The United States of America is in such a deep and grave political-economic crisis that President Carter was obliged to go on TV to address the people. He spoke about oil, but together with this he also mentioned the crisis which the American nation is going through. Carter said that he had held a meeting at Camp David, where for 12 days on end he had talked with "men of the people", that they had "criticize" and "advised" him, but had also, "taught" him. All this, his claim that, "See, I go outside the White House to take decisions of vital importance to, the country and consult with the people over these decision", is nothing but a hoax of the American President, intended to help him dodge any personal blame for this great crisis and to prepare for the coming election campaign. But these people whom he says he has consulted were only his governor friends, plus the odd ordinary citizen. As is customary for American presidents, the views he laid on the table there, allegedly to seek their opinion, were his former views, that is, the opinions of the trusts he represents. And in order to throw dust in the eyes of the American people he added that he had rejected the speech he had prepared in advance and was to deliver on television, because he had drawn "conclusions" from the talks at Camp David.

Carter said that the men who had gone to Camp David had spoken frankly to him. He cited a governor from the South, who had allegedly told him: "Mr. President, you are not leading this nation. You are merely administering the government", while another visitor had told him that he should not declare that "the problem of energy would be solved in a way similar to war, and then issue men with toy rifles with which to fight it".

Carter declared that the American nation is threatened by a crisis of confidence. "This" he said, "is a crisis that attacks the heart, the soul and the spirit of the will of our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future threatens to destroy the socio-political structure of America".

Hence, Carter seeks to convince his listeners that only now has he become aware of this situation, this spirit and this will of the nation which is in crisis, but he said nothing about the huge profits which the American oil trusts and companies have made. In other words, regarding energy Carter said that the nation could not go on consuming 20 per cent more energy than it produces.

"When we import oil" he pointed out, "we also import inflation and unemployment". He went on, "We have been accustomed to using as much as we have" and "we have stuck our head over the fence, while OPEC is on the other side, with the knife in its hand."

Hence, Carter's speech is also a threat to the oil producing countries, members of OPEC, a threat to the Middle East, the producer of oil, the countries of which he is threatening with war if they continue to raise the prices or to reduce the extraction of oil. This is great and direct pressure which the United States of America is exerting on these countries, because it has accumulated enormous wealth from the exploitation of their oil.

Carter said, also, that from now on, not even a single drop of oil above the 1977 level would be imported. In that year the United States of America imported 8 and a half million barrels of oil a day. This, too, is another threat to the Arab countries to choose between the two roads: they must either continue the extraction of oil, or the United States of America will no longer buy oil, and therefore, Carter calls on the American people to make savings. To this end he gives a series of advice: that imports of oil must be reduced to the levels set by the government, that energy must be used economically, and he ordered the companies that use oil to reduce its consumption to a considerable degree and use other fuels, especially coal, from which they should also produce synthetic oil. Likewise, he demanded that investments should be made in solar energy, proposed that an extra 10 billion dollars should be spent over the next 10 years in order to improve the means of public transport, and called for the creation of a national solar bank which, Carter said, "will help us achieve the decisive objectives to meet 20 per cent of our energy requirement about the year 2000". This, of course, is a consequence of the great crisis which has engulfed the capitalist world.

On February 16, 1979, China began its aggression against Vietnam.

The energy crisis, and the oil crisis in particular, has put not only American imperialism, but also all the other capitalist countries of the world in a tight spot. The other capitalist countries of the world have put and are putting great pressure on the United States of America. Meetings have been held in Paris, Tokyo, Brussels and elsewhere. At these meetings the other states have demanded that the United States of America reduce its use of oil. In other words, these capitalist states are saying, "If we are for savings, and savings must be made, they should not be made at our expense only, but must be made at the expense of the United States of America as well". And, in fact, immediately after Carter's speech, the Japanese, French and West-German leaders gave interviews supporting the measures he proposed for essential savings in the use of oil and energy.

This is a major contradiction which is developing between the other imperialist powers and American imperialism, the domination of which is being shaken in many fields, in the military and economic fields, and now also in the field of energy.

Of course this crisis will continue for a number of years and measures are being taken every-where to ensure that industry which works on oil will work partly on coal and partly on nuclear or solar energy. On the other hand, there is no lack of pressure, blackmail and threats on the oil-producing countries to make them produce the maximum quantity of oil and to sell as much as possible to these states at the lowest possible prices. This could lead to political disturbances, attacks, and coups d'ètat and even to local wars which could mark the beginning of a major world war.

Oil is the "blood" of the capitalist body, and everybody knows that, if it runs out of "blood" imperialism will run out of economic and military strength. Therefore the peoples whose countries possess oil must take a firm revolutionary stand in defence of their assets, freedom and sovereignty against the imperialist predators and warmongers, against the oppressors of the peoples of the world.



Never before has such great oscillation been notice in the policy of imperialism and modern revisionism. This powerful oscillation has been caused by the great general economic, monetary, political and military crisis, by the broad movement of the peoples against oppression by monopoly capitalism, whether Western or Eastern, an has been caused also by the profound crisis in China, the countries of Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

Africa is moving. The African states are restive. The class struggle is developing there, both internally and on the external plane, against the metropolises which dominate those states by means of the neo-colonialist policy.

Let us begin with the situation in the United States of America and the Soviet Union.

The United States of America is experiencing a major, internal and external crisis. This situation has forced President Carter to take draconian measures to cope with the energy crisis. But the energy crisis is nothing compared with the loss of confidence of the American people in the so-called American democracy. The prestige of the United States of America in the international arena is at a low ebb, the American dollar is falling day by day. Within the country inflation has increased. In these financial circumstances, the United States of America has plunged into a major economic-financial crisis, and consequently, into a political crisis, has incurred huge depts to Japan, Federal Germany and the other capitalist countries. Thus, the current deficit in the balance of American trade is unprecedented.

This extremely difficult situation compelled Carter to change many of the horses in his team, retaining only the key figures in the American imperialist government. These changes in the Carter administration affected the interests of some American trusts and monopolies, causing great dismay and arousing their opposition. Obviously, these trusts do not agree that Carter should strengthen the position of his party and the trusts he represents at the expense of their profits.

More than one third of the oil that the United States of America uses is imported. In order to forestall unpleasant eventualities, the American president is trying to replace natural oil with synthetic oil produced from coal. But this replacement requires investments through additional taxes which are levied on the trusts and monopolies, too, therefore they are dissatisfied.

All these difficulties have led to great confusion in American domestic policy and Carter's position as president has been greatly weakened. Although Carter is calling for maximum production from American industry, if the present confusion continues, the chances of his reelection as chief of the American executive in the forthcoming elections will be even slighter.

But the mess is not confined to the internal policy of the United States of America alone. It is clear that confusion reigns in the foreign policy of the USA, too. In this situation in which the American administration finds itself, the USA wants to preserve the present status quo with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wants this, too, because it is in the grip of an equally profound political and economic crisis within the country and in its relations with its satellites and with the other countries.

The Soviet Union, like the United States of America, is in crisis over the appointment of the main leader of the party and state. According to news agency reports, Leonid Brezhnev is seriously ill. From time to time we see him on television looking as though he can hardly stand on his feet. Even if Brezhnev does not die soon, he must be replaced with another, more active person. As is known, Brezhnev is a great opportunist among opportunists, and that is why American imperialism and the Western world fear his replacement with men of a hard line revisionist wing. Because of the economic crisis, the all-round internal crisis which I mentioned earlier, and the political crisis in the revisionist leadership, the Soviet Union will want a relatively long period of peace.

For these reasons, the current policy of the United States of America and the Soviet Union, as two big superpowers, is to preserve the status quo and to avoid disturbances and peoples' liberation wars for as long as possible. In other words, they want to reach a temporary agreement so as to prevent the occurrence of major disturbances, like those which are now occurring every day.

In Nicaragua the dictator Somoza, who was supported by American imperialism, has been liquidated after more than 40 years of dictatorial rule. He was driven out by force of arms, by war... The news agencies also report that, fearing the outbreak of revolts and uprisings against dictators in the countries of Central and Latin America, the Secretary of the Department of State of the USA, Vance, made a speech on August 11 in Quito, where he attended the ceremony for the investiture of the new president of the Republic of Ecuador, Roldos, in which he spoke about the return of "democracy" to Latin America.

According to the AFP news agency, the heads of governments of the states that took part in that ceremony talked for two days on end about the return of democracy to Latin America, following the example of Ecuador which put an end to many years of dictatorship. The movement against fascist dictatorships on the American continent has greatly embarrassed the United States which, in order to safeguard its political influence and invested capital, and in an effort to prevent the cliques of the other Latin-American states from suffering the fate of some cliques of Central America, is recommending to the dictators that they should soften their policy towards the broad masses of the people to some slight degree.

The heavy oppression of capital and the blood-stained jackboot of American imperialism are encountering the resistance of the peoples of Latin America. In these conditions Carter urgently wants to ease the situation. His aim is to defuse the present revolutionary situation which is developing in these countries and maintain the status quo in favour of American capitalism, of the trusts and monopolies that have got those countries in their clutches and make the law there.

In the Middle East the Americans are taking a firmer stand as supporters of the alliance of Egypt with Israel. The American imperialists do not want to make contact with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), which, through Arafat, is persistently seeking to take advantage of the existing situation to make contact with the United States of America and gain its recognition. This means that the USA should intervene with the Israeli government so that it will allow the PLO a strip of land on which it will create an "autonomous" government. It is not yet known how far Carter will go in opposing the PLO, but one thing is certain, that the stand of all the Arab states will play a major role in this matter. Those states are conducting a policy which shifts like the sands of the Sahara before the strong winds that blow by day and by night, creating mountains of sand today and blowing them away again tomorrow. Nevertheless, under those sands, under those deserts there is oil. Oil is the life's blood of American imperialism and the Western countries.

Naturally, wherever there is "Thunders" in the air, the Soviet Union intervenes with its agents to stir up troubles to its advantage.

This is the situation which has gripped these two superpowers at present. Both of them are in difficulties, and together they are trying to breach old agreements and reach new ones. each trying to grab the biggest share for itself and to soften the contradictions as much as possible. In the first place, their aim is to Placate world opinion and Avoid the confusion caused by the great impoverishment of the masses of the people, because they know that this causes rebellion.

In the existing revolutionary situations the decay of the capitalist-revisionist regimes can be seen more clearly. This is occurring with the Titoite regime, too. To keep up appearances and continue on its course of deception, this regime is relying on its dada (Hobby-horse (French in the original)), the so-called non-aligned countries, which are allegedly the great force of the "third world" which can stand up to imperialism and social-imperialism.

This force is "non-aligned" only in name, because in reality it is a mish-mash. The preparation of the Havana meeting is an utter fiasco. Although the meeting will be held and many speeches will be made there, it will be completely abortive. It will bring the peoples of the world nothing of benefit.

In Havana there may even be clashes and opposition from the supporters of the Soviet Union, which wants to emerge as champion of the "non-aligned world". In fact paper Pravda is raising a big fuss about this meeting, saying that this forces of the "non-aligned countries" is important and must be strengthened.

The official rag of the country which heads the Warsaw Treaty and which exerts its savage domination over the member countries of this Treaty, is appealing to the Titoite "non-aligned world" to safeguard its "Unity" and remain "non-aligned". In other words, the revisionist Soviet Union is calling on this world to join with it, to abandon China's "third world" and not link itself with the United States of America. In the long run, the Soviets are asking this "world" to preserve the status quo. In support of this propaganda Pravda is publishing leading articles to convince others that the Soviet Union has allegedly given the "non-aligned countries" large amounts of aid and is allegedly building about 430 major enterprises there, etc., etc. This loud publicity is an expression of the bad habit of big powers, which, when it is in their interests, are so shameless as to boast about those Penny-pinching credits they provide to keep the undeveloped countries in poverty and under their domination.

Another issue, which has now emerged on the scene is the, "modernization of China". That country with a huge population is in ever greater disarray. There are profound differences in the ranks of the Chine, leadership. Deng's policy in the international arena is an ignominious failure.

The capitalist countries are not as confident about the "development" of China as they were at first. Deng's "triumph" was a flash in the pan. Now the imperialists and capitalists, who have seen the economic and political reality of China, think differently of it...

In this unstable situation, internally and abroad, China is seeking some kind of stability. Naturally, it is seeking aid, too, and it has received and will receive aid from American imperialism, Japan, Federal Germany and the other imperialist countries.

To counter-balance its failure in its aim to cause war to break out between the Western powers and American imperialism, on the one hand, and against the Soviet Union, on the other hand, the treacherous Chinese leadership is now turning its eyes to the Soviet Union, too. We have said that the Chinese policy has swung from left to right and back again like the pendulum of a clock, and it will always do so. In the autumn the Chinese and the Soviets will exchange government delegations to improve their strained relations. First the Chinese deputy minister of Foreign Affairs will go to Moscow for talks with his Soviet counterpart, then the latter will go to Beijing to continue the talks. The Soviet Union wants to ease the situation with China in order to counter the American and West-European influence in that large neighbouring country.

Hence, in order to counter-balance its defeats China is beginning its flirtation with the Soviet Union again. Despite these political steps it is taking, China has not overcome the difficulties it has to cope with. Major problems, such as the question of relations with Vietnam and the other countries of Southeast Asia remain unsolved. The aim of the present leaders of China in making approaches to the Soviet Union is to make the latter influence the Vietnamese to soften their stand...

All the big Powers are re-examining their internal and external positions, their allies, friendships and animosities. This is the epoch of "wife swapping". A shameful economic, political and military defeat for capitalism will emerge from this unhealthy situation.

The peoples of the world, the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and progressive individuals must take advantage of this situation.

For our part, we must analyse these situations in the light of Marxism-Leninism, must maintain correct stands towards all these things which are occurring and reveal the truth, which we must make known as much as we can to all those who have the possibility to hear and understand us, to all the peoples. The peoples of the world must put up their great resistance to the situations which are developing today by rising in national liberation struggles against local ruling cliques and against American, Soviet, Chinese and any other kind of imperialism or socialimperialism, regardless of how it is disguised. The mask must be torn from them, but this alone is not enough. The peoples who suffer oppression and exploitation at the hands of the big imperialist powers and the cliques in their service must rise in strikes and demonstrations, on the barricades of the class struggle, in revolution. The revolution will strike down all who seek to keep the peoples in bondage and misery.



In the international arena, the year 1979 is closing with a revolutionary situation which is the result of peoples' uprisings against the yoke of world imperialism and capitalism. An event of special importance took place last week in an Asian country, Afghanistan, where a coup d'ètat overthrew the pro-Soviet regime of Amin, which had replaced the equally pro-Soviet regime of Nur Taraki, also through a coup d'ètat Now the pro-Soviet Amin has been replaced with the pro-Soviet Karmal. All three governments have been and are agencies of the Soviets and at the same time secret agencies of the Americans, too.

The fact is that through their military intervention, the Soviets killed the first and the second and brought the next, the third, from Czechoslovakia, where he was ambassador, and installed him as head of state.

It is rumoured that the Soviets have intervened in Afghanistan with two or three divisions of tanks and aircraft in the same way that they intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Now under the pretext that Amin was a traitor and an agent of American imperialism, which might be true, they are making the law in this country and saying that they have intervened on the basis of the Treaty of Collaboration and Friendship they have signed with Afghanistan.

As is known, there are many insurgent movements in Afghanistan led by patriots who want neither the Soviet yoke nor the yoke of their agents, but they are described as Moslems and their anti-imperialist patriotic movement is described as an Islamic movement. This is a common label which world capitalism uses to revive religious animosities and strife and to give liberation movements the mediaeval meaning of religious wars. There is no doubt that the Afghan liberation fighters, who have risen against the yoke of imperialism, social-imperialism and the monarchy, are Moslem believers. Afghanistan is one of those countries where religion is still alive and active. However, it is not just their religion, which makes these people rise arms in hand against the occupiers of their homeland. Of course they are not Marxists, but they are patriots who want the liberation of their homeland, they are representatives of the democratic bourgeoisie. They do not want to live under the yoke of foreigners, regardless of the fact that their views are still far from those revolutionary bourgeois-democratic views, which result in deep-going reforms in the interest of their peoples.

But the struggle they are waging is of great importance, not only for Afghanistan, but also for the other peoples. It is evident that, with its intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union is fulfilling its imperialist strategic plans to secure key military positions in those countries and especially to extend its imperialist domination to the heart of Asia and the Middle East. It is known that Afghanistan borders on China and Pakistan. So the Soviet Union wants to consolidate its strategic-military positions against China and pro-American or pro-British Pakistan. On the other hand, it is known that Afghanistan also borders on Iran, and indeed the Afghan insurgents present themselves as friends, well-wishers and co-fighters of Khomeini. Hence, if the Afghan insurgents triumph over the Soviets and their tools, this would be to the advantage of Khomeini. This, of course, is not an easy task, nor one that can be accomplished in a matter of days, nevertheless, the people of Afghanistan who are brothers lip religion with the Iranian Shiites, are creating problems for the imperialists and the social-imperialists.

With their military intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviets are encircling Iran from the north and the south, and if the United States of America intervenes in Iran with armed forces, then the Soviet Union, too, will commence its operations in that direction, of course, in order to capture part of Iran, but not, I think, to confront American imperialism in an armed struggle as yet.

Therefore, the Soviets are preparing for an eventual war, which might be waged in the big oil-bearing zone, the Middle East. Syria, where the Soviet influence is; more apparent, has not yet condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, but the other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have done so. Thus all these countries have spoken out against the Soviets over their barbarous actions in Afghanistan and their aims to dominate it. So, in this situation, the Arab countries cannot accept any intervention by the United States of America with armed forces in Iran.

Thus, all world opinion has been aroused against the actions of the Soviets and, as the foreign news agencies report, Moscow has been forced to declare that it wilt withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as soon as the situation is stabilized. This is the same old refrain which the imperialists always resort to after they have intervened with military force and occupied countries and peoples. But the reaction of world opinion against the Soviet intervention makes an American intervention in Iran less possible or more difficult. In other words, the world is realizing that the imperialists and social-imperialists are aggressors, that they are oppressors of the peoples and exploiters of their wealth.

Naturally, the two superpowers reach secret agreements over the division of spheres of influence between them, but this division also gives rise to great opposition, causes a fierce militant revolutionary reaction on the part of the masses of the people who suffer the consequences of these agreements; this situation impels the peoples to revolt against the internal and external oppression of local and world capitalism.



...The situation was threatening even before, but now, following the events in Iran and after the Soviet aggression against Afghanistan, that is, after the occupation of that country by the Soviet Union with tanks and armed forces, the threats and preparations for local wars, or a general war, are assuming more definite form.

As I have said at other times, the Middle East, the great oil-bearing zone, has become a hot-bed of war in the world today. It is that part of the globe where the political-economic-strategic predatory interests of the great powers, first of all, of the United States of America and the Soviet Union, and also, those of China, the capitalist countries of Western Europe, Japan, etc., are colliding and coming to grips with one another. Uprisings of those peoples who are living under the double oppression and exploitation of the big multinational oil companies and cliques, kings, sheiks, feudal lords, emirs and the local capitalist bourgeoisie are taking place in that region.

The energy problem in the world, which is linked with the production and distribution of oil which holds first place as a source of energy, has become very acute. This has brought about the further deepening of the world-wide general economic crisis.

The overthrow of the shah, naturally, created major problems inside Iran and abroad. The positive aspect of the uprising of the Iranian people, irrespective of who is leading it, is that it brought about the overthrow of the shah, a lackey of American imperialism, and further threatened the oil supplies of the United States of America. Besides this, the United States of America suffered another great political blow, because the Iranian people and students stormed and took the American embassy in Teheran, are still holding captive the entire personnel of this embassy and have seized all the documents of the embassy which are proof of the criminal actions of the CIA and the shah.

The United States of America tried to escape unscathed, politically and economically, from the events in Iran, therefore it threatened an armed attack, dispatched its naval fleet to the vicinity of the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean and is keeping it there. President Carter proclaimed a number of economic and other sanctions against Iran. In fact it proved impossible to apply these measures with the effect desired by their authors. Nevertheless, they provided the pretext for which the Soviet Union was waiting, and had long been preparing, to intervene in Afghanistan where the puppets it had brought to power were endangered by the Islamic "popular" I say "popular" because, in fact, the Afghan people have risen against the Soviet puppets, but the Chinese, the Americans and the Pakistani are trying to manipulate and exploit their struggle for their own ends. It was precisely this turbulent situation and the threats of Carter against Iran, as I said, which provided the Soviets with the opportunity to send their tanks into Afghanistan.

Naturally this aggression and occupation created a dangerous situation in the world and made the Middle East a very delicate zone where the superpowers are directly confronting each other in a state of cold war which threatens to turn into a hot war at any moment.

Nevertheless, following the open aggression of the Soviet Union against Afghanistan, American imperialism has somewhat lowered its bugles against Iran, but this does not mean that it has given up its manoeuvres and plots within the country, neither does this exclude efforts to reach certain compromises with the current Iranian leadership in order to avert the outbreak of war in the oil zone. Notwithstanding this, the United States of America is keeping its warships and has increased the number of detachments of marines in this region, is strengthening the military bases it has in the Persian Gulf such as those in Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates and Oman, and is trying to establish other bases in Somalia and North Yemen in order to counterbalance the important strategic points which Soviet social-imperialism has occupied in South Yemen, Ethiopia and, especially, in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan the Soviets encountered resistance. The men of the American government exploited this quite openly, came to terms with the reactionary leadership of Pakistan and declared that they would provide, and did in fact provide, economic and military aid to Pakistan so that it can defend itself against an eventual Soviet attack and the USA can make use of the Afghans' guerrilla war for their own interests.

As is known, the meeting of Moslem countries was held in Islamabad. There it was decided that all the Moslem countries should help the Afghan people and the so-called Committee which is directing the war against the Soviets inside Afghanistan. We see that China is active in these open actions and subversive manoeuvres, declaring that it is helping the Afghan refugees in Pakistan with arms and ammunition and also giving them economic aid. Hence, we can say that a new confrontation has emerged around the borders of Afghanistan, within which the Soviet troops are stationed, on the one side is the Soviet army which is fighting against the Afghan insurgents, and on the other side, Pakistan and China, and behind them the United States of America, which are trying to use the war of the insurgents to their own advantage. Thus, in this zone there is an open local conflict between the Soviets and the Afghans, and a disguised conflict between the Soviets and the Americans behind the scenes, and the present Afghan officials and the Chinese likewise behind the scenes.

In the other countries of the Middle East at present there is, so to say, a certain status quo in which, in fact, a shift can be seen in the positions of various countries of this basin in defence of the Iranian revolution and the Afghan people, and efforts of some to link up more openly with the Soviet Union and others with the United States of America.

In other words, the allies of Washington in this oil-bearing zone are trying to strengthen their friendship with the United States of America in the first place, and on the other hand, to bring the Iran of Khomeini to terms with American imperialism. For their part, the Soviets are trying to prevent Syria and Iraq slipping from their grasp and becoming friends of the USA and to keep them "friends and well-wishers" of the Soviet Union.

Thus the situation in the Arab world remains as before, with the one difference that Egypt and Israel are continuing to strengthen their alliance and friendship under the American umbrella, to watch the development of the popular movement in Iran closely v and with hostility, to barrack for and incite the United States of America to take measures towards the Soviet Union more coercive than those of boycotting the Olympic games, etc. We see also that Qadhafi's Libya has begun to intervene in Tunisia by sending its commandos to Gafsa and causing a riot which, naturally, was suppressed but brought another factor, the French factor, into the arena of this zone. France, in fact, sent military aid to Tunisia. Thus, it is becoming ever more clear that France is making military preparations to defend the so-called independent and sovereign Francophone states where French capital has major exploitative interests. This is precisely what impels France to avoid involvement in the American-Soviet conflict and to adopt political stands which are contrary to those proposed by Carter, as for example: the proposal for the boycott of the Olympic games and the other proposal for the summoning of a meeting of foreign ministers of the countries of Western Europe and the United States of America to discuss the Soviet aggression against Afghanistan and the measures proposed by Carter. West Germany, too, is not fully in unison with the United States of America over this question.

Thus, we see that contradictions exist between the United States of America, France and Germany over major international problems. These contradictions stem from the fact that these two European developed capitalist countries with highly developed big industries need the oil of Iran and the oil of the OPEC member countries, that is, other countries of the Middle East, some African countries and Venezuela. Thus, they do not want to get involved in the infernal machinations of American interests, but want to stand aloof from the actions of the Carter administration, in other words, they are unwilling to play the game of the CIA. Hence, we see that in order to defend their vital interests on the question of oil, these two countries, France and West Germany, do not want the aggravation of the situation, but want continuation of the "détente" between the Soviet Union and the United States of America.

