The Workers' Advocate




March 20, 1984

Volume 14, Number 3


From the resolutions of the 2nd Congress of the MLP

* Solidarity with socialist Albania.................................... 11
* Salute the Marxist-Leninists of the world...................... 12
* Work for the strengthening of the international Marxist-Leninist movement............................................. 12
* On relations between Marxist-Leninist parties.............. 14
On comrade Enver Hoxha's speech of November 10, 1982.................................................................................. 17
On comrade Enver Hoxha's report to the 8th Congress of the PLA of November, 1981......................................... 32
Reference material from the Albanian press.................... 44
Extracts from comrade Enver Hoxha's speech of November 10, 1982.......................................... 59

Our differences with the Party of labor of Albania


On the Role of the PLA in the World Marxist-Leninist Movement

Resolution of the Second Congress of the MLP,USA

Solidarity With Socialist Albania,the Only Genuinely Socialist Country in the World Today

From the Resolutions of the 2nd Congress of the MLP,USA On the Situation in the International Marxist-Leninist Movement The Second Congress Salutes the Marxist-Leninist Communists of the World

Work for the Strengthening of the International Marxist-Leninist Movement

On Comrade Enver Hoxha's Speech of November 10, 1982

On Comrade Enver Hoxha's 'Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA' of November, 1981

Reference Material from the Albanian Press

Reference Material:

From Comrade Enver Hoxha's Speech of November 10, 1982

Our differences with the Party of labor of Albania

This special issue of The Workers' Advocate is devoted to documents examining the stand and views of the Party of Labor of Albania towards controversial questions in the international Marxist-Leninist .movement. It includes resolutions from the Second Congress of our Party. It includes documents from the internal discussion that our Party has carried on for several years now on certain stands from the PLA that have worried us. And it includes a selection of excerpts from the news bulletin of the Albanian Telegraphic Agency (ATA) that gives some idea of the present outlook of the PLA on various world issues.

Our Party has active revolutionary solidarity with the PLA. In the U.S. it is our Party that rallies the workers in the factories and the revolutionary activists in the mass movements in support of socialist Albania. In the U.S. it is our Party that fights against "three worldism," Maoism, Soviet revisionism and liquidationism and that popularizes the contributions the PLA has made to international communism.

The Second Congress of our Party reaffirmed this historic stand. It evaluated highly the historic contributions of the PLA. And it held that it is the responsibility of all class conscious workers and communists to uphold and defend socialist countries wherever they exist, and that socialist Albania is today the only genuinely socialist country in the world. The Second Congress held that the example of socialist life inspires the workers all around the world, showing that it is possible to live without exploiters, racists and militarists.

But the Second Congress also stressed that defense of socialism in Albania does not mean repeating everything that the PLA says, good or bad. No, true defense of socialism requires something far more arduous and far more valuable. It requires work to push forward the proletarian revolutionary movement. Lenin, ever the stalwart champion of proletarian internationalism, taught that:

"There is one, and only' one, kind of real internationalism, and that is - working wholeheartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one's own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception." (From pt. 16 of "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, Draft Platform for the Proletarian Party," Collected Works, Vol., 24, p.75)

It is clear that such internationalist work to build the revolutionary movement must be conscious work. This requires that every Marxist-Leninist party, every communist, every class conscious worker and revolutionary activist, study for themselves the basic questions of political strategy and tactics and support what is revolutionary and criticize what is mistaken. One cannot seriously speak of support of socialism in Albania or of defense of the interests of the international Marxist-Leninist movement unless one makes the most serious and painstaking study of the lessons taught by the history and views of the PLA, assimilating what is correct and criticizing what is wrong.

Our differences with the PLA concern its stands on current events and various of its views of the last several years on the strategy and tactics for the international Marxist-Leninist movement.

The opening years of the 1980' s have seen many vexed questions and controversies arise inside the international Marxist-Leninist movement. These disagreements, taken as a whole, concern basic questions of revolutionary work and analysis. The powerful impetus developing in the international movement in the latter 1970's at the height of the struggle against Chinese revisionism has been largely dissipated. The international Marxist-Leninist movement has not been able to fight with sufficient vigor against the diverse rightist, revisionist and liquidationist forces that seek to destroy it; in fact, liquidationist and petty-bourgeois nationalist views have had some influence inside the international Marxist:Leninist movement. How the present controversies are resolved will affect for some time to come whether the international Marxist-Leninist movement regains its revolutionary momentum or suffers further setbacks.

In this situation the PLA has been, in the early 1980's, advocating wrong answers to the controversial questions in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. It has retreated from its militant stand of the latter 1970's. In the latter 1970's the PLA defied the pressure of the imperialist-revisionist world and of Chinese revisionist blackmail in order to open up the period of the worldwide condemnation of the "three worlds" theory and Maoism. The major publications of the PLA had an electrifying effect on the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Although even then there were certain weaknesses in the stands of the PLA, nevertheless the PLA played a leading role in urging the entire world movement forward. But now, in the early years of the 1980's, the PLA has failed to carry the struggle against revisionism through to the end. As a result, its views and actions have degenerated.

Therefore, it is necessary to soberly evaluate the present weaknesses in the stands of the PLA as part of the struggle to resolve the differences within and strengthen the international Marxist-Leninist movement.

Our Party has tried repeatedly to clarify the issues at stake through private discussions with the PLA, but this has proved unsuccessful. The PLA has been unwilling to have discussions on a true basis of equality and unwilling to ponder seriously criticisms of itself. We have also kept close watch on how other Marxist-Leninist parties were dealing with the controversial issues. At the Second Congress of our Party, we summed up years of paying special attention to the question of the norms of relations between parties. We studied the Leninist teachings on this question and we evaluated the recent experience of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Our general conclusions are contained in the resolution entitled "On the Relations Between the Marxist-Leninist Parties." Furthermore, the Second Congress also held that, at this time, the Leninist method of resolving the differences and of mobilizing all communists and class conscious workers to decide the vital issues of revolutionary work requires a public discussion of the stands of the PLA, the weaknesses as well as the accomplishments.

It should be borne in mind that the views and actions of the PLA on world events and on the affairs of the international Marxist-Leninist movement - just as the overall work and stands of other parties - cannot be regarded as simply the private concern of Albanians. This would mean to deny that the Marxist-Leninist movement is a world movement, to deny that the study of the PLA's views and experience has had a world significance, and to deny the important role that socialist countries must always play in the world proletarian movement. Or it would mean to give the PLA a special position above criticism. In either case, it would, in effect, ban any thorough discussion of the present differences in the international Marxist-Leninist movement.

But communists must not shy away from the discussion of the controversial issues in the international movement; instead they must tackle them head on. And this discussion of the differences in the international Marxist-Leninist movement must take place according to the principles that the PLA itself once put forward: There must be no division of the Marxist-Leninist parties into leaders and followers. There must be no parties that stand above criticism and whose views must be accepted on faith, and no parties whose only role is to applaud at the prompting of others. Instead all parties and Marxist-Leninist communists around the world must take full and conscious part in settling the questions of revolutionary strategy and tactics.

Our Party is working in various ways to strengthen the international Marxist-Leninist movement. We have thrown ourselves heart and soul into fighting the various revisionist currents; we have enthusiastically carried news about the views and activities of other parties and fervently supported the revolutionary movement in their countries; we have taken part in or supported the various international meetings and rallies; we have worked hard to develop contact at various levels with other parties; and we have pondered the controversial issues as they have arisen. The Second Congress of our Party came to the conclusion that, in order to help resolve these issues, it is essential to speak openly and publicly on our views of the present stands of the PLA. This issue of The Workers' Advocate is devoted to opening this discussion.

On the Present World Situation

The world situation in the early 1980's has its own particular characteristics. The world crisis of capitalism (both Western capitalism and revisionist-style capitalism) is deepening, undermining the economic and political stability of the former strongholds of imperialism and reaction. But, at the same time, although revolution marches forward in various individual countries, the world situation is still characterized overall by the capitalist-revisionist offensive, which poses many dangers. The proletariat and toiling masses are, as well, facing tremendous difficulties in getting organized and in overcoming the leaden weight of the reformists and revisionists and other opportunist trends. China's alliance with imperialism and other factors help disorganize the masses and have a depressing effect on world politics.

The revolutionary movement can and will overcome these obstacles. The continual fiascos of imperialism and social-imperialism, and the revolutionary upsurges that keep breaking out, all point to the fact that it is the world proletarian movement which will ultimately step forward with giant strides. But the forces of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism have to judge the present world situation both soberly and confidently, take account of its specific features and of the particular forms that the mass struggle is now taking, and set bold but sound plans and policies to build the revolutionary movement and transform the present situation.

Some Features of the Weaknesses In the Present Stands of the PLA

The PLA appears to have a difficult time dealing with this situation. It does not seem to understand how to take advantage of the revolutionary factors in today's situation which counteract the difficulties and obstacles. The revolutionary struggle does not proceed in a straight line; it suffers setbacks; and, in times like these, it often seems that the struggle takes one step forward only to subsequently take two steps back. Yet, for all that, the revolutionary class struggle keeps breaking out to defy the imperialists, who announce in vain, for the one-millionth time, that "Marxism-Leninism is dead."

But the PLA seems to have lost its bearings. A characteristic feature of the Albanian press is that, in the 1980's, it has lost track of the revolution. It does not do much to exploit the revolutionary events of our times and is altogether silent on many developments.

A particular example of the present Albanian passivity is the PLA's stand on the international Marxist-Leninist movement. While in the latter 1970's the PLA championed the new Marxist-Leninist parties and stepped up their encouragement for these parties, in the early 1980's the Albanian press seems to have almost lost interest in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. When it mentions the Marxist-Leninist parties, its emphasis tends to be on pointing out that the world's Marxist-Leninists support Albania.

In fact, the international Marxist-Leninist movement is. alive and active, and Marxist-Leninist activists are organizing, fighting, suffering persecution and giving their lives heroically all around the world. But you wouldn't know it from the Albanian press.

Another striking example of Albanian passivity is Central America. The ground is burning under the feet of U.S. imperialism and the local exploiters in EI Salvador, the Nicaraguan people continue to defy U.S. imperialism and the counter-revolutionary plots of the local big bourgeoisie, and a tenacious struggle continues on a smaller scale elsewhere in Central America. Yet the PLA doesn't campaign for the world's people to support the struggle in Central America, nor does it discuss the lessons of the struggle and work to help the peoples of Central America free themselves from the social-democrats, revisionists and other opportunists. Instead, ATA has praised the role of the Mexican government towards this region, which means to praise the Mexican big bourgeoisie which stands 'at the head of the counter-revolutionary schemes of the Contadora group. And in so far as the Albanian press takes notice of Nicaragua, it completely ignores the class struggle in Nicaragua and the role of their fraternal Marxist-Leninist comrades.

The PLA is similarly passive about the mass struggles elsewhere in Latin America, the upsurge in the Philippines, and so forth. It barely mentioned the mass upsurge against imperialist war preparations in the imperialist metropolises. And more examples could be given.

Nowadays, instead of highlighting the class struggle and the revolution, the Albanian press and diplomacy appears to be involved in accommodating itself to the existing political situation in various countries. The PLA now praises a wide variety of bourgeois regimes and especially looks to the forces of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalism. Insofar as the PLA actually carries this out, it is the same kind of abandonment of the standpoint of the revolutionary class struggle as the reformists usually justify under the guise of "practical politics" and "realism." The PLA does not use such crude justifications directly in its press, but, in essence, its reasoning appears to amount to the same thing.

An extreme example of the weaknesses of the PLA's stands can be seen in its attitude towards Turkey, Iran and Argentina. These examples are dealt with repeatedly in the documents in this issue of The Workers' Advocate.

In Iran, the PLA at first gave vigorous support to the revolution that overthrew the Shah and brought out the role of the proletariat. But the Iranian revolution encountered sharp obstacles. The Khomeini regime consolidated itself and eventually became a full-fledged regime of counter-revolutionary butchers. Meanwhile the PLA abandoned the stand of the revolutionary struggle of the toilers and began an intense campaign in favor of the Khomeini regime. To this day, it identifies the Iranian revolution with the counter-revolutionary Khomeini regime. It accommodates itself to the presently existing political reality in Iran rather than uphold the interest of the Iranian toilers. And it pays no attention in its press to the fate of the fraternal Iranian Marxist-Leninists.

Turkey is one of the longstanding weaknesses of Albanian policy. In the early 1980's the PLA has gone all-out to embrace the Turkish military dictators. The Albanian Telegraphic Agency has more coverage of Turkey than any other area of the world. It ignores altogether the suffering of the Turkish people and of the fraternal Turkish Marxist-Leninists. It has held aloof from world campaigns of protest against the executions of progressive people and Marxist-Leninists by the Turkish butchers. This is a blatant example of accommodation to the existing political situation at the expense of the revolution.

The reactionary war between the British imperialist robbers and the Argentine fascist generals over the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands in 1982 was an extreme example of replacing revolution with the search for some nationalism to support. For the PLA, the only question that counted was who owned the Malvinas Islands. It utterly ignored the standpoint of the struggle of the Argentine people for revolution. It ignored its own words, in Imperialism and the Revolution, about revolution being the order of the day for most of the countries in Latin America, even though the whole world knew that the Argentine generals had declared war in order to prevent an imminent revolutionary upsurge.

The PLA's vacillation towards replacing the class struggle with petty-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalism is shown in its attitude to Europe. It has separated the struggle against the superpowers from the struggle against the European bourgeoisie. Its press is full of talk of the "independence" of various European regimes - and even refers to the need to uphold European culture, language, civilization, etc. - from the superpowers.

The Danger of Not Carrying the Struggle Against the 'Three Worlds' Theory and Maoism Through to the End

One of the striking features of these errors in the stands of the PLA is their resemblance to the notorious "three worlds" theory of the Maoists. The abandonment of the standpoint of the class struggle, the praise of various "third world" regimes, and the flirtation ' with petty-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalism in the "second world" are reminiscent of the similar errors of the "three worlds" theory.

Of course this does not mean that the PLA is following Chinese revisionism. Future issues of The Workers' Advocate will go further into the question of some of the roots for the present weaknesses of the PLA's stands. The PLA does not use the particular Chinese formulations, not has it allied with one superpower against another. Despite the PLA's recent toning down of the struggle against the imperialism of the lesser imperialist powers, it has not entered any alliance with them either. the similarity between the PLA's mistakes and "three worldism" takes place because all stands that downplay the class struggle and obscure the revolution have certain basic features in common.

This vividly shows the danger of failing to carry the struggle against Chinese revisionism and Maoism through to the end. The fact is that the stands of the PLA, even at their best in the height of the struggle against the "three worlds" theory and Chinese revisionism, had certain weaknesses. Had the PLA continued the struggle against the "three worlds" theory and Maoism, it would have step by step strengthened its positions. It had before it the same general task that faced the other Marxist-Leninist parties, of rectifying weaknesses in the light of the advances made in the struggle against Chinese revisionism. Instead the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha repeatedly stressed that the PLA's line had no problems in it. It is true that the PLA had a revolutionary history and that it was important to refute the fairy tale of the defenders of Maoism that everyone had followed the Chinese revisionists into the swamp. But it was going too far when the PLA simply denied any weaknesses at all in their views and suggested that other parties may have made mistakes, but never the PLA.

In fact, the PLA could not take the struggle against the "three worlds" theory and Maoism beyond a certain point unless it reexamined some of its views and actions. Hence the PLA only took the struggle against Chinese revisionism so far. On the question of the "third world," for example, it put forward a number of correct and valuable criticisms of the "three worlds" theory. But it never worked out what these general revolutionary principles would mean in detail for the struggle of the proletariat and its party in these countries, and the PLA even left a loophole I in its criticism of "third worldism" with various cryptic remarks about progressive leaders of some unnamed countries.

Finally, the PLA called a halt to any deeper investigation of the errors of "three worldism" altogether. This was formalized at the 8th Congress of the PLA in November 1981, where Comrade Enver Hoxha's Report failed to sum up the struggle of the international Marxist-Leninist movement against the Chinese revisionists and put forward the next tasks in this struggle. Instead Comrade Enver suggested that the struggle against the "three worlds" theory was over and done with because the Chinese formulations had become discredited. This, presumably, is the meaning of his statement that: "At one time, the Chinese theory of 'three worlds' also emerged.... But it melted away like salt crystals in water. It was played as a trump card, but was very quickly overtrumped." Nor did Comrade Enver see any need to continue the evaluation of the difficulties that had occurred in the course of the struggle against Soviet revisionism, an evaluation that had begun with the denunciation of Maoism. Apparently, the' PLA believed that an the theoretical issues were already solved.

In our view, the failure to carry the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end is a source of many problems plaguing the international Marxist-Leninist movement. It was and is necessary not just to discredit some Chinese formulations and to "overtrump" the Chinese leadership, but to reestablish the correct line for the class struggle and return to the revolutionary principles of the Marxist-Leninist classics. It is necessary to see that, while certain of the particular Maoist ways of formulating the "three worlds" theory may indeed by discredited, the general opportunist ideas behind the "three worlds" theory have found favor in opportunist and even bourgeois circles and can only be counteracted by a protracted struggle.

One result of the failure to carry the struggle against "three worldism" and Maoism through to the end is the tendency to reduce the repudiation of "three worldism" to that one must oppose both superpowers, instead of allying with one against the other. Allying with one superpower against the other was simply the last stage of degeneration of the "three worlds" theory. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party was corroded by various "three worldist" ideas for years before Nixon visited China in 1972 or Qeng Xiaoping gave his infamous speech of 1974 which spelled out the "three worlds" theory in full detail. Even when the Chinese leadership had been fighting both superpowers, its stand was weakened and undermined by the false ideas of "three worldism." Yet, whenever the struggle against "three worldism" and Chinese revisionism is toned down, a tendency appears to reduce opposition to "three worldism" to denunciation of both superpowers. But "three worldism" includes other profound errors such as downplaying or utterly negating the internal class struggle in the dependent and oppressed countries, putting forward petty-bourgeois and bourgeois- nationalist answers to the questions of revolutionary strategy, negating the role of the Marxist-Leninist parties, and so forth. If these issues aren't dealt with, opposition to the two superpowers may become nothing but an empty phrase. Indeed, in its original form, "three worldism," played with the phrase "opposition to the superpowers" precisely for the purpose of negating the Marxist-Leninist teachings on class struggle, socialist revolution, and so forth.

On the Socialist System in Albania

Despite the weaknesses in the present stands of the PLA on world events and on the orientation for the international Marxist-Leninist movement, the PLA continues to build socialism inside Albania. Albania is not entangled with foreign imperialism nor has it dismantled the socialist system. On the contrary, it has survived without crisis despite the world crisis engulfing all the capitalist and revisionist countries.

The socialist character of Albania is the basis which makes it possible for the PLA to correct its errors in the future. At the same time, these weaknesses and errors pose a danger for the positions of socialism in Albania. It poses the threat of a loss of revolutionary vigilance on the internal front, corresponding to that.with respect to world events. Therefore it is all the more important for the true friends of Albania and the PLA to soberly evaluate the stands of the PLA in order to provide fraternal proletarian internationalist support.

Material for the Study of the Stands of the PLA

This issue of The Workers' Advocate contains many important materials for the study of the weaknesses in the present stands of the PLA. To begin with, it contains the unanimous resolution of the Second Congress of our Party entitled "The Role of the PLA in the World Marxist-Leninist Movement." This resolution is published for the first time.

This issue also contains previously internal materials which give a glimpse of the detailed study of the stands of the PLA which has proceeded inside our Party. The bulk of two internal bulletins is reproduced. One of these bulletins discusses the 8th Congress of the PLA. Written a month after the 8th Congress, it notes that ' the PLA was no longer playing the role in the world movement that it was after the famous 7th Congress of the PLA. The second bulletin, written a year later, discusses Comrade Enver's major speech of November 10, 1982. It points out that this speech verifies that the PLA was giving wrong answers to the vexed questions of the international Marxist-Leninist movement and was insisting on precisely those points of Comrade Enver's Report to the 8th Congress that were wrong. Both bulletins discuss the views of the PLA on.a wide range of world issues. As well, there is a selection of materials from the Albanian press on recent world events. This collection provides further illustration of the stands of the PLA.

Finally, the public discussion by our Party, in this issue of The Workers' Advocate, of our differences with the PLA brings up the question of the norms that should govern relations between Marxist-Leninist parties. This question occupied the attention of the Second Congress of our Party. We reprint from the January 1 issue of The Workers' Advocate the resolution of the Second Congress entitled "On the Relations Between the Marxist-Leninist Parties" and part of the resolution entitled "Work for the Strengthening of the International Marxist-Leninist Movement."

Down With the Maoist Critique of the PLA

We had also intended to carry an article denouncing the rotten standpoint of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, USA towards the PLA; instead we shall carry it in a future issue. The RCP,USA is an example of the "left" wing of Maoism; it denounces the post-Mao Chinese leadership. But, in order to defend Maoism, the RCP,USA has had to denigrate the significance of the struggle against the "three worlds" theory and to twist and tum in its assessment of "three worldism."

As a result, its criticism of the PLA has been less than worthless. It rabidly attacked the PLA in order to save the reputation of Mao. It copied the most shameless antics of the more forthright "three worlders" in cursing the PLA, denying the socialist character of Albania and lying about the PLA. It echoed the slanders of the unabashed "three worlders" that the PLA, or anyone who fought hard against "three worldism," must be going pro-Soviet.

Today the basic standpoint of RCP's criticism of the PLA remains defense of Maoism. It criticizes the PLA for going too far in its denunciation of the "three worlds" theory; in fact, it is the historic accomplishment of the PLA that it opened up the period of the worldwide condemnation of the "three worlds" theory and Maoism. The actual weakness of the PLA is not that it went too far, but that it has failed to carry this struggle through to the end. It criticizes the PLA for having set forth various basic principles of Marxism-Leninism on socialist revolution, party building, and so forth, something which the RCP,USA regards as "dogmatism"; in fact, it is the accomplishment of the PLA that it led a struggle in favor of the Marxist-Leninist principles. Its weakness is not that it went too far, but that it has failed to carry this through to the end.

Thus, despite the semi-anarchist theorizing that it now engages in to give a revolutionary-sounding cover to Maoism, the RCP,USA, in its attitude to Albania, in its stands on the workers' movement and other questions of revolutionary work, in its negation of the Marxist-Leninist principles, etc. is unable to disassociate itself from "three worldism," albeit a "three worldism" of the old type which postures against both super-powers. This teaches the lesson that in so far as one adheres to Maoism, no matter of how purified and refined a variety, one will remain in thrall to revisionism and opportunism.

Our Party criticizes Albania from the diametrically opposite point of view as the RCP,USA and the Maoists. We uphold the classic teachings of Marxism-Leninism, while they regard this as "dogmatism." We uphold socialist Albania and its historical accomplishments, while they curse and slander Albania. In this issue of The Workers' Advocate we reprint the resolution of the Second Congress entitled "Solidarity With Socialist Albania, the Only Genuinely Socialist Country in the World Today."

Our Party has learned much from the PLA and socialist Albania. We dedicate our criticism not only to resolving the vexed questions of the international Marxist-Leninist movement, but also to helping strengthen the PLA. As the Second Congress of our Party declared in the resolution entitled "The Role of the Party of labor of Albania in the World Marxist-Leninist Movement":

"True friends are not those who stand by and let things slide, but whose who, at whatever risk to themselves, speak the truth.... The Second Congress declares fervently that our Party will stand, as always, arm in arm with the Albanian comrades. It will combine militant solidarity with the principled discussion of the burning issues of the world Marxist-Leninist movement."

[Back to Top]


[Back to Top]

On the Role of the PLA in the World Marxist-Leninist Movement

The Second Congress expresses its revolutionary solidarity with the Party of Labor of Albania and the fraternal Albanian people. Socialist Albania stands defiant in the midst of capitalist-revisionist encirclement. It is today the only country in the world building socialism. Free of economic crisis, free of debt payments to the international bankers, free of the aggressive military blocs, free of capitalists, landlords, racists and militarists, Albania stands as an example of what the working people can accomplish when they stand up in revolution and persist on the socialist road.

The Party of Labor of Albania, as the only Marxist-Leninist party that is presently in power, has an important position in the world Marxist-Leninist movement. The Second Congress discussed the stands of the PLA on the vexed questions in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Militant solidarity and fraternal support does not mean mechanically copying the stands of another party. On the contrary, proletarian internationalism requires that all parties support what is right and criticize what is wrong in the stand of other parties. Only thus can the parties truly learn from each other's experience, and only thus can they be regarded as truly linked in the revolutionary cause. In this spirit, the Second Congress assessed both. the immortal accomplishments of the PLA and the weaknesses in its present stands.

Our Party has learned much from the stands of the PLA and the history of its struggle.

When the PLA, then called the Communist Party of Albania, was founded in 1941, a new era opened for the Albanian people. The long-struggling Albanian working people rose up and obtained historic revolutionary victories. The Albanian toilers, led by their Marxist-Leninist party, the PLA, broke through the chains of world capitalism and reaction. Their victories show the strength that the working masses possess when they are led by a genuine communist party, when they take the road of revolution, and when they are inspired by the Marxist-Leninist teachings.

Albania is only a tiny country. Yet, in World War II, the Albanian toilers rose up in struggle against the Italian fascists, the German Nazis, and the internal reaction and defeated them all. They safeguarded their liberation through standing firm against the attempts of the U.S. and British imperialists to steal the fruits of the people's victories and return Albania to the grip of internal reaction. The Albanian people had stood up!

After World War II, although Albania then had the most backward economy in Europe and moreover had been devastated by the fascist occupation and the war, the Albanian workers and peasants steadfastly embarked upon the road of socialism. They followed up the victory of the anti-fascist national liberation war with the proletarian revolution. Step by step they built up Albania into the socialist country it is today, a country with a modern economy and without the exploitation of man by man.

The PLA could only lead the Albanian people to accomplish these marvels because it stood firm against the revisionist betrayal. Immediately after World War II, the PLA was faced with the plots of the Yugoslav revisionists, who wished to drag Albania into the abyss with them. Tito and his cohorts betrayed the socialist revolution and, within several years, joined the Western imperialist bloc. They acted particularly brutally towards Albania, savagely suppressing the people of Albanian nationality in Kosova and other areas in Yugoslavia and attempting to annex the country of Albania and turn it into the seventh republic of Yugoslavia. But the PLA fought back against Yugoslav revisionism. Although almost half of all Albanians lived in areas annexed to Yugoslavia, the PLA did not fight from narrow nationalist positions and refused to convert the controversy into a border dispute. Instead the PLA fought on the principled issues of socialism and Marxism-Leninism.

The PLA was also faced by the monstrous betrayal of the Khrushchovite revisionists. The Soviet revisionists, the Khrushchovs, Brezhnevs and Andropovs, were and are enemies of revolution and socialism. The Khrushchovite betrayal threatened the very existence of international communism. In this dangerous situation, the PLA resolutely defended Marxism-Leninism despite the brutal pressure of the Khrushchovites, the threats, slanders, backroom gossip, blackmail and outright blockades. Then, as now, anyone who opposed the Khrushchovites and stood consistently for principle was denounced as dogmatic, sectarian, hot-blooded, isolated and agents of imperialism. But the Albanians didn't flinch and they knew that it was revisionism that would be isolated. In November 1960, as the struggle heated up, Comrade Enver Hoxha told Andropov to "tell Khrushchov that whether Albania is a socialist country or not does not depend on Khrushchov, but has been decided by the Albanian people themselves through the wars they have fought and the blood they have shed." Several days later Enver told Khrushchov that "we have fought empty-bellied and barefooted, but (we) have never kowtowed to anybody."

The PLA played a major role in unmasking the Khrushchovites and initiating the open struggle on a world scale against the Soviet revisionists. Since then, the PLA has never looked back, and it has fearlessly opposed the various centrist schemes of reconciliation with Soviet revisionism. The PLA's stand encouraged the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists worldwide. It contributed immensely to the formation of the new Marxist-Leninist parties. The PLA set before the world the magnificent revolutionary perspective of rebuilding the international communist movement "without the revisionists and traitors and in resolute struggle against them," as Enver put it at the 5th Congress of the PLA.

The PLA also ushered in the period of the worldwide exposure of the "three worlds" theory and Maoism. Such works as Enver Hoxha's Report to the Seventh Congress of the PLA. the Zeri i Popullit article "The Theory and Practice of the Revolution" and Enver's books Imperialism and the Revolution and Reflections on China had a truly liberating effect inside the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Our Party learned much from the bold stand of the PLA in this period.

As a result of its stand against the revisionist degeneration of the Chinese leadership and in support of Marxist-Leninist principle, the PLA was the international rallying point for the world Marxist-Leninist movement. It inspired and spurred on the world movement. It called for carrying the struggle against revisionism through to the end. It stressed the role of the new Marxist-Leninist parties around the world. It stood up against conciliation to imperialism and reactionary regimes. It served as a beacon for ah all-round revolutionary stand.

But the first years of the 1980's have seen various weaknesses in the stand of the PLA come to the fore. Even previously and in its best works, the PLA's stand showed certain weaknesses. The PLA was faced with the same task as the other parties were, the task' of carrying the struggle against revisionism through to the end and of strengthening its stands and rectifying any weaknesses. Instead, the PLA halted halfway in the struggle to reconstruct the international Marxist-Leninist movement on solid foundations, purified of the corrosion of Chinese revisionism. As a result, the PLA's stands on various questions degenerated. This change was apparent at the 8th Congress of the PLA, in 1981, and this backsliding has become more accentuated since then.

These weaknesses in the stands of the PLA concern the orientations it sets forth for the international Marxist- Leninist movement. They can be seen in extreme form in the stands of Albanian foreign policy towards Iran, Turkey and Argentina.

The PLA's original stand towards the Iranian revolution caused much excitement. Albanian stood boldly against world reaction in support of the revolutionary upsurge in Iran. But, since then, the PLA has come out fully behind the IRP-Khomeini regime, and it has denounced the popular resistance to Khomeini as imperialist plots. Even though the Khomeini government is no longer a government balancing between the revolution and the counter-revolution, but is now a straightforward government of hangmen of the revolution, the PLA has continued to support it.

