If we look at our movement as it is in November 1957 we see the following:
1. All our parties, led by the CPSU, have abandoned the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism; none of them objected to the attacks on this plan and all of them applied and defended these attacks, and since the cause of the proletariat is but one international cause the abandonment of the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism in the Soviet Union is by itself an abandonment of the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world proletarian revolution, victory of world communism. But we have already seen many other events and views that prove the abandonment of the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world proletarian revolution, victory of world communism.
2. What does that abandonment of Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world proletarian revolution, victory of world communism signify: It first of all signify that all our leading comrades and through them all our parties have betrayed Soviet Union and the world communism. It also signifies an all-out attack on Leninism-Stalinism, and its personification Comrade Stalin and his views. By November 1957 in different forms but for sure we see that this is what happens in our movement as a whole.
3. we have in November 1957 a total unity of all the leaders of our movement around the above mentioned betrayal.
Those who try to resist with their own approach to this betrayal-not the defence of Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world proletarian revolution, victory of world communism but their own way of abandonment of these, are defeated and tossed aside. And the movement agrees to this without any objection: for after all one traitor is as good as another.
Do we have those who try to resist this betrayal-through the defence of Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world proletarian revolution, victory of world communism? I am afraid we have no proof of this. We do know that many comrades have been killed and made to keep quite by different methods, but we have no proof of them fighting back to defend of Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world proletarian revolution, victory of world communism.
4. we shall later on have a look at the different theoretical distortions which attack our theory from many different angles, such as antagonism; class struggle, criticism self-criticism, building communism in one country etc. But for all comrades to understand that what we have that claim to be world communist movement-on all side of the divide that came to be-are traitors, is most readily and easily observable in their approach to the development of technique of production.
USSR under Stalin was leading as regards the building of computers and together with electronics as such they were known as means of controlling-thus automating-production processes.
What happens after 1953 is absolute abandonment of our leadership role in the development of this technology which clearly signify abandonment of building communism.
Comrades will note that this question of computerisation is not to be found amongst the questions of discussion by all sides of the world communist movement led by all sorts of traitors. They talk of communism as if Karl Marx would talk of modern capitalism without machines and steam power, without the factory. This issue on its own is more than proof of the fact that in all sides of our movement what we have are but traitors to Marxism!
Let us now take a look at our situation that may lead to the victory of traitors-not as propagated by all sorts of Trots including those who keep claiming to be part of the “anti-revisionist movement” but as was-and as will be.
1. We need to centralise: centralisation and concentration is a law of capitalism that leads to proletarian revolution and thus to communism: centralisation and concentration not only calls for planning also makes it possible for us. Thus centralisation or as Lenin put it once all becoming the workers of a syndicate called the state, and establishing accounting and control of all that is produced and consumed by all by the armed workers. This economic need as can be seen in the need for planning leads to and requires a centralised state.
This centralisation will lead to centralisation through all citizens becoming administrators of the state. And thus centralisation by all. We have to aim for this and never give up on this-this which rely on the latest development of science and technology of production is the only way to build communism and to destroy the world bourgeoisie. Today we know that through computerisation we shall achieve this.
This need for centralisation leads to having well respected group of leaders which personify and represent this centralisation
1.1. We need leaders to run a country-especially a country like USSR. These must be respected leaders; respected for their service to the party, thus to people.
We had Stalin, Zhdanov (both died- or killed) Molotov, Beira, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, Mikoyan, Bulganin, Malenkov and new comers, such as Shepilov, Kosygin, Gromyko, Suslov, Brezhnev, Ponomarenko etc. These represent the centralisation of our state the very top leaders of our state.
1.2: we can see that all these leaders have betrayed Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world proletarian revolution, victory of world communism.
The centre has betrayed the cause.
the bourgeoisie, loves to talk about that the revolution devours - consumes its children
Trots say that it is Stalin who devour them they thus try to impose on us that once you are at the top you must stay at the top come what may!-
Well we are not going to have that! Not only do the traitors-spy infiltrate our movement and reach the top and thus we must always be on our guard against this, we also know that even the best may turn since the ideas do not progress in line with the progress of life and even the best and even the ones at the top may end up taking positons which are contrary to the development of our cause.
We know this even if we know nothing: you should be at the top so long as you deserve it! And if you are not a spy or become a spy!
Due to the fact that ours must be a most centralised state and as we can see from the example of developments after 1953, betrayal at the top makes us extremely vulnerable-if we are betrayed at the top our chances of fighting this betrayal becomes very difficult.