This is why both Paris and Bonn condemned the entry of the Soviet military forces into Afghanistan, though in a low voice, a thing which gave rise to a contradiction between the Policy of America and that of these two states. Of the countries of Western Europe only Britain is showing itself to be a more aggressive "hawk". Nevertheless, while following the United States of America, it still does not forget to do what it has always done, or to continue to pursue its policy of balance, to lean sometimes towards the West sometimes towards the East, to keep an eye both on America and on Europe, hence, also on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

In regard to the countries of Eastern Europe, the satellites of the Soviet Union, they owe the Western countries billions of dollars. As a consequence the Western capitalists, who have major interests in these countries are not deteriorating matters with the Soviet Union and its satellites. So the Western powers have markets in those countries, make investments there and, therefore, they desire and are working to avoid a further exacerbation of relations between them and the Soviet Union, like that which is occurring between the Soviet Union and the United States of America.

The policy of our country in regard to all these political events and stands on a world scale is correct. We analyse the situations and take our stand on the basis of conclusions we draw from the development of events. The fact is that our political stands, expressed in our articles and books, find a large response in the world, are liked and approved. Various diplomats from many states of the world, with whom our diplomats have contact, approve our policy and express this in good words, saying: Although your ideological views are contrary to ours, we approve your stands. All this has created a favourable situation for our country among the broad masses of peoples who hear the voice of our Radio and read our press and literature.

Depending on the occasion and circumstances, our political stands find response, also, among many bourgeois governments. Why do I say this? Because when we condemn Soviet social-imperialism for its blood-thirsty adventures, when we expose American imperialism for its aggressive actions, our correct stand is approved also by people in the governments of many states which are members of the NATO bloc or of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

We notice that in Greece, especially, both among the people and in government circles, among intellectuals and the members of different parties, our policy is finding a wide-spread positive response. Every political, cultural or ideological event of our Party and country is mentioned, indeed, is given an extraordinary amount of publicity in virtually all the Greek newspapers, a thing which has created a very favourable opinion about our country and Government in Greece.

Our stand of good-will towards Greece, expressed in our public declarations that no harm will come to Greece from our country, indeed, that we shall come to its aid if any misfortune befalls it, shall help to defend it from any aggression from whatever direction it may come, has won the Greek people's approval and praise for our policy.

The same thing is happening in Turkey, too. Progressive Turkish opinion is making great propaganda markedly in favour of Albania. There, too, almost all the newspapers write positively about our country, in conversations with comrades of our embassy Turkish officials speak sympathetically, indeed often with admiration, of the independent policy of our state...

In Italy the situation is extraordinary disturbed, terrorism is becoming widespread. The Italian fascist party, which bears the name "Movimento sociale italiano, destra nazionale", has proposed that the military should take over the Ministry of the Interior and the death penalty should be introduced. This is a further step which Italian reaction wants to take towards the restoration of fascism...

With Italy we continue to have trade relations and we can say that they are increasing. The Italians are interested in buying from us goods they need and selling us goods we need. In this direction we can say that a more favourable situation has been created.

On the basis of this panorama of the international situation revolutionary vigilance must always be on the order of the day for us and it must be strengthened with the further political and ideological uplift of the broad masses of the people, of the communists, first of all. This means that the situations which the world and our country are going through must be explained systematically and be thoroughly understood by all and, bearing this in mind, the defence of the country must be strengthened from every aspect...


THOUGHTS ON THE INTERVIEW GIVEN BY ZBIGNEW BRZEZINSKI (At that time National Security Adviser to President Carter)

In an interview he gave to the American magazine U.S. News and World Report of January 7 of this year, Brzezinski admits openly that the United States of America is an aggressive colonial force of the new type, which is facing two main challenges: "The first challenge is in regard to its geo-strategic position in the world, and the second has to do with its relations with the two thirds of the world, which, during the last two decades, have experienced a sudden awakening of their political consciousness.. In other words, this means that the position of American imperialism in those countries has been shaken and is being challenged, or that two-thirds of the world" are fighting against the yoke of American imperialism.

The spokesman of the American enslavers asserts in this interview that his state, which aspires to world hegemony, is threatened by a potential rival, and this rival is the Soviet Union which also aspires to world hegemony. Apart from this, Brzezinski is obliged to admit that the unexpected emergence of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America on the world scene has had an influence, upsetting the status quo so greatly desired by the United States of America. According to him, this means "the end of the Eurocentric period in international problems".

For Brzezinski, Iran, where the great neo-colonialist interests of the United States of America have been seriously endangered, is included in this sphere of disturbance. This disturbance, or disequilibrium, has come about because American policy has not been active in that country and in the international arena(!). That is what he says, but in fact the opposite is true. The policy of domination, oppression and exploitation, and even armed warfare, as in Vietnam and elsewhere, of the United States of America, has been active continuously in that region of the world and in the international arena. Precisely the barbarous acts of domination, oppression and exploitation of American imperialism have aroused the opposition of the peoples whom it attacked or exploited and whom Brzezinski includes in the two-thirds of the world which has allegedly experienced "a sudden awakening of political consciousness!" Now, in his interview, Brzezinski says that "we (i.e., the United States) must make greater continuous efforts for the development of more meaningful relations with those countries which" according to this servant and rabid defender of American imperialism, "hitherto have not been active in the international arena". This means that American imperialism, and concretely the present American government, should revise its tactics, without changing its strategy. In his interview Brzezinski expresses himself textually as follows: I hope that the ever greater commitment to a policy of support in order to cope with an entirely new world in a constructive way, will ensure that "the wrath is diminished" so that the United States of America and its aggressive policy will be more acceptable to the peoples(!).

As Brzezinski himself explains, this means that the American strategy will continue to pursue "the increase of American power" through the increase of the production of the most sophisticated weapons, the growth of economic power, the protection of spheres of influence and continuation of the policy of subjecting them to many-sided economic, political and military control, while at the same time manoeuvring with the familiar demagogic tactic of "the carrot and the stick. in order to "calm the anger. of the peoples, as in Iran and elsewhere.

In this interview, while referring to the Iranian crisis and subsequent events, Brzezinski confirms that the policy of force and armed intervention remains unaltered. This is how this spokesman of American imperialism expresses this policy, "...I have no doubt that the use of American power and the readiness of the President to employ it in case of need are not unimportant considerations either to our country, or to the countries of the other side". Here the American cynicism, with which the anti-democratic, policy, the defence of "the sovereignty of the peoples", the defence of "human rights", so loudly trumpeted by Carter, are treated, is quite obvious. The peoples of the world are openly threatened with attacks by the "American power", if they infringe the interests of the United States and the zones of influence of the dollar, likewise established by means of force in different regions of the world.

Carter's adviser on questions of American national security, that is, of the United States of America and its spheres of influence in different continents, states in the clearest Machiavellian terms, that in these zones of the world "American power is the central source of the existing stability" and he goes on to add that those countries which support a moderate policy (that is, do not encroach on American interests)... are aware that the future of their external security, and as a consequence, their internal security, also, is greatly dependent on the American power present in the region. This is his conclusion which, at the same time, is a warning in the form of an ultimatum and threat to the peoples who have risen or are rising for their national and social liberation against the oppression and exploitation of imperialist and neo-colonialist superpowers.

In this interview Brzezinski says nothing new but simply re-affirms the permanent policy of American imperialism. However, through his affirmations, American imperialism expresses its fear of the people's uprisings which are mounting so that it does not feel at all secure; therefore, it is forced to grind its teeth and tell the cliques of those countries which are threatened by their peoples that their remaining in power depends on their reliance on American military force. To give heart to his vassals, Brzezinski says that the United States is present with its fleet in the Persian Gulf, that it will watch developments in that region, and he ensures them that the Americans "will not allow interference from outside!".

Thus American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism themselves announce in advance that Washington or Moscow has a finger in the plots to sabotage and crush peoples' uprisings everywhere. The people who fight in these uprisings to win the freedom, independence and sovereignty, of which the imperialists and social-imperialists and their puppets have robbed them, are a factor which does not exist for them. With this outlook they want to conceal their policy of domination, exploitation and intervention with arms, intrigues and demagogy to the detriment of other peoples and countries.

American imperialism foresees turmoil in the future and is engaging in demagogy in order to conceal this reality. Thus, while demanding the building of a policy which is appropriate to the time and circumstances, Brzezinski claims that the countries of the "third world", which make up the majority, "support" the policy of the United States of America, and tries to find confirmation and backing for this lie in a vote "in the Security Council of the United Nations Organization, saying that in the confrontation with Iran we have unanimous support. as is reflected in the 15 to 0 vote in the Security Council". Fortunately, however, people's revolutions do not follow the results of voting in the Security Council, but follow the course opposed to those who vote in this organ of the UNO for resolutions of no value to the peoples of the world.

For American imperialism, it is imperative that the present great crisis which has gripped the world, and the mounting revolution of the peoples should be suppressed, dominated. But the United States of America does not feel strong enough to do this, so Brzezinski launches the idea that NATO remains the main alliance in relations with the United States of America, but it operates in a world in which our interests of collective security have extended further than in the past. Today there are three interdependent central zones of security: Western Europe, the Far East and the Middle East, Hence, it is true that the United States of America is defending Western Europe, but Western Europe must not wash its hands, so to speak, of the events in Asia, Africa and elsewhere. To Brzezinski these events and interests are interdependent, so Western Europe should not leave the United States of America on its own in the role of the international gendarme. It is necessary that all of them become gendarmes both in defence of Western Europe and in defence of the American interests outside Europe. In other words, the United States is telling France and West Germany not to be so "independent" in their decisions on the policy they are pursuing in the oil basin, in Africa and towards the Soviet Union. American imperialism is demanding that these bourgeois-capitalist states of Europe should not steps out of line, but should march in step with Carter, as China under Deng and Hua is doing at present.

Undoubtedly, American imperialism does not agree with the interview which the president of France, Giscard d'Estaing, gave some days ago, in which he raises his voice and says that "the name of Europe should be heard in the world", and not drowned out by "the two giants". In other words, France is advocating closer co-operation with Federal Germany in order to protect their economic and political interests on the other continents and in their zones of influence, or in those which they will try to create. Hence, France and Germany do not want to leave all the "prey" to the two "lions", the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Later the Chinese, who at the moment are all hypocrisy and humility in their behaviour towards the Americans, will develop this appetite, too. Militarist Japan for its part, is arming, growing stronger, waiting for the prey to appear and does not fail to "fire a shot" from time to time in the stands it takes towards the situations created on different continents of the world.

Brzezinski tries to prove that the people's uprisings against foreign imperialists and their internal allies, especially in the oil-bearing zone, are not of a social and liberation character, but of a "religious" character, are completely idealistic, "Islamic" uprisings. He is obliged to admit that the "Islamic world is experiencing a political and religious revival", but, in his opinion, these revolutions, which he calls "spiritual manifestations", should not be turned into "negative" ones. Brzezinski declares that Islam is "an independent faith", which is practised by 800 million people. "Let us not turn Islam into an enemy of the West, and especially of the United States of America", he declares. Thus Brzezinski wants these 800 million people to submit themselves to American imperialism and to imperialism in general.

Hence, according to the imperialist enslavers, the revolutions against them, and especially those of the Moslem peoples, do not have a national and social liberation character, but a religious character. The Islamic religion is confounded with Christianity and the peoples' awakening, to free themselves from social bondage is considered only a revival of their religious belief. Hence, according to them, the xenophobia of the Moslem peoples has its source in their religion. The demagogy of imperialists and their attempt to deceive these peoples goes so far that Brzezinski says: the Islamic countries have greater confidence in themselves; they are no longer under the tutelage of the British, the French, or others.

Of course, according to this statement of Brzezinski's, "the United States of America has no people or country under tutelage"!

Brzezinski admits that the efforts to protect spheres of influence may also lead to confrontation between the two imperialist superpowers in the zone of Moslem countries. According to him, however, irrespective of the fact that "there exist ever greater disagreements" between the Moslem world and the United States, its relations with the Moslem world will improve, because we are interested in the independence of all Moslem countries: we respect their religious beliefs", etc.

These are parts of Carter's "new theory". The United States of America believes in religion, the Soviet Union does not. The United States rules through its agencies installed in those countries by the CIA, rules through capital investments, through banks, joint companies and multinational companies, and all these are reinforced with military bases, powerful fleets and the most sophisticated air-force, while the Soviet Union, according to Brzezinski, "exercises direct physical rule over some tens of millions of Moslems". "The Moslem religion has much in common with Christianity", therefore, says Brzezinski, everything unites the United States with the Moslem countries, while "everything separates them from the atheist Soviet Union"!

This is the whole deduction of this arrogant imperialist who takes others for fools and considers himself the discoverer of something new in which the crises and political-military and social confrontations have their source. And, in order to deceive the Moslems, Brzezinski says among other things: ...If I were an ordinary Moslem, I would ask myself the question how could I link myself with a country which denies other Moslems their religious rights.

The peoples of the world, and especially the peoples of those hot and very hot zones that exist today in the world, should understand, on the basis of events, facts, political stands and military activities which are quite clear, that the two imperialist superpowers and their Allies, organized in blocs or linked with and dependent on them, are gambling with their fate, and this will have tragic consequences for them. Every activity and every action that they organize, they undertake solely for their own interests, to the detriment of the vital interests of the peoples and peace.

The big imperialist powers are fighting with every means to protect the markets and zones of influence they have in the world today. When one of them loses a market in a given zone. it tries to secure it in another zone at the expense of his rival or rivals. This gives rise to disturbances of the balance to the birth and deepening of contradictions and disagreements which reach the point of armed confrontations, and this gives rise to the armaments race, to local wars which are fanned up to embroil mankind in a general imperialist war of plunder.

The imperialist powers, both the big ones and the. smaller ones, think, act and theorize as though they hold the fate of the peoples and mankind in their hands. and on this basis, they seek to subjugate the peoples. These aggressive powers underrate the dialectical development and strengthening of the liberation struggles and revolutions. Their vision has been blurred and they do not want to understand that every step of the peoples towards opposition to the two-fold oppression and enslavement, internal and external, is a breach which will be widened in the wall of the capitalist prison.

The awakening of the peoples of the world is an incontestable fact. It has come about contrary to the desires of the various imperialists and capitalists. The awakening of the peoples and their struggle for victory in the political and social fields have not been brought about either by religious beliefs, or by enslaving theories in the service of capital. Irrespective of what orientation the subjective factor has had in a people's uprising, this uprising has been a significant minus for the former ruling regime, and this minus for reaction turns into a plus for the further development of the people's revolution and for the strengthening of the progressive subjective factors which carry the popular revolution on to proletarian revolution.

Our Marxist-Leninist theory teaches us that the deepening of crises within the capitalist world is the beginning of the death agony and coma of this world. Therefore, world capital is making desperate efforts to escape from this terrible grip which has it by the throat and is strangling it. But escape is impossible, because it is the capitalist system itself which gives birth to this crisis. which fosters it and intensifies it to the highest degree. Capitalism has created its own grave-digger, the proletariat. The struggle of the proletariat and the peoples has given imperialism "bad fevers". The temporary or relatively long-term treaties and agreements between imperialists are only palliatives, they are built on sand.

If Brzezinski considers the situation in the Soviet Union out of balance, then why should the united States of America be afraid of it? Brzezinski considers the United States of America consolidated. This, too, is untrue.

The two superpowers are equally aggressive, while the weakening of them is steadily increasing.

The struggle of the peoples, the struggle of the proletariat against their enemies, must advance in this great crisis which has world imperialism in its grip.



The Yugoslav foreign Policy is just as confused and vacillating as its internal policy. The "war horse" of the Titoites is the policy of "non alignment", but this "horse" is lame in two legs and with the death of the ageing knight-errant Tito, it too, will die.

Indeed this policy, if it can be called a policy, is a fiction, a castle built on sand, but not without definite purposes. It is a modus vivendi invented by world capitalism to preserve its neo-colonialist empire by deceiving the peoples that allegedly the policy pursued by the leaders of these countries which are called "non-aligned" but which, in fact, willingly or unwillingly are all satellites, to some extent, of American imperialism and other capitalist powers, is an "independent policy outside blocs".

Naturally the two imperialist superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, could not include the countries of their spheres of influence in the military blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty because then the superpowers would be in danger at all times of being involved in military or economic conflicts which would no longer have a local character, because they would be turned into spheres of influence for the other members of the blocs, too, and they would incite not only local wars, but also a world war.

These countries which call themselves "non-aligned" or which, as the Titoites claim, pursue a non-aligned policy, or the countries of the "third world", or, more exactly, those of the spheres of influence of one or the other industrialized capitalist country, are, you might say, floating states, states which have continual vacillations in their economic policy, because their policy is an appendix at the mercy of the great surgeon, who operates on it or does not operate on it according to the circumstances which develop.

All these countries and their states are hopelessly in debt hence their economy is a sick appendix of big world capital which makes the law in these countries, dictates their policy, maintains or brings down the cliques which lead them, according to the needs and the policy of joint companies of big finance capital.

The peoples of those countries suffer from every standpoint. The big capitalist powers have built such a structure and infrastructure there that they can ensure the oppression and exploitation of peoples whom they deceive by means of the slight-of-hand of an allegedly democratic parliamentary game, creating among them the impression that they are free, independent and sovereign.

In Gjirokastra the people say: "The sheep and goats of Zere, the fame of Hasan Qere" (one does the work, the other gets the credit). This is what occurs with the policy of "non-alignment", too. This policy is applied and financed by American imperialism, is approved in general by its allies and trumpeted by Tito. Earlier it was trumpeted by Nasser, Nehru, Nvkame Nkruma and Sukarno as well, but with their death or departure from the scene, only one "Trojan horse" is left, he who was allegedly the leader of the policy of "non-alignment". This was Tito of Yugoslavia. In reality throughout all his activity Tito has never been anything but an agent of American imperialism, which kept him on his feet for predetermined aims, and his Yugoslavia was nothing but an example of "a socialist" country independent of Moscow, an element "of importance" on the international chessboard and an example for the countries newly created after the Second World War, which had changed their former overlords and had placed themselves under the influence of new colonizers, the American imperialists, who had emerged powerful from the war, in order to be shown what course they must pursue in order to live on the crusts which US imperialism would provide for them.

The investments made by the Americans, the British, the French, the Germans, and others in Yugoslavia have been very large and fruitful for the capitalists, both in the economic and political fields and also from the standpoint of strengthening their military positions. For American imperialism and world capitalism Yugoslavia was a political bastion against the Soviet Union and the former people's democracies and, at the same time, a military glacis between NATO and the Warsaw Treaty. I say it was a political bastion, because this capitalist state, created during the post-war period, by pretending that it was building a specific socialism, was to serve as an urger and subversive element among the satellite countries of the Soviet Union, was to be a disrupter of the -unity of the revisionist Soviet Union with its satellites and with the other revisionist parties of Eastern and Western Europe.

Hence Tito, with his "non-aligned", policy, invented by American imperialism, together with the other leaders of the policy whom I mentioned above and who are now dead, was supposed to create a flock of sheep, with no head and no feet, but with a label reading the "non-aligned" countries, with a specific policy which allegedly distinguished them from and put them in opposition to the policy of blocs. All those countries which were allegedly non-aligned, but were under the economic and political influence and the protection of imperialism and capitalism, nurtured the illusion that in their repeated meetings they allegedly expressed their "great" will and opposition to the policy of big powers and blocs.

In this game of international policy, however, the Soviet Union did not lag behind the United States of America. It, too, had its spheres of influence which comprised allegedly independent states on various continents, in which not only the policy of the Soviet Union, but also its economic investments, played an important role. These states were permitted to take part in this world, and to develop a pseudo non-aligned policy. What was there to lose? Neither the Soviet Union nor its satellites lost anything because this -non-aligned. world did not take any commitments. In relation to the country on which each of these states was dependent, each one of them and each clique which ruled in them pursued that policy which ensured them the biggest profits, and when they found the favourable moment they could go over to another dependence, that is, become part of another sphere of influence. Naturally this gave rise to frictions, a thing which became apparent in the voting in the United Nations, where previously the votes had been divided according to blocs, while later they began to vacillate from side to side. Irrespective that these votes had no importance, the game was played behind the scenes between the big powers. In the United Nations the voting machine is similar to that in the parliaments of bourgeois-democratic countries.

In these "non-aligned" countries, however, it is not only the influence of blocs which was felt, as Titoism claims when it says that there cannot be "complete freedom" as long as blocs exist, but also the influence of individual members of these blocs, which had both political and economic contradictions within the blocs and each sought to safeguard and increase its sphere of influence at the expense of its allies, whether in NATO or in the Soviet bloc. Thus the policy of "non-alignment" did not hinder France, Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany and other states from spreading their influence widely once they had strengthened their political and economic positions after the Second World War and especially in the recent decades. In connection with the spheres of influence, NATO did not operate as a military bloc, but each member of this bloc operated in its own zones as a separate economic-political power.

Naturally the contradictions within NATO are manifested outside it. NATO does not see the interests of its members from the angle of its monolithic "unity". This is quite apparent in the opposition which is developing between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America, between the United States and France, between France and Britain, etc., indeed matters have gone so far that Brzezinski is demanding that the NATO member countries should assist the American policy to safeguard the economic-political-military influence of the United States, not only in the zone of Europe, but in all parts of the world where American imperialism has invested its economic means and has spread its political forces.

The American policy has suffered defeats in the world and this has been reflected in the so-called policy of the "non-aligned" countries. Thus, at the Havana conference opposition was displayed among participating countries which are allies of both blocs. The pro-Soviet countries like Cuba, Somalia and others supported the policy of the Soviet Union, while the group which allegedly follows the policy of Belgrade defended the American policy under the camouflage of the "non-aligned" policy, the policy "outside blocs and in opposition to the blocs". This whole meeting, like the former ones, was a masquerade and those that will be held in the future will be the same, too, because every capitalist state, large or small, which is part of the "non-aligned" world pursues a foreign policy in tune with that of the power that finances or supports it and with which the fate of the governing clique is linked.

At present, seeing the weakness of the American policy in the world, the France of Giscard D'Estaing and West Germany have begun to make a powerful display of their policy of economic, political and military expansion, and both these states, not to mention Japan and Britain, have their zones of influence and have under their dependence states which are called "non-aligned", which pursue the policy which is dictated to them by these powers. Thus the Titoites can prattle about their theory of "non-alignment", thinking that allegedly they have found the much desired formula to safeguard the power of American capital and other industrialized capitalist states, but this no longer carries any weight even as a fiction.

The last "horse" of this bandwagon invented by American imperialism is dying and this dada of theirs will die with them. The Yugoslav "collective" leadership will no longer be able to wave this banner of "non-alignment" and deceive the peoples and, in fact, they have never deceived them. Even the vassal cliques of world capitalism have never regarded Yugoslavia as anything but a valet of American imperialism. With the death of Tito, this valet will disappear and that will be the end of this joker which world capital has brought into play at any moment.



Following the military invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet social-imperialism and the intervention of military commandos of American imperialism in Iran, allegedly to rescue the hostages that are held in the American embassy in Teheran, the international situation is becoming more and more turbulent and aggravated, from day to day. Now we see that the social-imperialist Soviet Union is operating openly and brutally with military forces and with subversion in Afghanistan and in other regions of the Middle East, in Africa and elsewhere.

We see also that, faced with this expansionist policy and acts of aggression of Soviet social-imperialism, American imperialism is in a dilemma over whether it, too, should act like Soviet social-imperialism, that is, undertake similar aggressive steps. But the question presents itself in this way when both American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism have been gripped by a great economic and political crisis.

Naturally the United States of America has extended its spheres of influence, but now it has to keep them free of encroaches and even strengthen them. Now, however, it is less capable of doing so as it was before. As we know, after the Second World War, American imperialism achieved a great victory over its adversaries, or its "allies" and succeeded in becoming the leader of world capitalism. With its economic strength, which was greatly increased and extended, invading the markets of the French franc, the British pound, the Japanese yen, and the German mark, the United States succeeded in imposing its own military, political and economic laws on the countries which represent these markets. Thus the great American companies and monopolies infiltrated and installed themselves everywhere in the capitalist countries, in West Germany, France, Britain and their former colonies, in Japan and elsewhere and. through NATO, became the "protector" of the whole capitalist world. Consequently, this extension gave the American military industry the possibility to work at high rates in order to develop more sophisticated armaments on such a scale that the United States of America was able to harness all the members of NATO to its chariot and become the main supplier of weapons in the world. This, of course, could not go on forever. Thus a time came when the NATO member countries, which had obligations towards the United States of America and had the smallest bowls at the "common table", developed an increased appetite and, after having organized and strengthened their economic potential, they extended it outside their countries, became stronger militarily, too, and set to work to create a new reactionary organism, the European Common Market.

As time passed, the European Common Market grew steadily stronger from the standpoint of its organization the division of roles, economic contributions and a certain stability or agreement about the reciprocal exchange of goods which were produced with some degree of planning, and its relative monetary stability in comparison with other currencies. The tendencies of this grouping were to balance, or, rather, oppose the American dictate as far as possible in economic affairs in Europe, to restrain the American expansion to the markets of member countries of the European Common Market, to compete on the American market, and to expand their markets and spheres of influence, both as a whole organization and as individual member states of this Market.

