism was dangerously spread in Europe and the Soviet Marxist-Leninists knew that, due to fascism’s own nature, it would be only a question of time before the fascist powers launched a potent military attack against the USSR, as indeed happened. The Dimitrov’s report defended the alliance between the revolutionary communist parties and the other bourgeois “anti-fascist” forces with the alleged purpose of preventing fascism from expanding even more.
In first place, the ways through which Dimitrov defends that the objective of “preventing fascism” should be accomplished are highly questionable because, let us repeat, fascism is a direct product of capitalism and it will never be totally and irreversibly defeated as long as the capitalist-imperialist system exists. Therefore, the bourgeois and pro-capitalist forces with which Dimitrov proposes that the communist parties should ally are of the same nature of fascism itself; those bourgeois forces and fascism derive from capitalism. Concluding, Dimitrov argues that the communist parties should rely on forces which, despite their fake “anti-fascist” phraseology, are at the service of the same social-economical system which created fascism in order to struggle against that same fascism! The least that we can say is that it does not make any sense.
If fascism results directly from the bourgeois-capitalist system, the logical solution would be that, in order to wage an efficient combat against fascism, communist parties should struggle against all forces and influences which are related to the economical and ideological system which gave birth to fascism. Of course that this solution is totally incompatible with Dimitrov’s “suggestions” of coalition between the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist parties and the pro-capitalist forces which auto-qualified as “anti-fascist” with the objective of deceiving the oppressed and exploited proletariat about the true class character of fascism.
Unsurprisingly, the practical application of the conclusions of the Dimitrov’s report caused some of the worst anti-Marxist deviations that occurred in a great number of communist parties, not to speak of the fact that since the Congress of 1935 the Dimitrov’s report has become one of the main “arguments” used by the revisionists to “confirm” their opportunist theories. In fact, Dimitrov’s anti-socialist positions (which negated the essential independence which must exist between the proletarian party and the petty-bourgeois forces) are commonly utilized by all kinds of revisionists in order to hide their treachery behind a supposedly “historical report which was approved even in times of Stalin”. And João Amazonas was no exception to this rule. He eulogizes Dimitrov because the theories which were he defended are in total accord with the capitulationist alliances that the CPB made and continues to make with various social-imperialist and social-fascist forces. In truth, just like Dimitrov advocates a counter-revolutionary “union” with the “progressive” (read: bourgeois) forces with the false pretext of “defeating fascism”, the Brazilian neo-revisionists also defend their own reactionary “union” with the “socialist” (read: social-imperialist) Workers’ Party with the false pretext of “defeating reaction”.
But let’s return to Amazonas’ speech.
After having praise Dimitrov to the skies, Amazonas goes on saying that “The defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union, in 1956-1957, created a difficult situation within the revolutionary movement (…). The world communist movement knew a serious division. This division (…) terribly jeopardized the revolutionary movement. The destruction of the previous unity brought serious problems. (…) The events in Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe (…) have created a new situation. If we refuse to understand this, we will be able to correctly struggle in favor of the construction of unity.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
In these quotations, Amazonas regrets the “division within the world communist movement” which occurred after the Khrushchevist betrayal in the Soviet Union. Amazonas talks about the evils caused by this division while “forgetting” to say that if this division ever happened, that was exclusively due to the revisionist betrayal which obliged the genuine anti-revisionist and Marxist-Leninist parties to demarcate from the anti-socialist and pro-bourgeois revisionist parties.
Taking this into consideration, it’s as if João Amazonas is insinuating that the anti-revisionist parties should have never demarcated from the revisionist parties because this distinction “jeopardized” the communist movement. What the neo-revisionist João Amazonas does not say is that if the anti-revisionist parties and the genuinely communist militants did not had the courage of refusing the pro-capitalist and social-imperialist course which was being followed by the Soviet Union and its allies, the most probable is that the communist movement worth of that name would have simply disappeared; because that was always the purpose of the revisionists and neo-revisionists: to liquidate the communist movement and ideology.
It is perilous to think that the anti-revisionist parties and militants should have tried to solve things “from within”, not only because the expansion of the revisionist virus turned this impossible, but also because the maintenance of the anti-revisionist parties and militants within the “communist” movement dominated by the Krushchevists, the Titoites, etc... would have exponentially increased the risk of revisionist contamination of the authentically Marxist-Leninist parties and militants.
Therefore, we conclude that, contrary to what Amazonas suggests, the division between revisionists and anti-revisionists that happened during the middle 50’s and 60’s was something positive when compared to what would have occurred to the communist movement if the truly Marxist-Leninist militants and parties had not separate from the pro-capitalist ones.
As if this was not enough, Amazonas states that:
“If we make a synthesis, we conclude that the forces which are organized against revisionism are feebly developed. (…) They have also committed errors. Nowadays, we have to face the problem of the unity of the workers’ movement from another angle. We are in a period of transition. (…) we should learn how to act in favor of the unity of the world workers. It would not be correct to adopt the old positions without considering the changes which took place. We suffered an historical defeat. We should find the concrete measures through which we can build the unity of the proletariat. (…) Faced with the new situation (the disappearance of Soviet social-imperialism), the parties which had followed the CPSU have been making certain reevaluations in what respects to the ideological aspects. How should we deal with this question? (…) We cannot talk about the unity of the working class without considering that the parties which followed the CPSU include many groups of militants which we cannot indiscriminately accuse of opportunism. (…) we think that we should search for contacts with those parties.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
In this paragraph, it is noticeable that Amazonas defends and preaches the typically revisionist theory of the “unity at any cost”. This theory is a perfect example of the total despise that the revisionists feel in what respects to everything related with Marxist-Leninist principles. The neo-revisionist Amazonas argues that, due to the vanishing of the social-imperialist Soviet Union, the international situation has supposedly “changed” and therefore it is necessary to “face the problem of the unity of the workers’ movement from another angle”. Comrade Enver Hoxha once wrote a statement which entirely applies to Amazonas’ “argumentation” about the “crisis of Marxism” and about “the changes which took place”:
“Rejecting Marxism-Leninism, the social-democrats claim that "problems of today cannot be solved by old concepts". Following in their wake, the revisionists too, speculate with the newer conditions and phenomena, and, under the guise of fighting "dogmatism" and upholding "the creative development of Marxism" claim that many things today should be looked at with a critical eye, that what was right 30 years ago cannot be such any longer, (…), that he who abides by the basic theses of Marx and Lenin (…) is a dogmatist who takes no account of the great changes that have come about in the world, and he who consults the classic works of Marxist-Leninists in order to analyze and explain the present historical process, is afflicted with the mania of quotations and so and so forth. Hence, Marxism-Leninism is outdated for revisionists too, it no longer suits the newer conditions, it should be "enriched" with new ideas and new conclusions. Just like all the old opportunists and reformists, the revisionists too are stripping Marxism of its critical and revolutionary spirit and are attempting to turn it from a weapon in the hands of the working class into a weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie to be used against the working class.” (Enver Hoxha, The Modern Revisionists on the Way to Degenerating Into Social-Democrats and to Fusing with Social-Democracy, April 7, 1964, edition in English).
It is also interesting to note that, throughout his speech, Amazonas only refers to the fall of the imperialist Soviet Union (which Comrade Enver had predicted in the early 70’s), and never mentions the fall of Socialist Albania, the last proletarian dictatorship in the world. This is remarkable because it was the complete disappearance of socialism in Albania at the hands of Albanian revisionists that affected the Marxists-Leninists of the world. On the contrary, the pro-soviet revisionists mourned the vanishing of Soviet social-imperialism which was their main external reference, and João Amazonas plainly follows their example.
Amazonas uses the “new international situation” as a pretext to justify the enormous treason to Marxism-Leninism which is included in Amazonas’ “conclusion” that the CPB should approach the ultra-revisionist parties which chose to follow Soviet social-fascism. This “conclusion” represents the more abject rejection of the genuinely communist principles.
João Amazonas affirms that “the forces which are organized against revisionism are feebly developed. (…) They have also committed errors.” In this statement, we can observe that Amazonas shamelessly spurns the fundamental role played by the Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations in the struggle against revisionism. It is truly revolting to see the manner in which Amazonas is so deeply worried about the “errors” allegedly committed by the anti-revisionist parties and organizations while simultaneously depicting the social-fascist parties as an example to follow.
In truth, when reading Amazonas’ speech, one gets the impression that the anti-revisionist parties and militants are a bunch of sectarian idiots which hold “backward positions” and “commit mistakes”.
Amazonas deceitfully affirms that we cannot qualify all those who militate in the revisionist parties as opportunists. It may be true that some militants of those parties are deceived by the social-bourgeois ideology. It may be true that there are some militants in those parties which honestly think that they are militating in a truly revolutionary party and who are sincerely pro-socialism. But the solution to win these militants to our anti-revisionist side cannot be accomplished through the perfidious approaching to the social-fascist parties.
On the contrary, the best strategy to conquer those militants is to demarcate our principled struggle from the revisionist treachery, is to expand our Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist ideology, is to improve our revolutionary activities in order to prove them the unquestionable superiority of the communist ideology over the capitalist-bourgeois-revisionist ideology. But to achieve this, it is necessary to be totally loyal to proletarian socialism, it is necessary to increasingly accentuate the struggle against all kinds of revisionism. But Amazonas suggests the exact opposite to this. He argues that the anti-revisionist organizations and militants should happily give up their Marxist-Leninist principles with the purpose of seeking “contacts” with the ultra-revisionist parties.
