Unity & Struggle No 03

UNITY & STRUGGLE
no.3
December 1996
Workers of all countries, unite!
Unity & Struggle

Organ of the International Conference of
Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations
Unity & Struggle
Journal of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations.
Published in English, Spanish, Turkish and Portuguese
in the responsibility of the Coordinating Committee of the International Conference.
Any opinions expressed in this journal belong to the contributors.
This version was created in August 2009 by the “Movement for the Reorganisation of the KKE 1918-
55” with use of the texts found in the web page of TDKP (Revolutionary Communist Party of
Turkey).
UNITY & STRUGGLE DECEMBER 1996
CONTENTS
CHILE
State corruption, a “natural inclination” of bourgeois appropriation
Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action)
COLOMBIA
Narco-democracy in a “state of siege”
Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The revolution is for today
Communist Party of Labour of Dominican Republic
ECUADOR
Communists and the elections: How do we participate and why?
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
FRANCE
Some lessons from a strong and vigorous social movement
Workers’ Communist Party of France
GERMANY
Development of socialism, revisionist degeneration and consequences for a modern definition of
socialism
Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
ITALY
A critique of neo-Trotskyism: Commodity, value and law of value under the dictatorship of the
proletariat
Organisation for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy
MEXICO
125 years after the Paris Commune
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
SPAIN
Ideological laziness
Communist Organisation October of Spain
TUNISIA
Thoughts on the question of defeat
Workers’ Communist Party of Tunisia
TURKEY
Enver Hoxha: The leader of the anti-revisionist struggle and the determined defender of proletarian
socialism
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)
5
6
CHILE
* (TABLE NOT INCLUDED)
State corruption, a “natural inclination” of bourgeois

appropriation
Origins of the state
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie.” (Manifesto of the Communist Party)
Since the state first appeared as a necessary institution, it has given its services to a particular class,
the exploiting class which, in appropriating the product of social labour, transforms it into capital,
produced from the surplus value of the exploited class. Thus, born from the necessity of managing
these capitals on the one hand, and of preserving its interests opposed to those of the majority on the
other, the state created organs including an armed “public force” at the service of the administration
itself to be directed against the people, against the majority. In antiquity, this force came to usurp the
place of the true “people in arms” which had been created in the first place for the self-defence of the
ancient tribes, which were not yet divided into social classes. This usurpation gave rise to the
creation and consolidation of bourgeois armed forces which Lenin called the “fundamental pillar of
the capitalist system and the guardian of the sacrosanct private property.”
The ancient relations of production based on collective ownership of the land, whose management
was in the hands of a simple tribal confederation, were progressively replaced. This was principally
due to two essential conditions: the first was the substitution of the administration of the “gens” or to
be more exact the chiefs of the latter (as has been well described by Engels in his book, The Origins
of the Family, Private Property and the State) by the division of labour and the division into social
classes; the second was the multiplication of the means of exchange of commodities in general, in
the development of which elements of other tribes were increasingly involved. These latter
demanded greater profits, all the more as the gains from transactions rose, institutionalising private
property. This is the reason why this represents the first attempt at the formation of the state, which
had of necessity to destroy the old relations of tribe and gens, dividing the members of each tribe
into privileged and non-privileged, opposing, by virtue of this same division, one tribe against
another.
The principle means which the exploiters always used in order to strangle the freedom to enjoy the
fruits of social labour collectively were usury and corruption, products of private property. In this
way, cheating, blackmail, and finally what is called “unwarranted appropriation” appeared at the
dawn of civilisation and represent the genesis of those from whom the modern bourgeois exploiters
are the direct descendants. The appropriation of private property, Engels points out, led ultimately to
the transformation of products into commodities.
The rapid development of wealth, commerce and industry and the benefits which a particular class in
society was able to exclusively draw from them to the detriment of others, rendered necessary the
creation of the state, assembled by the representatives of this class. As we have seen, the state arose,
when all is said and done, from corruption and exploitation through the means of armed force at the
orders, henceforth, of the dominant class. The state is based on the antagonism between classes.
7
Imperialism, responsible for corruption
Corruption is a practice which has always been used by those individuals interested in appropriating
a good or a service which does not belong to them, using to this end blackmail, extortion or usury,
and it has been used by imperialism in order to accumulate profits across the globe. As Lenin teaches
us, imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, constitutes the culmination of the decomposition and
the degeneration of this system of production. Because of this fact, this class and its agents,
including fascist, social-democratic and revisionist elements, cannot escape from this practice, this
being the principle means for maintaining and extending capitalism, based on the exploitation of
man by man.
Corrupt and degenerated elements took - or rather usurped - power in the USSR after the death of J.
Stalin, launching all sorts of calumnies against him and the foundations of the socialist state and the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Similarly, elements were corrupted through getting benefits and
administrative posts in the social democratic bourgeois state, as was the case with the revisionists in
Chile who put into practice the theses of collaboration with imperialism such as “the peaceful road to
socialism”, “socialism in Chilean colours”, “the armed forces of the people” etc.
The present day bourgeois state, in accord with the necessary reorientation in a unipolar world, finds
that it has to implement neoliberal plans, dictated to it by US imperialism, obliging the state to shed
all its public duties. This is due principally to the fact that the number of commercial competitors of
the USA has risen after the collapse of the revisionist camp which was headed by Soviet social
imperialism. This forces the international consortia, which are true administrators of imperialism, to
appropriate the greatest quantity of wealth in the shortest possible time, making it impossible or at
least difficult to maintain the “social mask”. Currently, the leaders of US imperialism’s
“Democratic” party have trampled underfoot many of the Democratic party’s demands, taking on
board a large part of the Republican party’s programme, heralding the end of the “welfare state”.
The capitalist system is the product of private initiative to the profit of private interests; as we said
above, it is the appropriation by whatever means of the product of social labour and of surplus value
in private hands; this contradiction grows sharper, all the more so since every day so-called “virgin”
markets become more and more difficult to conquer. The voracity of imperialism and its associates,
of the multinational enterprises and their agents, including the clique of social democratic, socialist
and revisionist parties scattered throughout the world, pushes them into deploying all sorts of tricks,
utilising all forms of corruption in order to appropriate national resources, markets, labour-value ...
This corruption is nothing other than the faithful reflection of the practices used in the handling and
the appropriation of capital in the hands of the private sector.
Corruption in Chile
Corruption in Chile is not an isolated phenomenon, contrary to what the heads of enterprises and the
government would like us to believe. From the least well known cases, for reasons that are obvious
(under the dictatorship, the contradictions within the bourgeoisie and consequently conflicts between
leaders become, as it were, of a secondary importance, faced with the perspective of managing the
bourgeois state as the dictatorship’s spare card) such as those of CUTUFA (the Military Investment
Funds Society), and the “pinocheques” (a fraud carried out at the expense of the army by Pinochet’s
son), up to the most famous cases, such as the DAVILA (the executive of Codelco, accused of
embezzling funds) and ESVAL (Valparaiso Sanitary Enterprise) cases, are an inherent product of the
neoliberal system, of disloyal competition, of monopolisation and at the same time of the anarchy of
production.
Corruption in Chile, as in Latin America and the rest of the capitalist world, is a social phenomenon.
On this question, we are going to analyse some of the indicators used by neoliberalism in order to
8
ask the real nature of the pillage of its policies, where the biggest eats the smallest. These indicators
are equally used by the multinationals through the lies they put out about “competitiveness”,
“sustained development” and “substantial macro-economic growth” etc..
It is totally false that the redistribution of state enterprises (this supposedly means enterprises owned
by all Chileans) into private hands would result in a reduction of costs and an increase in the quality
of goods and service. This is because the enterprises returned to private hands do not have the
dynamism of small and medium enterprises, but fall into the grip of the monopolies which are
formed on their acquisition. Let’s take the case in Chile of the enterprises of CHILESTRA
(electricity companies) which were acquired by the ENERSIS consortium and managed by the
YURASCECK group, the most important foreign group in the country. This acquisition was
contested by the Control Commission as contravening the anti-monopoly laws and the inquiry was in
the end closed. This consortium transformed itself completely thanks to the acquisition of ESVAL
and EMOS (the drinking water company) as monopoly enterprises without any competition, because
it is only a concentration of capital which, accumulated in this manner, becomes a brake on
development since their domination is absolute and because it is they who dictate the norms for
quality and price according to their own interests. It is for this reason that it is impossible to carry out
a genuine distribution of state assets between competitive agents through private enterprise, while
improving the supposed quality of the services and proceeding to a reduction in products, if the
appropriation of the principal markets is placed in the hands of a group of entrepreneurs who are in a
position to dictate prices and quality at their own convenience and who have as their only guide their
ties to the multinationals and to Yankee imperialism.
What we have just said is corroborated by the association of the Luksic group with the American
South Western Bell company, with the sale of 40% of VTR - investments with a value of $316
million - and which permits it to create at the time a wide ranging associate which can aid it in its
plans for expansion within Chile and abroad. Similarly, in the financial sector, we have the
association and the internationalisation of capital with the purchase by the Argentinean subsidiary of
Credit Lyonnais which has mounted a joint venture with the Spanish central bank with the aim of
acting jointly in external investments, and particularly in Latin America. For this group, this means
putting into practice its dream of becoming the most important financial holding in the region.
Another expanding group is today setting about business centred on insurance: it’s the Cruzat group
through its consortium, Cruz Blanca, through investments in Colombia, Argentina, and Peru,
regrouped in CB International. On the other hand, the family group Angelini concentrated almost the
entirety of its investments; among the most important are the investments to the sum of 85.56% in
SOCOROMA, 50% in Andes Investments and Developments which controls 60.1% of COPEC
(Petrol and Fuel Corporation), Angelini’s main enterprise. The latest figures available indicated an
increase of 43% in profits for the COPEC concern alone, while the Celarauco affiliate has
experienced an increase in its profits of 130%. Other family groups like Said and Abumohor,
through the Andina bottling company, have launched themselves on a frantic race for control of the
Latin American market, trying to impose their points of view on the discussions of Mercosur. Said
took control of Mendozo Refrescos and Rosario Refrescos in Argentina. Similarly in this country,
Parque Arauco (enormous retail shops), jointly with the Masu and Sumar families (its associates in
the BHIF bank), has created an interbank and has bought the Bolivian American Bank. In the
insurance sector, the Abumohor family is rivalling this in the internationalisation of its capital, being
present on the insurance markets of Peru and Colombia.
Linked to what we have just said, these families are preparing the total pillage of the national wealth,
not only of Chile but of the whole of Latin America, giving thanks to the new policies of capitalism,
neoliberalism, imposing their own unique vision of development whether through the “democratic
path” (bourgeois elections) or through blood and fire as occurred in Chile in 1973. This policy of the
9
pillage of the exploited classes is presented as a model of efficiency and modernity. That means the
total privatisation of the banking sector, less state, the disappearance of social security, the
privatisation of health, of education, of housing etc. in addition to import controls which will bring
about the destruction of small and medium enterprises. These veritable modern commercial nomads
set up shop nests in different countries, extracting or rather stealing the national wealth, fruit of the
efforts of generations of workers and labourers, to the point of exhausting the resources and filling
up their coffers through terror and corruption.
The concentration of wealth is accompanied by the concentration in a few hands of the different
monopolistic possessions, turning the phrases that are banded about such as “competitiveness” and
“the development of Chile” into vulgar lies and charlatanry. For example, there are three groups of
enterprises which own incalculable wealth and which control key sectors of production and trade in
an absolute way. We have the following schema:
The table above shows firstly the ineffectiveness of anti-monopoly control, but what is more
important and which is clearly apparent here, is the exclusive control that a handful of families
exercise on the market at both the national and the international level (in association with the
multinationals, principally the American ones, through holdings and joint ventures). This has as a
consequence the concentration of wealth in private hands, the total control of investments (what they
are invested in and how), which products will be developed and which won’t be, tariff policies,
control of the state, the creation of a cheap labour force, the imposition of a reform concerning work,
the imposition of a country’s policies, which bosses will fix wages, etc. All this is to the profit of a
few of the richest families in the country, and with the sole aim of satisfying their ambitions, with
these families themselves being used by the American multinationals as an iron lance in the opening
and pillaging of markets. This is the reality which is masked by a bourgeois democracy whose
electoral antics are nothing more than a theatrical illusion of representation in order to send to sleep
the masses, who they would have believe that when they exercise the right to vote they are
exercising control over the state, when in reality it is the economic groups who do this. The latter not
only do not respect the environment, natural resources, wildlife and nature, the quality of life, and
display the most complete scorn for the working class, but seek to strangle the exploited class
through debts, by robbing them of the gains they have won through the struggle and the blood of
whole generations, making them fall under the control of the capitalism of these few families who,
united with others on an international level, jointly exercise their total, obscurantist and reactionary
control along with the military castes.
In the Communist Manifesto we read that under capitalism, bourgeois society can only exist on the
condition that it constantly develops the means of production; that if it doesn’t, it becomes
reactionary and disappears. A long time ago capitalism transformed itself into its opposite. Far from
developing the means of production to the benefit of society as a whole, it has been converted into a
reactionary and decadent force. Capitalism cannot develop the means of production and the quality
of services for the simple reason that it does not want to be superseded. Today, we note that there are
ingenious inventions that are capable of transforming solar energy into mechanical, electrical and
atomic energy, and so on, and that these are used solely for belligerent purposes. All that they have
which is of benefit to the masses is bought up and obscured in order that these inventions to not
prejudice already established interests.
Another example which it is interesting to analyse is that of transport, whose energy comes from oil
or petrol, and which finds itself precisely in the hands of these commercial groups. Today we see
how through corruption they bought off union leaders to wage a struggle, which is beneficial to their
enterprises, against electrical and state transport, which have now disappeared, alleging loss of
passengers, unfair competition and the laying off of drivers which would follow from it, which is
completely untrue since lay-offs are the product of capitalism and the concentration of profits in the
10
hands of a handful of millionaires. On the contrary, the planning and the use of non-polluting
methods permits a rational use of resources, a better quality of life, and the elimination of
unemployment thanks to centralised state planning associated with genuine workers control.
Private enterprise, the manager of corruption
Private enterprise dominates the state, whose only goal is to shed all its public duties which, through
history, it has been obliged to assume, both through the pressure of the struggles of the exploited
class and through the interest it had in dominating these demands and divert them to its own profit.
This is why we have social security, health, education etc. Other parameters used for the corruption
of the state include: according to the facts related by FLASCO (Latin American Foundations of
Social Commerce), because of the inefficiency of state enterprises, which are now privatised, we
know that their profitability reached $1,500 million. In an equal period of operation in private hands
we know that the taxes paid to the treasury reported by the enterprises was barely $170 million. We
are not talking here of enterprises at the service of a proletarian state subject to a centralised plan, but
simply of bourgeois state enterprises, which overturns all the theories which argue that private
enterprise is more profitable. It would be more correct to say that it is, but not to the benefit of the
state or the people, to the extent that it invests, through taxation, this quantity of capital in the
amelioration of the lives of the poor. The truth is that private enterprises obtain greater profitability
for a handful of exploiters, who pay back a tiny proportion to the state so that the latter can meet its
bureaucratic expenses and maintain the armed forces and the police in order to drown in blood the
social explosions which accompany, inevitably increasing in number, the concentration of wealth in
the hands of private capital.
Private capital, with its ideology of “the end of the world” eliminates little by little, and each time
more rapidly, the perspective of going back at a certain moment to the production of its own national
wealth. In the near future, all that will remain in the hands of the state will be an enormous quantity
of offices and public institutions passed down to the bureaucratic apparatus of the state. For
example, the municipalisation of education: under the cover of a false decentralisation, ministerial
control of education was reduced, passing the control of education down to the municipalities. There
already exists in each municipality an office designated for this purpose. This, multiplied by all the
municipal offices in the country has not only increased bureaucratisation to the point of absurdity,
but has equally given rise to even greater possibilities of corruption of the municipalities which
extends to functionaries of all grades. This is due principally to the relaxation of state control and
centralisation.
How is the Chilean bourgeois state carrying out the sale of Chile?
Through the transfer to private enterprise, and consequently to the multinationals. Let us remember
the recent agreement in the framework of the Mercosur negotiations between Chile, Argentina,
Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil. This agreement imposed on Chile a reduction of between 35% and
20% in its tariff levels, and was signed with pleasure by the representatives responsible for finance
and the economy, as faithful guardians of the bosses interests, because this will considerably
increase the profits of the big national enterprises which have large scale interests in the energy
sources such as gas, electricity and drinking water services or in imported goods as is the case with
the economic groups which appear in the table above in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru and Colombia.
These capitals, as Lenin said, transcend national frontiers in order to install themselves in other
countries, forming transnational monopolies, in this case precisely a monopoly within another which
is even bigger, which will allow their products to re-enter with a lower level of taxes than in our own
country, thus tilting the balance of prices in their favour. Because even if it is a matter of capitals
whose origin is national which are putting pressure on for a lowering of prices in order to increase
their competitiveness, they will make large gains by importing products which they produce
11
externally, thanks to the reduction in tariff barriers. Those who are in debt and are not in a position
to compete are the small and medium producers - who today are already finding themselves up to
their necks in debt - the reduction in tariffs will not allow them to maintain their competitiveness.
The bourgeois state, having resort to all kinds of tricks, to the most shameless corruption, is
shedding all enterprises which represent a social burden, and which, not being in private hands, put a
brake on competitiveness. besides, this means that this policy, at the end of the day, does not make
any sense: without planning for the future, how much time will it take to exhaust the nation’s
underground and undersea resources, its nature and wildlife, as well as the Chilean people? Without
a doubt, less than a generation. A tiny example among the infinite number that one could cite, is that
of the cutting down of the forests in the south of our country which is advancing at a daily rate of
seven football fields, causing natural disasters in these zones due to the break up of the ecosystem. In
summary, neoliberalism is the modern and savage tendency of capitalism. Imperialism, in the final
analysis, is imposing its diktats on whatever country and whatever economic grouping of the “Third
World”, no matter how crafty or base it is, as is the case with national groups who, in their mad rush
to get their hands on everything, will end up with a triumphant revolution exploding in their faces, a
revolution led by the party which clearly analyses the situation and leads the working class and all
the sectors which feel the oppression of imperialism.
In pursuing this analysis of the transfer of national wealth into private hands and consequently to
imperialism, we have the case of CORFO (Development Corporation), the state organ charged with
the administration and the control of a series of enterprises which are key to national development
and which will be totally privatised or just the best cases, reduced to their simplest expression after
the accord signed with President Frei comes into effect, as with the sale of COLBUN (Mining
Enterprise) and the sanitary enterprises, and this because they earn considerable profits since they
represent 98% of the 80bn pesos generated by these enterprises in 1995. The transfer of state
enterprises is being carried out in an indirect way as is the case with CODELCO (Copper
Corporation), whose turnover surpasses $2,500 million, through multinationals taking out a stake in
the company through holdings. These stakes permit the private sector to have some control over
decisions and to gain a threefold advantage at the expense of the state sector and the wage earners:
a) In order to direct and enterprise and decide its activities, it is not necessary to buy in completely,
because with a stake of 51% you can control two enterprises for the price of one.
b) The possible losses are cushioned and divided into two equal parts, one of which is the
responsibility of the state, the other that of the smallest individual shareholders.
c) The profits are not reinvested at the same rate as the participation of the state and the treasury, as
was foreseen at the time of the acquisition of the holding.
In this sense, we know for example that Frei announced in his last speech the opening of a process of
incorporation of a strategic associate into COLBUN, apparently out of a concern to push forward
and promote a greater degree of competition in this sector. The latter has to commit itself to
immediately invest some $440 million in the enterprise, and to commit itself to a plan for $100
million annual investments, all this without a clear definition of how the state will exercise its
control over this, because according to CORFU, it is impossible to establish in a way that is clear to
see and as a function of the market value whether such an associate controls less than 50% of the
shares in the enterprise. The only thing which is recognised is for the state to maintain an important
percentage in the enterprise. The problem is knowing what the state and what CORFU consider as an
important stake. A 49% stake could be considered important, but that would leave control in the
hands of the associate. This shows that this speech on the control of the state is nothing but lies. Let
12
us add in addition that state control means nothing unless an adequate and competent regulatory
framework is established in this sector.
As regards payment of taxes to the treasury, private enterprise has woven an extended web of
strategic investment aimed at buying the silence and the co-operation of the tax officials in their
dealings with them. One buys professionals with qualifications, with superior courses abroad or
specialist seminars, all this being accompanied by an increase in salaries. A professional with more
than three years experience in an expert accountant’s office could probably get a job in a private firm
at twice the pay he receives in public service. The consequence: this leads to a considerable turnover
of professionals in these sectors, around 13% per year on average as a proportion of the overall
number of personnel.
Let’s take one more example, that of a project which has made a great deal of noise. This affair
overlaps so much with American capital and the World Bank that it is more convenient for the
puppet government to co-operate in restricting the responsibility to within national organisations.
This is because the World Bank, through its official responsible for credits, did not put the tender out
for the construction of the project to other companies that might have won the contract. The Chilean
government did not get involved in this affair, the World bank having granted Chile a total of 12
loans over the past five years which totalled $741.3 million. It is understandable for this reason, then,
that all the claims that have been presented to this organisation have always been dealt with through
friendly conversations and never in the entire history of the World Bank has it gone to arbitration. It
is for this reason that the formalities with regard to the limitation of responsibility at the end of the
day are subject to the orders of the World Bank. Let us remember here that the amount which the tax
authorities were swindled out of is estimated at some $14 million.
Conclusion
The phenomenon of corruption is a social problem which cuts across the entire bourgeois state
system and the capitalist system in general, based on private property. The expropriation of social
production cannot escape private control. Through money and usury, capitalism built a new social
power. On this subject, Marx and Engels argued that: “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every
occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the
lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers. The bourgeoisie has
torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money
relation.” (Manifesto of the Communist Party)
Currently, the spectre of corruption haunts the entire capitalist system and it is not a question of
being content to think about it. From its very origin, since the emergence of democracy in Athens
and the constitution of the first police state to protect the possessions of the rich and to carry out the
crimes committed against the dispossessed with the aim of appropriating their goods, it has always
been this way. Today in our country this social phenomenon which is present in the government, the
municipalities, the private corporations, the state etc., and which gives a free hand to the laundering
of money, the trafficking, to prostitution etc., is constantly present. We communists have not only to
denounce this, but also to fight it to the finish, shoulder to shoulder with the mass organisations and
fronts, with every conscious Chilean, with a genuinely revolutionary and popular alternative, to the
point of conquering and redefining a state based on proletarian morality, whose functionaries will be
at the service of the class and the future of national development.
Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action)
13
COLOMBIA
Narco-democracy in a “state of siege”