All this political and economic organization was done contrary to the desires of the American economic power. Indeed, it is clear that such an organization, fraught with contradictions, was not to the liking of the United States of America from the political standpoint either, and that is why it tried to hinder the creation of this new union.

In this direction and in this process we see that the contradictions are increasing between the United States of America and "United Europe", all the countries of which, individually and also as a group, have their own separate aims and objectives, both towards one another and towards the United States of America.

The United States operates against the European Common Market from within and from without. As events show, Britain plays the card of the United States of America to weaken the European Common Market and its aims from within. In fact the meeting of prime ministers of the member countries of the European Common Market, which was held in recent days in Luxembourg, suffered fiasco precisely because of the refusal of Britain to pay the quota allocated as its contribution by the other partners of the European Common Market.

Besides this, following a period when a certain understanding, not to say close collaboration, existed between Prance and West Germany, now we see a certain coolness between them and on some questions it is clear that the Federal Republic of Germany is siding more with the Americans. It is known that the Federal Republic of Germany is the most powerful member of "United Europe" from the economic aspect and possibly also from the military aspect. It was Bonn, for example, which in the great world crisis and especially in the dollar crisis came to the rescue of the American currency, while France has begun to display more independence from the United States of America.

The France of Giscard is the most wayward "child" of the European Common Market. We cannot say that it has no influence in this market. But the disagreements and the contradictions of "United Europe", the European Common Market, are not only in the field of the relations of this group with the United States of America. Now each of the states which make up the European Common Market has begun to recreate and strengthen its own spheres of influence, on an extensive scale. Indeed France, for its part, is very actively sending soldiers and commandos to Africa, especially to the French-speaking countries. France keeps these countries under its leadership and economic and military control, not only by means of finance and investments, but also by means of the cultural basis it has there, its stratum of intellectuals in the leadership of these countries. So, the links of these countries with France are not only economic and military, but also cultural and spiritual.

For its part West Germany, which has great economic and military potential, is on the scene everywhere, with fists full of marks from the sale of factories and of technology wherever it can find markets, and it finds plenty of markets because all the so-called non-aligned countries are holding out their hands to all sides and take from all.

Italy, too, invests, but it does not have the power of the two countries I mentioned above, nor that of Britain, which, likewise, is trying to re-establish its sphere of influence in the world, though as a partner it has always been and still is three quarters in the pocket of the United States of America.

As for the military side, the countries of "United Europe" that are members of NATO, with the exception of France, which is a member of it but is not militarily engaged in it and has nuclear weapons of its own, safeguard their alliance with the United States of America and, under the umbrella of this alliance, which has splits in it but "protects" them from the rain and the hail and the Soviet thunderbolt, are working to strengthen it as a whole and to strengthen their own military potential as separate countries.

The United States of America is aware of the double game of the European Common Market and the NATO members in this situation, and this double game is not to its advantage, therefore it is demanding of the NATO member countries that they obey Washington, or, to put it better, acknowledge the American leadership both in NATO, that is, in the military field, and in the European Common Market, that is, in the economic field. In other words, the countries of United Europe. should pursue an economic policy which does not damage the interests of the United States of America. On the contrary, they should be subservient to American interests, which they should bear in mind in the markets which they are penetrating. This also for the reason that the United States of America has more advanced technological and material potential, a thing that allegedly is of consequence in "the defence" of the West from the striking force of Soviet socialimperialism. But the law of the jungle operates in the world of capital regardless of the desires of one side or the other, so the contradictions become deeper. Thus we can say that the capitalist reactionary European Common Market has begun to emerge as an economic, political and military power within NATO, in ways not so dependent upon and not so obedient to the American leadership.

At present we see that American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism are facing the mounting peoples' movement for national liberation. We see also that "United Europe", too, is facing the national liberation movement and struggle of the peoples for freedom, democracy and sovereignty which is becoming stronger.

At these moments, American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, the new Chinese imperialism and "United Europe" are rubbing shoulders with one another all over the world. The contradictions and crises amongst these capitalist-imperialist-revisionist blocs are becoming deeper. The crisis of the dollar, the franc, the mark, the ruble and of all the other currencies of the capitalist countries, is caused by the great economic and political crisis which has engulfed these countries.

Now we see that Soviet social-imperialism, confronting the old imperialism, is becoming more aggressive every day and is intervening with arms in different countries of the world, in markets and spheres of influence claimed by American imperialism and world capitalism. Therefore this invasion is encountering the opposition not only of the peoples who are the victims of Soviet aggression, but also of American imperialism and "United Europe".

The truth is that, faced with acts of invasion by Soviet social-imperialism, American imperialism finds itself in difficult and weak positions. This also because it has contradictions with its partners of "United Europe". The latter do not accept the adventurous war-mongering policy of the United States of America and refuse to obey the Americans blindly in actions planned in Washington and especially in actions against Iran and other countries of the Middle East. Precisely in these two latter instances the American government has reproached its allies of "United Europe" and others or not supporting it, telling them bluntly that we, the United States of America, will help you in case of an attack by the Soviets, so you ought to help us to defend our spheres of neo-colonialist influence in the world.

We observe that the Western powers support the insanely aggressive actions of the United States of America only in words. In reality, in essence, they have pulled out and left the Americans in the lurch. We saw a concrete instance of this in the lack of support for the Camp David agreements that were reached between Israel and Egypt under the patronage of the United States of America; we see it in the refusal of the demands for economic and political sanctions against Iran, in the refusal of the demands of the American government for a boycott of the Olympic games which are due to be held this year in Moscow, etc. In this situation we see that France is strengthening its positions not only in Africa, but also is clearly implying that it does not agree with the American policy in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, where it sent president d'Estaing recently on an official visit. In other words, France is displaying open rebellion against the status quo established at the time when the Americans as the leader made their policy the law in those countries and in other countries of the world.

At the same time we see that the European Common Market, that is, the nine of "United Europe", despite some. differences in their stands, do not want to exacerbate matters with the Soviet Union. Here, too, France stands out. It is more prominent than its "United Europe" partners in the efforts to reduce the tension with the Soviet Union and continue the dialogue with that country. Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany, also, is proceeding on this course, with somewhat less intensity, while Britain is proving just as intransigent as the United States of America itself.

These considerations show that the United States of America is not only confronting the other imperialist power, the Soviet Union, but is also faced with increasing disagreements and contradictions with its partners of "United Europe", a thing that puts it in a difficult position and prevents it from having a show-down with the Soviet Union.

American imperialism and world capitalism have invested billions of dollars in the Soviet Union and the other former people's democracies, hoping not only to secure great economic profits, which, in fact, they have secured, but also to impose on the Soviet Union and the ,countries of the Warsaw Treaty their views and their policy, to weaken the Soviet policy of hegemony and aggression and to strengthen the American hegemony.

But the Soviet Union has been able to obtain credits and modern Western and American technology, first of all, to strengthen its industry and modernize its technology, to improve its armaments industry, to increase its weapons and their firepower, hence, to strengthen its aggressive army. As a result, today the Soviet Union is in a strong military position and has a militarized economy.

Although it has contradictions with its allies of the Warsaw Treaty, and although it has allowed them to obtain Western technology through innumerable credits, the Soviet Union keeps them firmly under its control. In case of a world-wide conflagration or a confrontation with the United States of America, the members of the Warsaw Treaty will march together with the Soviet Union under the Soviet bludgeon, while NATO will not march so compactly under the American bludgeon. Nevertheless, at the moment, and until that confrontation is reached, "United Europe" is putting up some opposition to American imperialism.

Finally we can come to the following conclusion: today the social-imperialist Soviet Union acts without asking leave of anyone and it encounters weak adversaries in its aggressive actions, while American imperialism is trying to enforce obedience on its NATO allies by military threats and economic pressure, but is unable to act as freely as the Soviet Union does with its submissive allies. Here is the American "Achilles' heel", because the aims, desires and individual actions of American imperialism are aggressive to the extreme and leading towards an imperialist world war. It cannot win otherwise and cannot evade a situation which brings it death. Before it dies, sooner or later it will have to clash with Soviet socialimperialism, whether the allies in NATO or in the Warsaw Treaty like it or not. The NATO allies and those of the Warsaw Treaty are striving to cling to a policy of balance as they teeter on the brink of a world war but this will not save them from danger in an eventual war that may he caused by American imperialism and Soviet socialimperialism.

So, the United States of America is striving to gain firmer control over its European allies and, on the other hand, together with the clique of Deng Xiaoping is trying to consolidate and to compensate for the weakening which comes from Western Europe, through the Chinese-Japanese alliance. If we view future developments from this angle, the Chinese-American alliance assumes great importance for the imperialist strategy, because China is a weaker partner than the other partners of "United Europe". It is eager to obtain armaments and technology to accomplish the four modernisation's and, moreover, is hostile to the Soviet Union. Thus, for the United States of America, for the American strategy, the best and the most advantageous pawn in the present situation on the chessboard, is China and together with it Japan, though the latter has much greater economic and military potential and is more advanced than Deng Xiaoping's China.

These are the waters, this is the situation, this is the corrupt policy in which the rotten administration of Jimmy Carter is wallowing at present.

It is our duty to exploit these situations. To the extent we can, we Albanian communists, in full unity with the peoples who are fighting and with the communists in the world, must fight with all our might and means to attack mercilessly and unmask completely the aims, the actions and the aggressive plots, the fascist, pseudo-socialist, pseudo-democratic policy of all the imperialist states that are writhing in the last agony of dying world capitalism, We must prevent war by fighting against them. We must be vigilant, but vigilant not in apathy and remaining idle onlookers but in action, in activity and in struggle to take advantage of every breach. The true Marxist-Leninists, the revolutionary forces, the freedom-loving peoples, must understand that, although the situation is very dangerous, at the same time it is very favourable for the peoples, for the revolution.



The great world economic crisis which has a stranglehold on the two imperialist superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, as well as on the industrialized countries, Japan, Federal Germany, France, Britain, Canada, Italy, and others like Maoist China, Titoite Yugoslavia, the member countries of the Comecon, etc., is getting deeper and deeper every day. It is fraught with grave consequences for all the states dependent on international capital.

This major economic crisis is a crisis of overproduction, of the industrial boom (English in the original) but, at the same time, it has caused a profound crisis in production. In fact, in all the capitalist and revisionist countries it has led to increased unemployment, inflation, price rises, etc. This means that, at present, production has fallen and the struggle has begun to clear stocks of goods. However the capitalist bourgeoisie does not clear these stocks of goods by reducing prices, but by turning the workers out on the streets, that is, by slowing down production. So, since capitalist industry no longer functions at its former level of productivity, the crisis of raw materials emerges. This crisis, likewise, is very grave and is accompanied with the colossal interimperialist struggle for markets. This struggle, sometimes open and sometimes subversive, is accompanied with an increase in military budgets and sophisticated conventional and atomic-nuclear weapons to levels incomparably higher than ever before.

The United States of America, the Soviet Union, China and other imperialist powers have become the most frenzied inciters of a new imperialist world war. Their hegemonic policy, their eagerness to preserve the existing imperialist status quo on the one hand, and to redivide the spheres of influence on the other hand, have deepened and aggravated the contradictions among the great powers themselves and between them and their partners in crime in their exploitation of other peoples, and so has created new conflicts.

The economic, political and military relations in the various imperialist and revisionist groupings have been shaken. The members of these groupings are striving to cause, to find and to exploit various splits and in this way to formulate excuses for refusing to adhere to commitments, treaties and agreements which exist among them.

At present the struggle of the peoples who are oppressed and exploited by world capital in crisis has assumed proportions and a variety of forms never seen before. This is precisely the true source of the great economic crisis which has engulfed the capitalist and revisionist world. On the surface, it seems as if the armed conflicts, the conflicts in the field of economic-financial relations, the great energy crisis and so on are only between capitalist states, but in fact the origin of these conflicts is more deep-seated and is eroding the bourgeois capitalist state which is striving to defend itself, to stay alive, to heal its numerous wounds, etc. The force which is eroding the bourgeois capitalist state is the struggle in all forms and at all levels that the peoples of the world are waging. In one way or another, here with greater there with lesser intensity, the working class and all the exploited are aware of and fight against all forms of the capitalist regime, either local or international, which is exploiting, impoverishing and oppressing them economically and morally. Hence there is great discontent and revolt among the peoples of the world.

In almost all the capitalist countries today strikes involving millions of people are taking place, there are fierce clashes with the force of law and order, there are armed revolts, but also military putsches, acts of terrorism and anarchism organized by the ruling bourgeois capitalist governments, there is a colossal amount of smuggling and theft organized on a national and international scale, there is an unlimited and monstrous development of political, moral and physical corruption. Thus the way is being prepared for fascism to come to power.

Today we are living in the period of the decay of capitalism, of the weakening, disintegration and bankruptcy this system, this degenerate society. There is no way out of this chaos, this filth other than the revolution, the surgical removal of the rotten tissue, the seizure of state power by the working class, which has the mission to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. What Lenin said about this process is being confirmed and it will certainly take place.

American imperialism with its chief, President Carter, is facing major difficulties in its policy, in the economy, in its alliances and colonies. American imperialism does not know which way to turn, how to cope with the dangers which are threatening it and increasing day by day. Thus it finds itself seized in an iron grip from which it is trying to free itself by applying an insane policy of intimidation, blackmail, economic and political pressure, open military intervention and subversive activities, etc.

In regard to current events it must be said that the struggle of the Iranian people during these last two or three years against the Shah and the United States of America is a heavy blow to American imperialism. The crisis of Iran is the crisis of the United States of America. Before this the peoples of the world were acquainted with the barbarous policy of the United States of America and its savage methods of domination and plunder, but in Iran they saw them still more clearly. The tool of the American imperialists in Iran was the Shah and his clique, murderers of the people. For decades on end, the external robbers in alliance with the internal robbers, the murderers of the Iranian people, the Shah's government and administration under the direction of Washington through the American embassy in Teheran, made the law in Iran in full accord with one another.

In the end, however, the Iranian people rose in revolution, swept the Shah from the face of the earth with the iron broom, and captured and imprisoned all the spies of the American embassy who operated under the cloak of diplomats. For more than nine months now, the so-called diplomats of a great power which makes the law in the world have been in prison. O tempora! O mores! This could not happen in earlier times, but it has happened now and it is happening also to others besides the Americans in other countries.

The United States of America suffered a major political defeat, which it is unable to repair either through diplomatic channels and economic blackmail, or through military intervention, as it attempted to do and failed with its air commandos in April at Tabas. In Iran the United States of America lost one of its most important sources of oil and energy and colossal profits, It lost the confidence of its Arab "allies" of the Persian Gulf, the American-Egyptian-Israeli agreement reached at Camp David was shaken, zizanies (Quarrels (French in the original)) and open and underground disagreements with its NATO partners emerged.

In these situations the Soviet Union whets its teeth and bites. It occupied Afghanistan and is driving wedges into NATO, etc. At the same time the contradictions between the Soviet Union and the United States of America are being deepened. Outwardly the Warsaw Treaty seems "monolithic" while cracks are showing up within NATO, "United Europe" and the European Common Market. The cracks are just as great within Comecon and the Warsaw Treaty, but there the Soviet Army has a stranglehold on the "allies", of the Soviet Union, while the United States of America is losing its former influence over its "allies", especially over France and Federal Germany. "Mete, Mete, every man for himself" our people say. When it wins, the United States of America wants to he the greatest, to take the lion's share of the profits, while when it loses it wants the "allies" to pay for the losses, that is, to share its misfortunes and defeats.

But the law of the jungle operates; the capitalist will see you hanged, but will not come to your aid.

The France of De Gaulle and d'Estaing is in NATO and not in NATO. It removed the NATO bases, that is, the American bases, from French soil, strengthened its army independently, built the atomic and hydrogen bomb and now recently the neutron bomb, too, and does not submit to the American dictate on this question. The current French policy proceeds from the position "better to prepare to defend myself first than wait for the United States of America to defend me late in the day". This constitutes a breach between France and the United States of America. In recent months the United States of America and Carter have done their utmost to ensure that France and Federal Germany, especially, are united with them in all their actions against Iran.

Paris and Bonn condemned in principle the holding of the American diplomats as hostages by the Iranians, but they did not agree with the economic sanctions proposed by the United States of America against Iran, hence, they left it in the lurch. This is another breach between the United States of America and France and Federal Germany. The United States of America condemned the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. China and NATO also condemned this occupation. We condemned it, too, but not from their positions and aims. Tomorrow they will come to terms with the Soviets over this question, while we will never do such a thing.

As a sanction against the Soviet Union over the question of Afghanistan, President Carter declared a boycott of the Olympic games, which are to be held these days in Moscow, and demanded that all the others boycott them, too, but a majority of states including France and even Italy which sent an allegedly unofficial team of athletes to Moscow, left him in the lurch once again.

France went even further. Completely ignoring the United States of America, President Giscard d'Estaing met Brezhnev in Warsaw. Giscard made official visits to several countries of the Middle East where, in public speeches, he expressed doubts about the American-Egyptian-Israeli Camp David compromise and presented some flabby alternative formulations about the rights of the Palestinian people. This is another breach between the United States of America and France.

Even after these defeats Carter proposed that the United States of America should deploy some new "Pershing-2" and "Cruise" nuclear missiles in Europe for the "defence", of Europe and NATO.

This proposal which Carter tried to impose was rejected both by Giscard and by the German Chancellor Schmidt. Why? Apparently from fear that if the United States of America deploys its new missiles in Europe, the Soviet Union will match this by deploying its new "SS-20", nuclear missiles in the countries of the Warsaw Treaty. For this reason Schmidt is to go to Moscow soon and it is said that he will demand from the Soviets a moratorium for three years on the question of the deployment of new missiles in Europe. Carter was angry and wrote to Schmidt telling him not to go to Moscow to discuss the question of the deployment of new missiles. But Schmidt was unmoved and responded negatively to Carter's letter. Indeed, in regard to this letter Schmidt made the following declaration to the American newspaper Washington Post: "For 20 years it has been my custom to express my opinions without asking leave of anybody else", that is, I have no intention of asking leave of Carter now. This whole issue speaks of unity, between France and Federal Germany and of rifts between them end the United States of America.

"United Europe" is no longer united in itself. The quarrels, rivalries, and opposing interests of each state of this so-called European Community are increasing to the extent that its very existence is in jeopardy. Britain, the most faithful ally of the United States of America, is refusing to pay the quota allocated by the European Common Market. Naturally neither Bonn nor Paris like this. France agrees that Greece should be readmitted to the military structures of NATO and become a member of the European Common Market, but it is against the admission of Spain and Portugal. Giscard knows that the admission of the Iberian states to the Western fold will bring difficulties for the sale of French agricultural products. On the other hand the Iberian Peninsula which, in reality, is an American military base, if admitted to the NATO, becomes a new ally of the United States of America in Europe, on the side of Britain...

The contradictions between the United States of America and the industrialized European states were unfurled in the meeting of the heads of state and government of the main industrialized countries of the world which was held at the end of June in Venice. In the middle of the meeting, which was held in a monastery in an island of the Lagoon of Venice, a "small diplomatic meteorite" for Giscard and some others arrived from Moscow. Moscow announced that it was withdrawing a division of soldiers and 100 tanks from Afghanistan, leaving, there 10 other divisions, if not more. Thus Moscow tossed a pebble into the stagnant pool, but the ripple it caused soon died away. It was a diplomatic manoeuvre, but short-lived. Cossiga asked Moscow to withdraw the remainder of its troops from Afghanistan, too, but it uncovered its batteries and showed its teeth, replying that far from withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan, it might, if need be, send other troops there.

Soviet social-imperialism is mounting arrogant attacks on the enemy camp which finds itself in difficulties. The Soviet leaders intend to use Giscard and Schmidt for this purpose, but to what extent and for how long, this remains to be seen. It is true that the Soviet sword is long but the others, too, are keeping their daggers drawn. In this great cauldron which is boiling, in this big fire which is burning world capitalism, the national liberation struggles, the objective and subjective factors are increasing, mounting, expanding in quantity and rising in quality. The peoples of the world are moving. Irrespective of the manipulations of the various ideologies in the service of capital, the world proletariat is fighting and leading the class struggle.

Viewing the situation as a whole with a Marxist-Leninist eye, it can be seen that the class struggle is being waged in every corner of the world in classical and non-classical forms. Everywhere the peoples are extremely anxious and worried. Their discontent and anger at the oppressive forces, whether national or foreign, are increasing, mounting, taking specific material shape. Regardless of who is leading the national liberation armed struggles of the peoples, the blood of the peoples fighting for their freedom and independence reflects their hatred and wrath against local and foreign capitalist oppression, and in the course of these struggles the peoples distinguish the antipopular stands of individuals or groups, and form alliances with the most progressive and most revolutionary forces. In every movement, in every demonstration or strike, in every public, political or economic manifestation, it is impossible not to protest against the destructive effects of the grave crisis and not to put the finger on the persons responsible for the exploitation and oppression of the peoples, the forces which want the destruction of mankind.

In the capitalist and revisionist countries with one pseudo-communist party, with two or more pseudo-democratic parties, despite the efforts of these parties to lay the blame on each other, and despite the bourgeois states, separately or in groups, trying to put the blame on one another, nothing is changing the oppression of the peoples continues, but their anger and revolt continue to mount as well. This anger and revolt are hitting the capitalist and revisionist bourgeoisie in various forms and with different intensities.

The peoples see that predatory imperialist war is threatening them. They understand who is preparing this war, who pays the cost of it and who profits from this war. Two phenomena stand out in this situation: there are some who are still afraid of imperialist war, there are others who fight against it. In the final analysis, however, in various forms, the peoples are joining in the struggle of active resistance, in the initial stages of the national liberation war, in sabotaging and stopping the imperialist war and, in the end, are hurling themselves into revolution. The movements of opposition which are taking place in the world must not be judged from the standpoint of bourgeois governments and their parties which try to manipulate the peoples; it is necessary to see the essence of the problem, the resistance and the fundamental direction of the peoples' political or economic demands, which force the capitalist bourgeois leaderships either to take draconian repressive measures against these movements, or in order to restabilize their already shaken situation, to shift sometimes in one, sometimes in another direction and rely on one or the other superpower.

The Marxist-Leninists must master historical materialism and apply it in practice. They must see the development of the world and the changes occurring in it from the angle of Marxism-Leninism. He who upholds the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet social-imperialists and considers it a just and necessary action cannot be considered a Marxist, he is an anti-Marxist. Those self-styled Marxist-Leninists who try to "argue" that the Afghan people and the elements of the middle and even of the top bourgeoisie who fight against the Soviet occupiers should not be described as patriots cannot be called Marxists, they are anti-Marxists. He who thinks and acts in this way has understood nothing of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism on alliances, on national liberation fronts and struggles. Likewise the thoughts and actions of some "communist" comrades abroad who fail to see the anti-imperialist aspects of the struggle of the Arab peoples, the Iranian people and the Moslem world cannot be called Marxist-Leninist thoughts and actions. To underestimate these anti-imperialist moments, to fail to make the most of them and display "orthodoxy" by demanding that these peoples in revolution abandon belief in their religion, and the customs and habits which derive from it almost at once, shows at least Marxist-Leninist ideological immaturity.

As the events in Iran prove, the masses of the people play an important and decisive role in carrying out the revolution. It was they who placed themselves in the forefront of the fight, overthrew the feudal monarchy of the Pahlevis and dealt powerful blows at imperialism. However we cannot say that they have triumphed and their struggle can be carried forward with the blind mediaeval fanaticism of the Ayatollahs. The communists must support and help the revolutionary masses and the progressive forces in their struggle. The struggle they are waging at present creates conditions for the communists to go among the masses, to work for their correct education, to deepen their own Marxist-Leninist ideological world outlook, to rely on the revolutionary people and on the working class in the first place and to be able to make use of every situation favourable for the revolution.

This is how the process of the development of the struggle of the peoples must be understood and followed. It is a grave error to confound and identify the sentiments of the peoples, whoever they are, with those of the bourgeois capitalist groups in power in a particular country. The people of Egypt, for example, cannot and must not be identified with Sadat and his clique, who until yesterday were in the service of the Soviets and have placed themselves in the service of the Americans today...

The Marxist-Leninist communists must be able to make correct analyses, to determine the proper strategy and tactics, to form alliances in favour of the revolution, to under-take correct revolutionary actions and not adventures and see all these from the standpoint of the Marxist-Leninist theory, because only in this way can one serve the liberation of the peoples from capitalism and make revolution.

National liberation wars are just wars. They break out when the objective and subjective factors exist and have matured. The Marxist-Leninists themselves must help in the creation of these factors. The Marxist-Leninists must never sit idle and not take part In the just wars, either as parties, or as groups when they are not yet organized as parties, or as individual fighters. They must never stand aloof from the masses who are fighting for social and national liberation, but while fighting in their midst, they must confirm their communist convictions, organize themselves and place the working class in the leadership. Even when they are not organized, they must ernerge in the vanguard of the masses through their struggle and sacrifices, so that the national liberation war advances towards its minimal objectives, and then goes on to its ultimate objectives.

