Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Bolshevik Union

The Party of Labor of Albania Came to Canada Under a Stolen Flag

The Theory and Practice of Albanian “Centrism”

The PLA since its Seventh Congress and, particularly, since the Editorial of Zeri i Popullit of July 7, 1977 has presented itself as the great opponent of the theory of “three worlds” and the great defender of the purity of Marxism-Leninism. The PLA tried to present itself as having always opposed this theory and having always upheld and implemented a single correct Marxist-Leninist line. It had always been difficult to obtain information about the PLA and its line and positions. This was particularly true in North America where it was difficult to obtain even Albania Today, which had only been available since 1972. In the publications that were available, the PLA was a vociferous defender of China as a socialist country, the Communist Party of China as a great Marxist-Leninist party and Mao as a great Marxist-Leninist. So it was difficult to surmise any significant differences between them. For example Hoxha said at the Sixth Congress of the PLA in 1971 that

Great People’s China and Albania, the countries which CONSISTENTLY PURSUE THE MARXIST-LENINIST LINE AND ARE BUILDING SOCIALISM. The role of the People’s Republic of China, this powerful bastion of the revolution and socialism, is especially great in the growth and strengthening of the revolutionary movement everywhere in the world.

The triumph of the great proletarian cultural revolution initiated and guided by the GREAT MARXIST-LENINIST COMRADE MAO TSE-TUNG, is a victory and a source of inspiration for the whole world revolutionary movement. The China of Mao Tse-tung remained red, emerged from the cultural revolution a hundred times stronger. (Report to the 6th Congress, 1971. pp. 13-14)

From this and dozens of similar statements it is not hard to understand that not many forces understood the great contradictions that the PLA today claims existed between China and Albania. We assumed that the PLA was capable of distinguishing if the line of another party was the same as theirs, if the social system of another country was the same as theirs, and if someone is a great Marxist-Leninist or a revisionist. Revolutionaries assumed from the very words of the PLA that it had unity of views with the CP of China. So at a time when China’s alliance with imperialism was becoming embarassing to defend, it was only Soviet revisionists and trotskyites who were attacking China. The PLA now tells us that China joined the dance of the imperialists in 1972 with Nixon’s visit. But when revisionists and trotskyites were using this event to promote themselves, the PLA stood silent. Even when Teng Hsiao-ping put forward the theory of “three worlds” at the United Nations in the spring of 1974, the PLA did not denounce it but, rather, took up all the more strongly the defense of China. In October of 1974 Hoxha said that “The greatest enemy of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism are the PEOPLES of the world HEADED by the great China of Mao Tsetung.” He went on to say:

All the peoples of the world have based their hopes for liberation, independence, and wellbeing on their own strength and on Mao’s China. They are not mistaken, and this conviction of theirs is based not on propaganda, but on a mighty reality, which shines like the light of the sun, on the construction of socialism in China, which is being realized in a correct way, according to the doctrine of Marx and Lenin and the teachings of Mao Tsetung. IT IS BASED ON THE RESOLUTE STAND of the People’s Republic of China IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA, on the concrete moral-political-economic help it gives the peoples of the world.

He then goes even further and states:

Under the leadership of her Communist Party and Chairman Mao Tsetung, Peoples China has been transformed into a powerful socialist state, with great economic and military potential and HIGH INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE AND AUTHORITY. Our people and Party wholeheartedly hail these brilliant achievements and WISH TO SEE THEM INCREASED AND MULTIPLIED, for the good of the fraternal Chinese people AND THE REVOLUTION IN THE WORLD. (Our Policy Is an Open Policy, the Policy of Proletarian Principles, Tirana 1975, pp. 27-30)

Indeed as the PLA now claims, China never was a socialist country, the CP of China was never a Marxist-Leninist Party and Mao never a Marxist-Leninist, let alone a great one. And by 1972 there can be no doubt that China had joined the dance of the imperialists. So what can be said of the “policy of proletarian principles” of the PLA in 1974? The PLA claimed its line about China was “based not on propaganda.” Therefore, it has to either be based on a complete lack of understanding of socialism and Marxism-Leninism or complete opportunism. Is it because the PLA “based their hopes for liberation, independence, and WELLBEING on... Mao’s China”?

In investigating the matter, however, it becomes obvious that the PLA had fundamental agreement with the Chinese revisionists in general and particularly over many aspects of international line. At the Seventh Congress Hoxha said “the ’second world’, the ’third world,’ the ’non-aligned world’ or the ’developing countries.’ All these terms, which refer to the various political forces acting in the world today, cover up and do not bring out the class character of these political forces, the fundamental contradictions of our epoch.” (Report, pp. 172-73) Hoxha denounces “the slogan of ’non-aligned countries’ ” but he fails to mention what he himself said in 1957. “One of the characteristics of the present international situation is the sharpening of the contradictions between imperialism and the non-aligned countries.” (Hoxha, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 658, Tirana 1975) Today Hoxha tells us now that “the Yugoslav revisionists champion the idea of ’non-aligned countries’” (Report, p. 174) but what of the PLA’s championing of the idea of “non-aligned countries”? The July 7 editorial correctly says that “the so-called ’third world’ and ’world of the non-aligned’ are as alike one another as two drops of water. They are guided by the same policy and ideology.” If we consider the PLA’s position in 1957 it is not surprising to see no contradiction with the Chinese revisionists in 1974 over the theory of “three worlds.” Hoxha said:

The states which have recently freed themselves of the imperialists yoke, like Egypt, Syria, and others, are bourgeois, but not imperialist states; they pursue the policy of safeguarding their national independence and of fighting against imperialism and colonialism. Their struggle against colonialism and imperialism draws them closer to the Soviet Union and to the socialist camp in general, but they are not socialist states, they do not belong to the socialist camp. That is why they are called independent, non-aligned states. (Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 659)