To speak of a democratic regime, even a bourgeois one, in a dependent country such as Colombia, is
starting from a wrong premise. In this political period of widespread crisis, what matters is to define
the exact political meaning of this term which, in the last few decades, has come to mean a
dictatorship against the people. The democratic facade has allowed different political regimes to
operate within the international arena, while at the same time, leftist dabblers and social democrats
have used it to appear progressive.
For these reasons we require a precise understanding of how the bourgeoisie in power apply their
concept of democracy, in order to construct alternatives from a proletarian perspective. What is the
state’s legal basis? What is its daily practice? This issue, among others, was one which interested our
party in its recently held 14th Congress.
Due to the level of socio-economic underdevelopment, our dependency model and the historical
formation of the nation, our revolutionary process has democratic elements linked to the national
liberation struggle against imperialism and also elements linked to the necessity to carry out
transformations, which historically the bourgeoisie is no longer able to perform.
Recent history
Colombia in the 50’s went from an open military dictatorship -that divided the bourgeoisie, which at
that time was in vogue in Latin America and would later recycle itself under other guises in different
countries, to a united bourgeois consensual “democracy”. The bourgeoisie’s concerns increased with
the advance of the popular insurgency, which at that time reached enormous proportions and
threatened to seize power. The battle within this class went from one among bourgeois factions,
mainly over how capital should penetrate the countryside, and of course, the political arenas, to the
National Front, a bourgeois pact which inaugurated the “oldest and most consolidated Latin
American democracy”, as they often repeat.
From this period the democratic structure which still holds to date, although with some adjustments,
was established. The bourgeoisie tried to recover the classical definition of democracy. A separation
of powers exists, but it is one where the Executive, through the Presidential Office, has such wide
powers that it amounts to an “imperial presidency”, or more precisely, a civil dictatorship. The
Legislature, invested in a bicameral Parliament, is controlled by the Executive, and is of dubious
independency and moral credentials. The Judiciary is said to be the guardian of justice, supposedly
administered with sovereignty and autonomy.
The Executive and Legislature are elected by direct vote. Therefore elections are the founding stone
which makes it possible to speak of “legitimacy”. As such, the high rate of abstention, which
fluctuates between 50 to 70 per cent, and which represents an open rejection of the system,
discontent with government and even general apathy, is not taken into account. Neither is the state’s
obsolete and clientelist structure -with a corrupt administration as a source of assured votes- taken
into account.
A significant leap was seen with the advent of the 1991 constitution, approved by a Constituent
Assembly with the co-option of some factions of the guerrilla movement and the welcomed
contributions of wide social democratic sectors. At the time, the Constituent Assembly was seen as
the recovery of full democracy. It was given the title of Peace Treaty and through it armed struggle
was said to have lost its raison d’être. The new Constitution strengthened organs of state control and
14
introduced, among other things, the American accusatory principle of justice, with a Public
Prosecutor’s Office, “jueces sin rostro” (judges with hidden identity), plea bargaining and increased
repression in all fields.
The Constitution did not change the essence of the actual state. It was a bourgeois attempt to
legitimise itself juridically, both nationally and internationally, and an effort to comply with
neoliberal and imperialist requirements. Its counter insurgency essence and imperial presidentialism
were upheld, as were the armed forces’ power and privileges under the doctrine of National Security.
State repression and terrorism were fortified with paramilitarism, the dirty war, “justica regional”
(the secret justice system), all highly detrimental to the protection of human rights. Later on there
have been successive counter reforms to the Constitution which have limited or distorted the timid
democratic gains.
A democracy in a tight spot
Just a few years have been sufficient for this “democratic” scaffolding to collapse. The new
Constitution is being shamelessly questioned and violated. The current regime of President Ernesto
Samper has resisted the shocks felt by all other institutions and powers. As if this was not enough,
we continue under the regime of “Conmocion Interior” or State of Siege. We are witnessing a
political process which shows that corruption, dirty money, philistine morals and all bourgeois
rottenness parade freely around the government’s highest circles.
Presidential campaigns have been financed by drug money, Parliament has worked for the narcos
and the secret justice system is only used as a political weapon to attack opposition groups. Indeed
American imperialists have entrenched themselves in the Public Prosecutor’s Office to de-stabilise
the government and to demand in one ferocious voice a change, even by force, to impose an
outcome in harmony with their war on drugs and presidential elections.
The full force of the crisis, is not just the lot of the Colombian bourgeoisie. Naturally, imperialism
also feels it in its global political, social, military and ideological spheres. We point out that this
growing force of corruption and upheavals have also occurred in countries such as Italy, Spain,
USA, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador, just to mention a few.
This fragile political situation has opened the way to talk about ungovernability. It has produced the
collapse of governments, opened cracks in the institutions and accentuated the internal
contradictions in the heart of the bourgeoisie. The crisis also expresses itself through disruption in
bourgeois political parties and, in some countries like ours, there is clear evidence of human rights
violations, which have led to important condemnations, nationally and internationally, against the
state, thereby exposing its democratic facade.
The crisis is also expressed in the ideological sphere. The policies are tired and there is scepticism, a
decadent philosophy which allows its rancid idealism to linger. It resorts to attractive deceptions,
short of content, which together with decadence allows open fascist ideology to gain ground. That is
why imperialism puts such great means into publicity, into breaking up workers and popular
movements, and the distraction of everything collective and progressive.
The development in today’s world of different forms of struggle, in the middle of a deepening crisis
and inter-imperialist confrontations, is leading to questioning of bourgeois power at its weakest
points. Similarly, while the future, independence and sovereignty of the nation state is being
questioned, the forces and reasons for creating a wide anti-imperialist movement are gathering pace.
15
Violence as a central pillar
In our country it is not possible to speak about the state and political regime without considering the
phenomenon of violence. Starting from its class character, from its pro-imperialist stance, and the
crisis already mentioned, the state has been unable to respond to the majority demands for reform.
This state operates a policy of exclusion and maintains a bi-partisanism, with marginal incursion by
third parties. It is a restrictive democracy determined by the National Security doctrine.
All this has led to a democratic shutdown, the physical elimination of the opposition, the deployment
of varied forms of reactionary violence and a narrow environment for the political struggle. To
exercise its domination, the bourgeoisie supports itself by using the reactionary armed forces. This
force is exerted through a state terrorism and the dirty war, increased militarism, liquidation of the
political opposition, a counter insurgency war against the guerrilla movement, and by encouraging
paramilitary groups. The latter have recently come into light with the creation of anti-communist
peasant self-defence co-operatives.
Under the guidance of Pentagon strategists there has been an ideological drive behind state’s policy
of demobilising revolutionary and democratic action, in order to cement an anti-communist culture
and win over mass support to recoup its legitimacy. This is the reason for the bourgeois state
increased pact. Although it is not just talks, but involves some real changes, limited and ordered to
achieve its ends. In the same way social democracy operates.
Violence has constantly been in our history. Its causes are found in the economic situation, in the
level of class confrontation, in the way the power struggle is waged, in the need of the masses to
defend themselves and their aspirations, and in the lack of proper channels for political struggle, and
also in our own people’s history.
The military budget in Colombia, as in most parts in the world, is top secret and even exempts from
parliamentary scrutinity, according to the fascist doctrine of National Security. This requires huge
secret funds to pay for the dirty war, espionage against the people, large contracts and bribes.
Yankee interference
The most recent development is the loss of Yankee certification in the war on drugs -an imperialist
mechanism to decide which countries deserve sactions or benefits. With this decision, Clinton -with
no moral authority to do so- sharpens contradictions and presses for an outcome that can lead to
either a fascist coup or open military intervention by American troops.
Never before has American interference in Colombia been so clear. From the actions of Yankee
intelligence and the treaties made by our bourgeoisie with their major partners, to the arrogance of
US imperialists in raising the issue of our sovereignty -which for them no longer exists and should
be replaced by concepts such as “the common good” and “universal values”- as was recently
reiterated by the current US ambassador in Colombia, Myles Frechette, in front of high raking
officers.
Imperialism is using against Colombia the war on drugs, which says it threatens its security, as a
pretext to interfere in Colombia’s internal affairs and to present itself as a defender of human rights
and the “champion” of democracy. In reality it is concocting arguments to further its control over
nations and zones of influence, in order to create better conditions for counterinsurgency actions and
ultimately world hegemony.
16
Today the threat of direct military aggression by American imperialism in Colombia is greater than
ever. This is a continuation of previous steps such as radar interference, the presence of military and
intelligence personnel and their direct participation in operations.
This is being made possible by an intense ideological campaign, supported by the mass media and
many other mechanisms, which also serves to spread “the American way of life”, to undermine the
cultural-national values of our people, and to eliminate progressive and revolutionary thought.
There is instability in the national political arena, and inability to govern and a lame duck
bourgeoisie. Social contradictions are sharpening, even within the sections of the bourgeoisie, there
exist a generalised discontent. Thus, not only the revolutionary movement ramins undefeated, in fact
it is alive and on the up.
The country’s present economic situation is marked by crisis and huge imbalances, through
indications of recession and stagnation, growing inflation, unemployment, an informal sector and the
deepening mass impoverishment. At the same time capital flight continues. Furthermore, external
trade problems, devaluation and worsening trade terms have led to raising interest rates, falling
international reserves and credit restrictions for industry.
The unhidden role of narco-traffic
Narco-traffic’s socio-economic, political and military impacts on the country and in the
international arena have been very profound. Colombia continues to be a “narcotised” and corrupt
economy, besides being a militarised one. This affects international business and creates an alibi for
an American invasion. The narco-traffic mafia’s revenues’ figures are very imprecise but they are
estimated at between 5 thousand and 10 thousand million dollars per annum.
With such amounts it is not strange that a close group of congressmen, high military officers and top
state and private enterprises’ officials are linked with drug cartels, with fraudulent contracts and that
the wag of its tail spatters president Samper and his electoral campaign. Neither is it strange that
American tycoons want to control this market, for which they have as spearhead their military
organism, such as the DEA. That is why the fight against corruption, has become a democratic
banner, impossible to be raised from the decayed state spheres and traditional parties.
In Colombia the drug cartels’ formation was carried out as bloody process, through which there were
built virtual financial conglomerates, which operate in all the country’s economic areas. They still
combat each other, in order to keep or develop their markets. Gangs’ money has helped to appease
the crisis and to inject oxygen into the economic sectors, making them more disproportionate,
inducing a high speculative element and increasing enormously the cost of living. Drug cartels have
designed some intrincate nets to legalise their capitals, by which they influence political and military
decisions and the mass media, deforming population’s values and behaviour, with emphasis on the
youth. They have created some truly private armies for their service, which operate either as gunmen
gangs or as paramilitary groups, in co-ordination and division of functions with the army and police.
US imperialism has used insistently the war on drugs as an argument to justify its aggression against
peoples and to trample on national sovereignty. Such a use, is part of Yankee counter-insurgency
strategy. On the other side, the bourgeoisie has used the mafia’s good offices in the dirty war to
unleash it against revolutionary and democratic movement, to hit trade unions and their leaders.
Meanwhile, American government allows its own gangs and allows its country’s banks to be the
main means to legalise the huge mafia’s capital.
17
Sicotropic’s production, processing and marketing, jointly with other related illegal activities,
generates a super profit which is linked to the peculiar conditions of its distribution and sale, with
United States as the main market, while demand keeps growing ceaselessly. The Colombian gangs’
cartels have gained an outstanding position, which covers growing cocaine and poppies, at the same
time processing and marketing them.
Imperialism’s war on drugs emphasises the repressive aspect against supply, fumigations with toxic
chemical elements such as gliphosphate, indiscriminate destruction of crops, persecution of peasant
growers and stigmatisation of those countries, which in one way or another, are engaged in
narcotics’ activities. At the same time it does not acknowledge its country’s constantly increasing
demand, and the society’s own foundations which create and stir up the drug addiction’s world.
Shades between governments
Neoliberal basics have been upheld by Ernesto Samper’s government. The changes do not amount
to a turning point related to the previous government’s policies. Changes are forced by
neoliberalism’s evident limits, the crisis’ resilience, the necessity of continuing social discontent,
imperialist adjustments and multinational’s disputes in the so-called globalisation process.
The present administration’s shades and contradictions with some bourgeois sectors, its distance
from the previous government and with United States are based upon Samper and his adviser’s neo-
structuralist concept and on Clinton’s way of handling the anti-drugs policy. But among them exists
an essential monetarist and anti peoples’ unity. Samper’s neo-structuralist strategy is based upon
three elements: Social Pact, Social Solidarity Net and the promise of dialogue with the insurgents.
With them he tries to adapt imperialist’s counter-insurgency orientation, made through World Bank,
with the modifications of the CEPAL -UN Economic Commission for Latin America. This
orientation considers an attack on poverty as a vital political matter for state security and the
regime’s survival. With that, he pretends to palliate the harshness of neoliberal measures.
Neoliberalism has not been able to get the economy out of the doldrums. On the contrary, problems
are deepening and continue to be a source of popular unrest. Our people’s impoverishment has
grown, and has widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Today dependency on imperialism is
stronger, as also is foreign monopolies’ penetration into the national economy, and the financial
groups’ power has increased. The economy’s structural deformations and backwardness, have
increased with neoliberalism. State repressive power and security expenses expand, while the
process of privatisation and deregulation continues and welfare investment decreases, as it is handed
over to the private sector.
It is not an easy task for the ruling classes to perpetuate themselves in power, while spreading
plunder, poverty and discontent; while imbalances and crises -inherent in the system- are deepening;
while militarist and warmongering arrogance undermines further the roots of this “democratic” state
and regime. From that stems the fact that they feel compelled to introduce some modifications,
which in the economic field, mean neoliberal continuity in a shameful way, under a neo-structuralist
guise; and in the social and political aspects, imply an emphasis on the social pact, while hardening
repression at the same time.
In Colombia, according to official figures of DANE, National Department of Statistics, the

percentage of the population considered as living in poverty, has reached 60 per cent, while the 10
per cent richest hoard 45 per cent of national income. Working conditions are continuously
worsening and there is a chronic incapacity to create enough jobs, so the figures of the unemployed
grow constantly. Open unemployment -officially accounted for- is 10 per cent, but figures of
informal employment show that almost 60 per cent of the workers are in this sector. The regime has
18
not been able to lower inflation below 22 per cent. And the present political situation has started to
have serious repercussions in the different levels of the economy, which greatly worries the
bourgeoisie.
Distancing from neo-liberalism and the fight against poverty, as banners of struggle, which now
some sectors pretend to raise, including the president accompanied by social democracy, do not go
beyond propaganda, and are determined by security and power needs. These are also attempts to
silence popular unrest and struggle.
For a truly popular democracy
Even if the present Colombian regime is presented formally as a liberal democratic one, really it is
an authoritarian, oligarchical, imperial presidentialist regime, with growing militarist expressions
and with a general tendency towards fascism which neglects genuinely popular participation.
As long as Colombian democracy lacks material support, while it continues to deny the right to live
and work, while it keeps state’s reactionary forces, the participative democracy which is described in
the new Constitution, will not go any further than being an empty concept. Without real democracy
in economic life, bourgeois democracy will continue being an abstract democracy, will change form
but not content, will be a deception by the public administration in order to break the masses’
resistance and struggle.
For all these reasons the exercise of revolutionary violence, which goes further than the conquest of
democratic reforms, is fully justified and gives support to the Marxist-Leninist pledge to construct
and develop projects of a unified army, which in our case goes through the strengthening of the
Popular Liberation Army in all fields. For that purpose, there are multiple forms of masses’ armed
organisations, such as the militias, besides guerrilla armies.
Our party’s 14th Congress also made a pledge to work towards guaranteeing the development of
democratic and anti-imperialist struggle in the tactical sphere and with deep strategic
transformations’ projections, especially when the bourgeoisie renounces more and more the task of
defending national sovereignty and assumes a collaborationist role with imperialism, regardless of
what shades and differences some sectors have, stemming from the Clinton de-certification issue,
and the sharp attacks from the American right.
It is up to the proletariat to lead the struggle for democratic objectives and national revolutionary
ones, on its way towards socialist revolution. From that stems the importance of a democratic
movement, a tactical one, which encompasses the population’s widest sectors. This movement is
opposed to imperialism, to the corrupt bourgeoisie, to the government in function and to the rightist
forces’ fascist pretensions. This is a democratic movement with the aility to offer an alternative in
face of the crisis, and the aility to raise the proposal for popular and sovereign government.
Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)
19
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The revolution is for today

I. The revolution has daily rhythms and forms
The principal task of every revolutionary is to make the revolution. That is obvious. Given the
sacrifices and dangers which militant activity involves there is no point in investing in such activity
if the aim is not revolutionary. However, among the many attitudes which one finds, there is one
which occurs particularly frequently, and especially in the recent period -and that is the attitude
which considers the revolution as something abstract, which will happen one day in the future.
Attached to the notion that “the revolution is historically inevitable”, many of us remain there,
“ringing the bell”, without understanding the events, whatever they may be, which will enable us to
take forward our cause. Time passes, we get old, and finally we cannot claim any merit except the
longevity of our struggle.
To emphasise too much the fact that there are not immediate possibilities of revolutionary explosions
reinforces this attitude and leads many militants to place too much emphasise on providing for their
own and their families’ future, reducing almost to nothing all revolutionary effort.
We have already said in other circumstances that the revolution is a very concrete question, which
expresses itself daily according to diverse forms and rhythms; it is or should be present in our day to
day work. Seen in this light, the issue is about encouraging activities to go out into the world and
take part in revolutionary process, no matter how minute each step in the process may seem.
Obviously we must make it clear that we are far from taking up the petite bourgeois position which
see insurrection at every demonstration or on every street corner. Before everything, we wish to
emphasise that the revolution will be the result of what we do towards it at every instant, more or
less as was claimed by Che.
The idea according to which “the revolution is historically inevitable” should be understood solely as
a theoretical formula concerning the dynamics of the revolution of capitalist society, which lead to
class conflicts which make ruptures possible. This vision feeds and enriches our subjectivity.
But beware: this does not mean that the revolution will arrive without the conscious and material
labour of the party and of the other actors called upon to inspire and develop it. In fact the revolution
will take shape in discussions in our work with workers and with other sectors of the people, at the
place of work, in factories and communities, in the universities, in cultural activity and in every
aspect of life.
The activity of our members should be stepped in revolutionary passion. Inasmuch as the party is a
collective, it needs to renew in every member a conspiratorial psychology, because we are just that,
conspirators against the system, even though in conditions appropriate to broad-based and open
political work, but nevertheless always deeply concerned with the appearance and development of
revolutionary conditions.
In this perspective, the revolution becomes an everyday question, and the work of revolutionaries
ceases to be a coming and going of various approaches towards this or that problem which affects a
few individuals. The revolution is the watershed towards which everything we do is directed.
20
II. Power as our aim
Here is the fundamental question. Every struggle or effort is misplaced if it is not animated by this
aim. We communists are agents of change, and these changes operate in the direction of the state.
In thinking about this we should not see ourselves as small. Parties do not grow and do not become a
reference point for the masses until they take on the issue of power and agitate on this basis. The
masses have no enthusiasm for parties or politicians who proclaim dreams, nor for those eternal
oppositionists who spend their time giving opinions on every problem without ever offering real
alternative solutions.
The popular masses do not have allegiance to any single political or ideological current, because
they follow those who propose solutions to their material and spiritual problems.
In the Dominican Republic the people have evolved politically from a fringe outside the parties of
the system, looking for answers to their problems. Deceived and frustrated in the electoral period,
they gave their allegiance to another party outside the system, only to suffer new deceptions and
frustrations. That is the experience since the execution of Trujillo, 35 years ago. The workers and the
popular masses in general are not anchored to the left, since the left has not presented itself as a
viable challenger for power. Repression has played its part in this, but the causes go further back: it
is necessary to underline the fact the people have been allowed to engage only in limited struggles
and not in political actions. And that in its turn is a consequence of an absence of theory on how to
work for the revolution in the specific conditions of the Dominican Republic. Thus, at times of rapid
expansion of popular and revolutionary struggle, many groups of the left or the leftist groups of
against the flow of the process.
Since its foundation, the PCT has tried to assimilate the experiences of the movement and to work in
a different way, integrating into its activity all the forms of organisation and of struggle which the
present conjuncture dictates. The party’s continual effort is directed towards creating a particular
kind of militant, the Leninist, the people’s tribune who goes into the streets when the struggle takes
the form of street demonstrations, who integrates himself into the electoral campaign and votes
when that is conjuncturally appropriate, and who is also prepared to take up arms and fight to the
death against oppression when conditions demand it.
This is the type of militant who contributes to the revolution. He concerns himself with the daily
preoccupations of the masses, but not only that: -he sees further ahead and always puts politics as the
point of departure.
III. The revolution can grow
In the country, good possibilities are opening up for the accumulation of revolutionary forces;
economic problems are hitting the people particularly hard. Moreover, we are witnessing a change of
generations at the level of political leadership which goes alongside a recomposition of our forces.
The regime in power is revealing itself as more and more obsolete, excluding popular sectors from
any say, and rendering them more aware of the necessity of struggle in order to effect political
change. All this is objective.
The conjuncture is altering the balance of forces in our favour, and is opening up wider possibilities
for popular and revolutionary struggle. The Dominican revolution can grow.
Now is posed the question as to what is our state of mind in relation to these special circumstances.
Our response is speedy: let us not hesitate to push forward the revolution, basing our ideas and our
21
actions on the people, and promoting a platform of political and social changes which express an
alternative to the agenda of the ruling classes and imperialism; let us start to develop a new national
leadership and fight with our faces turned towards power. Let us put into action a vigorous mass
political movement.
Let us go forward, as tribunes of the people. The revolution is today.
Manuel Salazar
Communist Party of Labour of Dominican Republic
22
FRANCE
Some lessons from a strong and vigorous social movement