As we had already concluded, the CPB had been following a pro-capitalist and anti-socialist course for a long time. Bourgeois ideologies and influences were never efficiently combated and consequently they are always present within the CPB. Nonetheless, until the year 1992, the Brazilian neo-revisionists never dared to go so far as to bluntly and directly preach the degeneration of the anti-revisionist movement through the union with the social-fascist parties. The example given by Amazonas of the type of parties with which the CPB should overtly ally is a clear proof of how anti-communist and opportunist is the line pursued by the CPB. Amazonas shockingly affirms that, in order to “build the unity of the proletariat”, the CPB should approach the Portuguese “Communist” Party led by Cunhal:
“(…), the Portuguese Communist Party of Alvaro Cunhal is making a reorientation towards the left. Between the Portuguese Communist Party Reconstructed (Marxist-Leninist) and Cunhal’s party, the difference is very big. But the party which holds an almost decisive influence over the Portuguese working mass it is Cunhal’s party.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
This phrase is a total and complete lie. Authentic Marxist-Leninists know very well that to talk about an “ideological reorientation towards the left” of the PCP during the period of the disappearance of the Soviet imperialist superpower is simply ridiculous. Since its embracement of Khrushchevism, the positions and activities of the PCP and of Cunhal were always reactionary and social-fascist. What the neo-revisionist João Amazonas calls the PCP’s “reorientation towards the left” was nothing more than an attempt of the Portuguese revisionist leaders to hide their anti-socialist betrayal in the context of the vanishing of social-imperialist Soviet Union and its colonial satellites.
The Portuguese revisionists were always the masters of deceiving. Contrary to other revisionists, (like the Spanish revisionists, for instance), the Portuguese revisionists have the cunning capacity of hiding their reactionarism behind “leftist” and “Marxist” phraseology during certain critical moments, like the one which happened with the fall of the Soviet empire which was the main external reference of the PCP. This perfidious capacity is a very powerful weapon used by the PCP’s leaders with the purpose of making the exploited and oppressed workers forget the repugnant and treacherous crime that they perpetrate against the proletarian revolution, against Marxism-Leninism and against socialism and communism. Therefore, this phony “reorientation towards the left” of the Portuguese revisionists is a mere fiction which will never deceive the authentic Marxist-Leninists.
Besides this, we must also note the abject and unforgivable treason that the Brazilian neo-revisionists commit against the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist movement. In fact, when reading the paragraph mentioned above, we easily conclude that Amazonas is demanding that the CPB should cease to support the PCP (R) and should support instead the social-fascist PCP of Cunhal. Of course, this coward and disgusting attitude clearly reveals the ideological option of the Brazilian neo-revisionists: they finally abandoned the “dogmatic” and “sectarian” PCP (R) and openly sided with the PCP which supposedly “holds decisive influence over the Portuguese working mass”, accordingly with Amazonas.
But what does Amazonas means when he talks about the alleged “decisive influence” of the PCP over the Portuguese working mass? It is true that the PCP unfortunately still holds a very powerful influence over the Portuguese working classes, but this influence is an evidently evil and anti-communist influence whose aim is to prevent Portuguese workers from adhering to Marxism-Leninism and from making the socialist revolution. Consequently, this intrinsically reactionary influence exercised by the PCP over the Portuguese working masses should be harshly combated by all genuine Marxist-Leninists. However, the neo-revisionist Amazonas does the exact opposite. He wrongly thinks that if the PCP of Cunhal holds decisive influence over the Portuguese working class, then it necessarily means that the party follows a correct line. It is obvious that this way of thinking is completely capitulationist, even because the “decisive influence” of the PCP is mainly due to the privileged treatment received by the party in the Portuguese bourgeois media which understand that the dominant classes and the social-fascist PCP have a common objective: to keep the exploited Portuguese proletariat in a state of total bondage through the eternal perpetuation of capitalism.
And this betrayal is particularly odious because the PCP (R) was founded having the CPB as the main example, as the main inspiration. Indeed, we can even affirm that perhaps one of the main reasons why the PCP (R) ultimately failed its purpose was due to the fact that the party followed a very bad model since the beginning.
With this, we don’t want to minimize the responsibility of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninists that were not able to prevent the total disappearance of the PCP (R) in 1992. It is true that since the 80’s, the PCP (R) was suffering from serious anti-socialist and pro-bourgeois deviations which were mainly caused by the strong Maoist influences which were always felt within the party. And it is also true that the Portuguese Marxist-Leninists should have made more efforts in order to have success in the struggle not only to maintain the PCP (R) alive, but also to correct the profound ideological mistakes and capitulationist tendencies which would guide the party towards its liquidation.
But this does not exclude the fact that the attitude of the Brazilian neo-revisionists in general and of João Amazonas in particular constituted an act of treason committed during a period in which the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist movement was in great vulnerability and was on the verge of its extinction; in 1992 the Portuguese Marxist-Leninists had to endure the disappearance of socialism in Albania, the vanishing of the PCP (R) at the hands of internal and external liquidators, and as if this was not enough they also had to face the repulsive betrayal of the Brazilian neo-revisionists that not only assumed their pro-capitalist ideology but also started to openly support the social-fascist PCP (situation which is still in effect nowadays; the website of the neo-revisionist CPB is full of praising references and flattering texts about the fascist P “C”P, whose ultra-reactionary, social-imperialist, pro-bourgeois and pro-capitalist character we tried to unmask in other article).
Continuing our analysis of the speech, we observe that after having defended the unity with the most reactionary and pro-capitalist revisionist parties, Amazonas does not hesitate before eulogizing the anti-communist regimes of China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.
In what respects to China, Amazonas declares that:
“(…) We supported the Chinese Communist Party during many years. After that, we made a lot of criticisms (…) We were not in agreement with the « three world theory » (…). However, we self-critically recognize that our party did not follow the evolution of China’s situation. China has passed through great storms, like the Cultural Revolution, which caused many damages to the party. The country has known many zigzags during its recent history. But China made efforts in order to maintain a revolutionary course. (…) China plays an important role in the international situation. That’s why the CPB tries to understand what is really going on in China, what is the veritable situation in that country. And we are making this in a friendly manner. We don’t have any intention of giving advises or of dictating the political line of such a powerful and experienced party as the CCP.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
Reading this statement, we may feel tempted to affirm that the Brazilian neo-revisionists abandoned the struggle against Maoist revisionism. But this is not true. Brazilian neo-revisionists could only have abandoned the struggle against Maoism if they had once waged that struggle. But this was never the case. They could never abandon the struggle against Maoism simply because they never really struggled against it.
Amazonas refers the apparent “disagreement” between the CPB and the CCP in what respected to the “three world theory”, but this “divergence” was only superficial. The CPB never truly fought against Maoist anti-socialist ideology, and this was one of the main causes of the erroneous positions and strategies that the CPB systematically adopted since its foundations. Amazonas outrageously asserts that, despite some “zigzags”, China managed to “maintain a revolutionary course” (?!!!).This statement is appalling because in 1992, China was already one of the most powerful and dangerous imperialist powers. So, in words the Brazilian neo-revisionists scream about the “struggle against imperialism”, but in deeds they fervently support that same imperialism. It is very shocking to observe that Amazonas considers to be following a “revolutionary course” a party (the CCP) which since its beginnings has been using Marxism-Leninism as a “mask” to mislead the Chinese working classes and to hide the counter-revolutionary nature of Maoist revisionism whose main purpose is to strengthen the class power of the Chinese national monopolist bourgeoisie in order to open the path for China’s transformation into an imperialist superpower which fiercely oppresses and exploits the world proletariat in general and the Chinese proletariat in particular. In fact, when Amazonas states that “we self-critically recognize that our party did not follow the evolution of China’s situation.”, this can be interpreted as some kind of apology made by the Brazilian neo-revisionists towards the Chinese monopolist-imperialist bourgeoisie. They are regretting even the merely outwardly and inconsequent “anti-Maoist opposition” that the CPB apparently seemed to do in the context of the Sino-Albanian split in 1976-1978.
Equally scandalous is the affirmation that “the CPB tries to understand what is really going on in China, what is the veritable situation in that country. And we are making this in a friendly manner.” Friendly manner?!! Every Marxist-Leninist knows that there can be no “friendly manners” towards such a reactionary, imperialist and pro-capitalist party as the CCP nor towards such a dangerous, treacherous, pro-fascist and murderous class as the Chinese monopolist bourgeoisie and much less towards such an anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-Marxist, pro-bourgeois and ultra-revisionist ideology as Maoism.
The Chinese social-imperialist bourgeoisie which rules and controls China’s fascist state machine based on the counter-revolutionary “Mao Zedong Thought” deserves bullets and not “friendly manners”.
And the neo-revisionist Amazonas goes on saying that: “We don’t have any intention of giving advises or of dictating the political line of such a powerful and experienced party as the CCP.” Reading this phrase, it is obvious the total absent of revolutionary courage of its author. The neo-revisionist João Amazonas cowardly and openly capitulates before Chinese social-fascism. (In the speech, João Amazonas even praises the Maoist and ultra-revisionist “Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) because this party has apparently “opposed” Gorbatchev’s perestroika, but this fake “opposition” not only does not change the pro-capitalist character of the CPI (ML) but it is also highly questionable; in fact, the “opposition” towards Gorbatchev’s perestroika was one more attempt of the Maoists in order to hide the social-fascist nature of their ideology behind a phony “revolutionary” and “orthodox Leninist” disguise. The truth is that the Maoist parties, the CPB and Gorbatchev’s perestroika have all the same purpose: to maximize the profits of the world bourgeoisie through the avoidance of the world socialist revolution).
This ultra-opportunist stand is in total contrast with the sincere and brave attitude adopted by the PLA led by Comrade Enver Hoxha which not only never hesitated before criticizing the CCP and Mao Zedong from an authentically Marxist-Leninist perspective, but also consciously preferred to chose a truly socialist and proletarian path without the false “help” of the Chinese social-imperialists when the time of open confrontation with Maoist revisionism arrived.
