Euro-Communism is Anti-Communism (Study Guide)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The following study guide is for use with Enver Hoxha’s pamphlet “ (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm)Eurocommunism is Anticommunism” (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm). I have made the study guide, including questions and answers, myself. This piece is for the common use and may be reproduced freely. For ease of use this guide has been divided into three segments.


~ ~ ~

Introduction

Q1: Revisionist policies, guided in part by Euro-communists, inspired the turn against Stalin and later turned even against Lenin. In each betrayal the change was sold as “going back to scientific socialism.” How do the revisionists undertake this switch and what is the ultimate goal?

A1: This process of continuously turning one’s back on “corrupt” theory and “returning to basics” is part of the revisionist goal of restoring capitalism; saying that the chosen path is wrong and the masses must return to “pure theory” is a common tactic. Achieving this goal, however, proves to be challenging, and so they often “From time to time… drag [defeated adversaries] out of this [waste] basket, trying to peddle the bankrupt and discredited formulae and theses of the latter as their own [so as] to oppose Marxism-Leninism. This is what the Eurocommunists are doing today.” By doing this the revisionists someday hope to abolish socialism in its entirety while fooling the masses into believing they are pushing forward towards socialism.

I: The New Imperialist Strategy and the Birth of Modern Revisionism
· Opportunism-Permanent Ally of the Bourgeoisie

Q2: Hoxha says that “The birth of modern revisionism, like the birth of the old revisionism, is a social phenomenon conditioned by many different historical, economic, political and other causes.” How does this form of modern revisionism take its form from when Hoxha wrote?

A2: Revisionism, much like imperialism, is an international system. Because of this fact various revisionist currents have manifested in Britain as reformist trade-unionism, the petty-bourgeois views of Proudhon in France and Lassalle in Germany, as well as the Anarchist ideas of Bakunin in Russia. In addition to this lengthy list we see the imperialist bourgeoisie giving credence to psudo-Marxist theories and support to counterrevolutionary organizations (The Second International) in the lead up to the First World War.

Q3: According to Hoxha…

“When the armed intervention against Soviet Russia failed and when social-democracy was unable to stop the creation of new communist parties and the great revolutionary drive of the working masses of Europe, the bourgeoisie pinned all its hopes on breaching the communist front ‘...from within and is looking for champions among the leaders of the RCP (B).’”(Stalin)
In what form did the bourgeoisie find its champion?

A3: The imperialist bourgeoisie found their champion in the form of Trotsky as around the time in when they were searching for their unsung hero Trotsky once again brought up his theory of Permanent Revolution which said that socialistic ideas would need to first take hold in Russia’s neighbors before socialism could be achieved in Russia itself. In this way Trotsky informally affiliated himself with the counterrevolutionary tide. In addition to Trotsky there was also Bakharin whom “The rightists, the Bukharinites also went on the attack against socialism. They were for extinguishing the class struggle, and preached the possibility of the integration of capitalism into socialism." Here we see varying revisionist tendencies united in a common goal of attacking Marxist-Leninism.

· The Victory Over Fascism and the Counter-Offensive of Imperialism

Q4: According to Hoxha what was the second world war to the imperialist powers and how did it manifest?

A4: To quote comrade Hoxha, “The imperialist powers and the whole of world capitalism encouraged and launched the Second World War with the aim of directing it against the Soviet Union and socialism.” However as we later see this conflict did not produce the desired results for the world bourgeoisie. “This war, however, not only failed to overthrow the first socialist state, but also dealt imperialism heavy blows, causing it great damage which put its whole system in jeopardy.” To illustrate this point “Not only were the armies of fascism routed on the battlefield, but the anti-communist ideology of world imperialism and the counterrevolutionary policy of international opportunism were defeated…” and the reactionary powers of Western society subsequently declined in prestige and power.

Q5: What two “fundamental directions” characterized the Joint Line?

A5: In itself the Joint Line was the imperialist bourgeoisie’s plan to defeat socialism. The first characterization was the mass-mobilization of all of the bourgeoisie’s resources in opposition to the liberation struggles taking place in various parts of the world. The second characteristic was for capital to build up to the extent where it could begin to undermine Marxist-Leninist success and to “…remove the most revolutionary section of the working people from its influence, and to cause the degeneration of socialism.” During this period of ideological conflict the United States were vital as they led world imperialism.

Around this time “The United States of America became the leadership of the capitalist world and took upon itself the role of its ‘saviour.’” To this extent…

“Along with the unrestrained armaments race, the militarization of the economy and the economic blockades against the socialist countries, imperialism also mobilized many means of propaganda, philosophers, economists, sociologists, writers and historians for the furious campaign against the revolution and socialism…”

So as to…

“…present capitalism and the capitalist state as changed, as "people's capitalism”… The bourgeoisie also exploited the favourable post-war economic circumstances to clamour about the "prosperity of capitalism", to spread illusions among the masses about the elimination of crises, anarchy, unemployment and other ills of capitalism, about the alleged superiority of capitalism over socialism, which was presented as a "totalitarian" order behind the "iron curtain[.]” Combining these strategies with Modern Revisionist currents (social-democracy, Trotskyism, etc) the bourgeoisie adapts itself to the struggle and intelligently combats revolutionary thought.

· Modern Revisionism in Power-a New Weapon of the bourgeoisie against the revolution and socialism.

Q6: Who was the head of revisionism in America circa 1944?

A6: This question is important for it has vital historical roots that trace the degeneration of the CPUSA.

During the 1940s’ the general secretary of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was Earl Browder.