The November and December movement in France marks a social and political turning point in our
country. It was considered as the first wide workers' movement against world-wide applied economy
that founds the "criteria of convergence" contained in Maastricht Treaty. It actually affects today's
discussions around the conditions to be gathered for establishing the European currency (ECU) -the
Euro. These discussions are taking place among the operators of Europe's politics and economy.
From the point of view of the proletariat, in spite and beyond the many disparities that the crisis
keeps on causing and pursuing between active and unemployed workers, between public and private
sector workers, between Francilians (inhabitants of the Parisian region -city of Paris and its suburbs)
and Province workers, etc., this movement has indisputably brought back confidence in collective
struggle, in the ability of the working class to unite about clear demands and give rise to a large
stream of a peoples massive solidarity. In the meantime, among the more advanced workers, talks
started about the limits and the failure of the capitalist system, both home and abroad (particularly in
its European features) on one hand, and, on the other hand, about the necessary social alternative
opposition. The strike pickets gave anew birth to discussions on May 68, on revolution, on what
should better be put in place of capitalism and on socialism, even if there is a lot of confusion as to
the concrete content of the aims and a lot of questioning over the means to be put forth for searching
these objectives.
A few weeks before this great movement, our 4th Congress enabled us to deepen our understanding
of the economical and political mechanisms of socialism. This was done on the basis of a historical
and materialist analysis of the world's first socialist experience -the USSR- and of the reasons of its
failure. Our party was hence ready, on the political and ideological levels, to take up the movement
with prospects going beyond the denunciation of the reactionary politics applied by Chirac's
government.
Published for "Unity & Struggle" readers, this article wants to draw the teachings that the movement
offers and that seem essential in relation to present politics of financial oligarchy which lives
everywhere more and more as a parasite on the back of society. Indeed, equivalent reforms are
taking place in every country and employers and governments are, as well, drawing lessons from this
movement. What happened in France is a valuable opposite illustration.
The contents of Juppe's plan
Once he left the steps of the "National Assembly" stand at which he had just been finishing to lay
out his Social Welfare (commonly called "La Secu") reform project, Juppe, the Prime Minister
encountered warm applauses. They came from the right wing deputies. The stock exchange
witnessed a 2.6 % increase, hence approving him dearly. He also enjoyed with much delight the
deception of the socialist deputies. Has he not, actually, robbed them of a few of their own
propositions of reforming "La Secu", thus leaving them voiceless?! Along the ranks of the right wing
deputies, parliament ultra majority, there was euphoria. Every tendency overcome, they welcomed
Prime Minister's courage in having set at work what would necessarily lead to "sacrifices". For may
of them, strongly anxious as to take revenge on whatever has to do with the left, the government had,
finally, decided to take it out on the "privileges" of state workers and any trade union that co-
manages "La Secu" with the employers.
23
To get his project through, the government put forward the most alarmist figures of social welfare
deficit (the famous "hole" of "La Secu"), and fingered out the "special systems" of state workers
pension that are more advantageous than the general system. By doing so, the government wished to
focus the attention on these pretended privileged sections to get the whole reform through, though it
meant a threat to a social decline for al.
This was not the first reform of "La Secu" we were witnessing. Rocard, the latest socialist Prime
Minister, had also instituted a reform along the line of Juppe's one. But the range of the new foretold
steps are beyond everything done up to now.
Juppe's plan includes three sections:
1) The reduction of the sums due for the payment of pensions of hundreds of thousands of state wage
earners, by extending the length of time during which they subscribe , and hence by increasing the
number of years of labour.
Though possessors of advantages, due to the "special system", these workers would have to
subscribe for as many years as the other sections, actually as those of the private sector (and in
concrete figures, they would have to undergo a 37.5 to 40 years change in subscription). Introduced
as a socially just decision, such a disposition merely expresses a bottom lining up of pension
conditions for all wage earners, no matter to which, private or public sector, they belong.
Responding to anyone tempted to bring on this difference, the strikers put forward the "37.5 years
for all" demand. In other words, they expressed their will to see the conditions of retirement lined up
to the top.
The sections of 40-year-old and less workers are particularly sensitive to this question. If, on the
whole, their elders have worked at less tiresome workplaces by the end of their professional careers,
the former, may not have as much hope for themselves. All the sections of workers are suffering
flexibility in working time, higher and higher rates, and living under the continuous threat of
unemployment, and so on. This aims to increase the intensity of labour such as to enable capital, in
spite of the crisis, to maintain the maximum rate of profit. On the other hand, all these terms result in
more stressing working conditions, hence meaning a faster and a deeper wearing out of the labour
force. This daily lived reality by millions of labourers is testified by numerous inquires on the stress
due to work. It ends up in the increase of nervous troubles (insomnia, feeling of constant weariness,
etc.). Thus, a very high degree in so-called "comfort" drug consumption (tranquillisers, stimulants,
etc.). In return, and as regards medical consumption, this reality is fingered out as a proof of
squander (!) for which the workers were to be liable. It is, therefore, significant why the workers are
strongly opposed to the extension of the number of years of labour, which ends up in reducing their
life expectancy, especially for those who are compelled to tedious and dangerous jobs. (This was
precisely acknowledged through the existence of their "special system" of pension). Their life
expectancy is already shortened compared to other socio-professional sections (executives, liberal
professions, etc.).
The second aspect of this question deals with unemployment. A mechanical consequence in
extending the number of years of labour happens to be the cutting-down in hiring new labour forces,
that is, the rise in the mass of jobless young people. Such is the logic of the system that likes to
impel those who have a hob to ever more harder conditions of labour, whereas the mass of the
jobless expands. That was why the workers on strike were convinced that they were fighting not
only for them, but at the same time, for the youths in search of a job. This feeling was widely shared
by the people and expressed the profound fondness that the social movement had gained.
24
2) The reduction of the amount of money due for the repayment of health expenses through
withdrawal and/or cutback of certain allowances. It is but a worsened "rationing policy" of health
care, that has been lead for many years. The heart of the instituted mechanism lays in defining the
yearly amount of repayment that "La Secu" carries out. The evolution of health expenses, at least
those that are subject to a repayment by "La Secu", will then be framed. The goal is to cut down the
part of the social wealth that is devoted to this sector.
The parliament is due to fix this financial frame and make sure that it is applied. The obligation to
actually consider the Maastrich Treaty criteria of convergence is expressed at that level. This new
parliament-distrusted duty has urged a reform of the Constitution.
Is this a democratic progress, as it is pretended by the partisans of such a policy, who portray
parliamentary institution as the summon of bourgeois democracy? In the system of bourgeois
parliamentary democracy, experience demonstrates that Parliament is but a recording house where
the executive corps, as representative and defender of the interests of big money, takes up decisions.
This reform is aimed to guarantee the state of the management of a budget valued up at as much as
the 1 000 billion franc budget of the state itself. The crisis sharpens (emphasises) financial
oligarchical greed for all capital. As such this capital is particularly attractive to the head managers
of "La Secu". Juppe's reform enables big money owners to capitalise these funds such as to offer
them a financial tenfold increased striking force.
It was then necessary to reduce the strength of decion of labour union managing leaders inside the
executives of "La Secu". The treatment of such considerable amounts of money and all sorts of
advantages drawn out from this co-management have had an essential part in political, ideological
and finally economical integration of "labour aristocracy" in the imperialist system. However, in a
period of sharp crisis, these "advantages" tend to melt. As every type of capital must exclusively be
kept ready for financial oligarchy, less crumbs are left for feeding the "labour aristocracy". Through
this "stateisation" of social welfare, we are then attending the economical and political reinforcement
of the monopolies dealing in health and social welfare.
To measure the stake that the control taking constitutes over this massive quantity of capital, one
should only look at what has been happening these last years in the USA where private insurance
and retiring pension fund companies manage the essential of social protection. As one news reporter
of the daily paper "Le Monde" has written: "the retiring pension fund and the American mutual fund
, the financial managers of retirement, possessed, in the early seventies, 25 % of Wall Street stock
capitalisation. Along with financial deregulations of the early eighties, the behaviour of these
institutional investors changes. In 1991 they possess from 40 up to 65 % of stock capitalisation."
Besides, the Mexican monetary crisis that led millions of Mexicans to misery resulted from the
displacement of these American retiring pension funds.
3)The last point deals with the opening of health and social protection market to private interests.
Entrusting social protection as a whole to private interests is not the aim. It is but to advantageously
state wide open "profitable" niches for them. This is the overall market of so-called complementary
retiring pensions that are based on individual "capitalisation" of insurance that offers a social
coverage based on ratios of the sums invested.
This development towards "personalised social protection" relies on the principle according to which
the rich are not to pay for the poorer. It acts inside the financing mechanisms that are being set up,
such as the new-born tax that is supposed to pay off the accumulated debt of Social Welfare. This
new tax (named RDS -reimbursement of social debt) is calculated on a whole proportional basis (in
this case 0.5 % of the income), unlike the income tax which is still (less and less though) evaluated
on a "progressive" basis. The line of separation being that proportional taxes, as all indirect taxes
25
(for instance, VAT, taxes on tobacco and alcohol, etc., taxes that bring already in a lot more than
income taxes) happen to weigh much more on low rather than on high incomes. Acting as substitutes
for social impositions, these fiscal deductions based on proportionality form one of the foundations
of the tax reform in gestation. They will lead to a situation where, in proportion, the richest will be
less imposed than the poorest. These different elements illustrate the content of Chirac's "social"
policy. Far from solving "social break-off", it will, instead, only stress further social disparities.
According to evaluations made by different institutes, the entire set of measures contained in the
"Juppe Plan" consist of a transfer of something like 100 billion francs from workers' pockets to
capital. Such a reform, now that government and employers keep on calling for goods consumption,
is but a violent measure that will worsen the absolute pauperisation of the people and lessen as much
their capacities to "consume". The reason for such incoherence are to be investigated among the
insuperable contradictions acting inside the capitalist system. The capitalists would indeed like to see
the popular masses "buy" consumption goods, however, at the same time the race for maximum
profit generates more unemployment, lowering of real wages, and so forth... The fierce competition
that the imperialists are leading against each other for markets in South-East Asia, in the Near and
Middle East, in the Pacific area, etc. ends in restructuring and rationalising plans in imperialist
centres through intensifying the rhythms of production, through severe flexibility of the work force
whose qualifications keep on improving in spite of the fact that they are not acknowledged and paid
consequently. It is along this line that the movement of rejection of the "Juppe plan" fits in with a
larger dismissal of the so-called unavoidable consequences of "world-wide" economy.
Several times, Juppe complained that the demonstrators had not read correctly his project. He is right
along one point. When they undertook the struggle, few strikers had read the programme in detail.
Still, all of them understood immediately that was a matter of wide offensive against the social assets
of all the popular masses.
The features of the mass movement: the working class in the front
Such a broad and rich social movement could not be summed up in a few lines. We want to draw out
its most important and most significant features such as to further develop class struggle.
In this movement, the working class was indeed at the head of the mobilisation, particularly the
workers in the transport sector. It brought back again to memory not only its existence but its
decisive significance too, both on the economical level through paralysing part of the production, of
which transports constitute one of the branches, and equally on the social and political level.
Actually, its class interests based unity and its determination in standing up for them were the
elements that led the other sections of the workers, youth, unemployed, and so on, to join the
mobilisations. These unity and determination were expressed along the solid lines of demonstrators.
This was the first time in years that "overalls" were seen at the head of ready to fight demonstrations,
that were timed through drums made up of workshop abandoned cans. Were also seen labourers on
the way to a teachers' general meeting, ready to talk and convince still hesitating teachers as to the
demand to be put ahead, and a little scared by the utmost feature of the requirement for the
withdrawal of Juppe's programme. Others were seen in the midst of clarifying their movement to
university and high school students, to people working in the cultural field, to intellectuals, and so
forth.
The transport workers at the head of the demonstrations
The transport sector workers have hence launched the movement. They form large groups of the
working class. Opposite to observable tendency in other productive branches, they witness a rise in
their labour strength. Transport and communication fields are indeed a key element for the capitalist
26
system under the new conditions of both home and international competition. In today's "societes a
flux tendus", a tight net of means of transportation and communication is necessary as they turn out
to become themselves a stake of monopolies lively competition for their control and profit
realisation. The criteria of capitalist profitability question the validity of both social assets of these
categories of workers, seldom recorded as under a specific status, as well as the idea of public
service to which these same workers and popular users still feel attached.
For the rail workers, Juppe's programme of abandoning their specific system of pension added to a
wider programme of the rail reorganisation (the new "contract of the SNCF"). A map of the future
railroad network was published. Comparing the existing network to the expected one shows that a
whole series of rail lines running in less inhabited and, from the commercial point of view, less
profitable areas are doomed to disappear. The convergence of interest amongst the rail workers and
the users in refusing this programme was obvious. Drawing lessons from their 1986 strike where
they were the sole actors and from which they had relatively obtained very little in spite of several
weeks of railroad transportation jamming, this time, the train drivers fetched for the other working
sections of the railroad public company and got in touch with the "metro" drivers, hence aiming to
widen the movement. One of the drivers ends up saying: "First, I regarded myself as a rail driver.
Then I felt as a "cheminot" (slang expression for rail worker), and finally I considered myself as a
labourer."
The struggle was aimed at fixing its inner slogan, namely the demand of the plain and simple
withdrawal of Juppe's plan. Indeed, this requirement had not been put on right away. It meant an
important progress of awareness of both the necessity to surpass corporatism (thus not to strike to the
single question that deals with the reform of the specific systems of pension) and the necessity of
breaking off with conciliatory positions, with the search of compromises at all cost, that the
reformists cherish. The struggle was fought against by those who were in favour of a reform that
they consider "unavoidable". They directed their critics against the brutal method with which Juppe
wanted to impose the reform rather than against the content of his policy. Such was the position of
the different trends of social democracy, particularly the Socialist Party which holds on to its image
of a "responsible" government party. On the labour union level, the position expressed by the
"CFDT" was that which had been, throughout the movement, the most openly and resolutely
favourable to Juppe's government. A different way of fighting the workers struggle consisted in
mixing the demands inside a more global platform of demands, "such that, supposedly, everyone
may find his way through". This ends back in trying to split up the movement even before it is able
to take shape, and finally isolate the more mobilised sections of the working masses. As such, the
attempt fortunately failed in front of the potency of the movement that was setting off, hence getting
closer and closer to each other all the public sector grades of workers (mail, telecom, electricity and
gas -EDF-GDF-, but also tax, education and health sectors, etc.).
The objective difficulties to widen the movement to private companies' workers
Soon arouse the question dealing with the involvement of private companies' workers in the struggle.
The more conscious activists, the workers most engaged in fighting longed for widening the
movement. They displayed numerous efforts to reach this goal. Yet, union militants and rank and file
labourers had to overcome more than one difficulty. Some, and not the least, are the result of the
objective situation that prevails for years in the private sector; that is the cuts in the number of wage
earners, the liquidation of organised union roots that the employers realised for the benefit of
restructuring plans and of serial redundancies, among which, obviously, those of the most fighting
union or non-union workers were the priority. Besides, the number of precarious jobs (limited
employment period contracts, so-called "stages", sort of professional practise periods, etc.) keeps on
moving up, hence making more and more difficult, trade union association of large sections of
workers, particularly the young ones. This reality does not, in itself, explain the weakness of the
27
organised union movement which gathers together less than 10 % of all the wage earners. Such a
rate is yet lesser in the private sector. On the other side and bound to their reformist policy, the union
leaders experience the fact that the workers lack of confidence in them. We will not treat of this
aspect in this article; however, it will be taken into account to measure the significance of the
December 95 movement.
More than any others, the private sector activists were eager to have explanations for the actual
consequences of Juppe's plan. The pressure that they bore from their employers aiming to dissuade
them from joining the movement was quite hard. In addition to the blackmails with the threats of
firing them (according to the well known employers' thesis that a strike movement ends up in signing
the death of the company) there was the propaganda that pretended that only public employees and
workers were concerned by the movement. Now, the explanations have failed to reach them on time.
This question raises the general problem of the leadership of the movement. Indeed, and from the
start, this movement was mainly spontaneous. It was not the result of the call of one or more trade
unions. It did spring from the rank and file workers. Such is, in the last ten years, the feature of most
of the larger opposition movements. However, once launched, the movement generally expects from
the trade unions that they put al their means in the service of the up going struggle, much at the level
of the union militants than at that of the concrete tools of propaganda and co-ordination. Thus, the
relation developed between the movement and the trade unions is of a pragmatic nature. During the
December movement, the basic workers have not limited their initiatives to the sole "setting up",
they endeavoured to widen the movement to the other sections of workers and to search for the
greatest support. A lot of contacts between different sectors in struggle have been made, meetings
were organised inside striking stations, delegations of strikers went to factories to explain the
meaning of their struggle. The militants took up and organised such initiatives in industrial areas, in
the cities, wherever the workers had the ability to keep best control over their movement. The almost
daily demonstrations that gathered more and more people together each day, offered the means of
evaluating the potent uprise of the mobilisations. In other words, hundreds of initiative actions
occurred simultaneously and everywhere on the basis of the same demands. Yet, one thing became
clear very quickly: among the trade union leadership that supported the movement, none wanted it to
start off the frame of protest and feature a more political turn. The same thing happened at the head
of the PCF. Its national secretary, R. Huc, clearly assessed that neither the PCF nor social
democracy, its governing standing partner, were ready to introduce themselves as a political
alternative. But the revisionist and reformist leaders did not content themselves with this
acknowledgement, they acted consciously to maintain the class struggle inside the limits of the
bourgeois system.
The remarkable point is that the majority of the most conscious workers and militants (including
even activists of these reformist parties) knew quite well that these political forces were unwilling to
take on a political crisis and, moreover, that they were incapable to do so. Hence, and far from
leaving this" political vacuum" paralyse them, they, themselves, handled the movement from
beginning to end. If the movement did nor go "farther", up to the direct confrontation against the
government, that is on the political field, the reason comes not from the fact that the most conscious
and active individuals refused to do so, but from the fact that they were aware of its objective and
subjective self limitations. Somehow, they progressed as far as they could, enthusiastically
experiencing the power of collective actions and solidarity, feeling downdeep that they were
carrying a just struggle for the whole of the popular strata.
The population tool on the consequences of the bus and train strike with no blame whatsoever
against the strikers; actually the opposite occurred! Every attempt to set up demonstrations of "angry
users" ended up to be ridiculous. It is obvious that the great "All together" slogan of December 95,
which continues to be the cry of rallying in present day struggles, is not a matter of chance.
28
The question is, therefore, not much to know "why the movement has not progressed further", as
those who believe that the history of the labour movement is already written tend to do; the question
is more on the level of observing what point it reached up, where it did progress and how much
revolutionary potential it has shown.
As it has already been noted, the workers took on themselves to make their struggle, and the reasons
of their strike, known to each other. We can talk of a higher degree in self organisation of the
workers and of their battle. This was a great experience for the masses as they gained back
confidence in their capacity to act together and overcome the difficulties. In our point of view, it
illustrates a new and higher degree in breaking off with the institutions, with the parties and the
people who make them operate and who have nothing to propose but "an other politics" inside this
system, and, on the whole, with the reformism in government action that we had witnessed for more
than ten years in France. For an increasing number of workers today, it is plain that the alternative
will not spring "from the top" neither be materialised without them, but with them . Thus a close
attention to anyone who pulls up the debate on the field of social transformation (change).
They have also gained back confidence in the capacity of workers of other countries to support them
in solidarity. It has been a long time since we have not seen in our country so many delegations
from different European countries offer their political and material support directly to the struggling
labourers.
The fundamental questions that the movement has brought to light are, at last, the rejection of the
choices and the criteria that are imposed by present day society, of the logic of profitability
regardless of men and of fierce competition... It has, however, not only accused capitalist society,
but also set afore values, aspirations and practice that the communists and the revolutionaries
identify to those of socialism. In other words, and after the long period of ideological hammering
about the absolute triumph of capitalism and the death of the working class, this movement brings
about the matter of factly questions around the alternatives to capitalism, and renewed discussions
about the positive and negative points of socialist experience. This movement has stirred the hearts
of every stratum of society. We witnessed the formation of camps, including the intellectual
components of society. This is the first time, since long ago, that they have been numerous to take
side in favour of the movement, while they saluted, as many of them stated, "the come back of the
proletariat". Such progressive positions prove that the working class is able to drain these
components in its battles for emancipation, when it fights and thus stresses its load on society.
For many of those who were active during this fight, it was hard to get back to work. The speed at
which the working class occurs is different. On the other side, be it by the government, the bosses or
the reformists, everything is done to make is as if nothing happened and as if the routine overwon.
The advantages gained along this movement do not rank essentially at the level of the back-steps,
though real, that the government had to accomplish, especially for the pension status. We are no
fools, because it will try again to realise its project by way of other means.
April 1996
Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF)
29
GERMANY
Development of socialism, revisionist degeneration and

