The PLA attempts what Potresov attempted many years ago.
A. Potresov pretends to contrast national-liberalism...with internationalism and Marxism. In reality A. Potresov contrasts multi-coloured nationalism with national-liberalism of one colour, whereas Marxism is hostile – and for the present historic situation it is absolutely hostile – to any national-liberalism (“Under a Stolen Flag.” Op. Cit.. p. 119).
The PLA pretends to contrast bourgeois nationalism with Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. But what the PLA consistently does in practice is to uphold multi-coloured nationalism against nationalism of one colour. The PLA opposes the nationalist, chauvinist and imperialist character of the three “superpowers” by upholding the nationalism of small states. This the PLA tries to pass off as internationalism when in fact it is only the promotion of joint action of “small fish” against “big fish.” This has nothing to do with Marxism.
What divided the PLA from, first, the Soviet Union and later China was their nationalism of a single colour, i.e.. the imperialist ambitions of China and the Soviet Union which threatened Albania. The PLA upholds the nationalism of other countries to create alliances that will help in its own survival. The PLA upholds the flag of multi-coloured nationalism against the other revisionists and proclaims this to be proletarian internationalism. In fact, the PLA’s split with the Soviet Union, and later China, is a split between social-imperialism (socialism in words, imperialism in deeds and social-nationalism (socialism in words and nationalism in deeds).
The PLA tries to paint the bourgeoisie as a progressive force in this epoch, it tries to promote the ideas of the previous epoch in progressive sounding rhetoric. “In our days it would be ridiculous even to think a progressive bourgeoisie, a progressive bourgeois movement.. .A. Potresov has ’forgotten’ this when he has substituted the point of view of the old (bourgeois) quasi-democracy for the point of view of the modern (non-bourgeois) democracy. This shifting to the point of view of another class, an old outlined class besides, is purest opportunism” (ibid., p. 121). The PLA and all the modern revisionists carry out this task for the bourgeoisie. Their ideas and theories are an attempt to destroy Marxism-Leninism from within by putting forward the ideas of the bourgeoisie in the language of the proletariat. As Lenin said “It is the bourgeoisie... that tries to accomplish a substitution like that accomplished by A. Potresov, namely, to substitute for the imperialist epoch an epoch of bourgeois-progressive, national-democratic movements for liberation” (ibid., p. 122). The modern revisionists have become the vanguard of the bourgeoisie to carry out this counter-revolutionary substitution. The Russian and Chinese revisionists have been exposed for this while the PLA maintains an image of purity, but yet puts forward fundamentally the same politics. For their own nationalist and imperialist aspirations, both the Russian and Chinese revisionists have had to pass from a concealed alliance with the bourgeoisie to an open alliance with imperialism; they have had to pass from “centrism” to open social-chauvinism. The PLA continues to perform its service by maintaining a “centrist” posture to do the work of the bourgeoisie. “The bourgeoisie... is attempting, for selfish reasons, to revive the ideology of national movements, it strives to shift it from the epoch of imperialism into quite a different epoch. As usual, the opportunists trail after the bourgeoisie, relinquishing the point of view of modern democracy and shifting to the point of view of the old (bourgeois) democracy” (ibid., pp. 122-3).
The PLA’s propagation of the slogan “freedom, independence and social progress”
drags modern democracy (proletarian democracy – BU) backward not ’in a certain sense’ but in all senses; he drags it back to the slogans and ideology of the old bourgeois democracy, to the dependence of the masses upon the bourgeoisie” (ibid.).
This is why the PLA generally speaks of revolution in general, rather than proletarian revolution. It was “the theory and practice of the revolution,” “revolution is a question taken up for solution,” and now “imperialism and the revolution.” The bourgeoisie is in favour of revolution against feudalism and “revolution,” i.e., counterrevolution against socialism and the proletarian revolution. Lenin says “imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution” (Quoted by Stalin in Foundations of Leninism, p. 27) but for Hoxha imperialism is the eve of the struggle for national independence and the removal of naval bases near Albania, which he calls revolution. The PLA’s stand is clearly that of the doomed petty bourgeoisie which calls for a return to pre-imperialist capitalism. The PLA cannot accept that “capital striving for national liberation has been replaced by international, reactionary, imperialist, finance capital” (“Under a Stolen Flag.” Op. Cit., p. 124). For the PLA the struggle is to oppose this replacement, to unite “capital striving for national liberation,” i.e., small capital, small countries, in a struggle against “international, reactionary, imperialist, finance capital,” in order to reform imperialism.