Q7: What was Browderism’s influence on revolutionary theory?

A7: Purely reactionary. “Browderism’s” influence would ultimately be the reason that the CPUSA fell prey to reformist tactics. Browder believed that American capitalism had transformed into a progressive force and was subsequently able to solve societal ills. He proclaimed Marxism-Leninism to be “outdated,” gave up class warfare for class conciliation (on national and international levels), and propagated the incorrect view that American society was harmonious where class antagonism were non-existent.

Q8: What was Browder’s starting point justification for his reformist theory?

A8: During the 1943 Teheran Peace conference in which the Allied Powers met to discuss how to best persecute the war against Nazi Germany, the resulting “unity” from that conference appeared to Browder as the start of a world where socialism and capitalism could live at peace with one another; to illustrate this point he used the fact that both capitalist and socialist countries were present at the conference and ultimately settled on a plan of action.

Q9: What was Browder’s basic theory on revolution and American capitalism?

A9: Browder’s base conclusion in regards to revolutionary theory was that because at the Teheran conference powers which had traditionally conflicting economic systems had agreed on a common plan of action against fascism that it was possible to bring such unity to each nation’s national arenas.
He wrote,

“Class differences and political groups now no longer have any importance.” As well as “’The Communists,’ he wrote, ‘foresee that the practical political aims they hold will for a long time be in agreement on all essential points with the aims of a much larger body of non-Communists, and that, therefore, our political actions will be merged in such larger movements… The Communists will, therefore, dissolve their separate political party, and find a new and different organizational form… [Corresponds] more accurately to the tasks of the day and the political structure through which these tasks must be performed.’” Ultimately Browder settled on the traditional American parties of finance capital saying, “’we will attempt to advance through the existing party structure of our country, which in the main is that of the peculiarly American 'two-party' system.’" With this statement we see the demise of revolutionary activity within the CPUSA.

Likewise his views on American capitalism were, as previously mentioned, revisionist. Browder propounded the idea that because of the reforms undertaken by president Roosevelt during the 30s’ American capitalism had been “rejuvenated” and develop without crisis and serve the public need.

Q10: What effect did Browderism have nationally and internationally?

A10: In the United States Browderism effectively killed the revolutionary movement by introducing reformists elements disguised as revolutionary dogma. In Latin America there was great damage as well where several parties encountered splits and power struggles as a result of Brower’s influence. Though Browderism never gained enough support to become a tendency in its own right later revisionists would revive the basic tenants for their own purposes; the most prominent example, in this case, would be the euro-communist parties of Europe.

Q11: During this segment of the text Hoxha makes a comparison between the American revisionist Browder and the Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong. What does Hoxha say on this subject in regards to the construction of socialism in China?

A11: Hoxha is dismissive of any such activities. To him Mao’s line of “New Democracy” and “Chinese Marxism” is within the same ideological line as Browder’s thoughts. He says, “Mao Zedong was for the unrestricted free development of capitalism in China.” To explain this lofty statement he quotes Mao in length…

"Some think that the communists are against the development of private initiative, against the development of private capital, against the protection of private property. In reality, this is not so. The task of the order of new democracy, which we are striving to establish, is precisely to ensure the possibility for broad circles of Chinese to freely develop their private initiave in society, to freely develop the private capitalist economy." (sic) (Mao Zedong)

Obviously none of this is in line with revolutionary theory especially when his theory of socialism is the anti-Marxist conception that “…in the backward countries the transition to socialism cannot be achieved without going through a lengthy period of free development of capitalism which prepares the conditions to go over to socialism later.” (Hoxha) Embracing such a mode of thought meant Mao was not constructing any “socialist regime” but merely a bourgeois-democratic regime friendly to the expansion of U.S capital (years later we will see how true this statement is when Mao goes out of his way to normalize diplomatic relations with the United States).

Q12: In what other ways was Mao’s line revisionist?

A12: Mao believed that in order for proper development the colonial nations engaged in national liberation struggles had to rely upon the United States for financial aid. Not surprisingly this same line was being proposed by Brower in Washington under the guise that American capitalism had become “progressive” so that because of this supposed development all nations should put aside their squabbles with the U.S and accept their “aid.” Such a line in conjunction with Mao’s previous statements on ceasing socialist aspects of national liberation struggles in favor of bourgeois democratically veiled ones caused irrespirable damage to revolutions in India, Indochina, Burma and elsewhere.

Such revisionist nature was also reflected in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The class composition was almost purely petty-bourgeois, bureaucrats who could be disbanded (and if so desired reformed) with an order from Mao (as we see happen during the Cultural Revolution where Mao “placed the army at the head of affairs”).

This lack of proletarian roots explains much of why China has the terrible labor conditions we see today. It was, after all, Mao who said that, “China must industrialize. This can be done… only by free enterprise and with the aid of foreign capital. Chinese and American interests are correlated and similar...” to which he continues, “America does not need to fear that we will not be co-operative. We must co-operate and we must have American help.” This, in turn, explains why class collaboration is so prevalent in Mao’s theories.

Q13: According to Hoxha Mao held out a hand of friendship towards the American imperialists by instituting these revisionist policies, however, the United States did not immediately grasp it, why?

A13: Several factors go into the U.S’s decision not to return China’s friendship offer right away. The first factor had to do with the victory of McCarthyism in America which made any contact with presumed socialist states dangerous. Another great factor was America’s priority on Japan. Reconstructing Japan to be of use against Mao’s China was the primary focus and so great amounts of resources were directed to that end. Had the United States returned China’s gesture immediately resources which were otherwise meant for Japan would be redirected to a nation which was still considered by most to be “socialist,” thus damaging the reputation of American capital by supposedly giving aid to the enemy. Before the United States would be in a position to accept China’s gesture more time would have to pass in which China would have to prove their loyalty to U.S interests.