When comrade Enver reached the final and definitive conclusions about the veritable character of Maoism, he didn’t even vacillate before immediately breaking all ideological relations with Maoist and social-fascist China, because for the PLA led by Comrade Enver the defense of the purity of the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism was above everything. If Comrade Enver Hoxha had thought in the same opportunistic manner as João Amazonas and the Brazilian neo-revisionists, he would never dare to criticize and to struggle against “such a powerful and experienced party as the CCP.” But Comrade Enver was never afraid of denouncing Chinese social-imperialism nor of unmasking the counter-revolutionary nature of Maoism because comrade Enver knew very well that what makes a party to be more or less powerful is, respectively, its higher or lower degree of adherence and loyalty to the proletarian communist ideology. The PLA led by Comrade Enver was infinitely more powerful than the CCP because while the CCP is nothing more than a bourgeois-capitalist party, the PLA was the most resolute supporter of the most brilliant and righteous revolutionary theory of all times: Marxism-Leninism. As Comrade Enver once said:
“Marxism-Leninism is a necessity, like the air we breathe and the food we eat.”
(Enver Hoxha, From a contribution at the meeting of the Secretariat of the CC of the PLA (April 26, 1982), Selected Works, Volume VI, Tirana, 1987, edition in English).
Moreover, it is indisputable that the time of “giving advises” to the CCP has gone. Since 1978, the only correct attitude that the world communist and anti-revisionist movement should espouse towards Maoism and towards Chinese social-imperialism is that of direct and violent struggle against them.
After this, Amazonas starts his defense of the fascist-monarchist North Korean regime:
“North Korea (…) has always been under the menace of imperialism. The country has made a lot of efforts to build a new society and to reunify a country which was divided by the American imperialists. To question whether it has chosen the best way to accomplish it, that is a problem which should be considered taking the opinion of the Workers’ Party of Korea into account, because this is a party which was tested during multiple struggles. (…) We believe that North Korea is included in our anti-imperialist and revolutionary camp.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
Since the end of the War of Korea in 1953, the Korean peninsula has been divided in two states: South Korea, a capitalist-bourgeois state of the classical type with regional imperialist ambitions but under American influence; and North Korea, a capitalist-bourgeois state of the revisionist type which during several decades was a satellite of soviet social-imperialism and which is now under the sway of Chinese social-imperialism. Since the very beginning, the North Korean “Workers’ Party” always committed serious anti-Marxist mistakes. And this is not surprising because a party which represents and defends the interests of the North Korean national bourgeoisie can never simultaneously embrace a correct communist and proletarian line; on the contrary, such an anti-socialist and pro-capitalist party will necessarily endure the aggravation of its own degeneration. This is the case of the North Korean “Workers’ Party”. In his book “The Krushchevists”, Comrade Enver recalls:
“On September 7 (of 1956) we arrived in Pyongyang. They put on a splendid welcome, with people, with gongs, with flowers, and with portraits of Kim Il Sung everywhere. You had to look hard to find some portrait of Lenin, tucked away in some obscure corner. (…) the revisionist wasp had begun to implant its poisonous sting there, too.” (Enver Hoxha, The Khrushchevists, Tirana, 1980, edition in English).
Therefore, we can see that one of the main characteristics of Kim-Il-Sungism (the North Korean variety of revisionism) was already present: the intense personality cult organized around Kim Il Sung with the consequent minimization of the true Classics of Marxism-Leninism like Lenin. In his brilliant book “Reflections on China”, Comrade Enver Hoxha perfectly and accurately described Kim Il Sung as being a “vacillant, megalomaniac revisionist” and bluntly said that:
“Kim Il Sung, (…) is a pseudo-Marxist.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, August 21, 1975, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
As time passed, Kim-Il-Sungism proved to be one of the more disgusting and reactionary forms of revisionism, whose treason was rightly understood by comrade Enver:
“The leadership of the Communist Party of China has betrayed (socialism). In Korea, too, we can say that the leadership of the Korean Workers' Party is wallowing in the same waters.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, June 7, 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
When the Soviet revisionists conquered power and started to spread their pro-capitalist poison, the North Korean revisionists tried to give an image of “loyal Marxists” and affirmed to be “totally against revisionism”. But this was just empty talk. During many years, North Korea was completely dependent on Soviet social-imperialism and on foreign capitalist credits. Comrade Enver understood this and by occasion of Tito’s visit to North Korea he analysed that:
“(…) Tito is going to Korea to carry out negotiations on behalf of American imperialism with Kim Il Sung and not to get credits, because there are no strong-rooms in Korea from which Tito can get them. Korea is so deeply in debt itself that it is unable to meet its repayments.” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, June 7, 1977, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
With the fall of soviet empire in 1989-1991, North Korea continued to be a highly indebted country which is nowadays being invaded by Chinese imperialist credits. North Korea’s external debt is of many millions of dollars and the country’s commercial balance suffers from a significant and systematic deficit. This situation is totally opposed to that of Socialist Albania of Comrade Enver Hoxha which relied on its own internal forces and was never dependent of foreign credits and “aids”. The Albanian Marxist-Leninists struggled to keep the country’s commercial balance always positive and they accomplished this task. Even bourgeois ideologues were impressed by the way a tiny country like Albania not only was plainly autosufficient but also effectively refused to be integrated in the world capitalist market. In truth, every veritable socialist country in the context of capitalist-revisionist encirclement (as was the case of Socialist Albania) has to fight for its self-reliance because otherwise international imperialism would immediately invade the country through capitalist credits, thus preventing and destroying the building of socialism. As comrade Enver Hoxha clearly asserts:
“In order to disguise the export of capital, the imperialist powers also resort to the practice of according credits. Through these so-called credits or aid, the big capitalist concerns and the states to which they belong bring great pressure to bear on the recipient states and peoples, and keep them under control. (…) On the other hand, these credits, which the big monopolies provide for the countries of the so-called third world, in fact, serve the feudal-bourgeois classes which rule these countries. The credits the new states receive are links of the imperialist chain around the necks of their own peoples. (…)
Capitalism never makes investments, provides loans, or exports capital to other countries without first calculating the profits it will realize for itself. (…) There are also other forms of according credits, like those practiced with those pseudo-socialist states which are trying to disguise the capitalist course on which they are proceeding. These are large credits provided in the form of trade credits which, of course, must be repaid within a short time. These are provided jointly by many capitalist countries, which have calculated in advance the economic as well as political profits they will draw from the recipient state, taking into account both its economic potential and ability to pay. In no case do the capitalists provide their credits for the construction of socialism. They provide them to destroy socialism. Therefore, a genuine socialist country never accepts credits, in any form, from a capitalist, bourgeois, or revisionist country.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
This principled and Marxist-Leninist stand is on the antipodes of that adopted by the bourgeois-capitalist North Korean regime. Indeed, North Korean anti-socialist ruling classes even “officialized” their country’s total dependence on foreign imperialist credits:
“The State shall encourage institutions, enterprises or associations of the DPRK to establish and operate equity and contractual joint venture enterprises with corporations or individuals of foreign countries within a special economic zone.” (Article 37 of the DPRK's Constitution, September of 1998, edition in english).
As we can see, the social-fascists which rule North Korean not even try to hide their complete allegiance and subordination to world imperialism, on the contrary, they gladly and openly assume it in their own Constitution. This article of the DPRK's Constitution affirms the exact opposite of what the article 28 of the Constitution of Socialist Albania states:
“The granting of concessions to, and the creation of, foreign economic and financial companies and other institutions or ones formed jointly with bourgeois and revisionist capitalist monopolies and states, as well as obtaining credits from them, are prohibited in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania.” (Article 28 of the Constitution of People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, December of 1976, edition in english).
In face of this, it is incredible how some people who qualify themselves as “communists” and “Marxist-Leninists” still dare to affirm that the ultra-reactionary North Korea is a “socialist country”! The North Korean regime has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. The power structures in North Korean are similar to those of the most backward capitalist-feudal states. When Kim Il Sung died, his son Kim Jong Il was his successor and today it is already known that Kim Jong Il’s son will replace his father in the North Korean throne. Yes, throne is the correct word because North Korea’s political and economic system can be rightly defined as a fascist monarchy which oppresses and exploits North Korean workers while the monarcho-fascist bourgeoisie lives luxuriously.
For example, in the early 90’s, North Korea faced a severe famine caused by the appalling weakness of the country’s capitalist economy. This crisis was a consequence of the disappearance of Soviet social-imperialism on which North Korea was totally reliant. And while large numbers of North Korean workers were literally dying of hunger, Kim Il Sung, his son and the other members of the monarcho-fascist bourgeoisie were organizing opulent parties with included magnificent feasts where they received the representatives of the revisionist and neo-revisionist parties. And these representatives of the revisionist and neo-revisionist parties are the ones which are capable of affirming without blushing that North Korea is a “country which is building communism”. To say that North Korea is a socialist country, that is “the last Stalinist state in the world” means to blatantly insult Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism, it means to try to discredit communist ideology with the aim of maintaining capitalism’s tyrannical and totalitarian world rule. Today there are no socialist countries in the world; this is the truth whether the revisionists like it or not.
The pro-American capitalist ideologues love to affirm that North Korea is an “isolationist” country, but this is totally false. Those pro-American ideologues use this kind of lies with the purpose of struggling against the competition of Chinese social-imperialism which is now the main supporter of the North Korean bourgeois regime. Only a zealous neo-revisionist like João Amazonas can declare that North Korea is an “anti-imperialist” and “revolutionary” country because, as we have already observed, far from being “isolated”, North Korea is totally integrated in the mechanisms of the globalized capitalist-imperialist system.
In the speech, Amazonas also mentions Vietnam, a country which, according to Amazonas, is “trying to surmount the obstacles and to advance towards the building of a new life”.
