Enver Hoxha


Imperialism and Revolution


PART TWO


I


THE THEORY OF <<THREE WORLDS>>

A COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY

CHAUVINIST THEORY



Today the Chinese revisionists, also, have come out openly and are fighting on a broad front against the Leninist theory and strategy of the revolution and the liberation struggle of the peoples. They are trying to oppose this glorious scientific theory and strategy with their theory of <<three worlds>>, which is a false, counterrevolutionary, and chauvinist theory.

The theory of <<three worlds>> is in opposition to the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, or more exactly, is a negation of it. It is of no consequence to know who first invented the term the <<third world>>, who was the first to divide the world in three parts, but it is certain that Lenin did not make such a division, while the Communist Party of China claims paternity to it, asserting that Mao Tsetung invented the theory of <<three worlds>>. If he is the author who first formulated this so-called theory, this is further evidence that Mao Tsetung is not a Marxist. But even if he only adopted this theory from others, this, too, is proof enough that he is not a Marxist.



The Concept of the <<Three Worlds>> - a Negation

of Marxism-Leninism


The notion of the existence of three worlds, or of the division of the world in three, is based on a racist and metaphysical world outlook, which is an offspring of world capitalism and reaction.

But the racist thesis which places the countries on three levels or in three <<worlds>>., is not based simply on skin colour. It makes a classification based on the level of economic development of the tountries and is intended to define the <<great master race>>, on the one hand, and the <<race of pariahs and plebs>>, on the other, to create an unalterable and metaphysical division in the interests of the capitalist bourgeoisie. It considers the various nations and peoples of the world as a flock of sheep, as an amorphous whole.

The Chinese revisionists accept and preach that the <<master race>> must be preserved and the .race of pariahs and plebs. must serve it meekly and devotedly.

Marxist-Leninist dialectics teaches us that there is no limit to development, that nothing stops changing. In this process of unceasing development towards the future, quantitative and qualitative changes occur. Our epoch, like any other, is characterized by profound contradictions which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin defined so clearly. It is the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, hence, of great quantitative and qualitative transformations which lead to revolution and the seizure of power by the working class. in order to build the new socialist society.

The whole of Marx's theory is founded on the class struggle and dialectical and historical materialism. Marx proved that capitalist society is a society divided into exploiting and exploited classes, that classes will disappear only when the, classless society, communism, has been achieved.

Today we are living in the stage of the collapse of imperialism and the triumph of proletarian, revolutions. This means that in present-day capitalist society there are two main classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which are in irreconcilable, life-and-death struggle with each other.





Which of them will triumph? Marx: and Lenin, Marxist-Leninist science, the theory and practice of the revolution, provide us with convincing proof that, in the final analysis, the proletariat will triumph by destroying, overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie, imperialism and all, exploiters, and will build a new society, socialist society. They teach us also that even in this new society, classes, that is, the working class and working peasantry, which are closely allied to each other, will exist for a very long time, but there will also be remnants of the overthrown and ex-propriated classes. During this entire period, these remnants, as well as elements which degenerate and oppose the construction of socialism, will try to regain their lost power. Hence, under socialism, too, stern class struggle will exist.

Marxist-Leninists always bear in mind that in all countries, with the exception of those where. the revolution has triumphed and socialist order has been established, there are the poor classes with the proletariat at the head, and the wealthy classes with the bourgeoisie at the head.

In every capitalist state, wherever it may be, and however democratic or progressive, there are oppressed and oppressors, there are exploited and, exploiters, there are antagonisms there is merciless class struggle. The varying intensity of this struggle does not alter this reality. This struggle has its ups and downs, but it exists and cannot be quelled. It exists everywhere, it exists in the United States of America between the proletariat and the imperialist bourgeoisie, it exists, likewise, in the Soviet Union, where Marxism-Leninism has been betrayed and a new bourgeois-capitalist class which oppresses the working people of that country, has been created. Classes and the class struggle exist also in the second world., as in France, Britain, Italy, West Germany, Japan. They exist also in the <<third world>, in India, Zaire, Burundi, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc.

Only according to Mao Tsetung's theory of <<three worlds>>, classes and the class struggle do not exist in any country. It does not see them, because it judges countries and peoples according to bourgeois geo-political concepts and the level of their economic development.

To see the world as divided in three, into the .first world., second world. and the <<third world>>, as the Chinese revisionists do and not from the class angle, means to deviate from the Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle, means to negate the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie for the transition from a backward society to a new society, socialist society, and later to classless society, communist society. To divide the world in three means failure to recognize the characteristics of the epoch, to impede the advance of the proletariat and the peoples towards the revolution and national liberation, to impede their struggle against American impenalism, Soviet social-imperialism, capital and reaction in every country and in every corner of the world. The theory of <<three worlds>> advocates social peace, class conciliation, and tries to create alliances between implacable enemies, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the oppressed and the oppressors, the peoples and imperialism. It is an attempt to prolong the life of the old world, the capitalist world, to keep it on its feet precisely by seeking to extinguish the class struggle.

But the class struggle, the struggle of the proletariat and its allies to take power and the struggle of the bourgeoisie to maintain its power can never be extinguished. This is an irrefutable truth and no amount of empty theorizing about the <<worlds>>, whether the <<first world>>, the <<non aligned world>>, the third world., the nonaligned world., or the umpteenth world., can alter this fact. To accept such a division, means to renounce and abandon the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on classes and the class struggle.

After the triumph of the October Revolution, Lenin and Stalin said that in our time there are two worlds: the socialist world and the capitalist world, although at that time socialism had triumphed in only one country. Lenin wrote in 1921:


<< ... there are now two worlds: the old world of capitalism, that is in a state of confusion but which will never surrender voluntarily, and the rising new world, which is still very weak, but which will grow, for it is invincible>>*. Lenin


This class criterion of the division of the world is still valid today, regardless of the fact that socialism has not triumphed in many countries and the new society has not supplanted the old bourgeois-capitalist society. Such a thing is certainly bound to happen tomorrow.

The fact that socialism has been betrayed in the Soviet Union and the other former socialist countries does not in any way alter the Leninist criterion of the division of the world. Now as before, there are only two worlds, and the struggle between these two worlds, between the two antagonistic classes, between socialism and capitalism, exists not only on a national scale but also on an international scale.

The Chinese revisionists, who do not admit the existence of the socialist world under the pretext that the socialist camp no longer exists as a result of the betrayal by the Soviet Union and the other former socialist countries, deliberately ignore one thing, namely, that the emergence of modern revisionism does not in the least alter the general trend of history towards the revolution' towards the collapse Of imperialism, regardless of the fact that capitalism still, exists. At the same time, they ignore the fact that the immortal ideas of Marxism-Leninism exist, are developing and triumphing, that the Marxist-Leninistsm parties exist, socialist Albania exists, the peoples fighting for freedom, independence and national sovereignty exist, and that the world proletariat exists and is fighting.

The Paris Commune did not triumph, it was suppressed, but it gave the world proletariat a great example. Marx said that the experience of the Commune revealed the temporary weakness of the French proletariat, nevertheless it prepared the proletariat of all countries for the world revolution and provided a great lesson as to the conditions necessary to achieve victory. Marx raised

this great experience of the communards who <<stormed the heavens>> to the level of theory and taught the proletariat that it must smash the apparatus of the bourgeois state and its dictatorship with revolutionary violence.

The modern revisionists are cowards. They think that the counterrevolutionary forces are very powerful today. But this is not at all true. They are weaker than the peoples. The peoples with the proletariat at the head, are stronger. They will crush the counterrevolutionaryry forces, the forces of reaction, imperialism and social irnperialism. This view is based on the class analysis of the world. Any other view is wrong, regardless of how revisionists may disguise their activity and fears with revolutionary phrases.

When we Marxist-Leninists say that there are two, and not three or five, worlds, we are on the right road and, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, we must build our struggle against the capitalist bourgeoisie, American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, and against the other imperialisms. This struggle must lead to the destruction of the old bourgeois-capitalist world and the establishment of the new socialist order.


The proletariat is the motive social force of our epoch. Lenin emphasized that the motive force which drives history forward is represented that class which stands


<<....at the hub of one epoch or another, determining its main content, the main direction of its development, the main characteristics of the historical situation in that epoch, etc.>>*. Lenin


Contrary to this thesis of Lenin's, however, the Chinese revisionists are trying to present the <<third world>> as the <<great motive force which is driving the wheel of history forward>>. To make such a declaration means to give a definition of the motive force which is wrong in theory and practice. How is it possible in the present epoch of social development, which has at its hub the most revolutionary class, the proletariat, to call a grouping of states, the overwhelming bulk of which are ruled by the bourgeoisie and the feudal lords, indeed, even open reactionaries and fascists, the motive force? This is a gross distortion of Marx's theory.

The Chinese leadership takes no account of the fact that in the <<third world>> there are oppressed and oppressors, the proletariat and the enslaved, poverty-stricken and destitute peasantry, on the one hand, and the capitalists and landowners, who exploit and fleece the people, on the other.


To fail to point out this class situation in the so-called <<third world>>, to fail to point out the antagonisms which exist, means to revise Marxism-Leninism and defend capitalism. In the countries of the so-called <<third world>>, in general, the capitalist bourgeoisie is in power. This bourgeoisie exploits the country, exploits and oppresses the poor people in its own class interests, to make the largest possible profits for itself and to keep the people in perpetual slavery and misery.

In many countries of the <<third world>>, the governments in power are bourgeois, capitalist governments, of course, with differing political nuances. They are governments of the class hostile to the proletariat, the oppressed and poor peasantry, hostile to the revolution and liberation wars.

The bourgeoisie, which has state power in these countries, is protecting precisely that capitalist society which the proletariat in alliance with the poor strata of town and countryside, seeks to overthrow. It constitutes that upper class which, proceeding from its own narrow interests, is ready, at any moment, at any turn of events, to sell the wealth of the land and the underground assets of the country, the freedom, independence and sovereignty of the homeland, to foreign capitalism. This class, wherever it is in power, is opposed to the struggle and aspirations of the proletariat and its allies, the oppressed classes and strata.

Many of the states which the Chinese leadership includes in the <<third world>> are not opposed to American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. To call such states <<the main motive force of the revolution and the struggle against imperialism>>, as Mao Tsetung advocates, is a glaring mistake that stands out like the Himalayas. There are other pseudo-Marxists, too, but they at least know how to hide and disguise themselves behind their bourgeois theories.

The Chinese revisionists have the same anti~ Marxist view not only of the -third world. but also of what they call the <<second world>>, where the big capitalist bourgeoisie and the big imperialists of yesterday, who are still imperialists, are ruling. In the countries of the so-called second world, there is a large and powerful proletariat, which is exploited to the bone, which is kept down by crushing laws, the army, the police, the trade-unions, by all these weapons of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Both in the countries of the <<third world>> and in those of the <<second world>>, it is the bourgeois capitalist class, the same social forces, which are ruling the proletariat and the peoples and which must be smashed. Here, too, the main motive force is the proletariat.

Just as they do in the -third world. and the ,<<second world>>, in the United States of America and the Soviet Union, too, the Chinese revisionists ignore the proletariat, which represents the great army of the revolution, negate precisely the main motive force of society, that force which has to attack the monopoly bourgeoisie, its class enemy and the enemy of the world revolution in general. Mao Tsetung's theory of three worldsdenies this great reality and discounts the proletariat of Europe and the other developed countries. It is true that some degeneration also exists in the ranks of the proletariat, whether of the so-called third, second, or first world, because the bourgeoisie is not sitting idle, but is fighting its enemy, not only with weapons and oppression, but also politically and ideologically, with the way of life it creates, etc. But the fact that some stratum of the proletariat, such as the labour aristocracy, degenerates, does not mean that MarxismLeninism should be abandoned and the decisive role of the working class in the world revolutionary process denied. Through correct Marxist-Leninist education, through their daily revolutionary activity, the genuine communists protect the proletariat of every country and every world. from degeneration and mobilize it to struggle against its oppressors, be they British or French, Italian or German, Portuguese or Spanish, American or Japanese, etc.

In the United States of America, also, which is the head of world imperialism, there is a big proletariat. Being one of the most industrialized countries of the world, it is also the wealthiest, therefore the crumbs that capital gives away to deceive the proletariat are a little bigger than those in the other bourgeois countries. In the United States of America the way of life has a greater influence on the proletariat, but we cannot, in the least, negate the role and contribution of the American proletariat to the revolution in that country.


In fact, in the United States of America also, there is a section of opinion opposed to imperialism, predatory wars, oppression by the capitalists, trusts, banks, etc. Even among the strata of the petty-bourgeoisie in that country there is a resistance to the oppression by big capital.


By negating the class struggle, the Chinese theory of <<three worlds>> also negates the struggle of the peoples to free themselves from foreign domination, to win democratic rights and freedoms, negates their struggle for socialism. This counterrevolutionary and anti-scientific theory rules out the struggle of the peoples against their enemies - imperialism, social-imperialism and the entire international big bourgeoisie.

To put the peoples into <<three compartments>> and preach that only the <<third world>> aspires to liberation from imperialism, that it alone is. supposedly the <<main motive force against imperialism>>, is a deception and a flagrant deviation. from Marxism-Leninism. If the imperialists and capitalists are to be included in the <<first world>> and in the <<second world>>, then the question arises: where are the peoples of these <<two worlds>>, who are also fighting for their liberation against those same oppressors who are oppressing the <<third world>>, to be put? The inventors and supporters of the division of the world in three are quite unable to answer this question, because, according to their anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist concept, they merge the imperialists, the rulers and the peoples into one.

Marxist-Leninists cannot identify the Soviet peoples with the anti-Marxist, social-imperialist, double-dealers and the new capitalists who are ruling them. Likewise, they cannot mix up and confound the Ame.rican people with US imperialism. If they were to act as the Chinese revisionists; are doing, then the revolutionaries would be making a gross theoretical mistake and setting themselves against the revolution; they would be supporting precisely imperialism and social-imperialism, the forces of capital against which the proletariat and the people within the lair of their enemies are also fighting.

What is the sense of the Chinese call that the .third world. should unite in alliance with the <<second world>> to fight half of the .first world., when such a division of the world confuses the individuality, aspirations and development of the peoples who are opposed to and in struggle against the oligarchy that oppresses them? The level of the peoples' resistance and revolutionary struggle is likewise different, but their ultimate aim, communism, is the same. In these conditions, we .Marxist-Leninists must carry out propaganda work and mobilize ourselves so that, through continuous class struggles against imperialism, social-imperialism, capitalism and their fraudulent ideologies, we achieve the ultimate aim.

The Chinese revisionists not only merge and unite peoples into one with the rulers in the capitalist countries, but they also want to liquidate the identity of socialist countries, when they preach that these countries, too, can be included in the <<third world>>.

How can a socialist country be identified with the <<third world>> in which antagonist classes, oppression and exploitation exist, and line up with <<kings and princes>>, as the Chinese leaders assert? The Chinese revisionists who call their country socialist, allege that they include themselves in the <<third world>> in order to assist the peoples of this <<world>>. This is a fraud by means of which they want to conceal their expansionist aim. To assist and support the peoples' struggle, a true socialist country has no need to divide the world in three, or include itself in the <<third world>>.

With our stands, guiding ourselves by class criteria, we Marxist-Leninists help the peoples, the proletariat, genuine democracy, sovereignty and freedom, and not the state where the kings, shahs and the reactionary cliques rule. We help those peoples and democratic states which want to liberate themselves from the yoke of superpowers, but we stress that this cannot be done properly, on the correct road and according to monarchs class criteria, unless they also fight the and the international monopolies that are connected with the superpowers.



The Chinese leaders claim to have solved this complicated class problem by merging. themselves in this imaginary <<third world>> But this is an anti-Marxist solution. Contrary to what the Chinese leaders claim, most of the states and governments of the third worldare not for struggle against the <<first world>> or against US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, or the second world. The trend among the peoples of the world is towards the struggle for liberation, for revolution, for socialism, but the governments of kings, emirs and reactionary cliques of the Mobutu and Pinochet type of the third world. in which China has included itself, are not included in this trend.

In regard to the states of the so-called third world, the Chinese leadership does not make any class differentiation, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism and the interests of the world revolution. It takes no account of the fact that these national states, most of which are led by the upper strata of the bourgeoisie, are under the influence of, and closely linked by many threads with, US imperialism and also with Soviet social-imperialism.

In these states there are deep internal contradictions between the proletariat and the poor and oppressed peasantry, on the one hand, and the bourgeoisie and all enslavers, on the other. The aid which a socialist country gives the peoples of these states should be a great stimulus to their progress towards the creation of a truly democratic state, without obscuring the perspective, without affecting the question of the triumph of the proletarian revolution and seizure of power by the proletariat. The revolution cannot be imported. It will be carried out by the proletariat and people of each country. Of course, the seizure of power will not be done overnight, but as Lenin teaches us, those conditions must be created so that, at each turn of history, the proletariat will be found in the forefront of the struggle to overthrow the degenerate state power of dictators and the reactionary bourgeoisie and to establish the rule of the people.

The division we communists make of the world today, on the basis of the Leninist class criterion, does not hinder us from fighting the superpowers and supporting all the peoples and states that are seeking liberation and have contradictions with the superpowers. Socialist Albania has given wholehearted and powerful support to the struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin America, because this struggle is in their own interests and is directed against imperialism and foreign colonial domination. But to conceal and distort the principles of Marxism-Leninism, the ideology and policy of the party of the proletariat, as the Chinese leaders do, this is anti-Marxist, a fraud and a deception. The Party of Labour of Albania has not done and will never do such a thing, because this would be an unpardonable crime against its own people, against other peoples, against the international proletariat and the world revolution.

In its division of the world into three, the Communist Party of China is advocating class conciliation.

The genuine Marxist-Leninists never forget the teachings of Lenin, who stresses that the opportunists and revisionists strive by hook or by crook to tone down the class struggle, to deceive the working class and the oppressed with .<<revolutionary>> cliches, while divesting the Marxist - Leninist doctrine of its revolutionary content. This is what the Chinese revisionist leadership is doing when it preaches conciliation and peaceful coexistence between the working class and the bourgeoisie.

As Engels and Lenin teach us, the contradictions between classes or social forces with opposing fundamental interests cannot be reconciled, but on the contrary, become more and more severe and end up in socio-political conflicts. The very existence of the state proves that the antagonisms between classes are irreconcilable. Therefore, to try to mitigate these class antagonisms which can be seen in the various bourgeois and revisionist countries of the <<third>>, <<second>>, or the first world., by preaching unprincipled unity, means to deny the objective character of the existence of contradictions and to treat this problem in an anti-Marxist way.

The Chinese <<theoreticians>> try to reconcile classes that can never be reconciled, and thismeans that they are in revisionist, opportunist positions.



The distortion of Marx's theory by the Chinese revisionists is quite obvious when they consider the countries which they include in the, <<third world>> countries where class peace prevails,, and the state in those countries an organism of class conciliation.

To accept the notion of the <<third world>>, as the Chinese leaders advertise, means to work to create an opinion which will serve to defend those state organisms which the bourgeoisie needs to oppress the working class and the masses of the people. The thesis of the toning down of the class struggle, as Lenin said when he was attacking the revisionists, justifies and endorses this oppression. To seek unity within the <<third world>>, in fact, means to seek unity of the oppressed class with the oppressor class, that is, to try to tone down the antagonisms between the working masses and the bourgeoisie, between the people and the foreign oppressors. These sermons of the Chinese revisionists run counter to the interests of the national and social liberation of the peoples, to their aspirations for freedom, independence and social justice.

The majority of the states which allegedly make up the <<third>> or the <<non-aligned world>> are dependent on foreign finance capital which is so strong and so widespread that it has a decisive weight in every aspect of life there. These states do not enjoy complete independence. On the contrary, they are dependent on this big finance capital, which develops that policy and spreads that ideology which justify the exploitation of peoples.

The bourgeoisie and imperialism take great pains to conceal this reality, and when exposed, they contrive various <<theories>> against the independence and sovereignty of states. In order to smother the aspirations of the peoples to freedom, independence and sovereignty, the bourgeois and revisionist theoreticians present these aspirations .as <<anachronistic>>, give them various metaphysical interpretations and counter them with the slogan of <<world inter-dependence>>, which allegedly expresses the current trend of development of human society, or with the slogan of <<limited sovereignty>>, which allegedly expresses the supreme interests of the so-called socialist community, etc.

The bourgeois-revisionist reality of the violation of the freedom, independence and sovereignty of nations and states in all forms and directions, shows the decay of the capitalist system. We are living in an epoch when the bourgeoisie is losing ground as a ruling class, while the world proletariat has become a colossal force and has entered into ceaseless, merciless struggle to get that .Class which exploits it off its back. Under the blows of the peoples and the class struggle of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie was compelled to renounce colonialism de jure, and to formally recognize the freedom, independence and sovereignty of many countries, which it had been occupying and exploiting to the bone for a long time.

However, for many countries the freedom, independence and sovereignty, legally recognized by the capitalist states to their former colonies, have remained formal to this day, because the capitalists and imperialists are still ruling there in new forms. To prolong their domination over the former colonies, taking advantage of the economic, political and ideological backwardness of the

and the lack of organization of the revolutionary forces, these regressive forces of our time make extensive use of plots and intrigues to divide and rule, suitable terrain for which can still be found in these countries.

In dealing with this problem, it should not be thought that, since the former colonial countries have not yet won complete independence and sovereignty, their struggle has been useless. By no means. The struggle of the peoples for the emancipation of their small countries from the dictate and tutelage of the mighty - imperialism and social-imperialism - must not be underrated. On the contrary, the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian state have given and will continue to give unreserved support to this just revolutionary and liberation struggle, which they have regarded as a victory of the peoples in strengthening their political independence and breaking free from colonial and neo-colonial domination. But we are against those revisionist theoreticians who preach that now the entire revolutionary struggle should be reduced to a struggle for national independence, to win and to defend this independence against the aggression of imperialist powers, while negating the struggle for social liberation.

Only victory in this struggle guarantees genuine and complete national freedom, independence and sovereignty. These advocates of the exploiting order <<forget>> that the class struggle between the proletariat and its allies, on the one hand, and the local bourgeoisie and its external allies, on the other, is going on fiercely at all times, and some day it will lead to those moments, to those revolutionary situations, as Lenin calls them, when the revolution breaks out. The ever more favourable conditions that are being created in the world for anti-imperialist and democratic revolutions to develop on a large-scale and for their leadership by the proletariat must be utilized in order to go on from the struggle for national independence to another more advanced phase', to the struggle for socialism. Lenin teaches us that the revolution must be carried through to the end, by liquidating the bourgeoisie and its state power. Only on this basis can there be talk of true freedom, independence and sovereignty.

According to our Marxist-Leninist concept, the people cannot have freedom and sovereignty in a society with antagonistic classes where the feudal or bourgeois class holds sway. Freedom, independence and sovereignty have a concrete socio-political content. Genuine and complete freedom, and sovereignty are secured under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, while, where state power is in the hands of the exploiting class, the economic and political relations of inequality between the exploiters and the exploited and between countries lead to loss, or restriction of the freedom and sovereignty of the people. As a result, there can be no talk of real national freedom and sovereignty, and even less of people's sovereignty, in the countries which are included in the <<non-aligned>> or the third world.. Only from a scientific analysis based on the MarxistLeninist theory is it possible to determine correctly which people is really free and which is enslaved, which state is independent and sovereign, and which is dependent and oppressed. The Marxist-Leninist theory clearly explains who are the oppressors and exploiters of the peoples, and which is the road for the peoples to become free, independent and sovereign. We Albanian communists understand the freedom, indipendence and sovereignty of states and peoples only in this way, in the light of Marxism~Leninism.



The Attitude of the Chinese Revisionists to

Contradictions is an Idealist, Revisionist

and Capitulationist Attitude


The implementation of a correct revolutionary strategy based on the teachings of MarxismLeninism demands not only an all-sided dialectical analysis and appreciation of the motive forces of the world revolutionary and liberation trend, the correct assessment of the enemy forces, with their strong and weak aspects, but also a correct and scientific understanding of the contradictions characteristic of our time.

If we interpret the contradictions in connection with the concrete facts and the real development of the situations, according to the teachings of the Marxist-Leninist theory, then we shall not make mistakes.

In connection with the contradictions, the Chinese leaders <<theorize>>, <<interpret>>, <<philosophize>>, paraphrase and confuse many theses which the classics of Marxism-Leninisrn formulated so clearly. Interpreting contradictions differently from what they really are, they enter into agreements and compromises not in favour of the liberation struggle, the peoples, the revolution and the construction of socialism, but in favour of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. These leaders, who pose as Marxist-Leninist philosophers, have two masks: one to present themselves as if they are in order with the Marxist-Leninist theory, and the other to distort it in practice.




Their stand in regard to the contradictions, alliances and compromises stems from a distorted and pragmatic analysis which they make of the international situation, the contradictions that exist in the world, the contradictions among the imperialist powers, among the various capitalist states, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, etc. This stand has its roots in their idealist and revisionist world outlook.

However, the Chinese leaders' laying of the problem of contradictions, alliances and compromises on the table for discussion is not fortuitous. The Chinese leadership has now thrown off its disguise and has come out openly against the revolution. It has become a standard-bearer of right opportunism, revisionism. Like all revisionists, the leaders of the Communist Party of China, also, are trying to <<justify>> their departure from the Marxist-Leninistst theory, their revisionist orientation, by using quotations from Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Of course, they curtail cut up and take these quotations out of their context, and thus mutilated, use them to peddle their reactionary stands and theses as Marxist-Leninist. But the Chinese revisionists are neither the first nor the last to make these distortions, tendentious curtailments and interpretations of our correct theory. Long before them, the chief s of socialdemocracy, the Titoites, the Soviet, Italian, French and other revisionists did the same thing and they are still at it.


In the first place, by juggling with the contradictions, the Chinese leaders are endeavouring to justify their stand towards US imperialism, to pave the way for their rapprochement and collaboration with it.