So afraid is the PLA of the proletarian character of the socialist revolution that Hoxha denies its role in the US proletarian revolution by writing that “we cannot, in the least negate the role and contribution of the American proletariat to the revolution in that country” (Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, p. 264).
The US proletariat has more than “a role” in “the revolution in that country.” It is the revolution in that country, with allies from other strata. Such a bold “defense” as Hoxha’s will fool no one. After all, it was the PLA which changed its name from the Communist Party of Albania in order to better reflect the actual state of their country. Predominately peasantry. What about the necessity of a “proletarian” party?
The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it engenders, or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries.
In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the oppositions of the “anti-imperialists,” the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy (“Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” LCW 22:287)
These nationalists look back in longing for the glorious day when capital played a role in national liberation and hope that capital can be brought back to its former days of “glory” by organizing the struggle of small capital against monopoly capital, the struggle of the petty-bourgeoisie and the “middle” bourgeoisie against the financial oligarchy. This, of course, means that the PLA upholds the national state framework of the previous epoch and takes the position that the strengthening of these nation-states is the way to oppose imperialism. This is the ideology of small capital and a call for a reactionary struggle against imperialism. As Lenin says:
The bourgeois-national framework of states, which in the First Epoch was a support to the development of the productive forces of humanity then in the process of liberating itself from feudalism, has now, in the Third Epoch, become a hinderance to the free development of the productive forces. From a rising, progressive class the bourgeoisie has become a sinking decaying, internationally dead, reactionary class. The rising-class – on a wide international scale – has become an entirely different one (“Under a Stolen Flag,” p. 129).
Hoxha tries to save this sinking decaying class and says “the struggle of the peoples (i.e. ruling class – BU) for the emancipation of their small countries from the dictate and tutelage of the mighty – imperialism and social imperialism (the “two superpowers” – BU) – must not be underrated” (Imperialism and the Revolution, Tirana, 1979, p. 273). Indeed, the PLA does not under rate it. In fact they promote it in the vain hope of saving this class. The PLA’s theoretical stand, its work in the international communist movement, is to get the rising class, the proletariat, to save the bourgeoisie from extinction and help it revive its past glory. As Hoxha says:
The division we communists make of the world today, on the basis of the Leninist class criterion, does not hinder us from fighting the superpowers and supporting ALL the peoples and STATES that are seeking liberation and HAVE CONTRADICTIONS WITH THE SUPERPOWERS (Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 269)
This, of course, has nothing to do with Leninism. Lenin said:
modern democracy will remain faithful to itself only if it does not join one or the other imperialist bourgeoisie, if it says ’both are worst,’ if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie in EVERY COUNTRY. Every other decision will in reality be national-liberal and entirely foreign to true internationalism (Op. Cit., p. 124).
The PLA is certainly “entirely foreign to true internationalism.”
It is necessary for the proletariat to utilize the contradictions between imperialist countries. As Lenin said: “Of course, it is the task of modern democracy, too, to ’utilize’ conflicts, but this international utilization must, contrary to A. Potresov and Kautsky, be directed not against this or that national finance capital, but against international finance capital. The conflicts must be utilized not by that class which 50 to 100 years ago was rising” (ibid., p. i 29). The PLA wants exactly the utilization of these conflicts by that class that is dying, supported by the proletariat, to make it once again a rising class. This is a reactionary concept bound to fail, but it helps the PLA in promoting its small state interests. The line of Potresov and Kautsky supporting national liberalism. Lenin labels as “social-nationalism” (ibid., p. 132), and as Lenin says “the connection between opportunism and social-nationalism is generally speaking denied.” This is even more true today because revisionism and opportunism are equated only with social-imperialism and open social-chauvinism, whereas the social-nationalism, the concealed social-chauvinism of the PLA, and formerly of the CPC, is covered up and promoted as Marxism-Leninism, and even “Marxism-Leninism” which is battling opportunism and revisionism. As Lenin says:
The fundamental class meaning of social-nationalism of our days is exactly the same. The fundamental idea of opportunism is an alliance or a coming together (sometimes an agreement, a bloc, etc.) of the bourgeoisie with its antipode. The fundamental idea of social-chauvinism is exactly the same (ibid., p. 133).
