Extract from the original text of the Comintern / ML on behalf of the 80th Death-Day of comrade Lenin:
“Neo-Revisionism or Leninism ?”
Neo- revisionism or Leninism?
To defend Leninism you have to unmask the anti-Leninist „Mao Zedong Ideas“
Leninism is World Bolshevism, is Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, emphasized Stalin.
The revolution is a problem which has to be solved practically, today – has to be solved in the continuation of the struggle against the imperialist-revisionist world, emphasized Enver Hoxha.
So, if you defend Leninism today,
you have to continue the defence of Stalin and Enver Hoxha !
The revolutionary reconquest of socialism from the imperialist-revisionist world – this is today the historical Leninist stage and definition of the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution,
It is the present demarcation-line between Neo-Revisionism and Marxism-Leninism.
This is the significance and understanding of Leninism-today, is – for short – the base for the realization of the ideological, political and organisational general line of the CominternML to lead the internationalist, socialist class struggle of the world proletariat in combination with the revolutionary liberation struggle of the suppressed and exploited peoples of the world towards communism.
Stalin and Enver Hoxha worked out concret plans how to resist the restoration of capitalism, how to resist the encirclement of the capitalist world and the capitalist-revisionist world consequently and effectively. They only succeeded to transform their plans into practice, because both of them relied completely on Leninism.
The CominternML has worked out plans, how to reconquer socialism that was lost to capitalism, how to destroy the revisionist remainders completely and how to give them no chance to survive by new injections of capitalism, how to build up a new socialism on the ruins of the smashed revisionist countries, how to smash world imperialism and social-imperialism on an international scale. The CominternML worked out the „General Line of the strategy and tactics of the continuation of the proletarian socialist world revolution“ that started with Lenin`s victorious October Revolution.
Under the leadership of comrade Enver Hoxha the capitalist-revisionist world was not able to smash Albanian socialism and to sweep socialism off the globe.
His struggle and teachings resisted the attacks of all revisionist branches all over the world including the revisionist branch of Maoism. The teachings of Comrade Enver Hoxha are therefore the guarantee of the protection and development of the Marxism-Leninism of today. The teachings of Enver Hoxha are the teachings of Marxism-Leninism of today.
Leninism survived by the teachings of comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha. If you seperate Leninism from Stalin and Enver Hoxha you destroy Leninism, you burry Leninism. This is just the intention of the neo-revisionists – burrying Leninism by attacking Stalin respectiveley Enver Hoxha.
What about those comrades who followed Lenin on the road of the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha ? Most of them have retired and withdrew from the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha and suffer from the poison of neo-revisionism. Others openly became renegates, became dangerous forces who are busy to critisize the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha, other relapsed into reconciliation with Maoism or even became Neo-Maoists. Some other are busy to cause the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha to die. How can this happen?
The Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha was a sharp weapon to wipe out the revisionists. It was clear that the revisionists did not put up with this. They re-activated their forces of resistance and mobilized all energies of defence. They put great pressure on the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha and this was not without effect, especially after the death of comrade Enver Hoxha and the betrayal of Ramiz Alia and his clique. The socialist Albania of comrade Enver Hoxha was the base of the worldrevolution. It was clear that the disreputation of socialism in Albania from inside as well as from outside harmed and damaged the confidence of the worldproletariat in socialism and worldrevolution.The neo-revisionist dismantling of socialism in Albania led to the weakening of the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha. The propaganda of the revisionists, that „socialism in Albania failed“ was also propaganda to weaken the position of communism all over the world. Ramiz Alia and his supporters all over the world helped revisionism to turn back the flywheel of the international revolutionary movement. The pretended „hundred percent Enver Hoxha - defence course“ of Ramiz Alia turned out to be a hundred percent Anti-Enver Hoxha course, a course of capitulation, a liquidatory course – a) liquidation of socialism in Albania and b) liquidation of proletarian internationalism by descending Albania as the base of the worldrevolution c) a course of renewed neo-revisionist branches ( for example the revival of Maoism: socialism in Albania failed, ergo: Enver Hoxha was „wrong“ – Mao was „right“). Alia`s distortion of Enver Hoxha was the same distortion of Leninism by Sinovjev. Stalin unmasked Sinovjev 1926 in his „Questions of Leninism“ (Stalin, Volume 8 ).