Without wanting to subestimate the heroic struggle that the Vietnamese people waged against the French and American imperialists, we have to note that Vietnam was never a truly socialist country. Since the beginning, the so-called “Communist” Party of Vietnam always embraced an ideology which is infinitely more close to bourgeois anti-imperialist nationalism than to Marxism-Leninism. Nowadays, revisionist Vietnam is completely subjected to the dominance of world imperialism in general and of Chinese social-imperialism in particular. This was already the case in 1992, but João Amazonas totally denied this truth.
The Vietnamese bourgeoisie which rules the country is worried about making the largest possible quantity of capitalist profits, and not about “advance towards the building of a new life”, contrary to what Amazonas affirms.
Finally, Amazonas talks about reactionary Castroist Cuba:
“And there is also Cuba. A country which has always deserved our sympathy and which, with the disappearance of the Soviet Union, is presently facing serious problems. Cuba never renounced to revolution and it is struggling heroically (…). The solidarity with Cuba is the duty of all revolutionaries.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
Throughout our analysis, we had already realized that this speech from João Amazonas is revisionist to the bone. However, this paragraph about Cuba is perhaps one of the most reactionary statements included in the speech. In first place, João Amazonas confirms with his own mouth what we had been saying since the commencement of this article about the evil influences that Castroist Cuba had always exercised upon the CPB and which significantly contributed to the anti-Marxist mistakes and deviations which characterized the party’s ideological line even during its alleged “anti-revisionist” and “Stalinist” phase. Amazonas assumes that the Brazilian revisionists always saw ultra-revisionist Cuba with “sympathy”, that is, as an example to follow.
After that, he says that Cuba is facing serious problems since the vanishing of Soviet social-imperialism. What Amazonas does not refer is the reason why Cuba is having so many problems with the fall of Soviet empire. The truth is that since its anti-socialist and pro-liberal “revolution” in 1959, Castroite Cuba had been a veritable Soviet colony. Castroist Cuba supplied the Soviet Union and its social-fascist satellites mainly with sugar and in return the Soviet social-imperialists literally submerged the country with their capitalist credits, turning Cuban economy into nothing more than a mere appendix of the Soviet economy, in what amounted to a typically colonialist relationship.
Soviet social-imperialists had total control over Castroist Cuba’s political and economic affairs and consequently, the only branches of the Cuban economy which were permitted to develop were the ones which could bring profits to the Soviet social-fascist bourgeoisie. In this context, it is obvious that the origins of the “serious problems” which affected Cuba reside in the country’s complete dependence on the social-imperialist credits and investments (and these problems still affect the country nowadays, because Castroist capitalist economic system was never able to totally recover from the disappearance of Soviet Union, despite Cuba’s recent rapprochement to social-imperialist China). Of course, this situation is sufficient proof of the reactionary and pro-imperialist character of the Castroist regime.
Amazonas also affirms in his speech that “Cuba never renounced to revolution”. And we say that this is totally true because one can only renounce to something after having embraced it. We could only say that Castroist Cuba renounced to revolution if it had ever espoused it. For example, we can affirm that Soviet Union renounced to the revolution (after Khrushchevist betrayal) because it had already struggled in favor of it at a previous epoch (that of comrades Lenin and Stalin). To renounce means to reject something that we had once defended and supported. Therefore, it is correct o affirm that Castroist Cuba never renounced to revolution, but not in the sense that Amazonas indicates in the speech. It is correct to say that Castroist Cuba never renounced to revolution in the sense that it never defended nor supported the revolution and therefore it could have never renounced to that same revolution.
Since the beginning, the Cuban “revolution” had nothing to do with socialism. As Comrade Enver asserted:
“The Latin-American peoples cherished many hopes, had many illusions, about the victory of the Cuban people, which became an inspiration and encouragement to them in their struggle to shake off the yoke of the local capitalist and landowner rulers and American imperialists. However, these hopes and this inspiration soon faded when they saw that Castroite Cuba was not developing on the road of socialism but on that of revisionist-type capitalism, and faded even more quickly when Cuba became the vassal and mercenary of Soviet social-imperialism.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Fidel Castro and the other Cuban “revolutionaries” were the representatives of the “radical” section of the Cuban bourgeoisie which wanted to occupy a more favorable place within the capitalist world market, an intention which was being thwarted by the ostensibly pro-American puppet regime of Batista. It is important to recall a very famous statement made by the Cuban revisionists during the late 50’s in which they affirmed that their social-fascist movement “is not communist nor capitalist, but humanist”. This declaration is so explicitly reactionary that it doesn’t even need our commentaries. It speaks for itself and says everything about the nature not only of the odious Cuban revisionism but also of all those fake “Marxist-Leninists” which, like João Amazonas, always insisted and continue to insist that capitalist Cuba is a “socialist country”.
Amazonas says that “The solidarity with Cuba is the duty of all revolutionaries.” but this phrase is totally fallacious. While the “duty” of neo-revisionists like Amazonas is to defend the interests of the Cuban anti-communist and counter-revolutionary regime, the duty of all Marxist-Leninists-Stalinists-Hoxhaists (which are the only veritable revolutionaries) is to support the Cuban toiling classes, which are being oppressed and exploited by the social-fascist Cuban bourgeoisie, with the aim of helping them to understand that the only way to defeat Castroist tyranny is the socialist revolution, is the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship which will open the path towards the communist classless and stateless society.
We must realize that it is perfectly comprehensible that the neo-revisionist João Amazonas praises Castroist Cuba in his openly anti-socialist speech. After all, Fidel Castro and João Amazonas share the same reactionary opinions and stands. They are ideological twins. Both try to mislead the working classes through the use of “revolutionary” and “progressive” phraseology which serves as a disguise to their perverse purposes of perpetuating the imperialist system which slaughters and represses the world proletariat in favor of the capitalist superprofits. Indeed, both Castro and Amazonas fervently embrace bourgeois anti-communism and this can be observed in the manner they insult the genial proletarian legacy of Comrade Stalin.
In 1992, Castro gave an interview to the newspaper Guardian in which he didn’t the slightest effort to hide his fascist anti-Stalinism and overtly affirmed that “Stalin committed enormous abuses of power” which allegedly caused “tremendous human and economic losses”.
Following the same pro-capitalist and anti-Stalinist ideological line, Amazonas stated that:
“The revolutionaries of all countries are trying to explain what happened with socialism in USSR and in the other countries. (…) We think that it is indispensable to reflect deeply about these problems. And, in our opinion, the origins of the crisis of Marxism derive from the fact that, within a determined period of the building of socialism in the Soviet Union, the avant-garde represented by Stalin and the CPSU were incapable of interpreting the new phenomenons which were appearing with the process of development of socialist construction with the necessary correctness. The theory entered in a period of stagnation. (…) It was created an empty space inside today’s revolutionary theory, an empty space which must be fulfilled.” (João Amazonas, Pour l'unité du mouvement communiste, February 10 and 11, 1992, translated from French language).
So, according with Amazonas, the responsible for all the problems which exist within the international communist movement is not bourgeois revisionism (be it rightist opportunism or “leftist” sectarianism), but it’s comrade Stalin who, supposedly, not only was “incapable of interpreting the new phenomenons which were appearing with the process of development of socialist construction with the necessary correctness” but who also allegedly “created an empty space” which caused “a period of stagnation”. In other words, Amazonas is accusing Comrade Stalin of dogmatism, an accusation which is commonly made by all kinds of revisionists. It is crystal clear that these false and anti-socialist accusations have the sole purpose of mislead the world proletariat in order to deviate it from the truly Marxist-Leninist road for which Comrade Stalin heroically and valiantly struggled.
Concluding, João Amazonas’ speech which we tried to analyze in its major aspects is a completely reactionary and neo-revisionist speech which bluntly denies the most essential principles of communist ideology. As we have already referred several times, this speech should not be regarded only in itself, but as the culmination of a long process of revisionist degeneration which was germinating within the CPB since its foundations and which gradually accentuated throughout the party’s historical course due to the successive concessions towards bourgeois-capitalist ideology and also due to the multiple anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary tendencies (from Maoism and Guevarism to “leftist” Catholicism) which prevented the party from assuming a genuine Marxist-Leninist ideological line and from adopting authentically proletarian positions relatively to the tasks that the CPB had to face during each stage. Therefore, we affirm that the CPB was never able to be the real vanguard of the Brazilian proletariat; the party was never capable of leading the Brazilian exploited working classes towards the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship, towards the construction of the socialist and communist society.
Therefore, the anti-communism which is reflected in Amazonas’ speech was not something temporary or momentary. On the contrary, it constitutes the current ideological line of the CPB. For example, in what respects to the defense of the ultra-revisionist regimes of China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, etc…, the Brazilian neo-revisionists affirm in their party program that:
“With pertinence, reforms and renovations, in accord with the particular conditions of each country, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and Laos were capable of resisting and of carry on the banner of socialism. (…) We can also underline the example of the fecund South African democratic regime.” (Documents of the CPB, Programa Socialista para o Brasil, December of 2009, translated from Portuguese language).
In this excerpt, we can observe that, besides the fact of gladly supporting all the remaining social-fascist states of the world, the Brazilian neo-revisionists also openly embrace the sadly famous reactionary theory of the “national road to socialism accordingly with the particular conditions of each country” espoused by the Titoites, by the Maoists, by revisionists of all colors and unmasked by Comrade Enver Hoxha:
“The experience of socialist edification in a great number of countries has proved the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist theory about the existence of certain general principles which are infallibly applicable to every country which is developing towards socialism. Our country and the other socialist countries obtained victories precisely because of the correct application of these general principles of socialist construction (…).”(Enver Hoxha, Rapport d’activité du Comité Central du Parti du Travail d’Albanie présenté au IVe Congrès du P.T.A., 13 February of 1961, translated from French language).
