On our struggle against fascism and social-fascism

Excerpts of the General-Line of the Comintern (SH)

written by Wolfgang Eggers


History showed that even a powerful socialist country cannot abrogate the laws of the socialist world revolution in the period of world imperialism and world fascism:

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

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

What ought to be the most urgent tasks of the Comintern in the struggle against fascism and war?

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

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

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

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

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

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




- the root of Social-fascism

How do we Communists define social-fascism ?

"Socialism in words - fascism in deeds".

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

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

[ It is the nature of the bourgeoisie to recruit fascists from the workers' movement and social-fascists from the communist movement - thus traitors at the working class]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoxhaism means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And die Maoists ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


* * *

Fascism was defeated.

So, what is the Comintern still good for ?

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

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

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




Replacement of the

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

by the "Popular Front"

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

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

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

What are the roots of the united front idea ?

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


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

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

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

Lenin defined the "coalition government" like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every Marxist knows:

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

Every Marxist knows:

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

Every Marxist knows:

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

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

And Lenin teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Two contrary positions of the unity front policy

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


1. Marxist-Leninist position:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- elimination of the inevitability of fascism and war;

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

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

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

2. the opportunist position:

a) the right-opportunist variant:

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

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

- dissolution of the Comintern;

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

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

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

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

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

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

- basic concessions to the bourgeoisie;

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

- after the fall of fascism truce with the bourgeoisie;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) the "left"-opportunist variant:

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

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

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

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

- contempt of the revolutionary alliance with the poor peasants;

- waiver of reserves from the middle class;

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

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

- skipping of revolutionary stages;

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


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


c) the centrist variant :

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

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

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

- fusion of Marxist-Leninist and opportunist organizations


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The revisionist character of the



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

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

Stalin teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We ask:

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

Can the first one be subordinated under the second one?

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

We think that one can not equate.

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

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

For what purpose did Dimitrov use the Popular Front ?

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

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

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

What is the quotation of Lenin which Dimitrov had misused ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would Lenin probably answer ?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

It is totally true what Stalin had said:

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

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


* * *

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


The spearhead of fascism is directed against the revolutionary proletariat, the gravedigger of the dying, rotting and parasitic capitalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We ask: The entire VII World Congress of the Comintern had expressively commited itself to the necessity of the united front against fascism an war. Why then did the Comintern dissolve itself ? beforehand ? Everybody knows that, in 1943 (- up to 1945 !!), fascism and war still raged and raged. We have no other term for this contradiction - than capitulation to fascism and betrayal at the anti-fascist united front of the world proletariat and of the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin.
We have already mentioned above, that the Comintern can not give up its principled world-revolutionary general-line in favor of the ups and downs of instantaneous situations.In the tactical decisions of the Seventh Congress all the correct assessment of the current and future tasks of the revolutionary proletariat must absolutely remain tied to the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, in general, and to the implementation of the decisions of the VI World Congress (program 1928) in particular. Instead, the opportunistic leaders of the Comintern had sacrificed the principles and the decisions of the Sixth World Congress in favor of the spur of tactical moments. And moreover, if we want to weaken the enemy camp with our United Front, to neutralize wavering elements, to win the Social Democratic workers for our united front etc., then we never do allow our own disorganization. We should never invite the leaders of social democracy, revisionism or neo-revisionism to destabilize the communist camp, and never renounce voluntarily our communist autonomy and leadership in a united front. When one accuses us of the claim to leadership of the Communists in the united front, we answer: the united front against fascism - of course under the leadership of communists - what else ?! What else, as exclusively with communism, we create our mass base, but never with the demagogy of the bourgeois politicians and their revisionist lackeys ! Only for the case where we are too weak, where we are not yet sufficiently rooted in the masses, where we have not formed and educated the vanguard of the proletariat etc., we will fight for the unity of class struggle as minority among the masses. From the very bottom we must fight for the conquest of the leadership of the united front, because the communist leadership in the anti-fascist united front does not come from nowhere. We will never stop in our polemic against all bourgeois forces and currents, especially when they dress up as a "Marxist-Leninist" or even as "Stalinist-Hoxhaists".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And the most important thing in all this is that Social-Democracy is the main channel of imperialist pacifism within the working class -- consequently, it is capitalism's main support among the working class in preparing for new wars and intervention.

But for the preparation of new wars pacifism alone is not enough, even if it is supported by so serious a force as Social-Democracy. For this, certain means of suppressing the masses in the imperialist centres are also needed. It is impossible to wage war for imperialism unless the rear of imperialism is strengthened. It is impossible to strengthen the rear of imperialism without suppressing the workers. And that is what fascism is for.

Hence the growing acuteness of the inherent contradictions in the capitalist countries, the contradictions between labour and capital.

On the one hand, preaching of pacifism through the mouths of the Social-Democrats in order more effectively to prepare for new wars; on the other hand, suppression of the working class in the rear, of the Communist Parties in the rear, by the use of fascist methods, in order then to conduct war and intervention more effectively -- such are the ways of preparing for new wars.

Hence the tasks of the Communist Parties:

Firstly, to wage an unceasing struggle against Social-Democratism in all spheres -- in the economic and in the political sphere, including in the latter the exposure of bourgeois pacifism with the task of winning the majority of the working class for communism. [ and not for the bourgeois democracy ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ].

Secondly, to form a united front of the workers [ and not of with the bourgeoisie ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ] of the advanced countries and the labouring masses of the colonies in order to stave off the danger of war, or, if war breaks out, to convert imperialist war into civil war, smash fascism, overthrow capitalism [ by means of the violent socialist revolution ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ], establish Soviet power [ and not a bourgeois People's Front government - instead: indispensability of the armement of the dictatorship of the proletariat ! - remark of the Comintern (SH) ], emancipate the colonies from slavery, and organise all-round defence of the first Soviet Republic in the world." [ Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.); Stalin Works, Volume 11, pages 178 - 179, German edition, KPD/ML, 1971; underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

And VI. Congress ( in the program of the comintern in 1928) underlined not only the necessity of the open struggle against social democracy on all fields, but also stressed expressly the struggle against the dangerous, masked forms of the "left"-wing of the social democracy:

"In its systematic conduct of this counter-revolutionary policy, social democracy operates on two flanks. The right wing of social democracy, avowedly counter-revolutionary, is essential for negotiating and maintaining direct contact with the bourgeoisie; the left wing is essential for the subtle deception of the workers. While playing with pacifist and at times even with revolutionary phrases, “left” social democracy in practice acts against the workers, particularly in acute and critical situations (the British I.L.P. and the “left” leaders of the General Council during the general strike in 1926; Otto Bauer and Co., at the time of the Vienna uprising), and is therefore, the most dangerous faction in the social democratic parties. While serving the interests of the bourgeoisie in the working class and being wholly in favour of class co-operation and coalition with the bourgeoisie, social democracy, at certain periods, is compelled to play the part of an opposition party and even to pretend that it is defending the class interests of the proletariat in its industrial struggle. It tries thereby to win the confidence of a section of the working class and to be in a position more shamefully to betray the lasting interests of the working class, particularly in the midst of decisive class battles.

The principal function of social democracy at the present time is to disrupt the essential militant unity of the proletariat in its struggle against imperialism. In splitting and disrupting the united front of the proletarian struggle against capital, social democracy serves as the mainstay of imperialism in the working class. International social democracy of all shades; the Second International and its trade union branch, the Amsterdam Federation of Trade Unions, have thus become the last reserve of bourgeois society and its most reliable pillar of support."

(Program if the Comintern, chapter II. The General Crisis of Capitalism and the First Phase of World Revolution. - 2. THE REVOLUTIONARY CRISIS AND COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL- DEMOCRACY).