The Turkish regime is a barbarous cabal of military strongmen and notorious fascists, a regime which has made the ground run red with the blood of the Turkish toilers. Yet the Albanian government lavishes praise on Turkey, exchanges cultural delegations and closes its eyes to the fascist butchers at the helm of state in Turkey. The Argentine fascist generals are infamous hangmen who are notorious for their death squads and torture chambers. Yet the PLA supported the military adventure of these same Argentine generals over the Falkland Islands (the Malvinas). The PLA took the stand that the only question was who owned these tiny islands, and it thus abandoned the standpoint of the revolutionary struggle of the Argentine people. Instead of condemning both sides in this criminal, bloodletting, both the British imperialist robbers and the Argentine militarists, the PLA spoke up repeatedly in favor of the side of the Argentine generals.

These stands are also manifest in the PLA' s attitude towards Europe. The PLA has detached the question of the struggle against the superpowers from the internal class struggle. This has given rise to a toning down of the struggle against the bloodstained imperialism of the capitalist powers of Europe. It has also resulted in the PLA lauding such countries as Sweden, Switzerland and Austria as examples of independence and democracy in Europe. And Albania has recently praised revisionist Romania, which it formerly denounced as the "card-castle" of anti-revisionism in Europe, as a country with an independent policy that is making social progress. All this amounts to vacillating towards a petty-bourgeois nationalist answer to the question of revolutionary work in Europe.

The publications of the PLA have, in the last few years, fallen rather silent in their coverage of the class struggle in other countries and of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Instead, these publications search for non-proletarian forces to promote, and they look especially to the forces of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalism rather than to the class struggle. They have recently done little to highlight the revolutionary events of our day, to draw out the militant lessons from these events, and to ' elaborate the Marxist-Leninist teachings on how to strengthen the struggle with respect to these events.

The PLA has many historic accomplishments to its credit. But the various weaknesses in the present stand of the PLA are not part of its merits; on the contrary, the PLA's merits are valuable and worthy of study despite the weaknesses. The mistakes of the PLA with respect to the vexed questions of today cannot be ignored or regarded simply as a matter of interest only to Albanians, for the PLA is a party with an important role in the world movement. All parties must learn from the stands of the PLA, both from the positive experience of the bold and revolutionary stands and from the negative experience of the mistakes and weak stands.

Furthermore, it is the proletarian internationalist duty of all true communists to give fraternal support to the Albanian comrades. The weaknesses in the PLA's stands harm the position of socialism in Albania. True friends are not those who stand by and let things slide, but those who at whatever risk to themselves, speak the truth.

For these reasons, the Second Congress decided that the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA must speak openly and directly on its views concerning the answers the PLA is giving to the vexed questions of the present day international Marxist-Leninist movement. This is important both to defend the revolutionary orientation for the American and world Marxist-Leninist movements and to carry out our internationalist responsibility towards the Albanian comrades. This is also the only way to truly study and learn from the Albanian communists. The Second Congress thus holds that, sometime in the next period of time after the Congress, The Workers' Advocate should begin a public discussion of the Albanian stands, the exact timing of which is to be decided by the Central Committee.

The Second Congress declares fervently that our Party will stand, as always, arm in arm with the Albanian comrades. It will combine militant solidarity with the principled discussion of the burning issues of the world Marxist-Leninist movement.

(This resolution is published here for the first time. The main body of the resolutions of the Second Congress of the MLP are available in the January 1. 1984 issue of The Workers' Advocate.)

[Back to Top]

Resolution of the Second Congress of the MLP,USA

Solidarity With Socialist Albania,the Only Genuinely Socialist Country in the World Today

In the world today the People's Socialist Republic of Albania stands as the only genuinely socialist country.

Blockaded and despised by U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, socialist Albania stands firm against the imperialist superpowers. Surrounded by a capitalist and revisionist world wracked by economic crisis, Albania is crisis-free and carries forward its planned economic construction. While scores of other countries are drowning in debts to the imperialist sharks, Albania is building socialism through its own efforts without owing a dollar or a ruble to anyone.

The Albanian working class and people have transformed the old Albania of the capitalist and landlord regime, the poorest and most backward country of Europe prior to the revolution in 1944, into an advanced socialist society. It is a society without exploiters and exploited, without rich and poor, where the working people are building for themselves a better life.

The new socialist society in Albania was born in the flames of revolution. The Albanian people liberated themselves from the Nazi-fascist yoke through their heroic national liberation war. They fought and won victory over both the invaders and the internal class enemies. Upon liberation they took the path of the socialist revolution. They built up the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They step by step confiscated the property of the capitalists and landlords and consolidated socialism. These socialist gains in Albania were safeguarded in heroic struggles against the revisionist betrayal. The Party of Labor of Albania led the working class and people in courageous-battles against the Yugoslav, Soviet and Chinese revisionists.

Since the days of the October Revolution, the existence of the socialist system has been the greatest achievement of the international working class movement. With the revisionist betrayal in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, today Albania is the sole country where the working class holds the reins of power, and the new socialist society is successfully being built. By its very force of example the existence of socialism carries a potential threat to bourgeois rule everywhere. That is why the capitalists and revisionists will never cease to curse it and to make efforts to wipe it out. The MLP, USA stands with the class conscious proletarians and their revolutionary vanguards on all continents in pledging its militant defense of socialism in Albania.

[Back to Top]

From the Resolutions of the 2nd Congress of the MLP,USA On the Situation in the International Marxist-Leninist Movement The Second Congress Salutes the Marxist-Leninist Communists of the World


The proletariat is an international class. In the struggle for the emancipation of labor, the various national contingents of the class conscious proletariat are bound together by unshakeable bonds of class solidarity and proletarian internationalism. At the head of the workers' struggle stands the communist vanguard. Ever since the epoch-making Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia of 1917, every consistent working class revolutionary must be a Marxist-Leninist. Today the revisionist betrayal in Russia and China and elsewhere has not eliminated the Marxist-Leninist communists. All around the world, the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists can be found, undaunted, struggling to lead the proletariat and all the working people to rise up against exploitation and oppression, against Western capitalism and against revisionist capitalism.

The Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA is the American contingent of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. It is proud to militate side by side with the Marxist-Leninist communists of other lands who bend every effort to organize the proletariat, to build up Leninist parties, and to lead the revolutionary storms. It supports and defends the struggles of the Marxist-Leninist communists and opposes the attacks of imperialism and revisionism against them.

The Second Congress pledges the militant solidarity of our Party to the Marxist-Leninist communist parties of every land. To the communist militants throughout the world, the Second Congress sends the revolutionary greetings of our Party. It declares that the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA will uphold its fighting tradition of doing its utmost to build the international Marxist- Leninist movement.

[Back to Top]

Work for the Strengthening of the International Marxist-Leninist Movement


In our opinion, the present tasks for strengthening the international Marxist-Leninist movement include the following four fronts of work:

It is essential that all the Marxist-Leninist parties strive bani to develop closer contacts with other parties and more international cooperation. The parties must make use of a number of different methods of exchanging views and developing fraternal collaboration. We are in favor of various types of meetings between the parties as appropriate, including both bilateral meetings and multilateral meetings, such as regional meetings and general meetings. Naturally, what is needed are not empty, ceremonial meetings, but real, working meetings. As well, there should be better utilization of the valuable body of Marxist-Leninist literature from the parties and a better exchange of the party journals. The circulation of literature from the parties in other countries is not only essential for the exchange of experience among the parties but it also creates enthusiasm among the masses and encourages the growth of proletarian internationalist sentiments.

Furthermore, there should be international cooperation in the struggle against the class enemy on major world issues. This is not a matter of elaborate international schemes nor of a mechanical equalization of the slogans and forms of struggle in different countries, but of the use of elementary forms of cooperation. Whether it is a matter of condemning U.S. imperialist aggression in Central America, working to guide the upsurge of the anti-war movement in Western Europe and elsewhere, or utilizing the economic and political crises in Poland and Yugoslavia, and the treachery of Cuba towards the Central American revolutions, to expose the bankruptcy of revisionism, international cooperation would strengthen the work of each Marxist-Leninist party. It would mean that the international Marxist-Leninist movement speaks with a strong voice on the major issues of world politics, and it would help attract all proletarian and progressive forces to the side of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism.

All the parties must do their utmost to consider and resolve the burning questions in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. These questions cannot be swept aside. They must be dealt with consciously and openly by all Marxist-Leninist parties and class conscious workers. Unless the controversies and vexed questions of the current movement are dealt with, all efforts, no matter how sincere, at strengthening the international Marxist-Leninist movement or increasing proletarian internationalist cooperation run the risk of being empty posturing and will sooner or later evaporate into thin air.

In our view, it is the Marxist-Leninist theory that provides the basis for resolving the vexed questions of today. The objective situations of today and the experience of the revolutionary movement must be examined in the light of the ideas of the Marxist-Leninist classics. The unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement finds its granite foundations in the Marxist-Leninist theory, which is the only scientific guide to the class struggle and the revolution.

The struggle against the various revisionist and opportunist currents must be stepped up. The struggle against revisionism is a life and death struggle for the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Yet the early 1980' s saw a certain falling off of the ideological struggle against revisionism. The struggle against the "three worlds" theory and Maoism was not carried through to the end, and this has been the source of many evils. As well, the struggle against Soviet revisionism must be stepped up. Among other things, the Soviet revisionists have been trying to make hay out of the fiasco of Maoism and the rise of various rightist and liquidationist currents in many countries. The continuation and deepening of the great polemic against Soviet revisionism that began over two decades ago is still a burning task of the international Marxist-Leninist movement.

Furthermore, the struggle against revisionism does not consist simply of opposing the various revisionist trends as they manifest themselves internationally. It includes the struggle against the domestic revisionist and opportunist groupings of one's own country. Unless one fights "one's own" opportunist and revisionist groupings, the fight against revisionism is nothing but a fraud.

Finally, there is the task of assessing the history of the struggle to build up the international Marxist-Leninist movement against the treacheries of the Soviet and other revisionists. The open split with Soviet revisionism began over two decades ago. Since then, the Marxist-Leninist communists have had both successes and setbacks. At the height of the struggle against the "three worlds" theory and Maoism at the end of the 1970's, the task was posed internationally of assessing the course of the struggle against Soviet revisionism. The importance of this assessment is that it brings to light deviations and departures from Marxism-Leninism that weakened the struggle and thus helps to ensure that in the future the struggle will be based firmly on the classic ideas of Marxism-Leninism. And indeed, the exposure of Maoism did bring to light the cause of a number of difficulties and weaknesses that had hindered the struggle against Soviet revisionism. But the full assessment of the history of the international Marxist- Leninist movement and of the struggle against Soviet revisionism was never completed.

The Second Congress pledges that our Party will continue to play an active role in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. The Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA will strive with all its might to defend the interests of the international Marxist-Leninist movement, to take part in resolving the vexed questions of the movement, to carry out its proletarian internationalist responsibilities and to stand steadfast as a loyal contingent of international revolutionary Marxism-Leninism.

On the Relations Between the Marxist-Leninist Parties In the latter 1970's, in the struggle against the "three worlds" theory and Maoism, the arrogant and harmful stands of the Chinese revisionists towards the proletarian parties of other lands were widely condemned. The question of the norms that should govern relations among Marxist-Leninist parties received much attention. It is still an important issue, as the Marxist-Leninist parties of the world search for ways of drawing closer to one another. In our view, the following points are among the principles dictated by Marxism- Leninism and proletarian internationalism for governing these relations.

It is essential to inculcate In the class conscious workers and revolutionary activists the fervent conviction of being part of the single, International army of labor. This is a fundamental principle of proletarian internationalism. Put into practice, it creates great enthusiasm among and stiffens the fighting spirit of the revolutionary proletarians. This conception has always guided the work of our Party, and its predecessors, right from the founding of the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist) in 1969. We have consistently held that the American Marxist-Leninists are but one contingent of the world Marxist-Leninist movement.

The unity of the Marxist-Leninist communists of the world is not simply a formal or organizational question, but is based on their common struggle against the class enemy and their adherence to the Marxist-Leninist ideology. Proletarian internationalism is based on the fact that the proletariat has the same basic class interests all over the world and the same historical mission of liberating itself from the rule of the exploiters. The class struggle is a world struggle. Thus the Marxist-Leninist parties, as the proletarian vanguard, find themselves in battle with different sections of the common capitalist and revisionist enemy. Whenever the class struggle is toned down, just to that extent any unity tends to become purely formal and meaningless. As Lenin stressed:

"There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is - working wholeheartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one's own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, in every country without exception." (Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 75, the emphasis is Lenin's)

The Marxist-Leninist communist movement has developed in fierce struggle against the revisionist betrayal of revolution and socialism. The defense of Marxism- Leninism and the unyielding struggle against the revisionist and opportunist trends is essential for the unity of the Marxist-Leninist parties. As Lenin showed:

"The concept of 'adherents of internationalism' is devoid of all content and meaning, if we do not concretely amplify it; any step towardssuch concrete amplification, however, will be an enumeration of features of hostility to opportunism. .,. An adherent of internationalism who is not at the same time a most consistent and determined adversary of opportunism is a phantom, nothing more. .. (Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 156)

There must be concrete bonds of solidarity and cooperation between the parties. International unity is a basic principle of communism. It is vital to increase the connection between the parties in the course of fighting the class enemy; this is one of the important tasks of the present. Our Party has enthusiastically supported those initiatives that have promoted closer collaboration between the parties. Among other things, we support joint meetings and joint statements, conduct vigorous solidarity work in support of the other parties, work hard to promote the exchange of literature among parties and the wide circulation of international Marxist-Leninist literature in the U.S., and would like to see the development of joint campaigns against imperialism, revisionism, capitalism and reaction.

We hold that the theory of Marxism-Leninism is International and that it is necessary to study and assess international experience. Cooperation in theoretical matters is part and parcel of developing close relations between Marxist-Leninist parties. A serious attitude to theory is incompatible with either mechanically copying whatever happens to be fashionable or with ignoring the views and hard-won experience of other parties. Our Party has consistently sought to bring the advanced ideas of the international Marxist-Leninist movement to the class conscious workers and revolutionaries in the U.S.

Dealing with the burning questions and controversies Inside the International Marxist-Leninist movement is, in our view, a vital part of International cooperation. In the last few years, our Party has paid close attention both to the burning questions of the international Marxist- Leninist movement and to the methods being used internationally to deal with these controversies. It is our conclusion that it is the orthodox Marxist-Leninist methods that must be used. Leninism castigates severely both those who throw mud at the communist movement and those who slur over the disputed questions and try to hide questions of principle under the cover of a hypocritical silence. Leninism teaches that we must not fear the raving of the enemies of communism, who dance and leap hysterically over the differences in the Marxist-Leninist ranks, but must instead calmly and boldly rely on enhancing the political consciousness of the working class and the party members. Lenin set a brilliant example of the discussion of the vexed questions of the international movement of his day in such works as "What Should Not Be Copied From the German Labor Movement"; his articles on the movement against social-chauvinism in World War I; "Left-Wing" Communism, An infantile Disorder; his letters to the communist parties and workers' movements of various countries; and so forth. The Communist International also made effective use of open discussion of the burning issues before the entire world proletarian movement in its work of building up communist parties.

We are aware that other views on this question are being advocated. For example, there are those who hold that the burning questions of the present-day Marxist-Leninist movement must not be discussed in public. They think that the rank-and-file communist should be fed on "official optimism," as Lenin sarcastically called it, while the real issues are settled, insofar as they ever are settled, behind the scenes. According to this view, the worst crime is to refer honestly and openly to the vexed questions of the day, especially if the name of a party is used.

The method of "official optimism" is advertised as the only means to protect the unity of the parties. But, in reality, we have seen over and over again the sad results of "official optimism" and backstage maneuvering. It has not in the slightest preserved international unity; on the contrary, it has only served to aggravate the problems between parties and to foster the use of various truly backward methods of solving differences. It has not served to protect the weaker parties; on the contrary, these methods have repeatedly proved of use to dubious elements seeking to prey on the parties. It has not kept differences away from the eyes and ears of the class enemy, but it has served to help keep the issues of principle away from the eyes and ears of the class conscious workers and Marxist-Leninist activists. "Official optimism" has proved to be a roadblock to the struggle to put the issues of principle to the fore and to eliminate rumormongering and abuse. Life itself has repeatedly shown: either the Leninist method of combining militant and fervent solidarity with wide discussion of the controversial issues of principle, or the law of the jungle and imitation of the unprincipled methods of the social-democratic and revisionist parties.

There must be resolute opposition to international factionalism. The world's Marxist-Leninists must always demarcate themselves sharply from the revisionist and opportunist currents. But there should be no attempts to divide the international Marxist-Leninist movement itself up into special "international trends." Marxism-Leninism, revolutionary Marxist-Leninist communism as opposed to revisionism, should be the "international trend" that all Marxist-Leninists belong to.

Our Party has fought hard against international factionalism. There are those who claim to be Marxist-Leninists but who speak more or less openly about their desire to build up their own "international trend" and who demand "special relationships" with this or that party. In particular, the present leadership of the Communist Party of Canada (M-L) and various of its international followers are among such factionalists. These factionalists have been trying, in vain, to destroy our Party because, among other reasons, we refuse to take part in building their "international trend," we refuse to attack other parties at their secret command, and we refuse to allow them to violate our organizational integrity. We will not be part of their special "international trend" or any other factional conspiracy. We are not factionalists, but revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. We have had to fight very hard to uphold this stand, but we will never regret it nor retreat from it. Only those who keep their honor intact can fight the class enemy.

The organizational integrity of the parties must be upheld. This does not, in our view, contradict the building of close relations between Marxist-Leninist parties. On the contrary, the maintenance of the organizational integrity of the individual parties should enhance genuine democratic centralism in the international Marxist-Leninist movement.

The question of organizational integrity has been of vital importance for our Party. We would not be here today and holding the Second Congress if we had not zealously guarded the organizational integrity of our Party. We have found that those who have tried to violate the organizational integrity of our Party invariably did so in the interests of international factionalism, not in the interests of true centralism and international unity.

There must be only one Marxist-Leninist party in each country. The proletarian movement needs unified leadership. Only a unified, class conscious vanguard can successfully lead the entire working class and revolutionary movement of the country and concentrate the energies of the working masses so that they make the supreme effort required to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, the genuine communist party must not be a federation of different national groups, but must unite unconditionally the workers of all nationalities of the given country. If the proletarian party were simply a federation of national groups, or if there were separate parties for the workers of different nationalities in the same country, it would lead to chaos, to splintering the working class movement and reducing it to a weak and fragmented federation. Instead, the party must unite the workers of all nationalities and itself vigorously lead the struggle against national oppression.

Although there must be only one party for each country, sometimes a party has to have certain organization in other countries. The Bolsheviks, for example, had certain party organization abroad prior to 1917. But this is not incompatible with the principle of one party for one country, if a distinction is maintained between the work that is part of the revolutionary movement in the host country, and that hence should be led by the party of that country, and the work that is a direct part of the revolutionary work in the homeland, even if circumstances force it to be conducted outside the homeland. Our Party extends the hand of fraternal proletarian internationalist cooperation to such overseas party organizations of other parties.

The above extracts from the resolutions of the Second Congress have been reprinted from the January 1, 1984 issue of The Workers' Advocate, which contained the main body of the resolutions.

[Back to Top]

On Comrade Enver Hoxha's Speech of November 10, 1982

The Internal Bulletin of December 22, 1982

Below wereproduce the bulk of the internal bulletin of our Party which discussed Comrade Enver Hoxha 's major speech of November 10, 1982. This speech is the most recent authoritative statement by Comrade Enver Hoxha on the overall orientation of the PLA on world events, and it received even more attention because it was the first official statement from the PLA condemning Mehmet Shehu. Unfortunately, this speech showed that the PLA was insisting on precisely those points of the analysis given at the 8th Congress of the PLA in November 1981 that were weak or mistaken, and that the PLA had developed these errors even further. Subsequent actions by the PLA have verified that this speech is an accurate reflection of various of the stands of the PLA.

The page references to this speech in the internal bulletin are to the official English edition from Tirana, much of which is reprinted at the back of this issue of The Workers' Advocate.

This internal bulletin deals with the analysis of the PLA on various international events and matters of orientation for the international Marxist-Leninist movement. It must be remembered that this bulletin was prepared for discussion inside our Party and hence assumed knowledge of our Party's basic stands and analysis. A more detailed elaboration of our Party 's views on world affairs and the situation inside the international Marxist-Leninist movement can be found in the resolutions of the Second Congress of the MLP, USA, which are printed in the January 1, 1984 issue of The Workers' Advocate, and in other articles in The Workers' Advocate.

The internal bulletin of December 22, 1982 began with an announcement concerning inner-party life, and then proceeded as follows:

The rest of this internal bulletin is devoted to a different subject. The 16th plenum [of the Central Committee] also read and discussed Comrade Enver Hoxha's speech of November 10 to the electors and mandated that an internal bulletin be prepared on this subject. This part of this bulletin is subdivided as follows:

Introduction ..................................................................... 17
The Lack of Revolutionary Spirit.................................... 19
On the Lesser Imperialist Powers.................................... 20
The Oppressed Countries ................................................ 21
The Balkans ..................................................................... 23
The International Marxist-Leninist and Working Class Movement ............................................... 24
The Mehmet Shehu Affair ............................................... 24
Some General Comments................................................ 26
On Socialism In Albania ................................................. 23
On the MLP's Active Attitude Towards the International Marxist-Leninist Movement....................... 29
On the Party-Wide Discussion of the November 10 speech ...................................................... 30
What to Say Externally Outside Our Circles................... 30
On the Security for This Bulletin [omitted]



Recently Albania has published Comrade Enver's speech of November 10 to the electors. Naturally, the eyes of class conscious workers and Marxist-Leninists the world over tum to Albania and examine carefully each of its stands. Socialism is the highest achievement of the proletariat. The world proletarian movement cherishes the dictatorship of the proletariat wherever it exists.

Indeed, since the break with the Chinese revisionists, Albania has refuted the predictions of those who said it would turn to either U.S. imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism for support. It can be recalled that, at the time of the publication of Imperialism and the Revolution, the hack reviewers of this work from the RCP,USA and the now-defunct CPML made dire predictions how Albania was on the road to unity with Soviet revisionism. As well, the world press went mad with speculation. But Albania continued to march along its own path, free from entangling debts and shameful alliances with the superpowers.

And during the world economic crisis, Albania has continued along without even breaking stride. It has neither unemployment nor inflation, neither economic crisis nor stagnation. While the various capitalist countries are being squeezed by the IMF and the bankers, Albania has no debts at all.

At the same time, it is necessary to take a mature and steady look at the stands and actions of Albania. Socialist Albania's great and historic accomplishments in the past - its national liberation war, its defiance of Khrushchov, its ushering in of the period of the worldwide condemnation of the "three worlds" theory and of Mao Zedong Thought, its valiant stand against the ruthless imperialist-revisionist encirclement, etc. - do not give it a special position above criticism. Revolutionary Marxism-Leninism cannot afford to put anything on a pedestal - the achievements and accomplishments of one period must be the introduction to yet new achievements in the next. In the struggle for the world proletarian revolution, there is no standing still and resting on one's laurels.

At the time of the 8th Congress, our Party soberly assessed Comrade Enver's Report. We saw that this Report did not have the significance of the previous Report to the 7th Congress. True, the 8th Congress of the PLA reiterated the stand of the PLA on a number of fundamental issues, but it did not answer the vexed questions that were agitating the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Moreover, it had weak and confused formulations on various questions.

Now our Party must assess Comrade Enver's speech of November 10. It is clear that this speech is a major document of the PLA, just as was Comrade Enver's speech to the electors in October 1974, and as were Comrade Enver's speeches for the 1978 elections, "Proletarian Democracy Is Genuine Democracy" to the General Council of the Democratic Front, September 20, 1978 and the speech to the electors, November 8, 1978. (See Proletarian Internationalism, Vol. 1, No.1) Immediately after it was delivered, this speech was made available in pamphlet form in several languages by the PLA. Furthermore, the speech is the first official statement from the PLA on the condemnation of Mehmet Shehu. This too is another reason why it is natural that the PLA took the occasion of such a speech to proclaim to the world what its policies will be. There is thus every reason to expect that this speech indicates the general direction that the PLA will be going on various issues for the next year or two.

Unfortunately, this speech is a tragedy in itself. It does reiterate that socialist Albania will not link up with either of the two superpowers. But it cannot even be said to be on the level of the Report to the 8th Congress, which reiterated various stands but did not answer the vexed questions of the present movement. On the contrary, the speech of November 10 shows that the PLA is presently giving wrong answers to the vexed questions of the movement. It shows that the PLA is currently insisting precisely on those points of the Report to the 8th Congress that were wrong and that it has gone even further in the wrong direction.

The 16th Plenum of the Central Committee of our Party assessed Comrade Enver's speech of November 10. It decided that the whole MLP should study this speech and thoroughly discuss it. This Internal Bulletin has been prepared by the National Executive Committee according to the instructions of the 16th Plenum in order to facilitate this inner-party study.

The present wrong stands of the PLA create a serious situation. It is our responsibility to look the truth in the face. Our Party has taken in the past and will continue to take an active stand towards its duties as part of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. We cannot fulfill these duties by simply brushing aside this new turn in the position of the PLA. We must examine it vigilantly. This is necessary both in order to preserve our revolutionary stand and to help the PLA. True friends of socialist Albania are neither those who applaud while mistakes are made nor the deviationists who rub their hands in secret glee because now they can let their rightism run riot. True friends are those who stand for the Marxist-Leninist truth. And only true friends are those who push forward the revolution, for socialist Albania does not exist isolated from the world but is part of the world proletarian army.

The rest of this Bulletin outlines the stands of the November 10 speech in more detail and then sets forward our active stand toward the serious situation that exists.

The Lack of Revolutionary Spirit

One of the most striking features of the November 10 speech is its lack of any revolutionary spirit in its discussion of the world situation. Comrade Enver presents us a world without class struggle, without the international Marxist-Leninist movement, without a division between reformists and revolutionaries, and so forth. The world is not considered from the standpoint of the revolution or of the division of the world into two great camps. Indeed, the working class struggle outside of Albania is barely mentioned in one awkward sentence on page 18 on the economic struggle and the struggle for democratic partial demands. The word "revolution," in referring to a current event, barely peeks out on page 18, which briefly refers to "revolutionary, patriotic, democratic and peace-loving forces everywhere in the world," certain armed struggles, and then the Iranian revolution, which it identifies with the Khomeini regime. The word "class" barely makes its appearance in one phrase, "the ratio of class forces," on pages 18-19.

Instead of talk about the struggle of the workers and peasants, there is rampant speculation about this. or that nationality and its historic virtues. The abandonment, in this speech, of the standpoint of the revolution is shown by its rationale that the various regimes existing in the world are irrelevant. The speech talks of Albania's relations with this or that people and its support of this or that struggle while staying as far away as possible from the question of the regimes ruling these peoples. This means to give up the standpoint of guiding, orienting and supporting the struggle of the oppressed masses to overthrow the exploiting classes and bloodstained regimes that sit on their backs and suck their blood.

The speech openly puts forward this stand of ignoring the regimes when it discusses Albania's relations 'with other countries, and this stand also permeates the discussion of the rest of the world situation. Thus, in respect to Turkey, Comrade Enver writes that "The different forms of regime have never shaken this friendship.... " (p. 27), although what is at stake is not just the friendship between peoples, as Enver says, but the relations between states. With regard to Greece, Comrade Enver assures us with a solemn face of the fairy tale that "the Greek governments - right-wing [i.e., the former military dictators - Internal Bulletin], new democratic [this is the name of the Greek conservative bourgeois party - IB], or socialist [this is short for the name of the present ruling party, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement - IB], have always considered the friendship between the Albanian people and the Greek people as a pressing political necessity." (p. 28) With regard to Italy, Enver admits that the regimes may have varying attitudes, but what the heck, "If any Italian government considers these relations [with Albania - IB] of no interest, it may do whatever it likes, this will not affect us much. Nevertheless, we think differently - that these relations are useful to both sides." (p. 26, in all quotations from the November 10 speech, the emphasis has been added)

With respect to the Arab peoples, the Iranian people, the Argentinian people and so forth, Comrade Enver does not speak of the regime at all. Naturally, this does not mean that these governments have magically vanished leaving the Arab, Iranian and Argentine people etc., in direct control of their destinies. It means, however, that Comrade Enver has abandoned, in this speech at least, the standpoint of expressing indignation against these governments, of condemning the reactionary rulers, and so forth. In this speech, to avoid the issue and shuffle it under the rug, Enver talks mainly of "peoples" and nations. In other speeches and documents, where both regimes and peoples are referred to, often this distinction is important to understand the meaning. In this speech, the reference to peoples is simply a subterfuge. And the same subterfuge is used whether referring to various reactionary cliques ruling oppressed nations or to the wily imperialists of Europe.

The basic analysis put forward by the speech is simply that all the problems in the world are due to the superpowers and that the struggle for national independence from the superpowers is the basic issue. But when the struggle against the two superpowers is divorced from the internal struggle, from the class struggle, from the revolutionary struggle against the other imperialists and against the local bourgeois and landlord regimes, it turns into nothing but pious phrases about the peace, security and independence of the countries or even into honeyed words about preserving European "culture, traditions and civilization." (p. 20) The centering of everything on the independence of the various countries leaves out the question of exploitation and the socialist revolution. But if the question of the regimes is shuffled under the rug, it leaves out the question of the revolutionary path to national liberation too - except perhaps for wars against direct colonial domination - and runs the risk of turning liberation rhetoric into just a way to dress up the squabbles of the bourgeois-landlord regimes and their desire to get a few more crumbs from their big partners, the superpowers.

Later, after examining how this speech deals with various particular issues, we shall return to a consideration of its general features. We shall see that this speech shows that the PLA has lost orientation in the present world situation, that it fails to deal with the specific tasks for the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Instead it flails around. Looking at various surface features, it apparently engages in the "realistic politics" of trying to shortcut the work of building up the international revolutionary movement and instead seeking to find various forces that are currently, "realistically" speaking, influential in world events. Striving for this sort of "realism," Comrade Enver falls prey to some incredible illusions and pursues various will-o'-the- wisps.