Moreover, we also note that the Brazilian neo-revisionists consider the backward and imperialist South African capitalist regime as being a “fecund democracy”. In many senses, South Africa and Brazil are two countries with many similarities between them. Both South African national bourgeoisie and Brazilian national bourgeoisie turned their respective countries into imperialist powers. And both South African imperialist bourgeoisie and Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie abundantly used and continue to use racism to divide the toiling classes among them, thus avoiding the socialist and proletarian revolution (racism and capitalism are invariably together. They are merged into each other. Indeed, it is capitalism which intentionally originates racism to prevent communism, and consequently, the only manner to eliminate racism is trough the annihilation of capitalism).
Contrary to what many believe, the social and economic structures of the Apartheid remained practically untouched after the fake “transition to multiracial democracy” promoted by the fervent pro-capitalist Nelson Mandela in alliance with the white supremacists and with the foreign imperialists which had done their utmost to perpetuate the Apartheid but which ultimately understood that a “democratic” facade would be more advantageous to the maintenance of capitalism in general and to the interests of the South African oligarchy in particular. Nowadays, the immense majority of the black South African population lives in utter poverty and it is fiercely exploited by the South African plutocratic bourgeoisie which holds absolute rule over the country. In the South African cities, there are many places where racial segregation is still in effect, despite bourgeois lies about the supposed “definitive end of the Apartheid”. In order to hide this reality, the South African dominant white bourgeoisie allowed the creation of a black bourgeoisie under its control which occupies the key positions of the government and which tries to give a “multiracial” appearance to the South African racist plutocracy. Of course that behind these phony “black governments”, the veritable power is firmly hold by the white landowners and industrials whose purpose is to keep the country under the sway of a concealed Apartheid which permits them not only to continue the exploitation and the oppression of the South African proletariat, but also to consolidate South Africa’s position as an imperialist power.
But instead of understanding the obvious analogies which exist between the situation in South Africa and the situation in Brazil, instead of trying to incentive the union between the South African proletariat and the Brazilian proletariat in order to struggle against world imperialism in general and the imperialisms of their respective countries in particular, the Brazilian neo-revisionists qualify the South African racist-imperialist plutocracy as “the fecund South African democratic regime.”
Indeed, since 1992, the already openly neo-revisionist path of the CPB has been increasingly emphasized because of the party’s zealous support for the imperialist Brazilian national bourgeoisie, which is represented by the pro-capitalist Workers’ party.
Throughout the 90’s, Brazil was governed by the representatives of the pro-American bourgeoisie. This pro-American bourgeoisie applied a typically neoliberal policy, faithfully following the line of the economic programs put forward by the fascist-military dictatorship. Of course, these pro-American governments were scandalously subservient to Washington, they obediently accomplished the desires of the American imperialist bourgeoisie which wanted to have total control over Brazil’s economy. Obviously, this situation represented a severe limitation to the aspirations of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie, which wanted to get rid of Washington’s influence in order to take advantage of the immense natural resources of Brazil with the objective of favoring the development of the country’s internal market and the accumulation of profits to facilitate the country’s transformation into an imperialist power.
To accomplish this, the Brazilian national bourgeoisie disguised its aims behind a “progressive” and “revolutionary” mask, because the Brazilian national bourgeoisie soon understood how dangerous it was to reveal its reactionary class nature in front of the toiling masses, it realized that the stability and maintenance of the capitalist system is in serious danger since the moment the exploited proletariat acquires an authentically revolutionary consciousness. In order to prevent that from happening, the Brazilian national bourgeoisie struggled to replace the pro-American bourgeoisie in the key positions of the Brazilian capitalist state, and in the bourgeois elections of 2002 it tried to conquer “popular” support through the presentation of a “radical leftist” candidate which would consolidate and advance its imperialist schemes (a similar phenomenon occurred in many countries of Latin American, whose national bourgeoisies also wanted to escape from American asphyxiating imperialist influence in order to obtain a better share of the capitalist profits for themselves. Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador are some of the most famous examples of how the representatives of the Latin American national bourgeoisies use “leftist”, “anti-neoliberal” and even “socialist” disguises in order to deceived the oppressed proletariat and the working masses of their respective countries in favor of the maintenance of the exploiting socio-economic system.
Nonetheless, contrary to what happens with Brazilian national bourgeoisie which follows its own independent imperialist policies; in the other Latin American countries the bourgeoisie is struggling against the control of American imperialism only to replace it by that of Chinese social-imperialism which is deeply penetrating these countries. The revisionists try to convince the proletariat that the capitalist-bourgeois regimes of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are “revolutionary” because they are attacked by the American imperialists. But this “argument” does not hold water. The American imperialist bourgeoisie knows very well that those governments have nothing to do with “revolution” and even less with “socialism”. However, it tries to overthrow those regimes because of their allegiance to the current main rival of American imperialism – social-imperialist China. Nearly all Latin American countries like Venezuela and Bolivia possess vast and valuable natural resources like oil, gold, silver, etc…Consequently, it is easy to understand why the American multinationals refuse to seat idle seeing the enormous riches of the Latin American countries escaping through their fingers in favor of the Chinese monopolist bourgeoisie which is disputing world dominance with the American imperialist bourgeoisie. Comrade Enver noticed this fact long time ago:
“Sticking to its policy of keeping Latin America as its exclusive domain, from which it extracts colossal superprofits, American imperialism is manoeuvering with all its means — military force, secret agents, demagogy and deception, to prevent any other imperialism from predominating there, to ensure that the revolution will not break out and triumph in any of these countries. Thus it wants to preserve both the total dependence of the Latin-American countries on the United States of America and the bourgeois-landowner order in these countries.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
Therefore, in many Latin American countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc… the traditional national “patriotic” bourgeoisie has ceased to exist. Instead, we have two opposing sections of the bourgeoisie of the compradore type: one which supports American imperialism and the other which supports Chinese social-imperialism).
Like everything which is related with the hateful and treacherous capitalist “democracy”, the 2002 bourgeois elections in Brazil were a ridiculous masquerade. It was a mere contest between two rival factions of the Brazilian bourgeoisie; on one side we had the “candidate” of the pro-American bourgeoisie which wanted to keep Brazil under the exclusive dominance of Washington, and on the other side we had the “candidate” which favored the imperialist policies of the national bourgeoisie. This last “candidate” was Lula da Silva, a former worker totally corrupted and sold to the interests of Brazilian imperialism.
Lula da Silva was the leader of the pro-capitalist Worker’s Party (WP), whose purpose is to deceive Brazilian proletariat through the utilization of “socialistic” phraseology which serves as a cloak to the total control that Brazilian imperialism exercises over the party. The Brazilian neo-revisionists opportunistically qualify the WP as being a “party which belongs to the working classes”. In fact, the WP is an instrument used by the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie with the objective of paralyzing class struggle and of conquering the support of the Brazilian workers in favor of its fascist and imperialist aims through the spread of lies and illusions about the “popular” origins of the Lula government (the same can be said about the Brazilian trade-unions which are completely dominated by the bourgeois and counter-revolutionary Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT) that, by its turn, is totally controlled by the WP. The objective of the CUT is to prevent the emergence of the truly socialist and proletarian trade-union movement in Brazil, thus keeping Brazilian workers under capitalist exploitative bondage. The social-fascist leaders of the CPB are closely linked to the ultra-reactionary CUT and explicitly assume this partnership in favor of the maintenance of wage slavery:
“During the last two decades, the party (…) intensely actuated within the trade-union movement and affiliated itself with the CUT (…).” (Documents of the CPB, Política de Estruturação do PC do Brasil, June of 2006, translated from Portuguese language).
The revisionist lackeys of the bourgeoisie which collaborate with social-fascist trade-unions like the Brazilian CUT were bravely criticized and exposed by Comrade Enver:
“The bourgeoisie fears the revolutionary organization and unity of the proletariat, which, (...), remain the main revolutionary motive force of our time. Therefore, it tries to maintain continuous control over trade-union organizations, over trade-union centers, which can be numerous in the capitalist parties, with names and programs which appear different, but which have no essential differences between them. Through the bourgeois and revisionist parties and its own state structures, the bourgeoisie has encouraged as never before the diversionist role of the trade-unions which are openly manipulated by them.
As the facts show, trade-unions of this kind in many countries have become completely integrated into and become appendages of the economic and state organization of capitalism. The ever more open collaboration of the trade-union centers with the owning class, with finance capital and the bourgeois governments is a notorious fact. As it is now, the trade-union movement does not challenge capitalism, but works for it, tries to subjugate the proletariat and to restrict and undermine its struggle against capitalism.” (Enver Hoxha, Eurocommunism is Anti-communism, Tirana, 1980, edition in English).
However, despite the efforts made by Brazil’s imperialist bourgeoisie to hide the reactionary character of the WP, the social-fascist Lula da Silva once made an affirmation that clearly reveals the veritable class interests behind the apparent “leftist” outlook of the WP. Lula declared that “The solution is not the abolition of the wealthy people, the solution is the abolition of the poor people.” This statement became one of the most famous of Brazil’s political history and it symbolized Lula’s demagogic “intention” of ending with poverty in Brazil. But foremost, it is a proof of the anti-communist and counter-revolutionary ideology of the WP and of the so-called “Lula Movement”.
Marxist-Leninist theory teaches us that there is a direct and necessary relation between wealth and poverty; it is precisely the colossal wealth of a tiny minority which originates the abject poverty of the immense majority. And vice-versa, the abject poverty of the immense majority is what sustains the colossal wealth of a tiny minority. This rule was scientifically proved by the Classics of Marxism-Leninism and it is part of the ABC of communist ideology. To deny this basic principle means to be completely on the side of the bourgeoisie, it means to be totally submerged in a fascist and anti-socialist fever.