Dimitrov's revisionist




What is our own definition of world fascism?

When the imperialist world order is existentially threatened by its inevitable decay and by an imminent overthrow in times of revolutionary world crises, then the more moderate forms of the dictatorship of the world bourgeoisie are turned into their most brutal forms that we generally summarize under the concept of world fascism.

Fascist world society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps: the fascist and anti-fascist world camp, into two great classes directly facing each other - the fascist world bourgeoisie and the anti-fascist world proletariat.

In general, fascism is the most brutal counter-revolutionary instrument of the ruling class of the bourgeoisie in the era of world imperialism, to continue the unconditional subordination of the proletariat and all other exploited classes under the monopolistic-capitalist system of exploitation - namely unristricted by all ultimate means (up to mass extermination).

Thus, if all other means against dangerous explosions of class conflicts fail, then fascism exerts its terrorist rule over the whole life of society. All sorts of "Gleichschaltung" (Nazi-fascist system of absolute control) are established by the absolutely dominating counter-revolution in all areas of the state (police state, state terrorism), the economy, politics, society, science etc. In particular, fascism serves to the unconditional, uncompromising and arbitrary elimination of all recalcitrant world forces, especially that of the revolutionary world proletariat.

(The world proletariat is the only revolutionary, anti-fascist force which causes the downfall of the capitalist domination of the world bourgeoisie by means of the socialist world revolution, which makes itself the dominating ruling class, which replaces the era of world capitalism through the era of world socialism, and which strives for the aim of the classless society - for world communism).

[ This is the Definition of the Comintern (SH) ]





Enver Hoxha speaks of fascism, if the fundaments of capitalist power are existentially threatened. 1976, in his report to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, he stated:

"When it finds it impossible to cope with the revolts of the workers and people in the pseudo-democratic forms or with the «talking-shop» methods of parliaments, then the bourgeois state clamps down on them with its laws, its violence, its buldgeon. That is what is happening now in most countries where the crisis has sharpened the contradictions between labour and capital, and the revolt of the working people at the situation created is becoming ever more powerful.

In these situations the danger of fascism is becoming ever more threatening. It is a known fact that when capital finds itself driven into a blind alley and under the heavy blows of the working class, it is compelled either to declare itself bankrupt or to establish its fascist dictatorship and head for war."

And Enver Hoxha complements his statement with a quote from Lenin's works, vol 24, page 213, English edition):

"For it is the great significance of all crises that they make manifest what has been hidden; they cast aside all that is relative, superficial, and trivial; they sweep away the political litter and reveal the real mainsprings of the class struggle."

Enver Hoxha:

"Terrorism is the preliminary preparation for fascism to come to power."

"In many capitalist countries where the crisis is great, terrorism, which is supported by capital, is assuming major proportions. In order to emerge from the crisis and crush any possibility of insurrection and revolution by the working class and the people, the reactionary forces in these countries are preparing the terrain for an authoritarian state, for the fascist dictatorship. If the working masses, we Marxist-Leninist parties and the progressive peoples fail to understand that the fascist dictatorship comes as a result of the difficult situation which the power of the capital is experiencing and do not fight it, then,, sooner or later fascism will be established, because the crisis will continue, since capitalism will strive to protect its income at the expense of the working masses who will become more and more impoverished. Being unarmed, because they do not understand why such a thing is occuring and do not fight against it and the other actions of the capital, these masses will accept the bondage of a fascist circle, thinking that it will be a way out of the crisis. In fact it is not a way out for the working class and the working people, because fascism represents the most ferocious dictatorship of capital, which will oppress the masses of the peoples even more than it is doing today. It is the last resort of exploiting capital."

"Fascism is the most brutal dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

(Enver Hoxha, »The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the Crisis of World Capitalism «, Social Studies, Volume. 3, page 23, 1986, Tirana, engl. ed.).

"When they see the game is up, the capitalists throw off all disguise and establish the fascist dictatorship."

(Enver Hoxha, speech of the first secretary of the Central Committee of the PLA - 10. 03.1974 before the voters in the constituency 209 of Tirana, 1974)

Additional distinctive traits and characteristics of fascism:

- Fascism ...

... is both the worst of the rule of the bourgeoisie and the replacement of the decaying parliamentarism (whether as a coup, or within a longer or shorter period of transformation). This enhancement and replacement of one form of bourgeois rule by another is not only due to her weakness, but also to the highest degree a sign of degeneration of the bourgeoisie, which eventually perish through her own domination.

- Fascism ...

... is the cruelest and most terrorist rule of the exploiters and oppressors in the history of class society.

- Fascism ...

... is expression of the dehumanizing of the decaying, parasitic and moribund capitalism.

- Fascism ...

... is the last and desperate means to escape the impending demise of imperialism - through economic, political and military terror for the purpose of increase of extreme exploitation and oppression.

- Fascism

... is the last act of desperation and powerlessness - in face of the ever deepening crisis of world capitalism.

- Fascism

... unchains the ultimate driving forces of the capitalist "wolf"- law, to increase the maximum profits of the monopoly bourgeoisie infinitely. Especially in times of crises, everything and everybody who narrows, hinders or disrupts profit maximization, is radically eliminated - and, if necessary, with fascist violence.

- Fascism ...

... has a class-related background. The setting capitalist class wages a desperate, self-destructive, and outmost violent struggle against the unavoidably rising class of the proletariat which eliminates the inevitability of imperialism war and fascism.

- Fascism ...

... is absolutely necessary (unavoidable) for the bourgeoisie, to cope with the irresolvable escalation of the contradiction between capital and labor. The bourgeoisie is unable to stop the proletarian revolution without the means of fascism. However, the more fascist terrorism, the more revolutionary anti-terrorism. The escalation of the conflict of capital and labour cannot be eliminated without the revolutionary, violent destruction of capitalism through the world proletariat.

Imperialism wages fascist wars inwardly, and plundering wars outwardly.

- Fascism ...

... grows from the almighty driving forces of monopolism, especially the monopolism of the financial capital. The inner conflicts among monopolists aggravate in such degree that they are unable to prevent the bursting of the chains of the productive forces. When the knell of capitalist private property sounds, fascism strikes hard. However, not fascism is the basis of imperialism, but the monopolistic private property. Fascism is the last and ultimate weapon for the protection of the property of the monopolists.


- Fascism

... takes possession of the bourgeois state power for the purpose to protect the through and through rotten imperialist system against its gravediggers ("expropriation of the expropriators" [Marx]).

The handful of almighty financial capitalists and representatives of the monopoly bourgeoisie are forced to boost their maximal profits, if they do not want to fall by the wayside. They do this with a more aggressive plundering the working masses, by brutal predatory wars against the peoples and expropriation itself larger, medium and smaller capitalists ("One capitalist always kills many dead," etc., etc.. Marx).

With their pursuit of maximum profit, the monopoly bourgeoisie provokes the interference of the state. This hunt ends at a point where capitalism destroys itself.

“This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction" [ Karl Marx, Volume 37; Capital Volume III Part V - Chapter 27. “The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production”, English edition).

In order to survive, however, the revolutionary proletariat can not wait until this point. Therefore, the proletariat is forced to seize premature power, to free itself from the shackles of the monopolistic relations of production. That is the reason why the handful of financiers fear their downfall and that's why they provoke fascist violence. Given the deepening global economic crisis, the international financial capital and the world monopolists are forced to maintain their world order in an iron grip. This world-monopolistic order develops all the features of an open world fascism. The threat of world fascism comes mainly from the two super powers, the U.S.A. and China.