On the Lesser Imperialist Powers

Now let us proceed to examine how this general stand works out in relation to various particular questions of the world situation. We will begin by examining the stand of the speech towards the lesser imperialist powers, i.e., lesser than the two superpowers, of Europe, Japan and Canada.

The speech basically concerns itself with the European powers, rather than Japan or Canada. It goes even further than the Report to the 8th Congress in toning down any condemnation of these powers. It does not make any appeal at all for socialist revolution in these countries but only talks of their struggle to preserve their culture, traditions, civilization, etc., from the encroachments on their independence and sovereignty by the superpowers. This is repeated over and over in various passages.

The speech goes to great lengths to avoid even labeling these countries as imperialist. Generally speaking, the references to imperialism are only to the superpowers. The speech avoids even condemning these countries by name. Whenever it criticizes these countries, it instead of giving names talks of "some countries" or "countries of Western and Eastern Europe" or "some European countries" or even, in an apparent reference to France allowing Leka Zogu to enter the country and give an interview, it criticizes the "astounding stand" of "a country friendly to us." (p. 30)

Similarly, when criticizing the sending of occupation troops from France and Italy to Lebanon, it talks of "... the dispatch of military units from some European countries to Lebanon, along with those of the United States.... " Comrade Enver refuses to name the European imperialists involved. He does go on to make what is for this speech one of the strongest condemnations of them, and he says that dispatch of troops"... constitutes a very dangerous precedent for direct military intervention in the internal affairs of independent countries. Ina way, this action is a return to the old policy of the European Great Powers which sent their troops to various countries in order to establish their domination there." (p. 19) One would have preferred, however, that it be pointed out that this action is a continuation of the present imperialist policies of these countries and-another exposure of the hollow nature of the "pro-Arab" demagogy of various of the wily European imperialists.

At one point, the speech does talk of the "closest partners (of the superpowers] in the military alliances and economic blocs." (p. 17) However, here too, the speech refuses to explain who is meant, thus toning down the effect of any such condemnation. Moreover, the whole point of the passage from which we have extracted this phrase is to say that now these regimes too are a target of the superpowers. "Now the superpowers have made not only the peoples and countries which have been outside the zones of their domination, but also their closest partners... the objectives of this general offensive." The purpose of this is apparently to construct a rationale for saying that the issue in these countries too is national independence from the superpowers. It may also be noted that the fact that the superpowers try to subjugate those nearest and dearest to them is not a new phenomenon, not something that has just emerged "now," but an old and well-known phenomenon. For example, right after World War II the international communist movement pointed out that, under the cover of hysteria against the then-socialist Soviet Union, the U.S. imperialists were moving to consolidate control of their allies. Yet Enver reiterates that this is new, saying that "The countries of Western and Eastern Europe are in the iron grip of the two superpowers which now not only want to grab their wealth, but also to squeeze the life out of them." (p. 19)

Indeed, the speech calls on "the European countries" to guarantee their "free and independent development, their sovereignty and territorial development" and even their "defense" by opposing "the hegemonic policy of the superpowers" and "breaking up the pacts." (first two paragraphs of p. 20) The speech makes no distinction between countries and peoples and gives no call for the European peoples to overthrow their "own" domestic exploiters. Comrade Enver does not link the struggle against the hegemony of the superpowers with the socialist revolution because he doesn't mention the class struggle and the revolution at all. Instead he guarantees these countries "development and prosperity" and "defense" if only they break away from the superpowers and pursue their own interests, without a word as to whether these are the interests of their ruling classes or the masses. This is how far the PLA's mistake on what they call the national question in Europe has led them.

This wrong stand with respect to the European imperialist countries also manifests itself in Comrade Enver's orientation for the movement against the stationing of nuclear weapons in Europe. Unlike the 8th Congress Report, this speech mentions this movement and approves the "protests and demonstrations against the stationing of American and Soviet atomic weapons." (p. 19) But the speech fails to point out the danger of social-democratic subversion of this movement, the necessity for this movement to target the European bourgeoisie as well as the superpowers, or the relation of this movement to the struggle for socialist revolution. Yet unless the Marxist-Leninists fight tooth and nail on these questions the mass movement, as promising as it is, will either be smashed, or frittered away uselessly, or be diverted into a channel useful to the bourgeoisie. The only question that Comrade Enver may possible be raising, however, is that the movement should target both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, since he describes the masses as already doing this when for example there is much confusion about the Soviet Union in the West European movement against imperialist war preparations.

These wrong stands of Comrade Enver's speech do not augur well for Albania's stands on European imperialism in the coming period. But it should be noted that the speech of November 10 is a short document that concentrates the line. The fact that it does not even mention "European imperialism" does not mean that future Albanian literature will never give this formula. It does mean, however, that we can expect that the condemnation of European imperialism in relation to current events will be very toned down, as in fact it has been for some time in the Albanian press. H this distinction is not understood" one may see the next article from Albania that mentions the lesser imperialists and heave a sigh of relief: "Whew, just in time, they backed off that dangerous error." But the issue is not whether some stale formula is given here or there, stale because the formula is not used as a guide to action but simply as a talisman to ward off criticism. The proof of the pudding is in what condemnation is made of the European, Japanese and Canadian imperialists concerning world events, what perspective is put forward for the toiling masses of these lesser imperialist countries, and so forth.

It should also be noted that we oppose not this or that phrase in itself about the European imperialists, but the general context, the strategy and tactics that are being put forward. Not every word about the dependence of even an imperialist country is automatically wrong. For example, Lenin and Stalin and the Bolsheviks, in the fight against the social-chauvinists of World War I, pointed out how various countries, such as Switzerland and Russia, were bound to the capital of other imperialists. But from this they concluded that there had to be a socialist revolution. From the connection of the Swiss capitalists to the other capitalists, they concluded that any participation of Switzerland in World War I would have an imperialist character. And they oriented the struggle towards the revolution against the Russian exploiters, and not toward defending the freedom of action of the Russian exploiters from their foreign rivals; they taught the masses to condemn the Russian reactionaries for ravaging other countries and didn't orient the struggle against World War I into the channel of defending the independence of the existing regime. Similarly, we are in favor of struggle against the superpowers, and our Party has a glorious tradition of enthusiastically welcoming every blow against our "own" U.S. imperialists by the toiling masses of other countries. But it is our duty to help support the revolutionary current in other countries and strengthen it by advocating that the struggle against the superpowers should be linked to the revolution.

The Oppressed Countries

The lack of revolutionary spirit in the speech of November 10 is also evident in its treatment of the oppressed and dependent countries. There is no mention of the class struggle or the different class forces at all. There is no mention of the differences among such distinct forces as the reactionary bourgeois-landlord despotisms, the bourgeois reformists, and the revolutionaries. There is no mention of the struggle against the existing regimes, except for the inclusion of El Salvador in the list of armed struggles (and also the inclusion of Afghanistan, but that is really more of a struggle against an essentially directly colonial regime). However, here too the struggle seems to be characterized basically as one for national independence, as Enver writes that "In Afghanistan, in the Middle East, in Salvador, etc., armed struggle is being waged to regain the violated freedom and the lost independence."

This approach can also be seen in Comrade Enver's discussion of the struggle of the Arab peoples against Israeli zionism. Here he raises the question of unity as the key issue. He points out that the new zionist aggressions have taken "advantage of the great American aid and the divisions among the Arab peoples" (p. 21) and asks "Will they [the Arab peoples - IB] remain divided as they are so that Israel and American imperialism defeat and crush them one by one, as they are doing?" (p. 22) But any talk of unity is at best a pious wish if there is no denunciation of Arab reaction which has stabbed the Palestinian people in the back and which colludes with imperialism in order to maintain its exploitation of the Arab masses. There is not a word about this in Comrade Enver's speech. This being the case, the appeal for unity appears to be a call for unity between the various regimes and present ruling forces in the Arab world. This type of unity is unlikely, without a series of revolutions that replaces the present regimes with revolutionary regimes. But if such unity did take place between the present regimes, it is more likely to be for the purpose of allying with imperialism to jointly suppress the revolutionary and liberation forces than for the purpose of struggle against zionism. For example, at present most of the Arab regimes are united - to support Iraq in the reactionary Iran/Iraq war which is now unjust on both sides and which originally began with Iraq soliciting the support of imperialism against the Iranian revolution. The lesson of the recent defeats in Lebanon is that pious words about Arab unity are worse than useless: it is necessary for the toiling masses of the Palestinian people to develop their own independent organization, gird themselves for the fight against Arab reaction, and remain vigilant towards the national reformists, even at those times at which they have alliances with these forces.

Comrade Enver's speech is also notable for the restricted range of problems that it discusses concerning the oppressed nations. The major issues in Asia, Africa and Latin America are left unaddressed. Indeed, Albanian foreign policy in the last period seems notable for its passivity. But no matter what other problems the speech may overlook - the fate of the revolution in Nicaragua, the bloodletting in the Iran/Iraq war, the situation in Cambodia, the plots of the European imperialists towards Latin America - there is another issue that the speech of November 10 puts into the limelight. "The struggle of many; countries for national sovereignty over their raw materials and for independent development is being waged at a higher level and in broader proportions." (p. 18) Naturally, the toiling masses are opposed to the plunder of their labor and of their country's resources by the imperialists, but the speech appears to be referring to the maneuvers of the regimes. Closing its eyes to the intensified squeezing of the working masses of these countries in the world economic crisis, Enver actually says that the struggle for "independent development" is being waged "at a higher level." Maybe in the stale rhetoric of the UN diplomats but not in the real world. Actually, these days even the rhetoric of the UN delegates from the undeveloped countries is reaching new lows in abject submission to imperialism and social-imperialism.

The effect of this wrong stand towards the problem of the oppressed and dependent countries is seen in how this speech treats the questions of Argentina, Iran and Turkey. Here the speech flagrantly departs from the internationalist obligations binding on all progressive people, to say nothing of Marxist-Leninists. These countries are running red with the blood of the workers, peasants, communists and activists who are slaughtered, imprisoned and mercilessly persecuted in every way. Yet the PLA praises these countries. This is a clear indication of what it means to ignore such allegedly minor questions as the regime in power.

To begin with, there is the case of Argentina. Comrade Enver does not express any solidarity with the suffering Argentine working people nor does he issue any condemnation of the fascist Argentine generals. Nor has any other Albanian statement that we are aware of. The only issue he sees is that of Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas. Furthermore, he gives this stand as the example of Albanian support for the Latin American peoples, saying that: "The Albanian people have supported and continue to support this struggle of the Latin American peoples', and this was expressed in the case of the conflict over the Malvinas, in which we supported the undeniable rights of the Argentinian people." (pp. 22-23)

Then there is the question of Iran. By now, even the blind should be able to see the nature of the IRP-Khomeini despotism in Iran and its role of strangling the revolution. Indeed, the Khomeiniite thugs do not even restrict their wrecking activities to the border of Iran. But Comrade Enver persists in singling out this regime for support and, using this speech's usual subterfuge, writes that: "The Iranian people are making great efforts to defend their revolution from the threats and blackmail of the two superpowers." (p. 18) But there is no way to talk of the defense of the Iranian revolution separate from the life-and-death struggle against the Khomeini regime.

And there is the question of Turkey. Comrade Enver waxes lyrical over Turkey, but there is not one word of defense of the Turkish people against the hangman regime of fascist military dictators. Nor, to our knowledge has either ATA, Zeri i Popullit or any other Albanian source condemned the Turkish fascist atrocities. This raises the question: friendship with whom and what kind of friendship? This fawning over the Turkey of the -fascists is not the way to cement the friendship between the Albanian and Turkish people, a friendship based on the struggle of the working people for their emancipation. Indeed, it is a scandal that, at a time when even the bourgeoisie of many countries is forced to pretend to disassociate itself from the Turkish butchers, a socialist country revels in exchanging cultural delegations and loving kisses with Turkey.

And just in case anyone may think that surely the Albanians, as communist revolutionaries are simply engaging in some unpleasant diplomacy with Turkey, Enver assures us, with respect to Turkey, that the Albanians "make 'diplomatic love' with nobody." (p. 26) Continuing, Comrade Enver actually tells the world to follow the example of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Did he forget that he was speaking only three days after the 65th anniversary of the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks, the true example for the working people of the world? Well, in any case, he found the right address for this appeal to follow Ataturk when he addressed it to the "pseudo-democrats and pseudo-socialists" of the world. The truth is, many "pseudo-democrats and pseudo-socialists" already follow this or that legacy from Ataturk.

The Balkans

Major passages in Comrade Enver's speech are devoted to the situation in the Balkans. Here too the lack of the class perspective strikes the eye. There is no talk of the unity of the workers and peasants of the Balkans against their oppressors - the revisionist and capitalist exploiters. Instead this section of the speech is rife with nationalist rhetoric. Its main theme appears to be to appeal for support for Albania on the basis of nationalist speculations and the playing off of one nationality against another. The Greeks and Turks are played off against the south Slavs and especially the Serbs, while great play is made with the fact that the Russian and Yugoslav revisionists are Slavs.

Indeed, in this speech the nationalist rhetoric goes to extremes. Enver even sees fit to remind us that a 19th century tsarist historian claimed that "since the modern Greeks are Orthodox Christians, they are Slavs." (p. 36) Is this really an issue at the present time? Enver certainly doesn't tell us in what connection. Instead he warns us - forewarned is forearmed - of the dire calamity that someone might in the future even call that ancient well-known Macedonian, Alexander the Great, a Slav.

Comrade Enver pays a great deal of attention in his speech to the situation of the Albanian people of Yugoslavia. This is natural. The plight of the Albanian regions of Yugoslavia is a serious one. The Titoite revisionists are using all their means to persecute and suppress the Albanian min0rity in order to maintain a savage rule of exploitation and discrimination in the Albanian regions of Yugoslavia. There is presently a white terror in Kosova.

But how does Enver deal with this situation? The toilers of the other nationalities in the Balkans, who also have gone through their own trials and tribulations and who live a hard life, will pay special attention to this. They will use this as a test to see how serious the PLA is about its communist convictions. Because of the long tradition of nationalist hatreds in the Balkans, it is likely that the class conscious elements will pay definite attention to this.

Unfortunately, Comrade Enver's speech hits a strange tone when it deals with this question. In the past, Albanian statements on Kosova have consistently failed to give an appeal to the Albanians in Yugoslavia to unite with the toilers of the other nationalities to overthrow the revisionist oppressors. Nevertheless, a certain restraint and maturity in dealing with the national strifes in the Balkans was evident. The November 10 speech has a different tone.

This speech raises the struggle against certain stands of the Yugoslav leaders to a high pitch. But all the ideological content is gutted from it, the question of revisionism drops out altogether, and the appear is not against revisionism but against the south Slav peoples (Yugoslavia literally means "the land of the south Slavs") and especially the sinister Serbs. On this basis, the tone becomes heated. There is even talk of whether the struggle will come down to the use of force. It is not at all clear why Enver raises this issue, since he apparently does not expect an attempt by Yugoslavia to invade Albania - the only danger of invasion that he raises is from the Soviet revisionists, whether by sea or by marching through Yugoslavia.

Is this really the way the PLA wants to appeal to the Yugoslav people? Every day the Serbian workers and peasants, and those of the other Yugoslav nationalities, read Politika and other rotten Titoite revisionist newspapers that spread the most filthy slanders against Albania. Does this speech show the way to fight these infamous slanders and inspire the Yugoslav toilers with the fervor needed to wage a struggle against the Titoite revisionist oppressors, a struggle that will be conducted under difficult conditions?

Enver does grant that there are some good Serbs. But which ones? He writes: "We are convinced that there are progressive elements among the other southern Slav peoples, as well as among the Serbs. There is no other way to solve the problems apart from a change in the political stand towards Albania and the Albanians living in Yugoslavia. We shall continue on the course set by the 8th Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania, the main report of which the Yugoslav leaders have read upside down.... your course is fraught with many dangers for Yugoslavia.... You do not pay serious attention to our words.... " (p. 31) Enver talks of "progressive elements" not of class forces. He asks them to make a change in Yugoslavia's attitude towards Albania without mentioning the necessity of struggle against the Titoite regime. Thus it appears that he is referring to some elements in the Titoite bureaucracy, for, without a revolution, they are the ones who have a voice on the policy towards Kosova and Albania.

The International Marxist-Leninist and Working Class Movement

The main thing here is that there is nothing in this speech on the international Marxist-Leninist movement. This contrasts with the attention given to it in former statements by the PLA, but it corresponds to the lessening of interest already manifested to a certain extent in the Report to the 8th Congress.

As we have seen. there is also almost nothing in the November 10 speech on the world working class movement either. It is restricted to various partial demands, while the appeals on the big political issues are made to countries in general.

There is also a notable lack of enthusiasm for the struggle against revisionism. The Soviet Union is denounced repeatedly, but only as imperialists, not from the point of view of dealing with their revisionism. As we have seen, the issue of revisionism is not raised with respect to the Titoites either. This failure to raise the question of revisionism is not due to the PLA moving to reconcile with any revisionism, but is part of the failure to raise the class questions and to discuss the revolutionary movement.

This speech is one of the signs of a definite passivity on the part of the PLA towards the international Marxist- Leninist communist movement. But this passivity does not mean that the PLA does not fight for certain stands. This speech shows that the PLA is not just failing to clarify various of the vexed questions of the international movement, but is advocating wrong stands on various of these questions, such as on the questions of national sovereignty, the way of agitating in the lesser imperialist countries, and the assessment of the situation in the oppressed and dependent countries.

The Mehmet Shehu Affair

The November 10 speech is the first statement from the PLA condemning Mehmet Shehu. However, it does not shed any light on this serious issue. We disagree with the method the PLA has followed in its public statements on this affair, but we have no basis to make any judgment one way or another on Mehmet Shehu himself.

The Mehmet Shehu case is certainly one of the most important issues. In his speech, Comrade Enver calls Mehmet Shehu "one of the most dangerous traitors and enemies of socialist Albania." (p. 5) And naturally, the condemnation of any major leader is of importance. Mehmet Shehu was not only one of the top leaders of the PLA and the Albanian state, but also he was one of the Albanian leaders who are also personalities or leaders in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. For all these reasons, one would expect that meticulous attention and care would be taken.

But the November 10 speech says nothing beyond making one unsupported allegation after another. Until evidence is provided, many of these allegations appear rather farfetched. Indeed, in so far as we restrict ourselves simply to considering the method used in announcing this case, it bears a certain resemblance to the Chinese methods in the Lin Biao affair. It is the responsibility of the PLA to clarify matters in the future.

For the time being, it appears that the PLA does not want to go into the political basis of the Mehmet Shehu affair. Enver insists that "Mehmet Shehu was never able to alter or distort the line of the Party, because if he tried to do so he would be immediately unmasked." (p. 6) Note that Enver thus states that Mehmet Shehu not just didn't succeed in altering the PLA's line, but that he never tried to do so. Instead Enver says that Mehmet Shehu was simply "a mercenary in the pay of" the Yugoslav secret service, the KGB and the CIA and that he had been such a mercenary for over 40 years. As farfetched as all this may appear, nothing can be absolutely ruled out before seeing the evidence. Still, one can't but feel that there must have been some political issues, if not at first, certainly as "the group of plotters" was formed and activated.

On the other hand, Enver tells us that Mehmet Shehu "had been criticized many times by the Party for his grave mistakes." (p. 5) But what type of mistakes can be referred to, since we are also told that Mehmet Shehu never tried to distort the line of the Party? Besides, is this discussion of a serious issue or tittle-tattle? Everyone in a Marxist-Leninist party, from top to bottom, is criticized for his errors, and the 8th Congress of the PLA presumably had an evaluation of Mehmet Shehu's achievements and weaknesses when it re-elected him to the Central Committee.

It may also be noted that, following the elections to the People's Assembly, there was a series of replacements of officials. This appeared to be far more extensive than usual. The PLA announced that it was just replacing older officials with younger people, that is, that it was just a natural process. Some of the replacements may have been just that, for those officials were given other responsible positions. But, on the other hand, Comrade Enver did speak of a "group of plotters," and the rumors have been flying for some time about Fiqret Shehu and others being missing. We simply do not know what, if anything, the new appointments following the elections mean.

It must be stressed that our criticism of the method the PLA has used so far in announcing the condemnation of Mehmet Shehu does not mean that we defend Mehmet Shehu. The PLA has told the world nothing, and we have no basis to judge, so we can neither condemn Mehmet Shehu nor defend him. We simply do not know whether Mehmet Shehu has committed any crimes against the Albanian party and the revolution. (And it must be borne in mind that even if Mehmet Shehu turns out to be not guilty of some of the apparently farfetched accusations, such as 40 years of being a spy, as charged, he may still be guilty of serious crimes, such as a shorter period of sellout at the end of his life.) Nor do we know what, if any, political difference he had with the other Albanian leaders. His writings do not give one any reason to believe that he had any political differences with Comrade Enver; if political divergences occurred, they could just as well have been to one side as to the other, to the right as well as to the left. It is also possible that there was a quarrel about particulars between those holding the same basic views. While it is natural that each comrade, upon hearing of the Mehmet Shehu case, would run the various possibilities through his mind, we should avoid getting our Party bogged down in speculation on these things.

From the start of the Mehmet Shehu affair, our Party took a cautious stand on this issue. Immediately after his death, it became apparent that something was not right, as the PLA and the Albanian state did not display the normal ceremony used on the occasion of the death of such a person. The National Executive Committee [of the MLP, USA] did not like the backstage way in which things were being handled, in which one thing is said for official consumption, but everyone is led to believe that the PLA will be unhappy if you act according to their official announcement, because they themselves didn't act according to their official statement. This situation created the soil for the growth of rumors and wild stories. The NEC had not the slightest idea of what the PLA really meant and, assuming the issue was that the PLA was opposed to suicides, was surprised that such a strong stand was taken concerning a man who committed suicide while in failing health at an advanced age. Was a person's whole life to be negated on such an issue?

Clearly the PLA's way of handling this affair put our Party and all other true friends of the Albanian people into a difficult situation. Normally, it would have been natural to hail Mehmet Shehu's life, reprint extracts from his works, etc. But now what was to be done? Of course our Party could not repudiate a major revolutionary leader just because things seemed strange: that would be an insult both to the Albanian people and to the memory of the revolutionary. And more, it would be an insult to our integrity, for our Party is not a mere amplifier that picks up subtle hints and winks and puts them out over the loudspeaker, but has its own views based on facts. On the other hand, to make a fuss about Mehmet Shehu's death would appear to be flaunting something, although who knew what. Under the circumstances, the best thing appeared to be to pay our respects to the memory of Mehmet Shehu in a modest but sincere way and refuse to get caught up in the byzantine atmosphere of intrigue that had been created. The article in the January 5, 1982 issue of The Workers' Advocate mourning Mehmet Shehu's death was based on the ATA announcement and the black-bordered obituary for Mehmet Shehu in Zen i Popullit, except that some information was added about Mehmet Shehu's failing health. Our entire Party handled the situation calmly and then passed on to other business, refusing to get bogged down in useless speculation. [The internal bulletin points out that the PLA had said little to the outside world on the Mehmet Shehu affair. Since the internal bulletin was written in December 1982. Comrade Enver's book The Titoites has become available in English. About 10% or less of this large book is devoted to the Mehmet Shehu affair. Nevertheless. the nature of the book is such that it still does not give our Party any basis to pass judgment on Mehmet Shehu.

The book The Titoites is subtitled "historical notes" and is written in the style of memoirs.Insofar as this book takes on the question of Mehmet Shehu. it consists mainly of more or less plausible historical reconstructions of how things must have been, assuming that Mehmet Shehu was indeed a spy for over 40 years. Mehmet Shehu appears in many places in the history of the PLA. Enver seeks to show how various historical events, which at first sight seem to show Mehmet Shehu playing a positive role, can be reinterpreted in the light of new facts.

But this is a far cry from providing the documentation, the new facts, that actually prove the premise that Mehmet Shehu was a spy. The book asserts repeatedly the existence of such proof, but never provides it. The book gives some inconclusive snippets of this or that, but it never even provides the formal party decision condemning Mehmet Shehu. The way The Titoites discusses the Mehmet Shehu affair might be more understandable if other documents had been published. and the book were designed simply to provide a popular summary or a general orientation. But so long as this book remains the main word of the PLA on this subject, it appears to be a rather casual way of handling serious matters. A further example of its casual nature is that the book, in passing, also changes the assessment of the PLA on Nako Spiru. Nako Spiru was a leading member of the PIA (then called the Communist Party of Albania) who, under pressure from the Yugoslav revisionists. committed suicide in late 1947. For decades the PLA has held, and it has been explained in Comrade Enver's writings, that, though Nako Spiru made grave errors, the worst being his suicide, nevertheless he was a militant of the party; wreaths were laid on his grave. The book The Titoites. however. vacillates between talking of Nako Spiru in the old way and condemning him as another spy who did not break away from the Titoite revisionists near the end of his life, as formerly held, but simply became a secret agent of the Soviet Union. It is apparently the friendship between Nako Spiru and Mehmet Shehu that inspires this speculation by Comrade Enver. In any case, the book does not cite any party decision by the PLA on Nako Spiru, nor has any appeared, to our knowledge, in the English language publications from Albania. This seems a remarkably casual way of readjusting the stand on Nako Spiru.

Hence our Party still adheres to the same stand on the Mehmet Shehu affair as put forward in the internal bulletin. We neither defend nor condemn Mehmet Shehu, and werefuse to get bogged down in useless speculation. - WA]

Some General Comments

Now let us look at some general features of this speech. First of all, it is notable that the basic themes of this speech can already be found in the Report to the 8th Congress. The difference is that the Report also contained other things. The speech selects precisely those aspects of the Report to the 8th Congress that are wrong and magnifies them and adds to them. Thus, while the November 10 speech does bring out the meaning of certain errors in the Report, on the other hand it actually is a further and serious degeneration of the line.

Why is the PLA making these errors? For one thing, these errors indicate an inability on their part to deal with the specific tasks required by the present situation in the world' and to formulate the policies needed to guide the revolutionary movement.

Today the world situation has its own special features. The objective conditions are building up for huge explosions as the world crisis ravages both the imperialist metropolises and the dependent countries. The stability of the capitalist system is being shaken once again, both economically and politically. At the same time, the new revolutionary upsurge on a world scale is not yet here, although the revolution continues to break out in various individual countries. This and other features of the present situation - such as the collapse of the Chinese revisionists or the situation in Indochina - are among the causes for the present liquidationist and rightist moods that have appeared in the revolutionary movement in many countries.

Albania is part of the world movement and must deal with the same world situation that confronts everyone else. Perhaps one of the PLA's ways of adapting to the present situation - a situation that should be used to discard the weaknesses and illusions of the past and prepare a solid foundation for the coming revolutionary storms - is to close their eyes, refuse to look the truth clearly in the face, and instead seek to find this or that non-proletarian force that, on the surface, seems to be doing something. It seems that the PLA is displaying a certain weakness for what Marx called "real politics" - which means to stay at the level of surface appearances and adapt oneself to the presently existing "realities." (See Marx's comments on Lasalle, Schweitzer and co. in his letter to Kugelmann of February 23, 1865)* The PLA supports this or that armed struggle or revolution when it takes place, but otherwise tends not to call for the revolution but to look for some force that can be viewed "realistically" as currently a power.

This has even led them to look through rose-colored glasses at the squabbles and shadow-boxing by the regimes in power. In our discussions with the [Albanian comrades] ..., which we shall refer to later in this Bulletin, they referred proudly to the many countries which nowadays compliment them for their UN speeches attacking the superpowers. They told us happily that the diplomats of these countries refer to the fact that Albania can say what they themselves dare not say and how some have even told the Albanians that "you are a genuine non -aligned country." This perhaps is part of what Comrade Enver means when he says that "Never before has Albania enjoyed an international position stronger than it has today." (p. 7) But these hopes, if this indeed is what the PLA has on its mind, are illusions. This is building on sand. And the price for building these card-castles in the air is losing sight of the revolution, the class struggle and the toiling masses.

In place of the revolutionary struggle, other things appear in Comrade Enver's speech. Both nationalist and "three worldist" style rhetoric appears. Let us start by considering the question of "three worldsism." In Comrade Enver's speech, the errors concerning the lesser imperialist powers are quite reminiscent of the theory of the "second world." And the errors concerning the struggle in the oppressed and dependent countries parallel those of the theory of the "third world."

This does not mean that the PLA is really a Chinese "three worlder," for it has arrived at these errors from its own standpoint. As we have remarked several times in our press, ideas similar to "three worlds-ism" are common to many stands that negate the revolution. But this does show the danger of denigrating the struggle against "three worlds-ism" and Maoism as the PLA did at the 8th Congress, where it talked of "the Chinese theory of 'three' worlds'... [melting away] like salt crystals in water." The crystals may have melted, but the water became salty. The fact is that the PLA only took the struggle against the "three worlds" theory so far. For example, on the question of the "third world," while the PLA put forth a number of correct and valuable general principles, it did not continue and show how these principles worked out in the struggle in various countries and it made various cryptic remarks about progressive leaders of some unnamed countries. Now, however, the PLA is retreating from its former stand and going back on what it wrote earlier in such famous articles as "The Theory and Practice of the Revolution."

Another striking characteristic of the speech is the nationalism. It is nationalist rhetoric that is generally used to fill in the gap left by the removal of the class struggle and the revolution. Instead of talk of classes, there is speculation on nations.