The PLA tries to obscure any line of demarcation with opportunism and social-nationalism, instead they say the only line of division is against revisionism, social-chauvinism and social-imperialism. In this they beat their breasts as “internationalists” but as Lenin said “The concept ’adherents of internationalism’ is devoid of every content and all sense if we do not specify it concretely; every step along such concrete specification, however, will be the enumeration of characteristics hostile to opportunism. This will prove still more so in practice. An adherent of internationalism who is not a most consistent and determined opponent of opportunism is nothing but a phantom” (ibid., p. 135). Whether the PLA honestly considers itself internationalist, doubtful, or if its adherents in the world do, is not important. As Lenin said: “some persons of that type may honestly consider themselves to be ’internationalists.’ People, however, are judged not by what they think of themselves but by their political behaviour. The political behaviour of such ’internationalists’ who are not consistent and determined opponents of opportunism will always aid and abet the nationalist trend” (ibid., pp. 135-6). Those that continue to support the PLA are only aiding and abetting the nationalist, opportunist and o“centrist” trend of the PLA.
The PLA talks a great deal about the unity of Marxist-Leninists, but let us be clear what kind of unity they are talking about. As Lenin said “the nationalists also call themselves ’internationalists’... and not only do they call themselves so, but they fully recognize an international rapprochement, an agreement, a union of persons holding their views. The opportunists are not against ’internationalism’ they are only in favour of mutual international approval and international agreement of the opportunists” (ibid.. p. 136).
It is exactly in this light that“we need to see the activities of the PLA to consolidate an international centrist trend around itself. The PLA, as long as it was under the tutelage of China, did little in this regard. It was not until 1972 that Albania Today was published. This was when China entered the dance of the imperialists. The PLA accepted the hegemony of the CPC and Mao in the “international anti-revisionist communist movement.”
The Albanian people and all the people of the world nurture an ardent love and place deep trust in great socialist China, in her glorious party and in Mao Tsetung. the great and beloved leader not only of the Chinese people and communists, but also the dear and respected leader of all the peoples and communists of the world.... The greatest enemy of US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism are the peoples of the world, with great Mao Tsetung“s China at the head.... All the peoples of the world have pinned their hopes of liberation, independence and well-being on their efforts and Mao’s China... .The unity with Peoples’ China is a great achievement for the cause of mankind (Our Policy is an Open Policy, Tirana 1974. pp. 40-41-42. first edition)
The PLA’s sudden concern for proletarian internationalism and the unity of Marxist-Leninists sprang from its growing contradiction with China, particularly China’s desires to instigate a war between the “superpowers” in Europe and its alliance with the reactionary cliques of Europe and US imperialism. No longer is “unity with People’s China ... a great achievement” and no longer is Mao “the dear and respected leader of all the peoples and communists of the world.” The PLA has tried to counter this by the measures already discussed, but another very important aspect was the CPC’s hegemony over the ”anti-revisionist parties” in Europe, who were utilized by the Chinese revisionists as agents in preparing the war. It became imperative for the PLA to split this movement in order to transform this force into a force for “peace” in Europe. The PLA has learned from the CPC the advantage of having an international movement to promote the image of the country and to be useful as a tool to assist foreign policy objectives. But even more importantly, the PLA wants these “parties” to ally with the national bourgeoisie to prevent a war in Europe. The PLA promotes the worst son of pacifism by portraying a united struggle of the proletariat and the national bourgeosie as a means of preventing war by struggling against the policies of certain reactionaries. The PLA calls to “fight against their warmongering plans, against their aggressive actions, against the local ruling bourgeoisie, which has united and serves the warmongering plans of Soviet social-imperialism or US imperialism” (ATA. March 31, 1977). The PLA wants the “parties” to become agents of promoting social-patriotism and bourgeois nationalism in the proletariat in order to persuade it to give up socialist revolution and side with the “local” bourgeoisie which does not unite with and serve the warmongering plans of the “superpowers,” which places their own imperialist interests above others. The PLA wants to divert the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for socialism into the struggle for “independence, democracy and social progress” which reduces itself to the most vulgar forms of reformism to serve Albania. Lenin said:
A propaganda of peace at the present time, if not accompanied by a call to revolutionary mass actions, is only capable of spreading illusions, of demoralizing the proletariat by imbuing it with confidence in the humanitarianism of the bourgeoisie, and of making it a plaything in the hands of the secret diplomacy of the belligerent countries. In particular, the idea of the possibility of a so-called democratic peace without a series of revolutions is deeply erroneous (“Conference of Foreign Sections of RSDLP,” LCW 18:149. 1930).