Due to the inhomogeneity of the development of different capitalist countries, the conflicts increase unavoidably, especially between both the imperialist super powers. To escape from the enormous pressure of rivalry, they take fascist steps to ensure the unhindered intensification of exploitation. Fascism is not least in the service of the violent enforcement of the renewal of the partition of the world and the defense or conquest of world domination.

Capitalism leads to fascism! - Capitalism must go!

Fascism plays the demagogic role of " the great savior of the world", of a "knight in shining armor" after the utter bankruptcy of parliamentarianism . The fascists lure the masses with carrot and stick against communism.

Fascism is the unconditional subjugation and destruction of all forces around the world, especially its communist proletarian leadership, whose only purpose is to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie. Anti-fascism means to organize the anti-fascist resistance, to attack fascism, to overthrow fascism, to destroy fascism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only guaranteed bulwark of the elimination of the unavoidability of fascism.


The world proletarian line

and the tasks in the struggle against fascism and social-fascism


This, of course, depends on certain conditions and premises. But it is primarily a question of principle.

We communists give a clear answer to the proletariat:

Smashing the fascist (/social-fascist) state power of the bourgeoisie and establishing the own new state power of the proletariat, which is the first, most important, fundamental characteristic of a truly anti-fascist (anti-social-fascist) revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of this term:

There is no other anti-fascist (anti-social-fascist) way for the proletariat than the way to the victory of the socialist revolution.

Whether the socialist revolution comes sooner or later, in which forms it will appear, and which hindrances the revolution has to overcome - all this depends on concrete conditions and circumstances. All that needs to be modified on the basis of concrete economic and political analyses of a specific, concretely existing type of fascist (/social-fascist) dictatorship, but the socialist revolution is basically inevitable and it will come.


The globally united front of all anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists tackles

9 tasks:


The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists opposes all attempts of the world bourgeoisie and her agencies within the workers' and communist world movement, to uncouple the anti-social-fascist struggle from the anti-fascist struggle, respectively, to drive a wedge between anti-fascism and anti-social-fascism.


The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists opposes all attempts of the world bourgeoisie and her agencies within the workers' and communist world movement, to fool the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists about the truth, that capitalism (inclusively state capitalism) is the source of fascism and social-fascism.


The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists unmasks and combats all attempts of the modern revisionist, to disarm the world proletariat and all toilers by means of the ideology and politics of the "peaceful transition". This makes the masses defenseless in their struggle against the fascist and social-fascist terror. The tasks of the united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists can only be fulfilled by organizing the globally armed struggle against the organized armed struggle of the fascist/social-fascist world front.


The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists unmasks and combats all the attempts of the neo-revisionists to misuse the teachings of the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism in the anti-fascist and anti-social-fascist struggle, especially to "justify" the terror of social-fascism.


The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists insists on the indispensability of revolutionary violence against fascist and social-fascist terror.


The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists struggles for democratic rights of all exploited and oppressed classes, for proletarian socialist democracy but not for the exploiting "democratic" system of the bourgeoisie which leads back to fascism inevitably . Therefore, the struggle for democratic rights is inseparably part of the overthrow of world capitalism and its imperialist state system.



The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists struggles for the abolition of the inevitableness of fascism and social-fascism by means of the establishment of the dictatorship of the world proletariat, the global System of Soviets and the socialist world republic.


The global united front of the anti-Fascists and anti-Social-Fascists struggles for the eradication of the leftovers of all fascist and social-fascist forces within the period of world socialism.


The Comintern (SH) is the global center of the international anti-fascist and anti-social-fascist movement. The Comintern (SH) unifies and leads the anti-fascist and anti-social-fascist forces of all countries towards the socialist world revolution.


The people's government:

If the people decide on a people's government then the disarmament and defeat of the counter-revolution and the destruction of the old bourgeois state power must absolutely be ensured. The power of the people's government bases itself on the power of the armed forces of the people, on the people's army. For this, the revolutionary consciousness of the masses needs to be sharpened in time, so that the majority of the people takes revolutionary actions and actually takes over the sole armed domination.
The proletariat must take the lead with its revolutionary party, to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the task of the Communists to make all these necessaries clear to the majority of the masses - namely as early as possible. This will protect the people from being taken by surprise through demagogical "bourgeois-democratic" chatter. And only this keeps the minority from turning the seizure of power into a dangerous adventure.


"Because of its class position in modern society, the proletariat can understand, sooner than any other class, that, in the final analysis, great historic issues are decided only by force, that freedom cannot be achieved without tremendous sacrifices, that the armed resistance of tsarism must be broken and crushed by force of arms." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 8, page 539 - 540: English edition).

It raises the question whether the decisions of the VII Congress gave the same or similar precise answer, or not ? We are of the opinion that the VII World Congress had avoided this precise answer, because:
neither the world revolution and its implementation in the spirit of the October Revolution, nor detailed preparations of the armed uprisings against the bourgeoisie in the countries, nor the required agitation and propaganda for this purpose, let alone the organizational preparation for seizing the power of the proletariat had been subject of the work of the Comintern after the VII World Congress.

All these 9 crucial world revolutionary tasks played virtually no role at all. They disappeared in the general tumbling of the Social Democratic class reconciliation. The so-called "broad" (opportunistic) "Mass Line" was opposed to the so-called "sectarian line" (revolutionary line), thus for the purpose to get better rid of it. And the leaders of the Comintern acted like this in face of the difficult, illegal conditions during fascism and war, when the bourgeoisie muzzled the revolutionary proletariat and banned its propaganda and agitation for the revolutions.

Fascism accelerates the process of ruin of capitalist society through its violent intervention in the life of the whole society. By means of the giant destruction and waste of the productive forces, in particular, the existence of the productive classes is threatened - without whom the bourgeoisie would not survive.

When the bourgeoisie has destroyed the livelihood of the working class, she is doomed to die. Even with the help of the fascist dictatorship, the bourgeoisie will not survive for all times. On the contrary, fascism accelerates the downfall of the bourgeoisie and the strengthening of the power of the proletariat.

Without capitalism, also the working class (as an exploited class !) could not survive. If the proletariat continues its life as an exploited class within the capitalist society, it is forced to help the bourgeoisie to get out of the mess - despite all the proletarian blood shed by fascism, and despite all the heavy loads that were imposed on it, despite all misery and destruction which fascism has left.

This solution is only feasible for the bourgeoisie if she can trust her reliable agencies within the workers' movement who keep the revolutionary forces in check. This bridge is built for the bourgeoisie by means of the opportunistic united front tactics. After the defeat of fascism, the opportunists come out of their rat holes:

"And it is just such sacrifice of the fundamental interests of the proletariat to the half-hearted, muddled aims of liberalism that makes up the essence of opportunism in tactics." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 12, page 177, English edition).

The bourgeoisie promises hypocritically that fascism will never return. And today? Today, the proletariat sees that these are nothing but empty promises. The bourgeoisie of today condemns fascism, but in the same breath she resorts to fascism. The fascism can impossibly be prevented by the bourgeoisie, even if she would. 

The post-fascist society can only be constructed on the basis of class reconciliation. This new society cannot be revived without capitalism. Every socialist demand of the proletariat would inevitably result in the resistance of the ruling bourgeoisie. Waiting until the next fascism comes or, instead, the socialist revolution . Every anti-Fascist is faced with this choice earlier or later.

So the proletariat can not survive by capitalism in the long run. It can ultimately survive only by means of the abolition of capitalism, by the construction of socialism.