Here Hoxha and the PLA are taking up the precise line of Yugoslav and Khrushchevite revisionism. Yugoslav revisionism in the sense of speaking of “non-aligned states” but Khrushchevite revisionism in the sense that these states should be brought into the Soviet orbit. Lenin and Stalin never spoke such nonsense, as declaring that countries could be “non-aligned” and somehow stradle the great contradiction between capitalism and socialism, but apparently Hoxha understood as little about Marxism-Leninism and socialism in 1957 as he did in 1974. In 1976 Hoxha condemns the Columbo Conference of the “non-aligned” (Report, p. 174) as a fraud in terms of opposing imperialism, but yet in 1957 Hoxha praised the Bandung Conference.

The Bandung conference of Asian and African countries defined their general direction in international relations as against colonialism, for the preservation of peace, for peaceful coexistence and for collaboration among states of different social systems. OBJECTIVELY, THEIR STAND IS AGAINST IMPERIALISM. (Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 659)

This meeting of 29 Asian and African countries, however, is praised also by the Yugoslav revisionists who explain how Tito met with Nehru and Nasser (of Egypt!) in 1956 to declare that the “positions and principles” of the Bandung Conference “constitute the essence of the non-alignment policy” (“Tito – the Architect of the Non-Aligned Movement,” Socialist Thought and Practice, Yugoslavia. July-August. 1977. p. 91). It is at this Conference that the Yugoslav revisionists date the beginning of the “non-aligned movement.”

It is entirely incorrect for the PLA to try to lay the blame for the theory of “three worlds” entirely on the Chinese revisionists, it is rather endemic to modern revisionism of the Khrushchevite, Titoite, Maoite or Hoxhaite variety. It is easy, however, to understand why the PLA wants to cover up the real history of this theory. In 1956 this theory was a theory that supported imperialism. Tito used it to try and win nationalist regimes back into the imperialist fold, and Khrushchev used it to try and bring them into the Soviet social-imperialist fold. Khrushchev at this time was restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union, and he was pursuing a foreign policy that was laying the basis for his imperialist plans. Hoxha’s position of supporting the drawing of these countrie’s “closer to the Soviet Union,” was at best inadvertently supporting the growth of Soviet social-imperialism.

Although Hoxha and the PLA did break, eventually, with the Soviet Union, it certainly did not break with this revisionist theory. Both the CP of China and the PLA upheld the Moscow Declarations of 1957 and 1960 against the Khrushchevite revisionists. All three parties, the PLA, CP of China and the CPSU, signed both declarations. Later it was the accusation of the PLA and the CP of China that the CPSU was abandoning the “revolutionary principles” of these declarations. The PLA in 1962 as part of its attack on modern revisionism published an article entitled: “Let Us Hold Aloft the Revolutionary Banner of the Moscow Declarations and Protect Them From the Attacks of the Modem Revisionists.” In this article the PLA states:

These two documents contain a scientific Marxist-Leninist analysis of the deep revolutionary processes that have been going on in the world during recent decades, a generalization of the experiences of the international communist and workers” movement, and a definition of the principled position and the common tasks of all communists on the most important issues of world development. THEY CONSTITUTE A SOUND BASIS ON WHICH THE COMMUNIST AND WORKERS’ PARTIES SHOULD BUILD THEIR LINE of action in their struggle for peace national liberation, democracy, in their struggle to do away with the exploitation of man by man and to establish socialism and communism throughout the world. (Oppose Modern Revisionism and Uphold Marxist-Leninism and the Unity of the International Communist Movement, Tirana, 1964, p. 173)

From this it is to be taken that the PLA build its line on the basis of these two documents. In this same article particular attention is drawn to a statement of the i960 declaration that calls “to strengthen the collaboration with all the STATES which are not interested in the outbreak of fresh wars.’’ (Ibid., p. 179) Although the PLA in this position is denouncing ”the Titoite clique, which is an agent of imperialism, and which under the mask of ’neutrality’ and ’non-alignment’ with blocs, strives to split the national liberation movement and alienate the people’s from their struggle against imperialism“ (ibid., p. 183) they are not demarcating from the position of alliance with these ’neutral’ or ’non-aligned’ countries. The problem with Tito is he is doing it as an agent of imperialism. The PLA is not condemning the CPSU for trying to ally with these allegedly “independent” countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America but for abandoning this and not following through on it. After the quote cited above from the 1960 declaration the PLA states:

The revisionists act quite differently, quite contrary to the 1960 Moscow Declaration. Instead of mobilizing the people to defy imperialism and defend peace, instead of strengthening their vigilance and determinedly upholding the lawful rights of peoples, their freedom and independence, the modern revisionists, with N. Khrushchev’s group at the head, have almost entirely given up unmasking the aggressive, warmongering policy of the imperialists, (ibid., p. 179)

