The PLA, like the Chinese revisionists, make a qualitative distinction between the various imperialist countries in order to unite with the “small fish” against the“big fish.” The PLA has the same basic view as the theory of “three worlds” that there is a “first world” and a “second world.” The problem with the Chinese revisionists was that they only really opposed one superpower and wanted to unite with the other one. But the fact that the PLA claims to oppose both “superpowers” does not make its position any less revisionist. The purpose of having one, two or more “superpowers” is to justify alliance with imperialism and reactionary regimes and the national bourgeoisie of the backward countries.
This idea of a “superpower” is not something new, the modem revisionists have been using it for years. We have seen how the Moscow Declarations use a Kautskyite analysis of US monopoly capital and monopoly capital in other countries to show how they have attained a state of “ultra-imperialism”: capitalism has become “international” and the way to oppose it is by promoting nationalism, even of lesser imperialists or smaller sections of monopoly capital in a country where the larger sections are “integrated” with US imperialism. This is done, of course, to deny the interimperialist contradiction and say there are so important contradictions among the imperialists. The important struggle is then the struggle of the “people” against the monopolies led by the US which is carried out by the struggle for “freedom, independence and social progress.” The cause of socialism is put off to another “stage” of the revolution.
The only difference for the PLA with the line of the Moscow Declarations is that there are two “superpowers” that contend with each other, but the “people” must get rid of both of them. As the PLA says: “the number one task for the peoples and all revolutionary forces is to sharpen their vigilence and expose the plots of US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, forcefully and without hesitation to foil their aggressive plans” (Albania Today, no. 1. 1977, p. 1).
The PLA claims that it is the superpowers which “instigate conflicts between peoples and states, revitalize centuries-old disagreements between neighboring nations, instigate local wars” (ATA, Feb. 20, 1977). The PLA then states that, “the increase of the military tension and the complicated situation in Europe, the explosive situation in the Middle East, the tragedy of Lebanon, the situation in Cyprus, and the increase of tension in the Mediterranean, the conflicts and quarrels in Africa and other regions of the world, all these have been and are a direct result of the intensification of the aggressive and hegemonistic policy of the two superpowers, their interference, intrigues and efforts to preserve and extend their spheres of influence, to place the sovereign states under their control and tutelage” (ibid.). So all the problems of the world are caused by the superpowers and are dealt with by the struggle for sovereignty, for national independence, in all the other countries in the world. This means unity with the “progressive” states and with the “progressive” bourgeoisie in reactionary states against the “superpowers.” Despite all of the PLA’s hooppla about the four contradictions, they say that the “most important” contradiction is that “between imperialism, social-imperialism and the monopoly bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the world proletariat and the PEOPLES who are fighting for freedom, democracy and socialism on the other hand” (ATA, March 31, 1977). In fact, the after thought of socialism is dropped out, particularly when the. bourgeoisie may be paying close attention. That is why Mehmet Shehu said, shortly after Hoxha’s election speech, in his speech at the “People’s Assembly” of Albania that “socialist Albania, a sovereign and fully independent country, with its principled foreign policy has ensured the CONSOLIDATION OF ITS INTERNATIONAL POSITIONS and makes an important contribution to the STRUGGLE OF THE FREEDOM-LOVING peoples and COUNTRIES against the hegemonic and expansionist policy of US imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, Chinese social-imperialism and all the other enemies of peace and freedom of peoples. It enjoys the respect and sympathy of the revolutionaries, of THE PROGRESSIVE MEN and peoples of the world, BECAUSE ITS STRUGGLE ON THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA RESPONDS TO THEIR ASPIRATIONS FOR FREEDOM, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE AND SOCIAL PROGRESS” (ATA, Dec. 27, 1978).
We would have to agree that the struggle of the PLA on the international arena responds to the aspirations of the national bourgeoisie in many countries. The whole conception of “superpowers” is a revisionist theory to put forward bourgeois nationalism instead of proletarian internationalism. It is a theory to support the struggle of the national bourgeoisie against the “superpowers” instead of the struggle of the international proletariat for socialism and genuine national liberation in the oppressed nations.
That the theory of “superpowers” is simply a tool for the nationalist aspirations of the PLA is completely revealed in the PLA’s stand that there are now three “superpowers.” Shehu. in the same speech, said that “in face of this dangerous game of the imperialist superpowers, the peoples should rise on foot against the THREE SUPERPOWERS, and say ’stop!’ to the inter-imperialist world war and fight actively to win and defend their freedom and independence” (op. cit.). The third “superpower” is, of course, China. China is an imperialist power of much less strength than Germany. France, or for that matter, even Canada. The PLA calls China a superpower as an epithet. It has no scientific meaning at all. All it means is that China has become a“superpower” to the PLA.