Q14: After the Second World War Imperialists expanded to include Yugoslavia in their sphere of sphere of influence to struggle against socialism. How was Yugoslavia revisionist and thus worthy of imperialist support?

A14: To quote Hoxha, “…Titoism leaned spiritually, politically and ideologically towards… the United States of America, that right from the start it maintained numerous political contacts and achieved secret combinations with the British and other representatives of world capitalism[.]” Also revealed here was “The Yugoslav leaders [who] opened all the doors to the [United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration] (UNRRA) thereby allowing the capitalist to infiltrate their country. Still new and weak from the war Yugoslavia, suffering from revisionist lines as well as capitalist infiltrators, gradually served its intended purpose of undermining “…the ideology and the policy which led to the degeneration of the countries of the socialist camp, to the splitting and disruption of their unity with the Soviet Union.” Such activity made it immensely easier for counterrevolutionary forces in other socialist bloc countries to gain ground and further undermine the world revolution.

Q15: Hoxha claims that “From the beginning, the Yugoslav revisionists were against the theory and practice of the genuine socialism of Lenin and Stalin on all questions and in all fields.” Give specific examples of how this was true.

A15: The first example is most striking for its similarities with Browderism in that the “…Titoites revised the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism about the role and mission of the revolutionary state power and the communist party in socialist society.” Attacking the Marxist thesis of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat the Titoists changed the name of the Communist Party to the League of Communists (a harken back to Browder’s actions in 1944 when he liquidated the Party and changed the name to the Communist Political Association) and “…they liquidated the party in practice.” This is exemplified because they not only changed the name but also…

“…changed the aims, functions, organization and the role which this party was to play in the revolution and the construction of socialism. The Titoites transformed the party into an educational and propaganda association.” And finally, “They eliminated the revolutionary spirit of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and de facto went so far as to eliminate the influence of the party and to raise the role of the Popular Front above it.”

Yet another similarity can be found in the Titoist view of American Democracy where Kardelj spoke of how the Yugoslav system is similar to that of the American executive system. Undoubtedly, however, the most damning evidence lies in their reliance on producers to maintain what they called “specific socialism[;]” a thinly clad revisionist ideology that rejected the Proletarian Dictatorship and encouraged the growth of private peasant economies. Such a system is ultimately a bourgeois device and because it masquerades as a socialist-hybrid system, thereby allowing it to undermine socialist construction in other members of the socialist camp, such is to be fought with zeal.

This is also seen when Kardelj, a primary proponent of “Specific Socialism” “…came out openly against the theory of the revolution while advertising the new solutions which capitalism had allegedly found. Distorting the essence of state monopoly capitalism… he proclaimed it an element of socialism, while he called classical bourgeois democracy ‘a regulator of social contradictions in the direction of the gradual strengthening of socialist elements’. He declared that today ‘a gradual evolution towards socialism’ is taking place, and this he called ‘an historical fact’ in a series of capitalist states.” This theory fused with their non-alignment theory to effectively promote imperialism.

Q16: Why is Khrushchevism the most dangerous revisionist ideology?

A16: For several reasons Khrushchevism is the most lethal ideology. The first is that “…it is a disguised revisionism. It retains its external socialist appearance and in order to deceive people and lure them into its traps, makes extensive use of Marxist terminology, and according to the need… even of revolutionary slogans.” Misleading people is a fundamental aspect of revisionism. Moving on to the, “Second, and… more important [reason], Khrushchevite revisionism has become the ruling ideology in a state which represents a great imperialist power, a thing which gives it many means and possibilities to maneuver in broad fields and in large proportions.” When revisionist currents are given this kind of power they may skip over some of the trends initiated by less powerful revisionist regimes. In the case of the Soviet Union this means that…

“The Communist Party of the Soviet Union degraded, was weakened, and became a ‘party of the entire people’, that is, no longer the vanguard party of the working class, which carries forward the revolution and builds socialism, but a party of the new revisionist bourgeoisie, which causes the degeneration of socialism and carries forward the restoration of capitalism.”

Here we see that though Soviet Revisionism is indeed the most dangerous of all revisionisms it, much like the revisionist theories of the past, have served the singular purpose of promoting the capitalist system.

Q17: During the 20th Congress of the CPSU Khrushchev proclaimed that the road to socialism was a “peaceful one” and began advising other Communist Parties to follow a class conciliation line. What were the effects of this new approach?

A17: Indicating Khrushchev’s capitulation to capitalism this new line was a reformist one which not only enabled capital to reassert its force in the harsh post-war conditions of the 40s’ and 50s’ but also “…wanted [workers] to reduce all their work to propaganda, to debates and electoral maneuvers, to trade-union demonstrations and day-today demands.” This new line sought to kill revolutionary struggle and reduce class conflict to an electoral matter.

Q18: The other important thesis of the 20th congress of the CPSU was the line of Peaceful Coexistence. What did this line propose and what were its effects on the international communist movement?

A18: This thesis stressed class collaboration and for the proletariat to give up class struggle lest their efforts anger the bourgeoisie and another great war breaks out. This concept was forced not only to be a contract between individuals but between classes as well as persons who were oppressed by imperialist overlords.

The effects of this line were deadly in that once some naïve communist parties began accepting its reformist ideal many comrades gave up the class struggle for reform; this is most evident in Chile where the fate of president Allende is a tragic remainder of the dead-end which is electoral running.