After denouncing the Titoite clique the PLA points out that “Contrary to the 1960 Moscow Declaration, N. Khrushchev tries to subjugate the national-liberation, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist struggles of the oppressed peoples to peaceful coexistence to general and total disarmament.” (ibid., p. 183) So the PLA’s disagreement with the Titoite and Khrushchevite revisionists is that they were undermining the “anti-imperialist” struggles of the “independent” countries instead of supporting them. The PLA’s point of difference with the CPSU was in upholding what the Moscow Declarations said on this question. So a close book at them is certainly warranted. It is, of course, not surprising to see that the 1957 Moscow Declaration states the same view as we have already shown Hoxha was maintaining in 1957. The Declaration says “The cause of peace is upheld by the powerful forces of our era: the invincible camp of Socialist countries headed by the Soviet Union; THE PEACE-LOVING COUNTRIES OF ASIA, AND AFRICA taking an anti-imperialist stand and forming, together, a broad peace zone.” (Declaration of Communist and Workers’ Parties of Socialist Countries, New Century Publishers, N.Y., 1957, p. 6) This Declaration also states: “The countries that have shaken off the yoke of colonialism are defending their independence and fighting for economic sovereignty, for international peace.” (ibid., p. 4) What is this but the precursor of the sadly famous theory of “three worlds” which ignores the reality of neo-colonialism and upholds any regime of reactionaries in the world because they allegedly are “defending their independence and fighting for economic sovereignty” against the “superpowers.” The class analysis of these countries is as ignored in 1957 as it was by the Chinese revisionists 20 years later when the PLA wrote the editorial “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution.”’ in 1977.

The 1960 Moscow Declaration, of course, takes up the same line but in more detail. It speaks of the “growing number of peace-loving countries of Asia. Africa and Latin America... and the neutral countries which want no share in the imperialist policy of war and advocate peaceful coexistence.” (“Documents of the Meetings of Representatives of the Communist and Workers Parties.” Peking Review, Dec. 13, 1960, p. 13) In this declaration the “national-liberation movement” is put ahead of the international proletarian revolution. ”The complete collapse of colonialism is imminent. The breakdown of the system of colonial slavery under the impact of the national-liberation movement is a development ranking second in historic importance only to the formation of the world socialist system.” (ibid., p. 13) After the Chinese revisionists said their eulogies for “the world socialist system” it wasn’t far to say the “third world is the motive force in moving history forward.” because now “the national liberation movement is a development ranking first in historical importance.” But let us be clear that when speaking of the “national-liberation movement” what is being referred to is the breaking from colonialism and the establishment of “independent countries.” This is not referring to the national-liberation struggle as the first stage of revolution, where the second stage, socialism, is immediately passed to by the proletariat after the first stage as Lenin and Stalin maintained. No, this has nothing to do with that or even, for that matter, with revolution. The 1960 Declaration explains how revolution is not even needed to obtain “independence.”

The peoples of the colonial countries win their independence both through armed struggle and by non-military methods, depending on the specific conditions in the country concerned. They secure durable victory through a powerful national-liberation movement. (ibid.)

Apparently “durable victory” is not obtained through socialism as Lenin and Stalin maintained but through consolidating capitalism. It is not ignored that “the imperialists, headed by the U.S.A., make desperate efforts to preserve colonial exploitation of the peoples of the former colonies by new methods and in new forms’’ (ibid.). It is explained how this is accomplished by ”put(ing) their puppets in power in these countries and bribe(ing) a section of the bourgeoisie” (ibid.). But the solution that is put forward is the old Menshevik theory of the necessity of capitalist development first in backward countries and socialism later, much later; in other words, never.

The urgent tasks of national rebirth facing the countries that have shaken off the colonial yoke cannot be effectively accomplished unless a determined struggle is waged against imperialism and the remnants of feudalism by all the patriotic forces of the nations united in a single national-democratic front. The national democratic tasks on the basis of which the progressive forces of the nation can and do unite in the countries which have won their freedom, are; the consolidation of political independence, the carrying out of agrarian reforms in the interest of the peasantry, elimination of the survivals of feudalism, the uprooting of imperialist economic domination, the restriction of foreign monopolies and their expulsion from the national economy, the creation and development of a national industry, improvement of the living standard, the democratisation of social life, the pursuance of an independent and peaceful foreign policy, and the development of economic and cultural co-operation with the socialist and other friendly countries, (ibid., p. 16)

For none of this is socialism apparently necessary. In light of the last 25 years of history it is exceedingly obvious why the Soviet revisionists put this forward. It was merely a ploy with which to get these countries to develop “economic and cultural co-operation” with Soviet social-imperialism so that the Soviet Union could establish neo-colonial relations under the signboard of opposing colonialism and U.S. imperialism. The Russian revisionists did not want the socialist revolution in these countries anymore than the US imperialists. Instead they wanted to see the development in these countries of state-monopoly capitalism because this was the predominant feature of the Russia economy. The Soviet Union could then penetrate their economies under the cover of state to state relations and peaceful coexistence. This is why the Declaration calls for “the creation and extension on a democratic basis of the state sector in the national economy, particularly in industry, a sector independent from foreign monopolies and gradually becoming a determining factor in the country’s economy, is of great importance in these countries.” (ibid.) And, of course, it is particularly important that the state sector be expanded and consolidated on the basis of “the development of economic and cultural co-operation with the socialist and other friendly countries.” The Chinese revisionists agreed with this because it helped them develop state capitalism and also layed the ground work for their own imperialist interests. This is why particular emphasis was placed on links with the national bourgeoisie in these countries.

A big role can be played by the national-patriotic forces, by all elements of the nation prepared to fight for national independence, against imperialism.

In present conditions, the national bourgeoisie of the colonial and dependent countries... is progressive, (ibid.)

And it is then put forward how the proletariat and peasantry should unite with the national bourgeoisie for “non-capitalist development,” a Khrushchevite euphemism for neo-colonial dependence on Russia. But this declaration also laid the basis of China’s theory of “three worlds.” “As they establish their independent states, the peoples of Africa emerge in the arena of history as a young, increasingly independent and peace-loving force” (ibid., p. 24). What is this “increasingly independent and peace-loving force” but what the Chinese revisionists now call the “third world”? A description is then given that is unmistakably the same line as the theory of “three worlds”:

The peoples who have won the right to independent statehood continue to wage a strenuous struggle against colonialism in its new forms, against the U.S. and West-German colonialists, and other oppressors, who seek at all costs to retain control of the natural resources, mines and plantations of the newly-free countries, to prevent their industrial development and to saddle them with corrupt and reactionary governments.