The eradication of poverty in Brazil and everywhere around the world is only possible through the accomplishment of the world socialist revolution, followed by the implementation of the dictatorship of the world proletariat and by the construction of world socialism and world communism. And contrary to what fascist Lula affirms, only the use of revolutionary violence against the wealthy minority allows the elimination of the poverty affecting the majority; because only in this manner can the world wealth be fairly distributed and the wage slavery can be removed. To deny this means to be an irreducible enemy of the world proletarian socialist revolution.
Taking into consideration the ultra-revisionist and fiercely anti-communist course of the CPB, it is easily predictable that the Brazilian neo-revisionists would openly support the social-fascist Lula, as indeed happened. The CPB explicitly defends the interests of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie when declaring that:
“The victory of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the elections to president of the República in 2002 constitues a significative turn in recent history. It open a new political cycle in the country with the ascension of democratic and progressive forces. (…) the resistance against neoliberalism started to be accomplished in better conditions. (…) democracy knew a qualitative increase, national independence was fortified and the people obtained victories. (…). The Lula government had to overcome a grave crisis. It liberated the country from the neocolonial project of the FTAA and ended the dominance of the IMF over the country. This stands permitted the Lula government to advance with the country’s development, (…) with the expansion of democracy, with the redistribution of the wealth and integration of South America.” (Documents of the CPB, Programa Socialista para o Brasil, December of 2009, translated from Portuguese language).
This paragraph is an awful amount of lies. In first place, the election of Lula da Silva could never be “progressive” or “democratic” because the veritable democracy cannot be conquered through bourgeois elections. It can only be achieved through the violent socialist revolution lead by the proletariat under the guidance of its Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist party. There is no other way to conquer the authentic democracy, which is only reachable under socialist society.
The victory of Lula and of the WP was a simple consolidation of the class power of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie. The Brazilian neo-revisionists talk much about “the resistance against neoliberalism”, about the “increase of democracy” and about “people’s victories” but this is complete fiction.
For instance, in Brazil there are around 300.000 to 350.000 landless peasants who live in absolute destitution and who are savagely exploited by the great landowners. During the period of Lula’s election, the Brazilian neo-revisionists screamed a lot about the “radical agrarian reform” that Lula would allegedly promote. And indeed, Lula solemnly promised that he would give land to the landless peasants as soon as he was elected. But of course that Lula’s promises have the same worth as the promises of any other bourgeois-capitalist politician, that is, they worth nothing. Pedro Stedile, a general-secretary of the Movement of the Landless (Movimento dos Sem Terra) affirmed in December of 2004 that Lula had repeatedly betrayed his promises and that no agrarian reform had been made. Lula’s regime had also systematically ignored and despised the frequent appeals of the Brazilian landless peasants, which are still living in deplorable tents without any kind of hygienic or sanitary conditions while facing the lethal armed attacks of the landowners (only in 2003, around 100 peasant activists were killed by the private armies of the landlords).
Foremost, we must note that this “agrarian reform” promised by Lula was nothing more than a purely bourgeois agrarian reform, it consisted only in giving the landless peasants small amounts of cultivable land without practically touching the gigantic possessions of the ultra-reactionary landowners. It is a mere question of the distribution of small private property that could not represent any kind of danger within the boundaries of the capitalist system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the truly revolutionary agrarian reforms accomplished in Soviet Union of comrades Lenin and Stalin and in Socialist Albania of comrade Enver Hoxha and which involved the collectivization of all private property, whether large or small, turning the soil into possession of the proletarian state. However, the truth is that the distribution of land to the landless peasants would affect the profits of the landlords because a very important part of the exploited human work force in the Brazilian countryside is provided by the landless peasants. Thus, the landowners have an enormous interest in keeping these peasants not only without land but also living in the more absolute misery in order to continue to benefit from their cheap labor force. That’s why Lula didn’t accomplished not even the strictly bourgeois “agrarian reform” that he had promised. He didn’t do it simply because that would affect the vicious interests of the powerful Brazilian landlords.
Therefore, contrary to what the neo-revisionists of the CPB affirm about the “progressive nature” of the Lula government, the truth is that it didn’t even fulfilled the most timid popular demands, let alone the veritable revolutionary and socialist aspirations of the Brazilian people.
And there is much more.
Far from alleviating the horrible poverty in which the Brazilian toiling masses live, the Lula regime reduced the salaries of large numbers of workers and even the “minimum wage”, which is so dear to the revisionists hypnotized by the “wonders” of the bourgeois welfare state, was affected because Lula’s government determined that this “minimum wage” would not increase more than 1% in two years. If we take into account that Brazil has an enormous inflation, this means the aggravation of the pauperization of the most exploited sections of the Brazilian working classes. Within the WP, there were some party members who started to criticize the openly reactionary and anti-popular policies of the Lula regime. Of course, those members of the WP were not at all worried about the miserable life conditions of the Brazilian proletariat. They simply understood that, without the “leftist” and “socialistic” mask, it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to deceive Brazilian working classes in order to make them support the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, Lula’s regime did not tolerate even the most inoffensive criticisms and this situation led to the expulsion of one senator and of three members of the Brazilian Congress which dared to disapprove Lula’s social and economic policies. The expulsion of these four members of the WP clearly reveals the fascist and ultra-authoritative nature of the Lula government which stopped at nothing in favor of the interests of predatory capitalism. And this is what the neo-revisionists of the CPB call “the increase of democracy”, to use their own words!
In what respects to the much publicized but totally phony Lula’s campaign against hunger, it constitutes one more proof of the anti-socialist and pro-capitalist character not only of the Lula regime, but also of all those who candidly support it. Since the beginnings of his “presidency”, Lula and its bourgeois supporters (including the CPB, of course) launched a “social crusade to eliminate hunger” which was a total and complete failure. In Brazil, there are tens of millions of people which experience systematic hunger and lack of nutrition; nonetheless, according with official sources, distribution of free food only reached around 10% of all people who needed it.
Frei Betto, a personal friend of Lula da Silva and one of the main responsible for the application of the campaign, resigned from his political position after the multiple scandals of corruption and nepotism which disclosed that the money which should serve to pay the poor’s food, was in truth being deviated towards the pockets and private accounts of many preeminent supporters of Lula.
The failure of this fake “anti-hunger” program is not surprising at all. In first place, corruption is something inherent to capitalism, wherever there is capitalism, there is also necessarily corruption.
In second place, these kind of programs are nothing more than bourgeois charity and serve only to mislead the proletariat about the true class nature of the socio-economic system. The promoters of these campaigns try to convince the oppressed workers that there is no need to struggle for the socialist and communist society, or to follow Marxism-Leninism if the “wonderful” capitalist state is even capable of supplying them with free food. It is obvious that this perverse strategy can never deceive the most conscious sections of the Brazilian toiling classes, but it works perfectly within the hungry ranks of the numerous Brazilian lumpenproletariat.
The Brazilian neo-revisionists falsely affirm that “It (Lula’s regime) liberated the country from the neocolonial Project of the FTAA”. In fact quite the opposite happened. Lula supported the implementation of the ultra-capitalist FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas, an agreement whose main purpose is to strengthen and consolidate the monopolist form of capitalism in the American continent through the elimination of the petty and middle bourgeoisie thanks to the savage inter-capitalist competition which the agreement promotes and from which only the big monopolist corporations are capable of taking fabulous profits) and ensured that Brazil joined it. When the Brazilian neo-revisionists say that “Lula opposed the FTAA”, they are referring to the inter-imperialist “disagreements” between the American imperialists that control the FTAA and Lula’s government which accused the American plutocracy of being too much protectionist relatively to Brazil’s exportations. These accusations are quite understandable because Lula’s regime represented the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie which aims to develop the country’s internal market in its own benefit and to increase exportations which help this bourgeoisie to accomplish its imperialist policies while minimizing the competition of the American imperialist bourgeoisie.
Therefore, contrary to what the Brazilian neo-revisionists declare, these “divergences” between Lula and the pro-American FTAA are totally related with the rivalry and contradictions between the traditional imperialist powers like the USA, on one hand; and the new imperialist powers in ascension like Brazil, on the other hand. And we must note that, after those mentioned “discrepancies”, the American capitalist-imperialist regime and the Brazilian capitalist-imperialist regime reached an agreement in which they tried to solve their “divergences” in order to make a “special deal” within the FTAA which would only apply to Brazil. All these facts are widely documented, and only their blind reactionarism can cause the Brazilian neo-revisionists to say the contrary.
In what respects to the pro-imperialist IMF (International Monetary Fund), the assertions of the Brazilian neo-revisionists that the Lula administration “ended the dominance of the IMF over the country” are also completely baseless. On the contrary, the attitude of the Lula regime in what respected to the IMF was so subservient that we can even affirm that the policies the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie suffered a defeat in this sense.
Lula’s regime not only recognized and reaffirmed all the country’s enormous debts towards the IMF but also drastically reduced the pensions of the low-income workers precisely with the objective (never achieved) of paying the assumed obligations to the imperialist creditors, thus gravely affecting its “leftist”, “progressive” and “anti-imperialist” image in front of the eyes of the Brazilian oppressed and exploited toiling classes.
Indeed, we must observe that the Brazilian national bourgeoisie is being less successful than the Chinese national bourgeoisie in what respects to the ability to transform their respective countries into imperialist powers. Despite the intentions of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie of strengthening the country’s internal market and of getting rid of the influence of the American imperialism, the truth is that it is not being capable to do it in a complete manner. The main reason for this resides in the fact that, despite Brazil’s gigantic territory and huge natural-demographical resources, Brazilian national bourgeoisie is still not able to fully develop a diversified heavy industry of means of production which would ensure Brazil’s definitive place among the world imperialist powers. Therefore, while Chinese imperialism reached a world scale, Brazilian imperialism is still limited to a more regional scale.