But it is precisely not a “series of revolutions” that the PLA wants; instead, as Hoxha said at the VIIth Congress, they want “the unity of truly anti-imperialist and PROGRESSIVE STATES AND GOVERNMENTS. In order to unite the peoples in the fight for freedom, independence and social progress” (Albania Today, no. 6, 1978. p. 70). If the proletariat is going to struggle against imperialist war it must take up exactly the opposite line.
But the harder the governments and the bourgeoisie of all countries try to disunite the workers and pit them against one another, and the more savagely they enforce, for this lofty aim, martial law and military censorship (measures which even now, in wartime, are applied against the “internal” foe more harshly than against the external), the more pressingly is it the duty of the class conscious proletariat to defend its class solidarity, its internationalism, and its socialist convictions against the unbridled chauvinism of the “patriotic” bourgeois cliques in ALL countries. If class-conscious workers were to give up this arm, this would mean renunciation of their aspirations for freedom and democracy, not to mention their socialist aspirations (“The War and Russian Social-Democracy.” LCW 21;29)
Part of the PLA’s plan to preserve the security of Europe is to oppose revolution, because this would create instability. It must also oppose war because war is unstable and history has proved that imperialist wars lead to socialist revolution when the proletariat is led by genuine Bolsheviks. The best way for the PLA to promote “stability” was, therefore, to split away what “anti-revisionist” Maoist forces it could from the theory of “three worlds” and China’s plans to promote war in Europe and divert them into an alliance with the ”peace loving“ “middle” “patriotic” bourgeoisie. The opening shot of this volley was heard at the VIIth Congress of the PLA in November 1976.
The PLA called together delegations from such staunch “socialist” countries as Korea and Vietnam, as well as boot lickers of Chinese revisionism such as E. F. Hill and the Workers’ Communist Party of Norway (ML). Noticeable in their absence were any of the offspring of Hardial Bains – “Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist),” “Central Organization of US Marxist-Leninists,” “Communist Party of England (ML),” now the “Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain.” or the “Communist Party of Ireland (ML),” the “Communist Party of India (ML).” With this notable exclusion, any and every brand of revisionist was welcomed into Albania for the VIIth Congress of the PLA to hear the first weak and cowardly line of demarcation be drawn. Such was the scene for the PLA“s attempt to split the so-called “anti-revisionists” from the social-chauvinism of the CP of China not with the intention of making a complete break with social-chauvinism, in general, but only to consolidate a series of fan clubs for Albania around the globe, and particularly in the “well intentioned” imperialist countries. This attack on the theory of “three worlds” was carefully orchestrated to make the PLA appear as “pure” and “consistent” defenders of Marxism-Leninism. It was carried out under the same norms as passed for Leninist norms during the split between the PLA, the CPC and the Khrushchevite revisionists. At first, no party was named and the “attack” was a partial endorsement.
But we want to make it clear that it was not an act of “heroism” on the part of the Albanian revisionists to attack China either openly or in veiled terms in 1976. For the PLA to claim that mantle, they would have had to open the attacks 20 years earlier. Rather than praising Mao’s On the Correct Handling on the Contradictions Among the People they should have unmasked it for the slanderous attack on Comrade Joseph Stalin and the history of Bolshevism that it is. Rather than covering up the vacillation of the Chinese revisionists, these, too, should have been exposed. Yet “Comrade” Hoxha would have found it difficult to denounce the Chinese party for that in 1964 when, at the same time, he was writing “Our Party and our people are well aware of the leading role of the Soviet Union in the socialist camp. We never have and never will underrate its leading role in the international arena,” and, “Unity of the socialist camp can be achieved if the differences existing today among various socialist countries are first settled through bilateral or multilateral talks” (Speeches and Articles, 1964, pp. 376-378). Hoxha agrees with Mao that the contradictions was “non-antagonistic” and could be settled by discussions. It was only with the Russian imperialist invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 that the PLA decided its own national interests would be better suited by pulling out of the Warsaw Pact. The “leading role” of the Soviet Union no longer was much to their liking.