To withdraw from the strong Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha proved in the result as a total capitulation of the anti-revisionist struggle and led by reconciliation straight into the arms of the neo-revisionists. Only a minority of determined Marxist-Leninists defended comrade Enver Hoxha and had – from then on - to cope with the pressure of the renegades who threw the teachings of comrade Enver Hoxha over board and who supported – openly or disguised - the socialfascists and social-imperialists to survive. The treacherous way from outrages against „Stalinist bureaucratical-revisionist deterioration of Leninism“ was not far from the outrage against „Hoxhaist bureaucratical-revisionist deterioration of Leninism“. However accusations such as „orthodox dogmatism of Marxism“, „orthodox dogmatism of Leninism“, „orthodox dogmatism of Stalinism“ and „orthodox dogmatism of Hoxhaism“ are all together accusations against Marxism-Leninism to isolate the true Marxist-Leninists from the proletariat and the proletarian movement, to „save the sheep from the wolves“, and to bring the proletariat back to the revisionist shepherds.
By this the neo-revisionism is the instrument of the bourgeoisie to take advantage from the anti-revisionist struggle of the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha, to assimilate it, to subjugate it under the bourgeois interest of oppression and exploitation. Just in the same way when the bourgeoisie took advantage of Leninism to mask the restoration of capitalism. As all former branches of opportunism the neo-revisionism is the instrument of the bourgeoisie to change the weapons of Marxism-Leninism into weapons against Marxism-Leninism.
To defend Leninism you have to unmask the anti-Leninist „Mao Tsetung Ideas“
One of the most successful instruments of the bourgeoisie to disarm the proletariat and the people are undoubtedly the anti-Leninist „Mao Tsetung Ideas“. By the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ Chinese revisionism came to power and hindered - in fact - the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, hindered Leninism to come true in China. The demaskation of the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ was one of the most difficult struggles against the bourgeois ideology in history and which was masked by Leninism. And this struggle is not yet finished successfully. We Marxist-Leninists with comrade Enver Hoxha at the top needed decades looking through the true anti-Leninist character of the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“. In the meantime we found out that there is no single question left which the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ do not collide with the teachings of Lenin. It is not possible and neccessary to prove the anti-Leninism on occasion of the 80th deathday of comrade Lenin sufficiently, we Marxist-Leninists have proved this by many documents, especially by the documents of comrade Enver Hoxha („Reflections on China“, „Imperialism and Revolution“, etc.).
Moreover there are some Maoists who proclaimed Mao Tsetung as a „classic of Marxism-Leninism“ and who declared the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ as Marxism at the third and highest level“. There is a world movement which refers to the socalled „Marxism-Leninism-Maoism“. They claim to be anti-revisionist and defenders of Marxism-Leninism. The problem is the combination of Marxism-Leninism with Maoism. If the „MLM“ -ists defend Maoism, then they violate Marxism-Leninism. If they would defend Marxism-Leninism they would violate Maoism. Theories which exclude themselves cannot be combined with the intention to retrieve a higher „ fruitbearing“ result called „Marxism-Leninism-Maoism“ or whatever. If you „fructify“ the proletarian ideology with the bourgeois ideology you get not an ideology that is advantageous for all classes – as Mao Tsetung believed, when he built up a Chinese prototype of a bourgeois system which he called „socialism“ which tolerates the existence of the bourgeoisie (if it „supports“ the upbuilding of socialism- since when does the bourgeoisie support proletarian socialism?!). Leninism, in the contrary, presumes that there can be only socialism, if the bourgeoisie as a class is abolished. Leninism says definetely no to the division of the dictatorship of the proletariat with exploiting and oppressing classes. Capitalist elements are liquidated by the proletarian dictatorship, otherwise it would be anything else but not the dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no capitalist class which exploits the proletariat in Leninist socialism.The working class is owner of the productive instruments and – means. Otherwise any exploitation and suppression of the working class cannot be excluded. Lenin liberated the proletariat by the armed October-Revolution, smashed the class of the capitalists, seized the productive instruments and – means from the capitalists and abolished the private ownership of the production, which brings forth the exploited class of the proletariat. The working class of the Soviet-Union as well as the working class of Albania became a new class who smashed the capitalist system and who created the socialist ownership of the productive instruments and -means.