Stalin noted that nationalism can arise in periods of confusion and difficulty, when people lose orientation and faith in the revolution. Referring to the period of the rise of liquidationism in Russia, which corresponded to a lull between two powerful revolutionary upsurges, he wrote, in 1913 in the opening passage of "Marxism and the National Question":

"The period of counter-revolution in Russia brought not only 'thunder and lightning' in its train, but also disillusionment in the movement and lack of faith in common forces. As long as people believed in 'a bright future,' they fought side by side irrespective of nationality - common questions first and foremost! But when doubt crept into people's hearts, they began to depart, each to his own national tent - let every man count only upon himself! The 'national question' first and foremost!" (Works, Vol. 2, p. 300)

This nationalism occurs again and again in the November 10 speech. For example, consider the reasons that Comrade Enver gives for Albania's relations with various countries, such as Turkey, Italy, Greece, etc. He does not raise an overall assessment of these countries and their role in the world, but such things as whether there are Albanian communities in these countries. But how can one take account of this latter consideration except in the context of the general nature of these countries? Enver goes so far as even to praise the former Italian fascist general Azzi as a friend of the Albanian people without even thinking to mention whether this general ever adopted any overall democratic or progressive stands. (p. 25)

In fact, things go to the extent that he turns his speech into a museum of historical antiquities. Yet these tidbits about the culture of this or that nation prove little. Don't all nations have both progressive and reactionary traditions? If the Turks had their Ataturk (who was a mixed blessing), didn't various Slav peoples, such as the Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Poles, etc., take part in the Great October Socialist Revolution, which was far more important and liberating for the entire world than the Kemalist one? If the Albanians and Greeks fought together in the 1821 revolution - and it is hard to believe that the Greek man-in-the-street of today really goes around talking of the "Arvanites penemeni" and "palicaria Arvanites" in memory of the Albanians who fought under Ypsilantis (pp. 27-28) - wasn't there also the bitter and bloody struggle in World War II against the fascist Axis in which the Yugoslavs, Albanians and Greeks fought shoulder to shoulder? If the Turks are to be forgiven their regimes after the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the friendship with them is to continue independent of regime, then why is it implied that the Albanians can no longer continue the sincere love that they had for the Yugoslav peoples at the time of the National Liberation War during World War II? (p. 29)

It also should be noted that, while in this speech Enver agitates against the south Slavs and especially the Serbs, in past speeches he has spoken well of the Yugoslav peoples. For example, in the latter part of Chapter V of the Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, Enver said: "We respect and trust the peoples of Yugoslavia, because history has shown that they are valiant peoples." In various other speeches, he has praised their liberation struggle in World War II and that of the Greeks. The Serbs took full part in the fierce antifascist struggle in which 10% of the population of Yugoslavia was killed by the fascists. While the Serb bourgeoisie is undoubtedly chauvinist and reactionary, it is also true that historically Serbia has also been the home of a revolutionary working class movement from before World War I and that Serbia was one of the most active areas in Yugoslavia.

It would seem that the various historical reasons don't really explain the various policies followed by the PLA in its international relations. They seem to be more in the nature of explanations put forward after the fact. Nevertheless it is significant that Comrade Enver puts forth reasons which have such a nationalist flavor.

However, in noting the nationalist, "three worldist" and "real politics" flavor of various of the errors in Comrade Enver's speech, our point is not to give an overall characterization of the basis of the PLA's mistakes. This requires further serious study, including paying attention to the fact that various of the errors in the November 10 speech reflect themes that, in far less flagrant and glaring form, have occurred repeatedly in earlier literature from the PLA. This is a question that will require calm and patient study However, the nationalist and "three worldist" flavor of various of the rhetoric in Enver's speech highlights the seriousness of the problem and the necessity for our Party to take a firm stand upholding Marxist-Leninist principle and the banner of the revolution.

*The internal bulletin refers to Marx's comments on "real politics" in his letter to Kugelmann of February 23, 1865. This letter discusses the errors of Ferdinand Lassalle, a talented agitator in the German working class movement who made grave reformist errors. It showed how Lassalle betrayed the proletarian movement when he came to terms with Bismarck, the "iron chancellor" who was the representative of the reactionary Prussian monarchy. Marx compared Lassalle's version of realism with that of the liberal bourgeoisie, led by Miquel, who trampled on their own high-sounding words about a republic to come to terms with the Prussian Hohenzollern emperor of the aristocratic Junker landlords. A part of the valuable analysis in this letter reads as follows:

"Lassalle went astray because he was a 'Realpolitiker' [practitioner of "realistic politics" - WA]of the type of Herr Miquel, but cut on a larger pattern and with bigger aims . ... He only imitated the gentlemen of the National Verein [the liberal bourgeoisie - WA]; but while these invoked the Prussian 'reaction' in the interests of the middle class, Lassalle shook hands with Bismarck in the interests of the proletariat. These gentlemen had greater justification than Lassalle, in so far as the bourgeois is accustomed to regard the interest immediately in front of his nose as 'reality,and as in fact this class has concluded a compromise everywhere, even with feudalism, whereas, in the very nature of the case, the working class must be sincerely revolutionary.

"Fora theatrically vain nature like Lassalle (who was not, however, to be bribed by paltry trash like office, a mayoralty, etc.), it was a most tempting thought: an act directly on behalf of the proletariat, and executed by Ferdinand Lassalle! He was in fact too ignorant of the real economic conditions attending such an act to be critically true to himself. The German workers, on the other hand, were too 'demoralized' by the despicable 'practical politics' which had induced the German bourgeoisie to tolerate the reaction of 1849-59 and the stupefying of the people, not to hail such a quack savior, who promised to get them at one bound into the promised land."

The letter goes on to comment on Lassalle's successors as follows:

"I think that Schweitzel and Co. have honest intentions, but they are 'Realpolitiker.' They want to accommodate themselves to existing circumstances and not to surrender this privilege of 'real politics' to the exclusive use of Herr Miquel and Co. ... They know that the workers' press and the workers' movement in Prussia (and therefore in the rest of Germany) exist solely par la grace de la police [by the grace of the police}. So they want to take the circumstances as they are. and not irritate the government, just like our 'republican' 'real politicians,' who are willing to 'put up with' a Hohenzollern emperor.

"Since I am not a 'Realpolitiker,' I have found it necessary to sever all connection with the Social-Demokrat [Schweitzer's newspaper - W A]in a public declaration signed by myself and Engels....

And Marx Germany. of course. Lassalle's successors oppose me. in the first place. because they are frantically afraid to losing their importance. and. secondly. because they are aware of my avowed opposition to what the Germans call 'Realpolitik.' (It is this sort of reality which places Germany so far behind all civilized countries.)"

On Socialism in Albania

The policy of a country towards the world situation is dependent on that country's internal social system. We have seen that "three world-ism" in China and Soviet revisionism in Russia reflected the internal degeneration of those countries. The errors of the PLA therefore raise the question of the internal situation in Albania.

But the relationship between the internal and external policies is not mechanical and automatic. An examination of Albania shows that it is firmly socialist. Its mistaken external policies represent a danger to socialism, the danger of a loss of vigilance on the internal front as well. But the stable socialist character of Albania gives it the possibility to correct its errors.

What are some of the features of the internal situation? First of all, we note that there have been opportunists who wanted to find something unsocialist in Albania in order to save their opportunism. They have pored over Albania with a fine-toothed comb and failed, ending up by resorting to sophistry and crude misrepresentations.

In Albania, the capitalist and other exploiting classes have been eliminated as classes. Both industry and agriculture is socialist, and attention has been paid to the fact that lower-level collectives must keep on progressing and eventually become higher-level collectives, etc., and to the question of reducing the gap between city and country.

As well, Albania has only modest wage differentials. This, and other measures painstakingly built up over the years in Albania, are powerful barriers to the growth of anew capitalist class of bureaucrats.

Albania is not entangled via debts or alliances in the imperialist system. Not only is it independent of the superpowers, but, despite the weaknesses of its line towards the lesser imperialist powers, it is not entangled in enslaving deals with them either.

Albania's successes in economic construction have reinforced its ability to deal with the imperialist-revisionist encirclement. Its farsighted policy of ensuring the development of its energy resources, its self-sufficiency in grain, its industrial development and so forth have reinforced Albania's position.

The fact that Albania has survived and thrived despite the world economic crisis and despite the cutoff in aid from China is a sign of the vitality of Albanian socialism. The positive features in the internal situation in Albania are durable and strong.

Of course, this does not mean that there is no danger. One must keep advancing and not rest on one's laurels. The danger is that the loss of vigilance on the external front may correspond to a similar loss of vigilance on the internal front. This would give rise to the possibility of the beginning of the process which Comrade Enver calls "sclerosis," or hardening of the arteries and other tissues, referring to the process that preceded the revisionist coup in the Soviet Union and corroded the Bolshevik Party from the inside over a period of years. When such a process occurs, it may go faster or slower, but it is also possible to stop and reverse it before reaching the point of no return.

The current Albanian literature on the internal situation deals extensively with the problems of technique and other questions of production. This is essential in order to maintain Albania's ability to stand against the imperialist-revisionist encirclement. On the other hand, recently there has been less about the fronts of revolutionization of the country's life. Whether this means anything, however, is hard to tell: the various processes of revolutionization, which have already been started and which have had their program mapped out, can proceed whether or not the PLA sees fit to write about them for the external world. To judge the situation well, one would need specific knowledge and could not rely on the apparent tone of various publications.

Putting this all together, we see that the hard work of the Albania communists and working people has constructed. a powerful base for socialism in Albania. Dangers exist, but Albania's socialist character provides the internal basis which would allow the PLA to correct its errors in orientation toward the world situation and the international Marxist-Leninist movement.

On the MLP's Active Attitude Towards the International Marxist-Leninist Movement

Our Party has always worked and fought as a loyal contingent of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. We have sought to inculcate in the class conscious workers and revolutionary activists the spirit of being part of a single international army. Hence we neither close our eyes to the problems and controversies in the international movement, nor damn the movement because of them. Instead we take an active stand towards considering and learning from these problems, which reflect issues facing all revolutionaries all over the world. And we participate to the fullest of our ability in resolving these controversies. It is this active stand, and not the brushing aside of the issues with official optimism and insincere, honeyed words, that leads to the genuine iron unity of the international movement and that is in accord with the requirements of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

We have carried out our proletarian internationalist responsibilities in various ways. In the last few years this has required that we pay special attention to the controversies among the Marxist-Leninist parties. We have paid close attention to the theoretical and practical issues that are arising. We have carried out the special responsibility given us by history and taken upon ourselves the brunt of opposing,the deviations of the leadership of the CP of Canada (M-L) and of its various followers. We have published our views on various of the other international issues, such as the controversy over work in the West European movement against imperialist war preparations. And we have spread information on the struggle of various of the parties against the rightist and liquidationist currents.

Among other things, we have taken an active stand towards relations with the PLA. We did not regard this from a narrow angle; we held that the issue was not just that our Party should enjoy the support of the PLA but that we should help the PLA have knowledge of the various things that it needed to know to carry out its responsibilities as a party that was in the van of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. We made use of those channels that were open to us to communicate with the PLA. Besides sending them our publications, we sought direct ways of contact.

The main way of direct contact with the PLA open to us has been through discussions.... We have carried out these discussions regularly for over half a decade, thus stepping up our earlier contact with them. In these discussions we raised a wide range of issues from the analysis of the objective conditions to the situation in the Marxist-Leninist movement.

At first what was notable about these discussions was the comradely atmosphere created by the comrades of the PLA, particularly as compared to the tension that always marked our meetings with the leadership of CPC(M-L). But, as these discussions continued, it became clear that this was just a surface aspect. In fact, these discussions were and continue to be unsatisfactory. On most issues, the comrades from the PLA consistently refused to put forward their views beyond what was already in print, except perhaps with some cryptic hints or by indirection.

For example, in all the years of discussion we have never received from them an exposition of their view of and stand towards the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement and the question of our Party and MLOC/"CPUSA (ML)," although this is obviously a central issue for discussion and we ourselves have raised the issue of MLOC over and over again and turned over the documentation we have developed on the Weisberg clique.[The documentation being referred to was also published in the series of articles in The Workers' Advocate under the title "Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement."The material given to the Albanian comrades included the full text of the main documents quoted from or cited in these articles. The CPUSA/ML disbanded in June 1983. as discussed in the article "The Career of a Social- Democrat Comes Full Circle/ Barry Weisberg's 'CPUSA/ML ' Denounces Marxism-Leninism and Dissolves" in The Workers' Advocate of December 15, 1983. - WA] We found out more about their real attitude from what they published' in Albanian Telegraphic Agency (ATA) and elsewhere and from what was told to us by others who had visited Albania or had other contact with the PLA than from the discussions. The point is not that differences existed between our Party and the PLA but that the comrades from the PLA would not put forward their views and analysis at the discussions. This not only served to destroy any real equality in these discussions and make them one-sided, but also made it impossible to take the discussions very far.

Let us consider several other examples of our attempts to consult with the PLA in these discussions....

At the time of the letter of the CC of the MLP, USA of June 16, 1980 to the CC of the CPC(M~L), our Party brought these matters up to the Albanian comrades. We did not ask them to intervene in this matter, but wanted to provide them with information on this important issue in the international movement. We provided them with copies of our letter and supporting documentation and accompanied it with a cover letter from the NEC of the MLP, USA to the CC of the PLA. [The documentation referred to consisted mainly of the correspondence later published in The Workers' Advocate in 1981 under the title "The Truth About the Relations Between the MLP, USA and the CPC(M-L)" - WA] The [Albanian. comrades] ... stressed that they couldn't accept the letter of our Party. On the other hand, they in fact kept the letter and the supporting material, saying that they would take it on the basis of it being a summary of the discussion that had been held between us and them. From then to now, they have never expressed their views on this issue. Similarly, we have talked to them on various other issues in the international Marxist-Leninist movement, including the question of the RCP of Chile, the split in the CP of Spain (ML), the question of work in the anti-nuclear movement, etc., and on all these questions they have remained silent.

After the 8th Congress of the PLA we expressed to the Albania comrades our disagreement with their announcing in Zeri i Popullit that they had received messages from both our Party and the MLOC/"CPUSA (ML)." They replied with an outrageous series of fairy tales, such as that it didn't mean anything at all- they had just received two messages, that's all. Since we refused to accept various evasions, at one point they fell back on the assertion that there were particular concrete circumstances. This, of course, was precisely what we wanted to know: their analysis of what the concrete circumstances. in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement were. So we asked them this point-blank, which they evaded, going no further than reiterating that there were two messages. These evasions and refusal to tell us what they really thought about the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement were similar to what we received in 1978 when we told them we disagreed with ATA reprinting a message from MLOC.

In our most recent discussion with the PLA comrades..., we raised our disagreement with their stand on the war over the Malvinas as one of the topics. Both sides reiterated their stands. The one new development in this was that the Albanian comrades said that they never refer to the question of the (Argentine) regime in their statements. They implied that the question of the regimes was not that important by saying that there had been so many Argentine regimes and that, for example, Italy had had over 40 post-World War II regimes. This vulgar and nonsensical argument has been verified by Comrade Enver's speech of November 10 as indeed the attitude of the present Albanian diplomacy.

These examples illustrate that we have worked to talk matters over with the PLA and also show some of the difficulties we have encountered in doing so. We will continue our work at direct contact with the PLA in order to deal with the issues that arise from the speech of November 10.

On the Party-Wide Discussion of the November 10 Speech

The entire Party should discuss Comrade Enver's speech of November 10. Besides the discussion in the basic units and branches of this Internal Bulletin, discussion should also be organized with the sympathizers and pro-party comrades, as appropriate in each case, on the criticism of the November 10 speech raised in this bulletin....

What to Say Externally Outside Our Circles

Generally speaking, on the November 10 speech or other questions of the line of the PLA, when the difference between our stands and that of the PLA is brought up we say, yes, there is a difference, and we concentrate on explaining our line. [that is, explaining our Party's stand on the world event or issue in question, rather than analyzing the error of the PLA. - WA]. That is still the general method that should be followed. But there is a certain shift in the overall tone which we will be using.

... when we are asked that we think of the speech of November 10, we can condemn it as a whole, rather than just this or that point.... Generally speaking, we should only agree that this or that error brought up by others is indeed wrong and that the speech as a whole is bad, and not start explaining our analysis of the speech and its various points....

On the other hand, we still maintain the same harsh stand towards the bad elements who have no serious interest in the political questions involved but simply bring up the difference between our stands and those of the PLA as a provocation....

As well, we can give our view on Mehmet Shehu externally when asked. That is, it can be said nothing much has yet been released by the PLA on the case of Mehmet Shehu and so we can't say anything about Mehmet Shehu and we don't speculate on it....

[Back to Top]

On Comrade Enver Hoxha's 'Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA' of November, 1981

The Internal Bulletin of December 4, 1981

Below we reproduce the bulk of the internal bulletin of our Party which discussed Comrade Enver Hoxha's Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA submitted on November 1, 1981. This Report showed that the PLA was no longer playing the same role in the international Marxist-Leninist movement as it had been at the time of the 7th Congress. Its weaknesses represented problems which were becoming prominent in the stand of the PLA on world events and on the controversial questions of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. This bulletin, written within a month of the close of the 8th Congress, was cautious in its assessment of the weaknesses of the Report because only time would tell what was simply weaknesses in the writing of the Report and what was significant. Nevertheless. it provided an accurate and fairly thorough analysis of the essential features of the Report to the 8th Congress. Subsequent events have verified its views.

Some explanatory notes, which are clearly marked. have been added to this bulletin.


On the Report to the 8th Congress............... 32

Reiteration of the Stable Marxist-Leninist Stand of the PLA................ 34

Weaknesses In the Chapter Entitled 'The International Situation and the Foreign

Policy of the PSRA'.................. 35

On the oppressed countries.................... 36

On the lesser imperialist countries and the national question .................... 37

The economic struggle.................. 38

Turkey, Iran, and the Islamic movement...............39

Weaknesses In the Chapter Entitled 'The Struggle Against Revisionism, The Revolutionary and Liberation Movement at the Present Stage' .....................40

On the Security for This Bulletin [omitted]

This bulletin has been prepared before the edition of the Report to the 8th Congress in Proletarian Internationalism has appeared. Therefore all page references to the Report are to the book edition from Tirana. In order to help find these references in the PI edition. the following list of page numbering from the book edition is provided:

Introduction ....................... 3-10

Chapter I........................ 11-65

Chapter II................... 66-110

Chapter III.................. 111-160

Chapter IV................... 161-223

Chapter V.................... 224-277

On the 'Report to the 8th Congress'

Recently the 8th Congress of the PLA was held. This was an important event of interest to the entire international Marxist-Leninist movement. Because socialist Albania is the only genuine socialist country in the world today and because the Party of Labor of Albania has an honored position in the van of the international movement, naturally allover the world Marxist-Leninists will tum their attention to a serious study of the documents from the 8th Congress.

The 12th Plenum of the Central Committee of the MLP met in November. One of the topics on the agenda was the evaluation of the Report on the Activity of the Central Committee of the PLA Submitted to the 8th Congress. This Internal Bulletin has been prepared by the National Executive Committee on the basis of the discussion and decisions of the 12th Plenum for the purpose of orienting the discussions inside our Party on the Report to the 8th Congress.

A congress is an important event in the life of a party. The Report to the 8th Congress confirmed the stable Marxist-Leninist stand of the PLA on it series of fundamental questions, such as the building of socialism, opposition to the superpowers, the struggle against all the currents of modern revisionism, and so forth. These clear stands of the 8th Congress are important factors preserving Albania as the bright red beacon of socialism beckoning to the proletariat, peasants and progressive people the world over.

At the same time, however, the Report has a series of weaknesses and omission's in its discussion of the international situation in general and of the situation in the international Marxist-Leninist movement in particular. The Report is ineffectual in dealing with various of the vexed questions raised by the rightist currents in, or putting pressure on, the world Marxist-Leninist movement. Thus the Report to the 8th Congress will not play the same role internationally as the Report to the 7th Congress did.

The Report to the 7th Congress played a major role in the international movement; it served as the rallying point for a world struggle against the "three worlds" theory and Chinese revisionism. The Report to the 7th Congress opened the period of the worldwide condemnation of the "three worlds" theory and gave the call to continue and deepen the great polemic against modern revisionism. It gave weight to solidarity with Marxist-Leninist parties of the world and posed the important question of the forms of cooperation in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. It underscored the vital importance of proletarian internationalism, of Marx and Engels' great call "Workers of all countries, unite!", and brought to the fore Lenin's teachings on the one, and only one, kind of real internationalism. On question after question, the Report not only described the particular stands of the PLA, but reiterated the Marxist-Leninist fundamentals underlying these stands, a reiteration of especial importance at a time when Chinese revisionism and "three worldism" were confusing everything. The Report to the 8th Congress will not have this same international significance. The 8th Congress is a congress of militant socialism, a communist congress, but not a congress which clarifies the issues agitating the international Marxist-Leninist movement.

Our Party, like the other revolutionary Marxist-Leninists the world over, values highly the enormous contributions of the PLA to the international Marxist-Leninist movement. The PLA has led the Albanian working class and people in revolution and in the defense of socialism. It has made an immense contribution to the struggle against modern revisionism, having never relented against Yugoslav revisionism, having been the first to recognize the features of Soviet revisionism, having opened up the period of the worldwide condemnation of the "three worlds" theory, Chinese revisionism, and Mao Zedong Thought, and so forth. It has followed the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on the building of socialism and has shown the invincible power wielded even by a small people if they follow the revolutionary road. For these reasons and more our Party painstakingly studies and widely popularizes the experience and views of the PLA. For these reasons, our Party's campaigns in favor of socialist Albania find favor in the eyes of the proletariat and progressive people. But the only lasting support for socialist Albania is that which is based on a mature and realistic assessment of its stands and activity. That is why there is no contradiction between our firm and enthusiastic 'support for socialist Albania and our careful assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Report to the 8th Congress. That too is one reason why the Leninist norms of relations between the different national contingents of the world Marxist-Leninist movement includes independence and equality along with mutual support and cooperation. The PLA, with its magnificent achievements to its credit, has no need of yes men and sycophants.

The National Executive Committee, after reading the Report to the 8th Congress, authorized its publication in Proletarian Internationalism. The 12th Plenum of the Central Committee confirmed this decision. But the 12th Plenum had also to decide what the nature of the distribution of the Report should be, that is, should there be a campaign around the Report or not and so forth. Our Party decides on the nature of the distribution of various documents on the basis of what serves the interests of the revolution and of Marxism -Leninism in the particular situation. This applies to documents from any source, whether our Party's documents or those of other parties. The 12th Plenum decided that, as the Report to the 8th Congress will not play the same role as that to the 7th Congress, our Party will not wage a special campaign to popularize it in the fashion of that waged to popularize the Report to the 7th Congress, but will simply circulate it as any other issue of Proletarian Internationalism. The present campaign in favor of socialist Albania will center on socialism and the propagation of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and will not center on the 'Report to the 8th Congress.

However, the 12th Plenum also held that the Report should be studied and thoroughly discussed inside the Party. Among the pro-party and sympathizers, this discussion and study should be taken to the extent that is appropriate. In this discussion, a balanced picture of the Report should be given. Both the strengths and weaknesses of the Report should be brought out and addressed along the lines set forth by this Internal Bulletin. In other contexts, in the Party press, outside of the Party's circles, and with fraternal comrades, we should confine ourselves to indicating - along the lines of The Workers' Advocate of November 29, 1981, for example - that the Report confirms the principled Marxist-Leninist stand of the PLA. And, as always, in discussing the Marxist-Leninist stand on the questions of the day, we put to the fore discussion of the line of our Party on these issues.

Reiteration of the Stable Marxist-Leninist Stand of the PLA

In the rest of this Internal Bulletin, we outline the strengths and weaknesses of the Report. We begin with the positive features of the Report.

The Report to the 8th Congress reiterates the Marxist- Leninist stands of the PLA on a whole series of cardinal questions of the revolution and socialism. This is a powerful victory of the PLA in the face of the fierce pressure exerted against Albania by the imperialist-revisionist encirclement. Since the 7th Congress, the Chinese revisionists have broken off their relations with the PLA, launched fierce attacks against it, and become part of the imperialist-revisionist encirclement. Judging that the PLA was "isolated," the rest of the imperialist- revisionist gang of wolves exulted, thinking that now Albania would have to capitulate to one or other superpower or imperialist. But Albania has brushed aside these man-eating fiends with contempt. It stands firm, defying the reactionaries and encouraging the proletariat and progressive people around the world.

Among other things, the Report records the victories of socialist construction in Albania since the 7th Congress. Despite the Chinese revisionist treachery and despite the difficulties of building socialism in a small country surrounded by enemies, socialism has marched forward nonstop in Albania. While the Soviet revisionists and the East European revisionists - the Polish revisionists being the most dramatic example - are bogged down in economic difficulties, in stagnation, in bureaucracy, in chaos, while the Chinese revisionists, the Titoites and so forth are all in decay, while the whole revisionist crew stretches out its hands for alms to the imperialists, to each other, to anyone, to help pull them out of their crisis, genuine socialism marches onward in Albania. While capitalism sinks further into its general crisis and millions upon millions are thrown out of work even in the industrial heartlands, socialism develops steadily and without crisis in Albania. This is a dramatic illustration of the superiority of the socialist system and of the distinction between genuine socialism and revisionist state capitalism.

The Report declares that Albania will continue to march along the road of socialist construction, continue to follow the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the cons ruction of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the relationship of the party to the mass organizations, and so forth. In economic work, the PLA will continue to pay attention to the constant perfection of the socialist relations of production, to the class struggle, and to the leading role of the Party.

On the international front, the Report reiterates Albania's stand of resolute opposition to the superpowers and the other imperialists. Defying the daydreams of the opportunists, the Report issues a major condemnation of both the U.S.imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists and as well the strategy of the European monopolies to transform Europe into a superpower. It also denounces the enslaving neo-colonialism of the imperialists, the fraud of the non-aligned movement and the hullabaloo over the new international economic order. As well, it is notable that the Report, in denouncing the increased warmongering of U.S. imperialism under the Reagan administration, connects this with the policy begun under Carter, stating, "This line is also expressed in the new 'doctrine' of Washington, begun by Carter and further developed by Reagan, that allegedly peace in the world and the security of peoples can be achieved by means of the 'increase of the American power and superiority.''' (pp. 168-69)

With respect to the international Marxist-Leninist movement, the Report reiterates the PLA's fervent opposition to the various currents of revisionism. Extensive passages in the Report deal in particular with Soviet revisionism, Yugoslav revisionism, Eurocommunism, and Chinese revisionism. As well, the Report deals in detail with the dangerous situation created by the persecution by the Yugoslav revisionists of the Albanians in Kosova and other regions of Yugoslavia.

The Report also points to the importance of socialist consciousness in inspiring the mass struggle. It states: "The Ideas of genuine socialism have been and remain a great force to inspire, mobilize and organize the revolutionary struggle of the masses." (p. 259, emphasis as in the original) Related passages occur on pages 226-27, 260, and 262-63. The passages on pp. 260 and 262-63 connect this question with the dissemination of the Marxist-Leninist science. The first of these passages states: "The liberation of the consciousness of the proletariat and peoples from the inhibiting influence of revisionism, the dissemination of Marxism-Leninism which points out the only correct source for the struggle and victory, is a primary task today in order to carry forward the revolutionary process in each country and on a world scale." (p. 260) The other passage states: "In these conditions, it is of first-rate importance that all the communists and non-communists, progressives and all the masses of the people should clearly understand that their real enemy is capitalism, that it must and can be overthrown through revolutionary struggle. In this way, pessimism will be eliminated, and their courage and confidence in victory will be increased. The science of Marx and Lenin builds up this confidence of the proletariat and the masses and makes it invincible."

Finally, there is another feature of the Report which, although a side point, is of interest. The crusaders against ideological struggle, [this refers to the leadership of the CP of Canada (M-L), who denied the Marxist-Leninist teachings on ideological struggle and other subjects and denounced our Party as the "theoreticians of 'ideological struggle' and the 'movement' "- W A]. in their attempts to strangle our Party, have denounced our Party's adherence to the Marxist-Leninist conception of working to merge all the revolutionary currents into a single torrent of socialist revolution. Their opposition to this concept is another one of their blunders and is closely connected with their semi-anarchist phrase-mongering against "campaigns" and "movements," while our Party's enthusiasm for this concept reflects that we are a party of revolutionary action, a party that works hard for Marxism-Leninism right inside the mass movements. Because the leadership of CPC(M-L) was raising the question of this concept in its rumor-mongering in certain East Indian circles, The Workers' Advocate made sure to include an extensive passage on this concept in the article "Forward Along the Path of the Founding Congress!" And now we see that the Report endorses this Marxist-Leninist conception, holding that: "They (the party and the proletariat) study with the greatest care the various people's revolutionary currents which clash with capitalism and its parties, assess their directions, the ratio of forces in the concrete situation, and on this basis, decide and put into practice all those skillful tactics which must be used to lead the popular masses on the correct victorious course, to channel thousands of streams into the great torrent of the revolution, in which the capitalist bourgeoisie will be drowned." (p. 263) Of course, the Report states this, not,in order to pass judgment on the war of the leadership of CPC(M-L) against our Party, but simply because this concept is one of the ABC's of Marxism-Leninism, a basic part of communist strategy and tactics. It is all but certain that it did not occur to anyone that this passage involved a concept controversial among Marxist-Leninists. But such an inadvertent comment on the controversy over this concept is, in its own way, the most damning condemnation of the leadership of CPC(M-L)'s cavalier attitude to Marxism-Leninism.

These positive features of the Report illustrate that the 8th Congress was indeed a congress where the PLA stuck firm to its principles. And it is this which is most likely be what is most noticed about the Report by most people.

Weaknesses In the Chapter Entitled 'The International Situation and the Foreign Policy of the PSRA'

We shall now go into the weaknesses of the Report. We shall deal with this aspect of the Report at far greater length than we did with the strengths. This is not a backhanded way of giving an overall assessment of the Report. Our assessment is that given above: in brief, the Report reiterates the Marxist-Leninist stand of the PLA, but does not clarify the vexed questions of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. We shall spend more time on the weaknesses of the Report because the strengths involve the reiteration of the basic Marxist-Leninist stands, stands that have been elaborated elsewhere and many of which have been reiterated repeatedly in millions of copies in our press and that of other parties. We never tire of repeating these Marxist-Leninist truths, because they involve the revolutionary stand on the various cardinal questions of theory and of assessment of the present-day situation. But it suffices in a bulletin of this nature simply to refer to them.