The PLA, for all that they were unable to understand about the Chinese revisionists (Hoxha describes their opportunism as “a great enigma” in his book, see p. 386), certainly, by 1976, knew that the interests of “great Mao Tsetung’s China” and tiny Albania were in conflict, and in order to beat the Chinese to the punch, launched the attack at the VIIth Congress. Clearly, the Chinese would have cut off economic aid eventually, and rather than be cut adrift with no economic aid, the PLA sought to create international support and sympathy by creating an image of “purity” and “principled struggle” by beating the Chinese to the first blow. The inevitable economic sacrifices which would have to be carried by the working class and labouring population could be portrayed as the result of Albania’s insistence of remaining faithful to “Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism” and not a falling out among revisionists. Furthermore, it was also useful for Albania’s image abroad that such a large country as China cut off aid to a small country as Albania, making Albania the defenseless victim in the eyes of the “progressive states.”
But of necessity for carrying the whole plot off internally was the consolidation of an international base of support, groups in the “small fish,” the “well intentioned” capitalist countries, who could put pressure on the imperialists to recognize the possibilities existing for trading for the shopping list of materials listed in Hoxha’s “Albania for Sale” speech. These groups would also work for a close alliance with the “middle” “patriotic” bourgeoisie for support of Albania. What better way to ensure stability in Europe.
The basis for unity of the forces in the centrist trend of the PLA is slavish worship of “socialist Albania.” In our discussions with the “principled” Party of Labour of Albania, it was made clear to us that we would continue to be welcome for discussions, and would be considered “Friends of Albania,” as long as we never attacked the PLA. This even though we denounce the PLA’s “sister party.” the “CPC(ML),” as being an organization of agent provocateurs and a front for modern revisionism. But this never bothered the PLA, for they were interested in stringing another group along to promote Albania. The PLA never made mention of the differences between our political line and that of their party. It is clear to us now that those differences existed from the time of our first meetings, yet for the sake of our support they appeared to agree with our analysis of Canada and the world. But it is also clear that such differences make no difference even within the PLA’s fan clubs. The “CPC(ML)” has a position on Vietnam which denounces in words, the government which the PLA supports, yet this does not matter because Bains has supplied his own “international” which is acting as a bulwark for the spreading of Albanian revisionism and hysteria against China. In the United States, several foreign organizations with relations with the PLA have recognized the newly-founded CPUSA(ML) as the party of the proletariat, yet, at the same time, Bains’ group COUSML, ready to found the “Marxist-Leninist Party of the US,” was on the podium with the representatives of the PLA at Bains’ rally in March. Also present was Bains’ “party” in Britain, while in the same issue of Albania Today which published a telegram from the PLA to Bains’ special congress in 1978, (no. 40) there is a telegram from the PLA to the Communist Party of Great Britain (ML), which attended the VIIth Congress. It is clear that the PLA’s claims that there can be only one Marxist-Leninist Party in any country are just so much demagogy. What is more important is that there are as many organizations as possible which support the PLA and the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. The contradictions which are allowed by the Albanian revisionists are merely the manifestation of the “multi coloured nationalism” which is the common ideology uniting all the forces. The “multi coloured” nationalism will lead to the founding of a centrist “multi-national,” an organization bound to meet the same treacherous end as the Second International, with the justification that it is correct for proletarians of all countries to “defend” their countries against the proletarians of another country.
The watchword of the PLA’s multi-national is the watchword of Kautsky – “It is the right and duty of everyone to defend his fatherland: true internationalism consists in this right being recognized for the socialists of all nations, including those who are at war with my nation” (Quoted by Lenin, LCW 21:219). For the PLA and their menials, it is the defense of the fatherland against the “cosmopolitan” bourgeoisie, it is the promotion of reactionary nationalism in the face of the “superpowers.” but a denial of the national oppression of nations within the borders of those countries because of the effect of instability it would have. Hence the PLA indicated to us that it thought the question of the oppressed Quebecois nation was of minor importance. There is no Chinese wall separating social nationalism from social chauvinism yet social nationalism is able to hide its real face behind opposition to social chauvinism and lip service to the defense of oppressed nations by claiming support for “small countries.”