What about Mao and his „Culture-Revolution“ ? This revolution was neither socialist nor proletarian and is contrary to the October-Revolution and the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. It was neither led by a Bolshevist party, nor by the proletariat itself. It was an anarchist movement of parts of the army and the students against the Chinese proletariat. The roots for this were based on the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ by which a palace-revolt was justified to get rid of some reactionaries within the party who strived for the power. The leaders of the „Culture-Revolution“ were neither Bolshevists nor proletarian leaders who struggled for the dictatorship of the proletariat on the base of Marxism-Leninism, but anti-leninist elements who struggled against other anti-leninist, fascist elements, who in the whole demaged the path towards socialism. Mao Tsetung was responsible for all this disaster, because he was the initiator of the „Culture-Revolution“.
It can also not be denied, that Mao Tsetung was wavering in the struggle against the Soviet-Revisionists. Mao initiated the reconciliation with Breshnew in the Sixtieth and it was again Mao Tsetung who collaborated with the Amarican imperialists against the Soviet rivals. Mao is the creator of the „Three-World-Theory“ which is anti-leninist. Leninism devides the world only in two parts : the capitalist and the socialist world.
Leninism is the teaching of proletarian internationalism. Lenin was the founder and leader of the Comintern and the leader of the proletarian world revolution. The „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ are in the contrary chauvinist and nationalist and paralized the world revolution. Mao Tsetung did not accept Lenin and the COMINTERN. He mostly offended against the decisions of the Comintern and comrade Stalin. The Chinese Proposal of the General Line of the Communist world movement is totally revisionist as the CominternML analysed and proved this in the „General Line of the CominternML – strategy and tactics of the socialist, proletarian world revolution“ (- in German language).
The „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ came slowly to light as a variety of revisionism, beginning before the Second World War, especially after 1935, when Mao came to power. On the 9th Congress of the CP China the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ were proclaimed as a „higher stage of Marxism-Leninism“. In a letter to Tschiang Tsching, written on the 8th of July, 1966 Mao explained, that the right wing can use the Mao Tsetung Ideas to get the power for a course of time as well as the left wing, who can use the Mao Tsetung Ideas“ to smash the right wing. This proves that Mao Tsetung was no Leninist. The „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ contradict totally with the ideas of Leninism concerning the leadership of the Bolshevist party of Lenin `s type as it was defended and practiced by Stalin and Enver Hoxha. Mao tsetung was not a defender of a proletarian class party and did not cling to the relationship between Bolshevist party and the class of the proletariat. There was no Bolshevist line but politics of balancing the fractionism which was unacceptable for Lenin within the ranks of the Bolshevist party. The existence of „two lines“ is a product of the Mao Tsetung Ideas and totally incompatible with a Marxist-Leninist party which is based on the only proletarian line. The „Mao tsetung Ideas“ teaches the unity with the enemy, giving him the one hand and struggling against him with the other. These ideas are diametral contradictionary with the Leninist Communist party as the organized troup and avantguard which has only one monolithian line and only one iron unity of thought and act. The Bolshevist party is formed as one mould and not the arena of different blocs of different class-elements. Mao Tsetung was neither willing nor able to take to heart the principles and standards of a Bolshevist party. This concerns again the handling of his successors. It was Mao Tsetung himself who decided first Liu Schao – tschi, then Deng Hsiao – ping, Lin Piao and then Hua Kuo – feng as chairmen of the party after his death – and this after all their revisionist crimes and betrayals! The „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ are the modernized version of the old reactionary ideology of the Chinese Empire. In the course of the centuries the Chinese science of military was enriched by countless experiences. Mao Tsetung gave special prominence to the military politics and army. However the guns themselves are not a circumstantial evidence for a revolutionary „people`s war“ - as proclaimed by numerous armed Maoist organizations all over the world. That looks and sounds very „revolutionary“ , but is that really true ? Lenin always proclaimed the hegemony of the proletariat as the only revolutionary class who leads the armed struggle – and this concerns partucularly the strategy and tactics if the revolutionary people`s war. The theory of the people`s war is a theory from Lenin. The „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ („encircle and conquer the towns from the side of the villages“ - proletarian revolution in words and peasant-revolution in deeds!) are contrary to the Leninist dialectical theory of the proletarian revolution (peasantry as the the most important ally under the proletarian leadership). Mao Tsetung was not able to differ and combine the bourgeois-democratical revolution with the proletarian revolution because he did not understand the coherency which Lenin demonstrated masterly in theory and practice. This was the reason why Mao Tsetung was not able to lead over to the proletarian revolution. This historical task is still not yet fullfilled in China. The difference between the people`s war of Albania and China is for example based in the different classes, parties and their ideology who led them. In Albania there was a Bolshevist party with comrade Enver Hoxha at the top which applied to the teachings of Lenin – The people`s war which was led by thw Bolshevist party in Albania was crowned by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In Russia the proletarians were victorious by smashing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with their guns. Capitalism fell down by the violence of the October-Revolution. Lenin established and strengthened the Red Army as a weapon of the dictatorship of the proletariat to abolish the bourgeoisie as a class and to control the remainders, so that they would be unable to restore capitalism. Opposite to Mao tsetung Lenin never tolerated bourgeois elements neither in the Communist party nor anywhere alse. The Red Army resisted the world capitalist encirclement who collaborated with the counter-revolutionary White Guards within the country. The guns belonged to the proletariat and were commanded by the Bolshevist party and not the other way round. In China the „weapons commanded the party“. All political assumptions were accomplished by military-revolts; the army stood above the party. Whether in times of the liberation struggle, during the „Culture-Revolution“ or after the death of Mao – it was always the military which made the political decisions and played the decisive role in the China society– not a Bolshevist party. This is typical for all revisionist countries, in which the guns of the social-bourgeoisie keep the proletariat in check and not - as usually - in socialist countries, where the guns of the proletariat keep in check the class-enemies of the working class. And all this was taught by the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ masked with Marxist-Leninist phrases. In China there was never a Bolshevist party, was never Marxism-Leninism in power, was never the dictatorship of the proletariat, there was never socialism. The revisionist China of Mao Tsetung had nothing to do with Lenin. Mao was a metaphysician and taught cyclical, evolutionist „theories“ masked by Leninist phrases. Mao Tsetung` s opinion of revolution was the course of periodical times of „great harmony“ and times of „great disorders“ - every 5 – 10 – 20 years a „Culture-Revolution“ etc. This is not reconciliable with the dialectical and historical materialism of Lenin who explained the progressive development of the society by forms of spirals, and as a key of selfmovement of all being, the key to qualitative bounds, ceisures of gradualities, the change of unity and contrary, the fade of the old one and the coming of the new one. However Mao Tsetung proclaims such sophistical formels like „dogmatism reversed becomes Marxism or revisionism“, „Metaphysics change to dialectics and dialectics to metaphysics“ etc.
Is this the „higher“ stage of Leninism?
Or are our critics on such anti-Leninist methods neo-revisionist?
The „M-L-M“ists condamn us Marxist-Leninists as „neo-revisionists“ because we critisize the anti-Leninism of Mao Tsetung as „renegades“. To some degree we can understand young „M-L-M-ists“, because most of the comrades, who struggled in the Sixtieth and Seventieth started their political activity on the level of M-L-M and needed some time – the ones a little bit earlier and the others a little bit later – to looking through the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“. However, they stepped forward to Marxism-Leninism by own experiences and self-critcizms and by the support from the Albanian comrades. We are not Neo-revisionists because we critisize the reconciliation between Marxism-Leninism and the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“. In the contrary, we are as Marxist-Leninists, enemies of the Chinese revisionism and support the socialist revolution against the socialfascist and social-imperialist regime of China. We support the socialist revolution of the Chinese proletariat which can only be victorious, if the proletariat rejects the negative influence of the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ and if the proletariat acts according to the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha against Chinese revisionism. Neo-Revisionists are mixing up Marxism-Leninism with revisionism, and Maoism is completely revisionism.