The weaknesses of the Report, on the contrary, involve certain vexed questions of the present-day Marxist- Leninist movement. These are questions that need careful elaboration. True, our Party has a clear stand on the questions that we shall discuss. But even so, it is worthwhile to discuss these questions carefully and patiently. As well, since we are not dealing in this bulletin with the flagrant errors of the opportunists, but with weaknesses in a Marxist-Leninist document, naturally the questions involved are more subtle and require more care.

To begin with, it should be noted that in general the Report is written much "looser" then usual; the writing is not as systematic, nor the formulations as precise, as they might be. This looseness adds to the difficulty of discussing the Report. Sometimes, for example, strange formulations are given that, however, mean nothing because they are just loose writing. For example, consider the description of the origin of the "non-aligned" movement. The Report states that: "The basis of it was advocacy of non participation in political and military blocs and defense of the interests of the economically undeveloped countries against the superpower policy. Now, however, when the rivalry between the superpowers has increased.... " (p. 191) This appears to label the Soviet Union a superpower back in the 50's and a legitimate target of the "non-bloc" policy. However, this is obviously not Comrade Enver's intention.

Another example occurs in the discussion of the present-day world economic crisis. The Report states that: "Unlike the crisis of the 30's, which included the United States of America and the big developed countries especially, the present crisis has engulfed all the capitalist countries, developed or undeveloped, without exception." (pp. 177-78) The assertion that the crisis of the 30's was not universal does not appear to be correct or in accord with the usual description of the crisis of the 1930's. For example, Stalin in the Report to the 17th Party Congress in 1934 talks of the "world economic crisis," of the industrial crisis affecting "every capitalist country without exception, " of there being both an industrial and an agrarian crisis, of capitalism striving to alleviate the situation at the expense of, among others, "the peasants in the colonies and economically weak countries, " and so forth. (Ch. I, Introduction and Section 1)

In terms of content, there are weaknesses in the last two chapters of the Report. We shall now proceed to examine the weaknesses in the chapter entitled ~'The International Situation and the Foreign Policy of the PSRA."

On the Oppressed Countries

We shall begin with the treatment of the dependent countries and former colonies. As the PLA has always done, the Report sharply condemns the neo-colonial system of imperialist enslavement. Nevertheless, there are a number of problems. The Report has a certain tendency to downplay the decisive importance of the proletariat, peasantry and other toilers in these countries and fails to draw out the crucial class distinctions in various phenomena. Thus in discussing the role of the states of the oppressed countries and the role of the peoples' struggles of these countries, there is a marked tendency in the Report to fail to properly distinguish between the struggles of the peoples and that of the states. The terms "peoples," "countries," and "states" are used in this regard without sharp differentiation.

In fact, it is necessary to take into account the actions of the newly emerged bourgeois states. But the Report tends not to deal with the capitalist and exploitative nature of these states or with the internal class struggle in them. Furthermore, the Report generally makes no distinction between the bourgeois nationalist states and the outright lackey, capitalist-feudalist regimes. It then tends to portray all these states in too glowing colors.

For example, the Report lauds "the emergence of scores of new states which, to this or that extent, are fighting to achieve complete political and economic independence." The qualifying phrase "to this or that extent" does not sufficiently correct the overall impression that this passage creates. It goes: "The class and liberation struggles, the general weakening of the positions of imperialism, which came about as a result of the destruction of the colonial system and the emergence of scores of new states, which, to this or that extent, are fighting to achieve complete political and economic independence, have exerted an influence, indeed a great decisive influence, on the birth and development of the present crisis." (p. 178)

Another example is a passage which states that neo-colonial states have "woken up" and, in a far too unqualified way, asserts that they want to make productive investments with their revenues. The passage states: "The producing countries, which have woken up and are defending their interests, which are seeking development, want to make investments in industry, agriculture and other sectors of their national economy, are resisting the pressure for low prices for oil and raw materials."

In these and other passages, the Report exaggerates even what could be said of the bourgeois nationalist regimes. Furthermore, the Report does not in these passages distinguish between the various types of regimes and talks in general of "producing countries" and so forth. Instead everything appears to be thrown into one pot and tends to be painted in shining colors. Thus the Report even puts' 'national revolutionary consciousness" into close connection with the acts of these states, stating: "National revolutionary consciousness is mounting everywhere. This is clearly apparent in the extension of the movement of various countries and forces which are struggling for the establishment of national sovereignty over their own national assets, reevaluation of raw materials and sources of energy... (etc.).... " (p. 189) It is clear that it is precisely the distinction between [the three forces, namely] the popular revolutionary forces, the. reformist bourgeois-nationalist forces, and the outright reactionaries that is being slurred over in these passages.

In places the Report tends to downplay the significance of the toiling masses in the anti-imperialist current of the oppressed peoples. There is a striking example of this weakness in the description given of the class basis for the growth of national revolutionary consciousness and opposition to imperialism. The Report describes "the creation of new local social strata such as the national bourgeoisie, workers of various categories, and a new intelligentsia necessary to work in the economic, political and administrative sectors." (p. 189) This would be a natural place to describe the different motives, roles and actions of the various strata. Instead the Report confines itself to singling out the role of the new intelligentsia. It continues: "This development has opened the eyes of many people of these strata, especially among the new intelligentsia, who no longer reconcile themselves to the forms and methods which are used for the oppression and exploitation of their peoples."

This formulation about the new intelligentsia is in stark contrast to, for example, the analysis given in the famous article "The Theory and Practice of the Revolution." There it says that "the strengthening of national independence against linked, first of all and mainly, with the increase of the proletariat .... " (COUSML pamphlet edition, p. 18)

On the Lesser Imperialist Countries and the National Question

Another front on which there appears to be a number of weaknesses in the Report is on the question of the lesser imperialist powers. The Report contains passages which strongly condemn the lesser imperialist powers. For example there is a passage which strongly condemns the European imperialists in NATO and says that "The strategy of the European monopolies is aimed at the transformation of Europe, first into an economic superpower, then into a political superpower, and later still into a military superpower." (p. 183) But there are other passages which appear to tone down this criticism or, at least, render it less spirited.

In this regard, the formulations in the Report describing the national problem facing the working class in the developed capitalist countries of Western Europe, Japan, Canada, and so forth, are weak. Certain statements refer to the restriction of "the freedom of action and independent stands" (p. 2(0) or "the independent political action" (p. 267 - in the last chapter of the Report) in such a way that, if these formulations were used by anyone else, it might appear that they were bemoaning the fact that the present-day regimes of these countries are not fully exerting themselves. As well, the analysis is made that in these countries the national problem is growing very acute as U.S. imperialism is "more and more restricting the national sovereignty, restricting the independent political action..., and turning them gradually into vassal states." It does not appear that such a blanket statement can be made, nor that it is consistent with the phenomena noted elsewhere in the Report of the decline of "the political and economic power of the United States... in comparison with that of Western Europe." (p. 182)

Our Party has stated its position in firm support of the struggle of the working class in the developed capitalist countries against the U.S. imperialist yoke. We hold that the struggle against U.S. hegemony is intimately connected with the struggle against the internal capitalist-imperialist ruling classes and governments and can only be resolved through the socialist revolution; this struggle must be based on the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and other exploited masses. But in the Report, the passages on the struggle for "national sovereignty" in these countries do not tie the question to the internal class struggle and the socialist revolution.

It should also be noted that the formulations in the Report on the national problem in the developed capitalist countries do not make the necessary distinctions between the big imperialist powers and the weaker countries such as Portugal, Spain, or Greece. For example, it may well be the case the U.S. imperialism is "more and more" gripping various of the weaker countries of Europe and other capitalist countries, but it seems quite unlikely that such sweeping assessments apply to the big imperialist powers of Western Europe or to Japan, and probably not to Canada either. [In fact, although it is quite likely that foreign capital is flowing into various of the weaker countries of Europe, this is capital from the stronger European powers as well as the U.S. - WA]

As well, some passages appear to portray all the misfortunes and tensions in Europe as the work of the superpowers alone, leaving out the -question of the diverse and powerful capitalist interests at work in Europe and of the fact that imperialist West Germany, Britain, France, etc., are also aggressive powers which threaten the-peace and security of the world. For example, the Report states: "We have said and still say that the participation of the majority of the countries of Europe in the military and the political blocs of the superpowers is the cause of its misfortune.. This is where the divisions and splits in Europe, the frequent tensions and confrontations between different countries of this continent, have their source." (p. 199) The Report goes on to state, a page later, that "Our view is that only resolute opposition to American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, the liquidation of military blocs and the removal of atomic weapons and foreign troops can ensure the peace in Europe." (p. 201)

Of course, all the lesser imperialist powers in Europe are associated with the superpower war blocs. Therefore, the formula of struggle against the superpowers and their war blocs is correct, when it is taken as also including struggle against the other, component imperialisms. For the various bourgeois-revisionist countries in the war blocs in Europe, irrespective of whether various of the weaker ones should be called imperialist, the question of detaching themselves from alignment with any imperialist war bloc is intimately connected with the question of social revolution. The Report, however, on one hand denounces the strategy of a European superpower, but on the other hand gives formulations about throwing the superpower war blocs out of Europe that tend to lose sight of the connection of this question with that of the socialist revolution and the struggle against the European imperialist bourgeoisie.

There is one final point on the lesser imperialist powers. Although the Report dearly labels the lesser imperialist powers as "imperialist" in various passages, in a number of other passages it appears to avoid calling them that. In these other passages, it tends to preserve the word "imperialist" for the superpowers while calling the lesser imperialist powers "big capitalist powers" or "other Western capitalist powers," etc. This too tends to soften, or, at least, render less spirited, the overall denunciations of these powers.

The Economic Struggle

The Report also seems to manifest a certain one-sidedness in its description of the struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries on the economic front and for certain other limited demands. In this period of deepening world economic crisis, it makes great sense to pay close attention to the economic struggle. But the Report seems to attribute to these struggles qualities which they don't have.

For example, after a paragraph describing that "In the present period the workers' struggle has been directed especially against the consequences of the economic crisis," a struggle to retain jobs and real wage levels and so forth, the Report in the next paragraph says that this "daily confrontation between the working class and the bourgeoisie," referring back mainly to the economic struggle, "is also a direct and powerful blow against the sinister forces of war.... " This passage reads: "The social and political demagogy of capitalism and the opportunism and sabotage activity of social-democracy and the trade unions under their control are also being exposed and unmasked in this daily confrontation between the working class and the bourgeoisie. This anger and revolt, which is hitting the capitalist and revisionist bourgeoisie in different forms and with different intensities, is also a direct and powerful blow against the sinister forces of war which want the destruction of mankind." (p. 174) This passage is all the more striking given the fact that the Report fails to so much as mention the massive political movement emerging against imperialist war preparations in the capitalist countries.

As well, the passage we have just quoted describes that the opportunism of the social-democrats and revisionists is being exposed by the economic struggle. It is true that the economic struggle can be used to great effect to expose the opportunists among wide sections of the workers; but it is clear that this result of the economic struggle is above all dependent on the work of the Marxist-Leninists and class conscious workers. While the economic struggle is an absolutely necessary part of the class struggle, what seems to be lacking is the discussion of the need for the intervention of the Marxist-Leninist parties in order to achieve the exposure of the opportunists and to raise the consciousness of the workers and of the need to utilize the economic struggle as part of the general revolutionary process.

This one-sidedness of the Report may not be so striking unless it is compared to the analysis presented in other Albanian literature where there is often an apparent awkwardness in the other direction. For example, often the value of the economic struggle appears to be denigrated by formulations stressing that the issue is political struggle. For example, in Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism Comrade Enver writes:

"At present, there are millions who come out on strikes, in demonstrations for economic claims, which also have a political character, because they are fighting capitalism which refuses to recognize the rights of workers. However, all these end up in an agreement between trade union bosses and capitalists, who make the strikers some minor concession, just to give them a certain satisfaction. However, if these claims are given a real political character, the tools of capital in the trade-unions and capital itself are placed in great difficulties.

"The worker aristocracy and the capitalist bourgeoisie are very much afraid of the linking of the economic struggle with the political struggle. They fear the political struggle, because it leads the working class a long way, and even leads it to clashes and battles." (PI edition, p. 75, col. 2- p. 76, col. 1)

Or again, in Imperialism and the Revolution, Comrade Enver Hoxha, writes:

"The trade unions, which are reformist and are especially educated and trained in compromises with the owning class and only for economic claims and not for strikes with political demands and aims of the seizure of state power by the proletariat.... " (PI edition, p. 19, col. 2)

In these writings, Comrade Enver says that the opportunists and trade union bosses restrict the struggle to economic claims and tends to neglect to add that the trade union bureaucrats also sabotage the economic struggle. In the Report, certain of this one-sidedness is corrected, but apparently there is a certain one-sidedness in the other direction.

[Let us pause a moment to elaborate more explicitly on the point that the internal bulletin makes on the awkwardness of Comrade Enver's formulations on the economic struggle. To begin with, let us examine in more detail the points the internal bulletin made on certain of his formulations prior to the Report to the 8th Congress.

It is essential to work for linking the economic struggle with the political struggle. It is also essential to take account of the war of the labor bureaucracy and the reformists against revolutionary politics in the trade unions. Insofar as Comrade Enver is simply making these points, he is correct.

But his formulations went further than this. He appears to have a hard time dealing with any economic struggles that do not immediately take up revolutionary political demands. At one point, he tries to attribute political character to all economic struggles, saying that these struggles "have a political character because they are fighting capitalism which refuses to recognize the rights of workers. " But, in these passages in Imperialism and the Revolution and Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism, he mainly seems to denigrate the value of the economic struggle. He suggests that the dividing line between reformist sellouts and real struggle is whether the various claims take on "a real political character, " or even the aim of the seizure of state power by the proletariat. This seems to indicate difficulty in dealing with the struggle for partial demands and particularly the economic struggle.

This appears to give rise to, or be related to, the difficulty that Comrade Enver has in characterizing the treachery of the labor bureaucracy and the reformists. He mainly raises simply that they oppose political demands. His denunciation that the economicstruggles they lead end up "with an agreement between trade union bosses and capitalists" is awkward. It is true that when the trade union bureaucrats sabotage a struggle it ends up with a class-collaborationist agreement, if it isn't smashed altogether, but the point is to be able to distinguish between class-collaborationist sellout agreements and agreements that cap a successful struggle. All struggles that do not end up with either the proletariat seizing power or the bourgeoisie smashing the workers will end up in an agreement, that is, a contract, a compromise. The point is to distinguish bad agreements from good agreements, and direct the scorn and condemnation of the working class at the sellouts. This cannot usually be done with such criteria as simply whether political demands were raised or whether the revolutionary aim of seizing state power was put forward.

Indeed, Comrade Enver's denunciation of the political role of the trade union bureaucrats is also awkward. He says that they are opposed to politics in the trade union movement. While the idea of . 'trade union neutrality, " that is, the political neutrality of the trade unions, is indeed one of the main ideological weapons of reformism in the working class movement, it is also true that the trade union bureaucrats and reformists, at the same time, seek to bring reformist politics into the trade unions. Various trade unions are affiliated to reformist and revisionist trade union centers and fight for the political stands of these opportunist centers. Therefore it is not enough to simply say that the reformists and trade union bureaucrats oppose all politics. It is necessary to show how they fight revolutionary politics with reformist politics and to be able to bring out the particular waysin which the trade union bureaucrats and the reformists sabotage the class stands of the proletariat and seek to politically demobilize the working class.

Comrade Enver also raises the issue that the trade union bureaucrats divert the workers' struggle onto the path of being satisfied with small concessions. But he does not show how, in the capitalist offensive. the trade union bureaucrats actually collaborate with the employers to worsen the workers' conditions, nor how the small concessions obtained at certain times are usually for the benefit of a handful, while the interests of the majority of the working class are sold out. In general, he appears to have trouble dealing with the actual economic and political issues being fought over at the present time.

Comrade Enver takes a somewhat different tack at the 8th Congress, as the internal bulletin points out. Before, when he raised the need to link the economic and political struggles, he seemed to tend towards denigrating the economic movement. In the Report to the 8th Congress, he seems to go too far in the other direction and to exaggerate the significance of the purely economic movement. He falls back on the idea that he developed earlier, that the economic movement, in and of itself. has a political character. Now he goes so far as to simply announce that the economic movement already has various political qualities, such as being "a direct and powerful blow against the sinister forces of war" and exposing social-democracy. As the bulletin points out, while the economic movement should be used as a lever to build the revolutionary movement. the economic movement does not, in itself. without the intervention of the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary class conscious workers. have these qualities.

Thus Comrade Enver's formulations on the economic struggle in Imperialism and the Revolution, Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism, and the Report to the 8th Congress, while describing certain general features of the class struggle, have definite limitations in giving precise orientation for the tasks of the Marxist-Leninists. They appear to be awkward and one-sided. -WA]

Turkey, Iran, and the Islamic Movement

Inregard to two countries in particular, Turkey and Iran, the Report fails to fulfill the internationalist responsibilities of the Party of Labor of Albania. It is a definite error for the Report to praise at such length the positive traditions of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the good relations between the PSRA and the Turkish government without a single mention of the fact that the present-day fascist Turkish dictators are massacring and torturing the Turkish Marxist-Leninists, workers, and progressive masses. (pp. 217-218) (This is aside from the question, in and of itself, of whether Kemal Ataturk was praised too much. Stalin states that "A Kemalist revolution is a revolution of the top stratum, a revolution of the national merchant bourgeoisie, arising in struggle against the foreign imperialists, and whose subsequent development is essentially directed against the peasants and workers, against the very possibility of an agrarian revolution." ("Talk With Students of the Sun Yat-Sen University, May 13, 1927," On the Opposition, pp. 683-84))

Similarly with Iran, the Report calls for strengthening ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran and vigorously defends the Islamic movement without any mention of the internal class situation and the reign of terror against the people by the IRP7Khomeini government. (pp. 221, 269-70) [The situation in Iran was described in The Workers' Advocate of August 25, 1981, which carried the articles "Condemn the Khomeini-IRP Coup d'Etat! Support the Iranian People's Revolution!" and "From the Iranian People's Insurrection Which Overthrew the Shah to the IRP Coup. "-WA]

The question of the Islamic movement deserves attention in and of itself. Although it is clear that, with respect to this question, the Report has Iran in mind, in fact the Report refers to an Islamic anti-imperialist movement in the Moslem countries in general. It talks of "insurgent movements in the Moslem countries" and that "the broad masses of the Moslem peoples in the different countries have risen and are rising in struggle.... " (p. 269) Although it inserts that this is "not over the question of religion, but for national and social liberation," nevertheless it is referring to "the people's uprisings of 'Islamic inspiration,' as the bourgeoisie and revisionists like to describe these movements with the aim of denying their anti-imperialist and revolutionary character.... " Thus the Report is clearly referring to the Islamic movements and not just to any people's movements in the Moslem countries.

The Report praises these Islamic movements strongly and portrays an Islamic anti-imperialist movement as taking on wide proportions "in the regions inhabited by the Moslem peoples." This description seems to be quite wide of the mark. In the vast regions where the Moslem religion is practiced, it is hard to find many places where an Islamic-type movement plays any major role as part of the progressive upsurge. Indeed, apart from Iran, Mindanao in the Philippines, and possibly Afghanistan, the Islamic political forces are usually straight-up [bourgeois forces, whether mildly liberal,] backward or even reactionary forces, such as the Moslem Brotherhood. The Report does not describe the tasks of the Marxist-Leninists with respect to pan-Islamism or give a proper assessment of it.

[The Islamic forces in Iran that are referred to above as then part of the progressive movement are not the forces of the Khomeini dictatorship and the IRP, but the People's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran, which is part of the popular resistance to the IRP regime. The PMO has had the difficulty of being drawn towards the bourgeois liberals, as described in the article "On the National Council of Resistance of Iran/ The Dangers of Adaptation to the Liberals" in The Workers' Advocate of July 1, 1983.

Besides the Islamic forces listed in the bulletin, there are the Shiite Muslims in Lebanon who have recently been radicalized as a result of the Israeli invasion. Meanwhile the main forces of the Druse community in Lebanon have long been part of the Lebanese left. However, the main organization of the Druse community, which is led by the reformist Walid Jumblatt, and other political organizations among the Druse, are secular, not religious. - WA]

There is one final point about the chapter of the Report on the international situation. Along with its other weaknesses, the discussion in the chapter tends to be somewhat less spirited overall than, say, the discussion in the Report to the 7th Congress. One example of this is that in the Report to the 8th Congress, the word "socialism" is often replaced, in discussion of the international situation, by "social progress," "social liberation," and similar terms which, although not wrong, taken as a whole tend to downplay the proletarian emphasis. Consider for example, the presentation of the division of the world into two camps. The 7th Congress speaks of: "the ruthless struggle between the bourgeois-imperialist world, on the one hand, and socialism, the world proletariat, and its natural allies, on the other. (p. 173, emphasis added) The Report to the 8th Congress, however describes: "Major political and social forces confront one another: on the one side, imperialism, capitalism and reaction, the bearers of oppression, exploitation and war, and on the other side, the peoples, the revolutionaries and the democrats, who are struggling for national and social liberation and the emancipation of mankind." (p. 162, emphasis added)

Weaknesses in the Chapter Entitled 'The Struggle Against Revisionism. The Revolutionary and Liberation Movement at the Present Stage.'

We shall now proceed to discuss the weaknesses in the final chapter of the Report, the chapter that deals directly with the questions involving the international Marxist-Leninist movement. This chapter, just as the others, upholds the Marxist-Leninist stand of the PLA. For example, it vigorously denounces the various currents of revisionism. But this chapter has important omissions concerning several vital questions of the present-day movement. As well, its formulations on certain of the vexed questions of the present-day international Marxist-Leninist movement are weak.

It should be noted that, in discussing the Report in this manner, we are holding it to a very strict standard. Such a standard means to ask, not just whether it is an honorable document for a Marxist-Leninist party, a document that shows that the PLA will continue on the revolutionary road, but whether it answers the vexed questions in the international movement. This is a far higher standard than what one normally holds a party congress to.

Why is it necessary to examine the Report in this light? This is necessary because, for a number of reasons, such as the historic role played by the 7th Congress of the PLA or the PLA's brilliant achievements in the struggle against Mao Zedong Thought, it is natural that Marxist-Leninists will look to see if this Report will serve as a new international call.

This examination shows that the Report cannot and will not play such a role as the Report to the 7th Congress or Imperialism and the Revolution did. But, this being clear, it is then incumbent on our Party to evaluate the Report in a different light. Evaluating the 8th Congress according to the same standards that the congress of any Marxist-Leninist party would be judged, then it is clear that this congress stands out as representative of militant socialism in struggle with world imperialism, capitalism, and reaction.

But let us proceed with examining the final chapter of the Report. To begin with, we shall deal with a number of the omissions in this chapter.

First of all, the Report does not contain any analysis concerning the problems being caused in various countries by the rightist currents putting pressure on the Marxist-Leninist parties. The Report refers briefly to the fact that; despite the major defeats Maoism has suffered in the last few years, problems have come up inside various countries. It states: "Now that this current [Maoism - ed.] has been exposed, the enemies are trying to sow confusion by spreading all kinds of pseudo-Marxist theories, to split and weaken the parties through factional struggle, to manipulate weak and ill-formed elements in various ways and impel them to revisionist positions." (p. 273)

This passage corroborates our observation that certain problems have come up in the last period in various countries, that these problems are in fact an international phenomenon. But what strikes the eye is that the Report contains no analysis whatsoever of what these problems are or how to fight them. For example, it does not contain any characterization of the political or ideological content of the "pseudo-Marxist theories" or of the stand of the "weak and ill-formed elements." The Report is silent on this vital question of the present- day international Marxist-Leninist movement.

The Report also says little on the subject of international cooperation among the Marxist-Leninist parties. The main passage simply states that: "The meetings and discussions between sister parties make a valuable contribution to strengthening the unity of the Marxist-Leninist movement. In this way they benefit from one another's experience, arrive at common assessments of situations and unity of thought and action. The experience of one party cannot replace the experience of many parties. On the contrary, it is the experience of all the Marxist-Leninist parties which makes the movement invincible." (p. 274)

There is nothing wrong with this passage in itself, but this is all that is said. The Report says less than what the PLA has already stated previously at the 7th Congress or at the Scientific Sessions of October 1978. The Report is silent on how the front of international cooperation has developed since the 7th Congress or on the problems that have arisen - for it seems that there has been a falling off the last few years in, at least, certain of the more visible forms of cooperation - or on suggestions for the future. The Report merely reiterates the PLA's support for international cooperation, stating that the PLA "has always tried and will continue to try to make its own contribution to strengthening the unity of the Marxist-Leninist movement and the collaboration between the sister parties."

As well, other important issues are not dealt with. For example, there is no discussion in the Report of the increased activation of social-democracy on an international scale. The Report does denounce the social-democrats in passing in various passages throughout the text. This is important as it reiterates the Marxist-Leninist stand of opposition to social-democracy. But the only statement on the overall situation concerning social-democracy is that: "... social-democracy... ls now compromised and discredited in the eyes of the masses as an open servant of the bourgeoisie.... " (p. 257, in the midst of the discussion of the aims of the "Eurocommunists") The Report, however, fails to mention the reactivation of social-democracy by the bourgeoisie. Just a few of the recent developments concerning social-democracy include: the election of the social-democratic Mitterrand government in France, the election of the social-democratic Papandreou government in Greece, the position of the two social-democratic parties in Britain (the Labor Party and the recently formed Social-Democratic Party) as the likely beneficiaries of the mass disgust with Thatcher, the reactivation of the Socialist International since 1976, the attempts of social-democracy to step up its efforts in Latin America (including paying special attention to the liberation struggles in Central America), and so forth.

Also, the Report does not deal directly with the attempt of Soviet revisionism to benefit from the fiasco of Maoism or with the current of reconciliation with the Soviet revisionists. The Report does, however, denounce Soviet revisionism in detail, explicitly reiterating the denunciation of the capitalist economy of the Soviet Union and of the imperialism of the Soviet revisionists and making various other important points. It is important that the Report contains such material, and spells out its stand towards the Soviet revisionists, at the present time when reconciliation with the "socialism" of the Soviet social-imperialists is one of the themes of the opportunist renegacy. As well, such material is an implicit call for struggle against the Soviet revisionists. But the Report does not go on to explicitly discuss the tasks of the international movement with respect to Soviet revisionism. For example, it does not repeat the stirring call from the 7th Congress to carry the polemic against modern revisionism through to the end.

In general, the Report contains little summation of the recent development of the international Marxist-Leninist movement, other than a certain description of the course of the PLA's struggle against Chinese revisionism. Even so, among those passages on this subject that the Report does contain, there are some strange formulations.

For example, the Report states: "Earlier, when Mao Zedong Thought was exerting its influence in many parties, the imperialists and social-imperialists were more at ease, because they knew that this revisionist current was doing its work of undermining the Marxist-Leninist movement." (pp. 272-73) While this passage may reflect the situation in certain countries at certain periods, it is a strange formulation to give on an overall, world scale. The imperialists are, in general, more worried about the movement in periods of its upsurge and more at ease in periods of its temporary lull or of disorganization. The repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought, as absolutely essential as it is and despite the great impetus it gives to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, does not in itself create a general revolutionary upsurge; it does, however, help a party learn how to organize itself and the masses and prepare for and utilize the general revolutionary upsurge. The present situation of the revolutionary movement and the Marxist- Leninist parties varies from country to country. But it cannot really be said that, on a world scale, the imperialists and social-imperialists were more at ease ten or fifteen years ago, during the period when upsurges occurred in one country after another, than they are today - even though Maoism played a major role in sabotaging these upsurges.

The treatment of the struggle against the "three worlds" theory is also weak. The 7th Congress opened the period of the worldwide condemnation of this counter-revolutionary and anti-Marxist-Leninist theory. This struggle played a major role in the international Marxist-Leninist movement, nor is it over and done with. The Report takes place at the first congress following the world condemnation of "three worldism." Yet the Report is relatively silent on the question.

The Report mentions that the foundations of the "three worlds" theory is Mao Zedong Thought in a, passage on pages 250-51. The "three worlds" theory is also mentioned in passing on page 261. But the main passage on the "three worlds" theory is the following one:

"At one time, the Chinese theory of 'three worlds' also emerged as a theory in defense of neo-colonialism and especially of the American domination of the world. But it melted away like salt crystals in water. It was played a6 a trump card, but was very quickly overtrumped. Our Party exposed and attacked this reactionary, counterrevolutionary theory." (p. 192, in the chapter on the international situation)

This is another strange passage. Such descriptions as "it melted away like salt crystals in water" jar on one. This is also one of the most obscure passages in the Report; it is difficult to see what it is actually saying about the history and significance of the struggle against the' 'three worlds" theory.

It should be noted, however, that the Report does give a strong appeal to carry on the struggle against Mao Zedong Thought, in the form of saying that the PLA will do so. (pp. 254-55) This is a timely and necessary stand. For example, not just in the U.S., but in Latin America, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and elsewhere, there is still much to be done against Maoism. Maoism is still a major factor disrupting the revolutionary movement. Our Party wholeheartedly supports the stand of carrying the struggle against Maoism through to the end.