The creation of conditions for the outbreak of national-liberation wars does not depend on the will of one or the other personality. It is the objective and subjective situations that cause the outbreak of the national liberation wars which are a high level form of the class struggle. That class which emerges in the forefront and leads the national liberation war is the most progressive, the decisive factor. The working class is the most progressive of the progressive classes. It must assume the leadership of the liberation war. If at the outset of the war it has not ensured its leading position, it must stand in the forefront of the fighting and sacrifices, because only in this way can it take over the political and military leadership, ensure the fulfilment of the objectives of the national liberation war and realize its own desires.

In the situation developing in the world today, the Marxist-Leninist parties, the working class and its possible allies, the broad strata of the peasantry and the progressive intelligentsia, must not only see clearly the danger of a new imperialist world war, but also organize themselves and assert their will in a thousand forms, in order to stop this destructive war, to expose the demagogy and falsity of the democratic. slogans of enslaving capital and to free themselves from the restrictive chains of the various pseudo-democratic and pseudo-popular parties set up by the bourgeoisie.

At all times it is necessary to study carefully, on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, every situation that is created in each country and in the ranks of each people, to draw conclusions and come out with revolutionary progressive joint actions. Nothing must escape the revolutionary eye of those who fight for the great cause of their own people and all peoples. The Marxist-Leninists must utilize every development of the situation. This is a struggle which must be waged every day, because in this way the great avalanche of the revolution will sweep away the enemies of the peoples, and bring freedom, progress, and socialist society and eventually communist society.

Therefore, in this great economic crisis of world capitalism, the Marxist-Leninist communists, wherever they are in the world, must clearly define their line and stands and know how to apply this line in practice. In these highly complicated situations in which there are clashes of the interests of classes which are not separated by clear-cut divisions, but are interlinked and interdependent, only a genuine Marxist-Leninist party can see clearly where the advantages and where the disadvantages lie, distinguish enemies from friends, know with whom to unite. against whom, and how they must fight and carry this war forward, etc.



I have written before about the differences which have emerged between "United Europe", especially France and Federal Germany, and the United States of America. These differences have manifested themselves more openly in the recent times, when the American President Carter sought to impose his dictate on the states of "United Europe" in connection with the stands they should adopt towards certain international political problems and events.

We see that at present, the differences between the United States of America and France and Federal Germany are becoming deeper and more pronounced, especially after the meeting between Giscard d'Estaing and Brezhnev in Warsaw and that between Schmidt and Brezhnev in Moscow. After these talks, in continuation of the meetings for the bilateral exchange of opinions, a tradition established by De Gaulle and Adenauer in their time, Giscard paid an official friendly visit to Federal Germany. The talks he held on this occasion with Chancellor Schmidt, in general, ended in a political and economic understanding between France and Germany, the two main states of "United Europe".

The meetings and talks between the French President, Giscard d'Estaing, and the German Chancellor, Schmidt, demonstrated the existence of a unity between these two European republics, which is more profound and stable than before, a more resolute stand, although without coming out openly in opposition to the United States of America. We see that now the German Chancellor, Schmidt, is making statements in which he stresses his intention to continue the talks between West Germany and the Soviet Union, that is, to continue the "Ost-politik" inaugurated by Willy Brandt, former chairman of the German Social Democratic Party now in power in Bonn.

Following his meetings with Brezhnev, the Chancellor of Bonn has stated that soon he will meet Gierek of Poland and Honecker of East Germany, two states which in the Warsaw Treaty occupy a place of importance second only to that of the Soviet Union. In my opinion, the purpose of Schmidt's talks with these two eastern revisionist leaders will be to discuss the ."aid" which Bonn Germany, that is, West German capital, will give these two countries, which are faced with great economic and political difficulties. Of course, this aid from Federal Germany is in favour of the Western powers and to the disadvantage of the Soviets. The Soviet social-imperialists are obliged to accept this situation, because the state of affairs within their own country and that within the ranks of the Warsaw Treaty member countries is not prosperous.

East Germany and, in particular, Poland are in the grip of a grave economic crisis, so that they are in great need of the innumerable credits which they have received and are continuing to receive from Bonn Germany. At present, in Poland the workers are staging big strikes every day, protesting against the shortages of meat and other foodstuffs and demanding increased wages. With their strikes, the workers have put the Gierek government in an extremely difficult position politically, too. Of course, these strikes are causing difficulties, also, for the Soviet Union and the whole revisionist camp.

The Soviet Union is not only failing to supply its "allies" with the necessary amounts of essential raw materials, especially oil, electricity, gas, etc., but it is imposing on them new modern weapons which it sells them at high prices, just as it does with the other materials which it has contracted to supply to these states. Therefore, Poland, East Germany and the other vassal countries of Eastern Europe have long incurred colossal debts, not only to Soviet social-imperialism, but also to American imperialism, and in particular, to West German imperialism.

Today the Federal Republic of Germany has a powerful economy, and it and France are challenging even the United States of America to some extent. Their challenge is based on their refusal to accept Carter's policy in regard to political and economic sanctions against Iran, the Camp David Agreement on the Middle East, and the deployment of "Pershing-2" and "Cruise" missiles in their countries at the pleasure of the United States of America, etc.

Therefore these issues have caused friction between France and Federal Germany and the United States of America. The Americans, of course, are trying to prevent their NATO "allies" from going too far, especially in their talks with the Soviet social-imperialists. Thus, apart from exerting its own direct and indirect pressure, Washington has impelled Italy to oppose the course of the policy of Paris and Bonn for talks with the Soviet Union.

In an article published a few days ago in the newspaper Repubblica, the Italian foreign minister, Emilio Colombo, criticized France and the Federal Republic of Germany for the separatist policy they are pursuing within "United Europe" in regard to the Soviet Union. He criticized them because allegedly they speak in the name of "United Europe" without the prior consent of the other members of this community. Besides other things, Colombo says that, when there is talk about "United Europe" and its policy, it must be understood that it is closely linked with the United States of America.

Colombo pointed out that the "Franco-German understanding" is necessary to Western Europe, adding that "Italy is not resentful" about that. "But," he went on, "if the other members of the European Community are faced with accomplished facts and efforts are made by individual countries to decide the general lines of the European policy, then we are not in agreement with this". He went on to point out that complete unity of opinion does not exist between France and the Federal Republic of Germany, and that "there are differences in connection with their joint defence". With this last phrase he wants to inform the world that there are contradictions not only between France and Germany, but also between those two countries and Italy.

Here, the whole question boils down to the fact that Italy fully supports the actions of the United States of America...

Nevertheless, in recent days Schmidt once again reiterated his policy of the soft approach to the Soviet Union and the other countries of the Warsaw Treaty. Hence, it is clear that Bonn and Paris not only do not want to burn their bridges with the Soviet Union, but on the contrary, want to keep tempers cool, because they know that a conflict between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries of Western Europe would result in a bloodbath catastrophic for Europe. and that, as always. the United States of America would make great profits from this. France and Federal Germany want to escape these consequences.

Likewise, Schmidt gave hopes that the policy of Bonn towards the East will have positive effects, also, on the coming Madrid Conference on "European security and co-operation". At this meeting, the United States of America, which will take part although it is not a European country, will seek to raise the issue of the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet army, while the Soviet Union is opposing this. Therefore, Helmuth Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing will try to find a modus vivendi on this issue, that is, to avoid falling out with either the Soviet Union or the United States of America, in a word, they will try to "sit on the fence". Thus, they want to present themselves, to some extent, as uncommitted to the hasty actions of the United States of America, which have had an electoral character, too. As is known, Carter undertook these actions partly because he had crashed head-on into big rocks, jeopardizing his authority as president, and had at all costs to demonstrate to the world and American opinion that he was a "strong" president, but in fact it was obvious what he was.

Hence, France and Federal Germany think that, when the United States of America has a new president, it will follow another, more flexible policy towards the Soviet Union and naturally also towards its own allies and partners, especially France and Federal Germany.

In this situation Bonn and Paris are able to blackmail Washington, and are doing so, strengthening their own positions in this way. It is understandable that, as these two countries grow stronger economically and politically, they want to make the law in NATO and manage, in their own way, to oppose the American plans, while on the other hand, trying to maintain the status quo from which they benefit. Federal Germany and France present the issue in this way: Should they continue to follow this course, this policy towards the East, or engage in bloody conflicts with the Soviet Union when during all this time they have invested huge sums in that country and the other countries of Eastern Europe, and when this policy has brought about grave differences in the ranks of the Warsaw Treaty countries?

The great world economic crisis has severely affected the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Treaty countries. This general crisis of capitalism has affected Federal Germany and France, too, but it can be said that these two are superior to the East-European countries included in the Warsaw Treaty. Here I am referring to the economic aspect, because from the military point of view, in an eventual European conflict the Soviet Union and its "allies" are stronger than France, Federal Germany and NATO if the United States of America does not intervene.

Hence, with this policy France and Federal Germany are telling the United States of America and its ally -China: if you want a conflict with the Soviet Union, have it in the Far East, in Siberia, and not in Europe, not in the Near or Middle East, where the oil wells which supply energy to Europe are located. Here the hegemonic imperialist policy of the United States of America is running into great opposition from the other capitalist and colonialist policy of France, Federal Germany, and to some extent, Britain, which is not raising its voice as loudly as the other two European partners are doing. Britain was knocked senseless long ago and has become, so to say, a docile, silent ally of the United States of America.



As I have written previously in my Political Diary, since the beginning of July, a strike movement of dockers and workers of other sectors commenced in Poland, especially in the Baltic port cities of Gdansk, Gdynia, Szczecin, etc. These strikes assumed large proportions during the two last weeks of August.

Right from the start, the development of events in connection with these strikes showed that, although called by workers against the economic difficulties they have encountered, they were inspired and manipulated from abroad and by the all powerful Polish Catholic Church. Hence, in essence they were reactionary, of a counterrevolutionary character, and were directed against the existing anti-popular government in Poland.

By following the day-to-day development of the events in Poland during the last two months we can come to certain conclusions.

It was natural that the strikes in Gdansk, Gdynia and Szczecin would lead to some developments and results. First of all, they caused new difficulties for the Polish revisionist leadership and, at the same time, made the political situation all over the country more tense. Besides this, as was expected, confronted with the difficult situations which were created, and internal and external pressures, on August 31, the Polish government was forced to sign in Gdansk an agreement with the strike committee capitulating to its demands and making concessions. Among other things it agreed to the setting up of "independent, self-governing trade unions" in the ports of Gdansk, Gdynia and Szczecin, and recognized the workers' right to strikes and to hold elections by secret ballot. This result was, of course, attained against the wishes of the Polish counter-revolutionary party and government and also against the wishes of the Soviet revisionists.

The setting up of these new "independent self-governing" trade unions is a new attack by the bourgeoisie, international reaction and the modem revisionists on the Leninist theory about the trade unions of the working class as transmission belts to link the party with its class, as voluntary unions of the working class to defend its state power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and as schools of communism. They are completely the opposite of what V. I. Lenin advocated:

"The trade unions must collaborate closely and constantly with the government, all the political and economic activities of which are guided by the class-conscious vanguard of the working class - the Communist Party" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 33, Alb. ed., Tirana 1957, pp. 202-203).

The setting up of these new trade unions in Poland now means that there will be two types of trade unions in that country, first, in the three above-mentioned cities, because their influence may spread rapidly over the country, although it may be liquidated in different ways and by means of measures taken from time to time: "the independent self-governing trade unions", and the trade unions led by the United Workers' Party of Poland. For the sake of appearances, the agreement that was signed in Gdansk between the delegates of the government and those of the strike committee says that these "independent self-governing trade unions" recognize the leadership of the party. But according to news agency reports, many strikers were not in agreement with their leaders on this question. They wanted these trade unions to be completely independent, so they could impose their will on the Polish party and state, not only on the question of setting the prices of industrial and food products, but also on other general issues. But it seems that this was not fully achieved and the leader of these strikes, Lech Walesa, told the workers that for the moment we must be content with what we have achieved, and he pointed out to the Polish vice-premier, Jegielski, who signed the agreement on behalf of the government, that the Polish government must respect the terms of the agreement, otherwise the strikes will start again. In a word, the so-called strikers are threatening the Polish government.

These are the facts we know so far. But I think that all this so-called strike of the workers in the Baltic ports was not caused simply by the shortages of food, and especially of meat, on the market or by the price increases. On the contrary, it had a political character. The strikes were not spontaneous, but organized. They were organized from outside by the capitalist-imperialist countries and from inside by Polish reaction, by the Church and by the Gierek clique itself.

Let us explain this analysis and these conclusions and back them with facts.

It is natural for these strikes to be a consequence of the revisionist line of the so-called United Workers' Party of Poland itself and of the all-round subjugation of this country to the revisionist Soviet Union. As a member of the Warsaw Treaty and Comecon, Poland is occupied militarily, exploited economically and dependent politically on the Soviet Union. Besides this the Polish people generally have always been opposed to the Russian influence and domination. Reaction and the Catholic Church have made continuous use of all the means of propaganda and exploited all the economic and political difficulties to deepen the animosity to the Soviet Union, to intensity the contradictions with that country.

On the other hand the pseudo-socialist system in Poland has always been in more advanced capitalist positions than that of the other so-called people's democracies. Socialist agricultural co-operatives were not formed and do not exist in Poland. There are some state farms, but in general, private ownership prevails there. The Polish squires of today, naturally with other titles, possess large areas of land which they work with hired wage labour.

Thus, in the Polish countryside the capitalist agricultural system prevails, a system that is fostered and reinforced with anti-socialist, anti-Soviet religious feelings, by Western capitalist propaganda and by the Vatican through the Polish Church, which are allowed to operate freely. A similar situation prevails in the Polish cities, too, hence also in the factories. Since liberation, except for the period when Boleslaw Bierut was in power, the Catholic Church has played a very important counter-revolutionary role. It has maintained, strengthened and developed its reactionary ideological positions and continues to exercise a profound political influence among the peasantry and the working class, not to speak of its influence on the Polish intelligentsia, which retains and develops idealism and other reactionary ideologies. Gomulka and Gierek gave the Catholic Church this important role and, willy-nilly, the Soviet revisionists have tolerated it, too. Hence it is clear that the Polish Church influences and has its finger in the strikes that are now going on in Poland.

The Polish revisionist leadership of both party and state gives the impression that it is in alliance with the Soviet revisionists, but in reality it is anti-Soviet. Only Poland's geographical position and its membership of the Warsaw Treaty and Comecon compel it to give the impression that it is in unity with the Soviets. The Soviet revisionists are aware of this situation, but they can never allow Poland to slip from their hands. Why? Because were such a thing to happen, then the Soviet hegemony over all the other countries of the revisionist camp would be at risk, because, after the Soviet Union, Poland is the main and most active member of the Warsaw Treaty, and if Poland is lost, the Soviet Union has lost East Germany. Czechoslovakia and Hungary, not to mention Rumania and Bulgaria, from the military standpoint. In other words, such a thing would lead to the destabilization of the strategy of the Warsaw Treaty in Europe and, of course, in that case the Soviet social-imperialists could in no way sit idle.

Naturally, Poland, like the Soviet Union itself, has very highly developed economic and political relations with the capitalist countries of Western Europe and also with the United States of America. These relations have developed continuously. In the economic field Poland has obtained large credits from the capitalist countries. According to recent information, these credits amount to 20 billion dollars. Naturally this has put Poland in great economic difficulties. It has obligations to its creditors that must be met, that is, it has to repay the credits in instalments and also pay the interest, therefore it has been obliged to increase its exports. But to repay the credits in full Poland would have to use the whole of its export income for two successive years, a thing which is impossible in practice.

In recent years economic development in Poland has declined and besides this, the floods of this year have forced it to import millions of tons of grain. Thus Poland is short of grain for the population and fodder for the livestock. This has brought difficulties and shortages on the market, especially of meat, although Poland is one of the greatest exporters of bacon (English in the original), as they call it in England and elsewhere; the black market and speculators have become more active, and as a result, the discontent of the masses of the people and the workers has increased. The difficulties have become even greater because Poland's "allies", headed by the Soviet Union, that supply it with many raw materials, have raised the prices of their goods and do not deliver them on time and in the quantities they have agreed upon. This shows that the relations within Comecon have been becoming difficult for some time, and not just with Poland, but with all the members of this pseudo-socialist economic organization.

In order to improve the situation, some 5 or 6 months ago the Polish leadership changed the prime minister, discharged Jaroszewiez and appointed in his stead a certain Babiusz of whom it was said at the time that he would improve the economic situation of Poland. This was just a tale, because the existing difficult economic situation was caused not by one person, but by the capitalist revisionist line of the Polish party and state. Babiusz and Gierek thought that by raising the prices of meat and other daily necessities they would be able to improve the situation without any great difficulty. In fact, however, they did not succeed either in surmounting the internal economic difficulties or in liquidating the obligations towards the Western capitalist allies and "well-wishers".

So, it was in this internal situation that the strikes of the workers of the Baltic ports began. But we must look at the strikes in the Baltic cities and the Polish question in general in the context of the imperialist-revisionist, global strategy, of the developments of the current policy of the two imperialist superpowers. Thus, before the strikes in Poland, there were profound contradictions between the United States of America and the states of Western Europe, especially France and the Federal Republic of Germany, over a number of issues, such as Iran, the deployment of "Pershing 2" and "Cruise", missiles on the territories of the NATO member countries and of "SS-20", missiles by the Soviet Union in the territories of the Warsaw Treaty member countries, over the Camp David agreements between Israel and Egypt, in other words, over the question of Palestine, the rights of the Palestinian people, etc., over the Olympic games which are to be held in Moscow, etc...

The Soviet Union, for its part, finds itself in economic and political difficulties, and indeed, in military difficulties, following the invasion of Afghanistan manu militari. Hence, in these circumstances the Soviet Union, too, is interested in maintaining the "détente", and co-operation with the United States of America, and if that country continues to make threats, at least it is interested in splitting the front of NATO, by pursuing a policy of "détente" with France and Federal Germany.

The other countries of Eastern Europe, the satellites of the Soviet Union, also, are pursuing this policy. In no way does the Soviet Union want these satellite countries to slip from its grasp, but it is impossible for it to prevent them from getting into debt to Federal Germany, France, the United States of America and to other Western capitalist countries...

As I have written in the other analyses I have made of them, the strikes in the cities of the Baltic coast are reactionary, counter-revolutionary, are led by Polish capitalists and are directed against other Polish capitalists, the revisionists who are in power. These strikes have an anti-Soviet, pro-Western character. The strikers are in the service of reaction, of internal Polish capital and the Catholic Church.

Two suppositions can be made about the fact that these strikes were launched under the influence of internal and external reactionary forces, but not at a very suitable time to achieve the desired results. First, they may have been launched without careful calculation of the moments and the predisposition of Western capitalist reaction. Second, it may be that the latter wanted a counterrevolution against the counter-revolutionaries in power in Poland, but one that would not go too far, that is, a restrained counter-revolution.

In other words, it is very likely that, through these strikes, France and Federal Germany wanted to put pressure on the Soviet Union, but not on Gierek and his clique, not to go so far as to endanger the positions of this Polish clique, otherwise their whole policy of "détente" towards the East would be compromised. They knew that if things went too far on this question (and this could happen, because the conditions for a counter-revolutionary coup against a group which is equally counter-revolutionary, but which is in power in Poland, have long been prepared), this would cause the armed intervention of the Soviet Union.

So, we can say without any doubt that the West has had a finger in this counter-revolutionary Polish movement, and did not fail to pour petrol on the fire, but just enough to get it started, to give it its first taste of opposition, especially opposition by the working class to the Soviet oppression, and this not in a severe, but in a moderate form. I think that the Gierek clique was aware of this orientation, and wanted such an action in order to show itself more independent, from Moscow. Gierek is pro-Western. Of this I am convinced. The Western capitalist states, too, including the United States of America, want a Polish government with Gierek, Babiusz or one of their ilk at the head. But to a certain degree, the Western capitalist countries in particular want "to roast the meat without burning the spit". In other words, they want the Polish workers and people to gain some allegedly democratic rights, more than they have now, which means that the Polish revisionist authoritarian regime must be relaxed, must take new steps towards liberalism, but, at the same time, should not go beyond certain limits.

But what about the United States of America, does it have a finger in all this? Maybe it does, maybe it does not. Its non-involvement is relative, because the United States of America is interested in any situation that arouses the Soviet Union to anger and harsh actions which cause friction in Moscow's relations with its allies of Western Europe, so that Carter will be able to accomplish his hegemonic plans in Europe and weaken any opposition to these plans from France and Federal Germany. But there is another possibility: perhaps the contradictions of France and Federal Germany with the United States of America were a diplomatic game on a large scale to bring about the strikes in Poland or to go even further.

I think that this version could not be to the advantage of France and Federal Germany. This was clearly obvious in the stand taken by the Western press, which gave sensational publicity to the workers' strikes at the Polish Baltic ports, but, for their part, the French, German and British governments, and even the American government, were very reserved about them. Moreover, they advised the workers of Gdynia, Gdansk and Szczecin to be prudent in their demands. Even the pope of the Vatican, and consequently the Polish Catholic Church with Wyszynski at the head, told the workers that they agreed with their demands, but made public appeals to them to do everything in a peaceful. and "orderly" way, to "bear in mind" the conditions of Poland, of the Polish state, etc., etc.

In other words the West was afraid of military intervention by the Soviet Union, and so, as I wrote at the start of this article, an agreement on ending the strikes; was signed at Gdansk between representatives of the, government and representatives of the strike committee at the moment armed intervention in Poland by the Soviet Union would not be advantageous to West Germany. France. Britain or the United States of America. Nevertheless the inspiration for the strikes in the Baltic ports was a Western inspiration, but at the same time restrained and prudent, in order to avoid what happened with Czechoslovakia and Dubcek, who thought that he could go to the extremes dreamed of by capitalism without any dangers from the Soviet Union.

As for Gierek and his clique, he, too, was afraid that the strikers would go too far, which would cause the intervention of the Soviet Union and thus the whole clique and its plans would be endangered. Hence the Gierek clique which, in my opinion has a hand in these strikes, intended through them to tell the people and the workers of Poland: make the Russians understand that you object to dependence on Moscow, but carefully and prudently. At the same time, in order to tell the workers that the allegedly socialist regime in Poland has gone bankrupt, before the Polish people, before the strikers, Gierek made a "frank" scandalous self-criticism in the Central Committee, admitting that grave economic and political mistakes had been made in Poland, especially in recent years, that regular supplies of goods have not been available, the rights of the citizens have been violated and there have been a number of other mistakes which have caused great discontent among the workers and the people.

After this self-criticism the Gierek clique promised that it would reconsider the strikers' demands and would approve some of them, but under the leadership of the Polish United Workers' Party and within the Constitution and laws of the Polish state. Gierek laid the blame for everything on the new prime minister, Babiusz, who had come to power only a few months before, after the fall of Jaroszeviez. Babiusz and a number of other ministers were dismissed and replaced by some men who had been expelled from the Political Bureau and the Central Committee of the Party and dismissed from the cabinet of ministers at the time when Jaroszeviez fell. Thus Babiusz and the others were made the "scapegoats", while the fault did not lie with Babiusz alone. Faults he had in plenty, but they have their source and cause in the Gierek clique which is reactionary and capitalist. Therefore, if someone had to be removed from the leadership of the party and the state in Poland, Gierek and his clique should have been the first.

As for the social-imperialist Soviet Union, during all these disturbances it said nothing, but kept its ears cocked, like a cat watching a mouse and, without moving any regiment, because it had them inside Poland, kept its weapons ready for any danger that might threaten it. The Soviet revisionists undoubtedly maintained contact with Gierek and his clique, and were certainly not in agreement with all that was happening in Poland, with the Gierek clique, with Gierek's self-criticism, and with the decisions which they were preparing to take. On the contrary the Soviet revisionists were openly opposed to all these things. Only when the Gdansk agreement was signed did Moscow briefly report the events in its press and mention something from Gierek's speech. This was the attitude which the Soviet Union maintained during the development of these strikes, and this attitude frightened the United States of America, France, Federal Germany, and. even Gierek himself and the Polish Catholic Church.

At present we observe that both France and the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as the United States of America, through their main official spokesmen are singing Gierek's praises over the way he solved the crisis. Thus Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter on security questions, and Poniatowski, a former minister of the Interior of the French government, called Gierek "a mature man" "of great experience", and an ardent "patriot" who was able to find the best solution to the disagreements between the striking workers and the government and the. Polish United Workers' Party. But the fact is that for the moment the Western Powers want things to be left as they are, while the victories achieved in the strikes at the Baltic ports are consolidated and spread to all the work centres of Poland. They want the so-called independent self-governing trade unions to be consolidated and turned into a political party in opposition to the so-called communist party of Poland.