We admire the ongoing struggle of the revolutionaries in Nepal in these days and give them internationalist support as good as we can to smash the oppressors and exploiters from inside and outside and to build up a progressive, anti-imperialist society, however we give the exploited and oppressed classes the advice to follow the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha and reject the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“. On the Maoist path you shall reach an impasse. Only the genuine Marxist-Leninist path leads to the victory of the Nepalese people as well to the victory of all peoples all over the world. Leads to socialism and communism.
In our opinion there is no essential demarcation line between the Chinese revisionism before and after the death of Mao Tsetung. The development of the Chinese socialimperialism and socialfascism of today is the logical consequence of the revisionist „Mao Tsetung Ideas“. It is characteristically that Neo-Maoists hide behind the „anti-revisionism“ of Maoism. The Neo-Maoists hide themselves behind the „anti-revisionist“ struggle against the socialfascism and social-imperialism of China after the death of Mao Tsetung. This is dangerous. However it is impossible to struggle successfully against Chinese revisionism by Chinese revisionism even masked with Marxist-Leninist phraseologie. You can only be victorious, if you smash down Chinese revisionism by genuine Marxism-Leninism. You cannot devide „revolutionary“ Maoism and revisionist Maoism. You cannot overcome Maoism by Maoism.
Neo-Revisionism as the casted skin of modern revisionism and ... is anything else then just juggling words and terms. The differences among the Neo-revisionists are not of principled nature but tactical disagreements on the question: how open - on the one side - and how masked - on the other side - revisionism ought to be presented in the given moment, under the given circumstances and in the given particular place and situation. It is the intention of the world bourgoisie to gain the optimum of effects to deceive the proletariat, the masses, the revolutionaries and the Marxist-Leninists just to hinder the revolution in every single place of the world. This phenomenon is a mirror of the adjustment`s difficulties of revisionism in the course of the permanent changing of the international class-struggle. And it was Lenin who masterly analysed and unmasked the developing and changing process of opportunism in his times and who masterly worked out the Bolshevist tactics to thwart the tactics of the opportunists. There is no essential difference between the times of Lenin and today concerning the nature of the developing process of revisionism: it is the historical tactic of the worldbourgeoisie against the world proletariat in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism.
You cannot overcome revisionism by revisionism. Neither the ideas of the „Gang of Four“, neither the Neo-Maoism (critisizing his ideas and works in words but follow his path in deeds) nor Kim IlSungism, Castroism, Che Guevara etc. is compatible in the struggle against revisionism, because they are alltogether revisionist thoughts although they pretend to „struggle against“ this or that branch of revisionism. Look at the Chinese revisionism. It could only develop under the anti-revisionist mask of the „struggle against the Soviet revisionism“. But the struggle against Soviet revisionism makes Chinese revisionism not sympathical, because it was useful as a weapon to build up the Chinese social-imperialism, to become a capitalist superpower. Certainly we could learn from the rivals struggle between China and Russia but it was a struggle on the back of the peoples. So if Lenin learnt from Clausewitz why should we not learn from Mao? We Marxist-Leninists never denied to learn from our class-enemies. Whether Mao tsetung , whether Krushchev, whether Castro, or even Ramiz Alia, all the revisionist leaders held festive speeches on Lenin and praising Leninism which they pretended to „defend“ against this or another revisionist country who betrayed Leninism. This is the way how l the revisionists all over the world do without any exception – otherwise they would not be revisionists. So you cannot hide behind the windscreen of one revisionism to struggle against the other. You can only crash revisionism and opportunism by Marxism-Leninism as the 5 classics proved this historically in words and deeds.
Have a look at the Neo-Krushchevites. There had been a lot of criticisms on the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ to unmask the Chinese revisionism not to defend Leninism, but to hide their own revisionism. So, they are not stupid. They know, how to mask behind correct Marxist-Leninist arguements in the same way as the Chinese revisionists unmasked Krushchevism. And to be honest, we can learn from the struggle of the revisionists how they umask their rivals. But this struggle is not revolutionary, because they only missuse „anti-revisionist“ arguements to hide behind their own revisionism. You shall come to the same conclusions concerning all the other branches of revisionism. With „anti-revisionist“ arguments all the other neo-revisionists casted their skins from Catsroism to Neo- Castroism, from Kim il Sungism to Neo-Kim il Sungism, from Guevara-ism to Neo-Guevara-ism, from Titoism to Neo- Titoism, from Trotzkyism to Neo-Trotzyism, from Breshnewism to Neo-Breshnewism etc..etc..