Marxism-Leninism teaches that the proletariat will arrive at the coast of socialism even by means of a spontaneous development - according to objective laws of the development of the society. But this course will be painful and
the proletariat would have to go a long way round. Therefore, we communists tell the proletarians, that they should shorten their path of anti-fascism by means of the socialist revolution. The decisive factor is not the elimination of the brutal forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and their replacement by more moderate forms (or with "socialist" appearance), but through the abolition of any form of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, through the abolition of capitalism and the construction of socialism with the goal of a classless society.

For this, the proletariat needs its own proletarian, revolutionary united front in which it unites all allied forces by means of utmost resoluteness, to achieve the socialist goals as the leading revolutionary class. This proletarian united front must be strong enough to prevent any attempts at recapturing the rule of the bourgeoisie.

If the VII World Congress - from the outset - would have rejected categorically the recognition of any form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it would never have come to the merger with the bourgeois social democracy. The social democratism ( also revisionism and other opportunist ideologies) is not only the ideology of the agency of the bourgeoisie within the workers' movement related to a certain, concrete form of rule of the bourgeoisie, but related to all forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie without exception, thus including the fascist dictatorship (in essence it is no different in terms of the bourgeois form of rule of social fascism).

"Socialism" to the capitalist rules of the game, this was the condition in the anti-fascist united front which the social democrat leadership had set to the Communists. And today the revisionists and neo-revisionists set the same conditions to us communists (inclusively the recognition of social-fascist states).

And today has long been known that these social-democratic rules of the game were accepted by the revisionist leaders at that time - namely up to the total integration into the system of world imperialism.

By means of the change of the Comintern, the bourgeoisie has learned and perfectly understood, to use finely spun nets for the re-integration of revolutionary forces into the capitalist system.

Therefore, we must never allow that the agencies of the bourgeoisie seek protection under the communist shield or even organize their subversive actions underneath of it, because they will not rest until they have completely absorbed the communist forces - or at least isolated and divided in small groups and sects . Every kind of "united front" which is dominated by opportunism serves to the disunity and decomposition of the revolutionary united front and to the formation of a social-fascist front.

That is why we say:

Social fascism is socialism in words and fascism in deeds. A social-fascist united front is socialist in words and a fascist front in deeds.

As history shows, it is the distinctive feature of social fascism in power to emanate even from restored capitalism.

To date, the proletariat was not able to overthrow social fascism by means of a socialist revolution, ie through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as capitalism prevails in the world, social fascism is inevitable. So we have also to abolish the inevitability of social fascism.

For us Stalinist-Hoxhaists is therefore an classless, neutral, and indifferent use of the term "anti-fascism" not allowed, since we have historically experienced, that there exists also a bourgeois anti-fascism alongside the proletarian anti-fascism. Proletarian and bourgeois anti-fascism/anti-social-fascism are as antagonistic, just as proletariat and bourgeoisie. They are irreconcilable and therefore they can never be part of a common united front. And an united front - "beyond" or organised "above" the classes - can impossibly exist within a class society.

The bourgeoisie hides her class interests behind the figurehead of the "anti-fascism" and poses her interests of a minority as "general interests of the entire society" at the expense of the majority of the society, of the proletariat and working people.

Only the proletarian anti-fascism is a socialist anti-fascism, thus the only anti-fascism, which is consistent with the general interest of society, namely the abolition of all classes and all forms of dictatorship of classes against classes - including fascism and social fascism.

The Seventh World Congress has expressly decided against the socialist anti-fascism, albeit with the aid of a "communist" cloak. Anti-fascism, which is not clearly and directly aligned with the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat can be nothing more than bourgeois anti-fascism.

Only if we analyze the classes within an anti-fascist united front or popular front, if we expose its class relations, we can distinguish whether it is a bourgeois or a proletarian united front.

Social democracy represents the "Democratic" People's Front, under the rule of the bourgeoisie.
The revisionists propagate the Popular Front with "socialist" figurehead, but with the express acquiescence of an integrated bourgeoisie.

Communism only accepts a Popular Front under the sovereign rule of the proletariat, without any involvement and participation of the bourgeoisie.

We Stalinist-Hoxhaists do not only use the term "anti-fascism", but also the term "fascism" exclusively as a term of classes. We reject the classless use of these terms because this would serve the deception of the masses. It is the ruling bourgeoisie who hides her class interests behind "classless" concepts ( of class reconciliation ). Therefore, we must refute any theoretical variant that attempts to use a "classless" concept, or which tries to distort our class-related concept - or even misuses our concept as a magic cap. If we Stalinist-Hoxhaists really would not have clear ideas about the principled class alliance within an anti-fascist front, then our united front tactic would be doomed to failure from the beginning, and this would mean the inevitable defeat of the proletariat.

For social democratism and revisionism, fascism means something entirely different than for communism. Fascism is not only directed against the revolutionary workers, but against the whole working class, against the masses. Therefore, in order to defeat fascism, the people must be guided by the proletariat, under the leadership of the Communist Party. The Social Democrats and the revisionists, these forerunners of fascism and social fascism, are unable to free the people finally from fascism and social-fascism.




The correct definition of "International Fascism", decided by the Fourth Congress in 1922, was as follows:

"Closely linked to the economic offensive of capital is the political offensive of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Its sharpest expression is international fascism. Since falling living standards are now affecting the middle classes, including civil service, the ruling class is no longer certain that it can rely on the bureaucracy to act as its tool. Instead, it is resorting everywhere to the creation of special White Guards, which are particularly directed against all the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat and are being increasingly used for the forcible suppression of any attempts by the working class to improve its position.

The characteristic feature of 'classical' Italian fascism, which at present has the whole country in its grip, is that the fascists not only form counter-revolutionary fighting organizations, armed to the teeth, but also attempt to use social demagogy to gain a base among the masses: in the peasantry, in the petty bourgeoisie and even in a certain section of the proletariat. There is currently a fascist threat in many countries: in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, almost all the Balkan countries, Poland, Germany, Austria, America and even in countries like Norway. The possibility of fascism appearing in one or another form cannot be ruled out even in such countries as France and Britain.

One of the most important tasks of the Communist Parties is to organize resistance to international fascism. They must be at the head of the working class in the fight against the fascist gangs, must be extremely active in setting up united fronts on the question and must make use of illegal methods of organization.

But the reckless promotion of fascist organization is the last card in the bourgeoisie's hand. Open rule by the White Guards also works against the very foundations of bourgeois democracy. The broadest masses of the working people become convinced that bourgeois rule is possible only in the form of an undisguised dictatorship over the proletariat."

(Tactical Theses, protocols of the IV World Congress, 1922),

The program of the Communist International - our guide line - took reference to this definition of fascism.

We refer also to the Resolutions of the VI World Congress: “IV. CLASS STRUGGLE, SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, AND FASCISM”.):

"The characteristic feature of fascism is that, as a consequence  of the shock suffered by the capitalist economic system and of  special objective and subjective circumstances, the bourgeoisie --in order to hinder the development of the revolution-- utilises the discontent of the petty and middle, urban and rural bourgeoisie and even of certain strata of the declassed proletariat, for the purpose of creating a reactionary mass movement. Fascism resorts to methods of open violence in order to break the power of the labour organisations and those of the peasant poor, and to proceed to capture power. After capturing power, fascism strives to establish political and organisational unity among all the governing classes of  capitalist society (the bankers, the big industrialists and the  agrarians) and to establish their undivided, open and consistent  dictatorship. It places at the disposal of the governing classes armed forces specially trained for civil war and establishes a new type of State, openly based on violence, coercion and corruption, not only of the petty bourgeois strata, but even of certain elements of the working class (office employees, ex-reformist leaders, who have become government officials, trade union officials, and officials of the Fascist Party, and also poor peasants and declassed proletarians recruited into the "Fascist militia")." 