The press of these countries writes openly that "the victory achieved by the Polish workers is a historic victory", because this occurred in an allegedly socialist country, where, in fact, the communist regime has gone bankrupt and where pluralism of parties does not exist. Hence, world capitalism considers the so-called independent self-governing trade unions, which were born from the compromise of the Gierek clique with the counter-revolutionary strikers of the Baltic ports, as a future political party, which has already gained its independence from the Polish United Workers' Party...

We must regard the creation of the "independent self-governing trade unions" in Poland as a spring-board to go over from an anarcho-syndicalist system of the structures and superstructures of revisionist countries to a completely capitalist system. What happened in Poland has similarities with what happened earlier in Yugoslavia, the work of Tito's traitor group. But Yugoslavia, which passed through the phase of a pseudo-socialist regime after the war, definitely broke away from the socialist camp and, after some ups and downs, adopted the system of self-administration. In Yugoslavia the role of the party as a communist party was eliminated. The role of the trade unions was eliminated, too. State centralism and democratic centralism were eliminated and replaced with economic decentralization while, allegedly, retaining a political centralism and a common federal administration.

Now restrictions of various types are being placed on self-administration in Yugoslavia. Why? Because as the anarchist system it is, it cannot withstand the great economic crisis that has engulfed Yugoslavia and the capitalist countries which give it aid. With the investments, credits and the loans which they provide, the capitalists of the West and American imperialism want to secure profits from Yugoslavia. For a time, until the end of the stage of completely breaking away from the alleged socialist system, self-administration served their aims. Now it is no longer of any value and the world capitalist bourgeoisie aims to ensure another system for Yugoslavia, that of bureaucratic centralism.

Meanwhile in Poland, Polish revisionism, like the revisionism in the Soviet Union and the other member countries of the Warsaw Treaty, retains the old forms of the structure and the superstructure, that is, centralism is still retained there in the economy and in the organization of the state. The Polish United Workers' Party is in the leadership; the trade unions play the role of the transmission belt to carry the policy of the revisionist party to the working class, etc., etc. The Western capitalist bourgeoisie has to find a way to further weaken this state system which, as it knows, is pseudo-socialist and completely under the influence of the Soviet Union. Hence in order to weaken the capitalist-revisionist systems in the countries allied to the Soviet Union, Western capitalism and American imperialism have to act, but naturally, with prudence, because any open interference on their part could cause events like those in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan, from which, presumably, they have drawn lessons.

Hence, in order to infiltrate into these countries more deeply, they, that is, the Westerners, are not only trying to bring about the degeneration of the society there and to continue to invest their capital, which brings them profits and, at the same time, also erodes the military, economic and political power of the Soviet Union in those countries, but are also not overlooking the need to work for the degeneration of the system that prevails there at present. And the best means to bring about the degeneration of the system of the revisionist countries is self-administration, which was applied in Yugoslavia, is being applied in China, is now advocated by the Euro-communists, by the French and Italian revisionist parties, etc., and now ought to be applied by the countries of the Warsaw Treaty.

The world capitalist bourgeoisie has thought, and from the standpoint of its own interests it has not thought badly, that for the present it could not make such an attempt in Hungary, the Gernian Democratic Republic or Rumania, so it found Poland. Why? Because the revisionist system that prevails in Poland at present has been weakened, the Catholic Church is a dominant force and Gomulka and Gierek have given it this force and the important role that it has. Like it or not, the Soviet revisionists, too, have tolerated it. So, in Poland the world capitalist bourgeoisie has the support of the Catholic Church, which constitutes a major force within the Polish state itself, where the so-called communist party is rotten and seeking ways to liquidate the elements which are trying to keep the present situation going.

The world capitalist bourgeoisie is relying, also, on the great anti-Sovietism of the Poles, as well as on the fact that, irrespective of the formal aspects, the Gierek clique is not completely obedient to the Soviet revisionists. The anti-Sovietism of Gierek and his clique consists in their encouragement of secret aspirations for independence from the Soviet revisionists.

In this situation, those who stand behind the strikes in the Baltic ports are trying to give the newly-formed trade unions a "free, self-governing" character, with the aim of forming an opposition to the Polish United Workers' Party and then applying the self-administrative system gradually to the economy, too, as was done in Yugoslavia. We must also bear in mind the fact that these "striking workers", inspired by the capitalist bourgeoisie and by the Catholic Church will undertake activities in the Polish countryside, and the "independent self-governing trade unions" will try to rally under their leadership all the small enterprises or workshops which exist there, "in order to self-administer them" economically and politically. The new trade-union organizations will undoubtedly extend their political activity and consequently also their economic activity. In the state enterprises in which the "right", to strike and all the other rights included in the 21 points will be introduced, things will reach the point that their decisions will be imposed on the government and the Polish United Workers' Party by means of strikes.

So think the Western capitalist bourgeoisie and those who led the strikes of the workers of the Baltic ports, with which the Gierek group, which is throwing the stone and hiding its hand in order to gain ground in reformist ways and to avoid the intervention of the Soviet Union in the internal affairs of Poland, is indirectly implicated. Will they achieve this aim? This is questionable. I have expressed my opinion above and I repeat that it would be very hasardeux (Hazardous (French in the original)), as the French say, very bold of them to carry matters further. It is hardly likely that the Soviet revisionists and the other Warsaw Treaty countries or the cliques which rule in those countries will allow the Western bourgeoisie and Polish reaction to accomplish their aims completely. The Soviet Union is determined to maintain its power in all the countries of Comecon and the Warsaw Treaty, that is, to keep both the political system, the state forms, the pseudo-socialist structures and superstructures, and present economic and military systems unaltered. To this end the Soviet revisionists created the so-called theory of the limited sovereignty.

I think that the compromise reached between the strikers and the Polish government is only a modus vivendi. The social-imperialist Soviet Union will not allow another ultra-revisionist clan to grow within its revisionist clan. And it is clear that, despite the great political, military and economic difficulties it has within the country and in the ranks of the Warsaw Treaty, the Soviet Union still has sufficient forces, and indeed has them concentrated in the vassal countries of Eastern Europe, to prevent such a threatening activity from spreading and becoming dangerous to it and to the cliques in its service which are in power in those countries.

On all these matters, it is particularly important that the international working class does not make the mistake of considering the strikes in the Baltic ports of Poland as revolutionary activity. In no way should they be considered as revolutionary activity. They have a counterrevolutionary inspiration and are directed against a leadership which is equally counter-revolutionary. They have the aim of releasing Poland from the clutches of the Soviet social-imperialists, but by turning it into an instrument of world capitalism.

The Polish working class itself must understand this it should understand that the true road to salvation requires the Polish working class, under the leadership of a genuine Marxist-Leninist party and inspired by Marxism-Leninism to arouse the Polish people and to lead them into battle to overthrow the internal capitalist-revisionist cliques, to get rid of the yoke of the revisionist Soviet Union, to shake off the yoke of world capitalism and liquidate the destructive influence of the Catholic Church. The working class and the Polish people must understand that their present anti-Sovietism is not based on the Marxist-Leninist ideology, but is an anti-Sovietism inspired by the chauvinist ideas of the Polish bourgeoisie.

As for our people, through the press and the other means of propaganda, they should analyze and gain a correct understanding of the circumstances in which these events are taking place, should analyze and understand them in the light of Marxism-Leninism and not draw wrong conclusions from the fact that allegedly those who rose in revolt were workers and that those workers were against the Gierek clique and against the Soviet Union. Whether they knew it or not, those workers were not on the road of the revolution, but on the capitalist road. They were against Gierek, but not for the overthrow of the revisionist system, they were against the Soviet Union, but not for freeing themselves by force from the Soviet social-imperialist jackboot, were not for marching on the revolutionary road, for decisive changes, for the genuine construction of socialism in Poland. The Western capitalist bourgeoisie and world reaction are able to use them to weaken their rivals and to strengthen their own positions. In order to create new difficulties and disturbances, and there are more than a few of them already, to strengthen their own positions and weaken those of their opponents, the world capitalist bourgeoisie and, especially the European and American capitalist bourgeoisie will continue to work with these methods, not only in Poland, but also in East Germany, in the other so-called countries of the people's democracy and within the Soviet Union, too. In fact, now that the strikes in the Polish ports have ended and work is said to have started again today, the West German capitalist bourgeoisie, Bonn, has again begun to push the issue of the meeting and the talks which had been put off, with Honecker, and even with Gierek. The press is saying, also, that West Germany has allocated Poland a new credit of 500 million marks "to help it" overcome the difficulties it has. France will do likewise. Appeals are being made to all the developed capitalist countries "to help". Poland in this situation. So the sugar-coated poison is still being served out in order to strengthen Gierek's shaky position, to encourage Polish reaction and the Catholic Church to continue their subversive work, to increase the resentment and hostility towards the Soviet Union, etc. For its part the Soviet Union is undoubtedly working to create a new team favourable to it, and when it has done so it will topple Gierek and replace him with a more reliable pro-Soviet Gierek.

For the time being, however, Gierek seems to have saved his own skin and escaped the Soviet intervention. Nevertheless the troubled situation in Poland has not come to an end. It is developing and will develop. I think that the Soviet Union will tighten the screws on Poland.



Theses for an article ("The events in Kosova and the secret Soviet-Great-Serb collaboration" was published in Zeri i popullit. 5 June, 1981).

The Soviet revisionists have not said a word about the tragic events caused by the Great-Serb clan of Belgrade in Kosova (Reference is to the demonstrations of the Albanian students and workers which took place in Kosova in the spring of 1981, and which were violent suppressed by the Great-Serb chauvinist clique of Belgrade), as if nothing had happened.

Their Bulgarian lackeys have kept their mouths closed, too. The whole world spoke, published reports and comments, while the Soviets and the Bulgarians remained silent. Why?

Because they want to tell the world:

a) "We are not the sort who meddle in the internal affairs of others, as you are continually accusing us".

b) "Let the Albanians and the Yugoslavs settle their own problems".

These are two formal aspects, for appearances' sake, of the stand of the Soviets and the Bulgarians, which impelled Yugoslavia to shut its mouth against them. But this makes us Albanians tear the mask from them. This stand of the Soviets is a fraud, but a badly disguised fraud. When their interests require, they interfere in the internal affairs of others, not only with words but also with armies. The present chiefs of the Kremlin have demonstrated over and over again that they are not distinguished for tact and correctness in international relations.

One cannot and must not judge the current Soviet policy from its tactical stands, but from its expansionist and hegemonic strategic objectives, to which all their actions, their diplomatic silence and the rumble of tank tracks, the pacifist slogans and their undercover plots, are subordinated.

What is the reality which we must expose?

1) The Soviets are greatly interested that the relations between Yugoslavia and Albania should be exacerbated, to the maximum if possible.

2) Such a situation would bring the Soviets a series of advantages: it would further weaken the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, which is disintegrating and in the grip of profound national, economic, political and state contradictions; it would harm the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, which is an unyielding bastion against Soviet modern revisionism, American imperialism and world reaction; it would upset that present stability which has been established in the Balkans and threaten the South-eastern flank of NATO with disturbances and insecurity.

3) In this secret game the Soviets are supporting the Great-Serb clan of Belgrade against the Albanians of Yugoslavia and against the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. They are saying nothing about what is occurring in Kosova in order to support the Great-Serb clan and avoid weakening Serbia, so that it can impose its hegemony over the rival Croat-Slovene clan, which is pro-Western and pro-American.

4) The Great-Serb clan is for bureaucratic centralism. The Croat-Slovene clan is for Titoite self-administration. The self-administration system has weakened the Great-Serb clan both economically and politically. Rankovic and his clan were liquidated. The Soviets supported the clan of Rankovic in his time, and went so far as to describe this "singer of the Soviet anthem" (This is what the Soviets called Rankovic who, during drinking bout With Soviet "comrades" in Moscow, sang the Soviet anthem) as "more positive".

After the death of Tito the Serbian clan is seeking revenge against the Croat-Slovene clan. Profound contradictions, which are growing even deeper, exist between the two most powerful clans. The Soviets are together with the Great-Serbs in the plot. Soviets, silence over the suppression of the Albanians by the Serbs assists the Serbian clan to weaken the Croat-Slovene clan and transform the self-administration system into a unified bourgeois bureaucratic system. The Soviets are keeping a tight rein on the Bulgarians and the Macedonian question. They use the Bulgarians as pawns which they advance or withdraw according to the circumstances which are created.

We must expose this big savage Soviet-Great-Serb plot. It is fraught with the greatest danger for the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and the Balkans.

World opinion in general and the chancelleries of the world are pro "the Republic of Kosova", and approve our stands, are opposed to this plot, are for the current status quo in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and against Serbian hegemony. The "Republic of Kosova" weakens the savage Serbian chauvinism, strengthens the status quo of the Yugoslav Federation, and ruins the strategic plans of the Soviets.



We Albanians, as a people, a Party and state have always been and are against imperialist wars, against any unjust war which is aimed at the enslavement, slaughter and exploitation of the peoples. This has its own concrete historical reasons. Throughout their existence the Albanian people have suffered greatly as a result of such wars which have been directly detrimental to their freedom, territorial integrity and national independence. All these wars without exception have brought our people bloodshed, exploitation and the fragmentation of their territory. This is an undeniable reality.

Our people have faced up to these wars heroically and have fought with unflinching determination against savage enemies in defence of their freedom, independence, integrity, culture and their very existence, in defence of what has been and is theirs. At the same time, in the course of these wars our people have learned how to fight better, have gained experience enabling them to understand the problems that faced them, the aims, tactics, plans and plots of external and internal enemies and, on this basis, they have been able to build the tactics of their resistance in order to withstand the evil-doing of the enemies. This, too, is a reality. To be able to distinguish friends from foes, false friends from true friends, is a question of experience. "Mistakes are often the best teachers", our people say. They also say: "The waters may sleep but not the enemy". These two sayings, these two great teachings, have emerged from the profound philosophical thinking of the people, from our people's great experience of life, and have guided them throughout the ages of their history.

The struggle of a people for national existence does not and cannot depend on the combinations and diplomatic intrigues of other states, be they big or small. It depends on the consciousness of the people themselves, when they attain understanding of what their rights and true interests are, have confidence in their own strength at any moment and in any situation, and know how to defend these rights and interests with iron will, sound logic, and revolutionary struggle. Only then the strength of the people becomes invincible, is multiplied a hundred fold and bursts out like an irresistible hurricane.

We Albanians have proceeded on such a course. History proves this, other-wise we would not exist today, the invaders would have assimilated us or the enemies would have wiped us out; otherwise we would not have succeeded in building a more advanced society, socialist society, in which the people are in power. Under the leadership of the Party and with this rich experience of struggles and wars for freedom, our people fought, achieved victory and succeeded in building the new society. Moreover they are determined to develop this society still further and will never allow their freedom, independence and the victories attained to slip from their hands or be stolen from them by any enemy, great or small, old or new.

We know that there are individuals and alien forces who cannot stand Albania and its people and do not want them to exist, who do not want the Albanian people to build their life in the way they themselves have decided, who are displeased that small Albania exists as a socialist state amidst an ocean of capitalist states with various labels.

But they can do nothing to socialist Albania. Tie times and the ratio of forces have changed greatly in favour of our people and Albania. Yes, they may attack the People's Socialist Republic of Albania from outside, and we never forget or neglect this possibility, but we shall defend ourselves and we know how to defend ourselves and win. Throughout their history the Albanian people have known how to defend themselves. Our Party of Labour has further enriched and tempered the unity of our people in the war for defence. Marxism-Leninism teaches us that the peoples who fight to defend their freedom and independence wage a just war, hence they are invincible. And the Albanian people are invincible. They may try to divide us, to take the fortress from within, but this will not occur as long as the Party of Labour of Albania remains a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party at the head of the Albanian people. Our fortress is not like the fortresses of their dreams. We have built it with our own hands on our own soil, through the bloodshed and toil of the sons of this land. There are no cracks or breaches in its walls and it has not been built with rotten "material". It is able to withstand all the waves of war just as it has withstood those that have crushed upon it in the past. The imperialist, social-imperialist and other enemies may try to make our Party deviate as they succeeded in doing with other parties, but this will never occur with us because never for one moment will the Party of Labour of Albania deviate from the Marxist-Leninist theory and the Leninist norms of the life of the party at any time or on any question. It is precisely this resolute stand, this steadfast loyalty to Marxism-Leninism that keeps our Party pure and makes it strong. The Party is closely linked with the people, it exists, lives and fights in the interests of the people who gave birth to it, who are the daily witnesses of the great leading role of the Party in the progress of the country and the raising of their economic well-being, and social and cultural level.

So, it is dear why the Albanian people are against predatory imperialist wars. They have suffered the terrible grave consequences of such wars on their own backs. That is why our people and the People's Socialist Republic of Albania are for peace between nations. The experience of the Albanian people over the centuries and our Marxist-Leninist ideology which guides the Party of Labour of Albania in every action, are evident proof of their correct stand on this great problem, irrespective of what those who, in fact, are opponents of peace between nations say.

Our people have never attacked other peoples, they have never coveted or laid even a finger on what belongs to others, on the contrary, although the Albanians have been the victims of the evil and predatory aims and ambitions of some of them, they have gone to their aid. This, too, is a reality which cannot be concealed by any kind of propaganda or demagogy. Some may present historical events in books and in the press the other way round, but they cannot do so with real history, because it is perpetuated in the bosom of the peoples themselves, by the peoples themselves who hand it down from one generation to another.

However we are very clear about the fact that peace between peoples cannot be achieved without the just revolutionary struggle of the peoples themselves against those who do not want this peace, who do not want the freedom and sovereignty of peoples, do not want the peoples to free themselves from the heavy chains of enslavement and savage exploitation with which the capitalist powers have shackled them for centuries. This is precisely where the peoples who want complete freedom .and their imperialist oppressors and plunderers reach the parting of their ways. This is a class struggle both internal and on an international plane. In this struggle the enemies of the peoples, the capitalists of all hues and calibres, strive to preserve their plunder and domination of the peoples, while the latter fight to win their rights and put an end to the exploitation of man by man once and for all.

In their unjust predatory war against the peoples, the capitalists are guided by their own ideology, but the peoples, too, have their ideology, Marxism-Leninism, the immortal ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, which guide them towards liberation from capital.

This is the source of the contradictions and struggle between two systems which represent two different societies, capitalist and socialist, which have completely opposite aims and interests, in struggle with and diametrically opposed to each other in regard to the ways of the development of mankind in the future. This is also the source of the policy of states with different systems in the world. The policy of capitalist-revisionist bourgeois states serves the interests of the bourgeois class which rules in those countries. It exercises this rule through a structure and superstructure which oppresses and exploits the working class, the peasantry and the other working masses of the country. This rule is exercised also through all kinds of alliances which the capitalist-revisionist bourgeoisie forms with that of the big capitalist, imperialist and social-imperialist states.

The strength of the infrastructure of various states with capitalist systems and with nuances in the form of the state and what it is called varies depending on their different levels of socio-economic potential to which their unequal development gives rise. The efforts to eliminate these different levels and their consequences cause contradictions within the ranks of the bourgeois class in power, different strata and representatives of which, through demagogic political manoeuvres strive to ensure that state power never slips from the hands of their class. They disguise these deceptive manoeuvres, which are very dangerous for the peoples, with the so-called democratic freedoms of the capitalist system, with the struggle each of their parties wages from its own positions "for the rights of electors the working masses", with the struggle which parties of various descriptions wage even in parliament. But there is nothing democratic about these parties and what they represent. The "struggle" between them is a struggle between financial-political clans, a struggle of words, a struggle conducted in corridors and drawing-rooms in the interests neither of the working masses nor of the electors. On the contrary, as soon as they get into parliament, the representatives of these parties, the deputies elected "through free, democratic ballot" approve laws which are completely in favour of the bourgeoisie, to protect its immense capital, i.e., to prolong the existence of the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working masses.

In capitalist society the opposition between political currents and the economic reforms proclaimed by the various bourgeois parties serve only to ensure their power or to share it and the colossal profits among themselves, at the expense of the masses. Only the illusion is created that they are allegedly fighting in the interests of the masses, whereas in fact and in essence they are fighting for the relentless impoverishment of the masses, for the exploitation of their blood and sweat.

Thus in capitalist-revisionist bourgeois society, the polarization into oppressors and oppressed, into exploiters and exploited, is deepened. Similar class relations exist also among capitalist and revisionist states. The biggest states, those with the greatest economic and military power, impose their law in various ways on the smaller capitalist and revisionist states. The economic dependence which is imposed on the small states by the big ones undoubtedly brings all-round political dependence and submission. The independence of these states is fictitious and serves only to embellish their constitutions and deceive the peoples. It is an irrefutable fact that today a number of capitalist-revisionist states are dependent on and aligned with the imperialist superpowers and their policies through a thousand interconnecting threads, and not only through such military organisms as NATO and the Warsaw Treaty, or monopoly economic communities such as the European Common Market and Comecon. Even the other capitalist-revisionist states, which are not members of these blocs, are by no means independent from or non-aligned with the big powers and the imperialist and social-imperialist superpowers. These so-called independent states have got into permanent debt to the big capitalist powers. Consequently, and there can be no doubt about this, their political independence has no solid basis, because everyone knows that there can be no political independence without economic independence. Past and present international practice confirms this. If this unwritten capitalist law did not operate in an inflexible way in the relations of subjection between the provider and the receiver of money or commodities on credits or loans, the allround pressure of the bigger on the smaller, of the very rich and the rich on the poor and the very poor would not exist, the instability in the policy of states would not exist, the struggle for markets, neo-colonialism, the interference of one stale in the internal affairs of another state, which has become a common occurrence all over the world and even develops into bloody local armed conflicts, would not exist. The general crisis itself determines the economic-political dependence of the capitalist-revisionist states on one another.

To conceal this situation of economic-political subjection from the peoples, to fail to show the reasons for and the sources of this general political instability in the world, to fail to make clear to them who oppresses and exploits them, to use all sorts of anti-social and anti-revolutionary political formulas to conceal the great and uninterrupted arming of the superpowers and the imperialist powers as well as their frenzied preparations for war, is a great and unpardonable crime against mankind.

There are plenty of wordmongers who create pacifist "organizations", who gather and shout about problems ,of disarmament and peace, who divide the nations into "non-aligned", into many worlds or "undeveloped countries", but none of these things prevents the imperialists and social-imperialists, who defy every international forum or conference, from going ahead with their hegemonic and expansionist policy. They continue to rule over other peoples and countries, to divide their spheres of political, economic and military-strategic influence, to make colossal profits from the imposed sale of stockpiles of goods and weapons of all kinds and to throw a few crumbs, in the form of credits and investments, to certain states and support those governments which are more inclined to obey their imperialist policy, keep the peoples of their own countries in bondage and give the superpowers and the developed capitalist states the maximum concessions for the exploitation of their national wealth. Thus they are totally dependent on the credits which the imperialist powers give them.

In the world today many contradictions are developing, becoming more profound and increasing in scope and intensity. There are profound and acute contradictions between the superpowers, between the superpowers and the industrialized capitalist countries, between them and other countries of the world with different systems and strange descriptions such as "developing countries", "undeveloped countries", "backward countries", "poor countries", etc. All these things make the general situation more dangerous. At the same time, the entire capitalist-revisionist world is wallowing in an unprecedented economic, political and moral crisis.

The capitalist and revisionist bourgeoisie are making all-round efforts to unload the catastrophic consequences of this crisis on to the backs of the working masses and peoples of their own or other countries and to keep their profits intact. Therefore the burden of crisis falls, first of all, on the working masses, who, although it is they who produce the material blessings, are oppressed by the exploiting class.

This tendency of the bourgeoisie makes its class contradictions with the proletariat and the working masses even deeper, widens the gulf between rich and poor, aggravates the inter-imperialist contradictions, those between the "allies" in the capitalist and revisionist groupings, and between the metropolis and the colonial and neo-colonial countries.

Today the biggest and most acute contradiction is that between world capitalism and the working class and working masses of all the countries of the world. This contradiction cannot be resolved in the capitalist-revisionist regime. In this field concrete struggles are being waged for national liberation, for social liberation and for reforms, and there are strikes and demonstrations of a political-economic character. All these things have shaken the foundations of the world capitalist bourgeoisie and are shaking them more and more each day, building up to revolutionary situations and the outburst of revolutions.

In the international arena, different forms of struggle are being developed by the two sides. The use of violence, the baton and the capitalist-revisionist demagogy has increased in frequency and brutality. From its arsenal of weapons, the capitalist bourgeoisie, frightened by the rising tide of revolutions, has made extensive use of the corruption of cliques, both secret and in power, while spreading intellectual and moral degeneration with all the means of propaganda. The bourgeoisie is also using its favourite weapon in times of crisis, terrorism, by means of which it tries to arouse revulsion among the people against the burning desire for liberation from the shackles of capital, and by identifying terrorism with the activity of the genuine revolutionaries, to frighten the masses, to turn them against the revolution, to preserve its order of oppression and to emerge without great pain from the grave lethal crisis.