Illustrating not only its own reactionary nature but also of the revisionist nature of other revisionist nations policies the Peaceful Coexistence line shared traits with Earl Brower’s belief that capitalism had become progressive and that all nations should welcome America’s aid, as well as that of Tito’s and Mao’s actions who jumped at the opportunity to accept Western Aid and alliances. All three theories, as one can see, complimented each other perfectly.

Q19: What was the result of the Soviet Union and other revisionist countries integration into the world capitalist economy?

A19: Most notably is the build-up of debt from allowing foreign capital to flood the markets. From this event these revisionist countries had suffered tens-of-billions of dollars in debt which they would struggle to pay off. In the case of the Soviet Union, however, the result of integration would not just be debt but of succumbing to social-imperialism and launching invasions of neighboring territories. A finality of this line we can say that the policy of Peaceful Coexistence had led to the world being divided among the interests of both the Soviet Union as well as the United States of America.

Q20: To revisit upon an older topic why did the Soviet Revisionists have to attack Stalin?

A20: In the words of Hoxha…

“The Khrushchevite revisionists started their campaign against Stalin in order to justify the anti-Marxist course which they had begun to follow inside and outside the country… this is also the reason why the campaign against him was conducted with the accusations borrowed from the arsenal of imperialist and Trotskyite propaganda which presented the past of the Soviet Union as a period of "mass reprisals", and the socialist system as "suppression of democracy" and a "dictatorship like that of Ivan the Terrible" etc.”

This course was taken as well as, because “[The revisionists] could not negate the dictatorship of the proletariat and transform the Soviet Union into a bourgeois-capitalist state… without negating the work of Stalin. It is for this reason that the revisionists began borrowing lines from both imperialism and Trotskyism which served to undermine the legacy of Stalin’s policies.” For their own plan to succeed they first had to discredit and eliminate the socialist stirrings of the past so that their own theories appeared to be the only way forward. Here we see that Khrushchevite revisionism not only the ideology of capitalist restoration but of social-imperialism.


~ ~ ~

[TheGodlessUtopian]

II: Eurocommunism-An ideology of Submission to the Bourgeoisie
· The Beginnings of Modern Revisionism in the Communist Parties of Western Europe

Q21: What were the failures of the French Communist Party during the Second World War?

A21: Their failures are great and in part due to their revisionist tendencies. Though the French Communist Party developed a popular Front government which blocked the seizure of power by the fascist elements they only externally supported the Front. They did this out of misguided beliefs that the bourgeois regime would oppose fascism. Because of this ideological failure the Blum government quickly betrayed the tenants of the Popular Front and filled, and was ultimately controlled by, reactionary militarist elements.
Another great failure on their part was conduction of the anti-fascist liberation war.

Though the French Communist Party helped organize passage to Spain for the international Brigades crusade against Franco reaction, when it came to their own anti-fascist war they severely lacked in ambition. Though French comrades were among the only forces conducting a guerrilla war against Nazi occupiers these cells were isolated whose over-all leadership envisioned not a scene where the Communist Party would grab power but that of a bourgeois government coming to power; to this end the French Communist Party turned their back on their great history of struggle, their Soviet ally, and the whole French people by not turning the anti-fascist war into a revolutionary war.

Q22: What were the failures of the Italian Communist Party during the Second World War?

A22: Much like their French counterparts the mistakes and failures of the Italian Communist Party were the failure to use their considerable military strength to take power after the defeat of fascism (they voluntarily disarmed themselves at the behest of the bourgeoisie) and their integration into parliamentary bodies declaring their intent to focus on social reform, not revolution. With great support for the communists in Northern Italy and liberation struggles taking place even after the overthrow of Mussolini it would have been possible to take hold of this momentum and transform it into a genuine peoples’ revolution.

Q23: Explain the Spanish Communist Party’s role during the Second World War.

A23: Unlike comrade parties in Italy and France who had already succumb to various strains of revisionist and reformist urges the struggle of the Spanish Communist Party remained the most ideologically pure. This is because, as Hoxha says, “On July 17, 1936 the fascist generals launched their ‘Pronunciamento’… All the anti-fascist forces lined up against this danger. In November the government headed by Largo Caballero was formed with two communist ministers included.” This involvement was vital and would serve to produce vital resistance to Fascist aggression when communist elements…

“…called on the working class and the people for resistance. The Communist Party did not content itself with appeals, however, but went into action. The members of the party went into the barracks to explain the situation to the soldiers, telling them what the fascists were and what a threat they presented to the workers, the peasants and the people. In Madrid, the capital of Spain, the fascist coup failed.”

Their agitation paid off and workers all throughout Spain fought against the fascist threat such as “In Asturia the fight of the miners against the fascist troops raged for a month and this province remained in the hands of the people.” Indeed had not the international forces of reaction come to Franco’s assistance while the Western Powers blocked much needed aid, after the failed coup it is reasonable to say that Spain would have been on the correct path towards proletarian revolution. However, the armed struggle under such pressure gradually took its toll and eventually the Party came under the influence of petty-bourgeois elements who forced the party down a path of revisionism.

· Unity with the Khrushchevite Revisionists in the Struggle against Marxism-Leninism and the Revolution.

Q24: After the war in what way did the bourgeoisie consolidate their power while simultaneously strengthening opportunist elements within the degenerating communist parties?