Brothers in countries which have freed themselves from colonialism and in countries which are fighting for their liberation! The final hour of colonialism is striking!

We Communists are with you! The mighty camp of socialist countries is with you!

Together with you. we insist on the immediate and unqualified recognition of the right of all peoples to an independent existence.

May the riches of your countries and the efforts of the working people serve the good of your peoples alone! (including the national bourgeoisie – BU)

Your struggle for full sovereignty and economic independence, for your freedom, serves the sacred cause of peace! (Ibid.)

The sacred cause of socialism seems to have been far from the minds of the representatives of 81 “Communist and Workers’ Parties” in November 1960, in Moscow. Of course, over the years, the Chinese revisionists added the Soviet Union to the list of imperialists, dropped Britain, France, etc. and even, eventually, the U.S. but the politics remained the same – to try and unite with regimes in Asia. Africa and Latin America to oppose whichever imperialism is most threatening to China’s bourgeois nationalist interests and imperialist aspirations. The PLA, however, cannot wipe its hands clean of the revisionist stain that clings to them for signing this declaration. The PLA continued to support these same revisionist politics through thick and thin with the CP of China during their contradictions with the CPSU.

Despite the fact that China was never a socialist country, the CP of China never a Marxist-Leninist party and Mao never a Marxist-Leninist, and despite the CPC’s vacillating stand towards the CPSU, the PLA left much of the leadership of the struggle against Khrushchev to the CPC. Even letting the CPC be the party to put forward “A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement” in 1963. Not only that, but the PLA stated that “our Party and our people are in FULL agreement with this important document of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.” (A Document of Great International Significance, Tirana. 1963. p. 20) Not only does the PLA stress its “full agreement” with this document, but the PLA also speaks of “the correct Marxist-Leninist line which the Communist Party of China upholds” (ibid., p. 22). And, furthermore, the PLA says “The line which the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China upholds in its letter is the general line always pursued by the international communists’ and workers’ movement. It is the line which is based on the life-giving teachings of Marxism-Leninism and on the revolutionary conclusions of the Moscow Declarations.” (Ibid., pp. 3-4)

Although this proposal has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism (see the editorial in Lines of Demarcation 9-10 for our demarcation from this document) it does, however, have a great deal in common with the Moscow Declarations and the line of the PLA. This proposal puts forward a distortion of Marxism-Leninism for the purpose of promoting servility to the bourgeois nationalist aspirations of small and backward countries. That is why this “proposal” says

The various types of contradictions in the contemporary world are concentrated in the vast areas of Asia. Africa and Latin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under imperialist rule and the storm-centers of world revolution dealing direct blows at imperialism. (Proposal-Peking. 1963. p. 12)

It is not because the Soviet revisionists were abandoning proletarian revolution and the international proletariat that the CPC was upset. It was because the Khrushchevites were abandoning the promotion of “independence” in order to create dependence on social-imperialism. But it is not a matter of the CPC bringing this up because it said nothing about social-imperialism and continued to support the “socialist camp led by Soviet Union.” What was at issue here was that the CPC wanted to break from the Soviet bloc and break from its growing dependence on the Soviet’Union. The contradiction was between the bourgeoisie in China and in Russia that were playing out their differences as a debate in the international communist movement. The CPC was as little concerned about the proletarian revolution as the CPSU; both of their interests were to crush it, but the differences lay in the fact that the CPSU wanted to crush it to establish the hegemony of Soviet social-imperialism, and the CPC wanted to crush it to establish China’s pre-eminence in the world as the leader of the backward “non-aligned” “third world” countries, which was a first step in promoting its own imperialist ambitions. This is why the CPC says in the proposal that “the whole cause of the international proletarian revolution hinges on the outcome of the revolutionary struggles of the people of these areas who constitute the over-whelming majority of the world’s population.” (Ibid. ,p. 13) In fact, it was that the whole cause of China’s imperialist aspirations depended on China’s ability to get countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America to unite with it against the US, to become a more equal partner with the Soviet Union in the “social-imperialist camp.” When the Soviet Union refused to be so generous, China was forced to try to unite these forces against “two superpowers.” What the CPC was talking about had nothing to do with revolutions of real national liberation, let alone proletarian revolution and socialism, despite their prolific use of the term “revolutionary.” As early as 1963 the CPC outlined its alliance with reactionaries against revolution.

In these areas, extremely broad sections of the population refuse to be slaves of imperialism. They include not only the workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bourgeoisie, BUT ALSO THE PATRIOTIC NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE AND EVEN CERTAIN KINGS, PRINCES, AND ARISTOCRATS, WHO ARE PATRIOTIC. (Ibid., p. 15)

So their alliance with the Shah of Iran or Pinochet should not have come as any shock to the PLA. The basis for putting forward the theory of “three worlds” is perfectly clear in this “proposal.”