Social nationalism is a variety of centrism, which finds legitimacy today by opposing the “superpowers.” It claims to defend the interests of the “people” by supporting the nationalism of small countries. The “CPC(MD” puts forward “multi-coloured nationalism” this way: “Just as with democracy, nationalism too is based on classes and their interests. There is bourgeois and reactionary nationalism and there is the nationalism of the proletariat, proletarian internationalism.... Genuine nationalism is the nationalism of the proletariat which is proletarian internationalism....(PCDN, p. 1, 18 June 1979). Calling nationalism proletarian internationalism is not going to make it any more internationalist in character. But it is precisely this slippery manoeuvering which makes the centrists so dangerous to the cause of the world socialist revolution. Stalin warned that “Centrism must not be regarded as a spatial concept: the Rights, say, sitting on one side, the ’Lefts’ on the other, and the Centrists in between. Centrism is a political concept. It ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie within one common party. This ideology is alien and abhorrent to Leninism” (“Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation in the CPSU(B).” SW 11:293). It is incorrect to see centrists as making mistakes but moving in the right direction, or as “better” than the Right, the open social-chauvinists. To the contrary, the Centrist danger must be recognized as a greater threat to the working class movement. Lenin noted that “Engels was right when he once said that the ’honest’ opportunists are the most dangerous to the working class movement.” “Kautsky,” added Lenin, “is an example of such an opportunist” (“Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International,” LCW 23:445). Such a danger did Centrism represent that Lenin directed the main blow of the Bolsheviks against it. This is clear from Lenin’s writings, and especially those during the First World War. The Bolsheviks pursued a line of splitting from the social-chauvinists and irreconcilable struggle against the Centrists, most notably Kautsky.
The Kautskian ’Centre’ is doing more harm to Marxism than avowed social-chauvinism... to any internationalist, hostility towards neo-Kautsky ism must remain the touchstone. Only he is a genuine internationalist who combats Kautskyism, and understands that, even after its leaders pretended change of intention, the centre remains, on all fundamental issues, an ally of the chauvinists and the opportunists” (“Socialism and War,” LCW 21:327).
Stalin later discussed the struggle against centrism.
Centrism is a phenomenon that was natural in the Second International of the period before the war. There were Rights (the majority), Lefts (without quotation marks), and Centrists, whose policy consisted in embellishing the opportunism of the Rights with Left phrases and subordinating the Lefts to the Rights.
What, at that time, was the policy of the Lefts, of whom the Bolsheviks constituted the core? It was one of determinedly fighting the Centrists, of fighting for a split with the Rights (especially after the outbreak of the imperialist war) and of organizing a new revolutionary International consisting of the genuine Left, genuinely proletarian elements... the Bolsheviks could not at that time but concentrate their fire on the Centrists, who were trying to subordinate the proletarian elements to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie... the Bolsheviks were obliged at that time to advocate the idea of a split (Op. Cit., SW 11:293-94)
Can we say that this was the line pursued by the PLA since 1957 when it praised the 20th Congress of the CPSU and signed the Moscow Declaration? The struggle against modem revisionism has not been directed at the Centrists, it has been led by the Centrists, that is, by another current of revisionism.
It should have been clear to the Marxist-Leninists what was the class basis of the Khrushchev revisionists in 1956 after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. The decisions of the Congress, its theses on “peaceful coexistence,” etc., as well as the slanderous attack on the life’s work of Comrade J.V. Stalin, should have left it in no doubt that revisionists had grabbed the leadership of the Party and were turning the great socialist Soviet Union into the imperialist aggressor of Khrushchev and Brehznev.
But the PLA and CPC not only said nothing against this most treacherous act in the history of communism, but they cooperated with it, they signed joint revisionist declarations with it. Rather than taking the lead, they worked to sabotage any opposition. In the preceeding pages we have shown why that is. There were no disagreements of principle at the time.
The PLA and CPC were forced to openly attack the Khrushchevites after aid was cut off, that is, after their national interests had been directly affected. Yet even then, they were against open polemics and hoped that the differences could be resolved over a table, by discussion. Under the banner of internationalism the PLA and CPC signed and defended the revisionist Moscow Declarations of 1957 and 1960. But this was in reality the banner of conciliation and craven opportunism. Just as Kautsky was against making a complete break with the social-chauvinists in Lenin’s time, so the PLA and CPC waited and waited until the weight of Russian social-chauvinism outweighted their social-nationalism.
The same scenario was played out again in the PLA’s fraudulent struggle against Chinese social-chauvinism. Although the Chinese were clearly in the imperialist camp, having dropped any pretense of opposing the US imperialist bloc, the PLA continued to give them “proletarian internationalist” support. They continued to support “socialism” in China and the “great Marxist” Mao Tsetung.
The PLA was incapable of waging a Bolshevik struggle because it is not a Bolshevik party. They were also incapable of giving a Marxist-Leninist critique of the Chinese revisionists. Hoxha includes this description of the leaders of the CP of China in his book.