A24: Immediately following the Second World War when much of the world laid in rubble the international bourgeoisie extensively re-established their influence. Among the efforts they took was thorough implementation of democratic intuitions including all political parties (excluding fascists, of course). Another major factor was the process of restoration of the continent which was able to, with the help of the Marshall Plan, rebuild the vital industrial centers and form a large labor force while giving some concessions to the working class to stave off class conflict. These polices were designed specifically to hinder the spread of Marxist thought and served an ulterior purpose of giving power to those opportunist and revisionist elements within the degenerating Communist Parties which even before the war’s conclusion began to show degrading signs.

This pan-political integration mixed with the much needed employment and economic concessions pacified much of the immediate struggles of the working class while empowering those individuals in the parties who sought electoral victory as the means of change. With great swathes of the population tired of bloodshed the prospect of revolution seemed very far away, proletarian interaction slowed, and to maintain contact with working class persons the reactionary elements eventually took complete control.

Q25: In what way did the Italian Communist Party become Anti-Marxist?

A25: The Italian Communist Party became anti-Marxist when its leader, Palmiro Togliatti, began advocating a line of class collaboration with bourgeois forces, rejected working class revolution-opting instead for a progressive anti-fascist democracy-and parliamentary reform. The bourgeoisie used this new line to incorporate several new I.C.P ministers into the government to ward off class struggle as well as maintain the Communist Party’s position. In this moment we see how the opportunity for revolution was lost and how the Italian ruling class reasserted their dominance over society.

These anti-Marxist positions are revealed when we examine the course taken by the Italian Communist Party. When writing the Italian Road to Socialism Togliatti, among other these, propounds beliefs similar to that of the Yugoslav revisionists when he muses that a communist party might not even be needed for the establishment of socialism and that socialistic ideas might be able to be fused into capitalistic constructs. In fact, so quickly was the I.C.P heading down this road to capitalist integration that the Revisionist soviet party was forced to scold their Italian counterparts for their enthusiasm.

Q26: How did the Italian Communist Party take the lead in international revisionism?

A26: The I.C.P took the lead in international revisionist leadership when their leader traveled to Yugoslavia so as to make Tito and company appear acceptable to the international communist movement as a whole. In doing so he forged what was to be a separate revisionist pole which stood in opposition to soviet revisionist bloc. This was called Polycentrism and is the foundation of euro communism.

Q27: After the 20th Congress of the CPSU how did revisionism find a home in the French Communist Party?

A27: Revisionist eruocommunist tendencies found their way into the already degenerating French Communist Party by means of parliamentarianism, alliances with social-democratic governments, and reform advocacy. Though these positions had already been official policy for some time, the arrival of eurocommunism gave French revisionist legitimate means to openly proclaim such views.

The grand success they found during the elections, in which they won an overwhelming majority, only empowered their reformist development. Though once they were thrown out of government completely the French Communist Party regained some of their lost revolutionary zeal, with the death of Stalin and the rise of Khrushchev sings of deviations once again reared their ugly head in the form of dissuading the Algerian Communist Party from taking part in the liberation struggle. This new decent down into revisionism would be a lengthy road but one that would end with their total defeat.

Q28: How did the Spanish Communist Party come to embrace eurocommunism?

A28: To quote Hoxha…

“In the early years after the Second World War the leadership of the Communist Party of Spain and the majority of its members were in France, where they lived a more or less legal life… This was the time when the communists were still in the governments of countries like France and Italy. The Spanish communists too, began to act like their French and Italian comrades.”

This is to say that the Spanish comrades began to embrace reformist dreams spurred on by the communist ministers. When these ministers were booted out of the government, however, and police repression coupled with arrests and fascist infiltration took its toll the mass of the Spanish Communist Party fled to “…Prague, East Berlin, and other countries of people's democracy. Their exodus towards these countries more or less coincided with the time when the Khrushchevite revisionist scum began to surface in the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe.” There they fell prey to the decadent culture of revisionist ideology and became educated in its anti-communist, pro-eurocommunist tendencies. This would become overly apparent when during their fifth congress the Spanish Communist Party formally adopted Khrushchevite’s “road of peaceful transition to socialism.”

Several years later, after major altercations within the party, the Spanish Communist Party would split into two distinct revisionist camps “…one pro-Soviet, with Lister at the head, and the other, a faction led by Ibarruri and Carrillo, which sought independence from Moscow in order to adopt the line… [Of] Eurocommunism.” While this occurred to the Communist Party the line which Carrillo produced conformed to that of Tito’s as well as Mao’s (this is revealed in meetings). All of this would ultimately culminated in Carrillo’s submission to the fascist regime of King Juan Carlos in exchange for legalizing the now ideologically gutted communist party.

Q29: What was the aim of the Soviet revisionist leadership in regards to the other communist parties?

A29: The aim was simply to bend these other parties to the Soviet Revisionist will and use them as social-imperialist tools of world domination. However sine these other parties were under immense pressure from their own national bourgeoisie this line was not adopted. The opposite line was adhered to resulting in the emergence of several revisionist theories in all parts of the world. Eurocommunism would be the only manifestation of this revisionist trend to gain any recognition; the minor bloc adhering to this line-France, Spain and Italy (with sympathy from Yugoslavia and a lesser extent China)-were the only significant proponents which crystalized to oppose this Soviet goal.

· From Revisionist Opportunist to Bourgeois Anti-Communist

Q30: Describe how Eurocommunism is a variant of modern revisionism.

Q30: For this task it will be easy to quote Hoxha…

“Eurocommunism is a variant of modern revisionism, a hotch-potch of pseudo-theories opposed to Marxism-Leninism. Its aim is to hinder the scientific theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin from remaining a strong and unerring weapon in the hands of the working class and the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties for the destruction of capitalism, its structure and superstructure, to its foundations, for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of the new socialist society.”