The nationalist countries which have recently won political independence are still confronted with the arduous task of consolidating it... developing their national economy and culture... the patriotic national bourgeoisie continue to stand with the masses in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism and introduce certain measures of social progress. This requires the proletarian party to make a full appraisal of the progressive role of the patriotic national bourgeoisie and strengthen unity with them, (Ibid. p. 16)

The PLA’s basic agreement with this revisionist line is evident when they say, commenting on this “proposal,” that “the struggle of the peoples against the imperialists headed by those of the United States of America has now assumed a tremendous impetus in the extensive regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, which are today the weakest links in the chain of imperialist sway and regions where most active revolutionary acts of world significance are taking place.” (Op. cit., p. 9)

For these opportunists “revolutionary acts” can be anything from actual armed struggle to some generalissamo shifting his alliance from one imperialism or another. This has allowed China and Albania to call for “revolutions” where the reactionary regime in power is against their nationalist interests and support any reactionary regime where it serves their national interests. Their position has nothing to do with supporting any real revolutionary struggle. This is why they have completely abandoned the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the national bourgeoisie in oppressed nations, colonies and dependent countries. They may cite them when they have a contradiction with some ruling clique but they ignore them when they have an interest in supporting another clique of reactionaries. These opportunists act as if imperialism stood still in light of what was happening in the backward countries and colonies and that imperialism is immovably hostile to all national movements and makes no concessions whatsoever, and, therefore, any contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and imperialism is a sign of patriotism and a desire for national liberation on the part of the national bourgeoisie. Nothing could be further from Marxism-Leninism. Lenin makes it clear how “the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations.” (“Report of the Commission on the National and the Colonial Question,” LCW 31:242)

It is precisely for the purpose of crushing revolution and trying to prevent “converting the colonies and dependent countries from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution.” (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, FLP, p. 6) It is for this reason that Lenin speaks of “a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often – perhaps in most cases – the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes.” (Op. cit.) It is for this reason that Lenin said “the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie” (Ibid.). This is, of course, very different than the CP of China’s position supported by the PLA that the proletarian parties “make a full appraisal of the progressive role of the patriotic national bourgeoisie and strengthen unity with them.” (Op. cit.)

Sixty years ago Lenin said this was true “perhaps even in most cases”; world history has not been frozen since then. This conclusion was reached through the concrete experience of the Communist International. This conclusion was reached at a time when there was a revolutionary upsurge and when the Bolshevik revolution was gaining great popularity among the oppressed nations. The imperialist bourgeoisie was only beginning to make its rapprochement with the national bourgeoisies. The phenomena of neo-colonialism is, in fact, the widespread use of this rapprochement where the imperialists will willingly, or after some struggle, grant political independence providing that there are arrangements for continued economic subjugation. This has become even more true with the collapse of the socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union. The socialist camp became another imperialist bloc, so the national bourgeoisie no longer had a socialist market to orientate towards. Instead, there was a new imperialist bloc to win over the national bourgeoisie that is in contradiction with the western bloc of imperialists. So what Lenin said on this question is even more true today because “perhaps even in most cases” has become – perhaps in virtually all cases. As Lenin said:

The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations persistently utilize the slogans of national liberation to deceive the workers;... in their foreign policy they strive to come to terms with one of the rival imperialist powers for the sake of implementing their predatory plans. (“The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” LCW 22:148)

This is even more true today where the opportunists give credence to the very coming to terms with the imperialist powers and call it “anti-imperialism.” Things like the “new international economic order” are an attempt to reach terms that are a little more acceptable to the national bourgeoisie, in other words, better pay for joining imperialism in crushing “all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes.”

Like the opportunists, “we find the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations talking national revolt, while in practice it enters into reactionary compacts with the bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation behind the back of, and against, its own people.” (“A Caricature of Marxism,” LCW 23:61) But not necessarily behind the backs or against the bourgeois nationalist interests of China and Albania. Both China and Albania, from the time of their split from the Soviet Union, have championed the cause of the national bourgeoisie or at least those national bourgeois which they had an interests in championing. In 1975 the PLA stated

A new phenomenon is occurring in the world which is exerting increasing weight on the present development of international life. We are referring to the struggle waged by the developing nations to ensure their complete and effective sovereignty over their natural resources and the establishment of a just international economic order. (Albania Today, no. 2, 1975, p. 42)

The PLA, just like the CPC, promoted the idea that “a just international economic order” is possible under imperialism by obtaining “complete and effective sovereignty over their natural resources.” Even in 1976, in the issue of Albania Today proceeding the Seventh Congress, it says:

The old international relations based on discrimination, exploitation and plunder by imperialism and social-imperialism are not eternal. The peoples are objecting to them ever more forcefully. In struggle for the defense of their national interests, the developing countries are strengthening the cooperation among them, they are nationalizing companies one after another, and are putting their national resources under their own control. (Albania Today, no. 5, 1976, p. 47)

So the PLA is telling the world that the “discrimination, exploitation and plunder by imperialism and social-imperialism” can be ended, not by international proletarian revolution in the advanced and backward countries, but by strengthening the cooperation among the national bourgeoisie and ruling cliques of the allegedly “developing countries” and by the nationalization of foreign companies and control of natural resources. And which class benefits from this – certainly not the proletariat and poor peasantry – only the national bourgeoisie.

Stalin said it has “become obvious to all that the national bourgeoisie was striving not for the liberation of ’its own people’ from national oppression, but for liberty to retain its privileges and capital” (“The October Revolution and the National Question,“ Selected Works, p. 103). This is exactly what the imperialists tried to promote in the poor countries – reformism. The imperialists wish to promote the concept that imperialism can be reformed and the national bourgeoisie can achieve “liberty to retain its privileges and capital” in return for crashing revolution. The Chinese and Albanian revisionists jump on the band wagon and proclaim that imperialism can be reformed out of existence and the proletariat should support its “patriotic national bourgeoisie” in its struggle “for liberty to retain its privileges and capital.” The PLA was as big at promoting this as the Chinese revisionists.

The developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have become an important force and are playing an increasingly active role in the international arena. The 6th special session of the UN General Assembly devoted to the problems of development and raw materials, the Caracas Conference on sea problems, as well as the Bucharest Conference on the problems of population ’were a new expression of the determined efforts of many countries, and particularly of the developing ones, to become the sole masters of their national economies and natural resources, to solve by themselves the problems of the increase of the material and cultural well being of their peoples and reject and all imperialist interference and control. (Albania Today, no. 1, 1975, p. 55)

What treachery to tell the proletariat and peasantry to leave it in the hands of the bourgeoisie “to solve by themselves the problems of the increase of material and cultural well being of the peoples”; fools that we are, we always thought that you needed socialism to accomplish this, but the PLA, that beacon of truth, is telling us that the national bourgeoisies can accomplish this by “Make the Rich Countries Pay!” The proletariat and peasantry in these “developing” countries can just lay back and enjoy the sun because, not only is the bourgeoisie going to provide their material and cultural well being, the bourgeoisie has the power to ”realize their national aspirations.“

The developing countries are becoming ever more conscious that their struggle will be protracted and difficult one, but they have all the means to realize their national aspirations. (Ibid, pp. 55-56)

The PLA can accuse the Chinese revisionists all they want for not making a class analysis of countries and supporting reactionary pro-imperialist regimes, but what of its support of Latin American military dictatorships?

Many Latin American STATES have taken defensive measures, not only economic ones, but also security measures. Only in this way can the broad working masses and all the progressive forces of Latin America carry through their struggle for real national independence and social progress. (Albania Today, no. 1, 1974, p. 48)

In the summer of 1976 the PLA was still “vigorously defending” this line. The Yugoslav revisionists were promoting the “non-aligned” countries, the Chinese revisionists the “third world” countries, and the PLA the “developing countries”

The resolute stand of the peoples of the developing countries to oppose the policy of discrimination and pressure which the great powers implement in international economic relations, and to put their national resources under their complete sovereignty, by strengthening their unity, collaboration, and mutual assistance, in order to serve the rapid and independent development of each country according to the principle of self-reliance, plays an important role in this direction. Very significant in this direction is the unity and collaboration of the oil producing countries which, with the imposing of the oil embargo and the price policy they are implementing for this commodity, show that the developing countries have very powerful weapons in their hands to defend their rights, to assist, each other in the development of their national industries and to put an end to their dependence on and exploitation by foreign capital. (Albania Today, no. 3, 1976, p. 56)

Lenin taught us that one of the characteristic features of imperialism is the exportation of capital and how the imperialists do everything to expand their domination of the colonies and dependent countries. But the PLA wants us to believe that these countries can “end their dependence on and exploitation by foreign capital” not through anti-imperialist revolution but through the activities of OPEC! And the PLA has the incredible nerve to try and say that all these activities by the national bourgeoisie, oil sheiks and feudalists are activities which represent the “people” of the “developing countries.” Lenin, for his part, demanded that Communists not ignore class distinctions in the oppressed nations by speaking of “the people as a whole.” The Communist Party, wrote Lenin, “must bare itself... on a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, of the toilers and exploited, and the general concept of the people as a whole, meaning the interests of the ruling class.” (“Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Question.” original translation. The Communist International. 1932. p. 274)

The PLA supports the bourgeoisie in these countries and ignores the fact that “the domination of finance capital, as of capital in general cannot be abolished by any kind of reforms” (Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (THESES)” LCW 22:145) But Enver Hoxha, a few months after Teng’s speech, totally interrelates these “reforms” of the national bourgeoisie with the question of revolution. Hoxha says: “The revolution, the struggle for political and economic independence, constitute a continuous historical process. The present conditions of social development of the world push them forward with an increasingly greater force and make them indispensable. This constitutes also a sure guarantee for their victory.” (Speech of Oct. 3, 1974, quoted in Albania Today, no. 1, 1975. p. 54) The PLA tries to pass off the struggle for privileges from imperialism by the national bourgeoisie and other reactionary classes in the so-called “developing countries” as the path of national liberation. Stalin stated the obvious, which apparently escaped Hoxha, that

It became obvious that the emancipation of the labouring masses of the oppressed nationalities and the abolition of national oppression was inconceivable without a break with imperialism, without the labouring masses overthrowing ’their own’ national bourgeoisie and taking power themselves. (“The October Revolution and the National Question,” Selected Works, p. 100)

This does not mean that the proletariat might not make certain tactical alliances with the national bourgeoisie, but this is for the purpose of advancing the revolution, not enriching the bourgeoisie as with the PLA’s theory about “developing countries.” Communists support “the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement of the workers and peasants in backward countries or among backward nationalities.” (Lenin, “Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Question,’’ LCW 31:146)

Both the CPC and the PLA have tried to make themselves sound revolutionary, and, typical of all opportunists and revisionists, they try to paint reformism in revolutionary colours and to tail the spontaneity of reformism as the revolutionary wave of the future. But nowhere is their servility to the bourgeoisie made clearer than when they have to take a stand on events in the real world. When Egypt, under the leadership of Anwar Sadat, dissolved a friendship treaty with Russia and expelled Russian penetration into the country, the theoreticians of “three worlds” were overcome with joy. The CPC extolled

Egypt’s bold decision to abrogate the Egyptian – Soviet friendship and co-operation treaty and its victory in countering Soviet social-imperialist threats, intimidation, disruption and sabotage are a new development in the Egyptian people’s struggle to safeguard their national independence and state sovereignty, and a new contribution to the cause of unity in struggle by the hundreds of millions of people of the third world against hegemonism. (Peking Review, April 23, 1976. p. 5)