The Chinese revisionists claim that there is only one contradiction in the world of today, and that this puts the <<third world>>, the <<second world>> and half of the <<first world>> in confrontation with the Soviet Union. Proceeding from this thesis which unites the peoples with a group of imperialists, they advocate that all class contradictions must be set aside and that the only fight must be against Soviet social-imperialism.

But let us analyse how things stand on the question of the contradictions between the peoples and the superpowers, and the contradictions between the superpowers themselves.

In the present conditions, in defining a consistent revolutionary strategy and tactics, the principled stand towards the two imperialist superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, which constitute the greatest force in defence of the capitalist system of oppression and exploitation, the main bastions of world reaction, assumes first-rate importance. They are sworn enemies, the most dangerous enemies of the revolution, socialism and the peoples of the entire world; they have taken upon themselves the odious role of the international gendarme against every revolutionary and liberation movement, and represent the most aggressive warmongering powers, which, with their actions are driving the world towards a devastating war.

No one, least of all the Party of Labour of Albania, can deny the existence of profound contradictions between the two greatest imperialist powers of our time - American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. We have continually stressed that the contradictions between the two superpowers not only exist, but are becoming deeper. Parallel with this, the superpowers, on their part, are making efforts to reach agreement over certain questions. Lenin explains this phenomenon with the two tendencies of capital. He said,


<<... two tendencies exist - one which makes the alliance of all imperialists inevitable, and the other which pits some imperialists against others....>>.


But why are there irreconcilable contradictions and antagonisms between the two super~ powers? Because, since they are big imperialist powers, each of them is fighting for world hegemony, to create new spheres of influence, for the enslavement and exploitation of peoples. The appetite and greed which each of them has, is the source of bickering and severe friction between them, and even to a bloody world war.

We Marxist-Leninists must exploit the contradictions which exist between the superpowers in the interests of the revolution and the peoples' liberation struggles.

Exploiting the contradictions in the enemy camp is a component part of revolutionary strategy and tactics. Stalin described the exploitation of the contradictions and conflicts in the ranks of the enemies of the working class, within the country or among the imperialist states in the international arena, as an indirect reserve of the proletarian revolution. It is a well-known historical fact that the Soviet socialist state, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, took into account and exploited inter-imperialist contradictions in the period after the October Revolution, or during the years of the Second World War.

But in every instance, the assessment and exploitation of the contradictions amidst the enemies by the revolutionary forces, the socialist countries , are the result of a concrete MarxistLeninist analysis of these contradictions and their level of severity, of the ratio of forces at a given period or moment, in order to define in what way, in what form and by what means to exploit them. The principle is that these contradictions must always be exploited in favour of the revolution, the peoples and their freedom, in favour of the cause of socialism. The exploitation of contradictions amidst the enemies should lead to the growth and strengthening of the revolutionary and liberation movement, and not to making it weaken and fade, should lead to an ever more active mobilization of the revolutionary forces in the struggle against the enemies, especially the main ones, without allowing any illusions about them to be created among the peoples.

The two superpowers, the United States of' America and the revisionist Soviet Union, have the suppression of the revolution and socialism as, the first point in their program. Not only do the Chinese leaders not stress this fact, which is an expression of the irreconcilable contradiction between socialism and capitalism, but they even deny it in practice. Of course, it is impermissible for Marxist-Leninists to forget that the superpowers, despite the struggle between them for. hegemony, despite the contradictions they have, never lose sight of their common objective of suppressing the peoples who demand freedom, and of sabotaging the revolution, and this, too, leads to general or local wars. On this question, the Chinese revisionists continue to hold their known standpoint of the fight only against Soviet social-.imperialism, which, according to them, is the more dangerous, more aggressive and more bellicose. They relegate US imperialism to second place - and stress that the United States of America <<wants the status quo, that it is in decline>>. From this the Chinese revisionists arrive at the conclusion that an alliance with American imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism can and should be reached.

US imperialism is not at all weakened or tamed, as the Chinese leaders claim. On the contrary, it is aggresive, savage and powerful, like Soviet social-imperialism. The fact that US imperialism no longer has that dominant pos ition it held in the past, does not alter anything. This is the dialectics of the development of capitalism ,and it corr'b'bo'r-a'- tes Lenin's theses that imperialism is capitalism in decline, decadence. But, proceeding from this, to go so far as to underestimate the actual aggressive economic and military strength of one or the other superpower, is impermissible. It is likewise impermissible, proceeding from a real weakening and decline of the imperialists' power, to say that one imperialism has become less dangerous and that the other is -more dangerous. Both imperialist superpowers are dangerous, because neither of them ever forgets the fight against those who want to dig the grave for them, and those who want to dig the grave for the superpowers are the peoples.

To advocate the struggle against Soviet socialimperialism only, and to cease the fight against Us imperialism in fact, as the Chinese leaders are doing, means to fail to uphold the fundamental theses of Marxism -Leninism. There is no doubt about the fact that Soviet social-imperialism must be fought to the finish. But to fail to fight just as hard against US imperialism, too, this is unacceptable, this is betrayal of the revolution.




If the Chinese course is followed, then it will not be clear what US imperialism is and what Soviet social-imperialism is, why these two superpowers have contradictions and what is the essence of these contradictions, what is the basis of the struggle between them, which we must deepen, and what we must do to prevent these two imperialist states from unleashing a world war, etc. If we understand these questions properly in theory, and if we act correctly on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist theory, then the absolute need for us to assist and support the peoples fighting against the two superpowers and the bourgeois capitalist cliques ruling them will become quite today is going clear. The capitalist world today is going through a grave crisis. But this crisis must be assessed in all its magnitude, and likewise, like contradictions which exist in the capitalist world must also be assessed in all their gravity.

Their pragmatic and anti-Marxist logic leads the Chinese revisionists to present the Soviet Union as a country developing without contradictions, as an imperialism which is ruling the other revisionist countries, like Poland, East Germany,Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria, without problems. They present the Soviet bloc as, a bloc in ascendency, and the Soviet Union as the only imperialism left in the world, bent on establishing its hegemony everywhere.

If we speak of the hegemony of the Soviet Union over the revisionist countries of Eastern Europe, this is expressed, in the first place, in the military occupation of these countries by the Soviet armed forces, in the ruthless and unscrupulous plunder of their assets by Soviet social-imperialism, which is trying to integrate them completely into the system of Soviet republics. Naturally, the revisionist Soviet Union is encountering opposition in these efforts. The time will come when this opposition and these contradictions, which exist in latent form within the revisionist pack, will become more acute and will burst out.

We have described Soviet social-imperialism as aggressive because it attacked and occupied Czechoslovakia, because it has intervened in Africa and elsewhere, and has plans and is preparing for other acts of aggression. But can it be said that US imperialism has committed fewer acts of aggression, or is less aggressive than Soviet social-imperialism?

The Chinese leadership has forgotten the aggression of the United States of America against Korea, it has forgotten the prolonged and barbaous war against Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, it has forgotten its war in the Middle East, its intervention in the republics of Central America, etc. It has erased all these things from the led and now comes out with the conclusion that US imperialism has allegedly been tamed! It forgets that US imperialism has extended its tentacles all over the world, has set up its military bases every where, and is developing and strengthening them. Mao Tsetung and Chou En-lai forgot this, the Chinese revisionist leadership forget this when they tell us that US imperialism has allegedly been weakened and tamed and, hence, an alliance can be concluded with it! To act in this way means to seek to extinguish the struggle against imperialism in general and against US imperialism in particular, and indeed even against Soviet social-imperialism, which China claims to be fighting so hard.

It is true that Soviet social-imperialism has a great hunger for expansion. Its intervention in Angola and Ethiopia, its attempts to establish bases in the Mediterranean and several Arab countries, to seize the Red Sea narrows or to establish military bases in the Indian Ocean, all these are blatant imperialist actions. But these positions of Soviet social-imperialism are not consolidated to the same extent that US imperialism has consolidated its neo-colonialist economic, strategic and military positions in other countries. It is precisely this situation that the Chinese leadership appears to underestimate, but in reality it recognizes and supports it.

At the same time, the Chinese revisionists cannot fail to see that, despite the contradictions existing between the capitalist states of Western Europe and US imperialism, they are closely linked with one another, linked through political, military and economic alliances, such as NATO, the European Common Market, etc. It is impossible f or the Chinese leadership not to know that US capital has penetrated deeply into, the economies of the countries of Western Europe, and not only there, but also into Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.


The Chinese leadership knows full well that the United States of America has invested and continues to invest scores of billions of dollars in various countries of the world. Then what is it hoping for? Is it hoping that the western capitalist countries, with all their contradictions with the United States of America, Will break away from it in order to weaken their own camp, to renounce that armed might, those economic,. social and cultural ties they have with it, and leave themselves naked before Soviet social-imperialism for the sake of China's interests? This is an absurdity of the Chinese foreign policy.

As we have already stressed, there is no doubt that the contradictions existing between the two. superpowers and the other imperialist and capitalist-revisionist countries should be exploited by the revolutionary and liberation forces. But it is. important that this should be understood correctly, should always be seen from the angle of the interests of the revolution and subordinated to them. The exploitation of contradictions among the imperialist powers and groups, the capitalist-revisionist states, etc., can never be an aim in itself for the working class and the Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries.

To exploit the contradictions between the. imperialist countries and the two superpowers means to deepen the rifts between them, to encourage the revolutionary and patriotic forces of these, countries to oppose US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, which want to subjugate them, economically, politically and militarily, to exploit-, them and deny them their national identity, etc,.

But what is China doing?

The Chinese policy advocates the <<holy alliance>> of the western capitalist countries with the United States of America. Indeed it goes even further. It advocates the alliance of the proletariat of the countries of Western Europe with the reactionary bourgeoisie of these countries. Where is the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line here? Where is the line of exploiting contradictions? Do the Chinese leaders think that they will be able to strengthen this bloc against the Soviets, according to their own desires, with such a policy? This is the utopia they are dreaming of, but it is a metaphysical view on their part.

The United States of America, the western capitalist countries, and along with them, Japan and Canada, too, are not so crazy as the Chinese leaders think, their policy is not so naive as the Chinese policy. For their part, they know very well how to exploit the contradictions existing between China and the Soviet Union. They know how to go about it and act in order to weaken the big aggressive power, the Soviet Union. They have long been fighting in this direction, and one cannot say that they have achieved no results. The United States of America and all the other cap~ italist states are inciting the contradictions between the revisionist countries of the East and the Kremlin.

Now China, too, has begun to practise this old American policy. Hua Kuo-feng's visit to Rumania and Yugoslavia was according to this course. But China's opening up to Europe, its fanning up create a favourable field of action for itself in the Balkans, all thew things are not done in the interests of the peoples and the revolution. They are part of the Chinese policy of incitement to war, the aim of which is that the peoples of Europe should kill one another and become cannon fodder in an imperialist war.

<<Pravda>> has long been engaged in polemics with the United States of America, of course without effect, accusing it of a rapid build up of armaments. Its concern is not to criticize this action of the United States of America, since the Soviet social-imperialists themselves are doing the same thing. The problem is that the increase of US military potential relatively weakens Soviet fighting strength and forces the Soviet Union to follow the United States of America step by step, in order to balance its military potential and aggressive power. However, keeping up with US imperialism in the armaments race weakens the economy of the Soviet Union, because it means that large material, monetary and human funds are transferred from the economy to the army. This is what is worrying Brezhnev and company.




But the astonishing thing is that, through their newspaper <<Renmin Ribao>>, the Chinese revisionists, unreservedly take the side of the Americans, publishing article after article urging the United States of America not to lose the lead in the armaments race, but to ceaselessly increase

its military potential. Thus it turns out, according to <<Renmin Ribao>>, that it is not.the United States of America which is arming, but only the Soviet Union. Such an advocate of the Americans as the Chinese revisionist leadership is becoming is not to. be found in any other country. The bourgeoisie tries at least to preserve a sense of proportian in its criticism and interpretations of realities, to weigh up the situations 1 which are developing, tendentiously, of course. But to act in the.way the Chinese leaders are doing, is something quite unprecedented.

At his meeting with Ten Hsiao ping, the Secretary of . the. American Department of State; Vance, explained to him that the <<United State of America has military superiority over the Soviet Union>>. But Teng Hsiao ping told. a large group of American journalists who were visiting China at that time, that.<<Peking does not believe>> Vance's. statement, and that the <<Soviet Union is much superior to the United States of America>>. <<None so deaf as he who does not want to hear>>, as Ahe saying goes.

The Chinese thesis, presented as an alleged Marxist thesis, which casts doubt on the fact that it is not just one but both the imperialist superpowers which are seeking the redivision of the world, to create new colonies, to oppress the peoples and extend their markets, cannot be accepted.

The Very posing of; the question that one impelrialism is stronger and the other weaker, ont is aggressive and the other tamed, is not Marxist-Leninist. The presentation of the question in this manner. is, a reflection of a reactionary view which leads the Chinese revisionists into alliance with the United States of America, NATO and the European. Common Market, with the King of Spain, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile and all the fascist dictators! The Chinese policy, which is harmless to US, imperialism, which.is harmless to the power of the banks and the biggest capitalof out time, is an out-and out bourgeois reformist, pacifist Policy,i and: very stupid.

The Chinese leaders cannot 1ail to see that Americah f finance capital, the trusts and monopolies are by na means reducing their investments abroad, that they are not giving up their ambitidns to exploit and enslave, but, on the contrary, are becoming stronger and trying to alter the ratio of forces in the world in their o favour.

The Soviet social-imperialists are doing the same thing. The aim of their economic policy, of thebig trusts which exist in the Soviet Union, is to suck the blood of satellites and other countries by all manner of means. They have dressed themselves up in a new cloak and present themselves under another name, while they, too, strive to alter the ratio of forces to their own advantage, at first allegedly through agreements and negotiations, but, when the time comes, also by force, i.e., war.

With their reasoning that the United States of America <<waiit the status quo>>, that <<it is on the decline>>, and that Soviet social-imperialism is the <<more dangerous, more aggressive, more bellicose>>, etc., the Chinese revisionists want to prove that the United States of America can and should become the ally of China against the Soviet Union. The various kinds of relations, which they are extending, the open support they give the increase in the war budget and the further arming of the United States of America confirm this.

The Chinese revisionists preach that the situation today is such that the Marxist-Leninists, the revolutionaries and the people can make a compromise with and rely on US imperialism. Our Party is against any compromise with ferocious US imperialism, because such a thing is not in the interests of the revolution and the liberation of the peoples. We have been, are, and will The in struggle with US imperialism until its complete destruction. Likewise, we are and will be in struggle to the end with Soviet social-imperialism.

The support which China is giving US imperialism is not in the least in favour of the revolution and the peoples, but in favour of the counterrevolution. With its reactionary political and ideological line, the Chinese leadership leaves the peoples of the world in the clutches of US imperialism.



It wants them to remain docile, not to revolt, and even to unite with US imperialism against the other superpower, which wants to grab from the United States of America the assets it has built up from the toil and sweat of the peoples. China's leadership recommends to the capitalist countries of Europe, gathered in the European Common Market, that they should unite. It also lines up the peoples in the capitalist union of Europe.

This stand means: keep quiet, no more talk about the revolution, no more talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat, but put yourselves in the service of the trusts, the capitalists and, along with them, create an even greater economic and military force to cope with Soviet social-imperialism.

The European Common Market, which China supports and is strengthening economically, is nothing but a means to preserve the maximum profits of the monopoly trusts of Western Europe and to group together the developed industrial states, in which the wealthy classes, as Lenin says, exact a colossal tribute from Africa, Asia, etc. By supporting these capitalist states, the Chinese leaders, in fact, are supporting the parasitism of a handful of capitalists at the expense of the peoples of these countries, as well as of the peoples who have fallen into their clutches.

The theory of the .<<three worlds>> of the Chinese revisionists, by means of; which they try to justify their counterrevolutionary stands, is nothing but a variant of opportunism in the ranks of the workers' movement; which helps imperialism to create markets and exact profits at the expense of other peoples, so that the opportunists too, will receive some of the crumbs from the capitalists' table.

It is an undeniable fact that the Chinese leadrship is defending the capitalist forces and states of Europe, and not supporting the revolutionary forces and proletariat, so that they rise and destroy the plans of American imperialism, Soviet socialimperialism, United Europe., the: European Common Market and Comecon, in a word, all the pillars of the imperialist system, which, like a great monster, sucks the blood of the peoples.

Although it includes the developed capitalist states such as West Germany, Britain, Japan, France, Italy, etc., in the <<second world>>, and irrespective of all its talk on the theoretical plane about their <<double>> character, the Chinese revisionist leadership does not consider these states enemies of the revolution. On the contrary, the Chinese have found it convenient to shut their eyes ~ to. this and reach open compromises with then, allegedly in order to use them against Soviet social-imperialism.

The Chinese leadership, whose eyes have been blinded as a result of its pragmatic and antiMarxist policy, <<forgets>> that such states as West Germany, Britain, Japan, France, Italy and others like these have been and are imperialist states, that the enslaving and colonialist tendencies, which have been characteristic of them traditionally, have not been and, as such, cannot be eliminated. It is true that after the Second World War these imperialist powers have been weakened, even greatly weakened, and that their former positions have changed to the advantage of American imperialism. Nevertheless, neither France, nor Britain, nor any other of them has given up the struggle to, protect its markets or gain other markets in Africa, Asia and the countries of Latin America.

Among all these capitalist and imperialist states which are not so powerful as American imperialism, there are contradictions, but, at the same time, there is also the tendency to come to terms with one another.

After the Second World War, American imperialism helped its old, former allies in Europe to recover and the American monopolies linked themselves with the monopolies of these former allies in a tangle of common interests. But contradictions have always existed among them, as each.of them tries to have a free harid in monopolizing markets, importing raw materials and exporting its industrial goods. In this instance, too, the international reality confirms the correctness of Lenin's thesis on the two objective tendencies of capital.

It is likewise true that these capitalist states have contradictions not only with American imperialism but also with Soviet social-imperialism. The question arises: how should these contradictions be exploited? The inter-imperialist contradictions can by no means be exploited in the way the Chinese revisionists advocate.

We Marxist-Leninists cannot defend the various reactionaries, the clique around Strauss or Schmidt in Germany, the British Conservative or Labourite leaders, simply because they have contradictions with Soviet social-imperialism. Were we to do so and support the preachings of the Chinese to the effect that <<the capitalist states of Europe should unite in the Common Market>>, that <<United Europe>> should be strengthened so as be able to face Soviet social-imperialism, that would mean our agreeing to sacrifice the struggle and efforts fthe proletariat of these countries to break the chains of enslavement, to sabotage the future of the revolution in those countries.

By making unprincipled compromises with American imperialism, the Chinese revisionists have betrayed Marxism-Leninism and the revolution. Marxist-Leninists interpret the thesis of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on contradictions and compromises in its true spirit. The Chinese interpret this thesis in a way diametrically opposite to the truth.

Following the Leninist course, our Party is. not against every kind of compromise, but is against treacherous compromises. A compromise can be made when it is necessary and serves the interests of the class and the revolution, but always bearing in mind that it must not be at the expense of the strategy and loyalty to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, must not damage the interests of the class and the revolution. In regard to the stand towards compromises, among other things, Lenin says:


<<Is it permissible for the partisan of the proletarian revolution to conclude compromises with the capitalists or the capitalist class?... to reply to this general question in a negative way would obviously be absurd. Of course, the partisan of the proletarian revolution can conclude compromises or agreements with the capitalists. Everything depends on what sort of agreement and in what circumstances it is concluded. It is here and here alone that the difference can and must be sought between that agreement which is legitimate from the viewpoint of the proletarian revolution, and that agreement which is treacherous, perfidious (from the same viewpoint)>>*. Lenin


And Lenin goes on:


<<The conclusion is clear: to completely rule out any agreement or compromise with the robbers is just as absurd as to justify participation in the robbery with the abstract thesis that, speaking in general, sometimes agreements with thieves are permissible and necessary>>**.


Lenin also said:


<<The task of a truly revolutionary party is not- to proclaim that it is impossible to abjure every sort of compromise, but to know how to maintain, regardless of these compromises, since they are unavoidable, its loyalty to its own principles, to its own class, to its own revolutionary task, to~ wards the work of preparing the revolution and the education of the masses of the people to achieve victory in the revolution>>.


Only proceeding from these teachings of Lenin's can compromises be permissible. But how can a compromise with American imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism be in the interest of socialism and the world revolution, when it is known that these two superpowers are the most ferocious enemies of the peoples and the revoluflon? Not only is this compromise not necessary, but, on the contrary, it endangers the interests of the revolution. To compromise, or to violate principles on problems of such importance, means to betray Marxism-Leninism.






If Mao Tsetung and the other Chinese leaders have had and still have a good deal to say about contradictions <<in theory>>, then they ought to speak not only of exploiting inter-imperialist contradictions and of compromises with the imperialists, but, in the first place, they ought to speak of the fundamental contradictions of our epoch, the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the contradictions between the oppressed peoples andcountries, on the one hand, and the two superpowers and the whole of world imperialism, on the other, the contradictions between socialism and capitalism. But the Chinese leaders are silent about these contradictions which exist objectively and cannot be wiped off. They speak of only one contradiction, which, according to them, is that between the entire world an& Soviet social-imperialism, in this way, trying to justify their unprincipled compromises with American imperialism and all world capitalism.

Marxist-Leninist class analysis and the facts show that the existence of contradictions and rifts among the imperialist powers and groupings in no way overrides or displaces to a position of secondary importance the contradictions between labour and capital in the capitalist and imperialist countries, or the contradictions between the oppressed peoples and their imperialist oppressors. Precisely these, the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the oppressed peoples and imperialism, between socialism and capitalism are the most profound, they are permanent, irreconcilable contradictions. Consequently, the utilization of inter-imperialist contradictions, or contradictions between the capitalist and revisionist states is meaningful only if it serves to create the most favourable conditions for the powerful development of the revolutionary and liberation movement against the bourgeoisie, imperialism and reaction. Therefore, these contradictions must be utilized without creating illusions among the proletariat and the peoples about imperialism and the bourgeoisie. It is essential to make the teachings of Lenin clear to the workers and peoples, to make them conscious that only an irreconcilable stand towards the oppressors and exploiters, only their resolute struggle against imperialism and the bourgeoisie, only the revolution, will ensure them genuine social and national freedom.

The utilization of contradictions among enemies cannot comprise the fundamental task of the revolution and be counterposed to the struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the reactionary and fascist dictatorship, the imperialist oppressors.

The stand of Marxist-Leninists on this question is clear. They address themselves to the peoples, the proletariat, call on the masses to rise to their feet to smash the hegemonic, oppressive, aggressive and warmongering plans of the American imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists, to overthrow the reactionary bourgeoisie and its dictatorship, both in the West and in the East.

As far as our socialist state is concerned, it 'has always exploited the contradictions in the enemy camp. In exploiting them, our Party prceeds, from a correct assessment of the character of the contradictions existing between a socialist country and the imperialist and bourgeois-revisionist countries, and a correct assessment of interimperialist contradictions.

Marxism-Leninism teaches us that the contradictions between a socialist country and caitalist and revisionist countries, which reflect contradictions between two classes with diametrically opposed interests, the working class and the bourgeoisie, are permanent, fundamental, irreconcilable. They run like a red thread through the entire historical epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale. On the other hand, the contradictions between the imperialist powers are expressions of contradictions amongst exploiters, amongst classes with common fundamental interests. Therefore, however severe' the contradictions and conflicts between the imperialist powers may be, the danger of aggressive actions by world imperialism or various sections- of. it against the socialist country, remains a permanent real danger at any moment. Rifts between imperialists, inter-imperialist quarrels and conflicts may, at the most, weaken or temporarily postpone the danger of the actions of imperialism against the socialist country, therefore while it is in the interests of this country to utilize these contradictions in the enemy ranks, they cannot eliminate this danger.



This has been forcefully stressed by Lenin who said:


<<... the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable>>*.


These teachings of Lenin's retain their full validity today. They have been thoroughly vindicated by a sequence of historical events, such as the fascist aggression against the Soviet Union in the years of the Second World War, in the aggression of American imperialism in Korea and later in Vietnam, the imperialist and social-imperialist hostile activity and the various plots against Albania, etc. Therefore, our Party has stressed and stresses that any underestimation of the contradictions of a socialist state with the imperialist powers and the capitalist-revisionist countries, any underestimation of the danger of aggressive actions by the latter against socialist Albania, any relaxation of vigilance resulting from the idea, that the Contradictions between the imperialist

powers themselves are very abrasive, and because of this they cannot undertake such actions against our Homeland, would be fraught with very dangerous consequences.

The Party of Labour of Albania also proceeds, from the fact that only the revolutionary, liberation, freedom-loving and progressive forces can be true and reliable allies of our country, as the socialist country it is. Our country maintains state. relations with different countries of the bourgeois revisionist world, it utilizes the contradictions, between the imperialist, capitalist and revisionist states and, at the same time, firmly supports the, revolutionary and liberation struggle of the working class, the working masses and the peoples of

every country where such a struggle is going on, regarding this support as its lofty internationalist duty. The Party of Labour of Albania has always consistently upheld this viewpoint; at its 7th Congress it stressed once again that it will support the proletariat and the peoples, the Marxist-Leninist parties, the revolutionaries and progressives who fight against the superpowers, the capitalist and revisionist bourgeoisie and world reaction, for socialist and national liberation.

In the past, the Communist Party of China has also quoted well-known Marxist-Leninist principles and theses in regard to the contradictions. For example, in the known document entitled, << A. Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement>>, published by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 1963, the Chinese wrote:<< These or those necessary compromises between socialist and imperialist countries do not require that the oppressed peoples and nations also make compromises with imperialism and its stooges>>. And they added:<<Never should anybody under the pretext of peaceful coexistence, demand that the oppressed peoples and nations renounce the revolutionary struggle>>. The Chinese leadership was talking in this way then, because at that time 1 was the Khrushchevite leadership who wanted the peoples and the communist parties to agree that American imperialism and its chiefs had become peaceful and to submit to the Soviet policy of rapprochement with American imperialism. Now it is the leadership of the Communist Party of China which is preaching to the peoples, the revolutionaries, the Marxist-Leninist parties and the proletariat of the whole world, that they must enter into alliance with the imperialist or capitalist countries, and unite with the bourgeoisie and all reactionaries against Soviet social-imperialism. And the Chinese do not express these ideas in disguised phrases, but openly. Such vacillations and 180 degree turns have nothing to do with the principled Marxist-Leninist policy. They are characteristic of the pragmatic policy followed by all revisionists, who subordinate principles to their bourgeois and imperialist interests.