The Comintern and its individual Sections based themselves also on the definitions of the Eleventh and Twelfth Plenum of the ECCI and on the relevant definitions of the individual sections (for example, the German KPD of Thalmann).

We select the following example:

The Eleventh Plenary Session of the ECCI stated:

"The recent growth of fascism was possible only because of the support given by international social-democracy since the war to the bourgeois dictatorship, whatever its form. Social-democracy, which, by fabricating a contradiction between the 'democratic' form of the bourgeois dictatorship and fascism, blunts the vigilance of the masses in the struggle against the rising wave of political reaction and against fascism, and which conceals the counter-revolutionary nature of bourgeois democracy as one form of bourgeois dictatorship, is the most active factor and pace-maker in the development of the capitalist State towards fascism.

The successful struggle against fascism requires the Communist Parties to mobilize the masses on the basis of the united front below against all forms of the bourgeois dictatorship and against every one of its reactionary measures which clears the way for open fascist dictatorship. It requires the rapid and decisive correction of errors, which arise primarily from the liberal idea of a basic difference between fascism and bourgeois democracy, and between the parliamentary and the openly fascist forms of the bourgeois dictatorship; such ideas are a reflection of social-democratic influence in the Communist Parties." [ underlined by the Comintern (SH) ]

Then, the historical turning point came on the 13th Plenum of the ECCI, where Kuusinen announced the revisionist definition of fascism for the first time:

"Fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements [ !!! ] of finance capital."

[ Speech of Dimitrov, protocols of the VII World Congress, page 322, German edition - underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

This is a totally anti-Marxist definition !

The Marxist-Leninist definition of fascism as the most brutal form of the dictatorship of the class ( !! ) of the bourgeoisie [ class struggle = class against class !! ] was wiped out here with a stroke of the pen.

Fascism was deprived from its class character and reduced to a small layer within the class of the bourgeoisie ("elements").

The non-antagonistic contradictions among different layers within the whole class of the bourgeoisie were fraudulently split into antagonistic segments.

By means of this defraudation, Dimitrov opened the door to the reconciliation and alliance with the bourgeoisie ( in particular with the liberal bourgeoisie). This definition of fascism is thus a betrayal at the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and in essence identical with social democratism. It is through and through anti-communist because it is based on the false assumption that there would be allegedly a antagonistic contradiction between the "democratic" dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the fascist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. However, these are only two different forms of the same exploitive and oppressive character of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The relationship between form and content of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie was manipulated and distorted to dupe the masses.

We communists do not ignore the necessity of the use of the contradictions within the class of the bourgeoisie but we never take side with the bourgeoisie for the purpose to defend the one form of her dictatorship against the other one. And this is our criticism at the VII World Congress.


But before we go into more detail on the content of the revisionist definition, a formal question should be allowed, namely the organisational question of the radical exchange of the one definition of fascism through another one.

Why did Dimitrov favor a definition which was exclusively formulated on a sole plenum of the ECCI ? Why didn't he invoke the most relevant document of the Comintern, the program of the Comintern, and additionally all the correct definitions of the previous World Congresses ? Was it legitimate that the ECCI totally ignored the decision of the previous Congresses ? Is the Plenum of the ECCI not bound to the decisions of the World Congresses and the program ?

This is more than disregard of the decisions of the Comintern. It is a crime at the democratic centralism, at the Comintern, at the whole communist world movement and the revolutionary world proletariat. The Comintern was the Bolshevist party of the world proletariat with all its ideological, political and organizational characteristics. Dimitrov, however, did never really understand the deeper meaning of the world Bolshevist party and therefore he was unable to lead it. And in the end he drove the Comintern into the ground.

It is a typical feature of the revisionist degeneration, when all the resolutions of the world congresses were infringed, and replaced by means of ECCI decisions, even later by means of presidential decisions, and since 1941 by three (!!) top leaders of the Comintern. They had left only a sad caricature of the Communist International of Lenin and Stalin. Just one month after the VII World Congress, the Secretariat of the ECCI abolished the democratic centralism of the Comintern with its decision on reorganization which was an act of direct violation of the statutes of the Comintern. This decision was supposed to bring more "independence" for the Sections. The truth was, that the Sections were factually uncoupled from the Leninist principle of centralism and mostly isolated from the world party. The liquidation of the Comintern - that was the actual organisational consequence of the revisionist definition of fascism. And all this in the precarious moment as the whole world was aflame !

If you have a look at the time table of the World Congresses, then this list speaks volumes about the development of the Comintern up to its final dissolution :

First Congress 2. 3. - 6. 3. 1919

Second Congress 17. 7. - 7. 8. 1920 (period of 1 year and 5 months)

Third Congress 22. 6. - 12. 7. 1921 ( period after one year)

Fourth Congress 5. 11. - 5. 12. 1922 (period of 1 year and 5 months)

Fifth Congress 17 6 - 8 7 1924 (period after 1 year and 7 months)

Sixth Congress July - August 1928 (period of nearly 4 years)

Seventh Congress 25. 7 – 25. 8. 1935 (period of 7 years!)

Dissolution of the Comintern 20 May 1943 (period of 8 years!)

Only one Congress was held in the fifteen years after the Stalinist VI World Congress in 1928. The proceedings of the four plenary sessions of the Executive Committee were not published in full. Little of the correspondence between the Executive and the Sections was made public. There was no public Comintern statement directly concerned with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, the incorporation of Austria in Germany, the anti-Comintern pact, the Munich agreement, or the outbreak of war in 1939.

So much for the formal criticism. 


We come now to our content-related criticism at the revisionist definition of fascism of the VII World Congress:

The definition of the VII World Congress is this:

"Fascism in power is described as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

In the time when fascism came up, neither Lenin nor Stalin have used such or similar definitions. Lenin was the undisputed Classic of Marxism-Leninism when the Italian fascism arose, and Stalin was the undisputed Classic of Marxism-Leninism when the Hitler fascists seized power. All 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism define dictatorship, domination, power, counter-revolution, etc., always in the context of the class society, thus of the ruling class. They never have limited the concept of dictatorship to a single "element" of classes or to a single person, to groups or layers: such as the oligarchy (financial oligarchy), the plutocracy, etc.

Basically, capitalist society rests upon the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and not upon certain power of "elements" or single strata . Through its "elements" the class does neither lose its power, nor its relative stability. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is both maneuverable (elastic) and relatively stable in all its features and characteristics - inclusively in the ability of changing its form (of course, the concrete events of class struggle play a decisive role in the course of this transitional process).

The mutual relationship between variability and relative stability is the indispensable condition of a class for the transitional process of different forms of its rulership, for the exchange of the democratic through the fascist dictatorship and vice versa.

Concerning the "most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital" - these elements, which are typical for the era of imperialism, exist independently from the different forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Thus, they exercise their powerful influence both in times of "democracy" and fascism. Imperialism has created both these "elements" and fascism. And there is no doubt about it that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class from the beginning up to the end of the capitalist class society.

Lenin defined correctly the period of imperialism like this:

"Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 22, page 297, English edition).

And Stalin defined Leninism as Marxism of the era of imperialism and (!) the proletarian revolution (!). The Comintern (SH) adds here expressively that this excellent Stalinist definition was also valid in the time of the VII World Congress. However, the VII World Congress rejected the proletarian revolution and replaced it by the bourgeois government of the people's front. Dimitrov has dropped the proletarian revolution from the era of imperialism and thus violated and revised Leninism.

Concerning the so called "elements":

The 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism speak unambiguously of the dictatorship of classes over classes and not of the dictatorship of "elements".

The first sentence of the Communist Manifesto states:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — bourgeoisie and proletariat."