This is the gist of Eurocommunism simply explained.

Q31: In this section what do the revisionists claim socialism will be like and what results from their vision?

A31: During this section we see that the revisionists claim that class struggle is not necessary to the creation of socialism, that even while socialism prevails there will be opposing, even reactionary, parties and that the proletarian dictatorship is outdate and hence no longer needed. What comes of this anti-Marxist path is that in even the most ardent capitalist countries all’s one communist party must do is “…in many countries where capital rules… all that is necessary is to put… [A] signboard [which reads]’socialist country’ over the gate” and thus socialism will be ushered in with peace.
This strain of pseudo-Marxism has been attempted to be defined as a new development of Marxism yet this is not a theory but rather simple reformism draped over with new cloth.

Q32: List the ways in which Euro-communism is in fact anti-communism.

A32: Primarily supported by the French, Italian and Spanish revisionist parties the “theories” which these Euro-communist revisionists have supported directly oppose the theories of those whom they express support (Engels and Marx). As such they not only espouse anti-Marxism but also anti-communism in the following ways…

1. “…The revisionists' removal of any reference to Marxism-Leninism in their Constitutions, programs and other documents…”

2. “…[The] bourgeoisie… demand that the revisionist parties must no longer mention "the specter of communism". To this the revisionist parties agree.

3. “The publicity which the big bourgeois [media]… are giving to the articles, books, speeches and congresses of the revisionists.” Had the Euro-communist revisionists not served the interests of capital they would not have been showered with praise from the ruling class.

4. “The ultrarevisionist Milovan Djilas writes openly that Marxism-Leninism, a philosophy elaborated in the 19th century, can no longer be valid when contemporary science is much more developed than the science and philosophy of the past century.”

5. “The Italian revisionists have defined Eurocommunism as ‘a third road, different from the experience of the parties of social-democracy and different from those which have been promoted since the October Revolution in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries’. As the theses of the 15th Congress of the Italian Communist Party have it, this ‘third road’ is presented as ‘a solution which is adapted to the national characteristics and the conditions of the present epoch, to the essential features and demands which are common to developed industrial societies, which are based on parliamentary democratic institutions, as the countries of Western Europe are today.’ (The politics and the organization of the Italian communists, Rome 1979).” Rejection of communist orthodoxy in favor of reformist revisionism is anti-communist at its most base level.

6. And finally: the abandonment of the class struggle, of the Dictatorship of the Proletarian, the vicious assault against Lenin and Stalin as well as the embracement of the electoral system all cry the death wail for any revolutionary pre-text these anti-communist currents once stored.

· The Bourgeois Conception of Bourgeois Society

Q33: To “The Eurocommunists… [Painting] a distorted picture of the present-day capitalist society and its contradictions, to present it as a society which has evolved so greatly since the time of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin that their… analyses and teachings about it ‘are out-of-date and no longer valid’” is a fundamental goal, why so?

A33: This is because Euro-communists “…see present-day capitalist society as unified and no longer distinguish its polarization into proletarians and bourgeois, no longer see the contradiction between these two classes as the fundamental contradiction, and consequently do not see the class struggle as the main motive force of this society.” Instead they believe that because the majority of the wealth is held by a few capitalists, while the petty-bourgeois class is subjugated, that there are no more classes so as far as the traditional Marxist interpretation was presented.

This is personified when Hoxha writes…

“Nowadays, say the Eurocommunists, even the bourgeois class has dissolved as a class, has been transformed into "workers" and all the wealth has been gathered in the hands of a small clique of capitalists who preserve and defend this property… Hence, they imagine that state power must be taken gradually, through reforms, through the development of culture, and through the close collaboration of all classes without exception, both those who hold and those who do not hold this power.”

This line of thought has a close parallel with that of 20th century U.S.A progressives and social democrats.

Q34: To Marchais and company, consumer, as well as developed industrial society, has changed faces and leveled out all classes to the extent where there is no longer a proletariat but a working class. Why is this statement incorrect?

A34: It was Marx who defined that economically the proletariat is the wage-laborer who produces and increases capital. Whether or not classes have been “leveled out” is irrelevant insofar as the material fact is “…in the capitalist countries where the working class is deprived of the means of production and, in order to live, is obliged to sell its labour power and submit to capitalist exploitation, which is continuously increasing its intensity.” Re-writing definitions is a classic weapon of bourgeois apologists.

Q35: Why do the revisionists try and change these established definitions?

A35: This is because “…It is not without purpose that the modern revisionists change the name of the proletariat. If one speaks of the proletariat, which in capitalism possesses nothing but the strength of its arms, it is self-evident that this proletariat has to fight its exploiters and oppressors… “ due in part to “…the greatest merit of Marxism… [Which] saw in the proletariat not just an oppressed and exploited class, but the most progressive and revolutionary class of the time[.]” Obviously if one’s mission is to preserve capitalism than the revolutionary “…class which history had charged with the mission of [being] the gravedigger of capitalism” must be dissolved along with the class which antagonizes them. It is only once these two conditions have been revolved that revisionists and reformists may begin the process of eradicating class struggle in its entirety thus making the national bourgeoisie’s interests safe.

Q36: Garaudy penned a thesis which claimed that there was no longer a need for violent revolution because workers were sharing more of the capitalist’s wealth and that the Means of Production were now operated by technicians. Why is this thesis incorrect?