In times when comrade Enver Hoxha attacked the Soviet revisionism without openly attacking the Chinese revisionism he was of value as an „ally of China“. When comrade Enver Hoxha openly criticized the „Mao Tsetung Ideas“ as to be revisionist, then Enver Hoxha was blamed as a „Neo-revisionist“. This was one of the reasons of the splitting of the Marxist-Leninist movement. This splitting however was neccessary to strengthen the demarcation-line between Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. So all the attempts of reconciliation between comrade Enver Hoxha and Mao Tsetung are anti-Leninist streamings. Lenin purified the Marxist world movement from opportunism in the struggle against centrist-bourgeois ideology of the disguised opportunists. If you reconciliate Enver Hoxha with Mao Tsetung then the world proletariat gives up Enver Hoxha as a great Marxist-Leninist, as a classic of Marxism-Leninism, and leaves him to the world bourgeoisie. This is unacceptable for us Marxist-Leninists and we shall never tolerate this betrayal.
A united font which counts on Mao Tsetung as an „Marxist-Leninist“ is only a united front against the world proletariat, against Marxism-Leninism, against the united front of the Marxist-Leninist world movement of comrade Enver Hoxha. Leninism of today does not mean to advance the united front in cooperation with the anti-Leninists, but to sharpen the demarcation-line to anti-Leninism.
Revisionism drives the wedge at the boundaries between the classics. In times of Lenin the revisionist slogans were: „Back to Marx and Engels!“ In times of Stalin: „Back to Lenin!“ In times of Enver Hoxha: „Back to Stalin!“ But behind these slogans the revisionists hide their intentions to refer to the historical personalities of opportunism. The truth is, that the revisionists of today only study the classics of Marxism-Leninism to learn how they struggled against the opportunists in their times. And with this knowledge they try to find anewed munition for the present struggle against Marxism-Leninism. The truth is, that the revisionists learn from the historical mistakes of their predesessors to create new branches of opportunism – and there are thousands in the meantime, so they were very busy! History proved that the world bourgeoisie – for an interim – succeeded to prolong the time if the fall of capitalism by the missuse of Marxism-Leninism. But history shall prove that this was only possible for an interim. The truth is, that the world proletariat is the progressive class which shall master the upbuilding of the future socialist society by the abolishment of the reactionary world bourgeoisie and the revolutionary destruction of world capitalism. Revisionism shall fall together with the classes which apply to revisionism – the classes of exploitation and oppression. So revisionism cannot hinder the fall of capitalism in the long term. If the revisionists try to tear away the classics of Marxism -Leninism to serve the capitalists, then the revisionists shall scald their hands.
The revisionist tactics to „swear“ upon the „rebirth“ of the preceding classic just to get better rid of the following classic, failed one after another. To dismantle the revolutionary leaders to get rid of the revolutionary movement is an old trick of the counter-revolution, but this could not stop the laws of the society`s development in the historical course of the class struggle. So there is no use in the efforts of the revisionists to dismantle the classics – beginning with Enver Hoxha in direction towards and the final dismantleling of Karl Marx to burry the whole Marxism in the end. Marxism-Leninism is irrefutable and invincible. In the first line of the international class-struggle the Marxist-Leninists defended all the classics of Marxism-Leninism against the missuse of the bourgeoisie, against opportunism and revisionism. In this struggle the bourgeoisie always ended in a disaster. The answer of the missuse of Marxism was the victorious October-Revolution. The missuse of Lenin led to the extention of a great Soviet Union. The missuse of Stalin and Enver Hoxha shall be answered by the victory of the world revolution and the extension of world socialism. The path towards communism is unstopable, whatever the revisionists do even if they play the role of the „defenders“ of the classics of Marxism-Leninism hypocritically just to slander the true Marxist-Leninists as „dogmatists“, „sectarians“, „neo-revisionists“ or whatever. In the end it is impossible to isolate the revolutionary leaders from the revolutionary masses.