There is also weaknesses in the discussion of other of the vexed questions of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. For example, the formulations on the trade union question (pp. 264-65) appear to be a departure from the formulations in other works of Comrade Enver's, such as Imperialism and the Revolution (see especially p. 63, col. 2-p. 64, col. 2, PI edition) and Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism (p. 75, col. 1-2, PI edition), or those in the Scientific Sessions of October 1978. The earlier formulations [although containing certain points that seemed vague or awkward, did] give first place to setting up revolutionary or genuine proletarian trade union organization both inside and outside the existing trade unions and, while stressing the need to work in the existing trade union, orient that work to this end. For example, Comrade Agim Popa stated at the Scientific Sessions that: "In the course of the struggle, in the heat of revolutionary practice, the best and most appropriate forms of independent organization of the working class, under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist party, within and outside the existing trade unions and other organizations, are discovered, such as, for example, the Class Trade Union Trend, the Revolutionary Trade Union Opposition, the Assembly Movement, the Committees of Struggle and the Factory Councils of Workers' Representatives, the Peasant Committees and Unions in the Struggle for Land, and so on." (Problems of the Current World Development, Tirana, 1979, p. 95)

Perhaps the discussion in the Report of the trade unions is only intended as a summary of the previous formulations. But it appears to be different. It seems to give first place to changing the existing trade unions and having them "break free" from the domination of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists. The discussion lacks elaboration or clarity and is at best ambiguous and weak. For example, it does not clarify whether breaking the trade unions free from the domination of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists refers to winning the masses or to taking over the whole apparatus as well. Yet the Report appears to take the case that the union can be broken free as the main and predominant case. (It should be noted that the character of the trade unions in the bourgeois-revisionist world can differ in the various countries and among different sections of the trade unions in an individual country. There are some countries, such as the Dominican Republic, where the existing trade unions, or major sections of them, are quite different from the tightly controlled trade unions such as those in the U.S., West Germany and many other countries or Russia and the East European revisionist countries. This affects tactics. But the predominate type of capitalist-revisionist union on the world scale, as far as the number of workers in them, are undoubtedly the tightly controlled ones.) Furthermore, the Report does not seem to discuss the role of independent proletarian organization inside the existing trade unions, since presumably its reference to revolutionary trade unions refers to unions outside the reactionary unions.

Thus the Report does not bring light to the question of the trade union work of the Marxist-Leninist parties. Other weak formulations on vexed questions can be seen in the weaknesses in the discussion of the international situation that we have pointed to earlier in this bulletin. For example, the weaknesses on the question of the lesser imperialist powers and the national question have been discussed. These weaknesses do not negate the stand of the PLA against all imperialism. They do, however, result in the Report being ineffectual in dealing with the vexed questions being raised by the rightist currents on this question.

This brings us to the end of our examination of the Report. It shows that the Report does not answer various of the vexed questions of the present-day international Marxist-Leninist movement. At the same time, the Report sets forth the stable Marxist-Leninist stands of the PLA, the stands for the further construction of socialism, for defiance of the imperialist-revisionist encirclement, for uncompromising opposition to all the revisionist currents, and so forth. Our enthusiastic support for Albania in the press and our public promotion of the positive qualities of the Report are not maneuvers. Our solidarity with socialist Albania is the firm and steadfast support rendered by one fighting contingent of the international proletarian army to another; it is support for the immense significance that the existence of socialism has for the world; it is support for the Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary stands of the PLA.

Revolution is not made by hit-or-miss methods. Our Party has studied deeply the documents and views of the PLA and learned much from their profound content. Such a stand can only be taken by those who have their own revolutionary stand in the world. This is why there is no contradiction between our iron support for Albania and our mature evaluation of the Report. Such a stand has no connection with applauding what is wrong or hypocritically fawning over everything for the sake of some favors or some temporary advantages. It is a stand that requires mature assessment of strengths and weaknesses, for unlike the flatterers we intend to implement and sacrifice in favor of what we accept as the revolutionary stand. Bonds based on this stand are the strongest bonds that exist, bonds that are implemented in revolutionary practice. This, and only this, is the stand of proletarian internationalism, the stand of common devotion to the cause of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism.

[Back to Top]

Reference Material from the Albanian Press

Below we reprint a sampling of recent articles from the Albanian press which demonstrate the pro- found weaknesses in the stand of the Party of Labor of Albania on a series of major international events and issues. The items below have been mainly taken from bulletins of the Albanian Telegraphic Agency, the official Albanian news service. We have also used some items from Albania Today, the political and in formative review published in Tirana. Both these publications reprint authoritative statements from the leadership of the PLA and the PSRA. The views expressed in the items we have selected are accurate reflections of the stands of the Albanian leadership on these questions.


During the Iranian people's revolutionary upsurge which overthrew the Shah in 1978-79, the PLA's stand and analysis caused much excitement among revolutionary and progressive forces. At that time the PLA stressed the role of the working' class in the Iranian revolution, gave support to the Iranian Marxist-Leninists, and pointed to a number of lessons important to carry forward the revolution.

But from several months after the overthrow of the Shah, the PLA put itself squarely behind the regime of Khomeini and the IRP mullahs. The Khomeini regime was never synonymous with the revolution. It began as a government balancing between the revolutionary forces of the toilers and the counter-revolution. But it has long ceased to play such a role. It is today a straightforward government of hangmen of the revolution, and it has imposed a savage, medieval tyranny over Iran. But the PLA continues to support it. It has abandoned all solidarity with the struggle of the workers and peasants. Moreover, far from supporting the struggle of the Iranian Marxist-Leninists, the PLA has never even condemned the murder of militants of its fraternal party or of other revolutionaries by the Khomeini regime.

The Albanian press is full of articles in praise of the Iranian government and it publishes many items on the frequent exchanges of all sorts of delegations between Iran and Albania. We reproduce below a recent example of the praise for the Khomeini regime in Zeri i Popullit, organ of the Central Committee of the PLA, as reprinted in Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin.

On the Land of Iran

At the invitation of the Iranian Radio and TV, a delegation of the Albanian Radio and TV paid a visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran recently. The newspaper Zeri i Popullit carries on March 4 an article entitled "On the Land of Iran" (travel notes), written by Marash Hajati, General Director of the Albanian Radio and TV, leader of the delegation, on the impressions on the stay in Iran. The article says among other things:

We are traveling towards Tehran capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in a moment we recall that ancient land, the known people of this country that have given to history, science and literature distinguished figures. While travelling, we recall that great heroic war of the Iranian people for decades on end against the savage oppression of the American patrons and their bloodthirsty devoted servant, the Shah. This war, which had accumulated the sufferings, grief, and contempt of the years, was crowned with the triumph of the Iranian revolution, which echoed all over the world. This great victory has inspired the people of this land during these last five years; it is the land which has nourished in them the feeling of love for the homeland, for its borders, and for this.they are rightfully proud.

Our host is the Iranian Radio and TV. At the airport were the General Director of this institution, its vice-directors, representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of the Ministry of the Islamic Leadership, etc.

Only a few minutes passed and we felt ourselves at home as if among close friends.

In Iran. The people are frank and with a well-wishing spirit. Above all, they wanted to acquaint us with the victories scored during these five years after the Iranian revolution. We have begun everything, they say, from the struggle against the American domination and the Pahlavi puppets, because there is no other language to be used with the occupiers and the traitors, with the bloodthirsty people.

After speaking of the luxurious life the royal family made, of the oppressive and exploiting policy of the Shah, who sucked the blood and sweat and toil of the Iranian people, the article stresses: In pre-revolution Iran, between the city and village, between the rich and the poor, a wide 'gap existed. Only 4,000 villages, out of 65,000 were electrified, and only two had telephone lines installed; for every 30,000 inhabitants in the village there was one doctor and one bed in the hospital. There was nothing to speak of here of schools, streets, the standard of living, etc.

The struggle changed this page of history. During these five years of independence, the number of schools has doubled, the electrified villages reached the figure of 12,000 telephone lines are installed in 2,000 villages. Motor roads have been opened in many zones. Medical centers with doctor and nurses have been set up for groups of villages. Now there is a doctor for every 800 inhabitants in the villages. For the old people over 60, in the villages, pensions have been set up.

All these achievements in the Iranian villages are not realized in a day or by order, but through an intensive and tiring work. In the organization of the work in the village, we were told that jahads play an important role. These are groups of working people from the city who spread education and culture, help in the plowing of the land, the construction of houses, improvement of the living conditions, etc., in the remote zones.

In the economic sector, attention will be devoted to meeting the needs of the people.

Of interest in the country's policy are also some measures on the normalization and defining of minimum and maximum limits of wages of the working people.

During our stay in Iran, we also visited some cultural and artistic centers.

Persepolis and other historical centers, the monuments of art and culture, are continuously restored and preserved as vivid testimony to the ancient culture, efforts made by the Iranian people for freedom and independence.


During its stay, our delegation noticed the respect and love of the Iranians for our people, for Albania. They evaluate our principled policy of non-submission, of the open war against the two superpowers, of friendship and support of the oppressed peoples who are in struggle for freedom and independence.

Everywhere we went, and from everyone we met, we heard warm words for the support of our people and government for the Iranian revolution.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is now resolutely opposing U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. Organizing the country, relying on its own forces, sharpening the vigilance, Iran has launched the slogan "We don't mind America, we don't mind the Soviet Union." This slogan, written in big letters, is noticed not only on the walls, in the streets, offices and parks, but it has entered into every cell of the Iranian life, because they know that the superpowers are perfidious and can hatch up plots at any moment. In their policy of splits and revenge, the imperialists of all hues leave no stone unturned. Such is also the struggle imposed by the superpowers between Iraq and Iran.

I would like to close these notes with the simple saying of the Iranians: it seems to us that now the superpowers do not cry for Iran any longer, because it slipped out of their hands, but they are crying about the fact that everywhere the oppressed peoples of the world are awakening and they do not accept any longer their dictate and repression.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, March 4-6, 1984.)


The Turkish government is a ruthless fascist military dictatorship. It has made the ground run red with the blood of countless progressive people. It has locked up in brutal dungeons tens of thousands of Marxist-Leninists, other revolutionaries, workers, peasants and youth. The Turkish government is also a major base for U.S. imperialism in the region and receives continuous hugs and kisses from Washington.

But the PLA lavishes praise on this regime, exchanges numerous cultural, sports and other delegations with the Turkish authorities, and has not a word to say in sympathy with the toilers and revolutionaries of that country. The PLA is silent on the fascist jackboot which the Turkish people suffer under. It has no solidarity at all with the Turkish Marxist-Leninists who have historically had the greatest respect for the PLA and fraternal ties with them. For example, in 1980-81, the PLA was notable in its silence on the worldwide protest campaign to stay the execution of the Turkish Marxist-Leninist youth Erdal Eren.

Lest anyone think that the PLA's position reflects mere diplomatic courtesies, it is important to remember that Enver Hoxha himself denies any such notion in the ;strongest terms. Referring to the close relations between the Turkish and Albanian governments, he said just over a year ago: "We make 'diplomatic love' with nobody. This is not the custom of the Albanian but, when we pledge our word, we keep it and do not tum whichever way the wind blows." (Address to the Electors, November 10, 1982, Tirana, p. 26)

With regards to the close relations with Turkey, it should be noted that this does not reflect a recent shift in Albanian policy. The Albanian government has for quite some time had very friendly relations with the Turkish governments. But things have gotten particularly grotesque since the September 1980 military coup which brought into power the present brutal tyranny of the generals. The problem is not that Albania has diplomatic relations with Turkey, but that its relations go far beyond mere diplomacy. The issue is that Albania has abandoned its internationalist duties towards the Turkish toilers who are languishing under fascism.

We reprint below a recent article which shows the PLA's attitude towards Turkey.

Marked Day in the History of the Turkish People

On October 29,1983, the Turkish people celebrate a marked day in their centuries-long history, the day of the proclamation of the Republic of Turkey, 60 years ago on October 29,1923.

The newspapers carry articles devoted to this important event for the Turkish people. The newspaper Zeri i Popullit stresses among others in its article that this marked event and day of celebration of the Turkish people brings into memory that turbulent and delicate time in which Turkey found itself 60 years ago, when its sovereignty was seriously threatened, when the plan for the partitioning of the Turkish state in favor of the imperialist interests of the great powers of that time was being carried into life. The. proclamation of the Republic by the Grand National Assembly, at the initiative and under the direction of the distinguished leader of the Turkish people, Mustafa Kemal, an event which came after the victory in the battlefield, was the fruit of the efforts and lofty aspirations of the Turkish peoples. Strengthening the unity of the people's masses, through a series of important measures, Mustafa Kemal, inspired by the democratic and progressive opinions, liberated Turkey and its people from the medieval yoke of the sultanate.

Further on, after speaking of the important measures adopted by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the juridical, social and economic fields, such as the abolition of the titles of the Caliph and Ottoman princes, the closure of the religious schools, the abolition of the Islamic right, the recognition of the laic character of the state, etc., Zeri i Popullit writes: for this, the figure of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his deed is honored today not only in Turkey, but also by the friends and well-wishers of the Turkish people everywhere. The leader of our Party and people, Comrade Enver Hoxha, in his speech to the electors on November 10, 1982, speaking of the ties of friendship existing between the Albanian people and the Turkish people has said: "We honor and respect the great leader of the Turkish people, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who as an outstanding democrat, destroyed the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate and set up the new democratic Turkey. Let all the pseudo-democrats and pseudo-socialists who oppress the peoples, who trample on their rights and keep colonialism alive, sugar-coated with pompous words, follow the example of Kemal Ataturk who cut the 'Gordian knot' of the Ottoman Empire with his sword. It is our desire that our friendship with the fraternal Turkish people should be continuously strengthened and developed further in every field."

Today, on the day of celebration for the Turkish people, the article says further on, our people once again express the feelings of sincere friendship for the friendly Turkish people and once again express their readiness to cement and deepen the good relations existing between the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and the Republic of Turkey on the basis of the known principles that govern the relations between sovereign states, in favor of our two peoples. The Albanian people see with pleasure the fact that the relations between the two countries develop correctly and have assumed a good development, thus making a valuable contribution to the further development of the mutual relations and understanding of our two peoples. The benevolent stand of the Turkish public opinion and the official circles towards our country, the warm reception extended to different artistic and sport groups and particularly the realistic and positive opinions the Turkish press expresses for the Albanian reality, for the achievements of our people as well as for the leader of our party and people, Comrade Enver Hoxha, also show of the greater possibilities existing in regard to the deepening of the relations between our two peoples and countries.

The cementing of the relations between the Albanian people and the Turkish people constitutes a valuable contribution to the strengthening of peace and security in the Balkans, which the superpowers want to transform once again into a powder keg and set the peoples against each other. For this reason, the Albanian people and their government, fanatic in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland, have pursued a policy of good neighborliness in the relations with all the states and peoples of the Balkans.

In this anniversary of the Republic of Turkey, Zeri i Popullit writes in conclusion, the Albanian people express to the friendly people of Turkey, their most cordial greetings and the best wishes for their happiness and prosperity, wishing at the same time that the relations of friendship between our two peoples and countries deepen and strengthen further.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, October 26- 29,1983.)

Along with Iran it is Turkey which gets the most frequent coverage in the bulletins of the ATA. To show how the Albanian press highlights the close relations between Albania and Turkey, we reprint below a list of some items carried on this subject in ATA bulletins of recent months:

- Message of greetings from Ramiz Alia, President of the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the PSR of Albania to Kenan Evren, President of Turkey. October 26-29, 1983.

- Marked day in the history of the Turkish people. October 26-29,1983.

- Reception at the embassy of the Republic of Turkey. October 26-29,1983.

- The Vice-Secretary of State for foreign affairs of Turkey leaves Albania. October 26-29, 1983.

- The President of the Presidium of the People's Assembly Comrade Ramiz Alia sends a message to the President of Turkey Kenan Evren (on an earthquake in Turkey). October 30-November 1, 1983.

- The symphony orchestra of the Radio-Television ended its tour of Turkey successfully. November 6-8, 1983.

- Protocol on sport exchanges between Albania and Turkey signed. December 7-10,1983.

- The Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Comrade Adil Carcani sends a message of greetings to the Prime Minister of Turkey, Turgut Ozal. December 14-17,1983.

- Message of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey Turgut Ozal sent to Comrade Adil Carcani. December 28- 31, 1983.

- Activities on Albania abroad: The ambassador of the PSRA in Turkey organized a reception for representatives in the field of culture and folklore. January 1-3,1984.

- The Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs left for Turkey. February 1-4,1984. - The Foreign Minister of Turkey received the Vice-Foreign Minister of Albania. February 1-4,1984.

- The agreement on civil air transport between Albania and Turkey signed February 12-14,1984.

- Turkish delegation on air transport left Albania. February 15-18,1984.

- A government trade delegation left for the Republic of Turkey. February 19-21, 1984.


For some time now, Lebanon has been the scene of sharp struggles between the Lebanese resistance and its enemies, the Israeli zionist occupiers and the U.S.-backed reactionary government of the Phalangist Amin Gemayel. In the early days of February, there was an upsurge in the popular struggle that caused much of the Lebanese army to disintegrate, brought the Gemayel regime to the brink of total collapse, and forced Reagan to remove the U.S. Marines from Beirut airport.

The PLA has generally had little to say about the situation in Lebanon. When they have spoken, they have only condemned the Israeli occupation and the intervention by the two superpowers. But they have been silent on the internal struggle between the different political and social forces in Lebanon. They have never expressed any support for the struggle of the Lebanese left against the Phalangist government.

In early February, in the midst of the upsurge of struggle against the Gemayel regime, the ATA issued a statement which indicates why the PLA is silent on the struggle of the Lebanese left. This statement refers to the civil war in Lebanon over the last decade as a "fratricidal war." In other words, the PLA. does not see any progressive content to the struggle of the left in the Lebanese civil war. They refuse to condemn the Phalangist militias and government.

There is in fact a just and an unjust side in the Lebanese civil war. The Phalangists are fascists who modeled themselves along the lines of the German and Italian fascists. The regime of Gemayel was in fact installed in power on the bayonets of the 1982 Israeli invasion. The struggle against this regime is a just struggle. This is a struggle against the so-called confessional system of discrimination against the Muslim communities by the Maronite big bourgeoisie, a system which has been a bulwark of Lebanese reaction and imperialist oppression for many decades. This struggle is vital for the democratization of Lebanon, for clearing the way for the unified class struggle of all the Lebanese toilers, irrespective of which community they come from.

We print below the recent ATA statement on Lebanon.

Grave Situation in Lebanon as a Result of the Interference by the Superpowers

The situation in Lebanon remains very tense and explosive. Facts go to show that the Israeli occupiers are being settled for ever in southern Lebanon, while exercising violence and terror against the local population. The American warships uninterruptedly bombard the Lebanese territory. Tens of innocent Lebanese meet their death every day from struggle, whereas Beirut, with its ruins and delapidation, is difficult to be recognized at present. Over these last days the number of the victims has continued to increase.

The situation in this country continues to be aggravated also as a result of the constant interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon by the two imperialist superpowers, the USA and the Soviet Union. They are fiercely contending with each other for hegemony and control in the strategic region of the Middle East. The tours and shuttlings of the American top officials in the Middle East, and especially in Beirut and Israel, serve the reactionary interests of the imperialist-zionist alliance, they aim at perpetuating the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, at preserving the control of the American imperialists in this important region rich in oil. On the other hand, the diplomacy of the Soviet social-imperialists is constantly conducting its activity. Their envoys, be they Soviet ambassadors in the Middle East countries or Moscow emissaries, directly keep in touch with the course of events in Lebanon, hold intensive meetings and talks with the top officials and leaders of the Lebanese political parties and others.

What consequences has this policy pursued by the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists in the Middle East brought to the Lebanese people? The frequent aggressions launched by the Israeli zionists, who have become more aggressive than ever. The fratricidal wars, which have swept all over Lebanon for 10 years on end, have caused the death of scores of thousands of innocent people. The country is more split up than ever. No optimistic forecast can be made for the near future, as long as the hegemonistic and neo-colonialist interests of the two imperialist superpowers, the USA and the Soviet Union continue to collide with each other in this region.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, February 7-11. 1984.)


Today Central America is one of the major cauldrons of the world revolutionary struggle. But the Albanian press expresses only the scantiest and most grudging support for the revolutionary battles in that region. Nowhere does the PLA draw out the militant lessons from these events or show how to strengthen the struggles of the workers and peasants.

Take the issue of the PLA's stand towards Nicaragua. There are only minor references to the struggle of the Nicaraguan people. The item reprinted below is the only major article on Nicaragua carried recently in ATA. It was written on the occasion of the anniversary of Nicaragua's independence from Spain in 1821. It is notable that the PLA did not write on the occasion of the anniversary of the revolution which overthrew Somoza on July 19, 1979, but chose to highlight the anniversary of the country's independence from Spain, an event from over a century ago. This event is of course of far smaller significance to the Nicaraguan people today than the 1979 revolution. The fact that the Albanian leadership dredges up this old event shows their lack of excitement about the recent revolutionary developments in that country. This also happens to be part of a general pattern followed by the Albanian leadership towards various countries; they seek to draw attention to various purely national struggles that can be used to appeal to all classes.

As for the present situation, the Albanian article depicts the current struggle as merely a struggle against foreign aggression from U.S. imperialism and the contras. It does not address the fact that the counter-revolutionary front extends also to the domestic big bourgeoisie which is engaged in a constant struggle against the Sandinista government and the revolutionary masses.

The PLA does not recognize that there are three forces involved in the Nicaraguan struggle: the counter- revolutionary front including the contras and the domestic big bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeois Sandinista government, and the workers and poor. peasantry. The Sandinista government follows a contradictory policy trying to balance between the bourgeoisie and the toilers. Among the three forces involved in the struggle in Nicaragua, if it can be said that the PLA supports anyone it is the government. It does not give any support to the toilers and their Marxist-Leninist party, although in Nicaragua the Marxist-Leninists of MAP-ML have historically had relations with the PLA. And it is precisely the Marxist-Leninist workers who are striving to deepen the revolution towards socialism.

Here then is the article on Nicaragua published last September in ATA, which was taken from Bashkim;, organ of the Democratic Front of Albania.

Marked Event tor the People of Nicaragua

Under the above title, the newspaper Bashkimi carries an article which says among other things:

On September 15, the people of Nicaragua celebrate a marked event in their history. On September 15, 1821, after three centuries of slavery and after protracted struggles against the Spanish colonizers, they won their independence. Nevertheless, even after the independence was won, the history of the Nicaraguan people has traversed a difficult road. Other colonizers tried to take the place of the Spanish, thus adding, other links to the existing chains. At the beginning, there were the British who kept under their control a part of the territory of Nicaragua. Then the Americans followed, whose direct occupation lasted from 1912-1933. The freedom- loving people of Nicaragua did never accept the new yoke. It must be mentioned in particular the struggle of the people of Nicaragua at the beginning of the 30's, led by the national hero, Augusto Cesar Sandino, who was killed fighting bravely for the liberation of the country. The name of Sandino became symbolic of the struggle for freedom of the Nicaraguan people.

After speaking about the nearly 40-year domination of the dictators of the Somoza family, the newspaper writes: As a result of the many years struggle, the people overthrew the regime of Somoza, one of the most hateful and reactionary regimes of that basin.

The victory of the Nicaraguan people in July 1979 paved the way to the independent development of the country. Many branches of the economy were nationalized. Measures have been taken in various fields to improve the standard of living. But the Nicaraguan people should resist the non-stop plots and even aggression organized by U.S. imperialism.

Further on, the newspaper writes on the blackmail and aggression of the U.S. imperialists against Nicaragua. It exposes the aid it renders to the remnants of the Somoza regime to launch aggression against this country, to impose an economic and military blockade towards Nicaragua, etc.

In conclusion the newspaper writes: The Albanian people have supported the liberation struggle of the people of Nicaragua, have hailed their great victory in overthrowing the dictatorial pro-American regime of Somoza. They support also the current struggle of the Nicaraguan people in defense of the freedom, independence and territorial integrity and denounce with indignation the aggression, plots and blackmail of American imperialism, this sworn enemy of the Latin American peoples and the peoples of the world, that in rivalry with the other sworn enemy, Soviet social- imperialism, want to make the law in the world.

On this day of celebration, the Albanian people wish the people of Nicaragua successes in the independent development of the country and the defense of the freedom and independence, smashing the plot and intrigues of the imperialists. We wish that the friendship between our peoples develop and strengthen further.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, September 14- 17,1983.)

In Central America today, besides the straightforward military intervention of U.S. imperialism there is also another face of the campaign to contain and crush the revolution. This is the campaign of the Contadora group, composed of the governments of the big bourgeoisie of Mexico, Panama, Venezuela and Colombia. These regimes posture as being somewhat critical of the U.S. military intervention and propose instead a "political solution" for Central America. But this "political solution" is meant to prevent the victory of the revolution; it is meant to pressure the Central American revolutionaries to reach an accommodation which will preserve the interests of U.S. imperialism and the local bourgeois reaction. Indeed, U.S. imperialism itself looks with much favor upon the Contadora group's activities, as shown once again by the bipartisan Kissinger commission.

At the heart of the maneuvers of the Contadora group is a great fear among these regimes of the revolutionary flames which have engulfed the region. All these regimes carry out repression against the toilers and revolutionary movements in their countries; they are scared that the extension of the Central American revolution will lead to revolutionary upsurges against their own exploiting rule.

As far as we know, the PLA has not given open support to the Contadora group. But neither does the Albanian press denounce the efforts of the Contadora group to stem the revolution. What is more, the PLA highly praises the role of the Mexican government in the Central American region and it is in fact the Mexican government which is the prime mover of the Contadora campaign.

The PLA's lavish praise for the Mexican regime is contained in the item below on the occasion of the anniversary of Mexico's independence from Spain. This article praises the Mexican government for both its foreign and domestic policies. It makes the preposterous claim that the Mexican regime supports the liberation struggles in Central America against U.S. imperialism and the dictatorial regimes.

But far from there being anything progressive about the Mexican government's policies, the fact of the matter is that the Mexican bourgeoisie is responsible for terrible exploitation and oppression of the Mexican toilers as well as for seeking to extend its exploiting tentacles towards other peoples in the region. However the Albanian press does not carry any support for the struggle of the workers and peasants of Mexico against the Mexican exploiters.

Marked Day In the History of the Mexican People

Under the above title the newspaper Bashkimi carries an article which says among other things:

On September 16, the Mexican people celebrate a marked event in their history. One hundred seventy-three years ago, on September 16, 1810, the people of Mexico under the leadership of Hidalgo and Morelos rose in a great uprising against the Spanish colonizers. This marked the climax of the great patriotic armed movement which in 1821 led to the proclamation of the independence of Mexico.

The proclamation of independence of Mexico in 1821 from the foreign colonial yoke, which was achieved through much blood and sacrifices, was also the first step towards the founding of an independent Mexico. But the predatory aims of the USA, which resorted to every means to replace the expelled colonizers, came to the fore very soon. In 1845, the United States robbed Mexico of Texas etc., and during 1846-1848 they started the predatory war. In spite of the heroic war waged by the Mexican people, the American occupiers annexed from Mexico a territory of nearly two million square kilometers.

The Mexican people have always been distinguished for their powerful patriotic and freedom-loving sentiments, for their democratic and progressive spirit.

The opposition on the part of Mexico of the policy pursued by the two superpowers, its support for the liberation struggles of the peoples of the nearby regions against the dictatorial regimes and against American imperialism, the refusal by Mexico to participate in the military blocs arouse the anger of the United States, which has never stopped the pressures against it.

The Albanian people, Bashkimi writes, have always cherished sincere feelings of friendship and respect for the Mexican people.

The establishment of the diplomatic relations between Albania and Mexico in October 1974 was an important event that opened the way to the development of the relations between the two countries for the strengthening of the friendly ties established between the Albania an and the Mexican peoples, for the further development of the cooperation in all those fields of mutual interest. Our people support the just struggle of the Mexican people in defense of the national interests, the measures for the progress and development of the country in various fields, for the preservation and consolidation of the independence and national sovereignty, to possess in their hands all the natural assets and resources of the country, to ensure the economic independence and the independent development of the country.

The Mexican people too nourish pure feelings of friendship and respect for the correct and principled stand of socialist Albania and have hailed the successes they have achieved in all the fields. Numerous activities that are conducted in various cultural institutions of Mexico on our country, the different exhibitions displayed time and again with aspects from the National Liberation War of our people, with aspects reflecting the successes of the socialist construction in Albania, with the materials of the Party and works by comrade Enver Hoxha, are followed and visited with interest by many friends and well-wishers of our country. They are evidence of the sympathy of the Mexican people for the Albanian people.

On this marked day of celebration, Bashkimi writes in conclusion, our people extend sincere wishes to the Mexican people for successes on their road for the independent development and preservation and consolidation of the independence of the country. They also wish that the friendly relations between our two peoples and countries develop continuously to the mutual benefit.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, September 14-17,1983.)


The tendency in the PLA's international policy to abandon the standpoint of the revolutionary struggle of the Latin American working masses was sharply manifested in their stand on the Falklands/Malvinas war in the summer of 1982. This was a reactionary war on both sides. On one side the British imperialists fought to defend their colonial empire. On the other side, the Argentine fascist generals sought to carry out a nationalist military adventure to divert the Argentine workers from the struggle against the fascist dictatorship.

The Argentine dictatorship was in deep crisis and confronted by a mounting storm of mass struggle; in this situation the generals decided to launch their military adventure in an effort to rally the people under the banner of nationalism and thus undercut the anti-fascist struggle. The only correct proletarian revolutionary stand in this situation was to oppose both sides in the war and carry on the struggle against both the Argentine fascists and the British imperialists.

Indeed, the history of the war and events afterwards proved that, while the victory of the British government was a misfortune for the British workers, the defeat of the Argentine generals in the war helped to bring about a resurgence in the popular struggle against the dictatorship. This struggle was not strong enough, however, to lead to a revolutionary overthrow of the military regime. Instead the military struck a deal with the liberal bourgeois opposition and allowed a liberal bourgeois government of the Radical Party to be elected at the end of 1983. Since these elections there has been an easing of the military repression and hence the workers have somewhat more room to organize, but the exploitation and impoverishment of the workers continues and the reactionary apparatus of the generals has been left intact. The socialist revolution is still on the agenda in Argentina.

The PLA came out solidly behind the military adventure of the Argentine generals. It took the stand that the only issue that mattered was who owned these tiny islands. This was a bourgeois nationalist approach that did not at all consider the issue from the standpoint of the struggle of the Argentine workers. In fact, while the PLA supported the adventure of the Argentine generals it never voiced one word of protest against the atrocities of this regime, such as the "disappearances" of over 30,000 people seized by the military since the 1976 coup by the generals.

Below we print an article reprinted by ATA from Zeri i Popullit on the Malvinas war from the summer of 1982.