1.3: One of those difficulties is this: we know that it takes thousands of builders to build a mighty dam. But only one or two saboteurs to blow it up. It takes a few spies in the headquarters of an army that betrays its war plans to the enemy for a huge and best army to be defeated by a small and miserable enemy force.
We know that this has happened with our political army, the greatest political army the proletariat has produced, the CPSU, after 1953.
It does not matter if each individual at the top were spies or not if we do not know it.
It does not matter if they knew what they did was wrong or not; if they chose to do the wrong thing or not.
Did they do the wrong thing? Did they help the enemy of the proletariat-world imperialism? That it what matters!
As Lenin said in politics it is the result of your actions-inactions that determine what you are; We must look at their policy, if they are correct or not and we must look at their actions if that tally with their act or not and if their actions are useful or damaging.
When we do so we can see that all these leaders betrayed. They began the paving of the road to destruction and they led to destruction.
They have proved themselves to be enemies of communism and thus enemies of humanity.
2. We know that so called objective factors lose almost all their power once we have built socialism thanks to the conscious efforts of the party-state and the working people, and once the working people are convinced of the correctness of the path chosen by the Party.
It is than all up to us, our top leaders and up to all our cadres and party members who lead the people and thus up to the people as to how things will progress, if we shall go forward or back and as to how fast the things will progress forward or back.
2.1: If the top leaders and others are saying and doing things that betray Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world revolution-communism it is up to us, the rest of the cadres and the ordinary members of the party and up to people to stop them and to change them either by helping them to change their views and actions, or changing them with leaders who will defend and apply the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world revolution-communism.
2.2: We also know that Party discipline and having one leadership that apply one correct line is a must to apply Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world revolution-communism. But we also know that this Party discipline and having one leadership to apply Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world revolution-communism must be there precisely for this purpose, that is it, this leadership must apply Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world revolution-communism. If it is not doing so it is not the means of party discipline and it is not the one central leadership to apply Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus the Lenin-Stalin plan of victory of world revolution-communism.
It must be corrected and/or changed.
2.3: it is thus that the method of criticism and self-criticism comes to its own as the motive force of building socialism-communism and this method must be applied and must be applied correctly for the victory of the correct line that has been proved in practice and been accepted by the party cadres, party members and by the working people.
3. We also know that for our cadres and party members and indeed for our top leaders to understand the well proven party line and to defend it under all conditions, they must all know Marxism-Leninism; that if they understand Marxism-Leninism and are able to apply it under the conditions of the country at hand and the world at hand, all the above problems would be resolved by the leadership, the cadres, the members and the people led by the Party, and thus the method of criticism, self-criticism would be applied correctly to resolve all our problems so that we can move forward as fast as we could- for otherwise criticism, self-criticism would be misused to destroy our line and our work.
4. we shall come back to these after we had a look at many a theory of restoration of capitalism in the USSR and the way they distort our theory.
Let us start our short look at the different theories propagated by some of those who came up with theories of restoration of capitalism in the ussr:
In a relationship of opposites antagonism arises because in this relationship one character-property is accumulated on one side of the relationship, while the other side of the relationship is denied this characteristics, this property;
for example in the relationship of gold (money) commodity and the rest of the commodities the characteristic of exchangeability with other commodities accumulates in gold(money) commodity while all the rest of the commodities lose this capacity, this characteristic. It is thus that we have antagonism of the process of exchange which inevitably leads to crises.
Or for example in the relationship of bourgeoisie and proletariat the character of ownership of the means of production and thus the products produced using these means of production accumulate on the side of the bourgeoisie and this capacity, this characteristic is denied to the proletariat. It is thus that the relationship of the proletariat and bourgeoisie is an antagonistic relationship. It is thus that we have antagonism of the process of economic life of the society, in class relations which give rise to the relationship between antagonist classes and thus inevitably leads to crises in economics and politics.
If Mao Zedong declares that in China this relationship, with the national bourgeoisie, is not antagonistic-but may turn antagonistic. This proposition represent nothing but distortion of the abc of historical materialism, for the relationship of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat is antagonistic.
This view of there being no antagonism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat and thus bourgeoisie can grow into socialism is well known as Buharin’s view and his policy towards the Kulaks and collectivisation. Kulaks would take part in the collective farms voluntarily and in time would grow into good and proper collective farmers. No need for a class struggle against the rural bourgeoisie, the kulaks.
As expressed by Mao this is further developed into a theory of building a sort of socialism where there exist the bourgeoisie, and will exist for 1000’s of years-under a socialism with the bourgeoisie. All those who are influenced by Mao has this theory of socialism where bourgeoisie as a class exists under socialism.