But why were China, its Communist Party and Mao Tsetung an enigma? There were an enigma because many attitudes. whether general ones or the personal attitudes of Chinese leaders, towards a series of major political, ideological, military and organizational problems vacillated, at times to the right, at times to the left. Sometimes they were resolute and at times irresolute, there were times, too, when they maintained correct stands, but more often it was their opportunist stands that caught the eye. During the entire period that Mao was alive, the Chinese policy, in general, was a vacillating one, a policy changing with the circumstances, lacking a Marxist-Leninist spinal cord. What they would say about an important political problem today would contradict tomorrow. In the Chinese policy, one consistent enduring red thread could not be found. (Imperialism and the Revolution, p. 386)
But for all this vacillating, Hoxha says “from what we knew about the activity of Mao Tsetung. we proceeded from the general idea that he was a Marxist-Leninist” (Ibid.).
If Hoxha were a Leninist, he might not have found the CP of China so enigmatic. Compare Hoxha’s description above with this from Lenin:
In speaking of the fight against opportunism, one must never forget a feature that is characteristic of present-day opportunism in every sphere, namely, its vagueness, diffuseness, elusiveness. An opportunist, by his very nature, always evades formulating an issue definitely and decisively, he seeks a middle course, he wriggles like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view, trying to “agree” with both and to reduce his differences of opinion to petty amendments, doubts, righteous and innocent suggestions, and the like. (Quoted by Stalin, Problems of Leninism, FLP, p. 334)
Hoxha and the PLA couldn’t understand the CP of China because sometimes they took revisionist positions which agreed with Albania’s and sometimes they took revisionist positions which disagreed with Albania’s. Of course, the basis for these decisions was the national interest of each country, i.e.. social-nationalism. The Albanian revisionists recognized that Mao operated on the same general basis as they did, “from what we knew about the activity of Mao Tsetung.” and, therefore, they saw Mao as they saw themselves, “we proceeded from the general idea that he was a Marxist-Leninist.” The struggle against modern revisionism which they claimed to lead was a struggle between two erroneous lines embedded in those masterpieces of conciliation, the Moscow Declarations of 1957 and 1960. The line of the Khrushchevites for “peaceful coexistence” squared off against the social-nationalist line of “national independence” from, first, the US, and later, the two “superpowers.” It is this line of “national independence” which formed the basis of the theory of “three worlds” and which is also the basis of the PLA’s line as we have shown.
The centrism of the PLA conceals the same revisionist theses of modem revisionism under a new mask. The PLA’s line carries forward the revisionist ideas of the Moscow Declarations under a mask of Orthodox Marxism and ardent defense of Stalin. But the year of Stalin proclaimed by these scoundrels is a sick joke. Where was their great defense of Stalin when the Chinese revisionists were attacking Stalin as a “70% Marxist” and where was their defense of Stalin and Bolshevism when they praised the many thoughts of Mao Tsetung. Clearly the PLA believed that the contradiction between Khrushchevite and Chinese revisionism and their brand revisionism did not have to become antagonistic and only became antagonistic after Russia and China in turn attacked Albania by cutting aid.
When the trotskyites attacked Lenin after his death, there were trotskyite agents who launched camouflaged attacks. One of these was Slutsky, who Stalin soundly repulsed and exposed.
I cannot refrain from protesting against the publication of Slutsky’s article in your magazine as an article for discussion, for the question of Lenin’s Bolshevism, the question whether Lenin did or did not wage an irreconcilable struggle, based on principle, against Centrism as a certain form of opportunism, the question of whether Lenin was or was not a real Bolshevik, cannot be made a subject of discussion (“Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism,” SW 13:87).
The CPC and PLA, like Slutsky, wanted “once again to draw people into a discussion on questions which are axioms of Bolshevism.” The question of Stalin’s Bolshevism can likewise not be made a question for discussion. But this has been precisely the result of the phony struggle against revisionism led by the Centrist. In the despair surrounding the events of recent years, Trotskyism and Khrushchevite revisionism, which should have been liquidated as any sort of a trend with any legitimacy in the working class are still alive. There has never been a split with modern revisionism such as achieved by the Bolsheviks and the Communist International.