However, despite these profound inter-imperialist contradictions, we must note that the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie is eager to collaborate with the traditional imperialist powers if that can bring benefits to its aims and interests. For example, in 2004, the Lula regime mobilized the Brazilian army with the purpose of joining forces with the American troops which were invading Haiti in order to overthrown the bourgeois-democratic Aristide government and to replace it by a puppet regime more able to obediently serve the interests of the American imperialist bourgeoisie.
The new pro-Washington fascist regime of installed a veritable reign of terror over the Haitian people with the help of the foreign troops (in which the Brazilian army was included) only to favor the maximization of the profits of the American multinationals and of the Haitian pro-American bourgeoisie.
Of course, the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie would not help its main rival for nothing. It collaborated with the American imperialists because the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie needs their support to conquer a permanent seat in the United Nation’s Security Council, something that the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie has desired for a long time in order to increase its influence over international affairs, which would be advantageous to its imperialist policies.
It is very important to underline that the social-fascist CPB promptly supported all these capitalist crimes committed by Brazilian ruling classes against the world proletariat, in general, and against the Brazilian proletariat, in particular. Trying to justify their anti-socialist treason, the Brazilian neo-revisionists say that:
“Lula is a political leader of proletarian origins (…). The Brazilian workers identify themselves with Lula and see him as a defender of their interests (…)”. (Documents of the CPB, Política de Estruturação do PC do Brasil, June of 2006, translated from Portuguese language).
Taking into consideration what we have been analyzing, this affirmation is simply shocking. The Brazilian neo-revisionists qualify the henchman of the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie, the main executor of the projects of imperialist affirmation of that class as being “the defendant of the interests of Brazilian workers”! Even the “argument” about the “proletarian origins of Lula” is ridiculous. The fact that Lula is a former worker does not automatically mean that he is on the side of the working class. Quite on the contrary, Lula’s course clearly reveals that he chose the side of the bourgeoisie and that he decided to dedicate his life to the perpetuation of capitalism.
In truth, the descriptions of the members of the Lula regime plainly disclose this option; the key positions of the Lula government were occupied by preeminent members of the Brazilian bourgeoisie; for instance, the Ministry of Commerce and Development was led by the millionaire Luiz Fernando Furlan who is closely linked to the agrarian corporation Sandia, one of the most important Brazilian corporations which is tightly controlled by the reactionary landowners whose immense wealth mainly comes from the exploitation of the poor landless peasants which we already mentioned in this article.
Another example was the Ministry of Agriculture which was led by Roger Rodrigues, another member of the Brazilian exploiting classes which used his political positions to foster the destruction of the Amazonic jungle (in what constitutes an awful capitalist crime against the environment) in order to advance the agro-industrial billionaire interests of the Brazilian multinational Monsanto, of which he is an well known associate. The former jungle areas are now being utilized by the Monsanto Corporation to plant genetically modified cultures which may be harmful to the human health but which are staggeringly profitable to the multinationals controlled by the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie. This is the “working class government” that the Brazilian neo-revisionists love so much!
These are only two examples of the social-fascist and pro-capitalist nature of the Lula regime which, far from defending the interests of the Brazilian proletariat, intensified its exploitation in favor of the Brazilian ruling classes.
More recently, the counter-revolutionary and anti-communist line of the CPB was reaffirmed once more when the party gave its explicit support to Dilma Roussef, a faithful lackey of the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie which is obediently continuing to apply the anti-popular measures of the Lula government. The Brazilian neo-revisionists scream a lot about the fact that Roussef is the “first woman president in Brazil’s history”, as if this could change the ultra-reactionary character of the Dilma government as an instrument at the service of the maintenance of world capitalism in general and of Brazilian capitalism in particular.
The support that the CPB gave and continues to give to the social-fascist regimes of Lula and Dilma is logical if we remember that the CPB is nothing more than a completely degenerated and pro-bourgeois party. In their party’s statutes, the Brazilian neo-revisionists try to mislead the proletariat by demagogically and treacherously affirming that:
“The highest purpose of the Communist Party of Brazil (…) is to achieve communism.” (Documents of the CPB, Estatutos do PC do Brasil, São Paulo, November of 2009, translated from Portuguese language).
But if we analyze the party’s statutes and program, we will realize that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not mentioned a single time. This constitutes a blatant proof of the anti-socialist character of the CPB. It is not possible to achieve communism without the proletarian dictatorship and without the use of revolutionary violence which is inherent to it.
Therefore, the perfidious statement made by the Brazilian neo-revisionists about the alleged purposes of the CPB towards the building of communism are a total masquerade and nothing more than that, because only those who are entirely submerged in a petty-bourgeois hallucination can pretend to achieve communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Classics of Marxism-Leninism teach us that the acceptance and embracement of the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship constitutes one of the main demarcation lines between the genuine communists and the revisionists of all colors. In his book entitled “The proletariat and its dictatorship”, Comrade Lenin states that:
“Those who don’t understand the necessity of the dictatorship of every revolutionary class in order to achieve victory did not understood absolutely nothing about the history of the revolutions or don’t want to know nothing in what respects to this subject.” (Lenin, Le prolétariat et sa dictature, translated from French language).
Of course that the Brazilian neo-revisionists refuse the proletarian dictatorship because they are the most loyal defenders of the interests of the Brazilian national bourgeoisie, because they have always rejected the most basic principles of communist ideology. And as if this was not enough, they even dare to use Comrade Lenin’s name trying to justify their social-fascist ideological line:
“We must underline the education that Lenin gave to the communist ranks in what respects to (…) the flexibility of the ways through which we should fulfill our objectives. That (…) implies that the proletariat has the necessity of reaching agreements and compromises (…) which are mainly expressed through necessary alliances (…).” (Documents of the CPB, Questões de Partido, May of 2006, translated from Portuguese language).
It is true that, at certain moments, the proletariat has to make accords with the bourgeoisie with the aim of advancing the interests of revolution. However, it should remain crystal clear that, even in those critical moments, the communist party can never permit that the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism are betrayed or despised under the pretext of the supposed “necessity of reaching agreements and compromises”. But the Brazilian neo-revisionists do just the opposite when they gladly support the reactionary and ardently pro-capitalist governments of Lula and Dilma Roussef which favor the exploitation of the Brazilian proletariat by the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie. Indeed, the anti-communist course of the CPB led the party towards the most coward capitulation to bourgeois abject “patriotism” and, consequently, to the minimization and elimination of the revolutionary role of the proletariat and of the working masses and its replacement by ultra-opportunistic notions about “anti-imperialist and national-democratic movements”. In 1992, the Brazilian neo-revisionists had already declared that:
“(…) the emerging of a powerful and broad anti-imperialist and national-democratic movement which would include not only the popular masses and the workers’ movement, but also the progressive intellectuals, the representatives of the national economy (…) preeminent personalities of the national life, that is, all those who love our country and who do not want to be transformed into mere lackeys of the American superpower.” (Documents of the CPB, O Socialismo Vive, 1992, page 32, translated from Portuguese language).
In this paragraph, we can observe that the leaders of the CPB not only explicitly admit their support for the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie, as it is clear in the mention about “the representatives of the national economy”, but also consider that the members of the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie can play a decisive role in what the Brazilian neo-revisionists call the “broad anti-imperialist and national-democratic movement” which would allegedly prevent Brazil’s transformation into an American neo-colony.
Indeed, this fake “progressive” and “anti-imperialist” phraseology used by the Brazilian neo-revisionists is in total agreement with the goals and objectives of the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie that frequently hides its fascist policies behind the mask of the “struggle against American imperialism”. This is easy to explain if we take into consideration that American imperialism is one of main obstacles to the accomplishment of the aims of capitalist hegemony of the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie.
Moreover, we also understood how far has gone the process of anti-socialist degeneration of the CPB when we note the praise of bourgeois individualism which is contained in the statement about the “preeminent personalities of the national life” which should also be included in the reactionary and unpalatable “soup” that is the so-called “national-democratic” movement proposed by the Brazilian neo-revisionists and whose objective, in spite of its democratic-sounding name, is to everlastingly preserve the ferocious and brutal bourgeois dictatorship. And it doesn’t matter if that dictatorship is exercised by the pro-American bourgeoisie or by the “patriotic” and “progressive” national bourgeoisie, because the result is always the same: maintenance of the capitalist-imperialist system which imposes economic, political, social, military, cultural and ideological oppression over the world proletariat.
But, let’s be very frank, what could we expect from a “communist” party that is so disgustingly submerged in Maoist fascist concepts at the point of affirming in its own political program that:
“Because it (the socialist society) emerged from within the capitalist mode of production and its institutions, the transition to the new society will still have a mixed, heterogeneous economy with multiple forms of public, private and mixed property, including various types of enterprises, such as cooperatives. It is expectable the existence of forms of state capitalism (…). However, the social ownership of the major means of production should progressively prevail.” (Documents of the CPB, Programa Socialista para o Brasil, December of 2009, translated from Portuguese language).
If this paragraph was not included in the program of the CPB published in 2009, we would feel tempted to think that it perhaps could have been written by Mao himself, because the petty-bourgeois and pro-capitalist notions which characterize Maoist revisionism are clearly present in it.