The world of labour, the world which demands social and national liberation, is fighting with its own means against these savage measures of struggle and violence of the capitalist bourgeoisie.

Amidst this chaos created by their economic, political and moral crisis, the imperialist and revisionist enemies are making a great ado about the "isolated position and situation" of our country. But is Albania isolated from the foreign world, as the revisionists of all hues and the various imperialist enemies claim and want it to be?

The answer to this question depends on the class and political standpoint from which one views this question.

From our state ideological and political standpoint, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania has never been, is not, and will not be isolated. We have diplomatic relations with the majority of the countries of the world, and there is nothing to prevent us from having such relations with the remaining ones. With the United States of America and the Soviet Union, however, we do not want such relations, whereas Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany have unpaid debts to the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, the former for the stolen gold and the latter for war reparations.

This is how things stand, also, in regard to our mutual trade relations with many capitalist-revisionist countries. The trade between us and these countries is conducted with clearing or cash (English in the original). In this field, too, there is no isolation.

When it is politically advantageous and when the other party agrees, we also establish and develop cultural relations with many capitalist countries, exchange experience in the fields of education, culture and technology. For our part, the extension of activities in these fields depends only on the material possibilities. Hence, in this field, too, there is no isolation.

In regard to the development of tourism, we do not do this on that scale or in those forms that the capitalist and revisionist countries do. or with their aims of making profits and spreading degeneration. We permit tourism for friends and well-wishers of socialist Albania, for honest people from countries and states which maintain friendly and correct stands towards our country. Tourism in Albania is not an industry and a means of corruption or hooliganism. And because tourism of that kind is not permitted in our country, the enemies say that the People's Socialist Republic of Albania "is a closed, isolated country". But when, if ever, have our imperialist and revisionist enemies spoken well of the Albanian people and of Albania? When have they not slandered our policy, our ancient and modern history and our victories? However this has done Albania and the Albanian people no harm. On the contrary their prestige and authority have been raised higher and higher. Hence, from our standpoint and the standpoint of the truth we are not and never will be isolated. We have told the imperialists and revisionists and we tell them once again, that Albania is not an inn with its doors wide open for pigs and sows to enter. In the cities, the mountains, the plains and the shores of our socialist Homeland there is and will be no room for their ugly, degenerate way of life and thinking.

We know that the revisionist states (Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc.) and the capitalist states call our country isolated from the world because it has not entered and will not enter their orbit, because it is not economically dependent on them, does not accept credits from or get into debt to them, because it is not politically dependent on them, does not allow its independence and sovereignty to be violated and alters neither its state order nor its Marxist-Leninist ideology. This is how it has been and how it will be in the future, too.

In the opinion of some of these states, the independent policy which the People's Socialist Republic of Albania pursues in all fields and in all circumstances is something of an anachronism. We can understand why they have this opinion. For them it is an anachronism that our state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not in a crisis, that it is not influenced by the great world crisis, that our state has political stability, that our economy is developing year by year, that there are absolutely no price rises for any goods, that there is no unemployment, economic and political emigration, economic strikes or political demonstrations, as there are in the capitalist-revisionist countries all over the world.

But we can say that Albania, with the social order it is building, is a case isolated from the various states which are in a political, economic and moral crisis. On this count and because of the very good, sound situation in our country, yes, they are right to say that we are isolated from them and the evils of their social order and policy.

Therefore, with its principled and independent policy, with its courage and the tangible results it has achieved, small as it is, Albania plays a dual socio-political role in the international arena - on the one hand it exposes the capitalist-revisionist order and its policy, on the other hand it plays a constructive revolutionary role, encouraging the peoples of the world who are fighting for their liberation from the yoke of capital.

It is from the prism of this great role that the question of whether or not socialist Albania is isolated must be judged.

Socialist Albania and the Party of Labour of Albania which leads it, love, respect and defend all the peoples of the world, while they, on their part, are in unity with us. Little socialist Albania has become a great example in which the working masses place their hopes. In these conditions and circumstances, then, there can be no talk of isolation of Albania. It is the capitalists, the revisionists, the imperialists and social-imperialists, that are isolated, discredited and hated by the peoples. And it is precisely they who try to present the People's Socialist Republic of Albania as isolated, who strive, without success, to distort its correct opinions and its victories, and in the final analysis, this is part of their efforts to isolate the Marxist-Leninist theory itself, to call it outdated and anachronistic, In this context they try to prove that "socialism can be built" guided by any kind of reformist, opportunist or even fascist ideology.

In the "strict" sense, the capitalist-revisionist states are not worried by the existence of a small country and people like ours, but in a broader sense the ideology which guides our people, the genuine socialist society which is being built successfully in our country, where there are no political or economic troubles and a sound culture is being developed, worry them a great deal. That is why the enemies of the peoples try to present the sound moral-political situation of our people in a distorted way and to belittle the great and uninterrupted socio-economic progress of our country.

The struggle of all enemies of the peoples against our socialist country proceeds from the same class positions but with variations in intensity. This comes about because, while it is true that there is unity between capitalists and revisionists as enemies of socialism, there are also differences, struggles and feuds between them. There are struggles and feuds also between big and small states, between highly developed, less developed, and totally undeveloped countries.

In the present epoch of the great crisis of capitalism, the capitalist-revisionist states are politically and economically dependent on one another. Of course the strongest and the biggest are less dependent on the weakest and the smallest, but all of them are sensitive to and affected by the contradictions between them which are becoming more and more acute. These contradictions have their political and economic effect and are expressed in the stands of every state, internally and in the international relations between various states.

The present epoch can be called the epoch of the total destabilization of capitalism, of instability in politics, of general insecurity and gloomy and unclear prospects for the future. The idea of war predominates, because the world is being impelled in that direction through the unjust imperialist wars, although still localized, which are instigated by the imperialists and social-imperialists. They think that the profound and acute contradictions which are eroding them will be resolved by means of war.

The peoples cannot and must not put any trust in the policy of the capitalist-revisionist states and in the demagogy of this policy. What the peoples must clearly discern from the concrete facts, through the dense fog with which the superstructure of the capitalist-revisionist regime obscures their vision, distorts the reality, deceives the people and tries to blacken the road of the revolution, is not the external forms of the structure of capitalist-revisionist states, but the content, the essence of this structure, whose hands wield this weapon and which class it serves.

This is a great, serious problem which is difficult to understand and solve but it is not insurmountable. The forces which oppose the capitalist attack are larger and more powerful. But they must be fully awakened, their consciousness tempered. These forces must be organized on a national and international scale. The device on which the strength of capitalism is based is its "divide and rule" policy. By this means capitalism crushes the weakest and keeps him unable to object, binds him with a thousand threads so that he will always be a slave as an individual, a people or a state, exploits him to the maximum and creates the illusion that he is living in a "free democratic world", in which he ought to be content with the miserable life he leads, for which he should be grateful to his overlord. The peoples must oppose this device with the glorious slogan of Marx: "Workers of all countries unite!", a slogan which has terrified the capitalist bourgeoisie at all times.

In this chaotic and unequal development no progress can be made without all kinds of efforts and without struggle between oppressors and oppressed, between exploiters and exploited. The capitalist states vie with one another for supremacy. In most cases, because of their different interests, this contest between them develops in discord. Whoever comes out on top, he who manages to trip his rival and make him fall, who succeeds in making the law and in imposing his policy of domination, is presented as the cleverest, the most successful politician. However his ruling position is not everlasting, because he creates two kinds of opponents: individuals from his own class who are rivals for ruling positions and capitalist profits, and the great opponent, the working class and the broad working masses who, through various forms of class struggle, erode the capitalist order from within, causing splits and bringing defeat after defeat upon it.

Impelled by the lure of illegal gains, its tendency to enslave peoples and engage in unscrupulous speculation at the cost of their blood and sweat, the capitalist world will never find stability in any field of life. Although the great advances achieved are the result of the toil and sweat of the working masses, they are excluded from any benefits from them. The masses have been polarized on one side, and as such, are permanent opponents of the inhuman exploitation by the capitalist bourgeoisie.

In this eroding reality of defeat and political-economic instability, the capitalist-revisionist states are trying to find a temporary solution for the most acute and dangerous problems. However the solutions they offer cannot be satisfactory, because they are one-sided in their aim and applied in a terrain which is quaking as a result of the popular upheavals. The great antagonisms within the ranks of capital and those between the bourgeoisie and the working class and masses of working people make these anti-popular solutions ineffective.

Seen from this class angle, the present development of the capitalist world leads to a more realistic understanding of the policy which capital follows to prolong its existence, of the methods and tactics of its struggle against the peoples.

The various countries of the world, whatever their social order, have their own foreign policies. This is based on certain principles which have a class character, which represent and serve the class in power and are adapted to the political circumstances existing within the country and in the relations with other states, i.e., in the international arena. Among these states there are some which, at certain moments and in certain circumstances, conic out with a policy "independent" from others, differing temporarily in certain aspects or circumstances, with the aim of getting certain political, economic and military concessions. These differences in form and sometimes even in content reflect the strength or the weakness of the bourgeois class in power in a given state and the influence of one state over the other, an influence which is determined by the decrease or increase of their economic and military potential. The principle of gain and domination, the stability or instability of the situation of a capitalist-revisionist country, make the policy of these states unstable and inclined towards the strongest, the most powerful. This leads to economic and political dependence of one bourgeois state on another bourgeois state, or to the grouping of a number of states against the grouping of other rival states. Irrespective of the contradictions they have with one another, these bourgeois states have common denominators which compel them to support one another, although they also have other opposing factors which erode the relations between them from within, which cause disturbances, economic instability and political revolts, which consequently weaken their general and bilateral links. At present these inter-state phenomena in the capitalist countries have assumed an irrestrainable development, and it is very difficult to co-ordinate, harmonize or stabilize them. Hence, the great crisis in the capitalist order is not only economic but also political.

The relations of production and the policy which supports these relations in all capitalist states, taken separately or in the relations between them, are undergoing continual catastrophic transformations. Whatever happens in any of these states inevitably influences the other states. The metamorphoses, the changes, the economic and political crises which occur in a powerful capitalist state cannot fail to have repercussions in all the other states which are dependent on that power, even though they present themselves as allegedly independent of it. To justify these phenomena, this chaotic development, a specious language has been found, using all kinds of different theories which vary according to the circumstances, countries and tendencies. All these theories are labelled "democratic" or "revolutionary" and, in practice, are accompanied by the creation of all kinds of organizations to give the impression that a struggle is being waged against the evils of the time. In fact the world today is faced with the fact that the evil are fighting the evil and rivaling with one another. Thus, all are arming and, at the same time, all are fighting allegedly for disarmament, all say they "are against war", but each of them is struggling with his own means and in his own way, and frequently with joint means, to undermine peace; all of them speak of non-interference in the internal affairs of others, but in one way or the other they all interfere brutally in the internal affairs of others by means of weapons, politics, diplomacy and the "influx of dollars" and all kinds of credits. The bourgeoisie has also created its own method of presenting all these criminal and condemnable acts, a peculiar ethic about the ,expression of opinions and open and hidden aims in Politics and in practice. Whoever deviates from the form and content of this ethic is a "heretic", is "undesirable", is an enemy of the "civilized world"!

Every individual, person, people, state or class not in power must willy-nilly proceed on the road determined by the "all-powerful" capitalist oligarchy, which alone is capable of finding "a correct solution" for every problem vital to states and peoples. Imperialism, social-imperialism and world monopoly capitalism are trying to preserve this absolute hegemony, and to make it permanent in theory and practice.

We think that this hegemony should be combated and destroyed mercilessly. The world must break out of this vicious circle of modern spiritual, economic and political enslavement. This modern enslavement is a cruel deed of the bourgeois capitalist class and the economic and political order which it has created. The working class of every country, the broad masses of the working people who are oppressed and exploited, are the destroyers of this capitalist hegemony. Marxism-Leninism must guide all these masses in the revolution for the new, genuine socialist life without exploiters and exploited.

Socialist Albania is the offspring of the proletarian revolution. Guided by the Marxist-Leninist theory it has built the new society, socialist society. The Party of Labour of Albania has always based itself on the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, has applied this theory without vacillations or deviations, fearlessly and in opposition to and uncomprising struggle with the capitalist-revisionist ideologies.

The foreign policy of our state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, too, is a policy guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. It is principled and unchanging in its strategy. This policy supports the revolutionary movement of the working class and world proletariat for liberation from capital, hence it is against the latter, against its policy of oppression and exploitation, against its structure and infrastructure, it supports the struggle of the peoples for freedom, independence, social progress and socialism and relies on their solidarity. It is against any form of aggression and military intervention of one state against another, is against colonial exploitation, against any form of tutelage, dictate and hegemony, national oppression and racial discrimination. It upholds the principle of the self-determination of peoples, the exercise of complete national sovereignty and the equality of all countries in international relations.

Hence the crucial orientations of the foreign policy of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania are: support for the liberation of peoples from any bondage and exploitation by reactionary internal or external forces, struggle against imperialist wars and any other unjust war, struggle for genuine disarmament and peace, struggle for friendship between peoples and the denunciation of all enemies and every means they use to sabotage this friendship and understanding among peoples.

The reactionary capitalist and revisionist bourgeoisie and its states are acting against the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, but Albania acts against them, too. The bourgeois-capitalist-revisionist states consider the correct, revolutionary policy from the firm positions of our theory as interference in their internal affairs, while their own policy of plots and sabotage against peoples they consider not interference in our internal affairs, but a correct and normal policy already accepted by world opinion. But this is not true. World opinion, the broad masses of the peoples, do not accept the bourgeois revisionist world outlook which covers up the deception, oppression and exploitation. The masses who hear about and understand our political stands on many international problems, reflect, make comparisons about the state of things presented, weigh up our arguments and those of our opponents, and approve, support and adopt our stands. This is precisely the real major reason why the anti-Marxists and the modern revisionists of all hues are so worried. Otherwise they would not concoct slanders against the correct political stands of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and the Party of Labour of Albania. They do so because our policy, preceding from the positions of the working class and based on Marxism-Leninism, exposes their pseudo-Marxist policy which proceeds from capitalist positions. Also thanks to this exposure, the broad working masses realize that, irrespective of external appearances, the structure and superstructure of the revisionist states are identical with those of other capitalist states. In practice, their content, essence and results are in unity.

Precisely because the Party of Labour of Albania and our state expose and fight the exploiting order (under both names, capitalist and revisionist), both politically and through the positive example of the successful construction of socialism in Albania, they have an honoured name in the world, not only among the ranks of the working class, but also among progressive elements of the bourgeoisie, the youth and intellectuals.

The modern revisionists are greatly worried by the powerful voice of the Party of Labour of Albania, because both in policy and in theory it is opposed to their efforts to pass revisionism for "renovated Marxism" and suitable for our time, when, according to them, capitalist society must be rescued from destruction, private ownership of the means of production must be preserved, and the proletarian revolution, i.e., the seizure of power by the working class, must be avoided. The modern revisionists do not want the Marxist-Leninists to expose their work of sabotage. Therefore the modern revisionists call the exposure which our Party of Labour makes of their anti-Marxist theories, of the state economic order of the modern revisionists, and of their pro-capitalist internal and external policy interference in their internal affairs. But we are not concerned about what they say about us.

Not just today, not only now, but ever since they were founded, our Party and proletarian state have declared publicly that they will apply an open, principled foreign policy, a policy of good neighbourliness and relations with all states on the basis of equality, respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs and mutual benefit. And they have adhered to this policy without the slightest deviation. However they have also made it clear to anybody who cares to listen that such a policy does not mean concessions or giving up the resolute struggle for the defence of our guiding ideology, Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against greedy imperialism and capitalism, or support for the just struggles of the world proletariat for social liberation and the national liberation struggles of the peoples against colonialism and neo-colonialism.

No one and no force can stop the Party of Labour of Albania and the Government of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania from voicing their own opinion, not only on the problems and political events in which our socialist Homeland, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, is directly interested or which have to do with its supreme interests, but also on other general world problems and events, because these, too, are the concern of all and not just of all and not just of some.

In persistently following this policy, our Party and state do not proceed from interests of the moment, to please or to serve this or that foreign power, big or small. They are not urged to this policy by any of these powers, but they never lose sight of the principles of the basic strategy of defence of the freedom and interests of the peoples, of the cause of the world proletariat and its revolution. They do not alter their strategy according to the changing circumstances. The stability of our policy and the correctness of our stands result from this.

We do not impose our foreign policy on anybody. Nevertheless, there are many people around the world, even various diplomatic chancelleries, that seek information about our policy and stands, because in them they see something original which does not exist in the policy and stands of other countries (either capitalist or revisionist): truthfulness, maturity and the courage to voice one's opinions openly. No capitalist-revisionist state can follow such an open, correct and well-considered policy, because of the complexity of the political and economic dependence, religious influences and the class contradictions to which they are subject. Socialist Albania does not suffer from any such complex of restrictive and inhibiting factors and precisely this is the basis for the strength of its influence. There are others who find it very difficult to understand our policy and position, who wonder how such a small country as Albania can follow such a policy which, according to their judgement and in their own words, contains good points and truths which only the Albanians, but none of the others can proclaim.

The Party of Labour of Albania is a strong party not because of the number of its members, but because of the Marxist-Leninist ideology which inspires and guides it. Likewise the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is a powerful state not because of the size of its territory or population, but because it lives in, fights for and builds the new socialist society, because the Party and the people are in complete unity, conscious of their actions, where they are going and how they will get there. The main, cardinal problems of life are clear to them: they must build a secure present, without forgetting the past and foreseeing and preparing the future.

Someone might think that pursuing such a course of development is something temporary, abnormal, unorthodox, linked with the life and activity of certain leaders and that "there can be no departure" from the line of development which bourgeois capitalist society and its sous-fifres (Underlings (French in the original)), the modern revisionists, have established. On this issue, too, they are gravely mistaken because they cannot see and do not want to see the great strength of socialism and our triumphant doctrine, Marxism-Leninism, which destroys the old society and builds the new one, do not know either the Party of Labour or the Albanian people, do not recognize and cannot understand the steel intellectual, spiritual and material unity between them.

The great instability of capitalist society foundering in all-round crisis is a result of the struggle of the discontented peoples against the enslaving system, and undoubtedly, of the inspiration they gain from the revolutionary ideology, Marxism-Leninism, to find the genuine right road in the darkness of the modern epoch.

We Albanian communists are conscious of the difficulties we encounter and will encounter on our road, but at the same time we are fully convinced that we shall overcome them, because we are on the right road. We take each cautious step with confidence, after weighing up the issues and making careful calculations, we are clear about the period we live in, watch the changes and developments in the world with a critical Marxist-Leninist eye, and try, not without success, to assess these developments correctly, defining their positive and negative aspects, and benefiting from the former while combating the latter. We build our tactics, which are neither unprincipled nor momentary, in conformity with and to strengthen our unwavering revolutionary strategy.

We Albanian communists, sons and daughters of this people, whose joys and sorrows we know very well, are the main basis of all the victories which the people and the Party of Labour of Albania have won together. This is where the solid foundations of our political, economic and cultural achievements lie. Socialist society in our country has been build by a people who have ancient traditions, but at the same time, have plenty of will, wisdom, courage and the vigour of youth. History has taught them to fight for their freedom, for a good life, for justice. History has taught them to distinguish the peoples from their evil, oppressing and cunning leaders; it has taught the Albanian people to love the other peoples, never to harm them but only help them, never to become the instrument of anyone to oppress others, but to fight for their own rights and the rights of others. The Party with its Marxist-Leninist ideology implanted these lofty virtues more deeply in their consciousness, strengthened them, made them even clearer and more understandable so that they flow in the bloodstream of every Albanian.

Our people are modest, industrious people who are not in the habit of boasting to anybody about anything. They have understood that their independence and the victories achieved must be defended as they were won, arms in hand, even with their blood if need be, and must be further consolidated with their own strength and resources, through struggle and efforts. Some think that this cannot be done, that loans and credits from the capitalists and revisionists are indispensable. This is not true. When true freedom and independence are understood correctly by a people and developed correctly by their leadership, they bring well-being, develop them and make them conscious of their own destiny. Foreign loans and credits have never been and are not in the interests of the peoples. They bring all kinds of misfortunes upon the peoples. For them the loans and credits are a noose around their necks. Daily life in countries nearby and remote from us proves this very clearly.

The brilliant road of the Albanian people is the road of all peoples who fight for national and social liberation, for socialism. And the peoples of the world, who fight with all their possibilities and in all forms, are the powerful allies of small but invincible, socialist Albania. This strengthens the positions of our correct Marxist-Leninist policy and enhances the authority of our country in the international arena. In this context we must ceaselessly strengthen our Party of Labour and our People's Socialist Republic, make our economy more powerful, raise the well-being and cultural level of the working masses and continue the successful construction of the new society, socialist society.




From the present international situation we must draw some conclusions which will help us to keep UP to date and, at the same time, to take measures when and where necessary.

At its 8th Congress (The 8th Congress of the PLA held its proceedings from November 1-7, 1981. In the report delivered to this Congress, Comrade Enver Hoxha, exposing the aggressive line and aims of American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, among other things, said:

"This line is also expressed in the new 'doctrine' of Washington, begun by Carter and further developed by Reagan, that allegedly peace in the world and the security of peoples can be achieved by means of the 'increase of the American power and superiority'. In reality this 'doctrine' incites general imperialist war and brings it closer...

"Today the hegemonic and expansionist policy for the establishment of world domination, the adventurous course for the preparation and incitement of war also characterize Soviet Socialimperialism, the global strategy of which, and especially the ways in which it is applied, have likewise become more aggressive.

"Beginning with the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Policy of the Soviet Union has gradually assumed a pronounced militarist character, which is expressed in the use of military force to realize its expansionist aims." (Enver Hoxha, Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA, Eng. ed., "8 Nentori" Publishing House, Tirana 1981, pp. 169-170)), the Party analysed the international situation, correctly forecasting the ways in which it would develop, and the consequences of and the reasons for these developments. Life, the events which are occurring, vindicate the correctness of this analysis, and the correct, principled political stands of the Party of Labour on the world problems and the foreign policy of our state.

The diplomatic information, the many different, and we may say, favourable articles of the world press, etc., show that the proceedings of our Congress have been awaited with great interest everywhere by friends, progressive people and the working masses, but also by enemies who have read the report of the Central Committee. This is a great opportunity and advantage to further consolidate the international positions of our Party and country. The external world is seeing once again that, like it or not, the policy of our state, in every situation, is an unwavering, resolute, principled policy. The world appreciates that the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is an independent country which pursues an independent policy, uninfluenced by others, is the only country in the world that does not accept credits from any state and is building socialism with its own forces, that on this course it has achieved successes in all fields and is always prepared to defend itself from any aggression. In other words, the foreign policy of our Party and state has had positive repercussions throughout the world, is considered a serious policy, and therefore, it arouses respect among the people. We must further consolidate this favourable positive position through our correct political stands, our penetrating Marxist-Leninist view of events which occur in the world, our correct socialist stands in relations with other states, etc.

The great economic crisis, and consequently, the political crisis, too, are growing deeper with each passing day, engulfing all the continents and states of the world. The only exception is Albania. To us this is something real and not at all surprising, while for others it is an astonishing, unbelievable phenomenon. Nevertheless, there are small states and progressive people in the world who know and understand the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and want to take it as an example.

The present situation in the world is explosive and fraught with grave dangers for various peoples and states. The two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, are in a deep political and economic crisis. In this situation each of them is striving to gain supremacy over the other in vital fields, such as armaments, but also trying to avoid a war between them. At the same time they have never ceased their preparations for the outbreak of a new world war. These feverish preparations which cost them colossal investments and further deepen the economic crisis in those two countries, among their allies and other states, maintain the psychosis of war and intimidate their respective allies, a thing which assists the two superpowers to impose their policy on them and others.

At present the United States of America and the Soviet Union are struggling to retain and extend their spheres of influence, to strengthen neo-colonialism. Local wars, which are incited by these two superpowers and their allies, are on the agenda today. Now there are many such hotbeds of local wars all over the world: in Africa, Asia, Central and Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Another reality of our days is the fact that, while the superpowers and world capitalism really are mercilessly exploiting and plotting against the peoples, occupying them militarily and in other forms, they do not feel themselves secure and do not have the profits they want to have, are not managing to create the situations they want to create. Through armed struggle, political and economic strikes, or through open or undeclared hostile stands, the peoples in all parts of the world are creating troubles for world capitalism. Seen as a whole, this unrelenting resistance in a variety of forms of activity is a mounting force against neo-colonialism and imperialist-revisionist aggressive forces. Hence, not only are the rear areas of the United States of America and the Soviet Union insecure, but their military-economic alliances, too, are in deep crisis.

The grave international situation, the innumerable crises and dangers in the world, have aroused vigilance, the sentiment of self-defence and resistance among the peoples and increased their ceaseless demands against those who govern, oppress and exploit them. Therefore, the capitalist-revisionist world today is faced with great and steadily mounting pressure from the working masses. This situation is reflected in the political moments in which we are living. Neither the United States of America, nor the Soviet Union can establish its world hegemony. At present both are trying to escape from the crisis by means which cannot eliminate it. On the contrary, these means are deepening and aggravating the crisis and may lead to the outbreak of a world conflict.