A36: Comrade Hoxha answers this question perfectly when he says, “In the capitalist world, despite the changes which have taken place in the social class structure, nothing has altered in regard to the positions of classes and class relationships” Therefore “The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin about classes and the class struggle in bourgeois society retains its full freshness and validity.” Simply put: just because the structure has been altered does not mean the governing relationships and behavior has been changed; the bourgeoisie still exploits just as the proletariat still works and is oppressed.

Q37: How do revisionists “obscure the facts”?

A37: Revisionists obscure the facts of proletarian enslavement by trying to say that because in consumer societies the working class has access to creature comforts such as televisions and religion they should not struggle against capitalist exploitation because it is this exploitation that sustains him and his lifestyle. This is done to divert attention and funnel away anger from the class struggle into pointless fields such hobbies, family, and faith; the revisionists seek to re-write conflict so that the proletarian directs his class hatred towards constructions which are impossible to truly fight against in capitalist society.

Q38: Why do the revisionists advocate for extensive class collaboration?

A38: In the revisionist mindset of Eurocommunism, and other like-minded revisionist theories, since it is supposedly only a small clique of industrialists who exploits people while all other factors of society are gradually moving towards socialism-towards classlessness-class collaboration is indispensable towards the revisionist goal. Without class collaboration the revisionists cannot claim their opportunist claims about society reconciling classes and becoming more progressive.

Q39: In what manner do the revisionists abandon the Leninist Party?

A39: To solve and expound upon this important question Hoxha remarks…

“…the Eurocommunist revisionists have departed from the concepts of the Leninist party and how closely they have approached the model… of social-democratic parties. They speak about a "new party", wanting it to be distinct from the party of the Leninist type, but in fact their party which they call new is an "old party" of the type of the parties of the Second International, against which Lenin fought…”

As Lenin spoke ".... the role of vanguard fighters can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” To this Hoxha explains…

“This revolutionary vanguard theory… is Marxism. Not only have the revisionists abandoned the fundamental condition for a communist party to be such, i.e., acceptance of Marxism, but they permit all the bourgeois, opportunist, reactionary or fascist philosophical views to coexist in their party…”

This is not genuine communist thought. Revisionist parties which toted such lines were the Italian, French, and Spanish communist parties. These parties were organs of reform, not of revolution. They were parties of bourgeois thought who openly proclaimed to fight “for socialism” within the framework of bourgeois constitutions. Such is impossible as the capitalists still control the police and army and would crush any peaceful transition.

· The Euro-communists’ “socialism” is the Present Capitalist System

Q40: In what way do the revisionists describe socialism in the USSR?

A40: To the revisionists the USSR’s socialism is described as thus: a Leninist Socialism as well as a Stalinist Socialism. To them the former is righteous while the later a deformed caricature of the former.

Q41: What conclusions do the revisionists draw from this division and why do they classify the USSR in this manner?

A41: The revisionists believe that in dividing the USSR in this fashion they will open the way to “reveal” that both socialist variants are ultimately the same. In doing so they will present the world with their own “theory” of Eurocommunism and claim that only this branch will lead to “actual socialism.”

Q42: What kind of socialism is envisioned by the Euro-communists?

A42: The type of “socialism” imagined by the Eurocommunist revisionists is a society in where socialist elements and capitalist elements coexist; socialist property will stand alongside capitalist property while the same would be said of bourgeois and revolutionary parties.

Q43: Why is this vision of “socialism” impossible?

A43: The revisionists here overlook the most vital fact that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive systems; “Capitalism exists as long as it keeps the proletariat and the working masses oppressed and exploited, while socialism is built and advances only on the ruins of capitalism, after it is completely overthrown.” These two systems can harmonize in much the same way that a hungry wolf and a slow, injured deer can harmonize.

Q44: How do the revisionists justify this coexistence?

A44: In order to justify the spreading of these ideas the revisionists propagate the theoretical notion of “productive forces.” This theory holds that the…

“…impulse towards socialism comes automatically and spontaneously from the development of productive forces. Therefore, they claim, for the transition to socialism there is no need for class struggle or proletarian revolution. Moreover, according to the Eurocommunists, even in those countries where the revolution has been carried out and socialist relations of production have been established, if there is a relatively low level of productive forces, there can be no talk of genuine socialism there.”

Such a ludicrous claim lambasts everything which Marxism is based on-class struggle, proletarian exploitation, wealth accumulation, etc. Production forces (rates) do not determine whether or not a territory can become socialist but rather if there is an entrenched minority reaping a surplus-profit from the backs of toiling workers engaged in commodity production.

Q45: The French and Italian revisionists devised an economic future where the character of the economy was “mixed.” What do they mean by this?

A45: To this the revisionists mean that while under this brand of “socialism” there would be a public and private sector which would freely unite the classes and operate side by side. The French revisionist Carillo says, “This system, which will have a mixed character in the field of the economy, will be expressed in a political regime in which the owners will be organized not only economically but also in one or more political parties, which represent their interests.” The social relations descried here are not revolutionary relations in which the proletariat have been liberated but rather modern capitalist social relations.

Q46: What were the first steps Albania took in realizing socialism?

A46: To quote comrade Hoxha on this part: “Among the first… measures which our people's state power took were the liquidation of foreign capital and the transformation of its enterprises into socialist state property, the implementation of an extensive and radical land reform…” as well as “The socialization of the main means of production was carried out relatively quickly, by means of nationalization without compensation. In 1946, two years after Liberation, the banks, industry, the mines, power stations, transport, communications, foreign trade, internal wholesale trade, part of the retail trade, the machine and tractor stations, the forests, waters and underground assets, were socialist state property. Thus the socialist sector of the economy occupied the commanding position.” These actions were implemented despite Albania being, at the time, a cultural and productive backward nation still reeling from war.