Just like Mao, the Brazilian neo-revisionists utilize the fact that socialist society necessarily emerges from capitalist society as an excuse to deny the possibility of that same socialist society in order to perpetuate capitalism. The Classics of Marxism-Leninism teach us that the only way to the successful accomplishment of the socialist society resides in the implementation of the proletarian dictatorship. And the proletarian dictatorship implies the fast, resolute, total and complete expropriation and collectivization of all means of production, because the class power of the bourgeois relies precisely in its possession of the means of production that constitute the material base of its system of oppression. Therefore, if after the socialist revolution, the proletariat does not expropriate and collectivize the means of production which until then were in the hands of the capitalist exploiting class, that is equivalent to intentionally allow the bourgeoisie to keep its dominance because if the material foundations of its exploiting class power are not taken from the bourgeoisie, this class will always retain its control and supremacy over the entire society, thus preventing the abolition of wage slavery and the advancement towards socialism and communism.
In these conditions, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not even installed because proletarian dictatorship means proletarian power; but if the bourgeoisie was not deprived of its means of oppression and exploitation over the proletariat it is obvious that we cannot affirm that the dictatorship of the proletariat is being exercised, we cannot affirm that the oppressed and exploited classes are in power.
In direct opposition to the Marxist-Leninist teachings, the Brazilian neo-revisionists openly allow and even incentive the existence of the “multiple forms of public, private and mixed property” during the process of transition to the “socialist society”, in what amounts to the Maoist theory which preaches the “joint government of the bourgeoisie and of the proletariat” and “controlled capitalism” and whose aim is to keep the oppressing bourgeoisie in power while misleading the proletariat with lies about its supposed “participation in power” which is de facto inexistent.
Another thing which is absolutely incompatible with the socialist society is the existence of state capitalism whose “socialistic” outlook misleads the proletariat and originates a new exploiting bourgeoisie (as happened in the social-imperialist Soviet Union after Khrushchevist betrayal and in the social-fascist “popular democracies” of Eastern Europe), but the leaders of the CPB happily affirm that “It is expectable the existence of forms of state capitalism”. Here we can see the defense that the Brazilian neo-revisionists do of the anti-communist and reactionary theory which considers state capitalism as a necessary stage of the process of transition to socialism. This reveals clearly that what the Brazilian neo-revisionists really want is to prevent the proletarian and socialist revolution through the achievement of a “moderate capitalism”, through the implementation of this so-called state capitalism which would promote the “stabilization of class relations” (that is, the impossible reconciliation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), which would serve as some kind of “gravity center of the system”. In his book “Eurocommunism is Anticommunism”, Comrade Enver unmasked the true nature of state capitalism which is so dear to all revisionists and neo-revisionists:
“As very lengthy experience has already proved, state capitalism is supported and developed by the bourgeoisie, not to create the foundations of socialist society, as the revisionists think, but to strengthen the foundations of capitalist society, of its bourgeois state, in order to exploit and oppress the working people more.” (Enver Hoxha, Eurocommunism is Anti-communism, Tirana, 1980, edition in English).
In the same book, Enver also underlined that:
“(…) Chinese private enterprises, Chinese-foreign capital joint private enterprises, purely foreign private enterprises, cooperativist sectors, etc., exist alongside of the state capitalist sector in China. This conforms completely with the «third road», with the «socialism» which the Eurocommunists propagate.” (Enver Hoxha, Eurocommunism is Anti-communism, Tirana, 1980, edition in English).
Therefore, not only the reality of social-imperialist China wholly coincides with the “transition to socialism” proposed by the Brazilian neo-revisionists, but also the pro-capitalist ideology of the CPB is in total agreement with the ultra-reactionary “theories” of Eurocommunism.
After having denied the possibility of the seizure of power by the proletariat and the crucial importance of a centralized and planned economy during the process of socialist construction, the Brazilian neo-revisionists are capable of being hypocrite enough to say that “However, the social ownership of the major means of production should progressively prevail”.
This affirmation is completely worthless. If we follow the ideological line of the Brazilian neo-revisionists, we will reach the conclusion that the expropriation and collectivization of the private property of the bourgeoisie and of the other exploiting ruling classes by the proletariat through revolutionary violence will not even be accomplished; the anti-communist “theories” of the Brazilian neo-revisionists depict the transformation of the private property of the means of production into social property of the means of production as being impossible because, as we already explained, if after the socialist revolution the bourgeoisie is not immediately dispossessed of the means of production which constitute the main basis of its class power, there can be no talk about proletarian dictatorship nor about socialist construction; consequently, in these conditions, it is obvious that the repressive, despotic, totalitarian and exploitative capitalist dictatorship is fully maintained.
We hope that it is now perfectly clear that the CPB is actually an ultra-revisionist party which fervently serves the interests of the world bourgeoisie in general and of the Brazilian bourgeoisie in particular. Its main task is to keep the capitalist-imperialist system alive in order to perpetuate wage exploitation and to “dress” the treacherous “democratic” form of bourgeois dictatorship with some “radical” and even “communist” “clothes” with the purpose of preventing the Brazilian proletariat from acquiring a developed and truly revolutionary consciousness which would lead to the fulfillment of the subjective factor (of the world socialist revolution) in one of the major weakest chain-links of the world imperialist chain – Latin America, in which Brazil is included.
Comrade Enver Hoxha correctly analyzed that:
“(…) in Latin America the peasantry and the working class, which has emerged from its ranks, have a rich militant revolutionary tradition gained in the ceaseless struggles for freedom, land, work and bread, a tradition which has been developed further in the battles against the local oligarchy and foreign monopolies, against American imperialism. The peoples of Latin America rank among the peoples who have fought and shed their blood the most against their internal and external oppressors and exploiters. In these battles they have had more than a few victories, and not minor ones either, but the complete victory of democratic freedoms, the wiping out of exploitation, securing national independence and sovereignty, has still not been won in any Latin-American country. (…)
Latin America also has many advantages in regard to the preparation of the subjective factor of the revolution, because of the relatively high level of consciousness and readiness of the broad popular masses to fight against the internal and foreign oppression and exploitation, for freedom, democracy and socialism. However, it is not just the imperialists, especially the Americans, together with local reaction, but also the local revisionists and the other opportunist stooges of capitalism, as well as the (…) Chinese revisionists, who are obstructing, confusing, and fighting with all their strength against the full preparation of this factor.” (Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, edition in English).
But the Brazilian neo-revisionists will never be able to avoid the outcome of the world socialist revolution.
It is the duty of the Brazilian Marxist-Leninists in particular and of the Marxist-Leninists of the world in general to struggle against Brazilian neo-revisionism and to establish in Brazil a new, authentically Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist party which loyally follows and applies the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism and which should not only constitute the leadership and the vanguard of the Brazilian revolutionary proletariat, but it should also incentive the formation of the Brazilian division of the world proletarian army towards the overthrow of the globalized bourgeois-imperialist-capitalist world system, towards the implementation of the dictatorship of world proletariat and finally, towards the achievement of world socialism and world communism.
In order to attain this, the Brazilian Marxist-Leninists and the Brazilian proletarian and working classes can rely on the sincere and honorable support of the Comintern (SH), the only faithful defender of Communist ideology.
The Comintern (SH) likes to close this article by the following conclusion:
The CPB has developed into a party that is totally guided by the spirit of the social-chauvinist Second International and serves completely to Brazilian imperialism.
The national bourgeoisie in Brazil has evolved into a typical imperialist bourgeoisie, which is characterized not only by exploitation and oppression in its own country, but also by the increasing expansion of exploiting and oppressing the proletariat of the entire Latin American continent. Therefore, it is impossible to liberate Latin America from the external imperialist powers, without its liberation from its internal imperialist powers, without its liberation from Brazilian imperialism.
Anyone who denies this, who tries to defend Brazilian imperialism against other imperialist powers who calls this an “anti-imperialist” deed, is on the way to the opportunistic betrayal of the Second International, makes himself an enemy of the Comintern (SH) and the revolutionary world proletariat.
It is the task of the revolutionary proletariat of the whole Latin American continent to take advantage of the contradictions between the internal and foreign imperialist powers.
In the era of globalization the Brazilian imperialism is completely integrated into world imperialism and thus not only an enemy of the Workers of Latin America, but also a serious, new challenge of the entire world proletariat.
The world revolution has to solve not only the task of guaranteeing the victory of Latin American Workers over the foreign imperialists, but also their victory against the imperialists of their own Latin American continent - in particular against the Brazilian imperialists.
The new Stalinist-Hoxhaist parties which have to be founded in Latin America must become detachments of the Communist International (Stalinists-Hoxhaists) which directs the entire world proletariat towards the victorious socialist revolution!
Without the join actions of the new Stalinist-Hoxhaist parties, the proletarians of the single countries can not get rid of imperialism in Latin America.
There is no socialism in Brazil without a new Brazilian Stalinist-Hoxhaist party!
There is no socialism in Latin America without new Stalinist-Hoxhaist parties!
There is no world-socialism without the Communist International (Stalinist-Hoxhaists)!
Brazilian Workers, unite!
Unmask the social-fascist “C”PB!
Fight against the Brazilian neo-revisionists with all your strength!
Struggle against the perfidious bourgeois “democracy” which only serves to keep the exploited and oppressed workers in bondage!
Don’t be deceived by the false “anti-imperialist”, “radical” and “leftist” phraseology used by the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie to hide its fascist policies!
Fight against Brazilian imperialism which is one of the most dangerous enemies of the world proletariat!
Install the dictatorship of the proletarian in Brazil and contribute to its implementation around the world!
Don’t hesitate before using revolutionary violence which is essential to accomplish the overthrow of the exploitative bourgeois order!
Create your own Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist party which will lead you towards your liberation from wage slavery and from capitalist totalitarian tyranny!
Long live the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha!
Long live the Comintern (SH), the only true standard bearer of the genuine socialist and proletarian principles!
Long live the World Socialist Revolution!
Long live World Socialism and World Communism!
The Stalinist-Hoxhaist World