Fascist society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other - the fascist bourgeoisie and the anti-fascist proletariat.

And the period of fascism is undoubtedly part of this epoch of the bourgeoisie - and not part of the "epoch of certain elements of the financial capital" !

We must clearly state that the definition of the VII World Congress was not in line with the exact definition of classes, as used by the 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism. The definition used by Dimitrov, has dropped the Marxist-Leninist concept of classes and replaced by the concept of "elements".

Marxism-Leninism does not deny the differentiation of classes. The differentiation of classes is an indispensable Marxist method, if it is based on a Marxist analysis of the class society. But it is opportunistic, if it is misused for the purpose to distort the basical contradictions of classes - and also for the justification of the pact with the bourgeois people's front government which omits socialism by silence.

We do not deny the existence and functions of certain elements within a class. Lenin taught:

"Bourgeoisies differ ... provide a vast variety of combinations of different groups, sections, and elements both of the bourgeoisie itself and of the working class" (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 17, page 413, English edition).

However, Lenin taught also: A differentiation of classes is anti-Marxist in the case, if an element is equated (or mixed up) with the whole class. And vice versa, it is also anti-Marxist, if a class is disintegrated (/absorbed) by a single element (a single element cannot fill the shoes of a whole class).

Lenin speaks of "... narrow down the concept of class":

"Sure enough, the stratum of the biggest capitalists economically dominates all the other strata, which it unquestionably overwhelms .. This is beyond doubt. Nevertheless, it is a stratum, and not a class." ( Lenin, Collected works, Volume 18, pages 58 - 59; English edition).

The struggle against fascism, the struggle against the monopoly-bourgeoisie, against the financial capital, etc. - all this is class struggle and not a struggle of strata - dissociated from class struggle. Of course are we fighting against "the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital", no question, and we do everything possible to direct as much forces as possible against them, but a victory over fascism is impossible without smashing the fascist state ( which protects these "elements" by means of brutal violence) by means of the revolutionary, anti-fascist weapons of the exploited and oppressed classes - under the leadership of the proletariat.

The disunity within the different fractions and elements of the bourgeois class makes the proletariat strong. Therefore, we do not deny the use of the manyfold collusions among the different elements of the bourgeoisie for the cause of the proletariat - as Marx and Engels have written in the "Communist Manifesto":

"Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie" (Marx, Engels: "Communist Manifesto" [Chapter I, Bourgeoisie and Proletariat]).

Please note: "...fighting the bourgeoisie", and not only fighting "the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital." (!)

This false definition contradicts the Marxist-Leninist principle of "class against class".

Only by means of the removal of the "worst elements", the proletariat gets not rid of fascism. The appearance of these "elements" are unavoidably part of imperialism and cannot be eliminated selectively. They can only be eliminated by means of the world-revolutionary destruction of imperialism.

The 5 Classics of Marxism-Leninism speak of the overthrow of the bourgeois class through the proletarian class, of the destruction of the entire bourgeois state apparatus, of the destruction of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, of the armed socialist revolution, smashing the shackles of capitalist relations of production, of the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat etc. ( - and all this independently from the different forms (!) of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie )

Lenin emphasized:

"Let the Martovs, the Chernovs, and non-Party philistines like them, beat their breasts and exclaim: “I thank Thee, Lord, that I am not as ‘these’, and have never accepted terrorism.” These simpletons “do not accept terrorism” because they choose to be servile accomplices of the whiteguards in fooling the workers and peasants. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks “do not accept terrorism” because under the flag of “socialism” they are fulfilling their function of placing the masses at the mercy of the whiteguard terrorism. This was proved by the Kerensky regime and the Kornilov putsch in Russia, by the Kolchak regime in Siberia, and by Menshevism in Georgia. It was proved by the heroes of the Second International and of the “Two-and-a-Half” International in Finland, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Italy, Britain, etc. Let the flunkey accomplices of whiteguard terrorism wallow in their repudiation of all terrorism. We shall speak the bitter and indubitable truth: in countries beset by an unprecedented crisis, the collapse of old ties, and the intensification of the class struggle after the imperialist war of 1914-18—and that means all the countries of the world—terrorism cannot be dispensed with, notwithstanding the hypocrites and phrase-mongers. Either the whiteguard, bourgeois terrorism of the American, British (Ireland), Italian (the fascists), German, Hungarian and other types, or Red, proletarian terrorism. There is no middle course, no “third” course, nor can there be any." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 32, page 356, English edition - underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

That what Lenin correctly called the nessecity of "Red, proletarian terrorism" against fascist terrorism, was condemned "sectarianism" on the VII World Congress !!

And Dimitrov had chosen this "middle" course, though there is no "third" course, nor can there be any !

Dimitrov, in contrast to Lenin, used the definition of the VII World Congress to damp down and blur the class contradictions for paving the way towards class reconciliation - instead of the transformation of the anti-fascist revolution towards the socialist revolution.

When Lenin speaks of "narrowing the concept of classes" then we must state that the (third) superlative degree, which was grammatically chosen in the definition ("... most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist..."), is nothing else than the improper potentialization of narrowing the concept of classes.

Similarly, the definition contains adjectives which sound "very revolutionary". But this is only a demagogic trick to distract from the false concept of "elements" (narrowing of the concept of classes), and consequently to reduce the actual degree of the danger of the bourgeoisie as a whole class. The classification of fascism at power had been reduced to a very small amount of elements of finance capital. And additionally, with the utilization of a grammatical third superlative degree of adjectives, the named elements were purposely overemphasized, with the conclusion that the dictatorship of the whole bourgeois class was completely separated from the definition.


The definition of fascism - presented by the VII World Congress - is a revision of Marxism-Leninism and thus a revisionist definition. It is a milestone in the history of modern revisionism. The core of the revisionist nature of this definition of fascism is that the class of the bourgeoisie was divided: into a "progressive" part with which you can cooperate and another ("reactionary") part that you have to combat. The traditional (and still valid) program of the revisionists is based on the reformist slogan of "reducing of monopolies" , for example by means of obtaining parliamentary majority. Even not a "majority" can reduce the monopolistic elements by means of reformist measures as long as imperialism exists. These "elements" can only be destroyed in the course of the socialist world revolution. Besides, also Maoism defended the revisionist definition of fascism.

Coming to the conclusion:

When you hear today about the history of the Comintern, then it is not the right line of Lenin and Stalin, but the wrong line of Dimitrov. And when you hear something about the infamous united front tactics of the VII World Congress, then the quotation of the infamous definition of fascism takes centre stage of attention.

Therefore, the fight against the myth of the revisionist definition of fascism is an important part of the general-line of the Comintern (SH) in its revolutionary struggle against world fascism.


Some lessons about the struggle against the revisionist definition of fascism


The proletariat is not in a position to "tame", to control or even to eliminate the dominance of monopolies and fascism within the capitalist social order. And there is no "peaceful" way in which the inevitability of the "reactionary, chauvinist, most imperialist elements of finance capital" could be abolished. They can even neither be urged back nor reduced. In the long run, one can not urge the minimization of monopolies because the creation of monopolies is an immanent law of the development of capitalism and therefore inevitable. One can eliminate monopolism only with the socialist revolution by eliminating the class, to which the finance capitalists belong and from which they emerge. The finance capitalists do not sit "above" the class of the bourgeoisie, but they are her dominant force within imperialism.

The revisionists have turned the anti-monopolistic struggle into an intermediate stage towards "peaceful" socialism which they call "anti-monopolistic democracy". The revisionists argue that the united front against fascism makes the working class and its allies strong enough, so that the bourgeoisie could be "forced" by means of overwhelming majorities, to "peacefully" allow the "transition to socialism". Supposedly, the working class would not be able to perform the victorious socialist revolution, so that an intermediate period would be required, in order "to facilitate" the way to socialism.