In order to justify their unprincipled compromises with American imperialism and the international bourgeoisie, the Chinese leaders and all the advocates of the theory of .Kthree worlds- deliberately misrepresent the historical truth about the Soviet-German non-aggression pact of 1939 and the Anglo-Soviet-American alliance in the Second World War.

The Soviet-German non-aggression pact was a skilful utilization by Stalin of inter-imperialist contradictions. At that time the Hitlerite aggression against the Soviet Union was imminent.

It was the period when nazi Germany had invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia, and fascist Italy hadinvaded Albania, when the Munich agreement had been concluded and the German juggernaut of war was racing towards the East. The Soviet Union did not conclude an alliance, but a nonaggression pact with Germany, after the Western powers had refused to respond to Stalin's call for joint actions with the Soviet state to contain the nazi-fascist aggressors, and when it had become clear that these powers were urging Hitler to attack the land of the Soviets. The Soviet-German pact foiled their plans and gave the Soviet Union time to prepare to face the nazi aggression.

In regard to the Anglo-Soviet-American alliance, it is known that it was concluded when Hitlerite Germany, after having occupied France and being at war with Britain, launched its savage aggression against the Soviet Union, when the war against the Axis powers had assumed a clear and pronounced anti-fascist and liberation character. It must be pointed out that at no time and in no instance did Stalin and the Soviet Union at that time advocate or call on the proletariat and the communist parties to renounce the revolution and unite with the reactionary bourgeoisie. Indeed, when Browder renounced the class struggle and advocated class conciliation, because the interests of the Anglo-Soviet-Americain alliance allegedly required this, he was stigmatized by Stalin and the communist movement as a revisionist and renegade from the revolution.

As can be seen, nothing justifies the unprincipled compromises and alliances of the Chinese with American imperialism and the various reactionary forces. The historical analogy the Chineserevisionists are trying to make does not hold water.

In their propaganda, the Chinese leaders try to give the impression that we Albanians are allegedly against any compromise and do not striveto utilize the contradictions as we should. Naturally, they know that on these questions we take the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism, but they continue to propagate this crooked line in order to conceal their departure from the scientific Marxist-Leninist theory and the road of revolution. They act in this way in order to denigrate thecorrect policy and stands of the proletarian party and state. Their accusations are groundless. Let us refer to the facts.

Our Party has always energetically supported the just cause of the Arab peoples, without exception, and will continue ;to do so to the end.. We support the struggle of the Palestinian people against Israel, which long ago became a blind tool, a gendarme of US imperialism in the Middle East. It has been charged with the task of defending the rich Arab oil fields for the big monopoly companies of the United States of America and maintalining the status quo, as the Chinese revisionists call it.

Despite the fact that President Sadat and his government were formerly in alliance with the Soviet Union, we supported the struggle of the people of Egypt to regain the territories occupied by Israel. However, we exposed the aims of the Soviet Union against Egypt, and its game in the Middle East in general. Not for one moment have we remained silent about the colonialist aims of the Soviet Union towards Egypt. We have done the same thing in supporting the Egyptian people just as consistently in their fight against US imperialism and Israel.

While defending the interests of the Egyptian peopleand the other Arab peoples, our Party and people also expose the manoeuvres which US imperialism together with Israel is engaged in at present. We cannot approve of any course, any line of compromise with aggressor Israel, under the pretext that this is allegedly in favour of the Egyptian people.

The Chinese leadership, however, does not expose American imperialism. It applauds the Israeli-Egyptian agreements and urges the Arab peoples to come to terms, to make a compromise with American imperialism and Israel, which are their main enemies. Such a stand is not Marxist-Leninist. Such a compromise à la the Chinese is not in the interest of the peoples. The Chinese absurdity that breaking with one imperialism to throw yourself into the arms of another imperialism <<is acting in the interests of the freedom of the peoples>>, is totally inadmissable. These typically bourgeois manoeuvres and intrigues cannot be called Marxist-Leninist actions which help to deepen the contradictions between the two imperialist superpowers.The Albanian Party and people are against predatory imperialist wars and resolutely support just national liberation wars which are, and must always be, to the advantage of the peoples, in favour of the revolution.


They are not against supporting even a bourgeois state, when they see that those who rule this state are progressive persons and fight in the interests of the liberation of their people from imperialist hegemony. But our country cannot make common cause, or a compromise, as the Chinese revisionists call it, with a state ruled by a reactionary clique, which, in the interests of its own class and to the detriment of the interests of the people, enters into an alliance with one or the other superpower. Likewise, socialist Albania is not against maintaining normal diplomatic relations with the states of the <<third world>>, or the <<second world>>. It is against such relations only with the two superpowers and the fascist states. But in developing our diplomatic relations, just as in our trade, cultural and other relations, we work according to principles, having regard, first of all, for the interests of our country and the revolution, contraryto which we have never acted, and will never do so. We Marxist-Leninists who have come to power have to establish diplomatic relations with the bourgeois-capitalist states, because these relations are in our interests, and theirs, too. These interests are reciprocal. Marxist-Leninists should always remember principles. They cannot trample upon principles because of circumstances which are created in one period or another. We must keep in mind that in the countries where the upper strata of the bourgeoisie are ruling, they are permanently in struggle against the people, the proletariat and the poor peasantry, the urban petty-bourgeoisie. Therefore, both when the socialist country maintains state relations with the bourgeois countries, and when it does not, it must make clear to the peoples that it supports their struggle, that it does not approve the reactionary, anti-popular actions of their rulers.

We Marxist-Leninists must recognize and bear in mind not only the contradictions which exist between the oppressed classes and their oppressors, but also the contradictions which arise between states, that is, between the governments of these countries and American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism. the other capitalist countries, etc. We must always pursue such a policy that we do not defend a reactionary government simply because, for its own interests and those of the class in power, it breaks temporarily with American imperialism in order to throw itself into the lap of another imperialism, for example, British, Soviet, or some other imperialism. We must exploit the contradictions which exist among them with the aim that our stand assists the strengthening of the struggle of the proletariat and the oppressed masses of that country against its reactionary government. If contradictions have arisen between the reactionary and oppressive capitalist government of a country of the secondor the <<third world>> and the government of a country of the <<first world>>, according to the division made by the Chinese revisionists, it must not be taken for granted that these contradictions are always in favour of the liberation of the people of this country from the yoke of capital, the yoke of the reactionary bourgeoisie ruling there. In this case we have to do mainly with bourgeois class interests, with the interests of governments which represent the exploiting classes, with the question of who gives more and who gives less, who best defends their being in power, and who wants to kick them out in order to bring in !his own men.

In dealing with the struggle of the proletariat, the stand towards the bourgeoisie must not be confused with the diplomatic, trade, cultural and scientific relations between the socialist country and states with another social system. These interstate relations are necessary and must be developed, but the socialist country should be clear about its aims in establishing them. The ideological, political, moral and material life of the socialist country must be a mirror for the peoples of those states with which it maintains relations, and in which, through the development of these relations, the peoples of the non-socialist states can see the blessings and advantages of the socialist system. Naturally, whether or not they follow the socialist road, is their affair, but it is the duty of the socialist country to set the good example.

On all these political, theoretical, and organizational problems not only are the Chinese leaders unclear but, far from larifying them, they deliberately make them even more obscure, because, as Mao Tsetung says, we must stir things up in order to clarify them. This thesis is not correct. On the contrary, we must clarify things and convince people to carry out the revolution, because, as for turmoil, this exists already. If the question is to stir things up, then let us stir things up even more for imperialism, which is giving up the ghost, and not to help it and provide it with crutches to keep it going. We should cut short the existence of capitalism so that the peoples, the proletariat will be liberated and the prospect of socialism and communism will be brought nearer. This is our revolutionary road, the road of Marxism-Leninism. There is no other road. The Chinese leaders formerly used the expression, a<<tit for tat>> struggle against American imperialism, but they did not apply it then, and are certainly not applying it today. They are not waging a tit for tat struggle, since they are drawing closer to American imperialism and are in alliance with the United States of America.

China's diplomatic, commercial and cultural relations with the imperialist states and the other states of the world are on a capitalist basis. China's objective in these relations is to strengthen its economic and military positions through the aid it wants to receive from the powerful imperialist states so that it, too, can compete with the other two superpowers. China's propaganda over the radio and by other means is designed to create the impression in the world not only that China is a big, powerful state with an ancient culture, but also that the present Chinese policy is progressive, indeed Marxist-Leninist. However, this activity of the Chinese revisionists does not and cannot by any means serve as an example which the peoples of the world should follow in their struggle to, destroy the capitalist and imperialist power.


The Chinese View about the Unity of the

<<Third World>> Is Reactionary



The Chinese leadership seeks the unity of all the countries of the third world., which are heterogenous from any point of view: in regard to their economic, social and cultural development, the time needed and the road followed by each of them to win that degree of freedom and independence it enjoys today, etc.

But how does China imagine this unity it preaches? The Chinese leadership does not conceive this unity as achieved in the Marxist-Leninist way and in the interests of the revolution and the liberation of the peoples. It sees it from the bourgeois point of view, that is, as a unity by mean's of treaties and agreements concluded and rescinded by the rulers of these countries, who are linked with one imperialist power today, but who tomorrow may denounce the agreements they have themselves concluded in order to link up with another.

The Chinese revisionist leadership forgets that the unity of these national states can be ensured only through the struggle of the proletariat and the working masses of each particular country, in the first place, against the external imperialism which has penetrated into that country, but also against the internal capitalism and reaction.

Only on this basis can the unity of these countries be brought about. Only on this basis can the united front against foreign imperialism, as well as against the kings, the local reactionary bourgeoisie, feudal landlords and dictators, be achieved.

Under capitalism unity is realized only from above, at the top, in order to safeguard the victories of the bourgeoisie and to protect them from the revolution. Whereas genuine unity, a people's unity, must be achieved mainly from below, with the proletariat at the head of this unity.

Of course, the tactics which the proletariat of a country of the so-called third world, or the proletariat of all these countries may employ to unite with other political forces against imperialism cannot be rejected out of hand. The unity of the revolutionary forces even with the bourgeois leadership of a country, at a given moment, when a deep contradiction arises with a foreign imperialism or with a reactionary leadership of one of the countries of the <<third world>>, cannot be neglected, either.

All these opportunities and possibilities must be seen and exploited by the revolutionary forces. That is why Lenin says that the aid of the socialist country and the International proletariat should be differentiated and conditional.

The Chinese leaders, however, advocate precisely an unconditional alliance among reactionary governments, allegedly to face up to imperialism. And when they talk against imperialism, they do not mean imperialism is general, but only Soviet social-imperialism.

The weakening of imperialism and capitalism is the main trend of world history today. The efforts of various states to free themselves from the influence of imperialism also constitute another tendency which leads to the weakening of imperialism. But this second tendency, as the Chinese revisionist leadership absolutizes it unconditionally, without making any differentiation among countries, without studying the general and particular situations, does not lead to the correct course of the unity of the peoples in struggle to free themselves from imperialist interference and domination. Likewise, the view of the Chinese revisionists, who consider Europe a continent of <<second world>> countries, which they put in alliance with the <<third world>>, cannot lead to the correct road, either. This grouping of capitalist states can never be for the general weakening of world capitalism. To say that such a thing can be achieved with the assistance and collaboration of the aristocratic bourgeoisie of Britain, the revanchist bourgeoisie of Western Germany, the cunning French bourgeoisie and the other big capitalist groups, is deplorable naivity.

The supporters of the theory of <<three worlds>> may claim that, by advocating the unity of these capitalist countries, they intend to weaken imperialism. But which imperialism will this unity weaken? That imperialism with which the theory of <<three worlds>> calls for the creation of a united front against social-imperialism? That imperialism with which the capitalist countries of Europe are in alliance, despite their contradictions with it? Obviously, advocating the strengthening of this group of states is advocating strengthening the positions of US imperialism, strengthening the positions of the capitalist states of West Europe.

On the other hand, when the Chinese leadership talks about the creation of the alliance between the states of the <<second world>> and the states of the so-called third world, it means the alliance among the ruling circles of these countries. But to claim that these alliances will help the liberation of the peoples is an idealist, metaphysical, anti-Marxist view. Therefore, to deceive the broad masses of the peoples, who are seeking liberation, with such revisionist theories is a crime committed against the peoples and the revolution.

The Communist Party of China thinks that imperialism does not know, does not see, does not understand and does not exploit the contradictions which exist among the countries that have only just thrown off the yoke of colonialism and have fallen under the yoke of neo-colonialism. The facts show that imperialism exploits these contradictions continuously, every day, to its own advantage. It urges and incites these countries andtheir peoples to fight one another, to split, to quarrel and fail to achieve unity even on certain specific problems.

Imperialism, too, is waging a life-and-death struggle, striving to prolong its existence and, when it sees that it cannot achieve this through the usual means, then it throws itself into open war and aggression to regain its superiority and hegemony.

The Chinese leaders want to unite the countries of the <<third world>> not only whith one another, but also with the United States of America, against Soviet social-imperialism. In other words, the Chinese revisionists openly tell the peoples of the <<third world>> that Soviet social-imperialism is their main enemy, therefore, at the present time, they must not rise against US imperialism or against its ally, the reactionary bourgeoisie which is ruling in their own countries. According to the Chinese <<theory>>, the states of the <<third world>> have to fight not to strengthen their freedom, independence and sovereignty, not for the revolution which overthrows the rule of the bourgeoisie, but for the status quo. It is understandable that, by advocating agreement with the United States of America, contrary to the interests of the revolution and the cause of national liberation, the Chinese revisionists are pushing these states into a treacherous compromise.

The genuine Marxist-Leninist parties have the internationalist duty to encourage and inspire the proletariat and the peoples of all these countries to make the revolution, to rise against foreign and local oppression and enslavement, in whatever form they present themselves. Our Party thinks that this is the only way that the conditions can be created for the peoples to fight both imperialism and social-imperialism, with which the capitalist bourgeoisie of most of these countries tries of the <<third world>> is linked in all sorts of ways.

But what does China do? China defends Mobutu and the clique around him in Zaire. Through its propaganda China is trying to create the impression that it is allegedly defending the people of that country against an invasion of mercenaries engineered by the Soviet Union, but in reality it is defending the reactionary Mobutu regime. The Mobutu clique is an agency in the service of US imperialism. Through its propaganda and <<pro-Zaire>> stand, China is defending Mobutu's alliance with US imperialism, with neocolonialism, and striving to prevent any change in the status quo of that country. The duty of the genuine revolutionaries is not to defend the reactionary rulers, the tools of the imperialists, but to work to inspire the people of Zaire to fight for their freedom and sovereignty against Mobutu, local capital and US, French, Belgian and other imperialisms.

Just as we are against Mobutu. in Zaire, we are also against Neto and his abettors in Angola, because the Soviet Union and Neto are doing the same thing in Angola as the United States of America and Mobutu are doing in Zaire. From examination of the development of the situation in the above two states it is obvious how the rivalry between the superpowers over the division of colonies and markets is raging there. We defend neither Neto nor the Soviet Union, but while fighting them, we cannot support US imperialism and its mercenaries, enemies of the Angolan people. In any situation, under any circumstances and at any time, we must support the revolutionary peoples, and, in the case of Zaire and Angola, we must support only the peoples of these two countries in their efforts to throw off the yoke the superpowers are putting around their necks.

What should be recommended to the revolutionaries of Zaire? To make a compromise with Mobutu so that the people of this country will be even more oppressed by imperialism, as the Chinese revisionists advise? No, Marxist-Leninists cannot recommend this sort of compromise to the people of Zaire, or to any other people.

Let us take as an example China's policy in Pakistan. The Pakistan of the khans, where the rich bourgeoisie and the big latifundists have always ruled, has allegedly been an ally of China.

China's aid to this country has not been aid in the revolutionary direction. It has assisted the strengthening of Pakistan's reactionary latifundist bourgeoisie which savagely oppresses the people of that country, just as the clique of Nehru, Gandhi and the other reactionary magnates oppresses the Indian people. The government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was no exception. First, East Pakistan broke away from West Pakistan. India knew how to exploit the great contradictions which existed between the people of East Pakistan and the reactionary bourgeoisie ruling in West Pakistan. It fanned up these contradictions to the point of leading the people of East Pakistan into an insurrection against the Pakistan of Ali Bhutto. At that time in East Pakistan, which took the name of Bangladesh, the government of Mujibur Rahman, who allegedly fought for democracy and the interests of the people, was formed. But one morning Mujibur Rahman was murdered by elements closely linked with US imperialism. Now Ali Bhutto, too, has been toppled. Thus, China's friend and ally, Pakistan's greatest landowner and richest man, has been overthrown by other reactionaries in a coup d'état.

But what is this opposition which came to Power, and who are those who take part in it? This, too, is a reactionary force, made up of the militarY-men, capitalists and big landowners. Impelled by their class interests and the links they, too, have with the United States of America, the

Soviet Union, or China, they are trying to keep the reactionary power firmly in their hands. In

these conditions, to speak to the people of Pakistan about close alliance with and support for one or

the other bourgeois political force, of replacing one clique of rulers with another, as the Chinese

leaders are doing, is not showing them the correct course of the revolution. The correct course is to

call on the people, caught between two fires, Bhutto's and his opponents',to kindle the powerful

fire of the revolution, to stamp out the two former fires, to overthrow the two cliques of the same

mould that exist in Pakistan. In this fight on two flanks the Pakistan people themselves will have

to know how to utilize the contradictions.

The same applies to many countries of the so-called third world, or non-aligned world.

Thus the Chinese leadership is having no luck, not only in its alliances and friendship with the Marxist-Leninists, but also in its alliances with the bourgeois-capitalist states. But why is it having no luck? Because its policy is not Marxist-Leninist because the analyses it makes and the deductions it draws from them are wrong. In these conditions, what trust can the peoples of the <<third world>> have in China, which is aiming to take these countries under its wing?

Only the dictatorship of the proletariat, only the Marxist-Leninist ideology, only socialism, engeneder sincere love, close friendship and steel-like unity among the peoples, by eliminating everything which splits and divides them. In order to create unity and friendship among the peoples, to solve problems in the way that is best and most suitable to their interests, aid and concessions should in no way be granted to such degenerate bourgeois as Mobutu, Bhutto, Gandhi and others, allegedly for the sake of establishing a political equilibrium which is an expression of the anti-scientific, anti-popular and opportunist theory of <<equilibrium>>, which serves to maintain the status quo and slavery.

We Marxist-Leninists fight against neo-colonialism, against the oppressive capitalist bourgeoisie of any country, that is, against those who oppress the peoples. This struggle can be waged if the genuine communist parties inspire, organize and lead the proletariat and the working masses. Leadership of the proletariat and the masses by the party is successfully achieved only when the party has a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary inspiration and not an equivocal inspiration with a hundred meanings, with a hundred flags. In its actions the Marxist-Leninist party of the genuine socialist country does not proceed only from the iliterest of its own state, but always takes account Of the interest of the world revolution, too.


The Chinese Theory of the <<Third World>>

and the Yugoslav Theory of the <<Non-aligned world>>

Sabotage the Revolutionary Struggle of the

Peoples


All the renegades from Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet, Titoite, Chinese and other modern revisionists, are doing their utmost to fight Marxism-Leninism, the triumphant theory of the proletariat. Our Party's exposure of the theory of <<three worlds>> has put the Chinese revisionists in a difficult position, because they are unable to reply to our opposition and exposure theoretical y, and this is not because they are afraid of us, but because they are afraid of their lack of arguments.

Mao Tsetung and Teng Hsiao-ping, who enunciated or adopted the notion of the <<third world>>, did not want to support this theory with theoretical argument, for they could not, and this was not without a purpose. Why did they not do this? This <<oversight>> of theirs is a trick and its aim is to deceive people, to make them accept an absurd thesis without discussion, simply because Mao Tsetung produced it. Mao Tsetung could not explain the theoretical basis of this <<philosphical>> or <<political>> notion, because there is no way it can be explained. He and his disciples propagate their concept of the division of the world into three simply by proclaiming it, but without defending it, because they themselves know that this thesis is indefensible. The Chinese <<third world>> and the Yugoslav <<non-aligned world>> are almost one and the same thing. The aim of both of these <<worlds>> is to provide a theoretical justification for extinguishing the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and to assist the big imperialist and capitalist powers to preserve and perpetuate the bourgeois system of oppression and exploitation.

As a false, anti-Marxist theory, totally devoid of any theoretical basis, the theory of the <<third world>>, the myth the Chinese revisionists have created around it, has no effect at all, either on the broad masses of the proletariat and the suffering peoples in the countries of the third world., or on the leaders of these countries.


These leaders, whom the Chinese leadership is trying to take under its umbrella, have their own deeply implanted views, have their own ideology and definite orientations, therefore the Chinese tales do not go down with them. Teng Hsiao-ping and company think that China with its vast territory and population can impose itself on these countries. To a certain degree, and as long as it does not jeopardize its plans, the Chinese theory of <<three worlds>> suits American imperialism. This theory fosters the creation of confused situations in the world of which both American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism take advantage to extend their own hegemony, to link together and enter into more alliances and agreements with the capitalist and bourgeois landowner heads of the countries of the so-called third world and make them even tighter. This situation also serves the social-imperialist aims of the Chinese revisionists.

In regard to the theory of the <<non-aligned world>>, the Yugoslav revisionists raise it to a universal theory which is supposed to replace the Marxist-Leninist theory which, in their view, has become <<obsolete>>, is no longer <<relevant>>, because the peoples and the world have allegedly changed. They do not denounce Marxism-Leninism openly, as Carrillo does, but they fight it by defending their theory of the <<non-aligned world>>, whereas those who defend Marxism-Leninism, according to the Yugoslav revisionists, always repeat the same <<mistake>>, they do not agree that the principles and norms of this revolutionary doctrine must be corrected, hence they are <<recidivists>>. According to them, the Party of Labour of Albania (which is the target of their attack) is a <<recidivist>>, party because it wants to apply the scientific principles, methods and doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin to <<a world entirely different from that of their time>>.

The Titoite views are totally anti-Marxist. And the analysis they make of the process of world development today proceeds from these positions. Modern revisionism, in general, and Yugoslav and Chinese revisionism, in particular, are against the revolution.

The Yugoslav and Chinese revisionists consider American imperialism a powerful force which can adopt a more logical course, can <<help>> the present world which, according to them, is developing and does not want to be aligned. But the Yugoslav theory is unable to make a proper definition of the term <<non aligned>> itself. From what point of view are the countries it includes in this world it advocates nonaligned, politically, ideologically, economically or militarily? The Yugoslav pseudo-Marxist theory does not touch on or mention this question, because all these countries, which it is seeking to lead under the guise of a new world, cannot extricate themselves from their many and various forms of dependence on American imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism. The Yugoslav <<theory>> makes great play with the fact that now the colonialism of the old type has been abolished, in general, but it does not say that many peoples have fallen into the clutches of the new colonialism. We Marxist-Leninists do not deny the fact that colonialism in the old forms has been abolished, but we stress that it has been replaced by neo-colonialism. The same colonialists of yesterday are still oppressing the peoples today, through their economic and military potential, and disorganizing them politically and ideologically by introducing their corrupt way of life.

The Titoites call such a situation a great transformation of the world and add that neither Marx nor Lenin, let alone Stalin, whom they reject altogether, conceived such a possibility. According to them, the peoples are now free, independent, and aspire only to non-alignment, while the wealth of the world should be divided in a more rational and just manner.

For this <<aspiration>> to be realized, the Yugoslav <<theoreticiansm>> ask the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists and the developed capitalist countries, out of the kindness of their hearts to contribute, through international conferences, debates, and the concessions which the countries will make to one another, to the transformation of the present world, which they say, <<has reached such a level of consciousness as to be able to go to socialism>>.

This is the <<socialism>> the Titoite revisionist preach, a sermon they encourage to distract the peoples as much as possible from the reality. Being against the revolution, they are for the preservation of social peace so that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat cae reach agreement on the

<<improvement of the living standard of the lower classes>>. That is, they humbly beg the upper classes to become <<generous>> and hand out something from their profits to the <<wretched of the earth>>.

Tito wants to turn the theory of the <<non-aligned world>> <<into a universal doctrine>>, which, as we mentioned above, allegedly suits the <<situation in the world today>>. The peoples of the, world have awakened and want to live free, but according to Tito's theory, this <<freedom>> is not <<complete>> now because of the existence of the two blocs, the NATO bloc and the Warsaw bloc.

Tito poses as the leading figure and standard-bearer of the anti-bloc policy. It is true that his country is not a member of NATO or the Warsaw Treaty, but it is linked with these military organizations by many threads.

The Yugoslav economy and policy are not independent, they are conditioned by the credits, aid and loans they receive from the capitalist countries and, first of all, from American imperialism. That is why he relies mostly on this imperialism. However, Tito also relies on Soviet imperialism and all other big capitalist powers. So Yugoslavia, which claims to be non-aligned is aligned, de facto if not de jure, with the aggressive organizations of the superpowers.

There are many leaders in various countries of the world like Tito, whom he wants to gather together in the so-called non-aligned world. These personalities, in general, are bourgeois, capitalist, non-Marxist, many of whom are fighting the revolution. The labels socialist, democrat, social-democrat, republican, independent republican, etc., that some of these personalities assume, in most cases serve to deceive the proletariat and the oppressed people, in order to keep them in bondage, and play politics at their expense.