Blockade Against Argentina - Another Act of Imperialist Violence

Under the above title, the newspaper Zeri i Popullit carries an article which reads:

A few days ago, following the example of the United States, the Common Market member countries decided to prolong for an indefinite period of time their embargo and economic blockade on Argentina. They gave up their "reservations" and joined completely the struggle of colonialist and imperialist Britain to bring Argentina to its knees and to reoccupy the Malvinas Islands. The Western European countries strove a great deal so as not to go so far as to be compelled to adopt an open political and official stand in Britain's favor. They did their utmost to preserve somewhat the facade of "regret" for this "undesirable" conflict and maneuvered by all manner of means not to put their cards on the table. Indeed, at the initial stage, thinking that Argentina would yield in the face of the British military threat and the all-sided U.S. pressure, they limited their embargo only for one week. But the Argentinian resistance exposed these tactics and tore off these masks of theirs. It compelled the imperialist powers to come out in the broad field and reveal that they are lined up with the aggressors against the people of Argentina, that they are for the colonial slavery of the peoples and against their liberation. It is only Ireland and Italy, the latter being forced to take into consideration the pressure by some millions of its emigrants in Argentina, that did not apply sanctions.

This is not the first time that the big powers and the members of imperialist blocks have solidarized themselves and united with their partners in common aggressions and blockades. In the past, there were the war in Korea, the U.S. aggression in Viet Nam, the Suez conflict and many other cases, in which there were fully expressed the imperialist solidarity and mutual aid to suppress and enslave the peoples. What is new in the case of Argentina is that practice once more corroborates that to defend its predatory interests at any time and in any situation, imperialism does its utmost to stamp out the peoples, to plunge them in misery and hunger, to subjugate them.

On the basis of what right and law do the United States and Western Europe violate the agreements they have struck with Argentina and decide to boycott and strangle it economically? What did it do to America, France, Germany, the Netherlands and others, where did it attack them, what damage did it cause to them? No right and no inter:national law allows and justifies the act perpetrated by these states. But neither international laws nor humanitarian reasons exist for the imperialist-capitalist powers. For them there exist their ideology and policy according to which, when they do not succeed in subduing the peoples through the force of arms, they resort to political and economic blockade, diversionist activity, diplomatic pressure and discriminating propaganda campaigns, which they apply shamelessly and in the most savage way. Viewed from this angle, the blockade against Argentina is the result of this strategy and this practice.

Through their political and economic blockade, the United States of America, Britain and their partners in the European Market have as their target not only Argentina, but the whole Latin American continent. The blockade is not only a warning and a threat to the countries of South America so that they should not impair and affect the interests of the big powers, but it is also a direct pressure and blackmail on them to give up their solidarity with Argentina and not support it while opposing the British aggression. The imperialist powers resort to this weapon to intimidate the Latin American peoples and to compel them to make concessions to the detriment of their national sovereignty and state dignity, to abandon their lofty interests and to submit to neo-colonialist domination.

When we Albanians speak of the economic blockade imposed on our country by the imperialists and revisionists, they say that this is allegedly imaginary, invented, etc. But is it perhaps "imaginary" what is now officially occurring with Argentina? The imperialists consider even our preparations for the safeguard of the homeland as something not necessary and incomprehensible. But history reveals the opposite and we bear its lessons well in mind.

The economic blockade, political pressure and military threat by the imperialists toward the small countries and the peoples who refuse to submit to them is a daily fact of life in the world today; something which is touched, seen and sensed by all. The political and economic blockades by the imperialist powers are total and partial, strong and mild, according to the occasion and according to each individual country, but they exist and operate unceasingly; they keep developing and improving. The statements on the alleged aid to the undeveloped countries, North-South dialogue, etc., are mere propaganda and deceitful traps to foster their domination on them.

Now Argentina fights for self-defense not only against Britain, but against the whole united imperialist front which seeks to subdue and bring it to its knees through the force of weapons and blockades. The ratio of forces is unequal, but Argentina withstands and enjoys the support of the peoples of Latin America and other countries who oppose imperialism and fight against old and new colonialism. No matter how the military battle on the Malvinas Islands will end, the one which will suffer defeat will be Britain and not Argentina. By now Britain has suffered a great political defeat in the eyes of all the peoples of the world. It once more revealed itself as an imperialist power which fights with all the forces left to preserve the rotten colonialist system and to attack the peoples who rise against this system. Together with Britain, those who suffer defeat and are exposed as suffocators of the freedom and the rights of the peoples are also the United States of America and all those who support Britain in this aggression.

The British attack against Argentina cannot fail to bring to their senses many peoples and political personalities in the world who have cherished the hope that they could rely on America, the Soviet Union and others to defend the interests of their countries. The great powers have protected and will always protect their own interests and they treat small countries only as objects of spheres of influence and they can even sell or exchange them according to the conjunctures created among the great powers or abandon them to their own destinies when they do not like to run counter to the great partners. The case of Argentina testifies again to this imperialist practice.

A correct policy is the one which bases the freedom and independence of the country, the economic development and the defense of the homeland on the strength of the people, which nurtures no illusion towards the great imperialist- capitalist powers, but fights and exposes their exploiting and enslaving plans resolutely and forcefully.

(Reprinted from an article from Zeri i Popullit, the Central Organ of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, as carried on May 30, 1982 by the Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin.)


The above examples show that there is a problem in the general approach that the PLA takes towards the dependent and oppressed countries. In the latter half of the 1970's, the PLA denounced the "three worldist" ideas which negated the class questions within these countries and prettified the regimes of the bourgeois-landlord ruling classes. The PLA denounced the Chinese leadership for supporting such bloodstained "third world" regimes as those of the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in Chile, etc. But for several years now, the PLA is taking positions which are akin to "three worldism."

Today the PLA is willing to denounce the oppression of the dependent countries by the superpowers but by and large it negates the internal class contradictions and struggles within these countries. It promotes a nationalist approach instead. The revolutionary struggles of the toiling masses drop out of the picture; the distinctions between different types of regimes, reactionary, liberal, and revolutionary, are obscured; and a blind eye is turned towards the actual role of exploitation and oppression which is played by all but the revolutionary regimes.

As a result of this approach, the Albanian press has begun to depict not only the reformist bourgeois-nationalist regimes but even the patently pro-imperialist and reactionary ones as stalwart fighters against imperialism. An example of the absurd extent to which this propaganda reaches is given in the following ATA article from 1982, which makes the astounding claim that the bourgeois pro-imperialist governments of Latin America were taking steps towards detaching themselves from U.S. imperialism.

Efforts of Latin American Countries to Detach Themselves From the Tutelage of the USA

The representatives of the Latin American countries gathered in Bogota. The news agencies report that one of the aims of this meeting is the examining of the draft on the creation of a new organization of these countries without the participation of the USA.

This is another fact which expresses the dissatisfaction of the Latin American countries towards the policy of dictate applied by U.S. imperialism and the role played by the Organization of American States manipulated by Washington. The indignation and the anti-American sentiments of the Latin Americans have increased especially after the open support of the United States for the British aggression to occupy the Malvinas Islands, which belong to Argentina. They in Washington do not conceal their worry for this course of events in an area which has always been described as an "estate" of the USA. At a speech held in San Francisco recently, the U.S. under-secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Enders, tried to legalize the policy of the U.S. administration and reiterated the" great strategic importance" of Latin America for the USA.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, August 24, 1982.)



During the latter half of the 1970's, the PLA also denounced the "three worldist" ideas on the so-called "second world" which wiped out the class struggle in Europe and prettified the West European bourgeoisie as fighters against the two superpowers. The PLA pointed to and denounced the imperialism of such European countries as France, West Germany, etc.

But today a petty-bourgeois nationalist spirit is also seen in the PLA's attitude towards Europe. The PLA has detached the question of. the struggle against the superpowers from the internal class struggle in Europe. This has brought with it a toning down of the fight against the imperialism of the European capitalist powers. A notable example of this can be seen in the utter silence the PLA maintains towards the crimes of French imperialism, as seen for example by its silence towards French imperialism's military adventures in Chad or Lebanon. At the same time the PLA finds occasions to praise the "neutral" capitalist powers of Europe, such as Switzerland, Sweden and Austria, as models of independence and democracy.

Below we reprint a number of articles from the Albanian press which show the PLA's attitude towards Western Europe. First, we begin with an ATA reprint of a Zeri i Popullit article which presents the general situation in Western Europe merely in terms of U.S. imperialist oppression. Not only is it silent on the imperialism of the West European rulers but it even praises them for being some sort of force against U.S. imperialism.

Next we reprint two articles which show the PLA's praise for the bourgeois governments of Sweden and Switzerland. The article on Sweden again shows the PLA's pattern of highlighting purely national struggles from history. In this case it celebrates the 460th anniversary of Sweden's independence from the Scandinavian Union in 1523; this event from over four centuries ago, which the present royal dynasty dates back to, can hardly be a significant event in the life and struggle of the Swedish masses today. It is a curious fact that the Albanian press only discovered this event in 1982 when they celebrated the 459th anniversary of Swedish independence.

Meanwhile, in the article on Switzerland, the PLA goes to the outrageous extreme of praising Switzerland for its treatment of immigrants. This is ridiculous; Switzerland, like its other West European neighbors, is well known for its racist treatment of the immigrant workers.

Europe in Face of the American Dictate

Under the above title, the newspaper Zeri i Popullit publishes an article which speaks of the opposition of the European countries towards the embargo that Reagan declared for the European-Siberian gas pipeline and for the other diversionist measures he approved on the trade relations between the USA and those countries. The countries of "United Europe" have severely denounced these stands from the positions of a patron on the part of the bosses of the White House.

In regard to France, the article says, it was the first to officially declare that it will not consider the embargo of Reagan concerning the use of the American know-how for the construction of the gas pipeline. On his part, the West German chancellor Schmidt stated definitely that "Europe can by no means accept any extension of American sovereignty over the European Economic Community, using for this purpose the embargo for the trans-Siberian Soviet gas pipeline." At the same time, he regretted that the USA takes decisions in regard to the Atlantic Alliance without consulting its European allies. As the AFP reported, Emilio Colombo too, during his visit in the USA, "opposed the decision on the embargo taken by President Reagan."

Europe, the article points out, does not believe that Washington has declared the embargo to defend the Atlantic Alliance from the "Soviet threat," moreover, at a time when the USA itself is extending its economic relations with the Soviet Union. The only aim of the American administration is to increase its control over Europe and put it under its economic and political domination.

The course of events shows that the Western Alliance is passing a period of crisis and is facing great disagreements on many political and economic problems as well as an open conflict between the interests of the USA and Europe. On the other hand, these disagreements please Moscow, which does its utmost to draw the profits, writes in conclusion Zeri i Popullit.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, August 3, 1982.)

Sweden in the 460th Anniversary of Its Independence

On June 6, the Swedish people celebrate a marked event in their history, the 460th anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of Sweden, writes in one. of its articles the newspaper Bashkimi. This victory of the Swedish people was achieved after many years-long uprisings 'and battles they waged for national independence and the unity of the nation, inspired by the patriotic sentiments to be free and independent.

The Albanian people, the newspaper points out further on, have always wished good to the Swedish people. An expression of this good will are the warm and friendly relations which exist between our two peoples for years now, relations which have always been reciprocal and which develop constantly.

Since 13 years, with the establishment of the diplomatic relations, our country has always taken concrete steps for the normal and positive development of the good bilateral relations with Sweden in various fields of mutual benefit. The continuing exchanges of visits, the trade and cultural groups, the artistic ensembles, the opening up of the exhibitions is a positive fact and to the common good of the two peoples. All these have contributed to the strengthening of the friendship between the Albanian people and Swedish people, to acquainting our peoples with one another's achievements and progress and to the development of the relations of mutual interest.

"As in the past," Comrade Enver Hoxha stressed in the 8th Congress of the party, "we sincerely desire that the relations of our state with Sweden should be further developed and extended in the positive and friendly direction they have taken in recent years."

After pointing out that the Albanian people evaluate the well-wishing stand of the progressive Swedish opinion and press, which has written .positively about the good relations existing between Sweden and Albania, the progress attained by socialist Albania, the work done by the Albanian people for the successful construction and defense of their country, the newspaper stresses: The development of events shows that the superpowers have their expansionist and hegemonic aims in the Nordic countries, too. In order to realize these aims they carry out diversionist acts, interventions through spy submarines and airplanes, as the social-imperialist Soviet Union has done in Sweden, but have been rebuffed by the Swedish people.

In such a situation, peace in the Scandinavian peninsula and in Europe is better served by not allowing the imperialist superpowers to intervene and intimidate the peace-loving and freedom- loving peoples. Our people fully support the struggle of the Swedish people and the other Scandinavian peoples against the expansionist and hegemonic policy of the two superpowers to preserve their independence and national sovereignty.

In conclusion, the newspaper writes: On the occasion of the national day of Sweden, the Albanian people convey sincere greetings to the friendly Swedish people, as well as the best wishes for their happiness, expressing once again the sincere wish for the further strengthening of relations between our two peoples and countries, to the common interest and the preservation of peace in Europe and in the world.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin; June 5-7, 1983.)

Why Democratic Switzerland Worries Belgrade?

By the end of last year a considerable number of Albanians from Kosova, Macedonia and Montenegro, whom destitution and national oppression have compelled to take the road. of emigration, organized in Geneva, Switzerland a manifestation in support of the demands of their brothers and sisters in their native country. They demanded for Kosova the status of a Republic within the framework of the Federation, the end of the discrimination of the Albanians of Yugoslavia in the field of education and national culture, the release of prisoners and the cessation of chauvinist violence.

The manifestation, according to reports from news agencies, was peaceful and correct and carried out in full respect of the laws and rules of the country. Swiss public opinion, which knows the Albanians as honest hardworking people who never create problems, not only did not complain about it but even openly expressed its sympathy with this manifestation of the representatives of a people who demanded the national and democratic rights negated to them. Moreover, the manifestation in Geneva was given positive coverage in many press organs of different countries.

Nevertheless, Belgrade began to thunder against Switzerland. The Foreign Ministry, the Socialist League, radio stations and newspapers, associations of veterans, etc., take turns at accusing the Swiss authorities that, by permitting this manifestation in their own country, they, neither more nor less, help destabilize Yugoslavia!

The Yugoslav chiefs are notorious for political blackmail of this, or even lower, degree. They have gained great skill in presenting themselves as threatened and endangered, as the center of world equilibrium. On this basis they try to get dollars and rubles, ammunition and food, diplomatic privileges and economic facilities. Nevertheless, it is hard to explain all their bile against neutral and democratic Switzerland, as previously, against Belgium and the FR of Germany when manifestations of the poor Albanian emigrants, who demanded recognition of their rights, were organized there.

However, it is hardly probable that, by means of tricks such as is the present anti-Swiss campaign, they can make any capital, and less so political capital. It is known worldwide that Switzerland is a free and democratic country which has given asylum and jobs to those persecuted by fascism or other reactionary regimes, a state which has never meddled in international quarrels and which has not favored one country to the detriment of another. Because of this, the UN has established many of its organisms on Swiss territory, and they carry out their activities freely and without any impediment there.

As it seems, all this is not to the liking of the Yugoslav gentlemen. For example, they are displeased that the Kosovar demonstrators, as the news agencies reported, presented a petition with their demands to the Center of the UN for human rights. Now these gentlemen want not only to teach Switzerland what to permit and what to prohibit on its own territory, but also to show the UN what its rights are. But Geneva is not Prishtina where the Great Serbs can send in their tanks to crush demonstrations, and the functionaries of the UN are not the rulers of Belgrade who turn a deaf ear to the demands of the Kosovars.

World public opinion is getting more and more thoroughly' acquainted with the situation in Kosova and more and more supporting the Albanians in their demands. This explains the unjustified Yugoslavs' tirade against the Swiss authorities and their torrent of shameless abuse directed against the Kosovar emigrants. The Yugoslav authorities can expect nothing from their claim that the Final Act of Helsinki cannot be applied to the Albanian demonstrators in Switzerland. So, the Yugoslavs understand and interpret the Chart of Helsinki to their liking. They do not desist from telling others that human rights are infringed when, for instance, shop signs in Korushka of Austria are not written also in the Slovene, but when thousands of Albanians are thrown into prison, tortured and murdered, only because they demand their national rights in a peaceful manner and without violating the law, this, according to them, is not infringement of human rights!

Just as the voice of Kosova and of the Albanian population of Yugoslavia cannot be silenced by means of tanks, imprisonment, threats and insults, so world opinion cannot be forced into silence when, right in the heart of Europe, an entire people is oppressed and persecuted, because Belgrade dislikes to see its chauvinist and anti-Albanian policy exposed and condemned more and more every day.

(Reprinted from an article from Zeri i Popullit, the Central Organ of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, as carried in Albania Today, No. 1, 1983.)


The tendency to detach the question of the struggle against the two superpowers from the internal class struggle in Europe has led the PLA to flirt with all-class appeals against. the superpowers. For example, in his November 10, 1982 " Address to the Electors," Enver Hoxha declares that, "The development and prosperity of the European countries, the protection of their culture, traditions and civilization are achieved and consolidated by opposing the hegemonic policy of American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism." (p. 20)

Here we find not only pious wishes about "prosperity" and such, but even the call to defend European "civilization." Of course Europe is known not only for its art and industry, but also for its brutal exploitation of the workers and for its imperialist .plunder of the colonies and dependent nations all over the world. But what matter? Once the class struggle is lost sight of, and once the condemnation of European imperialism is toned down, then one can become mesmerized by such above-class appeals as to defend European civilization from.superpower encroachments.

What frivolous "struggles" such a defense of European civilization leads to was revealed more recently in a Zeri i Popullit article entitled "American Linguistic Chauvinism" which was reprinted in the Number 4,1983 issue of Albania Today.

This article comes to the defense of French bourgeois academic authorities who have launched yet another of their periodic crusades to purify the French language from contamination by English and other foreign words. The PLA claims that the crusade of the French authorities has met a "brutal" response from U.S. imperialism. As evidence, it cites a signed article from the editorial and commentary page of the New York Times. This was a satirical piece which ridiculed the French language campaign and, tongue in cheek, wondered whether a similar campaign should be adopted here in the U.S. against the many French words which have crept into the English language. This article hardly represents a campaign by U.S. imperialism to force the English language onto the French people. If there is anything serious to it, the article is ridiculing the idea that campaigns to purify the language, whether in France or in the U.S., are of much value for inflaming chauvinist passions among the workers and that therefore, one would presume, the bourgeoisie should look to other more effective chauvinist campaigns to tie their workers to their coattails.

Nevertheless, the PLA takes the satire carried in the New York Times to be the expression of the policy of Washington. And it flies into extravagant theorizing on how such struggles against U.S. imperialist pressure as this one shows "in the question of language a fierceness seldom seen over political problems." To paint up the periodic revisions of the French dictionary as a fight against U.S. imperialism is absurd.

Of course the French working masses hate U.S. imperialism. But they want to fight on serious issues such as against U.S. imperialist aggression in Central America, the Middle East and elsewhere; against Washington's deployment of the infamous Euromissiles; against the overall war,drive of the Western imperialist bloc; and so forth. What is more, opposition to France's subordination to U.S. imperialism can only become strong if it is linked to the struggle against French imperialism and is used as one of, the levers to organize for the socialist revolution against the French bourgeoisie. But the PLA tends to forget this fact as illustrated by this hysteria over the purity of the French language.

America's Linguistic Chauvinism

Superpower arrogance is expressed not only in policy, economy, defense, science, technology, technique and other fields, but also in the field of language. When steps were recently taken in France to limit the use of foreign words, mainly English, which have unnecessarily swamped French although the latter is not lacking words of its own of a similar meaning, Washington went in a rage. The mouthpiece of the American monopoly bourgeoisie, the newspaper New York Times. expressing also the opinion of the American official circles, wrote in the tone of a war communique: "The attack on linguistic imports will not remain without a reply. We are ready for it. A compromise would be better, and if our requests are accepted, we will be generous and work towards the easing of tension." So openly a brutal speech is not very common in the relations of the United States with its West European allies, even when its economic or political interests are involved.

Any reasonable person considers the measures a country or nation takes to defend the purity of its mother tongue to be fully justified. Language is a amongst the more important elements of the national identity, and the peoples have the right to defend it and develop it further in accord with its nature, history and tradition. Why is such a process not to the liking of Washington and why is it showing in the question of language a fierceness seldom seen over political problems? Chauvinism, as the ideological and cultural mentality of the imperialist powers which oppress or want to oppress other peoples and nations expresses itself in all fields, including the language. There are well-organized and generously financed measures of the American official propaganda and culture to implant English as an outgrowth in the body of their languages. Their argument is that America's technological advance makes necessary the substitution of many words of English for their equivalents in national languages. This is done to shrink the power of the national languages of other peoples. This is also done to emasculate, the cultural traditions and the national physiognomy of other peoples. Anything of a national character is unacceptable to the forces that are bent on assimilating and wiping out the language and national independence of other peoples. As the American press presents the question, the defense of the purity of the national languages of other peoples is an expression of nationalism. To be against American cultural. imperialism is a form of nationalism. writes the American journal Herald Tribune.

America's linguistic chauvinism has already assumed flagrant forms. The campaign against efforts to maintain the purity of national languages in face of the invasion of unnecessary alien words has assumed the proportions of a real crusade with a profoundly anti-scientific, anti-national and reactionary content.

(The above article, originally published in Zeri i Popullit, is reprinted from Albania Today, No. 4. 1983.)


Over the last several decades, the Romanian revisionist regime, while remaining a member of the Soviet military bloc, the Warsaw Pact, has often postured as a regime with an "independent" foreign policy. The Chinese leadership promoted this in the 1960's onwards as a pretext to paint the Romanian regime in "anti-revisionist" colors. The PLA denounced this notion and exposed that the Romanian revisionists were in fact a "card-castle" of anti-revisionism in Europe.

But today the PLA has begun to praise Romania as a country with an independent policy and which is making social progress. This is just as absurd now as it was earlier. Romania's "independence" merely means that while it remains a member of the Warsaw Pact, it also heavily wheels and deals with the U.S. imperialists, And at home, this regime is in dire economic straits and maintains a tight grip over the' working masses.

Here we reprint a recent Albanian article on Romania:

Historical Day for the Romanian People

The newspapers Zeri i Popullit and Bashkimi carry articles on the occasion of the 39th anniversary of the liberation of Romania. In its article Zeri i Popullit writes among other things:

On August 23, 1944, the Romanian people overthrew the military fascist dictatorship of Antonescu, liberated the country from the foreign yoke and introduced it on the road of development and progress. The Romanian people attained this victory through struggle and sacrifices. It assumed broad proportions during the summer of 1944, when the Red Army, led by J. V. Stalin and the other anti-fascist peoples of Europe were dealing lethal blows to the fascist aggressors. The entering of the Red Army in Romania was the decisive factor for the liberation of the country and its purge from the fascist bands of Antonescu. At that time, the Romanian people began the armed uprising, their struggle against fascism and reaction became more organized until finally, the German occupiers and their quisling tools were expelled from the country.

The liberation of the country, the newspaper points out, created favorable conditions for the Romanian people, opened up before them new prospects for an independent development of the country, for political, economic and social transformations. After the liberation of the country too, they had to cope with the plans and activity of the internal and external enemies, the plots they hatched up to strip the peoples of their freedom. In the face of this hostile activity, the Romanian people intensified their struggle against the fascist bands and reaction, carrying further the victory of August 23. Three years later, on December 30, 1947, they overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed the country a People's Republic.

The previous anti-people regimes had made Romania a country where oppression and exploitation for the working masses prevailed, although the country was rich in raw materials and fertile lands. The economy of the country depended on the foreign capital, which ensured fat profits. The liberation of the country created favorable conditions for the Romanian people, for the development and prosperity of the country. They set down to constructive work to liquidate the aftermath of the past and to develop and strengthen the national economy and culture.

The Albanian people, Zeri i Popullit writes in conclusion, has followed with sympathy the victories achieved by the Romanian people on their road for the progress of the country. On this day of their national celebration, the Albanian people extend to the Romanian people their sincere greetings and the best wishes for the development and the prosperity of the country. On this occasion, the Albanian people wish that the friendly relations between our two peoples develop further in the future to the benefit of their common interest.

(Reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, August 21-23, 1983.)


The Vietnamese people waged a titanic liberation struggle against U.S. imperialism, a struggle which inspired the toiling masses and progressive people everywhere. Our Party owes its origins to, among other things, the movement here in the U.S. in solidarity with the Vietnamese liberation struggle. We were overjoyed to see the defeat of the U.S. imperialist monster at the hands of the heroic Vietnamese people.

But victory in the Vietnamese national liberation struggle, although it broke the chains of U.S. domination, reunified the country and accomplished social reforms which were major advances over the old reactionary regime, did not bring about a socialist revolution. This was because the Vietnamese leaders failed to fight revisionism and have become mired within the general pro-Soviet revisionist orbit. Today the Vietnamese leaders are part of the general pro-Soviet revisionist current and have even linked their country with COMECON, the international economic organization dominated by the Soviet social-imperialists.

However, the PLA paints Viet Nam in Marxist-Leninist and anti-revisionist colors. It maintains fraternal relations with the revisionist party in Viet Nam and praises them for not only carrying out the "construction of socialism on the Marxist-Leninist road" but even for fighting "overt and covert revisionism." We reprint here an excerpt from an Albanian statement reporting on Enver Hoxha's remarks on Viet Nam made last year.

Comrade Enver Hoxha Receives the Ambassador of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

On May 10, the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, Comrade Enver Hoxha, received the extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to our country, Hoang Quoc Tin, in the residence of the Central Committee of the Party. The member of the Political Bureau and. Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, Ramiz Alia, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Reiz Maille, were also present at the reception....

We are convinced, said Comrade Enver Hoxha further on, that at any time and in any situation the Vietnamese people, their Party and Government will stand strong guard of the victories they have achieved in the struggle against imperialism and continue their determined struggle for the construction of socialism on the Marxist-Leninist road, against the open and disguised modem revisionism. Viet Nam and socialist Albania cannot be led astray or conquered by the imperialist and revisionist states....

(Reprinted from Albania Today, No.3, 1983.)


The PLA has long been a staunch champion of the struggle against all national oppression. It has written blistering attacks against racism in the U.S., against the virulent national oppression in the Soviet Union, and so forth and has time and again stood firmly by the side of the struggling oppressed nationalities around the world. But, as the PLA has begun to downplay the class struggle and tended towards viewing every question from a nationalist perspective, it has now and then lost its orientation.

For example, in a few places the PLA has condemned, in passing, alleged campaigns for "mixed marriages," by which it means marriages between people of different nationalities. No one has ever heard of barriers being put up to "mixed marriages" in Albania, and the negative references to "mixed marriages" occur in a discussion of attempts by the Soviet revisionists to assimilate various nationalities. Nevertheless, it is an amazing error to forget the opposition to "mixed marriages" has long been a banner of "racial purity" used by the bourgeoisie to encourage racism and national oppression. It remains a centerpiece of the propaganda of such arch racists as the Ku Klux Klan and various religious bigots. As well, opposition to "mixed marriages" has, at times, served as a slogan for bourgeois from an oppressed nationality by which they attempt to encourage extreme nationalist prejudices to maintain their hold over the toilers from their own nationality. The PLA has fought consistently against the bourgeoisie, the racists and reactionaries. But having put on nationalist blinders the PLA has mistakenly picked up this slogan of the very enemies it has been fighting against.

We first noticed a reference against "mixed marriages"- in a report delivered at the Scientific Session on "Soviet Revisionism and the Struggle of the PLA for Its Exposure" held in Tirana in late 1980. This report lambasted the brutal national oppression carried out by the revisionist rulers of the Soviet Union. But in one place it carried its critique too far and complained that "Other factors such as 'internal emigration' and 'mixed marriages' also assist this process [of Russification of the non-Russian nationalities]." (Albania Today, No. 1,1981, p. 12)

This view was further spelled out in a recent Albania Today. It states:

"Mixed marriages are actively encouraged and their percentage is constantly increasing. In some republics they account for 20-23% of the total. This is considered an important means for the denationalization and Russification of the culture, language, ethics, psychology, traditions, and customs and the way of life of non-Russian peoples. As the instruction is that on registration children should take up the nationality and language of their mothers, and as, for known reasons, it is the Russ\an girls that marry to men of other nationalities, the Russian population in the federated Republics of the Soviet Union is steadily growing." ("Inequality and National Oppression - Features of the Present-Day Soviet State," Albania Today, No.4, 1983, p. 54)

Nowhere in these statements does the PLA claim that the Soviet rulers carry out forced marriages between different nationalities. Therefore, it appears that it is condemning voluntary marriages between nationalities. Such a view amounts to nationalist philistinism. It confuses a phenomenon which appears to indicate the breaking down of hostilities between nationalities, and which should assist the internationalist unity of the workers, with national oppression.

What the PLA seems to be worried about is that "mixed marriages" will lead to the assimilation of nationalities in the Soviet Union. It claims that this is the plan of the Soviet revisionists. But contrast the stand of the PLA on this question with the attitude of Lenin towards the assimilation of different nationalities.

Lenin pointed out that developing capitalism knows two tendencies on the national question, a phenomenon which is equally applicable to the capitalist society that has been restored in the revisionist countries. He wrote:

"Developing capitalism knows two historical tendencies in the national question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the breakdown of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc.

"Both tendencies are a universal law of capitalism. The former predominates in the beginning of its development, the latter characterizes a mature capitalism that is moving towards its transformation into socialist society. The Marxists' national program takes both tendencies into account, and advocates, firstly, the equality of nations and languages and the impermissibility of all privileges in this respect (and also the right of nations to self-determination, with which we shall deal separately later); secondly, the principle of internationalism and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even of the most refined kind." (Lenin, "Critical Remarks on the National Question," Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 27, emphasis as in original.)

In worrying about assimilation through voluntary "mixed marriages" the PLA has weakened its correct condemnation of violence, inequality and privileges between nationalities.

In his article, Lenin polemicises against a Jewish nationalist deviator (a bundist) who railed against " assimilation. " Lenin calls for a stern fight against all use of force and violence in the national question and then goes on to ridicule "the nationalist bogey of assimilation. "He stresses: "In condemning 'assimilation' Mr. Liebman had in mind, not violence, not inequality, and not privileges. Is there anything real left in the concept of assimilation, after all violence and all inequality have been eliminated?