The trick is as follows:

One separates and uncouples the path from the target (according the thesis of Bernstein), centers demagogically the question of the way, and then one explains certain "intermediate stages" as steps of the way towards the "target". In this way, the socialist goal disappears in the distance until the cows come home.

Lenin, however, teaches that there can be no "intermediate rung" of the ladder from capitalism to socialism. Thus there can also be no "intermediate rung" for the elimination of the "reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

Lenin wrote already in 1921:

"A victorious proletarian revolution in German would immediately and very easily smash any shell of imperialism and would bring about the victory of world socialism".

Lenin called it "a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs" (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 32, page 335 and 336 English edition).

Imperialism is definitely the last stage of capitalism before the transition to socialism.

And also in contrast to the VII World Congress of the Comintern, it is said clearly and unambiguously in the Comintern program of 1928 :

"In these (highly developed capitalist countries) is the main demand of the program, the immediate transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat " [ the program of the Communist International, in: International Press Correspondence No. 133, 1928, Page 2641, German edition - underlined by the Comintern (SH) ].

Did these conditions fundamentally change in the period of fascism ? Of course, they didn't. In the contrary. Capitalism was fully matured for the transition to socialism. The state-monopoly capitalism means the increased - even driven to the extreme - subordination of the State under the monopolies.

"Socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly"

(Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 32, page 336; English edition).

Stalin wrote in 1952, in: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR" (page 52, German edition, Moscow, 1952):

"The word 'coalescence' (of the monopolies with the state machine) is not appropriate. It superficially and descriptively notes the process of merging of the monopolies with the state, but it does not reveal the economic import of this process. The fact of the matter is that the merging process is not simply a process of coalescence, but the subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies. The word "coalescence" should therefore be discarded and replaced by the words "subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies."

We repeatedly explained that the power of the monopolies can only be eliminated by the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus by means of the armed revolution of the workers, and that anything else awakens illusions about the class nature of the state monopoly for the purpose, to deny the necessity of revolution.

The fascism-definition of the VII World Congress serves the world bourgeoisie, by being adapted to deny the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to explain the socialist world revolution as unnecessary - and to drop socialism in "one" country as a discontinued model. We Communists speak about the approach to the proletarian revolution, about the defeat of fascism by means of the overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, however, we refuse a united front government as a so called "preforming of the dictatorship of the proletariat" which comes about in pact with the bourgeoisie. Every government of a united front which is not built on the ruins of the bourgeois state, is a united front - based upon the bourgeois state. Lenin defined the united front as the front of the workers, united with its allies , inclusively the workers of the social democracy - but never the bourgeoisie and her agencies within the workers' movement.

Recognizing the antagonism and irreconcilability between bourgeoisie and proletariat only in words, however in deeds practicing a class reconciliatory policy - that is the core of every revisionist policy of classes. And in nothing but capitalism ended all history of the popular front decisions of the VII World Congress.

Some comrades justify the admissibility of the anti-fascist alliances with the bourgeoisie in comparison with Stalin's alliance with the Allies in the Second World War. These comrades must thoroughly study the Albanian alliance against the fascist occupiers [ Enver Hoxha: “The Anglo - American Threat to Albania” (Memoirs of the National Liberation War) ].

These comrades also ignore the fact that it was about a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviet Union as the leading force of the socialist world. This special anti-fascist alliance was not a coalition in the sense of "association of like-minded", but a deal with enemies of communism, which was based on the 5 correct Marxist-Leninist principles of peaceful coexistence.

There are other comrades who criticize the correct definition of fascism - decided by the Fourth Congress, claiming it might only be related to the "anti-imperialist" united front. We can only say to these comrades that they do not understand the integrity and essential difference between the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist united front tactics of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Both proletarian united front tactics, as well as the united front tactics in union activities serve to the overall unity of the world proletariat, serve the strategy and tactics of the world revolution and are therefore inseparable. Both of them must be based on the same principles of Marxism-Leninism.
The same lessons that we have learned in some detail here about the anti-fascist united front tactics, must also be considered in great detail from the anti-imperialist united front tactics, otherwise you can destroy neither fascism nor imperialism. This means that today's Stalinist-Hoxhaist world movement must draw conclusions from the revisionist betrayal at the anti-imperialist united front tactic, namely in such a way that the neo-revisionist restoration of modern revisionism is completely unmasked and combated, similar to the anti-fascist united front tactics.

Many comrades ascertain correctly that in the speech of Dimitrov consistently statements were made, which are not at all in contradiction to Marxism-Leninism. Admittedly, it is not easy to unmask the documents of the VII World Congress. However, this is not astonishing. In general, this phenomenon applies to nearly all speeches and documents of the modern revisionists. We do not criticize the Marxist-Leninist correct positions by themselves, but only the hypocritical way in which the revisionist betrayal was camouflaged with the help of these correct Marxist-Leninist positions. For example, correct positions were elsewhere refuted or abrogated by eclecticism and centrism. In addition, the speech of Dimitrov is so cleverly written, that "everyone" - even with diverging positions - can easily feel vindicated and identify ideologically. Constancy of principles had been confused with dogmatism, and exactly therewith began the process of ideological dissolution of the Comintern, which was followed by the organizational process of its dissolution.

We must judge the definition of fascism (in particular), and the whole speech of Dimitrov (in general), primarily by the actual historic consequences, namely not only the dissolution of the Comintern, but moreover the serious consequences of the crimes of the modern revisionists in their entirety.


The conciliators protected the rightist opportunists:

Bukharin's secret theses on the VI. World Congress of the Comintern were uncovered and removed by Stalin - such as the peaceful transition of capitalism into socialism ( Later on, the Maoists used the Bukharinism for setting up their Chinese social-imperialism).

The conciliator Dimitrov rushed to help Bukharin, however, Stalin successfully frustrated the conciliation towards the Right deviation:

“It is impossible to overcome the Right, opportunist deviation without waging a systematic fight against the conciliatory tendency, which takes the opportunists under its wing.”

(Stalin: "The right danger in the C.P.S.U (B), Volueme 11, page 208, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

As long as Dimitrov had taken the Rightist opportunists in the Comintern under his wing, the Comintern could not free itself from the Rightist opportunism. Thus came what was to come:

“A victory of the Right deviation in the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries would mean the ideological rout of the Communist Parties and an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism. And what does an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism mean? It means the strengthening and consolidation of capitalism, for Social-Democracy is the main support of capitalism in the working class.”

(Stalin: "The right danger in the C.P.S.U (B), Volueme 11, page 199 - 200, German edition, KPD/ML 1971).

And that was also exactly the problem of the Comintern:

Firstly, the liquidation of the Comintern and then, secondly, the liquidation of the Soviet Union, and finally the liquidation of socialism in Albania and the liquidation of the Marxist-Leninist world movement - this is the story of the tactics of revisionism which was intended to restore the autarchy of world imperialism. This is reason enough to draw conclusions from the rightist turn of the Comintern. This may not happen a second time.

The Seventh World Congress made centrist concessions to the Social Democrats and even sought an alliance with the Second International. Lenin, however, led a fierce, all-round struggle against the Second International. The founder (!) of the Communist International had therefore not the goal to restore the Second International, because this was quite impossible. Lenin created "Terms of Admission into Comintern" (1920) as an irrevovable demarcation line against the Second International which were violated in the last years of the Comintern.

Stalin was asked: "Is it possible to unite the Second and Third Internationals?