consequences for a modern definition of socialism
The speech was made at the “International Seminar on Modern Definitions - Communism and
Human Rights” on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of CPC (M-L) in Toronto, Canada, on 3
March 1995.
Dear comrades,
It is a great honour for me to be with you at this seminar on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of
the foundation of the CPC/ML. In the name of the CC of the KPD and all German communists I
bring you greetings and our best wishes for your further work for revolution and socialism in
Canada.
It is a great opportunity for us to present you with some of the results of the internal discussion in
our party about socialism, the coming to power of revisionism, the faults and limits in our theory and
the consequences for a modern definition of socialism.
As you know Germany was divided into two parts: The western capitalist part, and the eastern
former socialist, later revisionist degenerated part. From the refounding of our party in 1968
onwards, our party fought against the capitalist system and against revisionist degeneration as well.
Against the revisionist traitors we defended as did all Marxist-Leninist parties in the world the
principles of Marxism such as revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. In 1976 our party
founded an illegal section in revisionist East Germany. This illegal section of KPD fought not only
in the theoretical field against revisionism but in practice. The comrades of this section developed
the class struggle against the revisionists in power and fought for the overthrowing of the revisionists
and reinstalling of workers’ power and socialism. Many of them were imprisoned for years by the
revisionists. So our party had the unique opportunity of fighting and learning under capitalist
conditions and under revisionist conditions. And as well some of our comrades have lived under
former socialist conditions. It was a great obligation for our party to have the opportunity to live and
to fight against capitalism and revisionism in theory and practice.
Nevertheless, our anti-revisionist struggle was limited. We defended the principles of Marxism
against the revisionist distortions of Marxist theory and to a certain extent we analysed the situation
in revisionist society. But our criticism of and fight against revisionism were limited because we
never fully analysed the material and economical bases of revisionist society and the material and
economic sources of the revisionist victory over socialism.
We painfully experienced the deficiency in our theory when the revisionist regime in East Germany
broke down and Germany was reunited under capitalist-imperialist conditions. In this situation the
vast majority of the German people were influenced by a huge wave of anti-communism and
rejected socialist ideas. Even the progressive ones were full of doubts. And we communists saw that
30
we had no sufficient explanations for what had happened and for the future of our country. We saw
that our criticism of revisionism was mainly on the surface.
We again painfully felt this lack of theory when socialist Albania degenerated within a short time
and broke down. We saw that we were not prepared for this, that we had a lot of idealistic illusions
in socialist Albania etc.
In this situation we decided to use our unique possibilities of knowing socialism, revisionism and
capitalism to start investigations into what in socialism had happened, how revisionism could win
and what consequences we should draw from this. We decided to make these investigations without
any restrictions and limitations. I want to present you some of the results of our discussion. Our
discussion is not at the end. We will continue our investigations in this field. And we are ready to
work together with all Marxist-Leninist parties to develop a scientific work. to evaluate the
experiences of socialism and revisionism and to enrich Marxism-Leninism.
First when we speak about socialism we must be aware that socialism is not our final aim.
Socialism is a transitional society. Socialism is the first step to communism, a society without
classes, state power and political parties including the communist party. But we cannot achieve
communism in one step. Due to the limitations of the productive forces and the material
development of the society, due to the backward traditions, culture, education, which we cannot
eliminate by our wishes only, by our consciousness, we are forced to make compromises between
our final aim, communism, and those material limitations and backward elements within the new
society -and this compromise is socialism. Socialism is a big step, a big success compared with
capitalism. But we must be aware that there will remain backward elements of the old society in
such society. This means that socialism is not a society with fixed rules, with fixed never changing
relations between the different classes and strata; but on the contrary, socialism is a society of
continuous struggle and development; if not, it will stagnate and at least degenerate.
For example: being communists we proclaim the full emancipation of women. In socialism as a first
step we will guarantee this emancipation of women by law and we will support it by the socialist
state. But nevertheless, this will not lead to a full emancipation of women in reality. Because there
exist backward traditions, cultural elements and remnants of the old social relations which are
obstacles for a full realisation of emancipation. A long and conscious struggle and hard work to
change the social relations will be necessary from the proclamation of emancipation to the full
realisation of emancipation.
It is the same with socialist economy. The first steps are compromises. Marx said that state property
of the productive means is not the best form of social property, but necessary as the first step to
expropriate the expropriators. State property means the first attempt of the workers and society to
gain full control over economy and to use the productive means according to the needs of society
and its members. But it means as well that society does not have full control. State property itself is
the confession that there exist contradictions within society and that a class instrument, the state, is
necessary to deal with such contradictions.
This period is necessary. You cannot overcome it by volition, by your wishes. You must prepare the
material, cultural, ideological conditions in order to go forward to communism continuously. In
socialist economy you have money too, as a mean to exchange products and the law of value is still
in function.
How does socialist economy work?
31
Stalin made the first attempt to analyse it in his book about “Economic Problems of Socialism”. His
studies were a great advance for Marxist-Leninist science. But nevertheless there were some
shortcomings in his analysis.
What did he say?
You have a state sector. In this state sector production is planned according to the needs of society.
The exchange of products between state enterprises is regulated by the plan, but in reality it is
performed by using money, credits, etc. Stalin said that the money is nothing but a measure for the
exchange of the products and that the law of value is not the regulator of the exchange of products
but only a means to find out whether a factory works efficiently or not. When the products are sold
to the workers they are goods and the law of value is in function. This means that the workers cannot
determine the prices and the wages by their pure volition, but according to the law of value only.
You have a second sector in the economy: the farmers co-operative. It is a form of social property,
but not state property. It has its limitations because it is not the property of the whole society, but of
a social group. In this sector and between this sector and the state sector the law of value is limited
but in function; there exists an exchange of goods, not only of products. Stalin says: in this sector
money is not only a measure for the exchange of products, it is a real payment for goods.
In trade with foreign countries the law of value is still in function, too. There exists an exchange of
goods, not only of products. Foreign trade is regulated by the state plan; but for example prices can
only be fixed according to the law of value and according to the prices on the world market.
Otherwise foreign trade would be impossible or damage the socialist economy.
We agree with Stalin’s general analysis of socialist economy. But in one point we think that he and
with him all Marxist-Leninists including ourselves underestimated the law of value and with this the
economic and social contradictions in socialism.
In the state sector, Stalin said the law of value and money are only means to control the efficiency of
the factories. This is not completely true. If you need money, if the law of value is still in function
this is the confession that the plan does not regulate everything. This is the confession that you need
old capitalistic means to control production. And this may lead to distortions of socialist economy.
In communist society the law of value will no longer exist. In such society as Marx said the
efficiency of economy will be controlled by the law of the “economy of time”. This means that
society consciously decides whether a product is necessary or not and if it wants to spend or save the
time necessary for its production. As you know money is only the expression of the labour necessary
to produce a commodity. In capitalism this reality is hidden by money. The money is a god,
dominating the real living labour force, the working class. In communism this will no longer be
necessary -society will be able consciously and directly to control all expenses of labour force by the
measure of time.
When in socialist society we still need money to organise the exchange of products even within the
state sector, which formally belongs to the same owner, this means more than an instrument only to
control efficiency. It means that money has a limited influence on the exchange of products. and it
makes it possible to realise individual interests against society. As well it clearly shows that there
exist individual interests within this society. This limited influence of money and of the law of value
is a compromise necessary for society. You cannot overcome this period by volition, but only by
developing the material basis of the society and the political and social relations within the society.
32
Let us take an example: Since the beginning of socialism, there existed -limited- corruption, betrayal
of the state by the managers of the state enterprises. wasting of resources, etc. And you cannot
overcome this situation by volition, because society does not have the full control over the economy;
state property is a necessary, but only limited attempt of society to gain the control over the
economy. For example when the state plan obliged a factory to deliver 10,000 pairs of shoes to the
state trade organisation, some factories delivered these 10,000 shoes formally but with bad quality.
Nevertheless, the plan was fulfilled or over fulfilled. And the managers received their money and a
bonus. So some of the managers tried to betray the state and to fulfil the plan in a formal way only.
They had their own interests and did not work according to the needs of society and according to the
interests of the working class. The limitation of state property, statal planned economy gave them
space to work for their own interests. And this shows that the law of value had more influence than
controlling the efficiency of a factory only. It was a necessary instrument to control the relations
between the state factories and the efficiency of the factories, because this was not completely
possible by the instrument of the statal plan only.
The Marxist-Leninists and workers always fought against such tendencies. This was good and
necessary. In the first period of socialist construction these limitations of socialist state property and
statal plan economy did not affect the socialist economy so much. By the very rapid development of
the economy and the constant improvements of the socialist state, and by the education of a new
generation of managers, engineers, skilled workers, etc. the society could gain more and more
control over the economy. But when the socialist economy reached a stage of complexity the space
for those individuals, who followed their own interests against the interests of the society and the
working class, grew more and more. By following the old methods of leading the economy of the
first period of socialist construction, society lost more and more the control over the economy. A
new stratum and at least a new class could emerge within the socialist society. We think that this was
the material basis for revisionism. Revisionism was not mainly a question of wrong ideas or wrong
politics, but a result of the material development of socialist economy and the social relations within
the socialist economy. This development found its expression in the politics were not the causes for
the degeneration; the real causes for the degeneration you can only find in the material basis of the
society.
At this stage of the development of socialism the productive forces and the development of the
working class, which is an important part of the productive forces, made it necessary to find new
forms of leading the economy and the society. One main point was to find new ways for a greater
participation of the working class in all decisions concerning the economy, the state, etc. The old
forms were no longer sufficient. For example, it was not enough to organise a plan discussion with
the workers on factory level only and to discuss with them, how much they could produce, how to
save resources, etc. This was necessary, but not enough. The new stage of economic development
made it necessary to involve the whole working class more and more in the whole plan discussion on
the level of the whole society. For example, to discuss the main directions of the economic
development (“shall we develop atomic electric power or other power resources?”, “shall we
develop train, bus or car and in what relations?”, “in what direction shall we develop the social
relations within the factories?”, “how shall we develop our wage system?”, etc.) to discuss the needs
of the society, etc. As well it was now necessary to give the working class more and more rights to
control the management of the factories. These measures or more might limit the space of those
individuals. who act against the interests of the working class and who try to gain more and more
control over the economic and political process for themselves only. As well the working class needs
more and more political rights to control and influence the socialist state.
But obviously the Marxist-Leninists did not see these necessities. The fought against all the
symptoms of degeneration, but mainly on a moral and political level and did not clearly see the
material sources. You cannot fight against the backward elements and degeneration by volition. Let
33
us take Malenkov’s report to the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He
openly and clearly attacked all the symptoms of degeneration and he made a call to all revolutionary
forces to fight against these symptoms. But his explanations and his call were on a moral level. He
accused the “anti-socialist elements”, the “enemies of the party”, etc. This was good, but not enough.
As a communist you have to look for the social relations, which create such elements of
degeneration and you have to change the social relations. For this you need a consciousness and a
communist morality, but you need a clear analysis of the social relations and their development
within the socialist society, too. Without this, morality and “consciousness” will lead you to a dead
end.
So the new class could establish itself and gain power and control over the state and the economy.
And this class in a demagogic way “reformed” socialism and gave more power to the managers of
the factories. This was a solution to the problems of the society, but it was a wrong solution, a
solution in the wrong direction. By this process the working class lost its power and a new
transitional society was created: a pseudo socialist society developing in the direction of full
capitalism. All the “reforms” of the revisionists could never solve the problems of that society. That
society was a mixture of old forms of planned economy and new forms of more individual rights for
the managers. This led to stagnation, bureaucracy, corruption, etc. These societies were not capable
of solving their problems because they could not give the working class the leading role, which was
necessary for the progressive development of the society. But this was not in the interests of the in
fact leading class, the revisionist managers and bureaucrats. This new leading class was not and will
not at all be able to be progressive -at no point of development. Its own class interest made this
impossible. so revisionist societies never were and will be able to play a progressive role. The
economic, material laws do not allow this. And at least all these societies must break down and
develop into a capitalist society.
For us this is very important, because today some old revisionists try to give themselves a
progressive outlook. And it is more important for us to have a clear analysis of the laws of socialist
society in order to show the working class and all progressive forces a realistic way for the
construction of a new, socialist society so that they and we ourselves have no illusions in the difficult
process of transforming socialism to communism. Only when we have a realistic analysis of
socialism and of the experiences of the last decades, will we be respected by the workers and the
progressive forces and will they be ready again to fight for a new perspective.
I hope that my remarks on the question of socialism and revisionism will be a contribution to the
development of modern definitions in this field.
Thank you.
Diethard Möller
Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
34
ITALY
A critique of neo-Trotskyism:
Commodity, value and law of value under the dictatorship of
the proletariat
Within the world revolutionary movement the debate on the historical experience of the dictatorship
of the proletariat has emerged is once again current. The importance of this question derives from
the need to re-establish, with scientific rigour, what should be the theoretical foundations and the
political objectives of the class struggle of the proletariat and the people. This is because we are all
aware that great revolutionary battles are just around the corner, the grounds for which have been
prepared by the global decomposition of world imperialism, which, driven on by the Law of
Maximum Profits, is creating unemployment for millions of proletarians and the starvation of entire
peoples.
To turn our attention towards the revolutionary experience of this century does not mean defending a
glorious history for sentimental reasons, nor to hoist the banner of sectarianism through fear of
offering arguments to the class enemy.
Furthermore, this debate is not a monologue, but rather a struggle against bourgeois ideology which,
in virtue of the imminence of the revolution, is springing up within the proletarian movement itself.
We communists have our own methodology, which is neither metaphysical (immutable) nor idealist,
but rather materialist, dialectical and historical. This is based on concrete analysis, which takes into
consideration the real processes of history in their development, in all their aspects, in the way that
history has established them. For this reason, we reject any conception which proceeds from
preconceived or utopian models of socialism. This does not mean that we are exempt from the
critical analysis of the path that the oppressed masses have embarked upon on the road to social
emancipation and freedom - quite the contrary, in fact.
This analysis has to result in the consolidation and development of Marxism-Leninism, as a result of
the general experience of the Movement, and not the other way around. This is because our theory is
not a dogma to which reality has to accommodate itself, nor a conception that falls apart at the seams
at the slightest sudden unforeseen event or retreat. Our theory is an edifice which is enriched and
perfected through the uncharted pathways of the struggle against the old system. The necessity to
understand the ebbs and flows of history constitutes, for this reason, a moment in the development of
the theory.
For all these reasons, we reject the thesis of those - in particular the Trotskyists - who claim that our
defeats are to be attributed, not to the class enemy, principally the bourgeoisie, but rather to the
communists and to socialism as such.
For Marxist-Leninists, it follows that as a concept, socialism - the first stage of communism - is the
other aspect of the class contradiction with capitalist imperialism, through which both are
interdependent, that is to say that they struggle against and in turn condition each other in all fields.
It seems obvious to us that those societies which set out on the path of socialism and who set the
construction of the material basis for communism as one of their primary tasks, find themselves
bound to a certain extent by the laws and categories derived from capitalism, and that the latter are
gradually superseded and, although they conserve their form, change their character in the new
conditions determined by the socialist base.
35
The experience of the last decades have confirmed the continued relevance of Stalin’s theory
according to which the class struggle continues in socialist society, in terms of both social relations
and the theoretical, political and ideological field, even though private ownership of the means of
production no longer exists. For this reason, the internal or external bourgeoisie can regain power
and re-establish the old social relations of exploitation, so long as certain political conditions persist.
But while the work and though of Stalin are returning to the centre of attention in many countries, in
others, especially in western Europe, in which the bourgeoisie has gained a vast experience in terms
of reformism, there has been a recrudescence of the old Trotskyist and Titoite theses which try to
attack Leninism through attacks on Stalin. This is a question of “theories” which have as their
objective the undermining the faith of the working class and the militants in communism. Historical
truth is obscured or distorted, while there is silence concerning the enormous class struggles which
have characterised this century, struggles which have developed through the participation of millions
of people, through the use of every means possible, from the expenditure of billions of dollars to
nuclear weapons, neo-fascism, corruption and hundreds of “local” wars, from reactionary and
religious parties to the underworld, etc.
In all this counter-revolutionary activity, the ones who stand out for their corruption are those who
have been given the task within our Movement of deviating it. These “wasters” had (and have) the
task of creating ideological chaos, supporting deviations, attacking Marxism-Leninism and its
defenders, and dividing our resources.
These adopt the mask of defenders of our theory, who in addition interpret and, like high priests,
“judge” our work; about their own work, they have very little to say.
The worst is that, for all the power at their command, they do not manage to produce anything
serious, but rather churn out the usual subjective idealism which presents the history of the
communist movement as plagued by errors. The Trotskyists started all this, followed by the Titoites
(M. Djilas) with the “theory” of the “new class” engendered since the 1930s by socialism itself; then
came the Khrushchevites insinuating that the dictatorship of the proletariat was not democratic; the
Maoists collaborated in this - from the right, joining in the chorus with Khrushchev with “the correct
handling of contradictions among the people,” in order to reach the point of denying in reality
Stalin’s thesis that the class struggle adopts more complex and more difficult forms under socialism.
The cause was, and is, transformed into the effect, and vice versa. Thus socialism was defeated
through bureaucracy (let’s see when the US falls, since they possess the greatest bureaucracy in the
world), through lack of democracy (as if capitalism had won because of its democratic character, and
the dictatorship of the proletariat was not the highest form of democracy for the workers), and other
pleasantries. We communists should always bear in mind our method of analysis of social
phenomena, classes and the class struggle, of which we have brilliant examples from our classical
authors.
In this way we can observe classes both in their material (economic) reality and their formal
(ideological) existence, in their dialectical conditioning. Only in this way will we go to the root of
the problem, establishing each time a hierarchy of priorities of the difficulties we encounter, in a
particular way, in the first phase of communism, socialism, where the slogan is “to each according to
their work”, which does not allow bourgeois right to be superseded until communism is reached: “to
each according to their need.” And to be sure, the road to communism is long and full of difficult
and complex obstacles which the bourgeoisie introduces, having at its disposition not only its
powerful media, but also its long-standing ideological world which is expressed through the
conception of the world and of society, through the sciences and culture, through the family, the
relations between work, the individual and society. There are differences between the various
36
recurrent attacks on Leninism, but they all aim to lead our Movement into the arms of the old
Brezhnevite revisionism, in the name of a “realistic” path and “modern” definitions, as if we had
been wandering in the kingdom of utopia armed with old and outdated instruments. And to this end
they offer us analyses and theories, which it would be an underestimation to describe as comical.
For example, nowadays there is a thesis circulating in Russia (presented by Medvedev) according to
which only fragments of socialism had ever existed in that country, a thesis which others have
applied to Albania. Thus, it becomes very “easy” to dismiss Enver Hoxha (and 40 years of glorious
struggle) and to begin to demolish Stalin. The only problem is that these “realistic” and “modern”
theories completely lack the slightest scientific dignity. They rehabilitate all the Trotskyite-
Bukharinite charlatanry about the supposed second period of socialist construction (the Stalinist
period), in which it is said that the interests of particular individuals and groups were strengthened at
the expense of the interests of society in general, with consequent loss of control over the economy,
through which a new class was formed (this would be the new thesis for the authors). In substance,
the dictatorship of the proletariat is said to have engendered the new class and a transitional, pseudo-
socialist society en route towards the total restoration of capitalism, through which it was impossible
for the Khrushchevite revisionists to resolve their problems (although they tried!). What is to be said
about all this? The conclusion - if we were to pursue the logic of the ideas of these “modern realists”
to the end - is that the defeat of socialism in the USSR was due to the Bolshevik Party, which created
the new class, lost control of the economy, and limited the power and the rights of the proletariat.
We have to recognise that this is no small thing! How could the bourgeoisie have risen again if not
through the Bolshevik Party? A bourgeoisie (the old one) which, according to these “modern
realists” no longer existed, since private ownership of the means of production had been eradicated.
For the “modern critics” capitalism is nothing but property. For this reason, they do not understand
that the abolition of bourgeois private property - de facto and de jure - still does not mean the
definitive eradication of all the economic, social, political and ideological relations inherited from
the old system. And when the “modern critics”, in order to support their analysis, locate the origins
of the restoration of capitalism principally in the economic causes (commodity, value and law of
value), they arrive - as we shall see later - at the metaphysical conclusion that the socialist system is
in reality capitalist. But let us now pose the question: politically speaking, who were Trotsky,
Bukharin, Khrushchev and the others? Which social class did they represent? Perhaps they were
communists because they did not possess means of production, or because they were members of the
Party? What is revisionism? Is it a simple deviation from Marxism? Is bourgeois ideology a form
which, separated from the economic relations which engendered it, loses all function?
No society divided into classes can maintain itself without a well defined ideological system The
“modern critics” deny that the principle that objective causes create only the possibility for the
emergence of revisionism, and that it is the subjective conditions, within socialism, which can
transform this possibility into a reality.
These people isolate what for them are “objective” causes as the origin of the restoration of
capitalism, for the reason that for them it “follows from the Marxist method” that always and in
every way it is the economic cause alone which explains regressive phenomena. These theorists,
with the most vulgar schematism, having learnt by heart that the root of the superstructure is the
economic basis, “explain” every social and political phenomenon with this fact. But their conception
of the social structure (of the basis) is not Marxist, but positivist, hence their economism.
Marxism-Leninism teaches us that the structure is constituted by both the productive forces and the
relations of production, and both are essential to it. To fail to understand the dialectical relation, the
union, between these two factors, it to privilege the forces of production (hence the failure to
understand the role of value and the law of value under socialism) relative to the relations of
37
production, which means to fail to understand the primacy of the class struggle in the development
of the forces of production and the changes caused by the socialisation of the means of production. It
means to fall into Trotskyite-Bukharinite positions, that is into bourgeois economism. The
dictatorship of the proletariat, like the class struggle, has as its objective, along with the development
of the productive forces and the creation of new economic and social relations of production, the
eradication of the categories and the laws inherited from capitalism.
Hence the conclusion that the restoration of capitalism finds its primary cause in the socialist
economic base.
Engels always rejected such mechanical interpretations, in his famous writings and letters. He
always argued that the economic relations give rise to the gigantic superstructure in whatever mode
of production, but he took into account the fact that the social and ideological relations which arise
from a given superstructure play a great role in the process of history, and that with respect to
changes in the social structure, those in the superstructure are much slower and more complex.
If the Marxist method of class struggle is abandoned, we quickly enter the theoretical terrain of the
bourgeoisie, the class struggle is abandoned and secondary phenomena (like technocracy,
determinate forms of democracy or of centralism) are treated as causes.
But let us return to the above mentioned “objective causes”. Here are the theses put forward by the
“modern critics”: Stalin’s analysis of the socialist economy presents certain limits; during the
Stalinist era the Law of Value regulated the economy (since money existed). When the products
were sold to the workers, they became commodities and the Law of Value functioned, since the
workers could not determine the prices. All communists of this period underestimated the Law of
Value, which - on the contrary - is the only law that has to be taken into account. This in turn proves
that we have to resort to the capitalist laws which inevitably lead to distortions. The existence of
money and the Law of Value indicate that the State Plan does not regulate the entire economy, thus
benefiting private and group interests - besides, the co-operatives were the property of social groups.
According to our “modern critics”, the consequences that were mentioned earlier in relation to the
“second period” derived from these “objective causes”, i.e. false solutions to problems and pseudo-
socialism, so that the Bolsheviks were unable to get rid of the material bases of the degeneration
(stratification, bureaucracy, etc.). Thus a new transitional society appeared (perhaps from outer
space?) destined to end in the restoration of capitalism.
What needs to be said? It seems like a summary, or a Russian salad, with all the favourite theories of
the Trotskyites, the Bukharinites, the Brezhnevites and the Chinese “Gang of Four” mixed up
together. Social relations and political and social factors thus play a secondary, marginal role for
these disciples of economic fatalism, whereas - on the contrary - it is known that the development of
the productive forces towards socialism and communism presupposes, in order to continually create
new relations of production, that this necessity is a conscious one, and that these new laws of
socialism (as Stalin teaches us) operate and proceed by means of men.
And, if we concede that the absurd hypothesis that things were indeed the way that the “modern
critics” imagine, what should communists have done with regard to commodity, value and the Law
of Value? In the light of their “objective” (and “immutable”) presence in socialism, should they have
been left to operate spontaneously in order not to “underestimate” them? Should they have ignored
them? These thesis may be “modern”, but it is the same thesis as was put forward by Bukharin, who
was the main advocate of the theory that it was necessary to resort to the free operation of the laws
of bourgeois economy in order to avoid provoking bureaucratic distortions. For Bukharin and for the
“Gang of Four”, Commodity, Value and the Law of Value have to be ignored. For Bukharin, this is
38
because the (capitalist) economic objective coincides with the spontaneous development towards
socialism. For the “Gang of Four”, in turn, this is because to take Value into account in the first
phase of communism is tantamount to going towards the complete restoration of Bourgeois Right,
and thus of capitalism.
Stalin will have had his limits (as the “modern critics” say) but these limits have nothing to do with
any supposed confusion or distance separating him from Marxism-Leninism. The theoretical
substance, to coin a phrase, of the “modern critics” is: some categories and Laws of capitalist
economy continue to exist under socialism, operating both at the level of social content and form.
This would be the wonderful “scientific” discovery that has been underestimated throughout this
century by all communists (the reverse is more certain).
For our part, on the other hand, we do not disdain these fantasies of our “modern critics”, above all
because you need a good dose of dishonesty to ignore and to not understand Stalin’s simple and
clear arguments in the work, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”. Therefore we will go
deeper into the analysis.
Marxist-Leninists know that the value of a commodity is determined by the labour time socially
necessary for its production. Value is therefore human labour incarnated in the commodity, the
crystallisation of this labour.
The Value of labour-power is determined by the value of the things that are currently necessary to
produce, develop, conserve and disturb it (Marx).
The Law of Value established the relation between the values produced and in this way
spontaneously regulates the exchange of commodities through the mechanism of prices (and through
money). The social division of labour and the distribution of the means of production between the
different branches of the commodity economy. This is under capitalism.
Why is it that Commodity, Value and Law of Value - in both form and content - do not completely
disappear under socialism? Because it is during this phase that it is necessary to create all the
economic, political and ideological conditions through which, thanks to the new relations of
production and the expansion of the forces of production - the complete and superior development of
the peasant economy through state farms, of socialist commerce, of all the mental faculties of each
individual, of science and technology, and the transcendence of commodity relations of distribution -
the relations of production will become relations between really equal human beings, who will be
able to implement the famous communist principle, without the need to take into account the Value
produced by each social subject or category. Without there being more exchange transactions
influenced by (communist) social relations in the socialist phase, the dictatorship of the proletariat
and the Communist Party have to socialise all the means of production, that is to say to abolish
private and group property; eliminate labour-power as a commodity and thus eradicated the
exploitation of labour-power; and overcome the differences between the town and the countryside
and between intellectual and manual labour, etc. They have to create the conditions for the exchange
of products rather than the exchange of commodities.
Therefore, under socialism, which cannot be superseded by decree, commodities continue to

circulate - between the state and the Kolkhozes; Value and the Law of Value have their influence,
though this is not a determinate influence; and economic differences continue to exist, for example
between simple and complex labour.
Furthermore, the “modern critics” remain silent on the question of the function of theory (“Without
revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement”, V.I. Lenin). But the swindle - for it a
39
swindle that we are dealing with here - resides in its malicious theorisations. How can it be claimed
that the dictatorship of the proletariat sells commodities to the workers? The workers, who are the
owners of the means of production and are no longer exploited, sell their products to each other.
Who is it who sells “commodities” to the workers? Which “social subject” does this? Who sets the
prices? The capitalists or the dictatorship of the proletariat led by its party? These prices, are they
free (i.e. set through the anarchy of the market or through competition) or are they the result of a
determinate economic policy? Is the existence of money under the dictatorship of the proletariat
synonymous with a socialist or a capitalist economy?
In “The German Ideology”, Marx affirms that the contradictions between the productive forces and
the relations of production were the primary, essential - basic - causes of the class conflicts. Stalin
was right, then, when he maintained that the class struggle continues under socialism.
The class struggle continues despite the fact that the bourgeoisie no longer exists as an economic
class, or that the maximum that remains of it are minuscule groups without any social weight, and
despite the fact that there are just two friendly classes (the workers and the working peasants in the
Kolkhozes) and the social layer of the intelligentsia. But if class contradictions are the content of the
struggle for communism- and the history of the last 40 years has amply shown that a bitter struggle
continues to be waged under socialism - this indicates that the bourgeoisie continues to act in all
spheres of social activity, be it at the national or international level. It indicates - as Marx wrote -
that it is necessary not only to continually to bring the relations of production in line with the
powerful productive forces of socialism, but also that it is necessary to eradicate all the old social
relations and the ideas which continually arise from them.
But, according to what the “modern critics” say, Commodity, Value and the Law of Value are what
drive society back towards capitalism and which lead to degeneration. But can it be claimed that
under socialism there exists a commodity economy like the one under capitalism? No, this cannot be
claimed because the circulation of “commodites” is limited to consumption goods and does not
extend to the means of production and labour-power.
The victory of socialism in the USSR constituted a great triumph for Leninist theory’ its (temporary)
defeat, in turn, constitutes a victory for anti-Leninist theories. The “modern critics” are the epigones
of Trotskyism, which maintained that in the conditions of the transition period, of socialism, trade
and money do not change their character, but remain the same as under capitalism. Stalin, at the XIV
Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR replied to these enemies in the following manner:
“The question consists in the fact that the socialist elements of our society, struggling against the
capitalist elements, assimilate these methods and instruments of the bourgeoisie in order to
overcome the capitalist elements; that they use them with success against capitalism for the
construction of the socialist foundations.” During his entire life, Stalin always placed objective Laws
at the centre of his practice, something that is not necessary to illustrate, but evidently the “modern
critics” underestimate the power of our memory. In reality, these gentlemen try, with clumsy
arguments, to put off the theoretical debate by reducing it to the cloak of Trotskyism in order to
sabotage revolutionary practice through spreading confusion.
Organisation for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy
40
MEXICO
125 Years After the Paris Commune