Anti-Marxist capitalist ideology prevails in the <<non-aligned>> states. Many of these states have links and entanglements with the superpowers an all the developed capitalist countries of the world in the same way as Titoite Yugoslavia. The only basis for the grouping in the non-aligned world., under Tito's leadership, which he advocates for all countries of the world, is the aim and activity to quell the revolution, to stop the proletariat and peoples from rising in insurrection to overthrow the old capitalist society and establish the new society, socialism.

This is the idea and the main principle which guides Tito in bringing these countries together. He pretends that he has managed to group them together and assume the leadership of them, but in fact, no such thing exists, as nobody gives the Titoite theory of the <<non-aligned world>>, or the Chinese theory of <<three worlds>>, the importance which their standard-bearers desire and strive for. Everybody goes his own way on the road that brings hini the greatest and most immediate gains.

All the indications show that American imperialism and world capitalism prefer the,<<non-aligned world>> of Tito rather than the <<third world>> of the Chinese. Although they support the Chinese theory of <<three worlds>>, the developed capitalist countries and American imperialism are, however, a bit wary and hesitant, because the strengthening of China may lead to undesirable situations and eventually become dangerous to the Americans themselves. Whereas the <<non-aligned world>> of Tito poses no danger at all to the United States of America. That is why, during Tito's last visit to the United States of America, Carter extolled his role in creating the <<non-aligned world>> and described the movement of the <<non aligned countries>> as <<a very important factor in solving the major problems of the present-day world>>.

The <<non-aligned countries>>, most of which are capitalist countries, have cast the dice. They know how to manoeuvre in politics, and they side with those imperialist and capitalist powers which give them most aid. According to the bourgeois and capitalist view, to engage in politics means to deceive, to trick, to outwit the others as heavily and as often as possible. This policy is a policy of prostitution, which, in certain moments and according to passing circumstances, is aimed at getting at least a little hard cash from a more Powerful state in the interest of one's class, in the interest of the bosses of this class. Titoism, with its theory of the <<non-aligned world>>, preaches precisely this policy. But it does not have the same orientation everywhere, as Tito makes out. The <<non-aligned>> states do not consult Tito as to what they should do and how they should act. With a few exceptions, the rulers of these states are trying to consolidate their capitalist power, to exploit the people, to be on friendly terms with a big imperialist country, to prevent or suppress the outburst of any people's revolt and insurrection, any revolution. This is the whole policy of the Titoite <<non-aligned world>>. The Chinese theory of the <<third world>> is also for the status quo. The purpose of the Titoite <<non-aligned world>> is to beg credits from American imperialism and the other capitalist countries to enrich the bourgeois class and keep it in power. With its theory of the<<third world>>, China, too, wants to enrich itself, to strengthen itself economically and militarily in order to become a superpower, to dominate the world. The aims of both these worlds. are anti-Marxist. They are pro-capital, pro-American imperialism.

As Tito's visit to China and Hua Kuo-feng's visit to Yugoslavia showed, the Yugoslavia revsionists are lavishing praises and cunning flattery on China, well-adapted to the character, of the Chinese revisionists and intended to lure them to the Yugoslav positions, so that the theory of the <<non-aligned countries>>, will find not only understanding, but also complete acceptance in Peking.

Although they do not renounce their theory of the <<third world>>, the Chinese revisionist leaders, headed by Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao-ping, have come out in open support of the Titoite theory of the<<non-aligned world>>.They have demonstrated that they want to work closely with the Yugoslav revisionists along the same lines, on two parallel rails, with the anti-Marxist common aim of deceiving the peoples of the <<third world>>. The Yugoslav leaders are now elaborating these views in defence of China. In defending it, however, they have raised some arguments- which are offensive to China, as the megalomaniac state it is. The Titoite come out in support of China and defend it against the exposure which our Party makes of the Chinese leadership, by saying that China's present policy is allegedly realistic.

China, say the Yugoslavs, is a big country, which from its very nature has to be developed, as it is still backward, a developing country. The Marxist-Leninist parties, such as the Party of Labour of Albania, are wrong, the Titoites claim, when they attack China over its just aspirations to development and non-alignment, over the aid it gives national liberation wars, etc., etc. Yugoslavia has the ambition to make China one of its satellites. For the Yugoslav revisionists the important thing is that China should adopt their anti-Marxist views without any hesitation.

With the theory of the <<non-aligned world>>, Yugoslavia, with Tito at the head, has always faithfully served American imperialism. Tito and his group are performing this kind of service now, too, by trying to push China towards rapprochement and alliance with the United States of America. This was the main aim of Tito's going to Peking and of his talks there, which resulted in a close friendship, which, with Hua Kuo-feng's visit to Yugoslavia, has taken the form of wideranging collaboration, not only between the two states, but also between the two parties. During Tito's visit to Peking, the Chinese leaders half admitted that the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was a Marxist-Leninist party and that genuine socialism was being built in Yugoslavia. When Hua Kuo-feng went to Belgrade, they stated this completely and officially.

In other words, the Maoists have done just what Mikoyan and Khrushchev did in their time, when they gave Tito full recognition as a <<Marxist>>, and declared that <<socialism is being built in Yugoslavia>> and that the <<Communist Party of Yugoslavia is a Marxist-Leninist party>>.

The United States of America pulls either the Tito string, or the Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao-ping strings, according to its wishes. This pair are marionettes which do not come out openly on the stages of children's theatres, but remain in disguise and, when their theories are attacked and they find no facts to back their arguments, they declare that <<they do not engage in polemics>>! Why do they not engage in polemics with socialist Albania, when it and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Labour expose them badly before world opinion? What are they waiting for? They do not engage in polemics because they fear that their treacherous game against Marxism-Leninism and the revolution will be exposed. When the Chinese leaders, through the Yugoslavs and others, say that China will not reply to the Albanian polemics, their purpose is to cover up the truth.


The United States of America, the Soviet Union and other capitalist countries are continually holding various bilateral, or multilateral meetings, all kinds of conferences, congresses, adopting resolutions, making speeches and organizing press conferences, telling many lies and spreading false hopes, making threats and resorting to blackmail. All these things are being done to get out of the crisis in which they are bogged down, to suppress the feelings of revenge of the suffering oppressed peoples, to outwit the broad working masses and the proletariat, and deceive the progressive democrats. The Yugoslav and Chinese revisionists, too, are playing their cards in all this devious and filthy game.


The theory of the <<developing world>> is also, one of the cards of this game which has the same anti-Marxist aim of befuddling people's minds.

This theory makes no mention of political problems because to do so would be in vain. Only the <<economic problem>> and the <<problem of development>> in general exist for this theory. But what kind of development the theory of the <<developing world>> is after, this nobody defines. Naturally, the various countries of the world want to develop in the economic, political, cultural, and all other fields. The peoples of the world, with the proletariat at the head, want to overthrow the old. rotten, bourgeois capitalist world and build the new world, socialism, in its place. But the theories .of the ,,non-aligned world. and the developing world. make no mention of this world.

When we Marxist-Leninists speak of the various countries, we also give our opinions of them, make assessments of the level of development of one country or the other, of the possibilities of each state to develop in this direction. We say that the people of each country must carry out the revolution and build the new society, relying on their own forces. We say that in order to be free, independent and sovereign, every state must build a new society, must fight and overthrow its oppressors, must fight any imperialism which enslaves it, must gain and defend its political, economic and cultural rights, and build a completely free, completely independent homeland where the working class must rule in alliance with all the working masses. This is what we say and we are resolute defenders of the Leninist thesis about two worlds. We are members of the new socialislt world and we are fighting the old c world to the death.

All other <<theories>> which divide the world into the <<first world>>, <<Second world>>, <<third world>>, <<non-aligned world>>,.<< developing world>> or any other <<world>> which may be invented in the future, serve capitalism, serve the hegemony of the great powers, serve their aims of keeping the peoples in bondage. This is why we combat these these reactionary anti-Marxist theories with all our strength.

The whole world and, especially, the countries of the so-called third world, non-aligned world, or developing world are following the struggle of our Party with sympathy. In our Marxist-Leninist views, in the ideological and polittical stand of our Party, the peoples of these countries whom the Chinese, Titoite and Soviet revisionist theories, and the theories of American imperialism, etc., are intended to deceive, see a correct stand which corresponds to the correct course for their liberation from oppression and exploitation once and for all.

Precisely because of this the enemies of Marxism-Leninism and our Party try to level the accusation at us that we are sectarian, ultra-leftist, Blanquist,, that we do not make a correct analysis of the international situation but stick to some outmoded schemata, etc. It is clear that they are referring to our revolutionary doctrine, which they call <<Marxist-Leninist schematism>>,<<Stalinist schematism>>, etc.

They accuse us of allegedly calling on the countries which have escaped from the form of exploitation by old colonialism and which have entered the form of exploitation of the new colonialism, to go over immediately to socialism, to carry out the proletarian revolution immediately. They think they are striking a blow at us with this, by presenting us as adventurers.




But our Party stands loyal to the Marxist-Leninist theory, the theory which has correctly defined the road of the revolution, the stages this revolution must go through, and the conditions which must be fulfilled for this revolution, either national-democratic and anti-imperialist or socialist, to be carried out successfully. We stood loyal to this theory during our Anti-fascist National Liberation War, we are standing loyal to it now, in the construction of socialism, we stand loyal to it in our ideological struggle and foreign policy. Our analysis is correct, therefore no calumny can shake it.



II


CHINA'S PLAN TO BECOME A

SUPERPOWER


In the beginning, while analysing the global strategy of US imperialism and Soviet socialimperialism for world domination, while analysing the emergence and development of the different variants of modern revisionism, as well as the struggle of all these enemies against Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, we also dwelt on the place and strategy of Chinese revisionism. China styles its political line Marxist-Leninist, but the reality shows the opposite. It is precisely the true nature of this line that we MarxistLeninists must lay bare. We must not allow the Chinese revisionist theories to pass for Marxist theories, we must not allow China, on the course it has adopted, to pose as if it is fighting for the revolution, whereas in reality it is against it.

With the policy China is pursuing, it is becoming even more obvious that it is trying to strengthen the positions of capitalism at home and to establish its hegemony in the world, to become a great imperialist power, so that it, too, occupies, so to say, the <<place it deserves>>.

History shows that every big capitalist country aims to become a great world power, to overtake and surpass the other great powers, and compete with them for world domination. The roads the big bourgeois states have followed to turn into imperialist powers have been various; they have been conditioned by definite historical and geographical circumstances, by the development of the productive forces, etc. The road of the United States of America is different from that followed by the old European powers like Britain, France and Germany, which were formed as such on the basis of colonial occupations.

After the Second World War, the United States of America was left the greatest capitalist power. On the basis of the great economic and military potential it possessed, and through the development of neo-colonialism, it was transformed into an imperialist superpower. But before long another superpower was added to this, the Soviet Union, which after Stalin's death and after the betrayal of Marxisrn-Leninism by the Khrushchevite leadership, was transformed into an imperialist superpower. For this purpose it exploited the great economic, technical and military potential built up by socialism.

We are now witnessing the efforts of another big state, today's China, to become a super power because it, too, is proceeding rapidly on the road of Capitalism. But China lacks colonies, lacks large-scale developed industry, lacks a strong economy in general, and a great thermo-nuclear potential on the same scale as the other two imperialist superpowers.

To become a superpower it is absolutely essential to have a developed economy, an army equipped with atomic bombs, to ensure markets and spheres of influence, investment of capital in foreign countries, etc. China is bent on ensuring these conditions as quickly as possible. This was expressed in Chou En-lai's speech in the People's Assembly in 1975 and was repeated at the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of China, where it was proclaimed that, before the end of this century, China will become a powerful modern country, with the objective of catching up with the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Now this whole plan has been extended and set out in precise detail in what is called the policy of the <<four modernizations>>. But what road has China chosen so that it, too, will become a superpower?

At present, the colonies and markets in the world are occupied by others. The creation of an economic and military potential equal to that of the Americans and Soviets, within 20 years, and with their own forces, as the Chinese leaders claim they will do, is impossible.

In these conditions, in order to become a superpower, China will have to go through two main phases: first, it must seek credits and investments from US imperialism and the other developed capitalist countries, purchase new technology in order to exploit its local wealth, a great part of which will go as dividends for the creditors. Second, it will invest the surplus value extracted at the expense of the Chinese people in states of various continents, just as the US imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists are doing today.

China's efforts to become a superpower are based, in the first place, on its choice of allies and the creation of alliances. Two superpowers exist in the world today, US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. The Chinese leaders worked out that they must rely on US imperialism, on which they have pinned great hopes of getting assistance in the fields of the economy, finance, technology and organization, as well as in the military field. In fact, the economic-military potential of the United States of America is greater than that of Soviet social-imperialism. This the Chinese revisionists know well, though they say that America is declining. On the course which they are following, they cannot rely on a weak partner, from which they cannot gain much. Precisely because it is powerful, they have chosen the United States of America to be their ally.

The alliance with the United States of America and the accommodation of the Chinese policy to the policy of US imperialism also has other aims. it contains in itself the threat against Soviet social-imperialism, which is plain from the deafening propaganda and the feverish activity the Chinese leaders are carrying out against the Soviet Union. With this policy it is pursuing, China is letting the revisionist Soviet Union know that its links with the United States of America constitute a colossal force against it, in case an imperialist war breaks out.

The present-day Chinese policy is also aimed at establishing friendships and alliances with all at the other developed capitalist countries, from which it seeks political and economic benefits. China wants and is trying to strengthen the US alliance with these countries of the second world., as it calls them. It is encouraging their unity with, or more accurately, their subjection to, US imperialism, which it regards as its senior partner.

This is the explanation for all those close links that the Chinese government is bent on establishing with all the wealthy capitalist states, Japan, West Germany, Britain, France, etc., this is the explanation for the frequent visits to China of government economic, cultural and scientific delegations from the United States of America and all the other developed capitalist countries, whether republics or kingdoms, as well as the visits of the Chinese delegations to those countries. This is the explanation for China's systematic actions to demonstrate its stand in favour of the United States of America and the other industrialized capitalist states at every opportunity, by trying to bring to notice everything that is written, said and done in these states against Soviet social-imperialism.

This policy of the Chinese leaders cannot fail to attract attention and find due support from the United States of America. As is known, at the time of the Second World War in the American State Department there were two lobbies over the Chinese issue: one pro Chiang Kai-shek and the other pro Mao Tsetung. Of course, at that time the Chiang Kal-shek lobby triumphed in the American State Department and Senate, while the Mao Tsetung lobby triumphed on the spot, in mainland China. Among the inspirers of this lobby were Marshall and Vandemeyer, Edgar Snow and others, who became friends and advisers of the Chinese, the instigators and inspirers of all kinds of organizations in new China. Today the threads of those old ties are being revived, strengthened, intensified and materialized. Now everybody sees that China and the United States of America are drawing ever closer to each other. Some time ago, one of the best-informed American newspapers, <<The Washington Post>>, wrote: <<There is now an American consensus which is supported even by the Right, even by those who have little sympathy for Peking.


According to this consensus, whatever migt have happened in the past, there is no, longer any reason for China to be considered a threat to the United States of America. Except for Taiwan, there are few things on which the two governments are not in agreement. In fact, both sides have agreed to put aside the Taiwan question with the aim of gaining advantage in other fields>>.

The issue of Taiwan which is raised in the relations between China and the United States of America, has remained something formal. China is not insisting on this question now. It is not worried about Hong-Kong and is not in the least cocerned that Macao is still under the domination of the Portuguese. The Chinese government does not accept the offer of the new Portuguese government to restore this colony to China, saying that *(a gift is not taken back.. The existence of these colonies is an anachronism, but this does not upset the pragmatic policy of the Chinese leaders. So long as Hong-Kong and Macao remain colonies, why should Taiwan, too, not bea colony? Apparently China is greatly interested that Taiwan should remain as it is in the future, too. Besides its open relations it carries on in the light of the day, it is interested in developing its disguised trafficking with the American imperialists, the British, Japanese and other imperialists. through these three doors. Therefore, the nonsense Teng Hsiao-ping and Li Hsien-nien try to put across that Sino-American relations allegedly depend on the stand of the Americans towards Taiwan, is nothing but a smoke-screen to conceal the course on which China has set out towards rapprochement with the United States of America in order to become a superpower.

Carter has declared that the United States of America will establish diplomatic relations with China. As far as Taiwan is concerned, it will adopt Japan's stand, i.e., formally it will break off diplomatic relations with the island, without breaking off economic and cultural relations, and under cover of them, military relations. In fact, China is interested in the military relations of the United States of America with Taiwan. It wants the United States of America to maintain forces in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and the Indian Ocean, because it thinks that this is to China's advantage, for thus a counter-weight is created against the Soviet Union.

All these stands are connected with the course the Chinese leadership has chosen for China to become a superpower, by trying to develop its economy and increase its military potential through credits and investments from the United States of America and other big capitalist countries. It justifies this course by claiming that it is allegedly applying a correct policy, the <<Marxist>> line of Mao Tsetung, according to whom <<China ought to benefit from the world's great successes, new patents and technologies, making foreign things serve its internal development>>, etc. The articles of <<Renmin Ribao>> and the speeches of the Chinese leaders are full of such slogans. According to the Chinese concept, to benefit from the inventions and industrial achievements of other states means to take credits and accept investments from. the United States of America, Japan, West Germany, France, Britain and all the other capitalist countries, for which it is lavish with praise.

The Chinese leaders have adopted the revisionist theories that big countries such as China, which have many assets, can take credits from American imperialism or any powerful capitalist state, trust or bank, because they allegedly have the possibilities to repay the credits. The Yugoslav revisionists have come out in defence of this view. By advertising their experience of the <<construction of specific socialism>> with aid from the world financial oligarchy and especially US capital, they are providing the example and encouraging China to proceed on this course without hesitation.

The big countries may repay the credits they receive, but the imperialist investments which are made in these big states, such as the revisionist Soviet Union, China, or anywhere else, cannot fall to leave grave neo-colonialist consequences.

The wealth and toil of the peoles are exploited also in the interest of the foreign capitalist concerns and monopolies. The American imperialists, as well as the developed capitalist states of Western Europe or Japan, which are making investments in China and in the revisionist countries, intend to dig themselves in there, to interlock the concerns of their countries in close collaboration with the trusts and branches of the main industries in these countries.

The question of capital investment by imperialist states in China is not so simple as the revisionists strive to make out when they call this penetration of capital into their countries harmless because, allegedly, it is not coming in through interstate relations (although top Chinese leaders have recently declared that they will accept government credits from abroad), but through private banks and companies without political implications and interests. The incurring of heavy debts by any country, big or small, to one imperialism or another, is always fraught with unavoidable dangers to the freedom, independence and sovereignty of the country which embarks on this course, especially of economically poor countries such as China. A true socialist country has no need to incur such debts. It finds the resources for its econoinic development at home, in its wealth, in its internal accumulation and in the creative force of the people. The example of Albania, a small country, shows very clearly what inexhaustible means, resources and capacities a socialist country has for its development. And the means and resources of a big country are much greater still, if it marches consistently on the road of MarxismLeninism.

The opening up of the Chinese market to American imperialism and the big American and other Western companies has been welcomed with unrestrained delight by the imperialists of the United States of America and all the international bourgeoisie. The multinational companies, the industrialists of the United States of America, have a good knowledge of China's economy and its great assets, therefore they are doing their utmost to build up their economic network there, to set up joint companies and extract large profits. Not only the big American companies but also the companies of Japan, Germany and the other developed capitalist countries are operating in China in this way. China has already concluded a contract with Japan for the delivery of up to 10 million tons of oil per year. A big team of representatives of the Italian ENI went to China to offer licences for Oil prospecting instruments there, but they found themselves forstalled by large groups from the American oil companies which had earlier entered into agreements with China on the joint extraction and exploitation of oil. This is what China is doing also in other mining sectors like iron and other minerals, large resources of which are already known or may be discovered there. The German coal magnates are now in China and have concluded contracts worth scores of billions of marks. Chinese ministers are going back and forth to Japan, America and Europe in order to get credits, to sign contracts for modern technological equipment, to buy modern weapons, to conclude

technical-scientific agreements, etc. The doors of all Chinese institutions and enterprises have been opened to the businessmen from Tokyo, Wall-Street and the European Common Market, who are hurrying to Peking, vying with one another to secure contracts for the large <<modernization>> projects the Chinese government is offering them. In this way China, too, is entering the whirpool of imperialist greed, the great imperialist hunger for minerals and raw materials, and the exploitation of Chinese labour power.

Everyone knows that the capitalist does not give anyone aid without first considering his own economic, political and ideological interests. It is not simply a question of the percentage of profit he makes. Along with the credit it gives, the capitalist country also introduces its way of life, its capitalist way of thinking, into the country which receives its <<aid>>, it sets up bases and spreads out insidiously, like oil in cabbage, expands its spider's web with the spider always there in the centre, ready to suck the blood of all the flies which become entangled in its web, as has happened with Yugoslavia and is happening now with the Soviet Union. The same will happen with China, too. Consequently, China will give way, as it is doing already, on political and ideological questions, and the Chinese market will become a very important debouché for American imperialism and the other industrialized capitalist powers.

The American, West-German, Japanese and other credits and investments in China cannot fail to affect its independence and sovereignty to one degree or another. Such credits make every recipient state dependent, for the lender imposes his own policy on it. Therefore, any state, big or small, which gets caught up in the mechanism of imperialism suffers curtailment or loss of its political freedom, its independence and sovereignty.


Even the Soviet Union has been reduced to this state of curtailed sovereignty, although when it embarked on the course of the restoration of capitalism, it was far more powerful economically and militarily than present-day China, which is setting out on the same course.

Naturally, when they get themselves caught up in the mechanism of imperialism, the small countries loose their freedom and independence more quickly than big countries like China and the Soviet Union, which may lose them more gradually, not only because they have greater economic and military potential, but also because, relying on this potential, they struggle to protect their markets and seize new ones, to create and expand their spheres of influence in order to bring pressure to bear upon one another, and even go to war when they find no other way out. But still this does not save them from the chains of the credits and investments which bind them hand and foot. The credits must be repaid with interest. However, when you are unable to pay them, you will incur new debts. Debts pile up and the capitalist demands his payment and when you cannot pay he will put the pressure on you. The American monopoly companies, for example, which impose their policy on the government, force it to protect their capital by every means, ,even to declare war, if need be, to defend them.

Judging by the zeal the Chinese leaders are displaying in their attempts to base themselves on American imperialism, on the capitalists of the United States of America, for the development of the economy of their country, all their deafening clamour about the weakening of this imperialism falls flat. Their allegations about the weakening of American imperialism are only a bluff, like their declaration about relying on their own forces. The Chinese revisionists think the opposite of what they say, as everybody can see from their practice.

The official Chinese newspapers often voice their concern aboutt he credits the social-imperialist Soviet Union receives from the American, WestGerman, Japanese and other banks. They warn the United States of America and the other developed capitalist countries to be careful because the Soviet Union uses the technological assistance and credits they provide to develop and strengthen its economic and military potential, and that this aid and these credits increase the danger threatening them from social-imperialisrn, which, according to the Chinese leaders, today has taken the place of the Third Relch. Therefore, they call for these credits to be cut off as soon as possible. The Chinese press speaks in the same terms as Strauss, the notorious West-German nazi and revanchist.

It is not difficult to deduce the real meaning of the <<concern>> which the Chinese leaders display about the credits which the Soviet Union receives. Naturally, they are not worried about the capitalist nature of these credits, nor about the danger they pose to the sovereignty of the Soviet state. But they want to tell the magnates of American capital and the government of the United States of America, the capitalists and the governents of the other imperialist countries, that they must give these credits and this aid not to the Soviet Union, but to China, which is no source of danger to them, but a source of profits. This is one aspect of the Chinese plan to become a superpower. The other aspect is the attempts to dominate the less developed countries of the world, to become the leader of what China calls the <<third world>>.

The group ruling today in China lays great stress on the <<third world>> in which, not fortuitously and not without a purpose, it includes China, too. The <<third world>> of the Chinese revisionists has a well-defined political aim. It is part of the strategy which aims at transforming China into a superpower as quickly as possible. China wants to rally round itself all the countries of the <<third world>> or the non-aligned. countries or the <<developing countries>>, in order to create a large force, which will not only increase the overall Chinese potential but will also help China to counterpose itself to the other two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, to carry greater weight in the bargaining over the division of markets and spheres of influence, to gain the true status of an imperialist superpower.




China is trying to realize its aim of rallying as many states of the world as possible round itself under the slogan that it is allegedly for the liberation of the peoples from neo-colonialism, and their transition to socialism through the struggle against imperialism. China speaks about this imperialism somewhat in the abstract but it emphasizes that Soviet imperialism is the most dangerous.

China has launched this demagogic slogan, devoid of any theoretical content, in the hope of using it as a means to realize its hegemonic aims. As a start, it intends to establish Chinese domination over the so-called third world and then to manipulate this <<world>> for its own imperialist interests. For the time being, China is trying to conceal this with its reputation as a socialist country. It is speculating with the assumption that a socialist country could have no intentions of enslaving or leading others by the nose, of blackmailing, fighting, oppressing and exploiting them. It is using this slogan and backing it up with the reputation that the Communist Party of China, created by the <<great>> Mao Tsetung, is allegedly a Marxist-Leninist party which faithfully adheres to the theory of Marx and Lenin, a theory which is against all the evils of the capitalist system, colonial exploitation, etc. Disguised as something which it is not, hiding behind the phrase the <<third world>>, and including itself without any criterion or class definition in this <<world>>, China thinks that it will more easily realize its strategic aim of establishing its hegemony over this world. The Soviet Union has practised the same deception on other countries. All the Khrushchevite revisionists prate night and day that they are <<communists>> and that their parties are <<genuine Marxist-Leninist parties>>. The Soviet revisionists ' also, are trying to establish their hegemony over the world under this disguise. Consequently, we may say that there is no essential difference between the actions of the Chinese and those of Soviet social-imperialists.