And what of the PLA? In this situation did they somehow distinguish themselves from the Chinese revisionists who promote Anwar Sadat as carrying out the struggle of hundreds of millions of people? We let the PLA answer:

The decision of Egypt to annul the Soviet-Egyptian Treaty and expel the ships of the naval fleet of the Soviet Union from its ports, is a bold act in defense of its national independence and state sovereignty. This step of the Egyptian Government. which has been approved and hailed by all the revolutionaries and peoples of the world... (Albania Today, no. 3, 1976, p. 59)

Revolutionaries do not hail Sadat and his reactionary regime. They call for its overthrow by the workers and peasants. Revolutionaries knew that Sadat would turn around and sell out to US imperialism just as he has done. But for Hua Kuo-feng and the Chinese revisionists “the Egyptian government and peoples have adhered to a policy of non-alignment, supported the national-liberation struggles of the peoples of Asia and Africa and made valuable contributions to the third world’s cause of unity against imperialism and hegemonism.” (Peking Review, April 23, 1976, p. 8) And it is the same for the PLA who said that they “welcome this just and wise decision of the Government of Egypt. ... There is no doubt that from their bitter experience the Egyptian people and their leaders have drawn valuable lessons in regard to the resolute defense of the freedom and sovereignty of their country, and not allowing any kind of naval fleet of any superpower, which may present itself in the guise of an ally and friend to enter their ports.” (Albania Today, no. 3, 1976, p. 19) Actually “there is no doubt” that “their leaders” did not learn from “their bitter experience” because not only is the US sixth fleet welcome today, but Sadat has offered to take the place of the Shah of Iran as the US’s gendarme of the middle east for the right price. The Egyptian workers and peasants could tell the PLA a great deal about how Sadat’s regime has engaged in the “defence of freedom” by suppressing it in Egypt. They could also tell the PLA how Sadat and Company have defended the “sovereignty of their country” by selling out to one and then another “superpower.” And the Palestinian people could tell them a great deal about how Sadat has “vigorously supported” their national liberation struggle by selling it out for a deal with the Israelis to get back the Sinai. Sadat sold them out for a few miles of sand and some oil wells. But the PLA is obviously not interested in listening as they have obviously prefered the national bourgeoisie to the workers and peasants because they have praised its “non-alignment” since at least 1957.

The PLA’s primary concern had nothing to do with revolution or national liberation, but everything to do with their desire to not have the Soviet fleet on their southern flank. This is made obvious in the same article where they draw special attention to Hoxha’s Oct. 1974 speech, cited before, where he tries to enlighten other countries that are neighbors of Albania against the danger of ’superpower“ fleets in the Mediterranian. The article states how “this speech should be understood correctly by those countries who provide facilities for the fleets of the superpowers because nobody can deny the simple fact which anyone can see, that if for example, in some crisis the Soviet social-imperialists, eventually decide to attack Albania by sea, it is easier for them to come and do this from the ports of neighbouring countries than to set out from the Mediterranean and pass through the Ontranto Channel.” (op. cit. p. 60)

Indeed the PLA’s concept of “developing countries” and the CPC’s concept of the “third world” are as alike as two drops of water and so is the foreign policy of the two countries when both of their national interests are served. Everyone knows that the PLA broke from the CPC and its theory of “three worlds,” but contrary to how the PLA tries to paint it, this was not a split over Marxist-Leninist principle, it was rather a split over national interest. It is incredible fraudulance for the PLA to promote the concept of “developing countries” right up to the eve of the Seventh Congress and then at the Seventh Congress denounce this concept and yet so pompously proclaim that the PLA “has always maintained a correct and principled stand in complete accord with the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, our national interests, the interests of the revolution and liberation of the peoples.” (Report, p. 158). This statement would only have truth if it read that the PLA “has always maintained a... stand in complete accord with... our national interests.” We have demonstrated that the PLA upholds the same basic revisionist ideology as not only the CPC but also the Khrushchevite and Titoite revisionists. Each one applies it differently on the basis of “maintaining a stand in complete accord with our national interests.” This can be seen in the PLA’s stand at its Seventh Congress.

Hoxha explains how imperialism “intends to hold in complete or partial dependence MANY states belonging to what is called the ’second world,’ the ’third world,’ the ’non-aligned world’ or the ’developing countries’” (Ibid, p. 172) – “many” but far from all! For the PLA the problem is that “these terms conceal the real situation in the majority of these countries.” The problem for the PLA is that the Yugoslav and Chinese theories end up in calling for collaboration with Albania’s enemies. The problem with the theory of “three worlds” is that it didn’t use a “class criterion” in promoting unity with Yugoslavia, Israel, as well as encouraging Greece, Turkey and Italy to stay in NATO to oppose the Soviet Union and in encouraging the presence of the American fleet in the Mediterranean. But in the case of the PLA they applied the “class criterion” in allying with Egypt and Sadat. You see the “class criterion” has nothing to do which class is in power in a given country. No, it depends on their foreign policy. As Hoxha puts it“regarding the assessment of the policy pursued by various states and governments, the Marxists proceed again from the class criterion, from the stands these governments and countries maintain towards imperialism and socialism, towards their own people and reaction.” (Ibid, p. 173) In other words, if a country opposes the countries Albania has a particular contradiction with and maintains a friendly stand towards Albania, then they are to be supported and united with; if they don’t, then Albania attacks them for suppressing their own people and for being reactionaries. You see, Vietnam is opposing Chinese imperialism (so ignore its links with Russian imperialism); it maintains a friendly stand towards Albania (so ignore its wide spread repression against its people, the thousands and thousands fleeing, the thousands and thousands deported). Kampuchea is a different case. It is allied with Chinese imperialism (ignore its opposition to Russian imperialism). It is hostile to Albania (so play up its fascist, bloodthirsty repression of its people). This is an example of how Hoxha and the PLA use the “class criterion” to support the “just” stand of the Vietnamese government and condemn the reactionary stand of the Pol Pot clique – very scientific indeed!