Text presented at the political event organised by the Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist)
to commemorate the 18th anniversary of its foundation and the 125th anniversary of the Paris
Commune.
Historical Lessons
The cause of the Commune is that of the social revolution, of the complete political and economic
emancipation of the workers, of the universal proletariat. In this sense, it is immortal.” (V.I. Lenin)
The 18th of March marks the 125th anniversary of the first experience of workers power. The Paris
Commune continues to be the source of important historical lessons for the development of the
struggles of the working class on the road to its emancipation.
Despite the fact that the Commune lasted just 40 days, it teaches us important lessons, and since the
victories and defeats of the working class are our history, it is necessary to draw the relevant political
conclusions which permit Marxist-Leninist communists to clarify what is the only road which leads
to the complete eradication of wage slavery.
On this occasion, when we are gathered together to commemorate the date of the foundation of our
Party and to pay homage to the Parisian heroes, let us emphasis just a few aspects of the wealth of
lessons which the experience of the Communards has left us.
1. The first lesson of the Paris Commune is that the working class has to struggle for state power,
because the proletarians of Paris learned that the constant promises of their exploiters led to nothing
except betrayals and failures by the dominant class: the bourgeoisie in its different monarchist and
republican fractions.
Today, at a time of the sharpening economic crisis, the neo-populist and social democratic positions
of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia call on the working class to lower the red banner of proletarian
revolution, in order to raise the banner of capital in the name of unity against the “Party of the
State.”
This can lead only to the repeat of political and historical errors which our class has paid for in
blood.
We cannot hope for anything from the bourgeoisie except greater subjugation and exploitation. The
history of the world is full of lessons on the role that the “national bourgeoisie” has played in order
to secure capital accumulation. They do not call for the eradication of wage slavery, but only
demand the removal of the obstacles that stand in the way of their growing rich on the blood and
sweat of the working class.
During the workings of the Third Meeting for National Unity and Dialogue (which took place in
Acapulco on January 27th and 28th), our Party drew attention to the fact that from the experience of
the National Democratic Convention, it had remained clear that for the working class, the poor
peasantry and the broad masses of the people, the demands for land, housing, education, work,
health, democracy, freedom etc., are demands which should be included within a revolutionary-
41
democratic minimum programme and should be summed up as: New Government, New Power, New
Economy, New Constitution, the rejection of a planned transition and the calling of a Democratic,
Popular and Sovereign National Constituent Assembly.
While pushing forward with these tasks, it is necessary to reorganise the forces of the working class
and the poor peasantry in order to give a proletarian content to the popular mobilisation, above all
when other classes and sections of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are interested in placing
themselves at the head of these processes.
The Paris Commune, and of course the Great Proletarian October Revolution and the experience of
Socialist Albania) showed that the working class is the only class that can effectively formulate, lead
and carry out revolutionary tasks, including those of a democratic character. This is because the
implementation of the historical programme of the working class - that is to say the socialist
revolution - is the only guarantee of the implementation of the democratic demands which are going
around the movement today. Only under the leadership of the working class and its communist
programme will the exploited and oppressed masses be able to achieve the satisfaction of their
immediate and historical demands. The national bourgeoisie will not implement these demands, and
if by chance it takes a few of them on board, it uses them as a means of coaxing a section of the petty
bourgeoisie.
2. When the bourgeoisie holds state power, it dictates the economic and political pathways for its
own benefit, because the state has a definite class character. The only sure guarantee that the
working class and the working people will be able to realise their immediate demands and their
historical aspirations to for them to seize state power in order to build socialism. The Paris
Commune, in the space of 40 days radically transformed the state apparatus, abolished compulsory
military service and the standing army, armed the people, suspended the payment of rents, reduced
the average pay of state functionaries, nationalised all the wealth of the churches, established free
education, reopened the factories that had been closed by the bosses as co-operatives under workers
control, abolished night work for bakers, closed the pawnshops, decreed that all functionaries had to
be elected and could be recalled, etc.
The workers of Paris implemented what the republican bourgeoisie did not dare to.
What does this historical lesson teach us today? Perhaps that to renounce the struggle for state power
means leaving the exploiters to get up to their old tricks as usual? Of course, the working and the
poor peasantry cannot allow the future of the country to keep on being determined by the financial
oligarchy and imperialism, through their parliamentary representatives and the leading circles among
businessmen, the church and the drug traffickers, who use parliament like an instrument to legitimise
bourgeois power. The Paris Commune showed that it is not enough simply to lay hold of the existing
state apparatus, but that it is necessary to destroy it and build a new, proletarian state on its ruins.
In Mexico, in order to accumulate forces in favour of the exploited and the oppressed, we have to
struggle for a Democratic and Popular Constituent Assembly, because to draw up a new constitution
is the guarantee of a new power. To reduce the struggle for the Constituent Assembly to a matter
simply of constitutional reforms, with the same political agents who exist today in the Congress of
the Union, so that they can legislate changes so that everything continues as before, means leaving
the future of the state once again in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, we have to reject the
discourse and the practice which seeks to restrict us to a non-existent “civil society” which oversees
a “political society.” The Communards of Paris showed what the working class is capable of
achieving when it takes state power, abolishes private property and creates the basis for the
emancipation of the working class.
42
Today it would be a contradiction for the working class to struggle for a new constitution and not
struggle for power.
Our Party has understood that the proposal for a Constituent Assembly would be the expression of
the workers-peasants-popular power, the road to socialist revolution.
3. Another important lesson of the Paris Commune is that the historic and heroic gesture of the
French proletariat from March 18 to May 28 1871, represents, albeit with errors and historical
limitations, the first experience of the working class in power.
But in the last period, when George Bush announced in Paris in 1990 the inauguration of a “New
World Order”, taking for granted the triumph of the “free market” and “liberal democracy”, he was
creating the political context which was expressed theoretically in the neoliberal theses of the
Chicago School, Frances Fukuyama’s work, “The End of History”, and the theory of the “transition
to democracy”. These, together with the concepts of “new social actors”, “civil society” and “non-
governmental organisations” and the struggle to create a democratic space without fighting for
political power, are the natural development of the liberal and idealist philosophy which has been
taken up again by different social democratic organisations, and which is in the last instance the
theoretical expression of bourgeois hegemony. It is for this reason that the historic experience of the
dictatorship of the proletariat has been distorted and pilloried and had mud thrown at it.
Engels said: “Lately, the words ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ have driven the social democratic
philistines into flights of terror: well, then, gentlemen, you want to know what the dictatorship of
the proletariat looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That is the dictatorship of the proletariat!”
The Paris Commune demonstrates to us the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a
necessary historical phase in the transition to communism.
Therefore, we communists reclaim our history, we learn from our mistakes, but we also reaffirm our
principles: it was no mistake for the working class to establish its dictatorship, but rather a historical
necessity for its emancipation. Today various reformists and revisionists seek to vilify and to lessen
the theoretical, political and historical content of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and put forward
theses like “the dictatorship of the four classes”, “democratic socialism”, “market socialism”,
“extreme democracy”, “self-rule” etc. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental historical
step for the emancipation of the working class, and the Paris Commune represented in 40 days,
through its meaning and its objectives, a historical experiment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
4. The historical context in which the Paris Commune developed in 1871 in practical terms
represented the prelude to the development and the combativity of the working class, and it also
poses a number of problems which have to be resolved: the role of the state, the nature of the
revolution, class alliances etc. It also meant that the working class, in the face of the defeat that the
French and German bourgeoisies inflicted on it, would have to reflect on what is needed to secure,
develop and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat and thereby guarantee the path to
communism. Lenin provided a clear response, which Stalin developed, on the basis of what Marx
and Engels had handed down, of course: they arrived at the conclusion that what was needed was a
political party which represents the historical interests of the working class, that is to say an
organised, disciplined, centralised vanguard detachment of the working class.
In the Paris Commune, there were objective limitations which prevented the economic and political
transformations that the Paris proletariat implemented from being developed further. But the
subjective factor was also important, since the great influence of the Blanquists and the Proudhonists
prevented the elimination of the enemies of the working class. Instead, they tried to influence them
43
morally. Also, the importance that military actions assume in a civil war was underestimated, but, as
Lenin said, despite its errors, the Commune constitutes the most important proletarian movement of
the 19th century, but it also leaves us with the lesson that a Party of the working class is needed.
At the end of this millennium, the working class requires of its vanguard party that it educate it and
that it forges it in the class struggle and that its theoretical and practical leadership represents what is
most advanced in the working class, armed with the proletarian ideology of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
Stalin, and that it syntheses the lessons from the Paris Commune. For this reason, in these times of
ideological confusion, we have to struggle against reformist and revisionist conceptions which call
on the movement to lower the banners of socialist revolution, and advocate class conciliation. These
differences are not nuances, but differences of principle. Either bourgeois ideology or proletarian
ideology, either reform or revolution, either a bourgeois party or a proletarian Party.
To lose the perspective of building and consolidating the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party today
is, in practice, to throw overboard the proletarian revolution, because without communist leadership
the working class and the democratic movement will march along uncertain paths, and revisionism
and reformism will lead this movement down the path of conciliation and concessions, the path of
the petty bourgeoisie, social democracy or the liberal bourgeoisie.
Political leadership decides everything. After the death of Stalin, the main cadres of the Bolshevik
Party were displaced from power. The clique headed by Khrushchev gave rise to the open process of
capitalist restoration. The same thing happened in Albania with Ramiz Alia. The experience in Latin
America speaks volumes: in the case of Nicaragua with the FSLN, social democracy with guns led
to class conciliation; in the Allende case in Chile revisionism, in order not to strike at the national
bourgeoisie and preferring the path of institutionalism and bourgeois parliamentarianism, allowed
the organisation of the fascist forces who planned the coup and introduced military dictatorship.
5. The Paris Commune, despite being of short duration and restricted to a small area geographically,
is extremely important politically for the struggle of the working class, breaking down borders and
patriotic prejudices. While on the one hand the French bourgeoisie stirred up chauvinistic prejudices
against Germany, and attacked and deceived Poland, the Paris Commune appointed a German
worker as its Minister for Labour, and Polish workers were in the first line of defence of the cause of
the Paris proletariat.
In this sense, the struggle of the working class and the seizure of power can have a national form, but
their content is eminently international. For this reason, the struggle for push forward the proletarian
revolution in Mexico plays an internationalist role, and is directly linked to the struggle for the
strengthening of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations. This
has to be the consistent and militant practice of proletarian internationalism, which pays homage to
the heroic gesture of the Paris Commune and its internationalist character. In this anniversary of the
Commune, lets us reiterate that its lessons have in many respects cleared the path that we have to
follow, and reaffirm our conviction that this struggle will culminate in the triumph of communism in
the world. To advance towards fulfilling this goal is the best way of honouring the Communards of
Paris.
March 1996
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
44
SPAIN
Ideological laziness
One of the reasons - not the only one, of course - for the blows we have suffered in recent years, is
the ideological weakness which we, the other communists, carried with us.
All our parties, and in a general sense, Marxist-Leninist organisations, failed to really link up with
the advanced and conscious sectors of our people. We failed to achieve this because of our
ideological and theoretical weakness. This is one of the reasons - I do not know if it is the principal
reason but it is a very important one - which, along with other factors, is the cause of the confusion,
pessimism and loss of perspective which, whether one likes it or not, nonetheless exists at the level
of the popular masses, including among militants, in a great part of Europe.
I think that I am well placed to talk about this question in the light of the defeat we have suffered in
Spain, where a party which was apparently strong, which enjoyed real prestige, which had been
tempered in a thousand struggles, was destroyed in the course of a few months by a handful of
renegades and by a traitor who had worked in a clandestine manner (for how long?) in the heart of
the organisation’s leading bodies. Only a handful of militants and a few rare leading cadres resisted
and are struggling against the gloom of pessimism and discouragement, in very difficult conditions.
It is undeniable, in view of what has happened, that ideological education in the Communist Party of
Spain (Marxist-Leninist) [PCE(M-L)] was poor, superficial and bookish. Ideological education has
to be continually developed and deepened, and cannot be linear and uniform (either between parties
or between militants of the same party, without falling into absolute egalitarianism, which is a false
principle). The lack of such education, understood in a dialectical sense, is a reality in our parties and
organisations, of course with differences.
This problem is a serious worry for us. In our opinion, it ought to be debated at the Conference of
Parties and Organisations, in a planned manner, without haste, taking the amount of time and the
number of meetings that are necessary to this end. This is not a futile question. On the contrary, it
seems to me that it is very complex and intricate; it demands a great deal of effort, within which the
intellectual factor is determinant. It is not a question of “firing on the ambulance”, as we say here,
but there springs to mind a reply given to me in the 1980s by a high ranking Albanian official to
whom I had confided my worries and thoughts on this subject: “We are making a problem out of
things which are not a problem at all. Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the proletariat. It is
therefore not something so difficult to acquire. It is not so complicated. The proletariat is not
complicated, and consequently its ideology cannot be either.” I am quoting from memory, but I
guarantee that this is the essence of what he said. The same leader passed this other comment:
“Marxism-Leninism is what has been written by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. What we are able
to do is to base ourselves on it and comment on it ...” These assertions, argued at length of course
(but what cannot be argued?) are not only simplistic and mechanical, but above all are opportunist
and anti-dialectical, opposed to what Marxism is and to what the proletariat is as a social class, and
constitute a negative, harmful attitude towards the very essence of what communists defend. In view
of what has happened, certain people could draw from them conclusions which are hasty and
erroneous, because they are unilateral.
Nonetheless, this attitude reminds us of the position adopted by certain ex-Marxist-Leninist knights-
errant, incapable of saying and still less of writing anything which might not have coincided with the
official positions of the Party of Labour of Albania, who now violently attack those who, like us,
openly express divergent positions.
45
Manuel Sacristain, a Spanish philosopher who died a few years ago while still young and still in the
stage of developing theoretically, wrote in the prologue to the Spanish translation of Engels’ Anti-
Duhring (Ed. Grijalbo, Mexico, 1964):
“ .. the struggle against Marxism - from without and within the workers movement, by what it is
convenient to call ‘revisionism’ - mixes up, for reasons which are very easy to understand, the
critique of more or less obsolete theoretical developments with betrayal of the objectives of the
workers movement; thus one understands that a lazy and dogmatic reading of the Marxist classics
has been the easy part up until now.” (emphasis in the original).
This “lazy reading” goes hand in hand with a certain rejection, which I consider irresponsible, of the
fact that there are “outdated” positions and that there always will be, since continual development is
something which is inseparable from the dialectic; a position which is valid today could tomorrow
become disoriented, in whole or in part. Let us be clear about this: it is not that the dialectic (of
which Marxism is today the best expression) is itself disoriented, but rather that one must try to
grasp its continual development.
To stagnate in the classical positions of Marxism, to not see - even if no-one denies it - that Marxism
is - or ought to be - in continual evolution, is simply to deny the possibility of any advance in the
social revolution. And this is precisely one of the conclusions which the bourgeoisie and its
ballerinas, the revisionists and other birds of ill omen, never cease to declare, and amounts to saying:
“socialism is impossible, it has failed, Marxism is no longer worth anything” etc.... and therefore that
Communist parties no longer have a role, that they are useless, that they cannot provide an answer to
the problems posed. And they quote the example of what has happened in the USSR and in the other
countries which tried to build socialism ... What neither the bourgeoisie nor any anti-Communists
will ever say is that even if the answers were wrong, the questions continue to be correct.
These questions, these correct positions, call forth answers which only the communists can provide.
For this reason, we must, in the first place, determine where we have made mistakes, where our
failures, our errors and our deficiencies lie. Is not one of the main failings, if not the main one, the
absence of the deepening or the development of our analyses, the absence of the updating of
positions and their development in line with the development of society itself and the elements
which are present? It is certain that in order to advance we will have to analyse, with an open mind
and without preconceptions, what has been done at least since 1917 (and maybe before).
This is a difficult but indispensable task if we want to take firm steps forward. And this does not
mean that we will convert ourselves into study centres or debating clubs and that we will paralyse
our practice, because it is, despite everything, the only consistent practice directed against the
bourgeoisie. But it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that “practice is blind if revolutionary theory
does not illuminate its path.” This theory is not acquired through innate science and, although we
have advanced a lot, there will always be new pathways to open up.
It seems to me, for example, that the efforts which the comrades of the Workers Communist Party of
France (PCOF) have put in to analyse the construction of socialism in the USSR is frankly to be
commended, and ought to be seriously taken into account. Are there any debatable positions? Let’s
debate them then. Are there assertions which seem erroneous to us? Let’s point them out, then, and
above all, let’s try to contribute to this effort, let’s put forward our own analyses, opinions and
suggestions.
The confrontation of opinions and ideas between communists always produces positive results, when
it is a question of course of communists who want to move forward, to unite their efforts, to pool
their analyses. Not to seriously take account of the efforts of the PCOF, not to collaborate with these
46
comrades, each according to their own capabilities, would be a an error and open to criticism. This is
all the more the case since, to my knowledge, no-one has to this day undertaken such an analysis
from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, as extensively as the French comrades have done.
Another example of the lack of analytical rigour we are suffering from, is that of a certain party
which participates in our meetings, which always demonstrates its disagreement with the essence of
the general positions, which never supports the resolutions and decisions which we take (I am
speaking of the Conference), whose attitude is full of complacency and arrogance, and which goes as
far as to deny any authority to the other parties, on the grounds that someone or the other has not
given authorisation or has not recognised the legitimacy of our decisions. This same party, in the last
meeting, adopted its usual attitude and was on the point of provoking irritated responses (mea culpa).
It is as well not to fall into provocations and not to play the game of those who want to provoke a
split. But the question presents itself: do they act in this way because they are idiots (as some
believe)? Could it not be that the ideological position of this party, which is not alone or isolated
(this adjective indeed comes from the word ‘island’), confront our own positions head on? Why do
they refuse the type of practical and ideological communist unity which we are trying to achieve?
It is clear that no-one among us has analysed rigorously the positions of this party (and those within
its orbit). However, this party, which refused to sign the general communiqué of the second
Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations, a few days later published in its paper its
joining and signing the Pyongyang (Korea) Declaration. This declaration, composed two or three
years ago, is a sack full of banalities, of general phrases with a marked opportunist bent and of
eulogies and praise to the “god” Kim Il Sung.
It is not a question of launching into an all out war against these comrades. But we must no longer
turn a deaf ear to these ideological positions which confront head on the essence of the Conference.
The internal, ideological struggle, that is to say the confrontation of ideas and analyses in order to
move forward, has always been - at least in theory - a positive element among communist parties.
Why would it not be within the Conference? It is not a question of seeing ghosts, but when one does
not face up to problems ideologically, something is going badly. We have on this subject a rich
experience, both at the national and international level. The consistent attitude of not discussing in
order to avoid contradictions was one of the causes of the degeneration of parties and organisations
which, once their point of reference collapsed, went astray without a compass, and ended up
disappearing. It is enough to take a look at the situation in a good part of the world. Our Conference
is still young, very young, but the majority of its members have acquired experiences - both positive
and negative - which ought to be taken into account. Our political, ideological and organisational
real life experiences can be a source of lessons. We are a living body, and like all living bodies we
have contradictions and differing positions which we are trying to tackle in order to advance and to
develop ourselves on all fronts. This magazine, now without either limitations or obligations, is a
good example of our will. But, could we do more? For example, discuss collectively the articles
published between two meetings. If we do this, surely we would be surprised by the number of
‘nuances’ and differences which would appear.
Why don’t we organise an annual edition of monographs, for example? This could be done in the
magazine itself, or in another ad hoc publication.
These are questions which can be dealt with at the next Conference. It is true that we are always
short of time, but this sickness - the poverty of analyses and of study, and of the corresponding
collective work - goes back a long way, a very long way, and the consequences have been tragic.
The “lazy reading of the classics” has rendered excellent service to the opportunists and, for that
reason, to reaction. Is that not so?
Communist Organisation October of Spain
47
TUNISIA
Thoughts on the question of defeat