All this development of the Chinese policy and actions fully confirms the description Marxism-Leninism gives of imperialism as the domination of the financial oligarchy which is bent on capturing markets, dominating the world and establishing its hegemony everywhere. On this road, China too is trying to penetrate and get a -foothold. in the countries of the <<third world>>. But this <<foothold>> has to be gained through great sacrifices.

To penetrate the <<third world>>, to capture markets, requires capital. The ruling classes in power in the countries of the <<third world>> want investments, credits and <<aid.>>. However, China is not in a position to give them .Kaid. on a large scale, because it does not have the necessary economic potential. It is precisely this potential that it is now trying to build up with the aid of American imperialism. In these conditions, the bourgeoisie ruling in the countries of the <<third world>> is well aware that, for the time being, it cannot gain much from China economically, technologically, or militarily. It can gain more from American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism which have great economic, technical and military potential.

However, like every country with imperialist aims, China is fighting and will fight harder still for markets in the world. It is striving and will strive harder still to spread its influence and extend its domination. These plans are apparent even now. China is opening its own banks, not only in Hong Kong, where it has had them for a long time, but also in Europe and elsewhere. It will strive especially to open banks in and export capital to the countries of <<the third>> world.. For the present it is doing very little in this field. China's <<aid>> amounts to the building of some cement factory, railway, or hospital, for its possibilities are limited. Only when the American, Japanese and other investments in China begin to yield the fruits it desires, that is, when its economy, trade and military technology are developed, will China be able to embark on a venture of real large-scale economic and military expansion. But to achieve this, time is needed.

Until that time it will have to manoeuvre, as it has begun doing already, by means of a policy of aid. and credits either interest-free or at low rates of interest, at a time when the Soviets and Americans are demanding much higher interest rates. As long as Chinese capital cannot flow out of its country, the revisionist Chinese leadership will focus its attention on the propaganda aspect of the small amount of <<aid>> and credits it accords the <<developing countries>>, extolling its <<internationalist character>> and <<disinterested aims>>, accompanying this with the motto of <<self-reliance>> for the liberation and construction of one's country.

The more China develops economically and militarily, the more it will want to penetrate into and dominate the small and less developed countries by means of its exports of capital, and then it will no longer charge a 1-2 percent interest for its credits, but will act like all the others.

But all these plans and efforts cannot be carried out easily. The developed imperialist and capitalist countries, which have influence in the countries of the socalled third world, will not allow China to caeture the markets they conquered long ago through predatory wars, so easily. Not only are they strongly defending their old positions but they are also trying in every way to capture new ones, and are not allowing China to lay its hand on these countries.

Imperialism is ruthless towards any of its partners, when it is in difficulties or when it is flourishing. Sometimes, from necessity and in order to make greater profits, it may make some concession, but mostly it tries to reinforce its chains, not only a weak countries, but also against the developed ones, like the industrialized capitalist states. For example, the United States of America has always pursued this policy towards its capitalist allies, when they have found themselves in difficulties in the imperialist wars that have broken out amongst them. But even after these wars, when they have been making efforts to recover, American imperialism has done its utmost to prevent them from penetrating into the other countries of the world, where it had established its domination. Thus, after the Second World War, the United States of America, while pretending to assist Britain and France, which had emerged from the war weakened, penetrated deeply into the markets of the sterling, franc and other areas. The American monopolies and cartels of metallurgy, chemicals, transport and many other branches of vital importance for the development of capitalism, penetrated the monopolies and cartels of Britain, France, etc., in overwhelming proportions, making these countries subservient to American imperialism. This savage and insatiable imperialism, as any other imperialism, cannot act otherwise with China, either.

Taking account of the difficulties of economic and military penetration into the couiatries of the <<third world>>, China thinks that its hegemony over them may be secured by establishing its political and ideological influence. It thinks that this will be attained by operating in three directions: to refrain from fighting American imperialism and the ruling cliques in the capitalist counties, to enter into alliance with this imperialism and these cliques instead; to combat Soviet social-imperialism which it has on its borders, in order to weaken and destroy its bases in Asia, Africa and Latin America; to deceive the proletariat and the long-suffering peoples of these continents by means of pseudo-revolutionary and pseudo-socialist demagogy and manoeuvres, while undermining any revolutionary liberation movement.

American imperialism and the other imperialist powers, together with social-imperialism, are well aware of these aims of China's. The countries of the third world. also understand them, hence they are suspicious of China and see that it is working a bluff with them, that its aim is not to support and assist them, but to become a superpower itself. Most of the leaderships which are ruling in the countries of the so-called third world,have long 'been linked closely with American imperialism or with the developed capitalist powers, such as Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Japan etc. Therefore China's flirtation with the <<third world>> does not worry the developed imperialist and capitalist states in the least.

China's efforts to join the <<third world>> through its policy and its ideology, the so-called Mao Tsetung thought, cannot succeed, also, because its ideology and political line are chaotic. The political line of China is confused, it is a pragmatic line which wavers and changes according to passing circumstances and momentary interests. The ruling classes in the states of the <<third world>> are not afraid of this ideology, because they understand that it is not for the revolution and the true national liberation of the. peoples. In order to exercise its oppression and exploitation of these peoples more easily, the. bourgeoisie in these countries has created its own parties under all sorts of labels. These parties, which are closely linked with the foreign capital invested in the states of the so-called third world, have no difficulty in combating and exposing the Chinese line. Therefore, the Chinese revisionist leaders have chosen a course of smiles towards the parties of these countries and are trying in every way and in every instance to be <<as sweet as honey>> with them.

Having its plan to dominate the <<third world>>, China is doing its best to channel the movements of the working masses in that <<world>> in its own interests. Today, however, the oppressed peoples, with the proletariat at the head, are no longer in the situation they were at the end of the19th century or the beginning of the 20th century. They oppose any policy of hegemony and subjugation by the big imperialist powers, old or new, whether American, Soviet or Chinese. Today, the broad masses of the peoples of the world, in general, have awakened and, through their struggles, have managed in one way or another to gain a certain consciousness about defending their economic and political rights. The peoples of the socalled third world cannot fail to see that China is working not to carry the ideas of the revolution and national liberation to their countries, but to extinguish the revolution, which hinders the penetration of Chinese influence. The Chinese course of the alliance with the United States of America and the other neo-colonialist countries also exposes Chinese social-imperialism in the eyes of the peoples.

China cannot carry on positive revolutionary propaganda in the countries of the <<third world>>, also, because it would come into collision with that superpower from which it is hoping to get investments of capital in China and advanced technology. China cannot conduct such propaganda, also, because the revolution would overthrow precisely those reactionary cliques ruling in a number of countries of the so-called third world, which China is supporting and helping to stay in power.

The great ambition of the Chinese leaders to transform their country into a superpower as soon as possible and to establish its hegemony everywhere, especially in the so-called third world, has impelled them to make incitement of inter-imperialist war the basis of their strategy and foreign policy. They greatly desire a frontal clash between the United States of America and the Soviet Union in Europe, during which China, from a comfortable distance away, would warm its hands at the atomic holocaust that would destroy its two main rivals and leave it the all-powerful, sole ruler of the world.


Until it feels strong enough to compete with the other superpowers, until it wins the <<place it deserves>> as a superpower, China will seek peace for itself and war for the others. Connected with their present need for peace are the overt diplomatic manoeuvres of the Chinese revisionists to incite war between the United States of America and the Soviet Union in such a way that they themselves can keep out of it and get on with their <<modernizations>>. Teng Hsiao-ping's declaration that there will be no war within 20 years, is not fortuitous. With this he wants to tell the superpowers and the other imperialist countries, not to be afraid of China during these 20 years.

At the same time, the Chinese leaders are inciting war between the superpowers in Europe, far from China and the danger of its involvement in it. To what extent this will be possible is another matter. but the Chinese leaders are working in this direction, because they feel the indispensable need for peace for the period they think they need for the realization of their aims of transforming China into a superpower.

China is loudly advocating the strengthening of <<European unity>>, <<the unity of the developed capitalist countries of Europe>>. It supports this unity on all questions, presuming to teach the old wolves and foxes how they should strengthen their military and economic unity, their state organizational unity, etc., in face of the great danger from Soviet social-imperialism.

But they have no need for these lessons from China because they are in a position to know, and do know very well, where the danger comes from.

The developed countries of the West are not so naive as to apply the Chinese advice and desires <<a la lettre>>. They are strengthening themselves to cope with an eventual danger from the Soviet Union, but at the same time, they are also making consuderable efforts not to aggravate their relations with it, not to go too far and anger the <<Russian bear>>. This, naturally, runs contrary to China's desire.

China's incitement of their contradictions with the Soviets is to the liking of the capitalist states and the United States of America, because it enables them to tell the Soviets indirectly, <<Your main enemy is China, whereas we, together with you, want to establish détente, peaceful coexistence, irrespective of what China says>>.

On the other hand, while making believe that they want peace, these states are arming themselves to strengthen their hegemony and military unity against their main enemy - the revolution.

This is the aim of all the meetings, such as those of Helsinki and Belgrade, which drag on and on endlessly, like the Vienna Congress after the defeat of Napoleon, which is known as the congress of balls and soirées.

The Chinese leaders, as Teng Hsiao-ping declared officially in the interview he gave the director of AFP, are calling for the creation of a <<broad front which will include the third world, the second world and the United States of America>>, in order to combat Soviet social-imperialism.

The strategy of the revisionist leadership of China of instigating US imperialism, Western Europe, etc., to war against Soviet social-imperialism is fraught with the danger of a war between China and the Soviet Union rather than a war between the Soviet Union and the United States of America and its NATO allies.

What China is doing by inciting the others to war is precisely what US imperialism, the developed capitalist countries and all the other countries, where bourgeois capitalist cliques are in power, are doing, too, in inciting both China and the, Soviet Union against each other.

Therefore, it is most likely that the policy of the United States of America and the wrong strategy of China itself, may impel the Soviet Union to increase its military strength even further, and as the imperialist power it is, to attack China first.

On its part, China has a marked inclination to attack the Soviet Union when it feels strong enough, because it has great territorial ambitions towards Siberia and other territories in the Far East. It raised these territorial claims long ago, but it will push its claims rather more when it is ready, when it has built up an army equipped with all kinds of weapons. This is the implicationin Hua Kuo Feng's statement to the former coservative Prime Minister of Britain, Heath, when. he said: <<We hope that we shall see a united and powerful Europe; we believe that on its part Europe, too, hopes to see a powerful China>>. In aword, Hua Kuo-feng says to the big European bourgeoisie: <<Build up your strength and attack: the Soviet Union from the West, while we the Chinese, will strengthen ourselves and attack it from the East>>.

The Chinese policy opened up a broad and very profitable avenue for the United States of America, an avenue which was initially opened up, by Mao Tsetung, Chou En-lai and Nixon. Many bridges were built between the United States of America and China, camouflaged bridges, but effective and fruitful. Nixon preached:<<We must, build up a bridge long enough to link San Francisco, with Peking>>. The invitation that Mao Tsetung and Chou En-lai extended to Nixon after the Watergate scandal, and Nixon's reception by Mao were. not without a reason and without a purpose.

This meant that the friendship with the United States of America was not just a temporary friendship between persons, but a friendship between countries, between China and the United States of America, although the president who opened this. road had been removed from his post for his corrupt practices.

Now that Carter has come to power, the ties of friendship between China and the United States of America are being consolidated. The United States of America is greatly interested in the present-day stand of China and Carter is encouraging its strategy in many ways.

The United States of America is interested in giving China all-round political, military and economic aid to incite it against the Soviet Union. It has given China atomic secrets. This is now clear. The United States of America has also supplied it with the most up-to-date computers which serve nuclear war. China has received complete data so that it can build its own nuclear submarines. Now there is open official talk in Washington of supplying China with modern weapons. All these <<blessings>> the United States of America is offering China, naturally, are not given with the purpose of helping it become such a big land and naval power as to endanger even the United States of America, as Japan did during the Second World War. No, US imperialism carefully calculates the so-called aid it gives anywhere in the world, and especially to China.

In this way, the aim and feverish efforts of China to become a superpower which will counterbalance both the United States of America and the Soviet Union, cannot fail to lead to new frictions, conflagrations, wars, which may have a local character or the character of a general war.

The whole theory of the three worlds., its entire strategy, the alliances and <<fronts>> it advocates, the objectives it seeks to achieve, are incitement to imperialist world war.

Nikita Khrushchev and the modem revisionists elaborated the ill-famed theory of Khrushchevite <<peaceful coexistence>>, which advocated <<social peace>>, <<peaceful competition>>, <<the peaceful road>> of the revolution, <<a world without arms and without wars>>. It was intended to weaken the class struggle by concealing and smoothing over the fundamental contradictions of our epoch. In particular, Khrushchev advocated the dying out of contradictions between the Soviet Union and American imperialism and the contradictions between the socialist system and the capitalist system in general. He fostered the view that, after the changes that had occurred in the world at that time, the historical contradiction between socialism and capitalism would be resolved through peaceful competition in the economic, ideo-political, cultural, and other fields.

<<Let us leave it to time to prove and then we shall see who is right>>, said Khrushchev and in this competition the peoples <<in sacred peace>> would freely choose the most suitable regime. Nikita Khrushchev advised the peoples to sell their riches to the superpowers and wait to secure their freedom, independence and well-being as a result of this famous peaceful. competition. Of course this anti-Marxist policy was exposed, and it was our Party that first attacked it.

The Communist Party of China has been following a policy like that of Khruslichev since the time when Mao Tsetung was alive. This policy, too, calls on both sides, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the peoples and their rulers, to cease the class struggle, to unite against Soviet social-imperialism only, and forget about American imperialism.

The theory of three worlds. is a reactionary theory just as Khrushcliev's theory of <<peaceful coexistence>> was. But while Khrushchev and his followers, the champions of modern revisionism, on the face of it seemed to be pacifists, Mao Tsetung, Teng Hsiao-ping, Hua Kuo-feng, etc., present themselves openly as warmongers. They want to give the imperialist-capitalist coalition, in which China includes itself, the colour and significance of an organism of revolutionary struggle, a struggle for the victory of the proletariat and the liberation of the peoples. In reality, however, the <<theory>> of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China about the three worlds. calls not for revolution but for imperialist war.

The exacerbation of contradictions and rivalries among imperialist powers and groupings is fraught with the danger of armed conflicts, of predatory wars of enslavement. This is a wellknown thesis of Marxism-Leninism which history has proved to the hilt. Present-day international developments also demonstrate its correctness.

Many a time the Party of Labour of Albania has raised its voice to expose the deafening pacifist propaganda which the superpowers spread in order to lull the peoples and the freedom-loving countries to sleep and blunt their vigilance, in order to bemuse them with illusions and catch them unawares. More than once it has drawn attention to the fact that American imperialism and Russian social-imperialism are leading the world towards a new world war and that the danger of the outbreak of such a war is real and by no means imaginary. This danger cannot fail to be a matter of constant concern to the peoples, the broad working masses, the peace-loving forces and countries, the Marxist-Leninists and the progressive people everywhere in the world, who, in the face of this danger cannot stand by passively and do nothing. But what should be done to stay the hand of the imperialist warmongers?

This cannot be achieved through a course of capitulation and submission to imperialist warmongers, or of toning down the struggle against them. The facts have proved that the unprincipled compromises and concessions of the Khrushchevite revisionists did not make American imperialism any tamer, better behaved, or more peaceful, but on the contrary they made it more arrogant and voracious. But the Marxist-Leninists are not for pitting one imperialist state or groups ing against the other, nor do they call for imperialist wars, for it is the peoples who suffer in them. The great Lenin pointed out that our policy is not aimed at inciting war, but at preventing the Imperialists from uniting against the socialist country.


<<...if we were really driving workers and peasants to war,>> he said, <<that would be a crime. All our. politics and propaganda, however, are directed towards putting an end to war and in no way towards driving nations to war. Experience has shown very clearly that the socialist revolution is the only way out of eternal warfar>>. Lenin


Hence, the only correct course is to raise the working class, the broad strata of the working people and the peoples in revolutionary actions to stay the hand of the imperialist warmongers in their own countries. Marxist-Leninists have always been and are the most determined opponents of unjust wars. Lenin taught the communist revolutionaries that their duty is to smash the warmongering plans of imperialism and prevent the outbreak of war. If they cannot achieve this, then they must mobilize the working class, the masses of the people, and transform the imperialist war into a revolutionary liberation war. The imperialists and social-imperialists have aggressive war in their bloodstream. Their ambitions to enslave the world lead them to war. But although it is the imperialists who unleash imperialist world war, it is the proletariat, the peoples, the revolutionaries and all progressives who pay the price in blood. That is why the Marxist-Leninists, the proletariat and the peoples of the world are against imperialist world war and fight relentlessly to foil the plans of the imperialists so that they do not drive the world to a new Slaughter. Hence imperialist war must not be advocated as the Chinese revisionists are doing, but must be combated. The duty of Marxist-Leninists is to raise the proletariat and the peoples of the world in struggle against oppressors to wrest their power and privileges from them and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. China is not doing this, the Communist Party of China is not working for this. With its revisionist theory, this party is weakening and delaying the revolution, splitting the vanguard forces of the proletariat, the Marxist-Leninist parties which will organize and lead this revolution.

The course which the Chinese leadership advocates is a fraud. It is a course which does not conform to our doctrine, Marxism-Leninism. On the contrary, the Chinese revisionist line weakens, breaks up the proletariat and the peoples, threatens them with bearing the burden of a bloody war, an imperialist, a criminal war, so greatly detested by the proletariat and the peoples.

For this reason, too, Mao Tsetung's theory of <<three worlds>> and the political activity of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese state cannot in any way be called Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary. When Khrushchev advocated economic, ideological and political competition between socialism and imperialism, the Chinese leaders were allegedly against this thesis and said that for genuine peaceful coexistence to be realized, imperialism must be fought, because <<coexistence>> cannot destroy imperialism, cannot lead to the triumph of the revolution and liberation of the peoples.

But these declarations remained only words on paper. In reality the leadership of the Communist Party of China has been and is also in favour of peaceful coexistence of the Khrushchev type. The document we quoted, <<A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist

Movement>>, reads: <<A principled policy is the only correct policy... What does a principled policy mean? It means that in laying down and elaborating any kind of policy, we must take the proletarian standpoint, must proceed from the basic interests of the proletariat and be guided by the theory and the fundamental theses of Marxism-Leninism>>. This is what the Communist Party of China stated, but what has it done and what is it doing now? It has done and is doing quite the opposite.

In the above mentioned document and on other occasions, the Communist Party of China has stated, American imperialism must be exposed as the greatest enemy of the revolution, socialism and the peoples of the entire world..

Among other things it has added, one must not rely on American imperialism, nor on any other impe rialism, <<one must not rely on American imperialism, nor on any other imperialism, one must not rely reactionaries>>. But the Communist Party of China has not implemented these theses. The Party of Labour of Albania, which bases itself firmly on the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, resolutely upholds the struggle against imperialism and social-imperialism. It is precisely over this question that socialist Albania is in opposition to China, and the Party of Labour of Albania is in opposition to the Communist Party of China. The Chinese leaders level the accusation at us Albanians that allegedly we do not make a <<Marxist-Leninist analysis of the international situation and contradictions>>, and as a consequence, do not follow the Chinese line calling on <<United Europe>>, the European Common Market and the proletarians of the world to unite with the Americans against the Soviets. Their conclusion is that since we do not support American imperialism, <<United Europe>>, etc., we allegedly favour Soviet social-imperialism.

Not only is this stand of theirs revisionist, disguised under the cloak of <<anti-revisionism>>, but it is also hostile and slanderous to socialist Albania. American imperialism is aggressive, bellicose and warmongering. The United States of America does not want just the status quo, as the Chinese claim, it wants expansion. Otherwise there is no reason why it should have contradictions with the Soviet Union. The quotation of Mao, which they refer to, that <<America has become like a rat with the whole world chasing it in the street, shouting: 'Kill it! Kill it!'>>, is intended to prove that only the Soviet Union wants war, while the United States of America does not. This softness towards the United States of America is to discourage any attack on this state, which <<has been reduced to a rat>> but which has to become China's ally. This is the anti-Marxist strategy of <<the Marxistx>> Mao!

The Chinese <<strategy>>, founded on their analysis based on the theory of the <<three worlds>>, has <<definitely>> defined that <<the rivalry between the two superpowers is centered in Europe>>. Strange! But why precisely in Europe and not in some other part of the world such as in Asia, Africa, Australia or Latin America, where the Soviet Union is seeking expansion?

The Chinese <<theoreticians>> do not explain this. This is how they <<argue>> their case: the chief rival of the United States of America is the Soviet Union. These two superpowers, of which one is for the status quo and the other for expansion, will unleash the war in Eumpe, as in the time of Hitler. He, too, wanted expansion and domination of the world, but in order to achieve this, he had first to defeat France, Britain and the Soviet Union. For these reasons, Hitler started the war in Europe and not elsewhere. And further, the Chinese revisionists reason that Stalin relied on Britain and the United States of America. Then, the on the United States of America? But as we explained above, they forget that the Soviet Union linked itself with Britain and the United States of America only after Germany had attacked the Soviet Union and not before.

When the Germany of Wilhelm II attacked France and Britain, the heads of the Second International advocated <<defence of the bourgeois homeland>>. Both the German and the French socialists fell into this position. How Lenin condemned this and what he said against imperialist wars is common knowledge. Now when they preach unity of the European peoples with imperialism in the name of defence of national independence, the Chinese revisionists, too, are acting in the same way as the partisans of the Second Inernational. Contrary to the theses of Lenin, they are inciting the future nuclear war which the two, superpowers are trying to launch, and issuing <<patriotic>> calls to the peoples and the proletariat of Western Europe to put aside their <<petty>> differences with the bourgeoisie (over oppression, hunger, murders, unemployment), to refrain from threatening its state power and unite with NATO,

<<United Europe>>, the Common Market of the big bourgeoisie and the European concerns, and fight only against the Soviet Union, and become disciplined soldiers for the bourgeoisie. Even the Second International could not have done better.

But what advice has the Chinese leadership to offer the peoples of the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries of the Warsaw Treaty and Comecon? None at all! It is rather quiet on this subject and takes no account at all of these peoples.

From time to time it urges the revisionist cliques ruling in these countries to break away from the Soviet Union and unite with America. In fact it tells these peoples: keep quiet, submit, and become cannon fodder for the blood-thirsty Kremlin clique! This line of the Chinese revisionist leadership is anti-proletarian and warmongering.

All this shows that the Chinese leaders are deliberately complicating the international situations. They see these situations according to their own interests of making China a superpower and not according to the interests of the revolution. They see them from the angle of their imperialist state and not of the liberation of the peoples, from the angle of extinguishing the revolution in their own country and revolutions in other countries, and not from the angle of the organization and intensification of the struggle of the proletariat and the peoples against the two superpowers, as well as against the bourgeois capitalist oppressors of other countries, they see them from the angle of inciting imperialist world war and not of opposing it. China's course of becoming a superpower will have grave consequences, first of all for China itself and the Chinese people. The Marxist-Leninist analysis of the Chinese policy leads to the conclusion that the Chinese leadership is driving China into an impasse. By serving American imperialism and world capitalisrn it thinks it will draw some profits for itself, but these profits are dubious and will cost China dear. They will bring the country to catastrophe and, of course, will have considerable repercussions in other countries as well.

China's policy of becoming a superpower, which is inspired by an anti-Marxist ideology, is being exposed and will be exposed still more in the eyes of all peoples, but particularly the peoples of the so-called third world. The peoples of the world understand the aims of the policy of each state, whatever it be, socialist, revisionist, capitalist or imperialist. They see and understand that, though China poses as a member of the <<third world>>, it does not have the same aspirations and aims as these peoples. They see that it is pursuing a social-imperialist policy. Therefore, it is understandable that this unpopular policy, which encourages social and national oppress, is unacceptatble to the peoples. It is a policy in the interests only of the reactionary cliques, of those who are dominating and oppressing the peoples. China supports and supplies arms to Somalia which, at the instigation of the United States of America, is fighting Ethiopia. Meanwhile, Ethiopia is being by the Soviet Union to gobble up Somalia. This is what is happening with Eritrea, too. Thus, China takes one side, the Soviet Union takes the other. If anyone in Somalia looks on China with a kindly eye, it is those who are in power, but not the people of that country who are being killed. It is not looked on with a kindly eve either by the leadership of Ethiopia which has the support of the Soviets or by the Ethiopian people, who are being egged on against the Somalis who allegedly want to occupy Ethiopia. Thus China has no influence at all, either in Ethiopia or in Somalia. But it is not looked upon with a kindly eye in Algeria, either. The latter supports the <<Polisario>> front, whereas China takes the side of Mauritania and Morocco, that is, the side of US imperialism.

In its foreign policy China pursues an allegedly pro-Arab course. But this policy consists solely of the issue of uniting the Arab peoples against Soviet social-imperialism. Thus, it is selfevident that China assists every rapprochement of the Arabs with the United States of America, first of all.

In regard to Israel. the Chinese leadership has a great deal to say against it. But, in reality, with its strategy. it is pro-Israeli. The Arab peoples, and particularly the Palestinian people, have taken note of this. In the countries of Asia, we may say that China has no obvious and lasting influence. China is not in sincere and close friendship with its neighbour countries, let alone with the other, more distant countries. The policy of China is not and cannot be correct so long as it is not a Marxist-Leninist policy. On the basis of such a policy it cannot be in sincere friendship with Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, etc. China poses as wanting friendship with these countries, but, in fact, disputes over political, territorial and economic questions exist between China and these countries.

With the policy it is following, China has now come into open conflict with Vietnam. Grave incidents are occurring on the border between these two countries.


The Chinese social-imperialists have been interfering seriously in the iternal affairs of Vietnam, and are fanning up the conflict between Cambodia and Vietnam, etc., for their own expansionist objectives. When the Chinese leadership behaves in such a way towards Vietnam, which until yesterday it considered a fraternal country and close friend, what must the Asian countries think about the Chinese policy? Can they trust it?