Well, the bourgeoisie leaves nothing undone to isolate the classics from the revolutionary movement. If the bourgeoisie recognizes that it is very difficult to find convincing arguments against the classics of Marxism-Leninism then they try first to dismantle the nearest environment of the classics, for example that this or that leader was „not correctly following“ the teachings of the classics, that this or that decision „was not compatible“ with the teachings of the classics that this or that organisation „injured“ this or that decision of the classics, that this or that movement contradicted the classics , that the proletariat in this or that country made „mistakes“ in the class-struggle, that the proletariat in general „is not ripe“ for socialism, that it „was not ripe“ to understand the classics etc.... By this method the adversaries of the proletariat try to „prove“ that the revolutionary class, that the masses, are „unable“ to be victorious, that they are „unable“ to transform the teachings of the classics of Marxism-Leninism into practice. The bourgeoisie tries to make believe that it is the only class who is able to „understand“ Marxism-Leninism and that the proletariat can „trust“ in the leadership of the bourgeoisie, that bourgeois socialism is more „practicable“ and „easier“ to establish than proletarian socialism, because the proletariat needs not to think only to work. „So, please, you stupid proletarians keep your hands off the classics, we shall manage it for you!“ This is a total derision of the proletariat, a mockery against all exploited and oppressed classes ! These abominable arrogant bourgeois methods are directed against the revolutionary communist and worker`s movement, against Marxism-Leninism.
Defending the classics in words to isolate them from the revolutionary proletarian movement in deeds that is one of the most destructive methods of the counter-revolution. Personal-cult of the classics to liquidate the classics – that was and still is the aim of our class-enemies. The class-struggle in defence of Lenin – 80 years after his death – is not finished. In the contrary, this struggle of defence is the beginning! This struggle will take a long time, is a struggle that is decisive for the whole period between capitalism and communism. Moreover this struggle for Leninism shall aggravate.
The struggle for Leninism which Stalin and Enver Hoxha began successfully, is not finished today. It will be continued in such dimensions which we cannot imagine today.
Look at the old „modern“ revisionists. Do you remember when they clapped their hands listening Krushchev speech condamning Stalin after his death? What are the Krushchevites doing today? They changed their tactics by 180 degrees and started to applaud Stalin by condamnation of Krushchev. Why? In their times the revisionists needed Krushchev against Stalin.. and they got the power. Today they have lost their power. So what do they do to get it back? To re-conquer the power, they need Stalin against Krushchev whose pretended mistakes caused the fall of the revisionist`s power. If the revisionists would finally succeed to get back their power „with the help of Stalin“ - as the revisionists believe – then they shall drop Stalin like a hot potato and – after a while – they shall rehabilitate Krushchev just after their dreams would come true. This is not a joke, this is earnestly the tactic of the revisionists to reconquer their lost socialfascism and social-imperialism by reactivating their „sympathy“ for the classics of Marxism-Leninism - and above, we already condamned these tactics as social- revengeism. Again the proletariat and the exploited and oppressed classes are urged by the revisionists to „reconquer socialism“ (re-establishment of revisionist power !!) „from world imperialism“ ( to establish social-imperialism !!) And in the case, if it`s needed, the world bourgeoisie backs the second time a revisionist horse to save world capitalism from the new coming wave of Revolution.
Lenin created the Communist International to organize the victory over revisionism and opportunism. If we want to be true Leninists we have to continue the struggle of the Comintern, we have to organize our struggle against Neo-revisionism internationally.
Let us never forget when comrade Stalin took an oath at the grave of comrade Lenin on the 26th of January, 1924:
„When comrade Lenin deceased, he left behind the bequest, to preserve the principles of the Communist International faithfully.
We swear to you, comrade Lenin, that we shall - regardless of our live - strengthen and extend the alliance of the working people all over the world – the Communist International!“
We shall forever faithfully act to this oath which comrade Stalin took at the grave of comrade Lenin.
Long live comrade Lenin!
Long live the Leninism!
Long live the
founder and leader
15. 1. 2004