I- The Question of Betrayal in the USSR
Many legitimate questions pose themselves and impose themselves. First of all, if the principles
which guided the October Revolution and socialist construction in the USSR were correct, how was
it that the return to capitalism took place straight after the death of Stalin? How did this handful of
bureaucrats develop, and how did they succeed in hijacking the leadership of the party and the state,
sabotaging the dictatorship of the proletariat and restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union? How did
this handful of bureaucrats emerge and how did they develop to the point where they attained
power? How was it that the working class and the labouring masses allowed themselves to be misled
so easily and how come they did not react violently to protect the gains for which they had sacrificed
everything?
We pose these questions as Marxist-Leninists, and we cannot ignore them. What took place in the
Soviet Union after the death of Stalin in the manner indicated above, indicates that something was
not quite right, despite the great gains which were made under the leadership of Stalin and despite
the correctness of the general line of the party. Every Marxist-Leninist militant who has faith in
dialectical and historical materialism, rejects all idealist and metaphysical interpretations which
would treat the revisionist betrayal in isolation from the inherent subjective and objective factors
which prepared the way for it in the preceding period.
It is from this angle and on the basis of the principles of scientific socialism that we are going to try
to shed a little light on this experience, with a view to highlighting the potential weak points and the
negative quantitative factors which were transformed into a qualitatively new reality. We do not
pretend to provide answers to all the questions posed. And before proceeding to analyse the Soviet
experience itself, we are going to begin by recalling the general Marxist-Leninist position with
respect to the question of capitalist betrayal.
Marxist-Leninist theory and the question of betrayal
Marx and Lenin had already pointed out that the victory of the socialist revolution would not be
brought about in a linear way, and that it would experience obstacles and detours. In their analyses,
they based themselves on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism. Before the socialist
revolution, the bourgeois revolution had known ups and downs before securing victory: a revolution,
a counter-revolution, then the revolution once again ...etc. And all this is completely natural in view
of the effect of the class struggle between the old classes and the new ones which were on the rise.
The socialist revolution, just like other revolutions which preceded it, evolves through the bitter class
struggle between the ascendant proletariat and the declining bourgeoisie. As Lenin argued in his
book The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky: “The transition from capitalism to
communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably
cherish the hope of restoration. and this hope turns into attempts at restoration.” (Lenin, Collected
Works, English edition, vol. 28, p254).
It is thus that the possibility of betrayal and capitalist restoration remains probable throughout the
long epoch of transition of which Lenin spoke. He defined the fundamental sources of this
“apostasy”, which we can summarise as follows:
48
1) The overthrown reactionary classes multiply their resistance and their hostility towards the
working class, above all after their defeat, with the aim of regaining their paradise lost. Lenin said in
this regard: “The experience of the global history of insurrections by the oppressed classes against
their oppressors shows that it is impossible to avoid a long and relentless resistance on the part of the
exploiters in their struggle to preserve their privileges.”
2) Small scale production continues to exist for a given period under the dictatorship of the
proletariat up until the elimination of small property (the establishment of the regime of agricultural
co-operation etc.). From the class point of view, this type of production represents petty bourgeois
element that underpins the birth of capitalism. Lenin said in this regard: “Petty production gives birth
to capitalism and to the bourgeoisie in an uninterrupted way and on an extensive scale every day and
in every way in a spontaneous fashion.” (Lenin, Selected Works vol. 3 p35, French edition, Progress
Publishers).
He adds on page 368 of the same edition: “It is a thousand times easier to defeat the centralised
bourgeoisie than to overcome the millions and millions of small owners when the latter, in their
everyday, normal, hidden, elementary and assiduous way carry out the necessary results of the
bourgeoisie.”
3) Old and reactionary ideas and traditions which remain attached to the minds of the people,
influence their behaviour even after laying the material basis of socialist society.
These ideas and traditions are a fertile ground for the formation of the bourgeoisie once again. Lenin
said in regard to this question: “The force of habit among the millions and tens of millions of people
is the most terrible force of all.”
4) The elements that become bureaucratised within the ranks of the party of the proletariat and its
state, under the effect of bourgeois ideology, habits and traditions under the conditions of global
imperialist encirclement. Lenin, speaking of the situation in Russia in 1918, said:
“There is a petty bourgeois tendency to transform the members of the Soviets into
“parliamentarians”, or else into bureaucrats. We must combat this by drawing all the members of the
Soviets into the practical work of administration. In many places the departments of the Soviets are
gradually merging with the Commissariats. Our aim is to draw the whole of the poor into the
practical work of administration, and all steps that are taken in this direction - the more varied they
are, the better - should be carefully recorded, studied, systematised, tested by wider experience and
embodied in law.” (Lenin: The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, Collected Works,
English edition, vol. 27, p.272-3, Progress Publishers).
5) External aggression on the part of the imperialist states, in order to crush the proletarian state and
permit the return of the exploiters to power.
These are the sources of betrayal as defined by Lenin. Clearly the betrayal in the USSR was the
product of neither a coup d’état fomented by the overthrown reactionary classes, since all their
attempts to return to power had failed, nor was it the product of petty production, since the
Bolshevik party under the leadership of Stalin had succeeded in destroying it at root, above all after
the establishment of the co-operatives. Nor did it take place through the channel of external
aggression, since the Bolshevik power had always been able to defeat imperialist aggression, notably
that of the Nazis in the course of the Second World War. Nor did it take place through the old
currents within the Communist movement, such as Trotskyism or Social-Democracy (Bukharinism).
49
The origins of the betrayal were within the apparatus of the Bolshevik party itself and the proletarian
state itself, despite all the ideological and political struggles which Stalin and the party had carried
out against the different opportunist currents after the death of Lenin, and despite the fact that Lenin
and Stalin were on guard against the danger of bureaucracy.
The elements that organised the betrayal within the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state were the
rotten, bureaucratic elements who renounced the interests of the working class. If the fact that these
elements had been unable to restore capitalism in the time of Stalin is a testimony to the impassable
barrier to betrayal that this great proletarian leader represented, feared by all opportunists including
the Khrushchevites, the coup d’état which the latter carried out immediately after his death signifies
without a doubt that the conditions had been prepared in advance within the party and the proletarian
state, facilitating their task, and that the bureaucratic elements had their own basis within the party
and the state. What are these conditions which explain the birth and the evolution of these
bureaucratic elements to the point of successfully transforming the first socialist state in the world
into a great social-imperialist state?
We do not pretend to provide precise and definitive answers, but we believe that the class struggle
continued between the socialist road and the capitalist road, despite the gigantic strides towards the
construction of socialism that the Soviet Union made under the leadership of Stalin. This struggle
had its objective basis. It is in this way that remnants of capitalism continued to exist within the
economy, certainly within much reduced limits since the system of collective ownership of the
means of production had been implemented in its essentials. These remnants presented themselves in
the guise of a small enclave of private investment in agriculture and commerce (petty commodity
production). This signifies that “bourgeois law” at the level of property was not completely
eradicated.
In addition, bourgeois law continued to operate in Soviet society at the level of distribution and
above all in wage differentials. It seems that these differentials had continued to exist until the 1930s
and that the efforts made to bring them to an end were not maintained; thus, though these
differentials are inevitable in the lower stage of communism, they constitute a material basis for the
emergence of bourgeois elements. Nor did the differences between town and countryside and
between manual labour and intellectual labour disappear in Soviet society. These, too, are two
elements forming a material base which favoured the return of capitalism. Besides, ferocious
imperialist encirclement acted through attempts to corrupt Soviet cadres and to recruit them as spies,
as well as through ideological, political, economic and military pressures, all with the aim of
destroying socialism in the first communist country.
All the elements quoted here constitute an objective basis for the class struggle in Soviet socialist
society. And we believe that many omissions in the practice of the Bolshevik party resulted in this
class struggle not following the path predicted by Stalin and by the general line of the party, that is to
say in the sense of the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the blocking of all
channels through which a possible revisionist “apostasy” could develop.
1) Although Stalin insisted a lot on the danger of internal “apostasy”, notably in the context of the
struggle against the Trotskyists and the Bukharinists, and although he focused attention on the
danger of bureaucracy, we note that in a general sense, the Bolshevik party from 1936 and 1937
fundamentally focused its vigilance on the external danger rather than on the internal danger. The
feeling that came to dominate was that the dictatorship of the proletariat, after all the victories that
had been won, had become sheltered from the threat of internal enemies, above all those who were
emerging within the party. Contrary to what had been expected, the betrayal came from within.
50
2) Although the Bolshevik party had been the party which led the first socialist revolution in history
to victory, and although it had produced great leaders like Lenin and Stalin and had lived through
very rich experiences in the ideological and political struggles at both the Soviet and international
level, it would appear that certain dangerous weaknesses had progressively penetrated into the ranks
of the party, the impact of which had grown sharper with the passage of time. At the time of Stalin’s
death, these partial weaknesses were transformed into a generalised ailment.
We emphasise in this regard the question of ideological and political education within the Bolshevik
party, which seems to have been neglected from the 1930s on. A sense of victory and self-
satisfaction held sway, convinced, as one was at that time, that everything had been done and that
there was no longer any need to put in a great deal of effort. We can find indices of this ailment
within the writings of Stalin (see notably what was written with regard to the struggle against the
Trotsky and Bukharin clique). Similarly we can find clear traces of this phenomenon in the
proceedings of the XIXth Congress and especially in the document entitled “Summary Report.”
This report insists on the fact that a part of the leading cadres had not put in the effort needed to raise
its level of consciousness, to complete its knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, and to learn about the
historical experience of the party.
It insists also on the fact that many organisations of the party had dropped ideological and political
work in the course of the war against Nazism. It adds in this regard: “This sort of practice, that is to
say the practice of ideological and political education, has been neglected without anyone taking it
into account”. It goes on to note that “certain organs of the party focus their attention on economic
questions and forget ideological questions.” It is normal that these grave dangers should flow from
the neglect of ideological and political education. In effect, in the absence of Marxist ideology,
bourgeois ideology and the bourgeois style of work come to the fore. The “Summary Report” itself
emphasised that this situation in the party hid many dangers, many of which had begun to appear.
The leading organs of the party had begun to become separated from the masses; its combat
organisations became administrative organisations, with privileges, their role being reduced to that
of giving orders, unable to confront the tendencies which threatened the interests of the socialist state
and economy. This signifies that these organisations had become transformed into bureaucratic
apparatuses. And as the political and ideological criteria had lost their importance due to the neglect
of proletarian education, bourgeois criteria for recruitment of cadres had become operative in certain
organisations such as family connections, friendships, allegiance and regionalism.
It is completely normal that many leading structures in the Bolshevik party should be transformed
into administrative structures when ideological and practical education is neglected. The relations
between these structures and the base become bureaucratic and they are exploited by opportunist
elements for their own interests, above all in the euphoria following the victories that the party had
won both internally and externally. These leading structures work to kill all critical spirit so that they
control everything, and the currency becomes “the leadership knows everything”, “Stalin says ..”,
such that this becomes a pretext for repressing honest militants and educating others into submission
and allegiance. Besides, it must be remembered that the Bolshevik party had lost a great number of
its best militants in the course of the Second World War and particularly high and middle cadres
more than rank and file members.
It is the development of this state of mind within the Bolshevik party (spirit of submission and
weakness of ideological and political work) which explains, in our opinion, the passivity with which
the ranks and file reacted to the Khrushchevite coup d’état despite its evident attachment to Stalin
and to the great socialist achievements that were realised under his leadership.
51
3) Although Stalin always insisted on the necessity of training militant communist cadres rooted in
the working class, in order to prevent their bureaucratisation and their becoming a group elevated
above the people, with their own privileges, it is clear that there were faults which sullied the
political practice of cadres in the USSR.
The practical negligence of ideological and political education within the Bolshevik party could not
but have harmful consequences for the nature of the politics of the cadres in the proletarian state
apparatus. This is obvious since the party is the leading force within society. Also, the progress of
socialist society is linked to the health of the party. It is therefore not surprising that bourgeois
ideology infected many cadres in the state and its different apparatuses.
The relative rise in salaries of high ranking cadres combined with the lowering of the level of
ideological and political education lead to the degeneration of the cadres and their deterioration.
They are progressively transformed into a scourge within the proletarian state, seeking to enrich
themselves through any means, on the backs of the workers, and to occupy important posts within
the party and state power in order to monopolise it bit by bit.
It is normal that such cadres do not think of following a correct style in their relations with the
labouring masses. They certainly did everything to falsify the decisions of the party and its line in
practice, to exploit the respect which the party and Stalin enjoyed in order to stifle the initiatives of
the masses and to implement their own reactionary decisions, in the name of the party and of Stalin
above all, since the Soviet working class and all the labourers had solid confidence in them.
If these emergent bureaucrats succeeded in realising all this without their activities being brought to
an end, it is because control from below, of the state institutions and cadres by the masses, was very
weak. This was the case despite the existence of control organs such as “the workers control”. Nor
were the masses prepared ideologically or politically in an adequate manner to face up to betrayal
and to hold on to their gains through using revolutionary violence, if necessary.
The “Summary Report” from the XIXth Congress indicated many actions which the rotten elements
had begun to put into effect with a view to weakening the regime of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. The report indicates that certain directors of enterprises “are sabotaging the interests of
the state by their actions, misleading the government and leading the state into error.” It even adds
that certain among them, in complicity with certain party structures, were falsifying documents in
order to embezzle products and supplementary goods. Still others were trying to use their post as a
means of obtaining particular privileges. In order the illustrate the point, the report gives the example
of what was happening in the agricultural co-operatives: theft, sabotage ... to which the bureaucratic
elements were dedicating themselves.
4) That the bureaucratic elements were able to secure for themselves key posts within the party and
state apparatus could not but result in deviations in the relations between the apparatuses of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the labouring masses. Wherever these elements were to be found,
their comportment could not be anything other than to do everything possible to distance the masses
from political power and to preclude their participation in its management.
It is also possible that these opportunist elements who seemed to be faithful to the party for a long
period, had taken advantage of the attacks that the party organised in order to rid itself of counter-
revolution. They consolidated their positions and carried out abuses of power at the expense of the
workers.
The Bolshevik party, at its XIXth Congress, had taken note of the danger which was threatening it
and of the first signs of the symptoms of the ailment which were beginning to surface. Also, the
52
“Summary Report” underscored the fact that: “it is very important at this time to proceed towards a
critique and a self-critique from the bottom to the top .. and to consider those who hinder this
critique or try to avoid it, as well as those who repress through practising vengeance against the
critiques, as bitter enemies of the party and we have to declare a war against them without mercy.”
Stalin died in March 1953 (and the XIXth Congress had taken place in December 1952). He did not
have the time he needed to carry through this operation to a conclusion in the way he had done
against Trotskyism and Bukharinism. It is in this way that the rotten bureaucratic elements took
advantage of the leading positions that they occupied in the party and the state in order to prepare a
coup d’état. What had previously been weaknesses and deviations, and quantitative aspects, now
were transformed into something of a different nature, and a political and ideological line opposed to
the line of the Bolshevik party lead by Stalin ...
Some lessons of the experience of the USSR
The revisionist betrayal in the USSR, which led to the degeneration of the socialist regime and its
replacement by a capitalist, imperialist and fascist regime, was not a destiny from which it was
impossible to escape or something which was inherent in the nature of Marxist-Leninist theory, as
some claim. It was the fruit, the bitter fruit, of the weaknesses present in the first socialist experience
in the history of humanity. To know how to profit from the lessons of this experience constitutes the
best guarantee for the victory of the revolution against the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism, but also for the safeguard of this
regime and its protection against the danger of betrayal.
The greatest danger which emerged in the USSR was, as we have seen, that of the bureaucracy and
the other ailments that were linked to it, such as technocracy, intellectualism and so on. It is an
internal danger, which springs from within the working class party and the proletarian state
themselves, and not an external danger which arises from foreign aggression. Also, to avoid what
occurred in the USSR forces Marxist-Leninists, not to replace Marxism-Leninism and the socialist
regime by a liberal theory and a bourgeois regime as the “revisionists” conclude, but to recognise the
importance of certain questions both at the theoretical and practical levels, basing themselves always
on Marxism-Leninism throughout the epoch of socialist construction.
The betrayal in the USSR illustrates the necessity of recognising the importance of the internal class
struggle as the source of this danger on the same footing as the external class struggle. The external
enemy cannot attain its objective of destroying socialism unless it has at its disposal internal agents.
These internal agents are not necessarily the remnants of the overthrown classes; they can be rotten
bureaucratic elements from within the ranks of the party itself, as can be seen from the Soviet
experience. Antagonistic contradictions do not disappear in socialist society; they exist alongside
non-antagonistic contradictions.
The struggle against the principle source of betrayal within the party and the state - that is to say the
bureaucracy - demands:
First, to centre on the objective factors which could constitute a material base for the emergence of
rotten elements, and to bring them under control. We see above all the necessity to work without rest
for the suppression of the differences between the town and the countryside, between manual labour
and intellectual labour, between the two forms of socialist property, property of the people and co-
operative property, raising the latter to the level of the former.
Then, it is necessary to continuously develop the superstructure in order to extend proletarian