Clearly this form of socialism is therefore a bourgeois socialism-a socialism with the bourgeoisie.
Another theory that is connected to this approach of Mao is this: we have socialism where the bourgeoisie exists-and that against this old bourgeoisie and new-bourgeoisie and new bureaucratic bourgeoisie one must do cultural revolutions every 10 years or so . Let us remind the reader that once proletarian dictatorship is established, once socialism is established revolutions in the mode of production and thus in the development of political structure does not happen in the form of revolutionary uprising from below but in the form of evolutionary development from above; such was the collectivisation in the USSR and coming into being of the Stalin constitution. Against this teaching of Stalin we have Mao’s teaching of revolutionary uprisings every 10 years or so, lasting 1000s of years.
This of course takes us into another theory of socialism: a socialism which lasts 1000s of years never being transformed into fully developed communism. A more refined form of which is the denial of yet another of Stalin’s view of building communism in one country while the state exists if imperialism is still a danger.
We know that theories of building socialism while the bourgeoisie continue to exist -through education of the bourgeoisie and not organising the class struggle against it- and building of socialism in the countryside without preparing the cities, thus without preparing the industrial proletariat’s, city proletariat’s ability to support the peasants against the rural bourgeoisie through provisions of industrial goods such as tractors etc, was declared a contribution to Marxism under new conditions of Chinese comrades, in the specific conditions of China in 1956 in the XX. Congress of CPSU and all these were further developed and repeated in the VIII. Congress of CPC; we of course also know that all these propositions are but almost the same theories proposed by Tito and gang and already exposed by CPSU, by Stalin and by Cominform in 1948.-Of course one must not forget the visit of Khrushchev and others to Yugoslavia and Tito in 1955 and declaration of Tito line-which is the above line of Mao and CPC as a way of building socialism: while we know it to be a way of restoration of capitalism!
We also know that while all this was going on and even after Stalin was attacked openly, Albanian Labour Party has not brought any objections to any of these theories and practices!
We also know that during the cultural revolution in China Albanian Labour Party was supporting Communist Party of China and was not objecting to any of the above views-which were repeated and further developed during the Cultural Revolution period: just as they did not object to Malenkov’s August 1953 speech and other developments in the USSR at that time and later.
It is thus that Albanian comrades come up with another approach to antagonism formulated it seems based on good relationship with CPC and applying the cultural revolution in Albania: The approach of the Albanian Labour party declares that under their socialism there is no more antagonist classes-there is no more bourgeoisie, but nevertheless there is antagonism in the society, that the political processes must take note of the fact that there is antagonism! There are no antagonist classes but there is antagonism in political arena which should as we know reflect the relationship of classes: thus no antagonist classes but its reflection, politics, must be based on existence of antagonisms!
Where there is a will there, there is a way! There are no antagonist classes but there is antagonism in the relationship of classes, in the political superstructure.
They further follow this approach by declaring that all those who declare there is no more antagonism in a socialist society that has got rid of the exploiting classes, that is the bourgeoisie of the cities and the countryside, and based on this proposes methods that is not fighting antagonists is a distortion and manipulation of facts and is damaging the progress of socialism for it is disregarding the fight against the existing antagonists, against the antagonisms!.
If you are a Stalinist, even if not a good one, you need to ask yourself: Who are they talking about? Who and what theory is being questioned here?
Well it is Stalin! With his declaration that within the USSR within the socialist society there are no more antagonistic classes and thus the motive force of development of the socialist society is criticism and self-criticism, not the class struggle against an antagonist class within the USSR-which does not exist. This is a totally new determination of CPSU and Stalin as regards the development of socialist society, this view of comrade Stalin that is attacked. Declaration that motive force of the development of socialist society is criticism, self-criticism and not antagonism, not the struggle of antagonist is attacked by the Albanian Labour Party. Just like CPC and Mao they want their struggle of antagonists under their socialism. As a matter of fact one can easily see the repetition of the cultural revolution in Albania as the cultural revolution goes on in China!
And this attacked is followed by another joint attack on Stalin: it is declared that communism can only be established not in one country but only worldwide and not with a state but without a state. This as you know is a clear attack on Stalin’s theory of building communism in one country, thus an attack on Lenin Stalin plan of building socialism-communism.