It is characteristic that these two superpowers are doing their utmost to shift the burden of the grave economic crisis which has their countries in its grip on to other states, regardless of whether or not they are allies, members of the Warsaw Treaty or NATO. Such an action unstabilizes the alliances themselves, creates deep contradictions within each alliance and causes political, economic and military disequilibrium within them and between these two aggressive alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty.

The economic crisis has also brought political and military crisis to the two opposing camps. Today we are witnessing the well-known, natural phenomenon of capitalism that the stronger tries to impose its will and laws on the weaker, the smaller, the others. Concretely we see that in this unstable situation the Soviet Union is striving to establish its complete hegemony over the Warsaw in Treaty countries, while the United States of America is doing the same thing in NATO. It is difficult for either of them to realize its objective, but less so for the Soviet Union and more so for the United States of America.

There are profound economic, political and military disagreements between the United States of America and its European partners. These disagreements exist, both in the joint framework of "United Europe" over economic issues and in NATO over military issues. But disagreements exist also with the individual European partners and allies. Therefore, it is understandable why the Reagan government, in order to intimidate them, almost openly threatens the countries of Western Europe with the danger which the Soviet military superiority presents to them. Under this slogan the United States of America is demanding the deployment of "Pershing-2" and "Cruise" nuclear missiles in Europe, and that the European member countries of NATO undertake more military expenditure. West Germany, which is a state with very great, if not the most important, economic and military potential in NATO, is not submitting either to the will or to the policy of Reagan.

On the other hand, the Bonn government in particular, in opposition to the American policy, is saying openly that it is not the Polish question, but the high interest rates of the United States of America that are causing the present crisis. Therefore, although it has a finger in this question, Bonn does not accept and is not participating in the economic sanctions taken by Reagan against either Poland or the Soviet Union. These contradictions between Bonn and Washington are serious and have consequences in the policy of the European Common Market, which is being eroded by the crisis and the disagreements between European states. Such opposition also has its profound consequences within NATO.

In its relations with the United States of America, "United Europe" has profound political, economic and monetary contradictions. At present it is developing into a capitalist grouping, naturally with the contradictions that exist between the participating states, in opposition to the United States of America. In view of this situation, the United States of America has urged Italy to propose a kind of political-economic treaty between the European Common Market and the United States of America. But following the recent talks held between Haig and Colombo, no more has been heard about this Italian proposal.

This means that the disagreements between "United Europe" and the United States of America are deep.

In fact, the American policy in Europe, in the Middle East and Latin and Central America is not properly in tune with that of the West-European allies, who have their own aims, separate from those of the United States of America. The European allies are clinging to NATO as a counterweight to the military-political pressure of the Warsaw Treaty and also maintaining their economic relations in the complicated tangle of the great crisis of the capitalist economy and the multinational companies, but at the same time they have pronounced differences with the United States of America.

The Polish problem, created by the political-economic bankruptcy of the Polish revisionist state, by the oppressive Soviet policy and the crisis in Comecon and the Warsaw Treaty, created a field of operation for the United States of America, the Western states and for all the reactionary forces in the world and, first of all, for the Vatican and the Polish catholic church. On this problem we may draw the following conclusions: by means of the Polish church and "Solidarity", the Polish problem developed into an acute crisis which brought the establishment of martial law in that country, the temporary silencing of "Solidarity" and to some extent limited the omnipotence and openly hostile activity of the church; the Pope of Rome became a foreign minister of the cause of the Polish church and world reaction; the efforts of the Americans to incite the Soviet Union to intervene manu militari in Poland, as it did in Czechoslovakia, so that the Soviet Union would be discredited and involve itself in military and political adventures, failed. On the basis of the Warsaw Treaty, the Soviet army was in Poland, but the Soviets hid their hand and it was the Polish army that showed its list. The propaganda and big strikes in Poland, the daily homilies of the Pope, the threats and sanctions of Reagan, did not bring the desired result, and the countries of Western Europe avoided committing themselves totally to the American policy in Europe and refused to take the concrete measures demanded by the United States of America. They stuck to their policy of talks and not breaking off relations with the revisionist countries of the East, and maintained and even increased their economic relations with them and the Soviet Union. The countries of Western Europe and, in the first place, the Federal Republic of Germany have made heavy investments in those countries, advancing large credits and loans to them, therefore they do not want to lose either their profits or the influence they exert there by means of the investments, loans and credits which they have provided.

One wing of the American extreme right tried to intimidate the "disobedient" Europeans by threatening them with the "Monroe doctrine". But American isolationism is nonsensical in today's complicated relations of world capital. In the consumer society of today American isolationism would mean certain death for the United States of America and for its partners.

Very great and incurable contradictions exist within Comecon also. Its total collapse is prevented only by the presence of the Soviet military force, which makes the law in the member countries of the Warsaw Treaty. The Soviet Union and its allies are up to their necks in debt to the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany and other capitalist countries. The economy of the Comecon countries is utterly bankrupt and in deep crisis. There, too, as in the West, inflation and unemployment are increasing, prices are going sky-high, and there are not enough consumer goods to meet minimal daily needs. Both NATO and the Warsaw Treaty are shaken internally. In the former the instability is more evident, in the latter it is silent for fear of the Soviet sword of Damocles.

The treaties and agreements are falling apart because of the circumstances created by the clash of the two superpowers and their partners. The truth about the Helsinki meeting has become clear to all and life is proving that those of us who condemned it long ago were right. Like the recent meeting of Madrid, the theory of Tito and the Yugoslavs about the "non-aligned world" etc., that meeting proved a disgraceful fiasco. As our Party has said, everything is being manipulated by the two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, as well as by world capitalism, with the aim of suppressing the revolution. Interventions and the military occupations by the superpowers, such as that of the Soviets in Afghanistan and Angola, the American occupation of El Salvador; Israel, the Iran-Iraq conflict, the Polish crisis, the guerilla war in Northern Ireland, the political-economic catastrophe of Titoite Yugoslavia and the coming to power of socialist parties in several European countries, speak of the decay of world capitalism, of the confusion which reigns in the international situation which is seething with revolution. The measures which world capitalism is taking, the terror it employs, the manoeuvres and manipulations undertaken by the parties of the bourgeoisie, including the revisionist parties, which have turned into mere second-rank social-democratic parties, do not reduce the anger of the masses who are counter-acting every day with more and more force, up to the use of weapons.

In particular it must be pointed out that Titoite Yugoslavia is completely engulfed in a catastrophe and not on the brink of it. The political and national clashes between clans in that country are obvious and will become even more so. The economic crisis has reached the phase of desperation. Yugoslavia is up to its neck in debts and cannot repay them with more loans. In that country there is immense unemployment, inflation is galloping, prices are going up every day beyond the reach of ordinary working people.

The Great-Serb clan is powerful, but for tactical reasons is obliged to surrender the leadership to the Croat-Slovene clan in order to stabilize the situation through a more complete opening up to the West. At present the West is greatly concerned to see the advances the Great-Serbs are making to the Soviet Union.

The savage oppression of the people of Kosova and other Albanians who inhabit their ancestral territories in Yugoslavia continues. However, the resistance of the Albanians is continuing, and increasing, too. They are defending themselves very well and putting up great opposition to the injustices and terror imposed on them by the Great-Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins. Their just resistance has turned the problem of Kosova into a disturbing international problem unfavorable to Yugoslavia. But the terror and the efforts being made there to denationalize the Albanians are continuing. Nevertheless, the Serbs will never succeed in this.

The fairest solution to the problem of Kosova and that of the other Albanians who inhabit their own territories in Yugoslavia is the one that the 8th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania put forward (In his report to the 8th Congress of the PLA, Comrade Enver Hoxha, dealing with the problem of the demand of the Albanians in Kosova for their province to be given the status of a Republic within the Yugoslav Federation. pointed out: "Only a well-considered solution of the national question,... a solution which is accepted and approved by the people of Kosova, can eliminate this very complicated situation which has been brought about not by the people of Kosova, but by Great-Serb chauvinism... The demand to raise Kosova to the status of a Republic within the Federation is a just demand. It does not threaten the existence of the Federation". (Enver Hoxha, Report to the 8th congress of the PLA, Eng ed., "8 Nentori" Publishing House, Tirana 1981, p. 213)). The Great-Serbs and the Federative Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia attacked this solution, while world opinion approved it and considered it correct. The Yugoslavs were denounced both within their country and abroad for their actions against the people of Kosova and the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. They brought great discredit upon themselves with their slanders and the hostility they displayed towards the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. We emerged triumphant, because we defended a just cause. The People's Socialist Republic of Albania and the policy of our Party emerged full of dignity on the international arena and our positions were further strengthened. Today the voice of Albania is listened to with sympathy and attention is paid to its policy.

It is very important to us to have sound international opinion on our side; we must strengthen respect for the correct Marxist-Leninist policy of our government among the governments of the various countries of the world with which we have diplomatic relations, and this, too, is very important to us.

The progressive world admires and respects us for our determination, courage, independence, and correctness in relations with others, for our honesty and for the Marxist-Leninist course which our people and Party pursue in the construction of socialism in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Therefore, the Party and we, its leadership, must maintain and strengthen this victory, which as the 8th Congress reiterated, is continually consolidated by safeguarding the purity of the line of our Marxist-Leninist Party. Hence, we must work with all our might, intelligently, and with great care, to further strengthen the situation of our country internally and abroad.

MONDAY MAY 10, 1982


I talked with the comrades about preparing an article in which we must take our stand on the events of recent weeks in the Malvina Islands. (On May 13, 1982, the newspaper Zeri i popullit carried the article, "Argentina defends its undeniable rights").

We must come out in defence of the sovereignty of those islands which are occupied by British imperialism, but which belong to the Argentine people and state.

First of all, in the article we must give a stinging rebuke to Britain, pointing out that in the past it has been one of the predatory colonial powers which not only occupied foreign territories, but tampered as much as it wished with the borders and sovereignty of different nations, dividing and distributing their territories among its favourites and those who acted as gendarmes in defence of its interests in the world. We must point out that London was the centre in which the imperialist powers drafted the open and secret treaties for these acts of plunder. With this we strike a blow that will reverberate widely, we hit out against all those who have tampered with the borders and sovereignty of the peoples, including our country and people, by means of occupations and unjust treaties.

Second, I instructed that the article must point out clearly that the three "peripatetic friars" of the Helsinki Meeting, Britain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, who with great pomp and ceremony signed and sealed the "Final Act for the European Security and Co-operation", or as some call it, "The Helsinki Charter" which speaks not only about the "security" of Europe, but also the "security" of countries in other continents, have themselves turned this document into a worthless scrap of paper, an act of no value whatsoever for the security of the peoples.

After our exposure of Britain and the United States of America which is supporting Britain politically, diplomatically and militarily on the question of the Malvina Islands, we must point out clearly also that the Soviet Union is talking a great deal about the "defence" of the sovereignty of Argentina, at a time when the whole world knows that it invaded Czechoslovakia in broad daylight, subsequently attacked Afghanistan, moving into that sovereign country by force of arms, and is still fighting against the Afghan people. Therefore, the statements which the Soviet Union is making on this occasion in favour of Argentina are nothing but a fraud. Its real aim is to take advantage of these events to achieve its imperialist ambitions against the United States, and to placate to some small extent the anger of the peoples against the terrible crimes it is committing against the Afghan people, etc. Such is the game of the superpowers. They take no heed of any treaty or agreement, but trample underfoot even those which they themselves have signed.

In other words, with this article we must expose both the United States of America and Britain, and the Soviet Union, etc., at the same time...



This morning more than 2.000 American marines supported by a number of warships suddenly occupied the free and independent state of Grenada, a tiny island in the Caribbean basin. News agencies speak about specialized detachments landed from helicopters and the sea. They also say that the American invaders have encountered fierce resistance from the army and the people of Grenada.

The President of the United States, Reagan, personally announced the occupation of this small country, describing it as an action necessary "of defend the interests of America" in the Caribbean region!

What a great disgrace for the United States of America to claim that a tiny country and a small, peace-loving people, such as the people of Grenada, "are threatening the interests" of one of the imperialist superpowers of the world!

As a pretext to justify its military intervention in the internal affairs of a number of sovereign countries of Central America such as Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, Panama, or certain other countries of Latin America, the United States of America raises the danger of intervention by Cuba and the Soviet Union or the establishment of their influence in those countries, as well as their efforts to set up bases there against the United States.

It cannot be excluded that Cuba, or the Soviet Union, or rather the latter through the former, is trying to poke its nose in the internal affairs of those countries in which it wants to find markets and spheres of influence. In the concrete instances, however, we have to do with the intrigues of American imperialist circles to sabotage and attack the liberation struggle of the peoples of Latin America and to come to the aid of monopolies, multinational companies and the financial circles of Washington, so that they will not lose the investments they have made and the assets they have seized in that continent.



The two superpowers have commenced the deployments of their new medium-range "Pershing-2", "Cruise", "SS-20", "SS-21", "SS-23", missiles, also called "Euro-missiles", in the territories of the member countries of their aggressive military blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty.

Early this month, the first American missiles were transported, in the greatest secrecy, to the Greenham Common air-base in Britain. Two or three days ago there was talk that American unassembled missile components have begun to arrive at the American naval base of Sigonella in Sicily, to be deployed subsequently at the Comisso air-base. American missiles are arriving, also, at the air-base in Federal Germany. They are expected to arrive in Holland. Thus, as they say, a barrage of 572 new American missiles is being built up against the Soviet Union.

The Soviet social-imperialists have not remained idle. Open threats have been made at the highest levels that they will take the necessary "defence" measures. In fact, some days ago the Minister of Defence of the Soviet Union, Marshal Ustinov, announced that the work necessary for the deployment of the new "SS-20", "SS-21", "SS-23". Soviet missiles has begun in the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia. No figures have been give about their number.

Thus, the "Euro-missiles" race, which presents a ver great new threat to the peoples of Europe, has begun.

I think we have to do with a further escalation by the two superpowers of the struggle for supremacy in nuclear weapons in Europe and to exert pressure on each other. Therefore, we must be vigilant, and so must all the other peoples, especially the peoples of Europe. The powerful demonstrations against "Euro-missiles" which have been going on in Western Europe for some days now, as well as the silent opposition of the peoples of Eastern Europe, are very good signs of the mounting awareness among peoples of the very great danger with which the two imperialist superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, are threatening them.



Today the HSINHUA news agency reported that the President of the United States of America, Ronald Reagan, with his wife arrived in Beijing for a six-day official visit. He is the third American president, after Nixon and Carter, to visit "communist" China.

Reagan, who is accompanied by a very large number of political, economic and military personalities and experts, journalists and TV correspondents, as well as agents of the American secret service, etc., about 600 people, they say, as well as a great amount of special radio equipment to keep him in permanent contact with the White House and the Pentagon, was welcomed with cheering crowds, waving flags and great pomp and ceremony.

In China Reagan will make his long trips in his presidential aircraft, while within the cities he will travel in his own bullet-proof limousine. Apparently, the Chinese have been entrusted with protecting him from only those eventualities least dangerous to his life, such as being hit with rotten eggs, tomatoes, etc.

We shall wait and see what the new Sino-American osmosis will bring forth for the Chinese and the Americans themselves, and also for those who are worried about a major Sino-American rapprochement, such as the Soviet social-imperialists and the Japanese militarists.

The Chinese are deliberately trying to present Reagan's visit as something "normal", during which the "American president will hold talks with top Chinese officials on the question of Sino-American relations and on international issues of mutual interest". The Americans are a bit more enthusiastic. Before his arrival in Beijing, Reagan, himself, spoke about the "good prospects for Sino-American relations", while the American press reports with satisfaction that there Reagan will see that the inhabitants of Chinese cities now "watch western films and see advertisements for Japanese stereos, European banks and American Coca-Cola and shampoo"!

Outwardly, everything appears to be going smoothly. But this aspect represents only the tip of the colossal mass of the iceberg. In fact, in their tête-à-tête talks behind closed doors, "the two avowed friends - Deng and Reagan" will have to deal with difficult and complicated problems in the relations between these two imperialist countries. They include: the future of Taiwan, which Deng is claiming but which Reagan does not cede; the sale and purchase of Chinese national assets; relations with Japan, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

Reagan also has another problem: with his tour of China and the success he wants to achieve during this, tour, he hopes to increase the number of his supporters and be re-elected president of the United States of America for another four years. And Deng might lend a hand and give him a shove in this direction.



For some time a very grave situation of political tension, accompanied with the danger of the outbreak of a large-scale conflict, has been created in the Persian Gulf. This tense situation of crisis affects not only the Arab countries of the Gulf and Iran, but also a large number of industrialized capitalist countries of Western Europe, Japan, etc. The greatest and most open threats are being made to Iran and the Iranian people. In fact, under some pretext, and especially that the balance has been disturbed, the United States of America or the Soviet Union might intervene directly by military means in that country, or incite some neighbouring reactionary regime to do so.

Now the whole world knows that it is the United States of America and the social-imperialist Soviet Union which are fanning the flames of war in the Persian Gulf, just as they are doing in the Near East, the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

Let us take the Iraq-Iran war which has been going on for several years with colossal casualties and damage on both sides, a conflict which, it seems, will continue for a long time yet. Both superpowers are exploiting this conflict to sell billions of dollars worth of armaments and to test their concrete devastating effect; to ensure the plunder of oil at the cheapest possible prices; to sabotage and undermine the progressive movement of the peoples of Iran and he Arab countries, and suppress their liberation struggle, that is, in order to poke their blood-stained hands into the internal affairs of the peoples of this region.

I have written on other occasions that the vast oil bearing zone of the Middle East is the focal point of the plots and strategic plans of the superpowers and other imperialist powers (See Enver Hoxha, Reflections on the Middle East, Eng. ed., "8 Nentori" Publishing House, Tirana 1984). They will never withdraw from this region because they do not want to lose or damage the privileged economic or strategic-military positions which they have secured in these zones. Therefore they will fan up the flames of war in these hotbeds, will keep the local wars ablaze, will help the reactionary regimes with weapons and politically, will pit one people against the other and, before one conflict is ended, will kindle another. This is what occurred last year with the events in Lebanon, where after the plan for a new heavy blow against the Palestinian fighters was accomplished. The flames of war subsided and the intensity of the Iran-Iraq war and the crisis in the Persian Gulf were increased.

Today in these brief notes in my Diary, I do not want to speak about the whole Middle East, but only about the grave crisis which has been created in the Persian Gulf, with what this crisis is linked, who is really responsible for it.

As I see it, this war is mainly over oil, which for the time being constitutes the main source of energy for the world economy. The Arab countries and mainly the countries on the shores of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf, as some call it, are the biggest producers and suppliers of oil for the overwhelming majority of the industrialized capitalist countries of Western Europe, Japan and several others. Some of these states secure 40-85 per cent of the requirements for oil from the countries of the Persian Gulf, while Japan secures over 90 per cent of its requirements. The known reserves of oil in the Arab countries and Iran are reckoned at 367 billion barrels, a figure which some consider to be much lower than the true figure, while the annual export of oil does not exceed 15 billion barrels, 4 billion of which are absorbed by the American monopolies. That is why the interests which are linked with the exacerbation of the crisis and the eruption of a large-scale conflict over oil are multifarious and, in most cases, incompatible.

This colossal quantity of oil which is mainly transported by sea in very big tankers, has to pass through the Strait of Hormuz which connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and on to the Indian, Pacific or Atlantic oceans.

How have they increased the tension and are keeping it high artificially in the Persian Gulf?

In the last two years, Iraq, which is supplied with modern armaments (aircraft, missiles, artillery) by the Soviet Union as well as by some other imperialist powers such as France (which supplies it with "Mirage" aircraft and "Exocet" missiles), Great Britain and the United States of America, wanting to force Iran to surrender or to accept the end of the war on unacceptable terms, has bombed some cities where part of the Iranian oil-processing industry is situated, such as Abadan, Bandar-Khomeini and the Kharg Island, and has also hit with missiles a considerable number of ships transporting Iranian oil through the Strait of Hormuz. In defence of its own rights, Iran, for its part, declared that if Iraq did not stop bombing industrial cities and abandon its attempts to hinder the transport of Iranian oil, it would close the Strait of Hormuz and stop the passage of ships.

Application of this measure would result in the suspension of oil supplies to all the industrialized capitalist countries of Europe, Japan, etc., where the consequences of the energy crisis would be incalculable. There is no need for me to explain these consequences at length, because it has been proven in the past, it was proved in 1973 and subsequently, that without oil industrial life in many capitalist countries is brought to a standstill, the phenomenon of the economic crisis reaches its culmination and is accompanied with major, very grave political, economic, and social disturbances. Governments and parties are brought down or rise to power over a drop of oil. Scandals involving the top-level personalities of the capitalist bourgeoisie break out over a drop of oil.

Therefore Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz created very great concern, disarray and unprecedented alarm in the capitalist world. The United States of America, which is the chief of world imperialism, took immediate counter-action by announcing that it would protect its own national interests and the interests of its allies in the Persian Gulf with all its means. At once it dispatched part of its naval fleet, airforce and forces and special detachments trained for guerilla and urban warfare and large-scale landings, to the Gulf of Oman. The chiefs of American imperialism declared publicly that these forces would intervene immediately in Iran if that country closed the Strait of Hormuz. In fact these attack forces have plans and remain in a state of readiness to carry out the orders of the Pentagon for such an intervention, irrespective of how the Iranian people may regard it and deal with it. The Americans should not forget their abortive action at Tabas in 1981, where they suffered ignominious defeat. The people of Iran have awakened, have great hatred for American imperialism, and are determined not to permit anyone to interfere in their internal affairs.

Meanwhile Iraq, on the urging of the imperialist powers and of the Soviet Union, whose relations with Iran have steadily deteriorated because of the Soviet interference in the internal affairs of that country. has continued its bombing raids and hit dozens of tankers going to load oil at Kharg Island or sailing loaded from there to the open seas beyond Hormuz. Ninety per cent of Iranian oil is loaded into tankers at the big terminal at Kharg Island. That is why Iraq has made that island the main target of its attacks. It is precisely these actions which have raised the tension even higher. Several times recently the tension has risen so high that the conflict has been on the verge of turning into a major war in which, besides the superpowers, most of the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf will inevitably be involved. Faced with this danger, urgent meetings of the Security Council have been sought on several occasions, frequent appeals have been made for a "cooling of tempers" etc., etc.

But are all the governments of the capitalist countries whose economies are dependent on Arab oil ready and predisposed for the outbreak of a conflict in the Persian Gulf? I think not. Not all the capitalist governments, and in speaking of governments I have in mind the monopolies and multinational companies which are linked with and dependent on oil from countries of the Gulf, agree that Iran should be placed in such conditions that it is obliged to close the Strait of Hormuz, because, as I have said, such a thing would create a very grave situation not only for their economies, but also for their military forces. Japan, for example, by no means wants the situation to develop into a war and the world press and the news agencies have carried reports and commentaries on this. Apparently, on this occasion the Japanese are opposed to committing harakiri in the Persian Gulf, regardless of what the Americans say and want. And likewise with several other countries of Western Europe. Hence, in this direction there are powerful conflicts of short-term and long-term interests, This is the first point.

Second. The great Arabian Peninsula and Iran which lies on the Eastern shores of the Persian Gulf, comprise an important military-strategic zone through which the routes of communication between Europe, Asia, Africa and the great oceans of the world pass. Here we have to do with a delicate balance between the two superpowers. If this balance is upset they will be obliged to attack each other. That is, if the Americans intervene in Iran or elsewhere, the social-imperialists are bound to act. The two superpowers are watching each other like cat and mouse in the big oil-bearing zone of the Middle East. Thus at a given moment, mankind may be faced with a chain reaction with very great and grave consequences not only for the Middle East, but also for the whole world. Nevertheless, there is something else that we must keep in mind: they have divided up their spheres of influence but each is afraid of the other's perfidy. When their interests require they come to terms and turn a blind eye. That is why they have perfected the direct links between the White House and the Kremlin through the red and yellow teletypes, by radio, morse code, transmitted pictures, etc. Such a thing can he seen now, at these moments of grave crisis in the Persian Gulf. True, nothing has been said officially, but reports are circulating that the United States of America and the Soviet Union have reached agreement to refrain from intervening, to maintain "neutrality", if the Iraq-Iran conflict is extended and the crisis in the Persian Gulf becomes worse, to keep out of it, at least from the standpoint of direct intervention. This means that they have agreed to maintain the state of crisis, to prolong the Iraq-Iran war and, if possible, to kindle some other local conflict. Let the Arab peoples be killed and chopped to pieces, let them be cannon fodder for the superpowers and their predatory interests.