Until China started allying with the PLA’s enemies, sabotaging Albania’s positions in the world, as well as its economy, the PLA apparently considered the Chinese “well intentioned” towards Albania, so much so that they called China the paragon of socialism when it was never a socialist country. The contradiction between the PLA and the Chinese revisionists is not primarily because of the PLA’s ideological differences with China, basically they have the same ideology. Rather, the ideological differences have arisen as a result of Chinese threats to Albania’s national interest. The PLA no more wanted to become a neo-colony of China then they did of Russia. Most of the things the PLA says about the Chinese use of “aid’’ to create dependency is true. Also the PLA had no interest in Chinese plans for a joint defense pact with Yugoslavia and Romania. Clearly China wanted to establish a sphere of influence in the Balkans that would be closely tied with western imperialism and particularly NATO. The Chinese want NATO strengthened and this involves the strengthening of Albania’s traditional enemies in Italy. Greece and Turkey.
This was resulting in Albania’s growing isolation in the world. In order to get out of this situation. Albania has developed increasing ties with the states that it could, imperialist or backward.
This has included even a close alliance with Vietnam, a revisionist state in increasing semi-colonial dependence on the Soviet Union. Vietnam, however, is an active enemy of China that can militarily tie China down in Asia and allow China less freedom of action in inciting a war in Europe. The PLA is willing to take up the same line as the Soviet revisionists on this conflict in a desperate campaign to try and discredit China and make it appear as some sort of reincarnation of Hitlerite Germany.
Such crazy calls for war, such warmongering speeches as those of Deng Xiaoping have been heard only from Hitler in the Munich beer halls. And the world knows where that hysteria led. It led to the bloodbath of World War Two and to the inglorious end of the fascist warmongers. Hitler, too, when he called for war and aggression, tried to cover his tracks with lies, just as Deng Xiaoping is trying to do now with the deceptive slogans about “Four Modernizations,” “anti-hegemonism” and so on (Sino-Amencan Alliance, Tirana, 1979, p. 6).
World War II did not come about by hysterical speeches in beer halls, nor is it going to come about by Deng giving interviews in Time magazine. It will come about because of the nature of imperialism and particularly because of the policies pursued in the period of “peace” proceeding the war. It is, in fact, the PLA that is trying to use the situation to incite war against China. This is the only explanation for its absurd comparisons of China with Hitler in the beer halls, to try to deceive the world that China represents the same danger to the world as Hitler. The PLA’s statements that “China is incapable of waging war” (ibid., p. 7) and “social-imperialist China is an inciter of such a war, is arming for it. It is for this that ’Four Modernizations’ have been proclaimed” (ibid., p. 6) are statements to incite a pre-emptive strike against China before it is capable of doing what Hitler did. The PLA has its own “anti-appeasement’ stand. In denouncing China’s invasion of Vietnam the PLA says:“The Chinese aggression has all the fascist brand characteristics. The Chinese justification for the barbarous action undertaken in Vietnam could have been taken word for word from Hitler” (ibid., p. 23).
We all know why the Chinese revisionists raised the spectre of Hitlerite fascism about the Soviet Union. It was for the reason of justifying the alliance with all kinds of reactionaries for the sake of inciting the world to war with the Soviet Union. What is the PLA’s open alliance with the Vietnamese and its secret de facto alliance with the Soviet Union but an attempt to accomplish the same thing. The PLA speaks of “the barbarous and fascist group of Pol Pot” (ibid., p. 23) but it incredibly maintains that “in Cambodia the people, THE COMMUNISTS and the Cambodian patriots have risen against the barbarous government of Pol Pot” (ibid., p. 21). The whole world knows that it was 150,000 Vietnamese troops, backed and supported by the Soviet Union that “liberated” Cambodia and they could find few Cambodians to collaborate. This act of imperialism the PLA calls “the right to support the revolutionaries and the people of Cambodia to build a free, independent and sovereign country” (ibid., p. 23).
It is the PLA which is making hysterical beer hall speeches – or should we say Raki hall speeches – trying to be a mouse that roared. The PLA uses incredible demagogy to try and cover up its naked defense of self-interest, but anyone who thinks this has anything to do with the purity of Marxism-Leninism or the principles of proletarian internationalism is, to say the least, badly misinformed.
This hysteria about Hitlerite fascism is compounded by claims that the alliance between China and Japan is a “racist” alliance. What is this but raising the danger of the alleged “Yellow Peril,” something the Soviet revisionists have always done about China. The PLA is using the most disgusting forms of racism to try and incite people against China, like claiming that the source of Mao Tse-tung Thought is a product of ancient Chinese philosophy rather than modern revisionism. And then they maintain that “the attack on Vietnam is a logical consequence of the social-imperialist line formulated by... Mao Tsetung... ”(ibid.,p. 18), that this is a reflection of the “racist line of the Chinese revisionist leadership” (ibid., p. 12) rather than its revisionist line. The PLA is trying to incite the most reactionary kinds of sentiments about the Chinese People and raise the ”horror” of a billion Chinese armed by the “four modernizations” destroying the world. Revisionists attack revisionists by using bourgeois ideology, the Khrushchevites do it to China and the PLA has thrown its hat into the same stinking cesspool.