It would be a waste of time to speak about China's influence in the countries of Latin America. It has no influence there, either political, ideological or economic. The sum total of China's influence rests on its friendship with a certain Pinochet, who is a rabid fascist hangman. This stand of China has incensed not only the peoples of Latin America, but the whole of world opinion. They see that the Chinese leadership is pro oppressive rulers, pro dictators and generals ruling over the peoples, pro US imperialism which has gripped the peoples of this continent by the throat. Thus we can say that China's influence in the countries of Latin America is insignificant, without strength or substance.

The policy of the Chinese leaders does not enjoy the sympathy and support of the peoples, but on the contrary, will lead China to ever greater isolation from the progressive states and the world proletariat. No people, no proletariat or revolutionaries can support China's policy, when they see former German nazi generals, former Japanese militarist generals and admirals, Portuguese fascist generals, etc., etc., standing beside the Chinese leaders on the Tien An Men tribune, as happened on National Day, October 1, 1977.

China cannot go ahead with its course of transforming itself into a superpower without intensifying the exploitation of the broad working masses at hdme. The United States of America and the other capitalist states will seek to secure superprofits from the capital they will' invest there, they will also press for rapid and radical transformations of the base and superstructure of Chinese society in the capitalist direction. The intensification of the exploitation of the multimillion strong masses to maintain the Chinese bourgeoisie and its gigantic bureaucratic apparatus and to meet the repayment of the credits and interest to the foreign capitalists, will undoubtedly give rise todeep contradictions between the Chinese proletariat and peasantry, on the one hand, and the bourgeois-revisionist rulers, on the other. This will bring the latter into confrontation with the working masses of their own country, a thing which cannot fail to lead to sharp conflicts and revolutionary outbursts in China.


III


<<MAO TSETUNG THOUGHT>> - AN

ANTI-MARXIST THEORY


The present situation in the Communist Party of China, its many zig-zags and wavering, opportunist stands, the frequent changes of its strategy, the policy the Chinese leadership has been and is following to make China a superpower, quite naturally raise the problem of the place and role of Mao Tsetung and his ideas, the so-called Mao Tsetung thought, in the Chinese revolution.

<<Mao Tsetung thought>> is a <<theory>> devoid of the features of Marxism-Leninism. All the Chinese leaders, both those who were in power before and those who have seized power today, have always made great play with the <<Mao Tsetung thought>>, in their forms of organization and ways of action, their strategic and tactical aims, in order to put their counterrevolutionary plans into practice. Seeing the dubious activity, wavering and contradictory stands, the lack of principles and the pragmatism of Chinese internal and external policy, its deviation from Marxism-Leninism and the use of left phrases to disguise it, we Albanian Communists have gradually formed our opinions and conviction about the danger presented by <<Mao Tsetung thought>>. When our Party was founded, during the National Liberation War, as well as after Liberation, our people had very little knowledge about China. But, like all the revolutionaries of the world, we, too, had formed an opinion that it was progressive: <<China is a vast continent. China is fighting, the revolution against foreign imperialism, against concessions is seething in China>>, etc., etc.

We had some general knowledge about the activity of Sun Yat-sen, about his connections and friendship with the Soviet Union and with Lenin; we knew something about the Kuomintang, about the Chinese people's war against the Japanese and about the existence of the Communist Party of China, which was considered a great party, with a Marxist-Leninist, Mao Tsetung, at the head. And that was all.

Our Party had closer contacts with the Chinese only after 1956. The contacts steadily increased due to the struggle our Party was waging against Khrushchevite modern revisionism. At that time our contacts with the Communist Party of China, or more accurately, with its leading cadres, became more frequent and closer, especially when the Communist Party of China, too, entered into open conflict with the Khrushchevite revisionists. But we have to admit that in the meetings we had with the Chinese leaders, although they were good, comradely meetings, in some ways, China, Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, remained a great enigma to us.

But why were China, its Communist Party and Mao Tsetung an enigma? They were an enigma because many attitudes, whether general ones or the personal attitudes of Chinese leaders, towards a series of major political, ideological, military, and organizational problems vacillated, at times to the right, at times to the left. Sometimes they were resolute and at times irresolute, there were times, too, when they maintained correct stands, but more often it was their opportunist stands that caught the eye. During the entire period that Mao was alive, the Chinese policy, in general, was a vacillating one, a policy changing with the circumstances, lacking a Marxist-Leninist spinal cord. What they would say about an important political problem today they would contradict tomorrow. In the Chinese policy, one consistent enduring red thread could not be found.

Naturally, all these attitudes attracted our attention and we did not approve them, but nevertheless, from what we knew about the activity of Mao Tsetung, we proceeded from the general idea that he was a Marxist-Leninist. On many of Mao Tsetung's theses, such as that about the handling of the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as non-antagonistic contradictions, the thesis about the existence of antagonistic classes during the entire period of socialism, the thesis that <<the countryside should encircle the city>>, which absolutizes the role of the peasantry in the revolution, etc., we had our reservations and our own Marxist-Leninist views, which, whenever we could, we expressed to the Chinese leaders. Meanwhile, certain other political views an stands of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, which were not compatible with the Marxist-Leninist views and stands of our Party, we considered as temporary tactics of a big state, dictated by specific situations. But, with the passage of time, it became ever more clear that the stands maintained by the Communist Party of China were not just tactics.

By analysing the facts, our Party arrived at some general and specific conclusions, which made it vigilant, but it avoided polemics with the Communist Party of China and Chinese leaders, not because it was afraid to engage in polemics with them, but because the facts, which it had about the erroneous, anti-Marxist course of this party and Mao Tsetung himself, were incomplete, and still did not permit the drawing of a final conclusion. On the other hand, for a time, the Communist Party of China did oppose US imperialism and reaction. It also took a stand against Soviet Khrushchevite revisionism, though it is now clear that its struggle against Soviet revisionism was not dictated from correct, principled Marxist-Leninist positions.

Besides this, we did not have full knowledge about the internal political, economic, cultural, social life, etc. in China. The organization of the Chinese party and state have always been a closed book to us. The Communist Party of China gave us no possibility at all to study the forms of organization of the Chinese party and state. We Albanian communists knew only the general outlines of the state organization of China and nothing more; we were given no possibilities to acquaint ourselves with the experience of the party in China, to see how it operated, how it was organized, in what directions things were developing in different sectors and what these directions were concretely.

The Chinese leaders have acted with guile. They have not made public many documents necessary for one to know the activity of their party and state. They were and are very wary of publishing their documents. Even those few published documents at our disposal are fragmentary.

The four volumes of Mao's works, which can be considered official, are comprised of materials written no later than 1949, but besides this, they are carefully arranged in such a way that they do not present an exact picture of the real situations that developed in China. The political and theoretical presentation of problems in the Chinese press, not to speak of literature, which was in utter disarray had only a propaganda character. The articles were full of typically Chinese stereotyped formulas expressed arithmetically, such as <<the Three Goods and the Five Evils>>, <<the Four Olds and Four News>>, <<the Two Reminders and Five Self-controls>>, <<the Three Truths and Seven Falses>>, etc., etc. We found it difficult to work out the <<theoretical.>> sense of these arithmetical figures, because we are used to thinking, acting and writing according to the traditional Marxist-Leninist theory and culture.

The Chinese leaders did not invite any delegation from our Party to study their experience. And when some delegation has gone there on our Party's request, the Chinese have engaged in propaganda and taken it here and there for visits to cornmunes and factories rather than give it some explanation or experience about the work of the party. And towards whom did they maintain this strange stand? Towards us Albanians, their friends, who have defended them in the most difficult situations. All these actions were incomprehensible to us, but also a signal that the Communist Party of China did not want to give us a clear picture of its situation.

But what attracted our Party's attention most was the Cultural Revolution, which raised a number of major questions in our minds. During the Cultural Revolution, initiated by Mao Tsetung, astonishing political, ideological and organizational ideas and actions came to light in the activity of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese state, which were not based on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. In judging their previous dubious actions, as well as those observed during the Cultural Revolution, and especially the events following this revolution up till now, the rises and falls of this or that group in the leadership, today the group of Lin Piao, tomorrow that of Teng Hsiao-ping, a Hua Kuo-feng, etc., each of which had its own platform opposed to the other's, all these things impelled our Party to delve more deeply into the views and actions of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, to get a more thorough knowledge of <<Mao Tsetung thought>> When we saw that this Cultural Revolution was not being led by the party but was a chaotic outburst following a call issued by Mao Tsetung, this did not seem to us to be a revolutionary stand. It was Mao's authority in China that made millions of unorganized youth, students and pupils, rise to their feet and march on Peking, on party and state committees, which they dispersed. It was said that these young people represented the <<proletarian ideology>> in China at that time and would show the party and the proletarians the <<true>> road!

Such a revolution, which had a pronounced political character, was called a cultural revolution. In our Party's opinion, this name was not accurate, since, in fact, the movement that had burst out in China was a political, not a cultural movement. But the main thing was the fact that neither the party nor the proletariat were in the leadership of this <<reat proletarian revolution>>. This grave situation stemmed from Mao Tsetung's old anti-Marxist concepts of underestimation of the leading role of the proletariat and overestimation of the youth in the revolution. Mao wrote: <<What role did the Chinese young people begin to play since the 'May 4th Movement'? In a way they began to play a vanguard role - a fact recognised by everybody in our country except the ultra-reactionaries. What is a vanguard role? It means taking the lead...>>. *Mao

Thus the working class was left on the sidelines, and there were many instances when it opposed the red guards and even fought them. Our comrades, who were in China at that time, have seen with their own eyes factory workers fighting the youth. The party was disintegrated. It was liquidated, and the communists and the proletariat were totally disregarded. This was a very grave situation.

Our Party supported the Cultural Revolu~ tion, because the victories of the revolution in China were in danger. Mao Tsetung himself told us that power in the party and state there had been usurped by the renegade group of Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping and the victories of the Chinese revolution were in danger. In these conditions, no matter who was to blame that matters had gone so far, our Party supported the Cultural Revolution.

Our Party defended the fraternal Chinese people, the cause of the revolution and socialism in China, and not the factional strife of anti-Marxist groups, which were clashing and fighting with one another, even with guns, in order to seize power.

The course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian. It was a palace Putsch on an all-China scale for the liquidation of a handful of reactionaries who had seized power.

Of course ' this Cultural Revolution was a hoax. It liquidated both the Communist Party of China, and the mass organizations and plunged China into new chaos. This revoltion was led by non-Marxist elements, who have been liquidated through a military putsch staged by other anti-Marxist and fascist elements.

In our press Mao Tsetung has been described as a great Marxist-Leninist, but we never used and never approved the definitions of the Chinese propaganda which described Mao as a classic of Marxism-Leninism, and <<Mao Tsetung thought>> as its third and higher stage. Our Party has considered the inflation of the cult of Mao Tsetung in China to be incompatible with Marxism-Leninism.

The chaotic development of the Cultural Revolution and its results further strengthened the opinion, still not fully crystallized, that MarxismLeninism was not known and was not being applied in China, that in essence, the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung did not hold MarxistLeninist views, regardless of the faqade and the slogans they used about <<the proletariat, its dictatorship, and its alliance with the poor peasantry>>, and many other such shibboleths.

In the light of these events, our Party began to look more deeply into the causes of the vacillations which had been observed in the stand of the Chinese leadership towards Khrushchevite revisionism, such as the instance in 1962, when it sought reconciliation and unity with the Soviet revisionists, allegedly in the name of a common front against American imperialism, or in 1964, when, continuing the efforts for reconciliation with the Soviets, Chou En-lai went to Moscow to hail the coming to power of the Brezhnev group. These vacillations were not accidental. They reflected the lack of revolutionary principles and consistency. When Nixon was invited to China, and the Chinese leadership, with Mao Tsetung at the head, proclaimed the policy of rapprochement and unity with American imperialism, it became clear that the Chinese line and policy were in total opposition to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Following this, China's chauvinist and hegemonic ambitions began to become clearer. The Chinese leadership started to oppose the revolutionary and liberation struggles of the peoples, the world proletariat, and the genuine Marxist-Leninist movement more openly. It proclaimed the so-called theory of the <<three worlds>>, which it was trying to impose on the entire Marxist-Leninist movement as its general line.

For the sake of the interests of the revolution and socialism, and thinking that the mistakes observed in the line of the Communist Party of China were due to incorrect assessments of situations and to various difficulties, the Party of Labour of Albania has tried, more than once, to help the Chinese leadership correct and overcome them. -Our Party has openly expressed its views, in a sincere and comradely way, to Mao Tsetung and other Chinese leaders, and on many of China's actions which directly affected the general line of the Marxist-Leninist movement, the interests of the peoples and revolution, it has made its remarks and disagreement known to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China officially and in writing. welcomed to correct and principled remarks of our Party. It has never replied to them and has never agreed even to discuss them. Meanwhile the anti-Marxist actions of the Chinese leadership at home and abroad became more flagrant and more obvious. All this compelled our Party, like all the other Marxist-Leninists, to reappraise the line of the Communist Party of China, the political and ideological concepts by which it has been guided, its concrete activity and its consequences. As a result we saw that Mao Tsetung thought-, by which the Communist Party of China has been and is being guided, represents a dangerous variant of modern revisionism, against which an all-round struggle on the theoretical and political plane must be waged.


<<Mao Tsetung thought>> is a variant of revisionism, which began to take shape even before the

Second World War, especially after 1935, when Mao Tsetung came to power. In this period Mao Tsetung and his supporters launched a <<theoretical>> campaign under the slogan of the struggle against <<dogmatism>>, <<ready-made patterns>>, <<foreign stereotypes>>, etc., and raised the problem of elaboratine a national Marxism, negating the universal character of Marxism-Leninism. Instead Of Marxism-Leninism he preached the <<Chinese way>> of treating problems, and the Chinese style <<.... lively and fresh, pleasant to the ears and eyes of the Chinese people>>* (Mao), in this way propagating the revisionist thesis that in each country Marxism should have its individual, specific content.

<<Mao Tsetung thought>> was proclaimed as the highest stage of Marxism-Leninism in the present era. The Chinese leaders have declared that <<Mao Tsetung has achieved more than Marx, Engels, and Lenin...>>. The Constitution of the Communist Party of China, approved at its 9th Congress, which was held under Mao Tsetung's leadership, says that <<Mao Tsetung thought is the Marxism-Leninism of the era ... >>, that Mao Tse-tung <<....has inherited, defended and developed Marxism-Leninism and has raised it to a newhigher stage>>. Basing the activity of the party on <<Mao Tsetung thought>> instead of on the principles and norms of Marxism-Leninism opened the doors even more widely to opportunism and factional struggle within the ranks of the Communist Party of China. <<Mao Tsetung thought>> is an amalgam of views in which ideas and theses borrowed from Marxism are mixed up with idealist, pragmatic and revisionist principles from other philosophies.

It has its roots in ancient Chinese philosophy, and in the political and ideological past, in the state and militarist practice of China. All the Chinese leaders, those who have taken power at present as well as those who have been in and who have fallen from power, but who have manoeuvred to put their counterrevolutionary plans into practice, have had and have <<Mao Tsetung thought>> as their ideological basis. Mao Tsetung himself has admitted that his thoughts can be exploited by all, both by the leftists and the rightists, as he calls the various groups that comprise the Chinese leadership. In the letter he wrote to Chiang Ching on July 8, 1966, Mao Tsetung affirms, <<the rightists in power might use my words to make themselves powerful for a certain time, but the left can use other words of mine and organize itself to overthrow the rightists>>*(Le Monde dec. '72). This shows that Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist, that his views are eclectic. This is apparent in all Mao's <<theoretical works>> which, although camouflaged with <<revolutionary>> phraseology and slogans, cannot conceal the fact that <<Mao Tsetung thought>> has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism.

A critical survey of Mao's writings, even ofpart of them, of the way he treats the fundamental problems concerning the role of the communist party, the questions of the revolution, the construction of socialism, etc., makes the radical difference between <<Mao Tsetung thought>> and Marxism-Leninism completely clear. Let us first consider the question of the organization of the Party and its leading role. Mao pretended to be for the application of the Leninist principles on the party, but if his ideas on the party and, especially, the practice of the life of the party are analysed concretely, it becomes evident that he has replaced the Leninist principles and norms with revisionist theses.

Mao Tsetung has not organized the Communist Party of China on the basis of the principles of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. He has not worked to make it a party of the Leninist type, a Bolshevik party. Mao Tsetung was not for a proletarian class party, but for a party without class restrictions. He has used the slogan of giving the party a mass character in order to wipe out the distinction between the party and the class. As a result, anybody could enter or leave this party whenever he liked. On this question <<Mao Tsetung thought>> is identical with the views of the Yugoslav revisionists and the <<Eurocommunists>>.

Besides this, Mao Tsetung has always made the building of the party, its principles and norms dependent on his political stands and interests, dependent on his opportunist, sometimes rightist and sometimes leftist, adventurist policy, the struggle among factions, etc.

There has been and there is no true MarxistLeninist unity of thought and action in the Communist Party of China. The strife among factions, which has existed since the founding of the Communist Party of China, has meant that a correct Marxist-Leninist line has not been laid down in this party, and it has not been guided by Marxist-Leninist thought. The various tendencies which manifested themselves among the main leaders of the party were at times leftist, at times right opportunist, sometimes centrist, and going as far as openly anarchist, chauvinist and racist views. During the whole time Mao Tsetung and the group around him were at the head of the party, these tendencies were among the distinctive features of the Communist Party of China. Mao Tsetung himself has advocated the need for the existence of <<two lines>> in the party. According to him, the existence and struggle between two lines is something natural, is a manifestation of the unity of the opposites, is a flexible policy which unites in itself both loyalty to principles and compromise. <<Thus,>> he writes, <<we have two hands to deal with a comrade who has made mistakes: one hand to struggle with him and the other to unite with him. The aim of this struggle is to uphold the principles of Marxism, which means being principled; that is one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is to unite with him. The aim of unity is to offer him a way out, to reach a compromise with him>>.

These views are diametrically opposed to the Leninist teachings on the communist party as an organized vanguard detachment which must have a single line and steel unity of thought and action.

The class struggle in the ranks of the party, as a reflection of the class struggle going on outside the party, has nothing in common with Mao Tsetung's concepts on the <<two lines in the party>>. The party is not an arena of classes and the struggle between antagonistic classes, it is not a gathering of people with contradictory aims. The genuine Marxist-Leninist party is the party of the working class only and bases itself on the interests of this class. This is the decisive factor for the triumph of the revolution and the construction of socialism. Defending the Leninist principles on the party, which do not permit the existence of many lines, of opposing trends in the communist party, J. V. Stalin emphasized:


<< ... the communist party is the monolithic party of the proletariat, and not a party of a bloc of elements of different classes.>> Mao


Mao Tsetung, however, conceives the party as a union of classes with contradictory interests, as an organization in which two forces, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the <<proletarian staff>> and the ,<<ourgeois staff>>, which must have their representatives from the grassroots to the highest leading organs of the party, confront and struggle against each other. Thus, in 1956, he sought the election of the leaders of right and left factions to the Central Committee, presenting to this end, arguments as naive as they were ridiculous. <<The entire country,>> he says, <<the whole world knows well that they have made mistakes in the line and the fact that they are well known is precisely the reason for electing them. What can you do about it? They are well known, but you who have made no mistakes or have made only small ones don't have as big a reputation as theirs. In a country like ours with its very large petty-bourgeoisie they are two standards>>. While renouncing principled struggle in the ranks of the party, Mao Tsetung played the game of factions, sought -compromise with some of them to counter some others and thus consolidate his own positions. With such an organizational platform, the Communist Party of China has never been and never Could be a Marxist-Leninist party. The Leninist principles and norms were not respected in it. The congressof the party, its highest collective organ, has not been convened regularly. For instance, 11 years went by between the 7 th and the 8th congresses. and after the war, 13 years between the 8th and the 9th congresses. Besides this, the congresses which were held were formal, more parades than working meetings. The delegates to the congresses were not elected in conformity with the Marxist-Leninist principles and norms of the life of the party, but were appolinted by the leading organs and acted according to the system of permanent representation.



Recently, <<Renmin Ribao>> published an article by a so-called theoretical group oil the <<General Directory>> of the Central Commitee of the Communist Party of China*. (Always Keep in Mind the Teachings of Chairman Mao - Sept. '77) This article says that under the name of the <<General Directory>>, Mao had set up around himself a special apparatus which kept the Political Bureau, the Central Committee of the Party, the caeres of the state, the army, the security service, etc., under surveillance and control. Entry to this Directory and knowledge of its work was forbidden to all, including the members of the CentraI Committee and the Political Bureau. Here plans for the bringing down or elevation of this or that factionalist group were worked out. The men of this Directory were present everywhere, they eaves-dropped, watched, and reported independently, Outside the control of the party. Apart from them, this Directory had at its disposal entire armed detachments, hidden under the name of the <<Guard of Chairman Mao>>. This praetorian guard more than 50,000 strong went into action whenever the chairman wanted <<to act with one blow>>, as has frequently occurred in the history of the Communist Party of China and as occured recently with the arrest of <<The Four>> and their supporters by Hua Kuo-feng. Under the pretext of maintaining contacts with the masses, Mao Tsetung had also created a special network of informers among the population who were charged with the task of keeping the cadres of the base under surveillance and investigating the conditions and state of mind of the masses, without anybody's knowledge. They reported directly to Mao Tsetung alone, who had severed all means of communication with the masses and saw the world only through the reports of his agents of the <<General Directory>>. Mao said, <<For myself, I am a person who does not listen to the radio, either foreign or Chinese, but 1 only transmit>>. He also said, <<I have stated openly that 1 shall no longer read the newspaper 'Renmin Ribao'. I told its Editor-in-chief 'I do not read your paper'>>.* (From Mao conversation with comrades from our Party, Feb. 3, 1967. Central Archivals of the Party of Labour of Albania).

The article of <<Renmin Ribao>> provides new information which enables one to understand even more clearly the anti-Marxist direction and personal power of Mao Tsetung in the Chinese party and state. Mao Tsetung did not have the slightest respect for either the Central Committee or the congress of the party, let alone the party as a whole and its committees at the base. The party committees, the leading cadres and the Central Committee itself received orders from the <<General Directory>>, this <<special staff>>, which was responsible to Mao Tsetung alone. The party forums, its elected organs, had no authority what~ soever. The article of <<Renmin Ribao>> says, <<no telegram, no letter, no document, no order could be issued by anybody without first going through Mao Tsetung's hands and being approved by him>>. It turns out that as early as 1953, Mao Tsetung had issued a clear-cut order: <<From now on, all documents and telegrams sent out in the name of the Central Committee can be dispatched only after I have gone over them, otherwise they are invalid>>*. (Mao) Under these conditions there can be no talk of collective leadership, democracy within the party, or Leninist norms.

Mao Tsetung's unlimited power was so farreaching that he even appointed his heirs. At one time he had appointed Liu Shao-chi as his successor. Later he declared that his heir to the state and the party after his death would be Lin Piao. This, a thing unprecedented in the practice of Marxist-Leninist parties, was even sanctioned in the Constitution of the party. Again it was Mao Tsetung who designated Hua Kuo-feng to be chairman of the party after his death. Having power in his hands, Mao alone criticized, judged, punished and later rehabilitated top leaders of the party and state. This was the case even with Teng Hsiao-ping, who, in his so-called self-criticism of October 23, 1966, stated: <<Liu Shao-chi and I are real monarchists. The essence of my mistakes lies in the fact that I have no faith in the masses, do not support the revolutionary masses, but am opposed to them. I have followed a reactionary line to suppress the revolution. In the class struggle I have been on the side not of the proletariat, but of the bourgeoisie... All this shows that... I am unfit to hold posts of responsibility>>.*(From the self-crityicism of Teng Hsiao-ping). And despite these crimes which this inveterate revisionist has committed, he was put back in his former seat.


The anti-Marxist essence of <<Mao Tsetung thought>> on the party and its role is also apparent in the way the relations between the party and the army were conceived in theory and applied in practice. Irrespective of the shibboleths of Mao Tsetung about the <<party being above the army>>, <<politics above the gun>>, etc. etc.. in practice, he left the main political role in the life of the country to the army. At the time of the war, he said, <<All the army cadres should be good at leading the workers and organizing trade-unions, good at mobilizing and organizing the youth, good at uniting with and training caeres in the newly Liberated Areas, good at managing industry and commerce, good at running schools, newspapers, news agencies and broadcasting stations, good at handling foreign affairs, good at handling problems relating to the democratic parties and people's organizations, good at adjusting the relations between the cities and the rural areas and solving the problems of food, coal and other daily necessities and good at handling monetary and financial problems>>*. (Mao)

So the army was above the party, above the state organs, above everything. From this it emerges that Mao Tsetung's words regarding the role of the party, as the decisive factor of the leadership of revolution and socialist construction, were only slogans. Both at the time of the liberation war and after the creation of the People's Republic of China, in all the never-ending struggles that have been waged there for the seizure of power by one faction or the other, the army has played the decisive role. During the Cultural Revolution, too, the army played the main role; it was Mao's last resort. In 1967, Mao Tsetung said, <<We rely on the strength of the army... We had only two divisions in Peking, but we brought in another two in May in order to settle accounts with the former Peking Party Committee>>*. (From the conversation of Mao tsetung with the friendship Delegation of the PRA, dec. 18, 1967).

In order to liquidate his ideological opponents, Mao Tsetung has always set the army in motion. He raised the army, with Lin Piao at the head, against the Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiaoping group. Later, together with Chou En-lai, he organized and threw the army against Lin Piao. Inspired by <<Mao Tsetung thought>>, the army has played the same role even after the death of Mao. Like all those who have come to power in China, Hua Ktio-feng, also, relied on and acted through the army. Right after Mao's death, he immediately roused the army, and together with the armyrnen, Yeh Chien-ying, Wang Tung-lisin and others, engineered the putsch and arrested his opponents. Power in China is still in the hands of the army, while party tails behind it. This is a general characteristic of countries where revisionism prevails. Genuine socialist countries strengthen the army as a powerful weapon of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to crush the enemies of socialism in case they rise up, as well as to defend the country from an eventual attack by the imperialists and foreign reaction. But, as Marxism-Leninism teaches us, for the army to play this role it must always be under the direction of the party and not the party under the direction of the army.