democracy and in order to bring about the participation of the broad masses in the running of social
53
and political life at all levels. This means that Marxist-Leninists must concern themselves with
certain fundamental relations in the context of the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in
order to discover adequate solutions. This is a question of:
1) The relation between the leadership of the party and the rank and file, and between the party and
the working class and the labouring masses, and their social organisations. The objective would be:
- to combat opportunism and concern oneself with ideological and political education, to develop the
control of the leadership by the rank and file by the application of democratic centralism;
- to establish democratic relations between the party and the class: the get the working class to
participate in the elaboration of policies to be followed, in the ideological and political struggles, and
to give its opinion on the recruitment or exclusion of members and on the formation of leading
structures.
- to establish democratic relations between the party and the mass organisations and to avoid
transforming the latter into administrative bodies which implement the orders which are handed
down to it by the party. As Lenin said, it is necessary to turn these organisations into “schools for
communism.”
2) The relation within the dictatorship of the proletariat between the elected structures and the
administrative structures. This relation must be approached from two angles. The first consists of
working to give priority to the elected element in relation to that which is designated within the state
apparatus with the view of putting into practice the principle of the election of all state functionaries;
the second consists of subordinating the administrative structures (from the government to the
smallest administrative cell) to the elected structures, a total submission since the latter express the
will of the people and are under their control.
3) The relation between the administrative structures and those which are elected on the one hand,
and the working class and the labouring masses on the other, must be established on the basis of
control of the former by the latter, a control which must be real and effective.
In this context, it is necessary to give importance particularly to the question of cadres and their
relations with the masses. Any deviation in this regard would constitute a basis for the emergence of
the bureaucracy. Cadres must be subject to working class conditions of life. In addition, it is
necessary to pay particular attention to their ideological and political education, and to make them
participate in productive work. By the same token, it is necessary to work towards a continual
reduction in the administrative apparatus and to integrate a large part of the latter into production
over and beyond the subjection of the cadres to the direct control of the masses.
4) The relation between the administration, which centralises, and the necessity to unleash the
creative initiative of the rank and file structures and the masses. This means that the latter must
participate in the drawing up of the economic, social and cultural plans and political decision
making. All attempts to prevent this must be repressed.
5) The relation between the control from above that the working class exercises in power through its
party and its state on the elected structures, and the direct control from below. This latter is one of
the fundamental mechanisms for the struggle against bureaucracy. Also, this must be effective and
must be carried out through the pressure of the mass organisations of the workers and peasants
directly (the workers and peasants control committees).
54
A correct approach to these different relations in line with the Marxist-Leninist method is our touch
stone in the battle against bureaucracy within socialist society.
II- Once again on the lessons of an experience
The socialist movement has accumulated some notable experiences over many years, both in terms
of the manner of leading the popular masses towards power and in the way to build socialism.
Nevertheless, the risks at the second level outweigh the advantages; it has resulted in the loss of
power by the working class in all the countries which have known socialism. This is why it is
necessary to undertake a deep process of critique and self-critique in a revolutionary spirit, based on
Marxism-Leninism, without leaving any place for sectarianism or sclerosis, and with no concern
other than the interests of the movement and what it needs for its further development.
The greatest danger for Marxism has always been and remains the tendency to reduce it to
immutable dogmas imposed on reality, which are incapable of assimilating the specificities and the
developments, and consequently incapable of responding to what is necessary to transform reality.
This tendency runs counter to the revolutionary advance of Marxism. The latter has to be
rehabilitated completely in order to advance the theory in light of the experiences accumulated by
the progressive movement on a world scale and the transformations it has undergone. If we insist on
the necessity of the revolutionary advance of Marxism in the analysis of diverse historical aspects,
this is not in order to discard principles whose correctness has been confirmed by experience, but
because this path is the only one which permits us to distinguish what is correct from what is false,
the principles and the general rules from what is provisional and exceptional, preserving what is still
valuable today.
If this process is profound, sincere and objective, the results will be healthy and will help open up
new horizons for the working class and the people, who will gain new confidence in their means
and their abilities to change the world and to eliminate the bloodthirsty capitalists. Opposition to
progress, petrifaction, and the transformation of Marxism into a collection of religious precepts can
only benefit the bourgeois strategy which aims to eliminate all reference to Marxism once and for
all.
This process of critique and self-critique upon which depends the renewal of the communist
movement and the advance of the workers movement and the movement for national liberation, must
make a clean sweep of the whole experience of socialism and must uncover the factors which
paralysed it and caused its defeat. It is important to point out that it is astonishing that the
bourgeoisie is centring its offensive against socialism on the indices of economic development, of
democracy, and of the liberation of the individual from oppression. It presents it as if these
objectives were incapable of being realised, whereas in reality socialism emerged precisely to
surpass capitalism on all these fronts.
Socialism came about to liberate the forces of production which were fettered by capitalist relations
of production and to favour their promotion, understanding by this a promotion without handicaps
on the means of production, the forms of organisation of work and the individual and collective
capabilities of the producers. Equally, it came about to bring about justice and equality on the ruins
of the cynical class system of capitalist society, and to introduce a broad and deep democracy in
place of bourgeois democracy, which is in fact only the facade of democracy, the democracy of a
repressive and exploiting minority. Beyond this, socialism came about in order to liberate the
individual burdened with the exclusion concretised by capitalist society, which separates the
producer from his product and transforms him into a simple appendage of a machine. Nevertheless,
with regard to the historical functions of socialism, all the conditions for their realisation have
55
become ripe in our contemporary epoch, and millions of individuals are being mobilised in the
different continents for the realisation of socialism, sacrificing all that they hold dear, it is timely
today to look at the reasons why, after such a promising start, in the course of which socialism
achieved notable results overthrowing capitalism (the experience of building socialism in the USSR
in particular), it was defeated and it retreated massively elsewhere, including Albania which
criticised the other experiences, expressed its fidelity to the revolutionary spirit of Marxism-
Leninism, presented itself as being the correct example of the vitality of socialism, and remained
until the last minute before its fall, the inspiration for millions of progressives and the source of the
enrichment of their aspirations.
Thus the working class and the progressive forces have found themselves faced with the following
dilemma: socialism, which possesses an enormous capacity for the furtherment and the satisfaction
of the material and moral needs of society, is undergoing a grave crisis, while capitalism, which is
historically condemned to disappear because of its profound contradictions which can only lead to
this end and although it may be outdated, appears today to be the most able to correct itself and adapt
itself to circumstances, appearing to challenge socialism in the areas where the latter ought in fact to
surpass it.
To be able to respond to this dilemma, it is important to discard simplistic and superficial analyses
which explain the events in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin subjectively or in terms of a
plot, which are insufficient to provide an answer to the following fundamental question: How was it
possible to reject an advanced system of production (socialism) and return to a retrograde system of
production (capitalism) without this alerting the working class and the labouring population and
provoking them into struggle in defence of their gains? In other terms, what made the masses lose
their revolutionary initiative and boldness, and reduced them to a negative mass in the face of
changes which were carried out at their expense? Things being as they were, there must have been
some essential factors which brought about this state of affairs: erroneous or inadequate conceptions
and mechanisms of management, of functioning and of power, having led up to this situation. It is
necessary to know what they are, to understand tem, to overcome them, and to strengthen socialism
once again both in practise and in understanding. After considering these questions for a long time as
the questions that could not be discussed or changed -this approach harmed scalism both in theory
and practise- it would be another mistake to ignore them now.
Despite the fact that we do not have enough concrete data regarding the experiences of socialist
construction in the USSR, we believe that the reasons for its defeat lies on a series of mistakes,
deviations and shortcoming which followed one another and which gradually set a favourable
platform for the revisionists. They used these mistakes, deviations and shortcoming to seize power,
to strike a hash blow on socalist cnstruction, and to transfer the working class’ power into a
bourgeois dictatorship which is bureaucratic and fascist internally and expansionist and imperialist
externally. The point reached is the crisis and the process of dissolution which is being experienced
now.
In our opinion, the determining factor which sabotaged the construction of socalism and paved the
way to capitalist restoration was mainly the political factor, namely the one which is to do with the
practise of socialist democracy. We especially draw attention to this factor among others because of
the central role of the state (in the field of planning, implementing, controlling, the struggle against
internal and external reactionary forces, etc.) in socialist construction. Consequently, the closer the
state is to the working class and the people, the more powerful it will be in solving problems and in
reaching “the open political form which can guarantee the labourers’ economic emancipation”
(Marx).
In our opinion, what can be said about the socialism in Soviet Union in this framework is this:
56
1) The failure of the Bolshevik Party in implementing the socialist principles of real participation of
the popular masses in state affairs, as Lenin says “in democratic construction of the state life as a
whole”, in order to penetrate into the popular ranks, to prevent the state from alienating to the
working class and the people in the same way as in bourgeois regimes and in all previous regimes
based on exploitation, and from turning into a burecratic apparatus.
In order to achive this aim, Lenin says, the following measures must be implemented: State officials
(functioners) must be elected, their numbers must be reduced as many as possible, their salary must
be kept at the same level as an averageworker’s and they must be removable by the labourers if
necessary.
If a bureaucratic minority managed to seize power after Stalin’s death, this shows that although the
above mentioned principles about the participation of the popular masses in state affairs were
adopted ideologically, they were not implemented properly or consistently. That is why the
bureaucratic apparatus spred and interest groups emerged. These kinds of deviations pose a special
threat in a regime where the means of production and the main mechanisms of distribution are
controlled by the state.
2) The inter-relation of the Communis Party and the state, the transformation of this relationship into
a party-state relation, and the disappearance of exactingness in practise with regard to respecting
each one’s functions and authorities. In a socialist society, the leading role of the Communist Party is
a fundamental question and socialism cannot exist without it. However, a leading role can be
obtained through the activity and struggle of the Communist Party within the popular masses and
through gaining respect for its opinions and criticisms, but not through decrees giving the superiority
to the Party over the state and the people. Leadership through decrees weakens the elected organs of
the state and consolidates bureaucracy both in the Party and the state. There rises indifference among
the elected people’s representatives and broad masses.
This constitutes a great danger in an environment where there are no other political organisations or
where they are banned. In the course of time, the dictatorship of the proletariat evolves into the
dictatorship of the Party. When unique victories and gains are realised (as was the case for the
party), this reinforces the power of the cadres, above all those whose level of consciousness is
backward. In this way the control by the rank and file over the leaders is whittled down, the party is
reduced to its leadership and then to its general secretary, which in difficult moments renders it
incapable of acting and energetically opposing deviations and deviationists, that is to say
opportunists and bureaucrats who easily abuse socialist legitimacy.
3) The transformation of the existence of a single party within society from a phenomenon which
arose from conditions specific to the revolution in the Soviet Union, to one of the principles for
building socialism, which led to the prohibition of the emergence or the existence of all other
political expression outside of the party (The 1936 Constitution).
This position is erroneous from the theoretical point of view, and damaging from the political point
of view. The desire to organise politically, and independently of the communist party after the
success of the social revolution (if there were no politically organisations before the revolution
which participated in it) and above all in the course of the first stage of the construction of socialism,
cannot be limited to the remnants of the reactionary classes and to the counter-revolutionaries who
want to return to the old society. It can equally emanate from individuals or certain sectors of the
population in conflict with the communists. Also, although the working class party has to bar the
way in front of the remnants of the reactionary classes and the counter-revolutionaries, it must open
the door wide to the workers, including on the organisational level (the party, the associations) and
centre its relations with the emerging organisations on the democratic struggle which is renewed
57
among the masses of the people. The way in which the party treats these organisations has to change
according to the way in which they operate: they could all or in part resort to terrorism and sabotage
or to connivance with external forces with the aim of abusing popular legitimacy and overthrowing
socialism.
From the political point of view, the consequences of the law on the single party are negative and
damaging because it permits the expansion of the bureaucracy within the “party-state” and results in
socialism depending on the behaviour of the “party-state”, or even of certain leaders, and prevents
the masses of the people from intervening and creating independent mechanisms capable of
protecting them against any form of reaction or deviations with respect to their interests and their
rights. So long as the leadership remains alive and is faithful to socialism, the “machine” functions
normally, more or less, and it is possible to rectify and to revise positions and behaviour. But it only
requires a decision from the leadership for this “machine”, as was the case after the death of Stalin,
to block and disorient the rank and file of the party, the working class and the people as a whole,
who in effect were not ready to confront the revolt against their interests.
Furthermore, the absence of the freedom to organise, above all politically, is harmful even to the
forces which defend socialism within the party when the leadership deviates in whole or in part. This
leadership, or certain sections of it, are in a position to easily repress any expression which is
opposed to them, and this is due to the traditions of the single party introduced into the culture of the
citizens as one of the principles of socialism, whereas if there were the freedom or organise
politically (and further, freedom of expression, freedom to meet, and to demonstrate ...), the forces
loyal to socialism would be capable of facing their enemies in favourable conditions, since it would
then be more difficult for the forces trying to reverse socialism to be able to destroy a vigorous
system of rights to which the working class and the labouring masses had grown accustomed.
Khrushchev and his team, for example, exploited the situation in the Soviet Union (lack of any legal
political expression outside the communist party) in order to easily extend their power over the
party, the state and society, and to accuse the others of “treason” and “sabotage”.
4) Making mass organisations into appendages of the party at the legal and practical level
specifically legitimises the submission of the mass organisations to the party, and by nature permits
the emergence and the consolidation of bureaucratic thought, since the party militants come to rely
on the law for their leadership of these organisations, and not on their activities within them.
Furthermore, this kind of conception undermines the practice of democracy within these
organisations when it is a question of choices and policies, and limits their capacity to confront the
deviations of the party when they appear.
5) The abolition of certain rights of the workers, such as the right to strike (1936 Constitution) as if
the working class no longer had need of them, or as if its interests are henceforth in total conformity
with those of the leadership of the enterprises or the government. This sort of abolition of rights
deprives the working class of a weapon against any assaults against its rights. The revisionist
bureaucracy exploited this situation in order to secure its control over the working class and to
repress all its protest movements after the death of Stalin, under the cover of the “defence of
socialism.”
These are a few fundamental comments on the factors which lead the socialist experience in the
Soviet Union towards deviation, since they constituted a platform for the emergence of a
bureaucracy which constituted itself into a class and took power after the death of Stalin. What gave
these errors and weaknesses a serious dimension was that the Bolshevik party was not theoretically
prepared to confront this internal “apostasy”. The leadership of the party did not cease to emphasise
that socialism had secured its definitive victory after the extension of the co-operative system in the
countryside. The leadership also maintained that an internal deviation was no longer possible after
58
the annihilation of the Trotskyist and Bukharinist opposition. Henceforth, the danger could only
come from outside (military aggression). These two ideas are erroneous because socialism cannot
achieve a definitive victory until it has an internal material base which is both developed and stable,
and which can guarantee the workers a standard of life which is better than in the developed
capitalist countries. This was not the case in the Soviet Union despite the qualitative leaps forward
that were achieved on all levels. At that time, the developed capitalist countries exceeded the Soviet
Union in the spheres of economy and technology. On the one hand, this definitive victory depended
externally on the victory of the social revolution in many countries and above all in the developed
capitalist countries. It is this that would create better conditions for progress, stability and
confronting encirclement. This factor was not realised, since the most economically developed
countries remained under the yoke of capitalism.
Besides, not foreseeing the risks of an internal deviation limited the vigilance of the working class
and the labouring people in general. It is clear that the conditions in which the socialist experience in
the Soviet Union occurred, were very difficult and had a harmful influence on this experience. They
contributed to the creation of an atmosphere which encouraged the emergence of such deviations and
errors. It was the first socialist experience in the history of humanity. The Bolshevik party had to
discover the path towards its victory in the framework of a situation which was economically,
socially, politically and culturally underdeveloped, in conditions of savage imperialist encirclement,
and, furthermore, of nazi aggression in the course of the Second World War which inflicted
enormous material and human damage. It deprived it of the services of hundreds of thousands of its
best, experienced cadres, who died at the front. The party, led by Lenin and then by Stalin, had to put
the backward Soviet society back on its feet. It had also to catch up with and even surpass the
capitalist states, while faced with difficult internal and external conditions. Despite everything, the
party achieved marvels in a short space of time. Had it not been for the errors and the deviations
cited above, the Soviet experience would not have ended in betrayal and defeat, and therefore the
international situation would not be what it is today.
The rehabilitation of the critical and revolutionary essence of Marxism, and its utilisation for
understanding the different socialist experiences and the international situation today are the key
which can permit the international communists and workers movement to reorganise itself. What we
have put forward as a critique of the Soviet experience is a part of this framework, and not as certain
people could imagine part of a liberal framework. Democracy is the very essence of socialism, and it
must also be the nerve which runs through the entire edifice at all levels.
It is capitalism which is, on the contrary, opposed to democracy, since it is founded on the basis of
injustice and the exploitation of the labouring majority of society by a minority who own the means
of production. Had it not been for revisionism, the opportunity would never have been presented to
the capitalist regime to distort socialism and to pride itself on being democratic.
It is therefore the duty of communists to purify the preceding experiences of the errors, deviations
and weaknesses from which they suffered and which aided the bourgeoisie’s offensive, to
consolidate their gains on all levels, and to assimilate all that humanity has achieved by way of
progress. They must reflect all these gains in their programmes and plans of action. Relying on
flexible and intelligent methods and tactics, the communists will once again rise up and will
overcome all obstacles which stand in their way.
The unity of communists on an international scale is of the greatest importance in these conditions. It
is therefore indispensable that we work in every way to consolidate, to exchange experiences, and to
draw up programmes and co-ordinate our actions.
Workers Communist Party of Tunisia (PCOT)
59
Part I: Extracts from “Perestroika: a counter-revolution within the counter-revolution”, (p.70-82, 89-92), by Hamma
Hammami, Tunis 1988
Part II: Extracts from “Socialism or Barbarism” (p.75-95), by Hamma Hammami, 1992.
60
TURKEY
ENVER HOXHA: THE LEADER OF THE ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE

AND A DETERMINED DEFENDER OF PROLETARIAN SOCIALISM
Last April was the 11th anniversary of the death of Comrade Enver Hoxha, who was the resolute
defender of proletarian socialism, the leader of the International Communist Movement and of the
anti-revisionist struggle, the great friend of the oppressed peoples and the architect of the revolution
and socialist construction in Albania.
The name of Enver Hoxha has different meanings for many parties, currents and individuals. Every
one of them evaluates and judges him according to their own class and ideology. While the enemies
of the working class remember Enver Hoxha with deep resentment and anger, the class conscious
proletariat, the defenders of socialism and progressive people see in his name a resolute defence of
socialism and a great friend of the oppressed peoples.
However, even in these circles what Enver Hoxha brings to mind in the first place is a communist
leader who successfully established socialism in a small country and defended it to the end against
all kinds of imperialist siege and revisionist attacks.
This statement is just a small part of the truth and does not reflect fully the importance of Enver
Hoxha for the international proletariat's cause of communism. Evaluating Enver Hoxha only by what
he did in Albania means not to see or understand his contributions and efforts to defend and develop
the scientific doctrine of the international working class, his leadership in the anti-revisionist
struggle, and the moral support he gave to the peoples of the world for their national and social
emancipation. It must also be emphasised that Enver Hoxha must be defended and remembered, in
the first place, for the contribution he made to the great cause of the international working class,
rather than what he did in his own country.
This is because Comrade Enver Hoxha's struggle, together with the PLA under his leadership,
against modern revisionism and its various currents -Khrushchevism, Titoism, Euro-communism,
etc.- and Maoism, his great efforts to defend Marxism-Leninism, his resistance against the
encirclement by the imperialist capitalist system, and its attempts to destroy socialism, and his
analysis which revealed the strategies and current tendencies of imperialism and the super powers,
have far greater importance than his successes in establishing and defending socialism in Albania.
This is because what lays behind this great effort and resistance is the resolute defence of Marxism-
Leninism, the protection of its proletarian nature, its development through contributions based on the
analysis of the current situation, and its successful application.
All communists remember well how Bolshevism led by Lenin defended and developed Marxism on
the basis of current and theoretical questions against the opportunism of the Second International
which had degenerated and given up its revolutionary traditions. It should also be remembered that
this defence and development of Marxism was achieved through a broad- fronted struggle including
the defence of the Marxist theory of the state and the doctrine of revolution which were concealed by
the opportunist leadership of Second International, of imperialism and war, of the organisation of
communist parties of a new type, the condemnation of empty daydreams about bourgeois democracy
and criticisms of its exaltation, defence of Marxism in socialist construction, etc. Lenin characterised
the grave harm caused by the opportunism of Second International as follows: ''What is necessary
today is to start digging to re-find Marxism whose purity has not been degenerated and to place it in
the consciousness of broad masses.'' (State and Revolution)
61
No serious-minded communist can deny the fact that Enver Hoxha, the leader of the PLA, carried
out a similar struggle against revisionism in power and opportunism of all shades. Today, we can see
better the gravity of the harm caused by Khrushchevite, Brezhnevite, Titoite, Maoist, Euro-
communist, etc. currents to the cause of revolution. Thus, the great importance of Comrade Enver
Hoxha's determination in defending Marxism-Leninism can be understood better.
What happened was a many-sided struggle against all these anti-proletarian ideologies to defend the
principles of Marxism-Leninism in various fields such as the state and revolution, the Leninist party,
imperialism and its contradictions, socialist construction and the understanding of proletarian
socialism, Stalin's masterpiece (the construction of socialism in the USSR), philosophical
materialism, and even Marxist aesthetics in arts and literature. The purity of Marxism-Leninism and
proletarian socialism was maintained. Furthermore, Marxist-Leninist theory was enhanced in daily
struggle.
As is known, modern revisionism emerged after World War II, as an ideology whose roots go deep
in the past, and which was shaped according to the needs of the imperialist bourgeoisie in that
period. Of course, there are various historical, economic and political reasons for its emergence as
well as the particular form it took in the post Second World War period. Modern revisionism is not a
homogenous ideology. It can be divided into various forms and currents. However, the nature and
common characteristic of all these currents is the fact that, whether it be in former socialist countries
or in the European countries, they are based on the labour aristocracy. They all claim that conditions
and, subsequently, class relations have changed fundamentally. This leads them to advocate the end
of the class struggle, ''harmony'' with the imperialist bourgeoisie, and the denial of proletarian
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Modern revisionism serves the imperialist bourgeoisie's aim to destroy socialism and to prevent the
struggles and eruptions, the inevitable consequences of class antagonisms which are getting sharper
world-wide. It tried to fulfil its underhand goal, putting forward different phenomena according to
the conditions. However, its anti-communist nature and its enmity towards the working class and the
peoples have always stayed the same.
For example, in the beginning, the Khrushchevites directed their attacks at Stalin. This was because
the imperialists and revisionists were quite aware that Stalin's name and works were inseparably tied
to the establishment of socialism in the Soviet Union. Also, they knew that if this reactionary attack
was successful socialism, for the establishment of which Stalin spent his whole life, would be dealt a
fatal blow, be destroyed, and the desire of hundreds of millions of proletarians and labourers to
establish a society without classes and exploitation would suffer a heavy blow.
Knowing this fact the Khrushchevites launched their attack and betrayal on this point. They attacked
the theory and practice of socialist construction which was identified with Stalin's name. Their
successors continued these attacks. And what happened next is quite well known. No communist or
sympathiser of the revolution who can assess what is happening today can deny the fact that
revisionist betrayal and imperialist attack were not limited to Stalin. On the contrary, it involved a
fundamental settling of accounts with and taking revenge on socialism and its history.
Later, the Euro-communists came onto the stage as the most ferocious anti-Leninists. By attacking
Stalin Khrushchev wanted to destroy socialist construction and its practice. The Euro-communists,
on the other hand, wanted, as Enver Hoxha stated, to destroy the theory and practice of proletarian
revolution by attacking Lenin. The Titoists and Maoists attacked the fundamentals of proletarian
revolution and socialist construction, and announced that '' they had entered the path of a self styled
socialism''. They put aside socialist construction, the struggle for revolution against imperialism, and
all the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. They betrayed the international working class
62
and the peoples of the world, taking refuge in bright and sharp rhetorics.
It was not a coincidence that all these ideologies and currents which were counterrevolutionary in
essence launched their attacks on Marxism-Leninism. They were aware that if they got the upper
hand in these attacks they could strike a heavy blow, even if temporarily, to the cause of
communism. For this reason, it will be useful to touch upon this aspect of the question.
Comrade Enver Hoxha characterised the reason for the attacks of these counterrevolutionary currents
and the imperialist bourgeoisie on Marxism-Leninism, and the importance of defending it as follows:
'It is not a coincidence that the imperialists, the bourgeoisie and the revisionists are directing the
sharp point of their spear at our victorious doctrine Marxism-Leninism. Without Marxism-Leninism
there can be no genuine socialism.' (Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA)
With this correct point of view, Comrade Enver Hoxha considers the defence of Marxism-Leninism
as a corner stone of all the victories and successes of the people: ''The boundless loyalty of our party
to the immortal doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, its ability to apply this doctrine in a
creative manner, in conformity with the conditions of the country and the complicated international
situations, its determination to defend the purity of the principles of this doctrine from the attacks
and distortions of many enemies, internal and external, have been and remain the fundamental basis
of all the successes and victories of our people.' (ibid.)
Undoubtedly, these successes and victories belonged to the international working class as well as the
people of Albania. This was the main significance of these victories. Because what was being
defended was the cause of revolution and socialism of the international working class as a whole.
For this reason it was inevitable that these successes had deep and lasting results.
In this process, it was Enver Hoxha who enlightened the parties and the people of the world who
remained loyal to the cause of communism against these counterrevolutionary reactionary ideologies
and their various currents, who equipped them ideologically, and who practically built socialism
together with his party and the labourers of Albania. Against the enemies of the working class, he
acted in the manner of defending Marxism, keeping the spirit of Leninism alive, laying claim to and
defending Stalin and all the historical gains of socialism, and opposing imperialist bourgeoisie and
revisionism head on.
For this reason, it would be a grave mistake to think that this harsh struggle did not create any
shining results in the same way as the defeat of the Second International or the victory of the
socialist revolution. Such an approach would also leave in the dark the information which explains
which enemies the working class settled accounts with to defend the purity and the revolutionary
essence of Marxism-Leninism. It would weaken the present ideological arsenal of the communist
parties and destroy their strength to fight.
We must not forget that this struggle was also conducted against currents who were in power (with
the exception of Euro-communism). It led to real and lasting gains in that period and secured the
ideological gains and inheritance to which the following period would lay claim and rise.
With great self confidence we can claim that in the same way that Lenin is the leader of the period of
getting rid of the opportunism of the Second International, realising the socialist revolution and
making Marxism stand more firmly on its feet, and that Stalin is the leader of the period of realising
socialist construction and of the struggle against Trotskyism, other deviations and imperialist
encirclement, Enver Hoxha is the leader of the period of the struggle against setback and modern
revisionism.\par
If the International Communist Movement is beginning to stand firmly on its feet again, it is doing
63
so on the basis of a heritage and a platform which Enver Hoxha played a leading role in establishing
and passing on to the next generation. It owes its very existence and its ideological platform -which
is insufficient today and which needs to be renovated in such a way that it can respond to current
conditions in every aspect- in great part to Enver Hoxha.
Taking the present international conditions into consideration if this platform is renovated and
improved in every aspect, and if all detachments of the International Communist Movement succeed
to renew themselves joining the fresh forces of the working class in each country, then, the
international cause of revolution can be placed on its real foundations, and proletarian socialism can
once more proclaim its ultimate hegemony within the international working class over reactionary
''socialist currents''.
No ''socialist'' current has these advantages or the ideological clarity that the International
Communist Movement has. If it shows the ability to use these possibilities, it will become the hope
of the international working class and the oppressed peoples.
This is because all these reactionary ''socialist'' currents have already completed their natural
evolution and have reached their final point -which is their integration into the imperialist system
and the new world order. Undoubtedly, these reactionary currents will also attempt to ''renovate''
their own platforms. However, historically, they are bound to be defeated in the beginning, taking
into consideration their approach towards the working class, proletarian socialism, Marxism-
Leninism, and their practice.
This is where the real meaning of the inheritance left by Enver Hoxha lays. In the concrete
conditions of his time, he stripped the revisionist and opportunist currents of their shiny dresses,
which the majority of whom were ''in power'', they used for fooling the international working class
and the labouring peoples of the world. He revealed their real face to the workers and labourers and
showed their inevitable end through the light of concrete phenomena. The fact that he did all this as
a leader who built socialism in his own country despite all difficulties and who bore the
responsibility of a people doubles his value and the seriousness of the work he did.
It is not possible to cover in one article what Enver Hoxha achieved as a whole. Therefore, we will
just highlight some aspects of his works, which have contributed to Marxism-Leninism since the day
they were written.
Enver Hoxha and the interpretation of current situation on an internaional scale