It is up to the Arab people, the progressive and revolutionary Arabs who understand the traps which the American imperialists, the Soviet social-imperialists, the various reactionaries and their false friends are setting for them, to avoid falling into these traps, which have very grave consequences for the freedom, independence, wealth and the future of the Arab peoples.



In the news agency bulletins I am continually reading reports and comments of every kind on the internal conflict in the leadership of the party and the highest state organs of the social-imperialist Soviet Union. Although these reports come from Western news agencies and the press of the capitalist world, which are highly interested in political sensations in the former socialist countries, still they are not entirely without foundation.

Murmurs about this began long ago, in the time when captain Leonidas was alive, if I am not mistaken. But upon his death, the bugles began to blow loudly: Grave conflicts in the Soviet leadership. The question arose: who would take Brezhnev's place - Andropov or Chernenko, but when Andropov was appointed General Secretary of the Central Committee, and subsequently Chairman of the Supreme Soviet (an election which was hailed by the West), it was said: the star of Chernenko and his clan has waned.

Andropov did not last long. Brezhnev summoned him as his councillor in the other world. Therefore, the bugles continued: Who will take Andropov's place - Chernenko or Gorbachov?

This time the former proved the stronger. The official propaganda in the Soviet Union began at once to praise the figure of Chernenko, his statements began to be published, one after another, the promises of a new epoch began, etc., etc. At the same time, it was implied that this was no longer Andropov's line.

Is this true?

As far as I can see, there is no reason to disbelieve it. What, in fact, is clearly observable? In the Soviet leadership, in the party and the state, two opposing trends can be seen, both of them proceeding from clearly counter-revolutionary, revisionist and capitalist positions and accompanied with undercover manoeuvres. Apparently, Chernenko represents the temporary compromise achieved between these two trends.

Why do I think and say this?

Andropov stayed in office only 14 months, although he was highly praised for the steps which he took in regard to the organizational questions of the party, and in the economic and political fields. Statues and books were dedicated to him, cities named after him, etc.

The same thing is occurring with Chernenko. Though he came to power only 4 months ago, they are singing him praises, talking about his great abilities in the organizational, political, economic and other fields. Meanwhile, there are signs which indicate a departure from Andropov's line, such as the changes, dismissals, appointments and transfers of higher cadres at the centre and the base. Andropov promoted his own men, and now it seems they are being replaced with Chernenko's supporters.

Whereas in regard to Andropov they say that he was somewhat more flexible in his relations with the United States of America and the other imperialist powers. in regard to Chernenko they say he is more "rigid", more "resolute", etc. Nevertheless, the chief of staff of the strategic air-defence force of the Soviet Union, who gave the order to shoot down the South Korean civilian airliner when it violated the air space of the Soviet Union, an act about which the United States of America made a great noise, was greatly honoured at first, but was demoted a little later.

These are some of the facts which they mention to illustrate the unstable situation and the abrasive conflict between clans going on below the surface in the leadership of the Soviet social-imperialists.

To show that we have to do with a transitional situation, because apparently the ratio of forces has not yet tipped definitely to one side, a significant fact is that a man such as Andropov, whose health was unsound, was appointed to the party and state leadership of the Soviet Union, one of the two imperialist superpowers of the world, and after his death, another person about whose state of health there are many rumours that he is seriously ill, with difficulty in breathing, speaking, etc., was appointed. In fact, seeing Chernenko on television, one has the impression of a man who can hardly stand and is completely contracted.

So the question arises: which are the true forces which stand and operate behind such figures as Andropov and Chernenko in the top leadership of the Soviet Union?

It is difficult to envisage, but apparently it involves definite internal forces, without excluding the influence of external forces, and especially the leading military circles and those of the KGB, that terrible weapon of the Soviet social-imperialists.

As to how long this business will go on and how it end, we shall see, but I don't think it can continue for long. The course on which the revisionist forces have embarked in that country, the grave internal economic situation the mounting complications and contradictions with the "allies" of the Warsaw Treaty and Comecon, as well as the difficult and grave international situations that have to be dealt with, the continuous pressure exerted by American imperialism and the international bourgeoisie, will undoubtedly have their influence in new, accelerated developments in the Soviet Union. These developments do not presage anything good for the peoples of the Soviet Union.



Although the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists are ready to stab one another in the heart, they embrace cordially whenever the occasion arises. To this end, they use all the means available, including religion and the churches.

According to a report released yesterday by the Soviet news agency, TASS, a delegation of the National Council of Churches of the United States of America made up of no less than 270 "friends", all of them bishops, priests and nuns, spent nearly two weeks touring the Soviet Union "to acquaint themselves with the life of the Soviet people" and to study "the situation of churches and religious organizations in the Soviet Union". As TASS points out, the Americans are making a thorough investigation of this question.

It seems a group of 140 members of this "delegation" also visited the Peace Committee of the Soviet Union, where the Secretary of that Committee spoke to them about the "Soviet stand as a champion of peace", about the "struggle of the Soviet Union to prevent a nuclear conflict in Europe and the whole world". He told them that the Soviet Union has adopted the law on "the prohibition of war propaganda" and that the "teaching of peace" has been introduced into every school of that country etc., etc. But TASS does not say whether "the secretary of the Committee" said anything about the occupation of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, or about leaving the Palestinian people in the lurch.

According to TASS, the "friends" were satisfied, and why shouldn't they be? One of them declared, "I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Russian Orthodox Church and the official authorities that gave us the possibility to establish direct contacts with Russian religious personalities". I add: Through these "friends" contacts are established, also, with the agents of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the imperialist monopolies and multinational companies.



...As we have said, the present international situation is complicated, indeed very complicated and grave. We are living at a time of dangerous provocations. The armaments race between the superpowers has been stepped up and has been extended to outer space for the so-called star wars, which is fraught with very great dangers for mankind; the hotbeds of local wars have increased, the policy of armed aggression, and the threat by the United States and the Soviet Union to use the force of devastating modem weapons has been stepped up; the sabotage of the liberation struggles of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America is continuing; the sabotage of the just struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples is continuing; the fascist forces are increasing in numbers and strength, etc., etc. The two superpowers stop at nothing to elbow each other out, even in those cases when millions of people fall victim to bad administration or natural calamities, as is happening in Ethiopia where, on the pretext of the famine which is threatening the lives of millions of people whose urgent needs for food, Ethiopia's "great ally" the Soviet Union, is unable to meet, the imperialist states and, in the first place, the United States of America have interfered to provide "aid"...

As regards the "exacerbated" relations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, that is, between the two imperialist superpowers which pretend that they and they alone should settle all the problems of the world, should decide everything which is up to other peoples and countries to decide, the end of the year 1984 marked an "improvement". To this end, after the reelection of Reagan as president of the USA for another four years, "the red and black" teletypes between Moscow and Washington were set in motion to give the world the "glad tidings": at the beginning of 1985 Shultz and Gromyko will meet in Geneva to reach agreement on the beginning of talks on stopping the nuclear missile arms race "on earth and above the earth", hence, a gentlemen's agreement, or more accurately, a rouges' bargain.

The "glad tidings" were immediately accompanied with reciprocal smiles and demagogic propaganda declarations about the "desire and good will", of the United States and the Soviet Union for "peace", "disarmament", etc., etc.

However, the peoples today are not easily taken in by these repeated "advances" and "retreats" of the two imperialist superpowers, by the "smile and snarls. of their top-level representatives. Life has taught the peoples to expect nothing good or favourable from the superpowers, pretenders to world domination.

What is hidden behind the recent diplomatic-political steps of Moscow and Washington? What are the rulers of the United States of America and the Soviet Union hatching up for the world? Why are they going to sit down together for top-secret negotiations in Geneva? Solely to defend the interests of their predatory policy.

Terrified over any superiority that one has already gained over the other in the unrestrained race of conventional and sophisticated weapons, first of all, each will try to worm out of the other some general or specific secret about some kind of weapon or weapons system, of course, to the extent that this will be possible, because, as our people say, the snake never shows its feet. Second, they will strive to exert pressure on each other through the threat to use new weapons for a new re-division of the spheres of their political, military and economic influence. Since the division of spheres of influence between them on earth has been virtually completed, the struggle has begun to elbow each other out, along with the struggle for the division of spheres of influence, in boundless outer space, to capture this or that planet of the solar system, so that there, too, they can "search for and find" valuable strategic minerals which they need for their war industry, as well as military bases from which they could attack each other.

The superpowers have filled outer space with spy with missiles and anti-missiles equipped with systems of lethal laser beams, with communications apparatuses, etc. A real chaos, great dangers that they will collide with each other. So, for this reason, too, in an attempt to establish a certain "order", to achieve a modus vivendi in the "administration" of this boundless space, the imperialist-revisionist chiefs will talk in Geneva until the fear of losing the race overwhelms them again.

At the same time, through the demonstration of the strength of their weapons, and through the clamour they are setting up about the danger of these weapons, they are trying to intimidate the peoples of the world who are fighting for their national and social liberation, the revolutionary forces, the proletariat and the other working masses.

Hence, the two superpowers want to maintain the balance of their destructive military forces, so that the two of them are equally strong in armaments, means and troop numbers, so that they can impose themselves on other countries and peoples and cope with the bargaining over the division and re-division of spheres of influence with deals, and avoid the outbreak of a war which might lead to their mutual destruction and liquidation.

Our Party long ago stated its opinion: there is not and cannot be disarmament by the imperialist superpowers. They have neither the intention nor the desire to agree to disarmament, otherwise they would have to give up their policy of the occupation of the world, relinquish the colossal profits that the armaments race brings them, their incitement and organization of hotbeds of fratricidal wars and their sabotage and defeat of just people's wars and social revolutions. Yes, they do want a certain "disarmament", the disarmament of the freedom-loving peoples, the world proletariat, the working masses, so they can more easily and quickly carry out their detestable plots.

The illusions that the bourgeois and revisionist ideologists want to create and the hopes they try to arouse about the "blessings", to be expected from the American-Soviet meetings in Geneva or elsewhere are very dangerous, fraught with very grave consequences for the future, the freedom and the national independence of the peoples. Regardless of what weapons American and Soviet capitalism possess, their external appearances of military, political and economic power must not intimidate peoples who are languishing under colonialist and neo-colonialist domination and are fighting to win their freedom must not frighten the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces, the revolutionary proletarians. Capitalism is powerful only if it is not fought hard and with determination. Its "strength" crumbles before the colossal force of the revolutionary and freedom-loving feelings and aspirations of the proletarians and peoples...

Another great problem that became very clear in 1984, which is worrying the two imperialist superpowers and compelling them to be "cautious" and "logical", is the serious situation in their base areas, within the political, military and economic groupings, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty, the European Common Market and Comecon. And here I am referring not only to the opposition of the peoples of the member countries of these groupings to the dangerous political actions and economic pressures and the violation of their national independence and dignity by the United States or the Soviet Union, but also to the opposition of governments and certain leading circles of these countries. Of course, the opposition of these governments and leading circles is not an expression of an arousing of genuine national feelings, but rather a manifestation of their fear of a further awakening of the revolutionary spirit and actions of the peoples, the working masses of the European countries.

On several occasions we have seen that the dictate of one or the other superpower over this or that "ally" has gone to such lengths as to give rise to open contradictions with the "big patron" which is continuously tightening the screws. It is no accident, for example, that the deployment of "Euro-missiles" ("Pershing-2" and "Cruise" the American imperialists and "SS-20" by the Soviet social-imperialists) in the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Britain, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, was not done without resistance, pressure and many political-diplomatic manoeuvres. Indeed, the governments of some countries, as in the cases of Holland, Belgium and Denmark, are continuing to this day to present conditions and put up opposition to the presence of such missiles on their territories. The "allies" are already clearly understanding that in the coming clashes between the two superpowers, their countries are destined to became battlefields in the Thermo-nuclear war. Hence, they are seeing that at any moment, quite without warning and perfidiously, in order to save the territories of the United States and the Soviet Union from reciprocal attacks, Washington and Moscow might create atomic mushrooms with incalculable consequences in the skies over the territory of their countries.

In face of this lethal danger, the heads of state and government leaders of the member countries of NATO have gone to Washington to demand "explanations", to get "guarantees" and present the opposition of the European public to these ill-calculated and arrogant acts of the United States of America. Meanwhile the President and Vice-president of the USA, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defence are frequently visiting the capitals of Western Europe in order to convince the "allies" through political and economic pressure and dictate, up to threatening to withdraw the American military forces from Western Europe and leave it under the pressure of a possible aggression by the armies of the Soviet social-imperialists, to accept the fait accompli.

The situation in the so-called socialist community has been no more tranquil. Some of the "allies" of the Soviet Union are demanding more freedom to link up with the rich countries of Western Europe, and to carry out economic "reforms" of the Titoite type; some are demanding more rights in the framework of the Warsaw Military Treaty. News agencies, the press in general, are speaking, not without some basis of truth, about "disagreements" within Comecon, about "grumbling" over the very great dependence on the Soviets, and about the "desire" for the non-renewal of the Warsaw Treaty, or at least, for the easing of certain conditions which absolutize the supremacy of the unilateral dictatorial control and leadership by Soviet officers.

There is no smoke without fire. In Poland the smoke and flames have long been coming through the roof. At moments of the exacerbation of the grave economic crisis which has the capitalist-revisionist world in its grip, the Soviet Union has more than once used its economic relations with the "allies" in the Warsaw Treaty as a means of political pressure on some "ally which is disobedient", or veering heavily towards to the West, and of course, this has caused reactions. Honecker. Ceausescu and Zhivkov had planned to make official visits to the Federal Republic of Germany, with the leading political, economic and military circles of which they have had traditionally good relations which they are ready to renew at the highest level. None of them denies the fact that the economic strength of Bonn is especially attractive to them. But Moscow interfered and these visits were postponed sine die (Indefinitely (Latin in the original)). One of the "personalities", whom I mentioned protested, raised his voice, showed signs of discontent, stamped his foot petulantly, etc., but was brought to order when the Moscovite conductor tapped his baton sharply.

Hence, within the political military and economic groupings of the two superpowers there are "prodigal sons" Some are more determined and some softer, some more outspoken and some more disguised. Nevertheless, life confirms what our Party said years ago, that groupings of this kind are like baskets of crabs which tear at one another without mercy or ceremony.

The perspective, the prognosis is even more gloomy. For the two superpowers the outlook for 1985 is not for improvement, but for overcast weather, accompanied in some places with rain, snow, storms and strong winds!



June 2, 1959. Khrushchev continues his visit to the South Peng Dehuai has left

June 3, 1959. From Khrushchev's stay in Albania

June 6, 1959. Some matters from the talks with Khrushchev which arouse doubt

January 31, 1960. The Soviets try to brainwash us against China

March 25, 1960. Policy of softness, compromises and concessions towards American imperialism

March 30, 1960. Our suspicions about the improper work of the Soviet geologists are confirmed

May 16, 1960. Opposing views with the Soviet ambassador

May 17, 1960. An abortive conference

June 8, 1960. Khrushchev's second letter - what is hidden behind his actions

June 21, 1960. A meeting which is turning into a plot

June 22, 1960. Khrushchev will never deceive the Party of Labour of Albania

June 27, 1960. Our struggle against the new, disguised revisionists has begun

August 6, 1960. Thorez has still not begun to have doubts about the course on which Khrushchev is leading the Soviet Union

August 16, 1960. They summon us to Moscow to force us to capitulate

September 10, 1960. Khrushchev and his colleagues increase the pressure on us

October 7, 1960. We are not for serenade nocturne

November 8, 1960. A dishonourable and anti-Marxist act by Khrushchev

November 10, 1960. The Meeting of the 81 Communist and Workers' Parties of the world has begun

November 12, 1960. Stormy meeting with the Soviet leaders

November 16, 1960. We have done our sacred duty to Marxism-Leninism

January 18, 1961. The revisionists exert economic pressure on Albania

January 21, 1961. The Soviets have begun to withdraw their specialists

February 10, 1961. Khrushchev's men organize coups d'ètat the same as the CIA agents

March 20, 1961. Khrushchev and the Soviet leadership are trying to compromise us through their trickery and actions

March 28, 1961. Grechko threatens and tries to frighten us

April 4, 1961. We must denounce the visit of the American 6th Fleet to Yugoslav ports

April 5, 1961. We will never allow Vlora to be occupied by Soviet troops

April 17, 1951. The American imperialists attack Cuba

April 20, 1961. Brilliant victory

April 21, 1961. A base and shameful act on the part of the Soviets

June 2, 1961. The revisionist chiefs pin great hopes on Khrushchev's meeting with Kennedy 50

June 6, 1961. A fiasco meeting

July 20, 1961. Khrushchev is also a coward

July 25, 1961. Kennedy's threat

August 4, 1961. Flagrant Trotskyite violation of every norm of Marxism and equality

October 20, 1961. The Political Bureau approves the statement against the modern revisionists' attacks

November 25, 1961. They try to intimidate us, we terrify them

December 3, 1961. The Soviet government has broken off diplomatic relations with us

December 31, 1961. Panorama of the year 1961

January 4, 1962. The problem of Germany and Berlin - a great worry to Khrushchev

February 4, 1962. Khrushchev's "Matryoshka"

February 12, 1962. Khrushchev's pacifist slogans on disarmament prepare the terrain for imperialist wars

April 17, 1962. Why has Gromyko, gone to visit Tito?

April 25, 1962. Khrushchev's acrobatic tricks

April 27, 1962. The Khrushchevites continue to beg for disarmament while the American imperialists continue to arm themselves

May 25, 1962. A new agreement which will serve the arming and the war-mongering plots of the USA and the USSR

May 31, 1962. Comecon facing great differences

October 22, 1962. Kennedy's war-mongering speech

October 23, 1962. The Khrushchevites are cowards, compromisers and traitors

October 27, 1962. Khrushchev capitulated and left Cuba in the lurch

November 8, 1962. Shame on Khrushchev!

December 13, 1962. Khrushchev tries to explain his betrayal

January 21, 1963. A shameful retreat

January 30, 1963. The split in Brussels

February 3, 1963. Kennedy has recommenced underground nuclear tests

March 18, 1963. Propagandist of the American way of life

April 6, 1963. A direct telephone link between Khrushchev and Kennedy

June 12, 1963. Kennedy reveals Khrushchev's course of betrayal

June 14, 1963. Modern revisionism in the service of American imperialism

July 26, 1963. Instructions on two notes of protest

August 1, 1963. The Khrushchevites betrayal is clear to all

January 15, 1964. China's recognition by France

April 25, 1964. We must expose the revisionist activity in Europe

October 17, 1964. The fall of the traitor Nikita Khrushchev

October 27, 1964. No concessions to the Soviet revisionists!

November 23, 1964. A barbarous imperialist action against the Congolese insurgents

December 5, 1964. We must defend the heroic war of the people of South Vietnam

January 4, 1965. At UNO the Americans and the Soviets are intriguing against the peoples

January 6, 1965. We must give the members of the Warsaw Treaty the proper reply

January 8, 1965. Again about the letter which we are to send the member countries of the Warsaw Treaty

January 25, 1965. On the meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty

February 9, 1965. The American provocations against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

February 16, 1965. A just and firm step of our country in UNO

February 17, 1965. Sensation in UNO

February 20, 1965. We exposed the Americans and the Soviets badly in UNO

April 28, 1965. Aggression of the United States of America in Santo Domingo

June 12, 1965. About the international situation in the light of current events

June 17, 1965. We should support the struggle of the Afro-Asian peoples against imperialism

September 3, 1965. We must be conscious of our great strength

October 16, 1965. Collaboration with American imperialism for world domination - the general line of the Soviet revisionist leadership

January 11, 1966. The comedy of Tashkent

March 21, 1966. The Soviet Union is forming new alliances with the imperialists

March 30, 1966. On Brezhnev's report to the 23rd Congress of the CPSU

February 20, 1967. The Soviet revisionists are trying to intimidate us

July 5, 1967. Tragi-comedy at UNO

August 11, 1967. The further degeneration of the modern revisionists

January 4, 1968. The development of the crisis of capitalism

January 5, 1968. Change of lackeys in the revisionist leadership of Czechoslovakia - Brezhnev congratulates Dubcek

January 6, 1968. The Federal Republic of Germany, Europe and the United States of America

March 25, 1968. The meeting in Dresden

July 23, 1968. The Soviet revisionists and Czechoslovakia

August 21, 1968. The Soviet revisionists carry out the military invasion of Czechoslovakia

August 28, 1968. The epilogue to the Czechoslovak drama

September 13, 1968. The People's Assembly of the PRA approved the bill on the denunciation of the Warsaw Treaty

September 23, 1968. The aim of the Soviet revisionists: the establishment of world hegemony in alliance with the USA

October 7, 1968. Notes on the speech which our representative will deliver at this year's session of the UNO

March 5, 1969. The bogey-man Yakubovsky

July 29, 1969. Some aspects of the international situation

February 19, 1970. The Soviets are trying to create big mixed military units with their satellites

March 4, 1970. On the Franco-American contradictions

March 24, 1970. All-round crisis in the Soviet Union

May 1, 1970. The American troops have attacked Cambodia

August 11, 1970. Soviet-West German Friendship under American patronage

September 27, 1970. Nixon's coming to Europe

October 5, 1970. What is behind Pompidou's visit to Moscow?

January 12, 1971. The Soviet policy towards "friends"

February 11, 1971. The invasion of Laos by the Americans and the Saigonese - result of the traitorous policy of the Soviet revisionists

September 11, 1971. Brezhnev goes to Tito

March 27, 1972. Hands off the Balkans!

May 13, 1972. The United States of America and the Soviet Union sacrifice the vital causes of the peoples for their own interests

May 22, 1972. Nixon in Moscow - China is silent

June 3, 1972. We must denounce and oppose the counter-revolutionary Soviet American alliance with all our might

July 5, 1972. American imperialism and Soviet revisionism - responsible for the genocide in Vietnam

January 15, 1973. Some anti-Marxist statements by Zhou Enlai

January 25, 1973. Panorama of the current political developments in Europe

February 9, 1973. A shameless attempt of the Soviet revisionists

June 4, 1973. NATO is showing interest in our country. Why?

June 28, 1973. The new Soviet-American agreements - a grave challenge for all the peoples

July 5, 1973. The small must build a policy of their own

October 1, 1973. The tragic events in Chille - a lesson for the revolutionaries of the whole world

December 15, 1973. The secret diplomacy of the two superpowers - a great danger to the freedom and independence of the peoples

December 14, 1974. The presidents have problems

February 25, 1975. American imperialism and Soviet imperialism are preparing the Third World War, but are also afraid of it

April 8, 1975. Another de profundis for the United States of America

April 21, 1975. An analysis of the international situation in the light of drama tic events for the United States of America

April 30 1975. South Vietnam has been liberated

June 21, 1975. China is getting caught up in the political game of the two super powers

July 31, 1975. The Helsinki Conference - a hopeless infernal game

March 1, 1976. Notes on the denunciation of the 25th Congress of the CPSU

November 1, 1976. The 7th Congress of the Party opens

March 5, 1977. China is aiming to become a superpower

September 27, 1977. The multinational companies - a noose around the necks of the peoples

December 9, 1977. Things that we must keep thoroughly in mind in the field of the economy in the present international situation

January 2, 1978. Carter's policy of out-and-out demagogy

January 25, 1978. Attempts at capitalist-stability

February 18, 1978. The centres of the war for plunder are multiplying throughout the world

February 22, 1978. A co-ordinated Sino-American neo-colonialist tactic

May 20, 1978. The use of mercenaries on the agenda

August 29, 1978. The triangle of super powers

October 21, 1978. The two superpowers and the other pretenders for world hegemony are endangering the peoples

October 22, 1978. A Polish pope at the head of the Vatican

December 31, 1978. On the international situation during 1978

March 3, 1979. Imperialist plans and trickery

May 13, 1979. An agreement which does not prohibit the continuation of the nuclear armaments race

June 13, 1979. A formal Parliament

July 17, 1979. President Carter's hoax

August 13, 1979. Great oscillation in the policy of imperialism and revisionism

December 31; 1979. Through its intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union is carrying out its imperialist strategic plans

February 13, 1980. Panorama of the international situation

February 28, 1980. Thoughts on the interview given by Zbignew Brzezinski

March 16, 1980. The policy of "non-aligned" merit a castle built on sand

April 30, 1980. On the international situation

July 1, 1980. The great world economic crisis is intensifying

August 14, 1980. Imperialist frictions

September 1, 1980. What lies behind the workers' strikes at the Polish Baltic ports?

June 1, 1981. On the secret Soviet-Great Serb collaboration

July 15, 1981. Reflections

February 1982. On the international situation

May 10, 1982. The Malvina Islands belong to the Argentine people and state

October 25, 1983. The United States of America occupies tiny Grenada

November 30, 1983. "Euro-Missiles"

April 27, 1984. Reagan in Beijing

June 13, 1984. A grave situation of tension in the Persian Gulf

June 19, 1984. What is happening in the Soviet leadership?

June 20, 1984. The two imperialist superpowers and their - respective orthodox churches

December 30, 1994. Panorama