The PLA are playing Slutsky to the Khrushchevite revisionists. Since the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, the Bolshevik Union has supported the PLA and its struggle against the theory of “three worlds.” We supported the PLA because they recognized that Canada is an imperialist country; also, they never made known their differences with our political line in our discussions, differences which we now recognize were severe. We supported the PLA because we thought it was a genuine Marxist-Leninist party, and they encouraged this by the various tricks and intrigues we have mentioned. No small part was played, as well, by the fact that for almost thirty years the Leninist-Stalinist principles have been attacked openly and covertly by every shade of revisionism. There has been no strong voice of Bolshevism to rally the genuine and sincere revolutionists.
But we have rooted out this error, and as this text shows, have fought to come to a correct understanding of the great revisionist betrayal. Needless to say, we do not yet have all the answers to the many questions which must be answered. However, we shall never stoop to the neo-trotskyite attacks on Stalin which are currently fashionable as a critique of the “roots” of revisionism. The revisionist treachery can be analyzed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin himself laid the basis for this exposure with his important work Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR which exposes many of the lines current in the social-chauvinists and centrists. To claim that Stalin is responsible for the treachery of Khrushchev. Mao or Hoxha is the basest slander.
The PLA has been operating under a stolen flag. They no longer recognize that Canada is an imperialist power, and they have endorsed all the reactionary slogans of Bains and “CPC(ML).”
The Party of Labour of Albania is not an enigma to us. It is a revisionist party under a centrist flag. It is a party with social-nationalism as its guiding ideology, and not Marxism-Leninism. It is actively working to sabotage the proletarian revolution by promoting its “multinational” of old China worshippers and provocateurs, to mislead sincere workers into an alliance with its “peace loving” “middle” bourgeoisie. It promotes the reformist schemes of the “progressive leaders” of Asia, Africa, and Latin America to take the oppression and exploitation of the oppressed peoples into their own hands.
While the Party of Labour of Albania “sternly attacks and exposes the contemptuous, disruptive and nationalist stands of the Chinese leadership towards the new Marxist-Leninist groups and parties, as well as its later attempts to use some of them for its own counter-revolutionary chauvinist aims,” (ATA, June 10, 1979) the PLA has learned this lesson from its old ally and is seeking to build a “multi coloured” international of its own for exactly the same purpose. The one colour sure to be lacking is Bolshevik red.
The struggle against social-chauvinism and opportunism waged by Lenin from the 1890’s through the First World War was one continuous struggle. The social-chauvinists who openly allied with the bourgeoisie during the war represented the same trend which promoted Economism fifteen years before. The Economists, the Mensheviks, the Liquidators and the social-chauvinists and Kautskyites were all representatives of the same bourgeois trend within the working class movement.
The crisis which the first imperialist world war created in the ranks of the Second International, and which crushed that International, proved to Lenin that a split had to be made, that no longer could the genuine Lefts be in the same party as the traitors and philistines.
To keep united with opportunism at the present time means practically to subjugate the working class to “its” bourgeoisie, to make an alliance with it for the oppression of other nations and for the privileges of a great nation; at the same time it means splitting the revolutionary proletariat of all countries (“Socialism and War,” LCW 21:311).
Lenin recognized that the split already existed, it was not the creation of the Bolsheviks and their polemics and stressed that “We are firmly convinced that it is the prime duty of a revolutionist in the present conditions to split away from the opportunists and social-chauvinists” (ibid., p. 329).
The crisis of the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, the loss of the socialist camp and the degeneration of the Communist Parties has created the need for a new split. The vacillating, Kautskyite and Centrist “multi-national” which the PLA seeks to establish for its own notorious aims must be broken with. This bog can no longer be tolerated. The Bolsheviks must break with the swamp immediately.
It is not a question of numbers, but of giving correct expression to the ideas and policies of the truly revolutionary proletariat. The thing is not to “proclaim” internationalism, but to be an internationalist in deed, even when times are most trying (“The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution,” LCW 24:82).
There are many who regard such a conference as that of Bains to be the height of internationalism. But the Bolsheviks know, and will be viciously attacked for it, that genuine internationalism means to oppose the opportunists, to break from the PLA and its revisionist politics. There are bound to be those who say we go to far, that who are we to attack the Party of Labour of Albania.
We are Bolsheviks, and our aim is the reanimation of the principles of Bolshevism, the Leninist-Stalinist principles, necessary for proletarian revolution. Let the vacillators continue in their vacillation, forever an enigma to their closet “comrades.” The Bolsheviks will continue their forward advance.
Let the dead bury their dead.
Whosoever wants to stop vacillating souls, should first stop vacillating himself (ibid., p. 84).