on the basis of the Leninist theory of imperialism
It is well known that the international situation which emerged in late 1980s was looked upon with
surprise by many individuals and political currents claiming to be socialist. What happened was that
modern revisionism -which, with Gorbachovism, arrived at the final stage of its internal evolution-
openly went bankrupt; the so-called ''socialist bloc'' moved towards classical capitalist forms
shedding its mask, and openly integrated itself into the international capitalist system; and the
imperialist bourgeoisie, realising that it was time, launched its ''new world order'' attack with all its
strength.
This situation, which was appeared to be incomprehensible, was not a surprise to those detachments
of the International Communist Movement who had been loyal to Marxism-Leninism. What was the
source of this clarity?
The answer to this question must initially and definitely be sought in the determined Marxist-
Leninist position taken by comrade Enver Hoxha in his time, in the ideological and practical position
64
that he took in the light of this doctrine, and in the inheritance left by this position. This inheritance
was looked after by the healthy detachments of the International Communist Movement and
constituted a sound basis for them. Enver Hoxha's works and his struggle have been a compass for
these parties and have prevented them from being taken by surprise and panicking in the face of the
above mentioned developments. What was Enver Hoxha's analysis of the situation of the
international imperialist system and of social imperialism since the mid-1970s?
Above all, comrade Enver Hoxha determinedly defended the Leninist theory of imperialism,
enriched it in the light of current developments, and demolished the reactionary theses claiming that
the imperialist-capitalist system had changed and that class struggle had ameliorated. He rejected
and criticised the theses concerning the ''peacefulness'' of imperialism, its overcoming its crises, the
qualitative change in monopolist capitalism, and the change in the objective position of proletariat
caused by the scientific-technological revolution, etc. He revealed the counterrevolutionary nature of
these theses.
With regard to the crisis of imperialism which was felt clearly in mid-1970s, Enver Hoxha said:
''The international situation and the danger of war is becoming even more acute because of the grave
economic, political and ideological crisis which has swept the capitalist and revisionist world today.
The present economic crisis is the clearest and the most concrete expression of the deepening of the
general crisis of capitalism. Unlike the crisis of the 1930s, 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. This great extent and depth of the crisis
results from certain new factors in the development of the capitalist system after the Second World
War, such as the further increase in the concentration and internationalisation of capital, the
establishment of the almost complete domination of the dollar in the world financial system, the
extension of the activity of multi-national companies and their ever increasing role in world
production and the growth beyond all bounds of non-productive expenditure, especially on
armaments.'' (Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA)
Enver Hoxha touched upon the then current crisis of imperialism in his other works and drew the
conclusion from these phenomena regarding the current strategy of imperialism led by the USA,
which is taking place today that: '' ... the capitalist world is searching for a way out of the abyss, even
if only for the time being. Naturally, US imperialism is striving to find this way out and, possibly, to
co-ordinate it with Soviet social-imperialism, with its NATO allies, with China, as well as with other
industrialised capitalist countries.'' (Imperialism and Revolution)
These predictions, which may today seem like ''soothsaying'' to some people, materialised in the late
1980s when the revisionist system united openly with the world capitalist system. This, however,
expanded and strengthened the grounds for new contradictions and conflicts. Enver Hoxha, drew
attention, even then, to the possible changes that could emerge in the future. ''The existing alliances
are continuing but with the tendency to scatter. What will change is not the essence of these alliances
but their direction.'' (ibid.) The fact that the inter-imperialist orientation towards new groupings is
getting stronger and stronger today confirms these predictions.
It is obvious that Enver Hoxha's revelation of this US strategy of ''unification'' is, at the same time, a
revelation which helps us to understand the roots of modern revisionism in the international
imperialist system and which draws attention to the links and similarities of their brothers in the
Soviet Union with them -an identical class origin, in political and ideological terms. Enver Hoxha
drew attention to this phenomenon in many of his works, analysed the general strategy of
imperialism and its inauspicious orientation, and revealed the fact that the revisionist currents rising
on the basis of the labour aristocracy in the imperialist countries and modern revisionism in power
which emerged in the process of the degeneration of the workers' state in the Soviet Union and
65
which is based on the labour aristocracy are the products and the two different faces of the same
process.
All these analyses and predictions are based on a deep analysis of the imperialist system in the light
of Marxism-Leninism and on the knowledge of the main elements of the likely direction of
development of their internal contradictions and orientations. This is the only explanation of the fact
that these predictions became true. It also constitutes a further justification for the Leninist theory of
imperialism on the basis of current developments.
Enver Hoxha did not simply repeat the fact that there was no change in the nature of imperialism and
that our era is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, as was stated by Lenin at the
beginning of our century, but also defended and developed this theory on the basis of current
developments.
''The concentration and centralisation of production and capital, creating giant monopolies which
have no technological unity, is widespread today. Enterprises and entire branches of industrial
production, construction, transport, trade, services, of the infrastructure, etc., operate within these
gigantic 'conglomerate' monopolies. They turn out everything, from children's toys to
intercontinental missiles.''
''The mergers and combinations of industrial, trading, farming and banking enterprises have led to
the creation of new forms of monopolies, to the creation of big industrial-commercial or industrial-
agrarian corporations, forms which are finding wide application not only in the capitalist countries of
the West, but also in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and other revisionist countries.
In the past the monopoly combines carried on the transport and selling of goods with the help of
other independent firms, whereas today, the monopolies control production, transport and
marketing.'' (ibid.)
Enver Hoxha who analysed the new forms of monopolies stated the following in regards to
multinational companies and their nature:
''In their outward appearance, these companies seek to give the impression that they are under the
joint ownership of capitalists of many countries. In fact, in regard to their capital and control, the
multinational companies belong mainly to one country, although they carry out their activities in
many countries. They are expanding more and more through the absorption of local companies and
firms, big and small, which cannot cope with the savage competition.'' (Imperialism and Revolution)
Enver Hoxha also drew attention to the changes in the structure of financial capital:
''Although since the Second World War finance capital has increased and undergone structural
changes, it still has precisely those same aims it has always had, the making of maximum profits
through the exploitation of the broad masses of working people inside and outside the country. The
insurance companies, which have greatly increased over recent years in the main capitalist countries
and have become competitors of the banks, have the same role. In the United States of America, for
example, in 1970 as against 1950, banking assets had increased 3.5 fold, whereas those of insurance
companies had increased 6.5 fold, over the same period.
''With the capital they accumulate through plundering the people, these companies have been able to
advance the monopolies large sums amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. In this way, the
insurance companies are merged and interlocked with the industrial and banking monopolies,
becoming an organic constituent part of finance capital.'' (ibid.)
Enver Hoxha stated that with an ambition for more and more profit, the monopolist bourgeoisie
transferred labourers' pensions, people's savings, in short, all monetary sources ready for use
66
temporarily, into capital. He also stated that through giving credits, the labourers were put under
immense debts, and that financial capital's economic and political hegemony is being felt in the
political, ideological, educational, cultural, etc. fields of life.
We are aware that the conclusions that all kinds of deserters from revolution drew from the above
mentioned phenomena are that imperialism is not the same ''old imperialism''; that ''globalisation''
strengthened the grounds for peace and even made wars impossible, that it changed the objective
position of the working class in production; and that capitalism was ''socialised'', etc. On the other
hand, the conclusions drawn by Enver Hoxha were that the contradictions were intensified and
ripened and that the objective bases for international revolution became stronger.
''The concentration and centralisation of production and capital, which characterise the capitalist
world today and have led to extensive socialisation of production, have not in any way altered the
exploiting nature of imperialism. On the contrary, they have increased and intensified the oppression
and impoverishment of the working people...."
''The intensification of the process of concentration of production and capital which is taking place in
our time, has further exacerbated the basic contradiction of capitalism, the contradiction between the
social character of production and the private character of appropriation, along with all the other
contradictions. Today, just as in the past, the colossal income and super profits realised from the
savage exploitation of workers are appropriated by a handful of capitalist magnates. Likewise, the
means of production, with which the united branches of industry have been equipped, are the private
property of capitalists, while the working class remains enslaved to the owners of the means of
production and its labour power remains a market commodity.'' (Imperialism and Revolution)
These kinds of developments taking place in imperialist metropoles led to some changes in
dependant countries. Enver Hoxha writes the following in regards to these changes:
''But besides this savage and all-round exploitation, certain changes in the economic and social
structures have occurred in the former colonial countries, which are the resource of investments, the
introduction of new techniques and technology, the extension of communications, etc., which the
imperialists have been obliged to carry out so as to achieve greater and more rapid plunder of the
wealth above and below the ground. This has also brought about 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.'' (Report to the 8th Congress
of the PLA)
As is known, the countries dependant on imperialism and the more advanced countries in particular
go through this process more intensely. What do all these phenomena prove? One single fact that the
objective bases for revolution are expanding and becoming stronger. In other words, they prove
exactly the opposite of the theses stolen by revisionists and reformists from the ideologues of
imperialism suggesting a ''new world order''. Where the enemies of revolution saw collaboration,
submission and hopelessness, Enver Hoxha saw the dynamics which would strengthen revolutionary
development, pointed out their objective bases, and drew attention to the inevitable developments
which would be caused by this situation. We must emphasise that this is where one of the main
demarcation lines between revolution and reformism lies -understanding the true content of the
above mentioned phenomena and drawing correct conclusions from them.
Facts like the intensification of imperialist capital export, the inevitability of the application of a
minimum technology in order to facilitate exploitation, etc. disturbed the class structure in dependant
countries against traditional -feudal- classes and strengthened the objective position of the
proletariat. This, consequently, changed old forms of relations between classes, solved the question
of leadership in democratic revolutions, and changed the essence and direction of these revolutions.
67
Enver Hoxha analysed this situation, drew the attention of the communist parties in these kinds of
countries to these phenomena, and encouraged them to take responsibility with regards to the tasks
of the proletariat. According to these analyses, the working class should be the leading force and
should go forward in a courageous way.
Imperialist ideologues and their followers in the dependant countries, who have rosy dreams with
regards to the scientific technological revolution and who suggest the emancipation of the working
class and labouring masses from exploitation and oppression owing to the consequences of this
''revolution'', are trying to distort these facts and dull the consciousness of the labouring masses.
However, the facts are obvious with all their grave consequences. Exploitation has intensified and
the poverty of the labouring masses has increased. In short, contrary to their rosy picture, the bill is
being paid by the international working class and labouring people. Among the things this bill
involves are an increase in unemployment, an attempt to usurp all economic and social gains and to
lower the wages constantly, more and more hardship to get the means of living, etc.
World capitalism uses scientific technological developments for further making the labouring people
of the world into slaves and develops science and technology to this end.
The leader of Internaional Communist Movement, and the great friend of the peoples
Throughout his life and struggle, Comrade Enver Hoxha has been a sound guide for the communist
parties of various countries comprising the International Communist Movement. He always
encouraged and gave moral support to them not to feel hopeless in the face of hardships and
temporary failures, to constantly renew themselves and take up their revolutionary tasks as
struggling parties. He valued the revolutionary work carried out by Marxist-Leninist parties, even
though they were small at that moment, and encouraged them to feel more courageous and to take
the initiative in taking up greater tasks.
Comrade Enver Hoxha wrote the following with great self confidence and determination:
''The Marxist-Leninist parties, all revolutionaries, however few in numbers establish themselves
among the people, organise the masses systematically, with great care and patience, convince them
that they are a great force, that they are able to overthrow capital, to seize state power and wield it in
the interest of the proletariat and the people. Such parties do not think that, being small, they cannot
stand up to the coalition of the parties of the bourgeoisie and the opinion formed by them.''
(Imperialism and Revolution)
This revolutionary position was the basic guide for Enver Hoxha and his party in the most difficult
days. Even in 1966 he was determinedly saying the following:
''Our party believes that the present situation does not allow anyone calling themselves communist or
revolutionary to wait for the attacks of revisionists, watch it and be satisfied with saluting the
struggle against revisionism carried out by others. Time does not wait. Marxist-Leninists must be in
the offensive not in defence. They have never been afraid of revisionist attacks and threats. Fear is a
concept which is alien to them. They do not recognise this concept in their struggle against
imperialism and revisionism. Those who are afraid of imperialism are the revisionists. Being afraid
of revisionism would mean being more afraid of imperialism and having no belief in the power and
victory of Marxism-Leninism.'' (Struggle Against Modern Revisionism)
This was the position of Enver Hoxha in his whole life and struggle. As one can clearly see in these
quotations, frontal attack was his position against imperialism and reactionary forces. He did not
write this with an empty confidence or without taking into account the conditions and without
thinking in order to encourage action. On the contrary, he showed where the real possibilities of the
revolution and revolutionary work lay. It is for this reason that he greatly valued the daily practical
68
work and every small step of the communist parties especially in the imperialist-capitalist countries,
and encouraged them to go forward.
''The genuine Marxist-Leninist parties stand in the vanguard and not at the tail-end of revolutionary
action. The temporarily limited possibilities of the struggle and efforts by means of which they must
and do oppose the great force of capitalist reaction, do not discourage them.'' (Imperialism and
Revolution)
''The genuine Marxist-Leninist party and the revolutionary communists take part actively in the
workers' strikes and demonstrations and fight to turn them into political strikes and demonstrations,
so as to make life impossible for capitalism, the employers, cartels, monopolies and the trade union
chiefs. In the course of this broad activity the proletariat will come to grips more often and more
openly with the armed forces of the bourgeois order, but from these clashes it will learn to fight
better. In the course of the struggle it also finds what forms of organisation and revolutionary
struggle are possible, correct and appropriate. 'You cannot learn to swim without getting into the
water', goes a popular saying. Without fighting by means of strikes, demonstrations, without active
involvement in actions against capitalism in general, the struggle for the final victory cannot be
organised and intensified, the bourgeois order cannot be overthrown.'' (ibid.)
Comrade Enver Hoxha emphasised that genuine communist parties must orientate themselves
towards daily practical revolutionary work, learn together with the masses in this work and struggle
and that the masses will gain experience on the basis of their struggle. He also drew attention to the
absolute necessity of giving importance to theoretical education. He never accepted being inadequate
in theory and considered it an important reason for the degeneration of old communist parties. He
specially stressed the fact that the work of studying Marxism-Leninism cannot be separated from
revolutionary action.
''For the Marxist-Leninist party to be able to work out and apply a revolutionary strategy and tactics,
a correct political line, to know how to find its bearings in difficult situations, to be able to cope with
the enemies and overcome the obstacles, it is absolutely essential that it carry out great, wide-
ranging work for the study and assimilation of Marxist-Leninist theory.
''One of the reasons why the former communist parties in the capitalist countries turned into
revisionist parties was precisely because they had utterly neglected the study and assimilation of
Marxism-Leninism. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine was used only as an adornment, was turned into
empty words and slogans, had not been implanted deeply in the consciousness of the party members,
had not become part of their flesh and blood, and had not become a weapon for action. That small
amount of work which was done for the study of Marxism-Leninism was aimed only at acquainting
the party member with some cut-and-dried formulas, just enough to enable him to call himself a
communist, to love communism in a sentimental way, while about how and in what manner this
would be achieved he knew nothing, because he was not taught this.
''The Marxist-Leninist parties cannot fail to remember this negative experience and draw from it the
lesson that they must organise the study and assimilation of Marxism-Leninism on a sound basis,
always linking this study with revolutionary action.'' (Imperialism and Revolution)
There is a great deal of experience to be drawn on especially by the communist parties comprising
the International Communist Movement today from the lives of old communist parties in the past
that leant towards reformism and revisionism, and lessons to be learnt from the criticism of their
negativenesses.
Great friend of the peoples
69
Comrade Enver Hoxha gave great importance to the struggle of the peoples oppressed and exploited
by imperialism and to their effort for their national and social emancipation. He observed their
movement carefully and gave his moral support.
The Middle East was the main region which drew the attention of Enver Hoxha. In the light of
dialectic and historical materialism, he analysed the struggle of the muslim peoples in the Middle
East and Asia and the real reasons for this struggle which had a religious appearance.
The Islamic Revolution in Iran, the struggle in Afghanistan, the unjust wars and interventions of the
imperialists and social-imperialists against these struggles, and the excuses such as ''islamic
fundamentalism'', ''islamic fanaticism'', etc. which were used by these blood suckers to justify their
aggression and which are also in fashion today, all made Enver Hoxha more sensitive to what was
happening in these regions. He gave great importance to explaining the real reasons for the struggle
of the muslim peoples and to enlightening them.
In his work Thoughts on the Middle East, Enver Hoxha touched upon some of the main aspects of
this topic. He linked the real reasons for the struggle of the muslim peoples to imperialist, capitalist
and feudal oppression, and to the economic and social conditions in which these peoples live.
As Enver Hoxha pointed out, in different periods in history, the progressive movement of the
oppressed and exploited popular masses quite often had a religious appearance and the masses
waged their economic and social struggle in this form. For example, despite their religious
appearance, the peasants' movements in the Reformation period that took place at the centre of
Europe in the 16th century were in fact against the catholic church which was the toughest defender
of feudal system. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the movements of the muslim peoples
against colonialism were also progressive in essence. In fact, the main reason inciting the struggle of
the muslim peoples was the fact that they were subject to fierce oppression and exploitation, and that
the executioners usually had the appearance of ''christian imperialism''. If there is no genuine
communist party or a consistent revolutionary movement which can lead the struggle, this religious
appearance becomes more dominant, and it is then more likely for the movement to be deceived and
diverted. For example, when talking about the revolution in Iran, Enver Hoxha says that ''people like
Khomeini know how to use this movement which is, in essence, progressive, bourgeois democratic
and anti-imperialist.'' (ibid.)
In these countries, especially in Iran, the popular masses went through a progressive and democratic
awakening. However, religious elements who knew how to use the peoples' desire for freedom
against imperialism took over the leadership and directed this awakening.
Marxist-Leninists have to understand these kinds of situations and decide their political tactics
accordingly. For example, in the face of these kinds of developments, if they make a mistake like
appearing as anti-religious, they will certainly harm themselves and the unity and struggle of the
people.
It is very harmful to justify taking a wrong position against the movements with a religious
appearance even with a correct reason like the materialist nature of communism. Of course,
communists are materialist, but dialectical materialist. This means that they have to deal with the
fight against religion in a concrete way, namely on the basis of the class struggle which is the most
effective way of popular education. In other words, they have to take into consideration the difficult
and complex conditions of the concrete situation, and develop their tactics on this basis.
Enver Hoxha had a dialectical materialist approach towards the movements of the muslim masses
70
and warned communists and progressive forces against the mistakes they might make. For example,
when evaluating the revolution in Iran he pointed out the following with great foresight:
''It is only the revolutionary action of the working class and Marxist -Leninist ideology that can be
the determining factor for this anti-imperialist revolution to enter a correct path. Of course, in the
current situation in Iran the majority of the revolutionary forces of the working class can be won
over. Winning them over is a must and is prior to winning progressive elements, students or the poor
and middle peasantry.
''If Marxist-Leninists do not understand this existing situation and do not interpret it correctly, if they
come out as anti-religious fighters, they will make a mistake...
''Although they are anti-religious in principle, Marxist-Leninists, for the time being, should not
launch a fight against the religious beliefs of people who rose up and who are in a just political
struggle. They should also not forget the fact that the people who are not yet ideologically shaped are
in the process of learning and seeing things with their own experiences in this important school, i.e.
the uprising... Marxist-Leninists and the proletariat have to play an important role in these
revolutionary actions and should understand and not allow the revolutionary moment that they are
going through to die. They must not have any illusions for Shia religious people or anti-Shah
bourgeois democrat elements to make ''deep'' and broad bourgeois democratic reforms. If the
working class, poor peasantry and progressive students allow the violence of the revolution to fall
down, which will mean not being able to direct alliances and activities to fulfil political and socio-
economic reform, then the revolution will remain uncompleted, the masses will be misled, and
consequently, they will continue to be exploited in new forms by pseudo democrats who are in
alliance with different imperialists.'' (Thoughts on the Middle East)
As one can see from these quotations, Comrade Enver Hoxha's position on religion and social
movements with a religious appearance is very educating in terms of the working class struggle. The
importance of what has been said is that religious movements are important questions in many
islamic countries. In the same way, it is a current and important question for communists to have a
correct position towards these movements by analysing every single one of them in their specific
conditions.
Struggle against the distortion of dialectical and historical materialism
In the fight against Titoism, Khruschevism -modern revisionism- Euro-communism and Maoism,
Comrade Enver Hoxha did not only defend the fundamental theses of Marxism-Leninism such as
imperialism, the state, revolution, the class struggle, socialist construction, etc. and enrich them
through actual facts, but also strongly defended philosophical materialism.
He exposed the efforts of Maoism to place dialectical materialism in the service of Maoist
revisionism distorting it in the same way as all the other fundamental theses of Marxism-Leninism
and turning it into metaphysics in essence, and to whitewash the path taken by China. For example,
he wrote the following against the distortions of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution by the
Maoists in the philosophical field as well:
''In his writings Mao Tsetung makes frequent mention of the role of revolutions in the process of the
development of society, but in essence he adheres to a metaphysical , evolutionist concept. Contrary
to materialist dialectics, which envisages progressive development in the form of a spiral, Mao
Tsetung preaches development in the form of a cycle, going round in a circle, as a process of ebb
and flow which goes from equilibrium to disequilibrium and back to equilibrium again, from motion
to rest and back to motion again, from rise to fall and from fall to rise, from advance to retreat and to
advance again, etc.'' (Imperialism and Revolution)
71
''In this manner, 'Mao Tsetung thought' opposes the materialist dialectical concept of development,
which, as Lenin says '...gives us the key to understand the 'self movement' of every existing thing;
...gives us the key to understand the 'leaps', 'the interruption of graduality', 'the transformation into
the opposite', the abolition of the old and the emergence of the new', with the metaphysical concept
which 'is lifeless, pale and dry'.'' (ibid.)
Mao's transformation of dialectics into metaphysics can clearly be seen when he deals with and
interprets contradictions.
''In dealing with contradictions, he does not proceed from the Marxist theses, but from those of
ancient Chinese philosophers, sees the opposites in a mechanical way, as external phenomena, and
imagines the transformation of the opposites as a simple change of places between them. By
operating with some eternal opposites taken from ancient philosophy, such as above and below,
backward and forward, right and left, light and heavy, etc., etc., in essence Mao Tsetung negates the
internal contradictions inherent in things and phenomena and treats development as simple
repetition, as a chain of unchangeable states in which the same opposites and the same relationship
between them are observed. The mutual transformation of the opposites into each other, understood
as a mere exchange of places and not as a resolution of the contradiction and a qualitative change of
the very phenomenon which comprises these opposites, is used by Mao Tsetung as a formal pattern
to which everything is subject.'' (ibid.)
What Enver Hoxha says about how the dialectical method deals with contradictions is so clear that it
does not need any comment. He condemns the understanding of so-called Maoist socialism with
regards to socialist revolution. This understanding approaches it not as a qualitative change of
society but simply as a replacement of the bourgeoisie with the proletariat. In doing so, he helps us
understand what was happening in China in reality.
In this way, with the help of Enver Hoxha, we have the possibility to see how Mao used self-styled
''dialectics'' in order to reconciliate the antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and
which philosophical ''reasons'' he used in order for the bourgeoisie to continue its existence as a
class.
All these criticisms made by Enver Hoxha and his defence of Marxism-Leninism throughout his life
are not a simple repetition of the sum of this scientific doctrine until then. On the contrary, this
defence involves efforts of renovation/ development of this science on the basis of actual facts and
phenomena. This is what Enver Hoxha did in a simple and modest manner and this is what makes
him more valuable. The international working class and every communist will not forget Enver
Hoxha. They will defend him against all attacks in a determined way and hold on to this great son of
the international working class.
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)
72

Unity &amp; Struggle No 03

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unity &amp; Struggle No 03

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITY & STRUGGLE

Unity & Struggle

* (TABLE NOT INCLUDED)

State corruption, a “natural inclination” of bourgeois

Imperialism, responsible for corruption

Private enterprise, the manager of corruption

Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action)

Narco-democracy in a “state of siege”

A democracy in a tight spot

Violence as a central pillar

The unhidden role of narco-traffic

Shades between governments

In Colombia, according to official figures of DANE, National Department of Statistics, the

For a truly popular democracy

Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)

The revolution is for today

II. Power as our aim

III. The revolution can grow

Let us go forward, as tribunes of the people. The revolution is today.

Some lessons from a strong and vigorous social movement

The contents of Juppe's plan

Juppe's plan includes three sections:

The transport workers at the head of the demonstrations

The objective difficulties to widen the movement to private companies' workers

Development of socialism, revisionist degeneration and

How does socialist economy work?

What did he say?

Therefore, under socialism, which cannot be superseded by decree, commodities continue to

Organisation for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy

125 Years After the Paris Commune

Communist Organisation October of Spain

Thoughts on the question of defeat

Marxist-Leninist theory and the question of betrayal

Some lessons of the experience of the USSR

Then, it is necessary to continuously develop the superstructure in order to extend proletarian

II- Once again on the lessons of an experience

Workers Communist Party of Tunisia (PCOT)

ENVER HOXHA: THE LEADER OF THE ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE

Enver Hoxha and the interpretation of current situation on an internaional scale

Great friend of the peoples

Struggle against the distortion of dialectical and historical materialism

Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)

You might also like

Unity & Struggle No 03

Unity & Struggle No 03