At present the most powerful factions of the army, the most reactionary ones, which aim to turn China into a social-imperialist country, are making the law in China.

In the future, along with the transformation of China into an imperialist superpower, the role and the power of the army in the life of the country will steadily increase. It will be strengthened as a praetorian guard, armed to the teeth, for the defence of a capitalist regime and economy. It will be the tool of a bourgeois capitalist dictatorship, a dictatorship which, if the people's resistance is strong, may even assume open fascist forms.

By preaching the need for the existence of many parties in the leadership of the country, the so-called political pluralism, <<Mao Tsetung thought>> falls into complete opposition to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine on the indivisible role of the communist party in the revolution and socialist construction. As he declared to E. Snow, Mao Tsetung considered the leadership of a country by several political parties, after the American model, the most democratic form of government. <<Which is better in the final analysis,>> Mao Tsetung asked, <<to have just one party or several?>>And he answered, <<As we see it now, it's perhaps better to have several parties. This has been true in the past and may well be so for the future; it means long-term coexistence and mutual supervision>>. Mao regarded the participation of bourgeois parties in the state power and the governing of the country with the same rights and prerogatives as the Communist Party of China as necessary. And not only this, but these parties of the bourgeoisie, which according to him <<were historical>>, should wither away only when the Communist Party of China also withers away, that is, they will coexist right up till communism.

According to <<Mao Tsetung thought>>, a new democratic regime can exist and socialism can be built only on the basis of the collaboration of all classes and all parties. Sue a concept of socialist democracy, of the socialist political system, which is based on <<long-term coexistence and mutual supervision>> of all parties, and which is very much like the current preachings of the Italian, French, Spanish and other revisionists, is an open denial of the leading and indivisible role of the Marxis-Leninist party in the revolution and the construction of socialism. Historical experience has already proved that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot exist and socialism cannot be built and defended without the indivisible leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party.


<<...the dictatorship of the proletariat,>> said Stalin, <<can be complete only when it is led by a party, the party of the communists, which does not and should not share the leadership with other parties>>*. (Stalin)


The revisionist concepts of Mao Tsetung have their basis in the policy of collaboration and alliance with the bourgeoisie, which the Communist Party of China has always applied. This is also the source of the anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist course of <<letting 100 flowers blossom and 100 schools contend>>, which is a direct expression of the coexistence of opposing ideologies.

According to Mao Tsetung, in socialist society, side by side with the proletarian ideology, materialism and atheism, the existence of bourgeois ideology, idealism and religion, the growth of <<poisonous weeds>> along with <<fragrant flowers>>, etc., must be permitted. Such a course is alleged to be necessary for the development of Marxism, in order to open the way to debate and freedom of thought, while in reality, through this course, he is trying to lay the theoretical basis for the policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie and coexistence with its ideology. Mao Tsetung says, <<... it is a dangerous policy to prohibit people from coming into contact with the false, the ugly and the hostile to us, with idealism and metaphysics and with the thoughts of Confucius, Lao Tze and Chiang Kai-shek. It would lead to mental deterioration, one-track minds, and unpreparedness to face the world...>>*. (Mao) From this Mao Tsetung draws the conclusion that idealism, metaphysics and the bourgeois ideology will exist eternally, therefore not only must they not be prohibited, but they must be given the possibility to blossom, to come out in the open and contend. This conciliatory stand towards everything reactionary goes so far as to call disturbances in socialist society inevitable and the prohibition of enemy activity mistaken. <<In my opinion,>> says he, <<whoever wants to provoke trouble may do so for so long as he pleases; and if one month is not enough, he may go on for two, in short, the matter should not be wound up until he feels he has had enoucgh. If you hastily wind it up, sooner or later trouble will resume again>>*. (Mao)

All these have not been academic contributions to a -scientific- discussion but a counterrevolutionary opportunist political line which has been set up in opposition to Marxism-Leninism, which has disorganized the Communist Party of China, in the ranks of which a hundred and one views and ideas have been circulating and today there really are 100 schools contending. This has enabled the bourgeois wasps to circulate freely in the garden of 100 flowers and release their venom.

This opportunist stand on ideological questions has its roots, among other things, also in the fact that throughout the whole period from its foundation up till it achieved the liberation of its country and later, the Communist Party of China has made no effort to consolidate itself ideologically, has not worked to inculcate the theory of Marx, Engels. Lenin and Stalin into the minds and hearts of its members, has not struggled to master the fundamental questions of the Marxist-Leninist ideology and apply them consistently, step by step, in the concrete -conditions of China.


<<Mao Tsetung thought>> is opposed to the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution. 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. Thus, upholding the concept of ancient philosophy on the purifying role of fire, Mao Tsetung writes: <<It is necessary to 'set a fire going' at regular intervals. How often? Once a year or once every three years, which do you prefer? I think we should do it at least twice in the space of every five years, in the same way as the intercalary month in a lunar leap year turns up once in three years or twice in five>>*. (Mao) Thus like the astrologists of old, on the basis of the lunar calendar, he derives the law on the periodical kindling of fire, on the development which goes from <<great harmony>> to -great disorder- and again to <<great harmony>>, and thus the cycles repeat themselves periodically.

In this manner, <<Mao Tsetung thought>> opposes the materialist dialectical concept of development, which, as Lenin says


<<...gives us the key to understand the 'selfmovement' 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>>. This becomes even more obvious in the way Mao Tsetung handles the problem of contradictions, to which, according to Chinese propaganda, Mao has allegedly made a <<special contribution>> and developed materialist dialectics further in this field. It is true that in many of his writings, Mao Tsetung frequently speaks about opposites, contradictions, the unity of the opposites, and even uses Marxist quotations and phrases, but, nevertheless, he is far from the dialectical materialist understanding of these problems. 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. On the basis of this pattern, Mao goes so far as to declare that <<When dogmatism is transformed into its opposite, it becomes either Marxism or revisionism>>*, <<metaphysics is transformed into dialectics, and dialectics into metaphysics>>, etc. Behind such absurd assertions and this sophistical playing with opposites, lurk the opportunist and anti-revolutionary concepts of Mao Tsetung. Thus, he does not see the socialist revolution as a qualitative change of society in which antagonistic classes and the oppression and exploitation of man by man are abolished, but conceives it as a simple change of places between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. To confirm this <<discovery>>, Mao writes: <<If the bourgeoisie and the proletariat cannot transform themselves into each other, how does it come that, through revolution, the proletariat becomes the ruling class and the bourgeoisie the ruled class?... We stand in diametrical opposition to Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang. As a result of the mutual struggle and exclusion of the two contradictory aspects with the Kuomintang we changed places...>>*. (Mao)

This same logic has also led Mao Tsetung to revise the Marxist-Leninist theory on the two phases of communist society. <<According to dialectics, as surely as a man must die, the socialist system as a historical phenomenon will come to an end some day, to be negated by the communist system. If it is asserted that the socialist system and the relations of production and superstructure of socialism will not die out, what kind of Marxist thesis would that be? Wouldn't it be the same as a religious creed or theology that preaches an everlasting god?>>* (Mao)

In this way, openly revising the Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism and communism, which, in essence, are two phases of the one type, of the one socio-economic order, and which are distinguished from each other only by the degree of their development and maturity, Mao Tsetung presents socialism as something diametrically opposite to communism.

From such metaphysical and anti-Marxist concepts, Mao Tsetung treats the question of the revolution in general, which he regards as an endless process which is repeated periodically throughout the whole period of the existence of mankind on earth, as a process which goes from defeat to victory, from victory to defeat, and so on endlessly. Mao Tsetung's anti-Marxist concepts, sometimes evolutionist and sometimes anarchist, about the revolution are even more apparent when he deals with the problems of the revolution in China.

As emerges from his writings, Mao Tsetung did not base himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory in analysing the problems and defining the tasks of the Chinese revolution. In his speech delivered at the enlarged working conference called by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in January 1962, he himself admits: <<Our many years of revolutionary work have been carried out blindly, not knowing how the revolution should be, carried out, and against whom the spearhead of the revolution should be directed, without a concept of its stages, whom it had to overthrow first and whom later, etc.>>. This has made the Communist Party of China incapable of ensuring the leadership of the proletariat in the democratic revolution and transforming it into a socialist revolution. The entire development of the Chinese revolution is evidence of the chaotic course of the Communist Party of China, which has not been guided by MarxismLeninism, but by the anti-Marxist concepts of <<Mao Tsetung thought>> on the character of the revolution, its stages, motive forces, etc.

Mao Tsetung was never able to understand and explain correctly the close links between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution. Contrary to the Marxist-Leninist theory, which has proved scientifically that there is no Chinese wall between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, that these two revolutions do not have to be divided from each other by a long period of time, Mao Tsetung asserted: <<The transformation of our revolution into socialist revolution is a matter of the future... As to when the transition will take place... it may take quite a long time. We should not hold forth about this transition until all the necessary political and economic conditions are present and until it is advantageous and not detrimental to the overwhelming majority of our people>>*. (Mao)

Mao Tsetung adhered to this anti-Marxist concept, which is not for the transformation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution socialist revolution, during the whole period of the revolution, even after liberation. Thus, in -1940, Mao Tsetung said: <<The Chinese revolution must necessarily pass through... the stage A New Democracy and then the stage of socialism. Of these, the first stage will need a relatively long time....>>*. (Mao)

In March 1949, at the plenum of Central Committee of the Party, at which Mao Tsetung submitted the program for China's development after liberation, he says: <<During this period all the elements of capitalism, of town and countryside, must be permitted to exist>>. These views and <<theories>> brought about that the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung did not fight for the transformation of the revolution in China into a socialist revolution but left a free fild for the development of the bourgeoisie and caipitalist social relations.




On the question of the relationship between the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, Mao Tsetung takes the standpoint of the chiefs of the Second International, who were the first to attack and distort theMarxist-Leninist theory about the rise of the revolution and came out with the thesis that between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, there is a long period, during which the bourgeoisie develops capitalism and creates the conditions for the transition to the proletarian revolution. They regarded the transformation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into socialist revolution, without giving capitalism the possibility to develop further, as something impossible, as skipping stages. Mao Tsetung, too, fully endorses this concept, when he says: <<It would be a sheer utopia to try to build socialism on the ruins of the colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal order without a united new-democratic state, . . . without the development of the private capitalist economy...>>*. (Mao)

The anti-Marxist concepts of <<Mao Tsetung thought>> about the revolution are even more obvious in the way Mao has treated the motive forces of the revolution. Mao Tsetung did not recognize the hegemonic role of the proletariat. Lenin said that in the period of imperialism, in every revolution, hence, also in the democratic revolution, the anti-imperialist national liberation revolution and the socialist revolution, the leadership must belong to the proletariat. Although he talked about the role of the proletariat, in practice Mao Tsetung underestimated its hegemony in the revolution and elevated the role of the peasantry. Mao Tsetung has said: <<....the resistance to Japanese occupiers now going on is essentially peasant resistance. Essentially, the politics of New Democracy means giving power to the peasants>>*. (Mao)

Mao Tsetung expressed this petty-bourgeois theory in his general thesis that the <<countryside must encircle the city>>. <<... revolutionary villges>>, he wrote, <<can encircle the cities... rural work should play the primary role in the Chinese revolutionary movement and urban work a secondary role>>**. (Mao) Mao expressed this idea also when he wrote about the role of the peasantry in the state. He has said that all other political parties and forces must submit to the peasantry and its views. <<... millions of peasants will rise like a mighty storm, a force so swift and violent that no power, however great, will be able to hold it back...,>> he writes. <<They will put to the test every revolutionary party and group, every revolutionary, so that they either accept their views or reject them>>.***. (Mao) According to Mao, it turns out that the peasantry and not the working class should play the hegemonic role in the revolution.

Mao Tsetung also preached the thesis on the hegemonic role of the peasantry in the revolution as the road of the world revolution. Herein lies the source of the anti-Marxist concept that considers the so-called third world, which in Chinese political literature is also called <<the countryside of the world>>, as the <<main motive force for the transformation of present-day society>>. According to the Chinese views, the proletariat is a secondrate social force, which cannot play that role which Marx and Lenin envisaged in the struggle against capitalism and the triumph of the revolution, in alliance with all the forces oppressed by capital.

The Chinese revolution has been dominated by the petty-and middle bourgeoisie. This broad stratum of the petty-bourgeoisie has influenced the whole development of China.

Mao Tsetung did not base himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory which teaches us that the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie in general, is vacillating. Of course, the poor and middle peasantry play an important role in the revolution and must become the close ally of the proletariat. But the peasant class, the petty-bourgeoisie, cannot lead the proletariat in the revolution. To think and preach the opposite means to be against Marxism-Leninism. Herein lies one of the main sources of the anti-Marxist views of Mao Tsetung, which have had a negative influence on the whole Chinese revolution. The Communist Party of China has not been clear in theory about the basic revolutionary guiding principle of the hegemonic role of the proletariat in the revolution, and consequently it did not apply it in practice properly and consistently. Experience shows that the peasantry can play its revolutionary role only if it acts in alliance with the proletariat and under its leadership. This was proved in our country during the National Liberation War.


The Albanian peasantry was the main force of our revolution, however it was the working class, despite its very small numbers, which led the peasantry, because the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the ideology of the proletariat, embodied in the Communist Party, today the Party of Labour, the vanguard of the working class, was the leadership of the revolution. That is why we triumphed not only in the National Liberation War, but also in the construction of socialism.

Despite the innumerable difficulties we encountered on our road we scored success one after another. We achieved these successes, in the first place, because the Party thoroughly mastered the essence of the theory of Marx and Lenin, understood what the revolution was, who was making it and who had to lead it, understood that at the head of the working. class, in alliance with the peasantry, there had to be a party of the Leninist type. The communists understood that this party must not be communist only in name but had to be a party which would apply the Marxist-Leninist theory of the revolution and party building in the concrete conditions of our country, which would begin the work for the creation of the new socialist society, following the example of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union of the time of Lenin and Stalin. This stand gave our Party the victory, gave the country the great political, economic and military strength it has today. Had we acted differently, had we not consistently applied these principles of our great theory, socialism could not have been built in a small country surrounded by enemies, as ours is. Even if we had succeeded in taking power for a moment, the bourgeoisie would have seized it back again, as happened in Greece, where before the struggle had been won, the Greek Communist Party surrendered its weapons to the local reactionary bourgeoisie and British imperialism.

Therefore, the question of hegemony in the revolution is a very important matter of principle because the course and development of the revolution depend on who is leading it.


<<Renunciation of the idea of the hegemony,>> stressed Lenin, <<is the most vulgar form of reformism>>*.


The negation by <<Mao Tsetung thought>> of the leading role of the proletariat was precisely one of the causes that the Chinese revolution remained a bourgeois-democratic revolution and did not develop into a socialist revolution. In his. artiele <<New Democracy>>, Mao Tsetung preached that after the triumph of the revolution in China a regime would be established which would be based on the alliance of the <<democratic clases>>, in which, besides the peasantry and the. proletariat, he also included the urban pettybourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. .<<Just as everyone should share what food there is,>> he writes, <<so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class>>*. (Mao) This idea has also been reflected in the national flag of the People's Republic of China, with four stars which represent four classes: the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie.

The revolution in China, which brought about the liberation of the country, the creation of the. independent Chinese state, was a great victory forthe Chinese people, and for the world anti-imperialist and democratic forces. After the liberation, many positive changes were made in China: the ddmination by foreign imperalism and big landowners was liquidated, poverty and unemploy-ent were combated, a series of socio-economic reforms in favour of the working masses were. carried out, the educational and cultural backwardness was fought against, a series of measures were taken for the reconstruction of the country ravaged by the war, and some transformations of a socialist character were made. In China, where people died by millions in the past, starvation no longer existed, etc. These are undeniable facts, and are important victories for the Chinese people.

From the adoption of these measures and the fact that the Communist Party came to power, it appeared as if China was going to socialism. But things did not turn out that way. Having <<Mao Tsetung thought>> as the basis of its activity, the Communist Party of China, which after the triumph of the bourgeois-democratic revolution ..Ought to have proceeded cautiously without being leftist and without skipping the stages, proved to be <<democratic>>, liberal, opportunist, and did not lead the country consistently on the correct road to socialism.

The non-Marxist, eclectic, bourgeois political ,and ideological views of Mao Tsetung gave liberated China an unstable superstructure, a chaotic ,organization of the state and the economy which never achieved stability. China was in continuous .disorder, even anarchic disorder, which was encouraged by Mao Tsetung himself with the slogan <<things must first be stirred up in order to clarify themm>>. In the new Chinese state Chou En-lal played .a special role. He was an able economist and organizer, but was never a Marxist-Leninist politician. As the typical pragmatist,t, he knew how to implement his non-Marxist views and adapt them perfectly to each group that took power in China. He was a poussah, tiao always managed to stay .on his feet, although he always rocked from the centre to the right, but but never to the left. Chou En-lai was a pastmaster of unprincipled compromises. He las supported and condemned Chiang Kai-shek, Kao Gang, Liti Shao-chilh, Teng Hsiao-ping, Mao Tsetung, Lin Piao, <<The Four>>, but he has sever supported Lenin and Stalin, Marxism-Leninism. After liberation, as a result of the views and stands of Mao Tsetung, Chou En-lai and others, many waverings in alldirections were observed in the political line if the Party. The tendency advocated by <<Mao Tsetung thought>> that the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolution had to continue for a long time, was kept alive in China. Mao Tsetung insisted that in this stage the remises for socialism would be created parallel with the development of capitalism, to which he priority. Also linked with this, is his thesis on the coexistence socialism with the bourgeoisie for a very long time, presenting this as something beneficial both to socialism and to the bourgeoisie. Replying to those who opposed such a policy and who brought up the experience of the October Socialist Revolution as an argument, Mao Tsetung says:<<The bourgeoisie in Russia was a counterrevolutionary class, it rejected state capitalism at that time, organized slow-downs and sabotage and even resorted to the gun. The Russian Proletariat had no choice but to finish it off. This infuriated the bourgeoisie in other countries, and they became abusive. Here in China we have been relatively moderate with our national bourgeoisie who feel a little more comfortable and believe they can also find some advantage>>*. (Mao) According to Mao Tsetung such a policy has allegedly improved China's reputation in the eyes of the international bourgeoisie, but in reality it has done great harm to socialism in China.

Mao Tsetung has presented his opportunist stand towards the bourgeoisie as a creative implementation of the teachings of Lenin on the New Economic Policy (NEP). But there is a radical difference between the teachings of Lenin and the concept of Mao Tsetung on allowing unrestricted capitalist production and maintaining bourgeois relations in socialism. Lenin admits that the NEP was a step back which allowed the development of elements of capitalism for a certain time, but he stressed:


<<... there is nothing dangerous to the Proletarian state in this so long as the proletariat keeps political power firmly in its hands, so long as it keeps transport and big industry firmly in its hands>>*. (Lenin)


In fact, neither in 1949 nor in 1956, when Mao Tsetung advocated these things, did the proletariat in China, have political power or big industry in its owm hands.

Moreover, Lenin considered the NEP as a temporary measure which was imposed by the concrete conditions of Russia of that time, devastated by the long civil war, and not as a universal law of of socialist construction. And the fact is that one year after the proclamation of the NEP Lenin stressed that the retreat was over, and launched the slogan to prepare for the offensive against private capital in the economy. Whereas in China, the period of the preservation of capitalist production was envisaged to last almost eternally. According to Mao Tsetung's view, the order established after liberation in China had to be a bourgeois-democratic order, while the Communist Party of China had to appear to be in power. Such is <<Mao Tsetung thought>>.

The transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the socialist revolution can be realized only when the proletariat resolutely removes the bourgeoisie from power and expropriates it.


As long as the working class in China shared power with the bourgeoisie, as long as the bourgeoisie preserved its privileges, the state power that was established in China, could not be the state power of the proletariat, and consequently, the Chinese revolution could not grow into a socialist revolution.

The Communist Party of China has maintained a benevolent opportunist stand towards the exploiting classes, and Mao Tsetung has openly advocated the peaceful integration of capitalist elements into socialism. Mao Tsetung said: <<Actually all ultra-reactionaries of the world are ultrareactionaries, and they will remain such tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, they will not remain such unto death, and in the end they change... Essentially, ultra-reactionaries are die-hards but not stable... It may happen that ultra-reactionaries may change for the better... they come to see their mistakes and change for the better. In short, ultra-reactionaries do change>>*. (Mao)

In his desire to provide a theoretical basis for this opportunist concept, and playing on the <<transformation of the opposites>>, Mao Tsetung said that through discussion, criticism and transformation, antagonistic contradictions are transformed into non-antagonistic contradictions, the exploiting classes and the bourgeois intelligentsia can turn into their opposite, that is, become revolutionaries. <<However, given the conditions of our country,>> Mao Tsetung wrote in 1956, <<most of the counterrevolutionaries will eventually change to a greater or lesser extent. Thanks to the correct policy we have adopted towards counterrevolutionaries, many have been transformed into persons no longer opposed to the revolution, and a few have even done some good to it>>*.

Proceeding from such anti-Marxist concepts, according to which with the lapse of time the class enemies will be corrected, he advocated class conciliation with them and allowed them to continue to enrich themselves, to exploit, to speak, and to act freely against the revolution. To justify this capitulationist stand towards the class enemy, Mao Tsetung wrote: <<We have a lot to do now. It is impossible to keep on hitting out at them day in day out for the next fifty years. There are people who refuse to correct their mistakes, they can take them into their coffins when they go to see the King of Hell>>**. (Mao) Acting in practice according to these views of conciliation with the enemies, the state administration in China was left in the hands of the old officials. Chiang Kai-shek's generals even became ministers. Indeed, even Pu Yi, the emperor of Manchu-kuo, the puppet emperor of .the Japanese occupiers, was protected very carefully and turned into a museum piece so that delegations could go to meet and talk with him and see how such people were re-educated in <<sociaist>> China. Besides other things, the aim of the publicity given to this former puppet emperor was to dispel even the fears of kings, chieftains, and puppets of reaction in other countries, so that they would think that Mao's <<socialism>> is fine and have no reason to fear it.

Stands which do not smack of class struggle have been adopted in China also towards those feudal lords and capitalists, who have committed innumerable crimes against the Chinese people. Elevating such stands to theory and openly taking counterrevolutionaries under his protection, Mao Tsetung stated: <<... we should kill ;none and arrest very few... They are not to be arrested by the public security bureaus, prosecuted by the procuratorial organs or tried by the law courts. Well over ninety out of every hundred of these counterrevolutionaries should be dealt with in this way>>*. (Mao) Reasoning as a sophist, Mao Tsetung says that the execution of counterrevolutionaries does no good, that such an action allegedly hinders production, the scientific level of the country, and will give us a bad name in the world, etc., that if one counterrevolutionary is liquidated, <<we would have to compare his case with that of a second, of a third, and so on, and then many heads would begin to roll... once a head is chopped off it can't be restored, nor can it grow again as chives do, after being cut>>*. (Mao)

As a result of these anti-Marxist. concepts about contradictions, about classes, and their role in revolution that <<Mao Tsetung thought>> advocates, China never proceeded on the correct road of socialist construction. It is not just the economic, political, ideological and social remnants of the past that have survived and continue to exist in Chinese society, but the exploiting classes continue to exist there as classes, and still remain in power. Not only does the bourgeoisie still exist, but it also continues to gain income from the property it has had.

Capitalist rent has not been abolished by law in China, because the Chinese leadership has adhered to the strategy of the bourgeois-democratic revolution formulated in 1935 by Mao Tsetung, who said at that time: <<The labour laws of the people's republic... will not prevent the national bourgeoisie from making profits ... >>.** (Mao) In conformity with the Policy of the equal right to land>>, the kulak stratum, in the forms which have existed in China, has retained great advantages and profits. Mao Tsetung himself gave orders that the kulaks must not be touched, because this might anger the national bourgeoisie with which the Communist Party of China had formed a common united front, politically, economically and organizationally*. (Mao)

All these things show that ,<<Mao Tsetung thought>> did not and could not guide China on the genuine road to socialism. Indeed, as Chou En-lai declared in 1949, when secretly applying to the American government to help China, neither Mao Tsetung nor his chief supporters were for the socialist road. <<China,>> wrote Chou En-lai, <<is not yet a communist country, and if the policy of Mao Tsetung is implemented properly, it will not become a communist country for a long time>>**. (Internationale Herald Tribune, August 14, 1978)

In a demagogic way, Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China have subordinated all their declarations about the construction of the socialist and communist society to their pragmatic policy. Thus, in the years of the so-called great leap forward, with the aim of throwing dust in the eyes of the masses, who, emerging from the revolution, aspired to socialism, they declared that within 2-3 five-year periods, they would pass directly over to communism. Later, however, in order to cover up their failures, they began to theorize that the construction and triumph of socialism would require ten thousand years.

True, the Communist Party of China called itself communist, but it developed in another direction, on a chaotic liberal course, an opportunist course and could not be a force capable of leading the country towards socialism. The road it followed, and which was concretized even more clearly after Mao's death, was not the road of socialism, but the road of building a great bourgeois, social-imperialist state.


As an anti-Marxist doctrine, <<Mao Tsetung thought>> has substituted great state chauvinism for proletarian internationalism. From the very first steps of its activity, the Communist Party of China displayed open nationalist and chauvinist tendencies, which, as the facts show, could not be eradicated during the succeeding periods, either. Li Ta-chao, one of the founders of the Communist Party of China, said, <<the Europeans think that the world belongs exclusively to the whites and that they are the su perior class, while the coloured peoples are in ferior. The Chinese people,>> Li Ta-chao continues, <<must be ready to wage a class struggle against the other races of the world, in which they will once again display their special national qualities.,. The Communist Party of China was imbued with such views right from the beginning.