Whence comes this approach other than the fact that they feel the need to go along with CPC and its cultural revolution? It comes from the fact that Albania is not only a small country but also was a country of no industry. The only way they could avoid the stage of capitalist development and jump to socialism would have to be through the support of countries of socialism. They had support from USSR and some industry and some tractors from USSR and later from China. Having no bourgeoisie to speak of and gaining industry and means of collectivisation from socialist countries and yet not building their own independent machine building capability and thus being utterly dependent on others to build and preserve their socialism and thus formulating the infamous adaptation of priority development of the means of production, of heavy industry to mean the development of extraction industries whose machines had to be given to them by the socialist countries they never build socialism with an independent industry and thus they never had the capacity to pass into communism.
Now we can see that Khrushchev’s theory of building of communism-like his comrade Tito’s theory of building of socialism and just as Brezhnev’s theory of developed socialism were nothing but a theory of restoration of capitalism and all of which give us a never ending “socialism” with no transition to communism. Just as one might say like Trotsky’s never ending “Workers’ State” never able to transition to socialism-unless in a world-Europe-scale!
Mao’s socialism that will last 1000 year and Enver’s socialism that will only transform into communism in a world scale and without a state are the very same never ending socialisms-that is unable to transition to communism.
Well never able to achieve socialism either.
2 ; Priority of politics-priority of the political line.
We all know that historical materialism teaches us that economic structure of the society is the base, the material base of the society and political structure is the superstructure, the ideological superstructure, the reflection of the economic base, the economic life of the society.
If we are to make a revolution and after the victory of the revolution if we are to build socialism we have to know the economic life of the society and how it has to develop and thus we have to know the economic laws of motion of the society-when we are in power we have to apply these laws to organise a conscious development of the socialist society. We have to know the classes created by this economic life and as to what changes they are going through and have to go through.
And if we are to make a revolution and after the victory of the revolution if we are to build socialism we have to know the political life of the society, its classes and class struggles, and how it has to develop and thus we have to know the political laws of motion of the society-when we are in power we have to apply these laws to organise a conscious development of the socialist society.
But what does that mean?
It means that our party, the party of the proletariat, the communist party must have economic polies as well as policies concerning political life of the society that reflect the economic and political life of the country and the world correctly-and thus formulate the strategy and tactics of the class struggle correctly. In other words the party’s political line be it in regarding economics be it regarding politics must be correct and to be correct it must be based on historical materialism.
Since the political line of the party gives us the direction of our activities in all fields, it has to be correct. If it is not correct and is not applied correctly we cannot make revolution and we cannot build socialism after the victory of revolution and transition to communism after building socialism.
It is thus that Lenin says -after revolution-of course the politics is the determining element: it comes first; if our policies are not correct, say towards the trade unions and say towards the peasantry how can we retain power and how can we build socialism if our economic policies are not correct!
Clearly politics comes first: but polices based on a correct understanding of historical materialism, thus of economic and political life of the country and the world, thus of correct understanding of the class struggle! And here economic life of the society comes first always.
Let us now take a look at our proponents of “politics comes first” “politics decide” “political line comes first” etc.
Their political line is as above: utterly wrong and is an utter distortion of historical materialism and thus of Stalin line.
It is thus that when these people insist on political line being most important they are actually trying to impose their political line that is contrary to the abc of historical materialism on us!
If we accept their political line we have to refuse the abc of historical materialism! And thus our political line just like theirs would not be correct.
Other than the above mentioned approaches we can mention one more: there are many others as the reader will know-we have mentioned them as well as computerisation in our talks before.
We shall mention this because this approach clearly refers to their faulty approach as regards politics is first!
They declare that to say production comes first,-denying that politics comes first- is Kautskyism is Khrushchevism, is Brezhnevism, that is revisionism.
But we all know that production comes first is the abc of historical materialism; it is only on the basis of production comes first that correct policies can be formulated. One more fact about this is that those who object to production comes first do not leave it as a means of attack on Kautsky, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and thus, revisionism, they use it to attack Stalin! Stalin the defender of priority of development of productive forces-just like Kautsky they say! Why? Because in “Historical Materialism” he says so!
So what ever they say and whatever they do all the sections of the world communist movement join hands in attacking Stalin and thus abc of Marxism in all issues!
There is not one aspect of our theory, strategy, tactics and organisation that these representatives of the world communist movement have not distorted!
Present situation is the same: all the so called representative organisations of world communism are joint attackers of Stalin and thus Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus Lenin-Stalin plan of the victory of world revolution-world communism!
They are all Titoite Trots in this or that re incarnation!
We shall in our next talk look into three main forms of our word communist movement- based on their approach to restoration of capitalism and look into their theories of restoration of capitalism-or its denial.