ANSWER : I think it is impossible. It is impossible because the Second and Third Internationals have two entirely different lines of policy and look in different directions. Whereas the Third International looks in the direction of the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship, the Second International, on the contrary, looks in the direction of the preservation of capitalism and of the destruction of everything that is needed for the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship.

The struggle between the two Internationals is the ideological reflection of the struggle between the supporters of capitalism and the supporters of socialism. In this struggle, either the Second or the Third International must be victorious. There are no reasons for doubting that the Third International will be victorious in the working-class movement." (Stalin, Works, Volume 10, page 187, German edition, KPD/ML 1971)

Today there is still a so-called "Socialist" International (albeit inwardly rotten), but for 57 years there were no more a Comintern! Please notice:
The Communist International was founded five years after the collapse of the Second International. The striking difference between these two time periods gets our point across the whole extent of the consequences of the betrayal at the Comintern. Lenin wrote several volumes of his works in demarcation to the Second International. And how many volumes were written about the end of the Comintern until today ? Not even one Volume !

Our greatest lesson, therefore, is first of all to create a solid ideological foundation beyond the end of the Comintern. With our general-line, we are at the beginning of a modest fundament including all the unavoidable initial difficulties. We can still not speak about a satisfactorily completed Marxist-Leninist lesson about the end of the Comintern. We emphasize this again and again.


Dimitrov's attempts for an alliance with the ruling social democrats, with the Amsterdam International of Labour Unions and all his connection to social democracy, they all resulted historically in an adaption of communism to capitalism. These are lessons that must not be forgotten. If principles are not adhered to, the alliance and compromises take a wrong course, and endanger the line, the world party, and the proper progress of the world revolution. The laws of the world revolution, of the international class struggle, of the nature and role of the Bolshevist world party cannot be manipulated as Dimitrov wished, under the pretext of an allegedly «flexible unity front policy».
We know that the more we gain influence among the masses, the stronger the pressure of the bourgeoisie to the masses and to us communists. Bowing to pressure for the masses to leave the communists, is the goal of the opportunists.

The correct line of the VI. Congress relied on the intensification of the class struggle under the conditions of the world economic crisis in 1929.The broad implementation of these correct line met with great approval and sympathy among the working masses. The masses saw that the Communists gave them a revolutionary flag to fly - in contrast to the leaders of the Social Democracy. Stalin's idea of the new united front tactic was to build on these successes and expand the united front on a revolutionary basis. But after the VII World Congress the flag of Stalin was pulled down in the course of the growing pressure of fascism.

It was Dimitrov who did not adhere to principles of Marxism-Leninism. It was Dimitrov, who in his own country - attacked those comrades as so called "sectarians" whose "crime" was alone in it, to fight for the "object of the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (Dimitrov, Selected Works, Volume 3 - in Bulgaria; page 558, translation from German edition).


"The VII World Congress of the Communist International implemented the turn of the line of all the Communist Parties by tackling the basic task for the next period the struggle against fascism, as the biggest threat to the working class and the working people: for the peace and freedom of peoples." (Ibid, page 561).

Where is the revolution and socialism? They vanished in the haze. To this opportunism we can only say: There, where the communist flag is pulled down, the opportunists hoist their flag !

Not the Marxist-Leninists, but the eclecticists and opportunists replace the theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the "theory" and practice of "transitions" and "interval periods" to postpone the dictatorship of the proletariat off indefinitely.

The question of elasticity, applied to the united front policy by means of subjectivism , can mean nothing other than eclecticism.

A Popular Front government, which replaces the socialist revolution, or which neglects the creation of better conditions for the break out of a socialist revolution, is not a proletarian but a bourgeois popular front. A government of the proletariat is without a socialist revolution that defeated the bourgeoisie, not possible. If the capitalist state would be able to fulfill revolutionary demands, the proletariat would not need a socialist revolution.

If we can not prevent fascism by means of the revolution, then we must smash fascism by means of the socialist revolution. We will never stop on the half way of the Comintern of a Georgi Dimitrov. That is the general line of the Comintern (SH) in the question of the overthrow of fascism.

By means of waiving the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, Tito was later able to develop the capitalist theory and practice of the Yugoslav "self-administration".

Without conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, without conditions of the establishment of Soviet power, without overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the destruction of its state apparatus - thus under the conditions of capitalism, the proletariat can not achieve its own revolutionary measures and build socialism.

In capitalism, the state can not die peacefully. Dimitrov neglected this lesson by favoring the Popular Front government with the bourgeoisie.The slogan of the Popular Front is therefore only a hollow "revolutionary" phrase, because thus the pressure on the bourgeoisie is only limited by means of the recognition of a Popular Front government. For it, and only for this, the VII World Congress has needed the mass struggle, but not for violent socialist revolution. With the only correct slogan of the socialist revolution, the Popular Front government of Dimitrov would be made completely impossible.

Lenin did not found the III International with the intention to dissolve it one fine day. Not one step back to agreements between social-imperialists and defectors from the camp of socialism!

"Unless the revolutionary section of the proletariat is thoroughly prepared in every way for the expulsion and suppression of opportunism it is useless even thinking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the lesson of the Russian revolution which should be taken to heart by the leaders of the “independent” German Social-Democrats, French socialists, and so forth, who now want to evade the issue by means of verbal recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

To continue. The Bolsheviks had behind them not only the majority of the proletariat, not only the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat which had been steeled in the long and persevering struggle against opportunism; they had, if it is permissible to use a military term, a powerful “striking force” in the metropolitan cities.

An overwhelming superiority of forces at the decisive point at the decisive moment—this “law” of military success is also the law of political success, especially in that fierce, seething class war which is called revolution." (Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 30, page 158, English edition).

The VII World Congress flew in the face of these Leninist principles.

And Stalin taught in "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists" (December 1924), in respect of compromising parties, as follows:

"The preparation for October thus proceeded under the leadership of one party, the Bolshevik Party. But how did the Party carry out this leadership, along what line did the latter proceed? This leadership proceeded along the line of isolating the compromising parties, as the most dangerous groupings in the period of the outbreak of the revolution, the line of isolating the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.

What is the fundamental strategic rule of Leninism?

It is the recognition of the following:

1) the compromising parties are the most dangerous social support of the enemies of the revolution in the period of the approaching revolutionary outbreak;

2) it is impossible to overthrow the enemy (tsarism or the bourgeoisie) unless these parties are isolated;

3) the main weapons in the period of preparation for the revolution must therefore be directed towards isolating these parties, towards winning the broad masses of the working people away from them.

In the period of preparation for October the center of gravity of the conflicting forces shifted to another plane. The tsar was gone. The Cadet Party had been transformed from a compromising force into a governing force, into the ruling force of imperialism.

In this period the petty-bourgeois democratic parties, the parties of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, were the most dangerous social support of imperialism. Why? Because these parties were then the compromising parties, the parties of compromise between imperialism and the laboring masses. Naturally, the Bolsheviks at that time directed their main blows at these parties; for unless these parties were isolated there could be no hope of a rupture between the laboring masses and imperialism, and unless this rupture was ensured there could be no hope of the victory of the Soviet revolution. Many people at that time did not understand this specific feature of the Bolshevik tactics and accused the Bolsheviks of displaying "excessive hatred" towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and of "forgetting" the principal goal. But the entire period of preparation for October eloquently testifies to the fact that only by pursuing these tactics could the Bolsheviks ensure the victory of the October Revolution."

Those who only limit themselves on anti-fascist class struggle, are far from being Marxist-Leninists. Marxist-Leninists are only those who expand the antifascist class struggle on the dictatorship of the proletariat - namely not only in words but also in deeds.





- Theoretical Organ -

Communist International (Stalinist - Hoxhaists)