It is not that the PLA is opposed to unity with countries of the “third world,” “the non-aligned world,” or the “developing countries.” It is that they are opposed to unity with all of them because this is not Albania’s national interest. Hoxha says:

Our Party is of the opinion that the peoples must be told openly about the situations, because it is only thus that their true unity, THE UNITY OF THE TRULY ANTI-IMPERIALIST AND PROGRESSIVE STATES AND GOVERNMENTS IS AIDED. In order to unite the peoples in the fight for freedom, independence and social progress, against any oppression and exploitation by whomsoever, first it is necessary to establish the dividing line, to make clear who is their chief enemy, against whom they must unite. (Report, p. 175)

Once again we see the PLA equating the people with states and governments. So the PLA wants to unite these “progressive states and governments... in the fight for freedom, independence and social progress.” Best, however, not to be to specific about who these countries are because this depends on the vagaries of Albanian foreign policy. Obviously Egypt and the Sadat government were one, but now that it is becoming the gendarme of the US with Chinese planes, best not say too much, because Sadat might develop a contradiction with the Chinese and become once again “truly anti-imperialist.”

The problem for the PLA with Chinese foreign policy is not the revisionist essence of the policy, this they have been united on for years; it is that China wanted to apply this to only one “superpower,” not both. This obviously went against Albania’s national interest, especially when China began to develop warm relations with Tito and Yugoslavia. But the revisionist ideas that Hoxha has had in common with Tito, Khrushchev and Mao did not change at the Seventh Congress. The path to “freedom, independence and social progress” still lay through alliance with the “truly anti-imperialist” “developing countries.” Hoxha explains how the “superpowers” are “against the peoples and countries that want to establish sovereignty over their own national assets, that fight for justice and equality in world exchanges and economic relations.” (Ibid, p. 176) In other words the contradiction in the world is between the superpowers and the “truly anti-imperialist” national bourgeoisies who want to engage in a “national liberation struggle” to reform imperialism by obtaining “equality in world exchanges and economic relations.” And Hoxha continues to promote the idea that imperialism can be reformed out of existence.

But this plunder and savage exploitation cannot go on forever. Now ECONOMIC DECOLINIZATTON has been placed on the order of the day, and there is nothing which can stop this NEW REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS which has emerged on the world stage. The peoples have the undeniable right to establish complete sovereignty over their natural resources and to nationalize them. However protracted and fierce the resistance and counter attack of the imperialists and other exploiters may be. NOTHING can prevent attainment of this objective. Nothing can stop the struggle of the peoples for equality in the field of international exchanges, and to ensure that the income obtained from the sale of raw materials is used to develop their industry and culture and improve their life. (Report, p. 176)

This shows what a fraud the PLA’s claims are that their line is based on Lenin’s theory of imperialism and that they believe we live in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution; in reality, the PLA thinks we live in the era of “superpowers” and “economic decolonization,” a “new revolutionary process.” Like all revisionists the PLA uses a great deal of Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, but they deform the essence of Marxism-Leninism and instead substitute reformism and alliance with the bourgeoisie in practice. When the PLA talks about “national liberation,” they mean this in the terms of the national bourgeoisie. As Stalin said, it has “become obvious that the national bourgeoisie was striving not for the liberation of ’its own people’ from national oppression, but for liberty to squeeze profits out of them, for liberty to retain its privileges and capital.” (“The October Revolution and the National Question.” Selected Works, p. 103) And when Hoxha calls for proletarian internationalism, he does not call for the proletariat to support the struggle of “the labouring masses overthrowing ’their own’ national bourgeoisie and taking power themselves.” (Ibid., p. 100) No, Hoxha has something quite different in mind. Hoxha says:

The struggle of the peoples for economic independence is spearheaded against the ’ superpowers, against the monopolies of the imperialist states against the multinational companies. Therefore the proletariat, all those who are for the revolution and socialism, must closely link their struggle with the struggle of the peoples for freedom and independence. This can only be done by resolutely struggling against the bourgeoisie of one’s own country, by struggling against imperialism and predatory war. This is also the most effective and direct aid the proletariat can give the liberation movements of the peoples. {Report, p. 177)

We have already seen how Hoxha calls on the Canadian proletariat to struggle against the bourgeoisie, not calling for its overthrow, but calling to unite with the “middle bourgeoisie” to make 45 families “pay.” Here Hoxha is calling on the proletariat in Canada not to unite with the revolutionary struggle of the labouring masses, but to unite with their enemies, the national bourgeoisies, to make the “superpowers” and mutinationals “pay” them more. This is what Hoxha tries to pass off as “the struggle of the peoples for freedom and independence.” We will see later how the PLA “profits” off this struggle, but their stand is a complete violation of proletarian internationalism. After having experienced, however, the PLA’s total betrayal of and treachery towards the proletariat in Canada, we are not surprised to see this is the PLA’s stand towards our class brothers throughout the world. But for the story of the PLA’s betrayal of and treachery towards the international proletariat, we only have to look at the practice of the PLA since the Seventh Congress. For the purposes of the expose, we will concentrate on this betrayal and treachery in Africa, Iran and Vietnam. There could be many other examples, but it is these places that have particularly occupied the attention of the world because of the struggles that have occurred and this is where the PLA’s line is put to the test of practice instead of the empty words and revisionist phrase mongering they usually try to get away with.