Such racist and nationalist views could not have been eliminated completely from the mentality of Mao Tsetung, let alone that of Liu and Teng. In the report which he delivered to the Central Committee of the Party in 1938, Mao Tsetung said, <<Contemporary China has grown out of the development of the China of the past . ..We should sum up our history from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen... and take over this valuable legacy. This is important for guiding the great movement of today>>*. (Mao)

Of course, every Marxist-Leninist party says that it must base itself on the legacy of its own people from the past, but it also bears in mind that it must base itself not on everything inherited but only on what is progressive. Communists reject the reactionary legacy in the field of ideas, as well as in any other field. The Chinese have been very conservative, even xenophobic, in regard to their old forms, content, and ideas. They preserved the old as a treasure of great value. From the talks we held with them, it turns out that the Chinese placed little value on all the revolutionary experience of the world. To them only their own policy, their struggle against Chiang Kai-shek, their long march, the theory of Mao Tsetung, were of value. As for the progressive values of other peoples, the Chinese considered them of little or no worth, indeed they did not take the trouble to study them. Mao Tsetung proclaimed, <<the Chinese should cast aside the formulas created by foreigners>>. But precisely which of these formulas, he does not define. He has condemned <<all the clichés and dogmas borrowed from other countries>>. Here the question arises: is the theory of scientific socialism, which was not worked out by the Chinese, also included in these <<dogma>> sand <<clichés>> alien to China?.

The leadership of the Communist Party of China considered Marxism-Leninism the monopoly of the Soviet Union, towards which Mao Tsetung and company nurtured chauvinist views, great . state views, and had, you might say, a sort of bourgeois jealousy. They did not consider the Soviet Union of the time of Lenin and Stalin the great fatherland of the world proletariat, on which proletarians of all the world had to rely in order to carry out the revolution, and which they had to defend with all their strength against the furious onslaught of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. Decades ago, Mao Tsetung and Chou En-lai, the two chief leaders of the Communist Party of China, spoke and acted in opposition to the Soviet Union which was led by Stalin. They even spoke against Stalin himself. Mao Tsetung accused Stalin of subjectivism, saying, <<he failed to see the connection between the struggle of opposites and the unity of opposites>>*, (Mao) that he allegedly made <<a number of mistakes in connection with China. The 'Left adventurism' pursued by Wang Ming in the latter part of the Second Revolutionary Civil War period and his Right opportunism in the early days of the War of Resistance Against Japan can both be traced to Stalin>>**, that Stalin's actions towards Yugoslavia and Tito were wrong, etc.

Although for the sake of appearances Mao Tsetung would now and then speak in defence of Stalin, saying that he was only 30 percent bad, in fact he mentioned only Stalin's mistakes. Mao's statement at the Moscow Meeting of the communist and workers' parties in 1957, when he said, <<in Stalin's presence I felt like the pupil before his teacher, whereas now that we meet Khrushchev, we are like comrades, we are at ease,>> is not fortuitous. With this he publicly hailed and approved Khrushchev's slanders against Stalin and defended the Khrushchevite line.

Just as the other revisionists, Mao Tsetung used the criticisms against Stalin in order to justify his deviation from the Marxist-Leninist principles which Stalin consistently defended and further enriched. With their attack against Stalin, the Chinese revisionists intended to disparage his work and authority, to raise Mao Tsetung's authority to the rank of a world leader, a classic of Marxism-Leninism, who allegedly has a ways pursued a correct and infallible line! These criticisms also expressed their accumulated discontent against Stalin over the censure and criticisms he and the Comintern made of the leadership of the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung over their failure to implement the principles of Marxism-Leninism consistently on the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution, proletarian internationalism, the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle, etc. Mao Tsetung expressed this discontent openly saying, <<Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 his pressure on us was very strong indeed>>*. (Mao) Likewise, during his talks with us here in Tirana, Chou En-lai said, <<Stalin suspected us of being pro-American or that we might go the Yugoslav way,>>. Time has proved that Stalin was completely right. His forebodings about the Chinese revolution and the ideas guiding it turned out to be accurate. The contradictions between the Communist Party of China, led by Mao Tsetung, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, as well as those between the Communist Party of China and the Comintern, were contradictions over principles, over fundamental questions of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics. For instance, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China ignored the thesis of the Comintern on the correct and consistent development of the revolution in China, its orientation about joint action of the working class in the city and the liberation army, the theses of the Comintern on the character and stages of the Chinese revolution, etc. Mao Tsetung and the other leaders of the Communist Party of China have always spoken disparagingly of the delegates from the Comintern to China, calling them <<stupid>>, <<ignorant>> people, who <<did not know the Chinese reality>>, etc. Regarding each country as <<an objective reality in itself>>, <<closed to others>>, Mao Tsetung considered the assistance of the delegates from the Comintern unnecessary, and simply impossible. In his speech to the Enlarged Working Conference of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in January 1962, Mao Tsetung said: <<China, as an objective world, was known by the Chinese and not by the comrades from the Comintern who were engaged with the question of China. These comrades from the Comintern knew little or nothing about Chinese society, the Chinese nation and the Chinese revolution. Thus why should these foreign comrades be referred to here?>>.

When speaking about their successes, Mao, Tsetung leaves the Comintern out. Whereas for the defeats and deviations of the Communist Party of China, for the failure to understand and draw correct deductions from the situations which developed in China, he casts the blame on the Comintern and its representatives in China. He and other Chinese leaders accuse the Comintern of having allegedly impeded and complicated things for them in the waging of a consistent struggle for the seizure of power and the construction of socialism in China. But the facts of the past and especially the present Chinese reality confirm that the Comintern's decisions and directives about China were correct in general, and that the Communist Party of China did not act on the basis and in the spirit of the principles of Marxism-Leninism.

The consequences of the narrow nationalism and big state, chauvinism which characterize <<Mao Tsetung though>>, that have been and are at the basis of the activity of the Communist Party of China, are also reflected in the stands towards, and activity of that party in, the international communist movement.

This is apparent concretely in the stand of the Communist Party of China towards the new Marxist-Leninist parties which were created after the Khrushchevites' betrayal. From the very start the Chinese leadership had not the least confidence in them. This view was expressed openly by Keng Piao, the person in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, who makes the decisions on relations with the international communist movement. He has said, <<China does not approve the creation of Marxist-Leninist parties and does not want the representatives of these parties to come to China. Their coming is a nuisance to us but,>> he stressed, <<we can do nothing about them, for we cannot send them away. We accept them just as we accept the representatives of bourgeois parties>>*. (From Keng Piao's conversation with comrades from our Party in Peking, April 16, 1973) Such a policy, which had nothing in common with proletarian internationalism, was followed at the time Mao Tsetung was alive, when he was fully capable of thinking and directing, hence it had his full approval. When, contrary to the desires of the Chinese leaders, these new Marxist-Leninist parties began to grow strong, then they pursued another tactic, the recognition of all new parties and every group without exception and without any distinction, provided only that they called themselves <<Marxist parties>>, <<revolutionary parties>>, <<red guards>>, etc. The Party of Labour of Albaniaia has criticized this stand and tactic of the Communist Party of China. The other genuine Marxist-Leninist parties have done the same thing. Nevertheless, the revisionist Chinese 'readership has continued on the same course. Later, in conformity with their pragmatic policy towards the newly formed parties and groups, the Chinese leaders adopted differentiated attitudes. They called the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties their enemies, whereas RIM groups and parties which opposed these parties, came to be very dear to them. At present, the Chinese revisionists not only maintain ties with these antiMarxist parties and groups, which laud <<Mao Tsetung thought>> to the skies, but also invite their representatives one by one to Peking, where they work on them, give them financial assistance and political and ideological instructions and brief them on how to act against the Party of Labour of Albania and the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. They require them to propagate <<Mao Tsetung thought>>, the theory of <<three worlds>> and, in general, the foreign policy of China, to create the cult of Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao ping and condemn <<The Four>>. To the Chinese revisionists, that party which meets these demands is <<Marxist-Leninist>>, while those parties which oppose them are declared anti-Marxist, adventurist, etc.



All this shows that in their relations with the Marxist-Leninist parties, the Chinese revisionist leaders have not implemented the Leninist principles and norms which regulate relations between genuine communist parties. Like the Khrushchevite revisionists, proceeding from the antiMarxist concept of the <<mother party>>, they have resorted to dictate, pressure and interference in the internal affairs of the other parties, and have never accepted comradely advice and suggestions from sister parties. They have opposed the multilateral meetings of Marxist-Leninist parties, meetings to discuss the great problems of the preparation and triumph of the revolution, the fight against modern revisionism for the defence of Marxism-Leninism, to exchange experience and co-ordinate actions, etc. The reason for such a stand, among other things, is that they have been afraid to confront the genuine MarxistLeninists in multilateral meetings, because their anti-Marxist and revisionist theories in the service of world capital and of the strategy intended to transform China into a superpower, would be exposed and unmasked.

Another indication of the anti-Marxist essence of <<Mao Tsetung thought>> is the relations the Communist Party of China has maintained and continues to maintain with many heterogenous fascist, revisionist and other parties and groups. Now it is striving to prepare the ground to infiltrate or build relations also with the old revisionist parties of various countries, as for example those of Italy, France, Spain and the other countries of Europe, Latin America, etc. The Chinese revisionists are attaching ever greater importance to these relations because, ideologically, they areall in line with the Communist Party of China, regardless of the differences they have in tactics, which depend on the nature, strength and power of capitalism in each country. The ties of the Communist Party of China with these traditionally revisionist parties will gradually be expanded, their actions will be concerted while it will continue to use the small groups, which call themselves <<Marxist-Leninist>> and follow the Chinese line, to fight and disrupt the existing genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, which remain unwavering in their stand, as well as the other parties which are being born or will be born. With these actions the Chinese revisionists are openly assisting capitalism, the social-deniocrafic and revisionist parties, sabotaging the outbreak and triumph of the revolution and, especially, the preparation of the subjective factor, the strengthening of the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties which will. lead this revolution.The Communist Party of China applied this same tactic in its relations with the so-called League of Communists of Yugoslavia, which has worked with all its might to split the international communist movement and has fought socialism and Marxism-Leninism relentlessly. The present Chinese leaders want to march together with the Yugoslav revisionists and co-ordinate their actions with them in the struggle against MarxismLeninism and all the Marxist-Leninist parties, against the revolution, socialism and communism. Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China have maintained a pragmatic stand towards Yugoslav revisionism and have made a great evolution in their views about Tito and Titoism. At first, Mao Tsetung said that Tito was not wrong, but it was Stalin who had been wrong about Tito. Then the same Mao Tsetung ranks Tito with Hitler and Chiang Kai-shek and says that <<such people... as Tito, Hitler, Chiang Kaishek and the Czar cannot be corrected, they should be killed>>. However, he changed his stand again and expressed his great desire to meet Tito. Tito himself declared recently: <<I was invited to China when Mao Tsetung was alive. During the visit of the Chairman of the Federal Executive Veche, Djemal Myedich, to China, at that time, Mao Tsetung expressed to him his desire that I should visit China. Chairman Hua Kuofeng also told me that, five years ago, Mao Tsetung said that he should have invited me for a visit, stressing that in 1948, too, Yugoslavia was in the right, a thing which he (Mao Tsetung) had declared even then, to a narrow circle. But, taking into consideration the relations between China and the Soviet Union at that time, this was not said publicly>>*. (From Tito's speech at the meeting of activists of the SR of Slovenia, September 8, 1978).

The revisionist leadership of China is loyally carrying out this <<will>> of Mao Tsetung. Hua Kuo-feng seized the opportunity of Tito's visit to China, and especially of his own visit to Yugoslavia, to eulogize Tito, to present him as a <<distinguished Marxist-Leninist>>, a <<great leader>> not. only of Yugoslavia but also of the international communist movement.

In this way the Chinese leadership also openly endorsed all the attacks ofthe Titoites on Stalin and the Bolshevik Party, on the Party of Labour of Albania, the international communist movement and Marxism-Leninism. The close political and ideological relations of' the Chinese revisionists with the Titoites, <<Eurocommunists>>, like Carrillo and company, the backing they give the anti-Marxist, Trotskyite, anarchist and social-democratic parties and groups, show that the Chinese leaders, inspired and guided by <<Mao Tsetung thought>>, are setting up a common ideological front with the renegades from Marxism-Leninism, against the revolution, against the interests of the peoples' liberation-struggle. That is why all the enemies of communism are rejoicing over the Chinese <<theories>>, because they see that <<Mao Tsetung thought>>, the Chinese policy, are directed against the revolution and socialism.

These questions which we have analysed do not cover all the anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist content of <<Mao Tsetung thought>>. However, they are sufficient to permit the conclusion that Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist, but a progressive revolutionary democrat, who remained for a long time at the head of the Chinese Communist Party and played an important role in the triumph of the Chinese democratic anti-imperialist revolution. Within China, in the ranks of the party, among the people and outside China, he -built up his reputation as a great Marxist-Leninist .-and he himself posed as a communist, as a Marxis-Leninist dialectician. But this was not so. He was an eclectic who combined some elements of Marxist dialectics with idealism, with bourgeois and revisionist philosophy, indeed, even ,with ancient Chinese philosophy. Therefore, the views of Mao Tsetung must be studies not anly in the arranged phrases of some of his published works, but in their entirety, in their practical application, while also considering the practical consequences they have brought about.

In appraising <<Mao Tsetung thought>> it is also important to bear in mind the concrete historical conditions under which it was formed. Mao Tsetung's ideas were developed at the time of the decay of capitalism, that is, at the time when proletarian revolutions are on the agenda and when the example of the great October Socialist Revolution, the great teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have become an unerring guide for the proletariat and the revolutionary peoples of the world. The theory of Mao Tsetung, <<Mao Tsetung thought>>, which was born in these new conditions, had to try to deck itself out, as it did, in the garb of the most revolutionary and scientific theory of the time, Marxism-Leninism, but in essence it remained a <<theory>> opposed to the cause of the proletarian revolution and which comes to the rescue of imperialism in crisis and decay. Therefore, we say that Mao Tsetung and <<Mao Tsetung thought>> are anti-Marxist.

When one talks of <<Mao Tsetung thought>> it is difficult to discern a single clear line in it, since, as we said at the beginning, it is an amalgam of ideologies, from anarchism, Trotskyism, modern revisionism à la Tito, à la Krushchev,à la <<Eurocommunist>>, and down to the use of some Marxist phrases. In all this amalgam the old ideas of Confucius, Menclus, and the other Chinese philosophers, who have directly influ~ enced the formation of the ideas of Mao Tsetung, his cultural and theoretical development, also occupy an honoured place. Even those aspects of Mao Tsetung's views which come out in the form of a distorted Marxism-Leninism bear the seal and features of a certain <<Asiocommunism>> with heavy doses of nationalism, xenophobia and even Buddhist religion, and were bound to come into open opposition with Marxism-Leninism eventually.

The revisionist group of Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao-ping, which is ruling in China today, has <<Mao-Tsetung thought>> as the theoretical basis and ideological platform for its reactionary policy and activity. In order to strengthen its shaky positions, the group around Hua Kuo-feng and Yeh Chien-yi, which came to power, unfurled the banner of Mao Tsetung. Under this banner it condemned the Tien An Men demonstration and liquidated Teng Hsiao-ping, to whom they attached the label of the revisionist, which he deserved. Under this banner this group seized power in a putsch and smashed <<The Four>>. However, the chaos which has always characterized China, continued at an even greater intensity.


This troubled situation brought Teng Hsiao-ping to the fore and imposed his return to power, and he set out again on his course of right extremism with fascist methods. Teng's objective was to strengthen the positions of his own group, to follow his undisguised course of alliance with American imperialism and the reactionary world bourgeoisie. Teng Hsiao-ping brought out the program of the <<four modernizations>> put an end to the Cultural Revolution, liquidated all that mass of cadres promoted to the organs of state power, the party and the army by this revolution, and replaced them with the men of the blackest reaction, who have been exposed and condemned in the past.

Now we are witnessing a period which is characterized by the big character posters against Mao Tsetung with which Teng Hsiao-ping's followers are decorating the walls of Peking. It is the period of <<revenge>> which has two aims: first, to liquidate the <<prestige>> of Mao and eliminate the obstacle of Hua Kuo-feng and, second, to make Teng Hsiao-ping an all-powerful fascist dictator and to rehabilitate Liu Shao-chi. Against this background of reactionary manoeuvres there are those in China, as well as abroad, who draw a comparison betwen Teng Hsiao-ping's struggle against Mao, who was never a Marxist-Leninist, and the crime of Khrushchev, who threw mud at Stalin, who was and remains a great Marxist-Leninist. No one, however little the brain in his head, can accept such an analogy. The most correct comparison possible is that, just as Brezhnev and the revisionist group around him toppled Khrushchev, now, the Chinese Brezhnev, Teng Hsiao-ping, is toppling the Chinese Khrushchev, Mao Tsetung, from his pedestal.

This whole business is a revsionist game, a struggle for personal power. It has always been so in China. There is nothing Marxist about it. Only the Chinese working class and a true Marxist-Leninist party purged of <<Mao Tsetung though>>, <<Teng Hsiao-ping thought>>, and all other such anti-Marxist, revisionist, bourgeois thoughts, will correct this situation. It is the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin which cae rescue China from this situation through a genuine proletarian revolution. But we are confident that one day MarxismLeninism and the proletarian revolution in China will triumph and the enemies of the Chinese proletariat and people will be defeated. Of course, such a thing will not be attained without a fight and bloodshed, because it will take rnany efforts to form the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party in China, the leader indispensable to victory over the traitors and the triumph of socialism.

We are convinced that the fraternal Chinese people, the genuine Chinese revolutionaries will free themselves from illusions and myths. They will come to understand politically and ideologically that in the leadership of the Communist Party of China there are no Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries, but men of the bourgeoisie, of capitalism, who are pursuing a course which has no for the masses and the revolutionaries to understand this, it is necessary that they realize that not Marxism-Leninism, <<Mao Tsetung thought>>is not a Marxist-Leninist and that Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist. The criticism we Marxist-Leninist make of <<Mao Tsetung>> has nothing in common with the Tsetung attacks which are aimed at Mao Tsetung by the Teng Hsiao-ping in the struergle it is waging for power. By speaking out openly and frankly about these questions, we Albanian communists are fulfilling our duty in defence of Marxism-Leninism, and at the same time, as internationalists, also helping the Chinese people and revolutionaries to find the correct path in these difficult situations they are going through.











THE DEFENCE OF MARXISM-LENINISIM

A MAJOR DUTY FOR ALL GENUINE

REVOLUTIONARIES


The present international situation is turbulent, the crisis in the capitalist-revisionist countries is getting worse, the aggressive policy of the superpowers more and more each day is creating new great dangers for the freedom and independence of the peoples and the general peace. The bourgeois and Khrushchevite, ,Titoite, <<Eurocommunist>>. revisionist theories and, together with them, the Chinese theories, too, are part and pareel of the great strategic plan of imperialism and modern revisionism to destroy socialism and strangle the revolution.

In these conditions, the defence of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism, a consistent revolutionary stand towards the major world problems, today constitute a fundamental task for our Party, as well as for allgenuine Marxist-Leninists. Our just struggle must build up the confidence of the peoples and progressive mankind in the triumph of the

cause of the revolution, socialism and the liberation of the peoples. Our Party is on the correct road and it will triumph because the revolutionaries and the peoples of the world, and the Marxist-Leninist truth are on its side.

The Marxist-Leninists and the revolutionaries throughout the world see that the Party of Labour of Albania defends Marxism-Leninism when the others attack it, that it defends the principles of proletarian internationalism when the various revisionists have thrown these principles overboard. They see that in its stands the Party of Labour of Albania not only proceeds from the interests of its own country, but also expresses and represents very great interests, near and dear to the entire proletariat, the interests of genuine socialism, the interests of all those who base themselves on and are guided by Marxism-Leninism for the revolutionary transformation of the world. At the same time, we notice that the policy China is following in its relations with US imperialism as well as with Soviet social-imperialism, is arousing doubts, discontent and constant criticism everywhere, especially in the countries of the so-called third world. This is natural, because the honest people in these countries see that the Chinese policy is not correct, that it is a policy which supports an imperialism which is oppres sing them, that much of what the Chinese leaders preach does not conform to their deeds and the concrete reality. The peoples see that China is following a social-imperialist policy which threatens their interests.

In this direction, too, our Party is also making its modest contribution. The peoples trust it because it speaks the truth, and the truth has its source in the Marxist-Leninist theory which has been concretely applied in Albania. The development of our country, its liberation wars, its social, economic, political and spiritual situation in the past, have much in common with many countries of the world which have suffered or are suffering the savage oppression of internal rulers and foreign imperialist rulers. The experience accumulated by our Party in the seizure of power by the people, in the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism is a concrete example and aid to these peoples. The victories and successes achieved in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania have their basis in the Marxist-Leninist theory, by which it is inspired and which the Party of Labour of Albania applies in practice.

Apart from lackeys and ultra-reactionaries, no one is directly defending the bankrupt Chinese theory of <<three worlds>>. The policy of rapprochement of the Chinese with US imperialism revives the spectres of imperialist wars which nobody wants to see, deepens the colonial and neocolonial darkness which nobody can endure, and supports the capitalist exploitation which everyone wants to get rid of.

The Party of Labour of Albania has fought, is fighting and will always fight resolutely in defence of the purity of Marxist-Leninist ideas. it is and will always be against all those who strive to distort them and replace them with bourgeois, revisionist, counterrevolutionary ideas. Our Party is a proletarian party, a Marxist-Leninist party, an active participant in the world revolution, for which it is determined to make any sacrifice, just as it has done up till now.

There is no, force that can make our Party deviate from this fully internationalist, glorious and honourable course. There is no force which can intimidate or conquer it. Our Party cannot reconcile itself to any kind of opportunism, to any kind of deviation from Marxism-Leninism, to any distortion of it. It will fight with determination against Chinese revisionism, too, just as against revisionism of any other kind.

Ours is a Marxist-Leninist party, and because we are such a party, we must not be afraid to speak the truth openly. Our Party is small in regard to the number of members in its ranks, but it is a Party toughened in many battles. It has always had the courage to state matters openly in defence of the purity of Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism. The facts show that our fight against Chinese revisionism is correct, that it is essential, therefore it is approved and supported by the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionaries.

A true revolutionary party, as our Party is, does not renounce its principled standpoints in any instance. We cannot retreat just because others might consider courage, the virtue of our Party, conceit. The has not taught its members to be conceit but it has taught them to be always resolute just and stern against the class enemy. On these questions there is no room for discussion about whether the party is big or small. The communists, the gennine revolutionaries, the Marxist-Leninists must thoroughly understand how the situatiation are developing in the world today. They do not develop in a stereotyped form. If the teachigs of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the world proletariat and the experience of every genuine Marxist-Leninist party are studied, understood and assimilated properly, then these situations which, are developing can be properly understood and the revolution will be given a powerful boost.

We Albanian communists; must understand well that it is absolutely necessary to master Marxism-Leninism. The capitalist-revisionist encirclement and the pressure it exerts on us must never be underrated. We must not be foolishly overconfident in our understanding of these questions and in the real fight we must wage against the enemies surrounding us. The revolution has run into rocks and there are more ahead which must be blown up with explosives. Some must be blown up directly, some must be broken down piecemeal, while some others must be outflanked and then given the finishing blow. This is what understanding the strategy and tactics of the revolution means. In order to create confidence in the victory of the revolution, it is essential to organize the broad masses of the people, to make the proletariat conscious of the unwavering leadership of its genuine Marxist-Leninist party, because otherwise it may become involved in adventurist actions and compromise the victory of the revolution. The communists and the oppressed masses of the people have to realize that imperialism and world capitalism have great experience in oppressing the masses, in organizing the counterrevolution. Therefore, the tactics and strategy of the enemies, too, must be understood and coped with, because our ideology, our policy, our strategy and tactics are more powerful than any enemy, for they serve a just cause, the cause of communism.

Now for our Party, as well as for all the Marxist-Leninist parties in the world, the struggle against Chinese revisionism should be given the greatest attention. This is an important question, but this does not mean that while dealing with it, we are permitted to forget Soviet revisionism, Titoite revisionism, or <<Eurocommunism>>, which are very dangerous variants of modern revisionism.

In regard to their tactics and strategy, all these anti-Marxist trends, regardless of the differences in their forms of struggle, are on the one course, have the same objective, and are same struggle.

For all these reasons, we must never divert our attention either from the struggle which must be waged against American imperialism and all the reactionary capitalist bourgeoisie of the world or from the struggle against the Soviet, Yugoslav, Chinese, and other shades of revisionism. Despite all the contradictions they have among themselves, all these enemies are linked by the one cord - the fight against the revolution, against the Marxist-Leninist parties and their unity, against the general organization of the proletariat and the entire working masses in order to launch themselves into revolution.


The struggle against modern revisionism, and especially against Soviet, Titoite and Chinese revisionism, is not an easy matter. On the contrary, this struggle is and will be stern and protracted. For it to be waged successfully, for victories to be gained step by step, the communists, the cadres, the intelligentsia and all the working masses of our country must be imbued with the ideology of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and must also study the rich experience of our Party in the struggle against modern revisionism. Only in this way will we be able to overcome the obstacles and emerge unscathed from the great hostile forest with all its thorns.

As always, our Party of Labour must main tain clear, resolute, bold stands on the correct Marxist-Leninist line. This line of our Party, with its clearly defined objectives, will. help to expose American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, as well as Chinese social-imperialism, and to wage the merciless struggle against them successfully. The task of our Party, and of all the genuine

communists of the world, is to fight with dedication to defend our Marxist-Leninist theory and cleanse it of all the distortions which the bourgeoisie, the modern revisionists and all opportunists and traitors make of it.

Marxism-Leninism is the triumphant ideology. He who embraces, defends and develops it, is a member of the glorious army of the revolution, of that great and invincible army of genuine communists, who are leading the proletariat and all the oppressed to transform the world, to destroy capitalism and to build the new world, the socialist world.




THE <<8 NENTORI>> PUBLISHING HOUSE (Tirana 1979)