"Yes, there undoubtedly is. What is left is capitalism's world historic tendency to break down national barriers, obliterate national distinctions, and to assimilate nations - a tendency which manifests itself more and more powerfully with every passing decade, and is one of the greatest forces transforming capitalism into socialism. .. (Ibid., p. 28, emphasis as in original)

It is precisely this which the PLA has forgotten when it worries about assimilation and "mixed marriages." A similar nationalist prejudice has shown up in one of Enver Hoxha's latest works. In his memoirs The Anglo-American Threat to Albania (Tirana, 1982), Enver records a conversation he had with a British general during World War II in which he offered the following theory to explain the historical differences between Albania and Britain:

"Our people, small in numbers, have fought during their whole existence. Your people have fought, too, but the wars of our two peoples have been of different characters. Our country has been invaded many times, but we have always fought the enemies, we have driven them out and we have never mixed our blood with them ....

"Foreigners have occupied your country, too. Wars have been waged there, too. Who hasn't invaded your island: the Celts, the Romans. the Vikings, the so-called 'Northmen,' and others but the kings and queens of England, the upper strata of the country, have accepted the occupiers and made peace with them, have coexisted and intermarried with them, have adopted the foreigners' way of life and even taken over the expansionist policy of Roman emperors and others." (p. 92 and p. 95, emphasis added)

This is such an absurd theory of history that it is hard to dignify it with a refutation. To try to explain the contemporary status of different peoples according to whether or not they mixed their blood or adopted the ways of life of foreigners over the centuries is ridiculous. To explain the roots of British colonialism in the taking over of the "expansionist policy of Roman emperors" is sheer nonsense. Likewise, the theory of seeking the basis of the Albanian people's resistance to foreign domination over the centuries in some notion of the "purity" of the Albanian nation is nonsense. It is also a myth. For example, the Albanian people put up a courageous fight against the Turkish Ottoman occupiers. But can it be said that the Albanian people never took up "ways of life" from the Turks or intermarried with them? It cannot. How then did so many Albanians embrace the Islamic religion, adopt Arabic names, etc.?

[Back to Top]

Reference Material:

[Back to Top]

From Comrade Enver Hoxha's Speech of November 10, 1982

(Below wereproduce extracts from Comrade Enver Hoxha's Address to the Electors of November 10, 1982. We have reprinted the relevant material on Mehmet Shehu and on the international situation that was discussed in our Internal Bulletin of December 22, 1982.We have omitted the passages on the successes of the socialist economy in Albania. The text has been reproduced directly from the English edition of the Speech produced by Albania's "8 Nentori" Publishing House. The page numbers in the margins correspond to the "8 Nentori" original.)

5 ... Against this unity of the Party and people Mehmet Shehu, too, one of the most dangerous traitors and enemies of socialist Albania, broke his head. He had been criticized many times by the Party for his grave mistakes, but had managed to camouflage himself. The documents that have been discovered and incontestable evidence prove that since before the War he had been working for the American secret service. During the War and after liberation Mehmet Shehu fought and worked in Albania as a mercenary in the pay of foreigners and under their orders. When he was in the 1st Brigade he was recruited by the Yugoslav secret service (OZNA. today the UDB) and then, by the Soviet KGB, and he served them all zealously. Acting on the orders and instructions of foreign espionage centres, especially the CIA and the UDB, he and the group of plotters linked with him, who are now in the hands of the authorities for full investigation, worked to destroy the Party and the people's state power and to put Albania under foreign rule.

6 In order to carry through the subversive, gangster plans worked out by their patrons in Washington, Belgrade and elsewhere, Mehmet Shehu and his associates were prepared to commit grave crimes. Mehmet Shehu had received orders from the Yugoslav UDB to kill the First Secretary of the Central Committee and other leaders of the Party and state, as well as to use terrorist means to crush all those who would rise against this great treachery. If they were unable to act to carry out their criminal intentions, this was connected with their great fear of the people and the Party and their steel unity, which does not allow any enemy, however cunning and diabolical, to have its way. Mehmet Shehu was never able to alter or distort the line of the Party, because if he tried to do so he would be immediately unmasked.

Caught between two fires - the order of the UDB, which was driven to desperation as it lost ground in Kosova, and his fear of the unity of the Party and the people, Mehmet Shehu could see no alternative but the shameful course of suicide....

17 Dear comrades,

We are living in a very tense international situation, full of great threats and dangers to the freedom and independence of the peoples, peace and international security. This situation is the result of the intensification of the aggressive policy and activities of the imperialist superpowers and the revival of various reactionary, fascist and war-mongering forces.

Both in the United States of America and in the Soviet Union, an adventurous militarist course is becoming predominant in their foreign policy, a strategy of direct military intervention as a means to secure expansion, and their political and economic hegemony in the world is being implemented. Now the superpowers have made not only the peoples and countries which have been outside the zones of their domination, but also their closest partners in the military alliances and economic blocs, the objectives of this general offensive.


In these situations, the peoples, of course, are not sitting idle. The revolutionary, patriotic, democratic and peace-loving forces everywhere in the world are putting up open and determined resistance to the inhuman aggressive policy of American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. In Afghanistan, in the Middle East, in Salvador. etc., armed struggle is being waged to regain the violated freedom and the lost independence. The Iranian people are making great efforts to defend their revolution from the threats and blackmail of the two superpowers. In all the capitalist countries without exception the resistance of the working class to defend their democratic rights and their right to work won in long class battles has extended greatly. The struggle of many countries for national sovereignty over their raw materials and for independent development is being waged at a higher level and in broader proportions.

These struggles and efforts also constitute those main factors which hit the world capitalist and imperialist system, which cause the crises in the capitalist alliances and exacerbate the inter-imperialist contradictions, which restrain and hinder imperialism in the realization of its enslaving and war-mongering plans.

19 Our Party and Government, as always, attentively follow the various processes which take place in the world and draw the respective conclusions about the stands they should adopt towards them, stands which must respond to the needs of the defence and security of our state and country. We are aware that the situations in the world never stand still and immovable. They are always changing and evolving for better or for worse, according to the ratio of the class forces in the world. the development of the various contradictions, crises. Etc.

Now we see that. as a result of the hegemonic policy and brutal intervention of the United States of America and the Soviet Union. new tensions and conflicts are being created in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Balkans, directly threatening the peace and security' of many countries of these regions. The countries of Western and Eastern Europe are in the iron grip of the two superpowers which now not only want to grab their wealth, but also to squeeze the life out of them. Quite rightly, the broad popular masses in many countries have risen in protests and demonstrations against the stationing of American and Soviet atomic weapons and are insistently demanding their removal from our old continent. The masses are aware that by putting these countries under their atomic umbrellas, the superpowers want to keep them in perpetual political and economic subjection and to make the whole of Europe cannon fodder for the Americans and the Soviets.

Regardless of what justifications may be put up, the dispatch of military units from some European countries to Lebanon, along with those of the United States, constitutes a very dangerous precedent for direct military intervention in the internal affairs of independent countries. In a way, this action is a return to the old policy of the European Great Powers which, under the pretext of "putting down unrest," and "restoring order," sent their troops to various countries in order to establish their domination there.

20 The opinion of our Party is that the strengthening of peace and security in Europe, in the Mediterranean or in the Middle East, the development and prosperity of the European countries, the protection of their culture, traditions and civilization are achieved and consolidated by opposing the hegemonic policy of American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, by giving them no possibility whatsoever of exploiting their political, economic and other links with these countries in order to attack other countries. to jeopardize the freedom and independence of the peoples, peace and international security.

Neither the Atlantic Pact, the Warsaw Treaty, the military bases established in various countries, nor the superpowers' atomic weapons guarantee the defence of the European countries. their free and independent development, their sovereignty and territorial integrity. They are secured by breaking up these pacts and by sending the American and Soviet soldiers back to their homes, by breaking and smashing the political, economic and military chains with which Washington and Moscow have bound Europe. Such a thing should be done in the Balkans, too, where, taking advantage of the difficult situations created in some country, the superpowers have begun to move, to exert various pressures and demand new concessions in their favour. The provision of military bases and different facilities for the United States and the Soviet Union threatens the peace and security of the Balkans and so does sinking deep into debt to the superpowers, which entails many dangers, not only for the independence of the debtor country, but also for its neighbours. It is known that, when you have mortgaged your title deeds and cannot pay up, the day comes when the creditor seizes not only your home, but also the ground on which it is built. 21

The Balkan peoples have suffered enough in the past and do not want the map of their peninsula to be changed in favour of this or that superpower. Therefore. the Balkan states should not permit the imperialist powers to enter the Balkans on any occasion or in any way, to disturb the peace and security of their countries.

The present situation in the Middle East has become very disturbing. The new Israeli aggression against Lebanon, organized, financed and incited by the American imperialists, has created direct threats and dangers, not only for the peoples of the surrounding zone, but also for those of a much wider area.

Taking advantage of the great American aid and the divisions amongst the Arab peoples, Israel has extended its range of provocations and wants to destroy, one after the other, all those countries which do not accept the grabbing of Arab territories and genocide imposed on the long-suffering Palestinian people.

The expansionist policy and activity of Israel at the expense of the Arabs is also incited and favoured by the policy of the Soviet Union, its behind-the-scenes deals and plots to the detriment of the Arab peoples.

22 After Camp David, Israel attacked Lebanon. Now it is demanding the submission of Jordan and is threatening Syria with war. Whose turn will it be tomorrow - Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's or Iran's? The American and Israeli staffs are thinking about and working for this. But will the brave Arab peoples allow Israel and its American bosses to do whatever they please to their detriment? Will they remain divided as they are so that Israel and American imperialism defeat and crush them one by one, as they are doing? We believe that this will not happen. The Arab peoples are freedom-loving peoples with very ancient fighting traditions, peoples that have given mankind a whole civilization. They will certainly find the strength to unite and stop the Zionist aggressors from grabbing the Arab lands and exterminating the people who inhabit them. However protracted the struggle, however great the difficulties and however many the sacrifices required of them, victory will be theirs. Right is on their side, the whole of progressive mankind is with them. Our people have always stood beside the fraternal Arab peoples, the heroic Palestinian people and supported their just cause. In the future, too, the just struggle of the Arabs and Palestinians will have the full and unreserved support of the Albanian people.

Recently, especially since Reagan came into office, there has been a noticeable increase both of American interference and Soviet intrigues in Latin America. The peoples of Latin America are responding to this attack by increasing their resistance to enslaving imperialist plans. The Albanian people have supported and continue to support this struggle of the Latin American peoples, and this was expressed in the case of the conflict over the Malvinas, in which we supported the undeniable rights of the Argentinian people. 23

The struggle of our people for the construction of socialism, for the defence of freedom and independence is in favour of and an active support for the struggle the peoples are waging against imperialism and reaction. At the same time, we consider the struggle of the peoples for freedom and independence as our own struggle, as a great support for our cause.


At the 8th Congress of the Party the principles from which the foreign policy of our country proceeds, and our stand towards the major current international problems, as well as towards individual countries and the different political forces and movements in the world were clearly defined and expressed. Today, as in the past, this policy has the complete backing of our people, because it expresses their thoughts and desires, because it defends the supreme interests of the Homeland.

Our people support this policy because it is an entirely independent policy which is not inhibited by any external influence of whatever nature. The voice of Albania in international relations is her voice alone. And this is an additional reason why it is listened to, respected and taken into account.

24 Our stands are known. We have said and continue to say that we will have no rapprochement or reconciliation with either American imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism which to us and all the peoples are the greatest enemies. We will resolutely oppose their aims of hegemony and relentlessly expose their aggressive plans. Our opinion is, and life has proved, that our struggle and irreconcilable stand against American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism constitute an essential condition for the preservation of the freedom and independence of the Homeland, for progress on our socialist road.

With the other countries, such as France, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc., regardless of their social system, we are for normal relations on the basis of non-interference, equality and mutual interest. We want these relations to serve the economic, cultural and social development of both sides, the strengthening of friendship between peoples and sovereign states and, at the same time, the interests of the preservation and strengthening of peace in the world.

Our country has been and is for the development of international trade, which it considers a useful and necessary means for every country. However, we demand from all our partners in trade that it should be based only on mutual benefit and complete equality, that it should be free of any pressure and discrimination. Moreover, we do not permit trade relations to be utilized as a means to interfere in our internal affairs or to impose alien political and ideological concepts on us. To us trade means trade, that is, the free and balanced exchange of goods, and we never confuse it with the acceptance of credits, which is quite another matter.

Socialist Albania, our people, very highly 25 esteem the progressive achievements of every country in culture, science and technology, all values which serve the development and advance of mankind. Hence, we are for normal cultural exchanges with other countries, for mutual recognition of progressive and democratic achievements in this field, without discrimination or prejudice.

As is natural, our country devotes particular attention to its relations with the neighbouring countries. What has inspired and inspires its stand is the desire to live together as good neighbours, always to have useful relations and to build normal collaboration on the basis of the principles of complete equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of others, respect for national sovereignty and non-violation of territorial integrity, and exchanges on the basis of mutual interest.

We have good relations with the Italian people and we do not confuse them with Mussolini's fascists who spread death and destruction in our country. In my wartime notes I read with pleasure the words that General Azzi, who, after the capitulation of Mussolini's army, confidently surrendered his whole army to the General Staff of our partisan army and the Albanian people, said to me when we met in the village of Arbana, in the vicinity of Tirana, "We are grateful to the Albanian people and partisans who saved and sheltered thousands of my soldiers, sons of the Italian people. I personally and the Italian people will not forget this generosity. I will be a friend of the Albanian people till I die," continued General Azzi. And he remained a friend until he died.

26 The regimes of our countries are opposed to each other, we have our laws and way of life, and the Italians have theirs. Nevertheless, we have normal trade and cultural relations with Italy, which we are ready to extend on the basis of mutual benefit and without interfering in each other's internal affairs. If any Italian government considers these relations of no interest, it may do whatever it likes, this will not affect us much. Nevertheless, we think differently - that these relations are useful to both sides. Ours is not an isolated and closed country, we have things to sell to Italy and things to buy from it for hard cash, as we have with many other countries.

A glorious Arbereshi community also links us with the Italian people. Neither we nor the Italians should forget Garibaldi's fine words and high esteem for the Albanians and the Arbereshi. For five centuries the Arbereshi have been living in Calabria and Sicily. This community has given Italy and Albania outstanding people. While living in friendship with the Italian people, the Arbereshi have preserved their Albanian customs and language through the centuries. This community, which draws us closer to the Italian people, is a factor for friendship.

The Albanian people and the Turkish people have a great love for each other. We make "diplomatic love" with nobody. This is not the custom of the Albanian but, when we pledge our word, we keep it and do not turn whichever way the wind blows. We condemn those who violate our friendship or misuse our trust. The great and sincere friendship that links us with the fraternal Turkish people has never been shaken. The different forms of regime have never shaken this friendship, because it is based on the fine sentiments of our peoples, it is based on those links of fraternity and blood relations, with hundreds of thousands of Albanians who live, work, are married and have children, who die and are buried in a common soil with the Turks. 27

We honour and respect the great leader of the Turkish people, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who, as an outstanding democrat, destroyed the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate and set up the new democratic Turkey. Let all the pseudo-democrats and pseudo-socialists who oppress the peoples, who trample on their rights and keep colonialism alive, sugar-coated with pompous words, follow the example of Kemal Ataturk who cut the "Gordian knot" of the Ottoman Empire with his sword. It is our desire that our friendship with the fraternal Turkish people should be continuously strengthened and developed further in every field.

We love and respect the Greek people, because they nurture the same feelings of friendship towards the Albanian people. We are sincere with each other. Neither wishes the other ill, but only well. These are historical links cemented with the blood shed together against the same occupiers. We do not confuse the feelings of the Greek people with those of the chauvinists. We shall develop our relations of friendship with the Greek people further. The Greek people call the Albanian heroes of the Greek revolution of 1821 who fought under the command of Ypsilantis -Arvanites penemeni and palicaria Arvanites.* Capo d'istria and the Russian czars, 28 the Serbian kraljs and the Moldavian voivodes betrayed the Greek revolution, but the Albanians, with Marko Bocari at the head, with Ali Pasha Tepelena and the Caporajs, remained loyal to it to the death.

The Government of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and the Greek governments - right-wing, new democratic or socialist, have always considered the friendship between the Albanian people and the Greek people as a pressing political necessity. Regrettably, however. for the past 40 years, without any reason, the so-called "law on the state of war with Albania," an absurd law without any basis, which is condemned both 'by the Albanian and the Greek peoples, as well as by world opinion, has been maintained in Greece. Every reasonable and realistic person in Greece understands that such a law hampers the shortening of ways for an evenmore friendly development in the direction of Arta. Preveza, and loannina as well as the whole of Greece.

29 It was not in my intention to speak today about our relations with Yugoslavia because we have expressed the stand of our state towards that country a thousand times and we stand by what we have said. However, I am obliged to speak about them, because the Belgrade chiefs not only have turned a deaf ear to what our Party and Government have pointed out but have built up a whole campaign of slanders and attacks against socialist Albania and its policy which is as clear as the light of day, with all their propaganda and diplomatic means. For at least 40 years, on end, not to go further back, the Belgrade chiefs have incited the southern Slavs, and especially the Serbs, to live in constant enmity with the Albanians inhabiting their own territories in Yugoslavia, as well as with independent socialist Albania. This hostility towards the Albanians, this savage chauvinism and contempt towards them, this unrestrained tendency and appetite to annex Albania is something atavistic in them. What makes the issue still more dangerous is that the other southern Slav peoples lack the courage to stop this wave of savagery.

In the time of the National Liberation War we sincerely loved the Yugoslavs, and respected and honoured Tito more than he deserved. We sent large partisan units which fought side by side with the Yugoslav and Kosova Albanian partisan units in Southern and Central Yugoslavia. Hundreds and hundreds of heroic sons and daughters of Albania were killed or wounded for the liberation of Yugoslavia, but now a Serbian dog called Sinan Hasani comes out and dares to insult on the blood they shed. He even goes to such lengths as to claim that the Yugoslavs formed our Party, they organized the Albanian National liberation War and gave Albania everything. But let the dog bark, that is what he is paid for.

30 Both in the past and right up to this moment when I am speaking to you, Tito and company have always rejected our hand of friendship and done everything in their power to cut it off. Openly or through their secret agents, for forty years on end Tito and his successors have constantly hatched up plots to destroy socialist Albania, to wreck our Party, to physically liquidate some of its main leaders. This they tried to do through their longstanding agent, the traitor Mehmet Shehu, too. But all their plots failed and they will always fail.

In the past the Serbian Kralj, Karadjordjevic, together with Wrangel's Great-Russian bands, brought to Albania his agent - the bandit Ahmet Zog, who, as a great traitor to the Homeland, gave Yugoslavia Shen-Naum of Pogradec and Vermosh as a gift in return for this assistance. The Belgrade chiefs want to do the same thing today with the criminal terrorist gangs of a certain hooligan and trafficker in arms, drugs and white slaves, Leka Zogu, to whom, astounding though it may seem, a country friendly to us gives shelter and allows him to give interviews to the press and to call for the overthrow of the people's power in Albania. We have facts to provethat it was the Yugoslav Titoites who sent to our coast Xhevdet Mustafa's group of gangsters, whom we wiped out mercilessly without giving them time to draw breath or see the sun of Albania. At the appropriate moment the world will be told the details of this affair and what it was intended for. However, the dangerous thing about it is that the Yugoslavs, violating the sovereignty of two countries friendly to us and without their knowledge, trained these criminals and landed them in our country. To train terrorist gangs and send them into another country is a grave criminal act condemned in the practice of international relations.

31 Now we have only this to say to the Yugoslav Titoites: don't play with fire, because if a conflagration breaks out, you will get yourselves burnt in it. For our part, we defend ourselves and we know how to do so, we know how to fight and triumph over any enemy. But we do not like this ominous course, full of dangers, which you are following. Nevertheless, if you force our hand we shall give you the reply you deserve. But we tell the Yugoslav leaders not to take this hopeless course which is fraught with many dangers for our two countries, for the Balkans and perhaps even for Europe. You, the southern Slav peoples, are responsible because, instead of making the Great Serbs see reason and forcing them to change course, to adhere to the principles and practice of good neighbourliness with socialist Albania and to establish normal, peaceful relations with the Albanians living in Yugoslavia, you allow them to fan up the flames.

We are convinced that there are progressive elements among the other southern Slav peoples, as well as among the Serbs. There is no other way to solve the problems apart from a change in the political stand towards Albania and the Albanians living in Yugoslavia. We shall continue on the course set by the 8th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania. the main report of which the Yugoslav leaders have read upside down. Our proposals were as wise as they were conciliatory, whereas your course is fraught with many dangers for Yugoslavia, which we want to remain as it is. You do not pay serious attention to our words which are an expression of the sincere feelings of the Albanian people. So much the worse for you. The world will charge you with grave responsibility. 32

Some governments of European countries and the United States of America are trifling with our feelings and interests. We say to them that nobody is allowed to trifle with Albania and its interests, as was done in the past. The old times when the fate of our country could easily be trampled underfoot and Albania could be attacked and partitioned have gone by for good.

We shall continue, as always, to defend our Albanian brothers living on their own territories in Yugoslavia, with all the strength of our hearts, in their rights which the Constitution recognizes to them. Let the Yugoslavs and world opinion have no doubts about this. This is recognized by international law and this is how all those states which have national minorities outside their borders act.

At the 8th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania we made our stand towards Yugoslavia clear and we remain unshakeable in this stand. The destruction and disintegration of Yugoslavia will never come from us. We are for the stability of the Federation. But with the Great-Serb. Macedonian and Montenegrin chauvinists our conciliatory words go in one ear and out the other. Their eyes have been blinded by their chauvinism and megalomania. When we appealed for reason and common sense, they pressed on with even more savage terror against the Albanians living on their territories in Yugoslavia. They have thrown into jail thousands of heroic young men and women of Kosova whom they torture barbarously and to whom they apply a thousand insulting epithets. We tell the Yugoslavs to free the young people from prison, for the Albanian cannot tolerate for long such violations of the honour and rights of his young men and women. Let them not fill the cup, because the response may have very dangerous consequences. 33

All Kosova and the Albanian regions of Yugoslavia have been placed under savage chauvinist military pressure. Now the "differentiation," which means making Albanians spy on Albanians in favour of sinister Serbian forces, is going on on a large scale. But the people of Kosova cannot accept this shameful course, because it leads to fratricide: while the Great Serbs will rub their hands in glee.

The Serbs are inciting blood feuds among Albanians. Kosova is being plunged in poverty and covered with graves. People do not know where their sons and daughters are. The Albanian intellectuals are being decimated, insulted, humiliated and thrown out in the street. Only in the time of the Inquisition have such persecutions occurred. No, the Albanian people living in Yugoslavia will not allow anything of their sacred national heritage to be suppressed. Never at any time or in any country has the Albanian bowed in submission to or fled from the enemy when his freedom and legitimate rights have been violated.

You, gentlemen of Belgrade, have sent 60 thousand Serbian soldiers to Kosova to suppress and kill the people of Kosova and to intimidate socialist Albania. But we are not intimidated. we are ready, vigilant to a man. You speak with the language of force, while we try to speak with the language of reason. But we know how 34 to speak in the language of force, too.

Albania is a sensitive strategic key point. Europe must keep this in mind. Some sneer at our fortifications, while arming themselves to the teeth with every kind of weapons, and others underrate our strength. So much the worse for them. Certain journalists whose pens are for hire, certain cafe politicians with their "analyses of strategic plans," and the Great Serbs in the first place, spread the idea and insinuate that in these or those circumstances, indeed in all circumstances, Albania will be gobbled up by the Russians, will lean to the Soviets, etc.

We tell the Great Serbs, the secret firm friends of the Russians, that there are two ways for the Russo-Bulgarian revisionists to attack Albania in order to reach our part of the Adriatic coast. The one way is through the Vardar and Kosova and the other through the Straits of Otranto. In the first case, without the slightest doubt, the whole Albanian people living in Kosova and other regions of Yugoslavia -in Skoplje and Kacanik, in Tetova and Gostivar, in Liap and Plava-Gucia, will meet the aggressors with guns. The whole of Yugoslavia will be ablaze and the Russo-Bulgarian revisionist invaders, if they ever succeed in reaching our Alps, will be in the same shape as the German nazis after the battle of Stalingrad.

In the second case, we Albanians hold the key to the Straits of Otranto. Sazan Island and the Karaburun Peninsula - and do not fear that I am revealing any secret, are rocks clad in iron and concrete which the Soviet naval fleet cannot pass.

If our Russo-Bulgarian enemies and others 35 want to embark on such adventures they ought to know that the Albanians are not a state of three million, but a nation of six million people. Ours was a small people in the time of the Second World War, but although alone and unarmed, they defeated and liquidated a considerable number of Italian fascist and German nazi divisions. Now the times have changed in favour of socialist Albania, hence: Hands off Albania!

Albania threatens nobody, it wants to live in friendship with the others but, if anyone violates its rights and borders, it will retaliate in kind, likewise, it will reply in the sternest manner to the injustices or insults anybody might employ against it.

I am speaking openly and this is the firm opinion of all our people. We say what we think, others have not failed to speak against us and moreover to slander us. We make no unfounded statements and do not indulge in slanders. Herein lies our strength, and that is why the progressive peoples respect socialist Albania just as we have great respect for them. For this just and benevolent stand, we offer them our heart-felt thanks.

Messrs the Yugoslav leaders arrogate to themselves the right to raise their voice about the "injustices" the Bulgarians, the Greeks or the Albanians allegedly commit against the Macedonians of Pirin and Aegeus or the tiny Macedonian minorities in Albania, while we, according to them, have no such right. They accuse us of "interfering in their internal affairs" when we defend the rights, under the laws of the 36 Federation" of our brothers, whom they not only deny their rights, but whom they kill, imprison, and force into emigration, while Serbian and Montenegrin colonists are brought into their birthplace to replace them.

It was Mr Stambolic who launched the slogan of an "ethnically pure Kosova" which the "Albanian nationalists" allegedly demanded. This is not a slogan of the Albanians, but of the Great Serbs, launched in order to drown Kosova in blood. The Serbs and Montenegrins were rightly frightened by this policy of terror and began to flee from fear and because of the poverty that prevails in Kosova. The Great Serbs are now trying to saddle the Albanians with this crime, although they themselves are responsible for the exodus of Serbs and Montenegrins.

Recently the Yugoslavs, assisted by their friend - Russia, have been gathering up - Macedonians of the Aegeus - from all over the place in order to have them as a vanguard for Greece. One fine morning we shall hear that Alexander the Great was a Slav, too. Why shouldn't they do even this? They have a precedent in the Great-Russian "historian" of the 19th century, Vasilyevsky. In his book on Byzantium he goes to such lengths as to write there in black and white that since the modern Greeks are Orthodox christians, they are Slavs, hence they do not originate from the ancient Greeks who gave mankind one of the most brilliant civilizations in the world. With the full conviction of a Great-Russian chauvinist, Vasilyevsky states Quite boldly in his book: "The modern Greeks are of Slav origin."

The chauvinists of Northern Epirus and certain Greek bishops do the same thing when, basing themselves on the statistics of Phanari of the time of Sultan Hamid II, they describe all the Orthodox christians in Albania as Greeks. And these so-called Greeks, who were supposed to number 400,000 at that time, have remained 400,000 to this very day, although almost 80 years have gone by. According to them, the so-called Greeks of Northern Epirus have neither increased nor decreased, have had neither births nor deaths, likewise, they say, 28,000 Greeks of the Northern Epirus languish in "Albanian prisons" at all times and all seasons. Unfortunately for those Greek bishops, who have nothing to do with the Greek people, I can tell the Greek people and government on my full authority that in the whole of Albania there are only 33 persons of the Greek minority serving short sentences of imprisonment for various offences, and only 4 of them for political offences. Why is this so with the Greek minority of our country? This is so because our people of the Greek minority are good, honest people, like the Greek people themselves, because they enjoy all the rights which every Albanian citizen enjoys, because everywhere, among the Greek minority everything is in their own hands. There the cadres of the Party and state are only people from the Greek minority. In every village of the Greek minority there are primary and agricultural secondary schools and in Giirokastra there is a teachers training school in Greek. All the other cadres, such as doctors, agronomists, veterinarians. Economists, teachers and professors, are people of the Greek minority, and there are houses of culture everywhere. The incomes of the people of the Greek minority are among the highest in our country. We Albanians live like brothers with the people of the Greek minority in our common Homeland. The Greek minority in Albania is not groaning, Messrs the chauvinists of the Northern Epirus. but singing and prospering. 38

As for religion. you need not worry about it. To believe or not to believe is a personal right, a question of conscience and not on institutional question: religion cannot be imposed according to the desire or will of the hodjas, the bishops or the Pope of Rome.

I follow the Greek press and have read the questions that some Greek or West-German journalists have put to the people of the Greek minority in our country and the answers they have received from them. One of these journalists asked on old woman of our Greek minority this question:

"Where is your church, where is your priest?" She answered: "Neither the church nor the priest did anything to save me from the aghas and the beys. When they held sway they gave me neither bread to eat nor water to drink, neither electricity to light my home nor school for my sons and daughters. Only the National Liberation War, only my Party of Labour gave me all these blessings. That is why I love the Party and not the priest.

The newspaperman went on with his questions to the old woman: "What about the sins you have committed, to whom will you confess?"

Again the old woman replied with subtle humor: "My son has told me, 'live well in this world, mother, and as for the other world - blame me and my Party for your sins when you get there'." 39

There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of people in the world who do not want to believe in religion. Then why all this astonishment at socialist Albania?

Our state is atheistic by the will of its people and there is no moral or material force which can impose on it anything different. Our people are masters of their own fate and sentiments. The screams of Northern Epirus chauvinists do not bother the Greek minority and socialist Albania in the least, even if the chauvinists are stirred up and paid under the lap by somebody else, and that somebody is not the fraternal Greek people.

* Famous Albanians and brave Albanians (Greek in the original).

[Back to Top]