Q47: To the Eurocommunists it seems that the public sector’s “leaders” are laying the groundwork for socialism. Why is this, an incorrect belief?

A47: To quote Hoxha at length, “State capitalism in the industrial countries of Europe existed… as a result of a number of factors. In Italy, for example, it was set up by the bourgeoisie, as a result of the exacerbation of the class struggle, and the great pressure of the working masses, who demanded the expropriation of big capital, especially that linked with fascism… In order to escape the further radicalization of the struggle of the working masses… the weak Italian bourgeoisie carried out the nationalization of some big industries, a nationalization which fulfilled the minimum demands of the communist and socialist parties...”

From this selection we now know that state capitalism was created not out of future desire for socialism but through desperate means of maintain power.

“In Britain, the creations of the ‘public sector,’ like that of railways or coal, came as a result of big capital's abandoning some backward and unprofitable branches. It handed these over to the state, which subsidized them from the budget, from the tax-payers, while it invested its capital in the sectors of new industries with a high level of technology, in which great super-profits were secured more easily and quickly.”

During this last part we see a historical parallel when in 2009 the Obama Administration nationalized General Motors (GM). When the capitalist class did this they did it not out of a desire to build future socialism but out of necessity to preserve an important profit tool.

Q48: Why are the individuals who run the “public sector” not representatives of workers?

A48: Elementary logic:

“Those who run the "public sector… [Are] the men of big capital, those who have the reins of the whole economy... The social position of the worker in the enterprises of the ‘public sector’ is no different from that of the worker in the private sector; his relationship to the means of production… is the same. The bourgeois state, i.e., the bourgeoisie, appropriates the profit of these enterprises.”

Here the revisionists ignore the most basic tenant of Marxism and instead choose to embrace fantastical delusions regarding class conflict.

Q49: What is the Eurocommunist view and intention on the multiple political parties which would exist under their kind of “socialism”?

A49: The Eurocommunist ultimately foresees a nation where there are only a couple of political parties which swap places with each other depending on the circumstances. They believe that this is the highest development of democracy and that it is through this method which revolution is rendered absolute and resolves all the problems of the workers.

Q50: What is wrong about the Eurocommunist conception of the state?

A50: The Eurocommunist conception of the state is wrong because it advocates which will be for everybody. This idealist trap overlooks the Marxian definition of state where it is a tool of class rule. It is impossible for a state to exist for the betterment of all classes because it is not possible to organize a state where it is the tool for the oppression of all classes by every other class. It revives the Lassallian concept of the “Popular state” and brings back the antiquated musing that a bourgeois state can be taken over and used by the working class to transition to socialism. Any reader of Marx and Lenin will know this to be false and counterrevolutionary, that the working class cannot use for its betterment the very apparatus which was created to oppress them but must rather form their own state. To ignore this fundamental aspect of revolutionary socialism also means delving into rejection of the police and military as bourgeois servants.

· The “Democratic” Road to Socialism-a Disguise to Protect the Bourgeois State

Q51: In what way did the revisionists attack the October Revolution?

A51: The revisionists attacked the Great October Revolution as well as Marx and Lenin when they began their distortion of the revolutionary process and party. To justify their stance that socialism was able to be erected through parliamentary means they went as far to insist that the revolution of 1917 was a peaceful one, thereby negating all of Marx and Lenin’s theories on the subject. It was also around this time the revisionists started to minimalize the theory of the proletarian dictatorship by calling it a temporary phenomenon that would eventually give way to their reformist dream of an “all peoples’ state.”

Q52: Why is it impossible for political democracy for the working class to exist under capitalism?

A52: This is a simple answer. Rights and privilege for a class under any given society is representative of what ruling party is in power. Under a bourgeois dictatorship prevalence is given towards the capitalist class while under a proletarian dictatorship prevalence is given towards the working class. To have political democracy means having political power and so as long as the dictatorship which rules is the dictatorship of the oppressing capitalist class, there can never be true “political democracy” for proletarians.

Q53: How did Marx view the transition to socialism?

A53: To quote Marx from his writings from 1853

“What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. ..."

Comrade Hoxha explains further,

”Marx did not regard the dictatorship of the proletariat as a simple alternation of some people in the government, but as a qualitatively new state, which is built on the ruins of the old bourgeois state. He considered the smashing of the old bourgeois state machine with violence an essential for the triumph not only of the proletarian revolution, but of any genuine people's revolution led by the working class.”

Very plainly Marx has laid out the chosen revolutionary path, one which is in sharp contrast to that of the reformists who advocate impossible paths.

Q54: In what way do the Eurocommunist revisionists “…advocate the creation of a bastardized social order which will have nothing in common with scientific socialism.”?

A54: Through sheer hypocrisy in promoting belief that the “third-way” of democratic socialism is not social-democracy yet in maintaining the notion that all parties must unite with social-democracy so as to influence the state apparatus with the assistance of various cultural and religious groups. When this is taken with the rejection of Marx and Lenin’s true theories as “dogma” this fusion of revisionism and reformism can only lead to a deformed and highly confused society.

Q55: In what ways does Chinese Revisionism conform with Eurocommunist revisionism?

A55: Chinese revisionism is seen to conform to Eurocommunist revisionism in their struggle to open relations with the United States, the parallel is seen most vividly by Yugoslavia (in their acceptance and courting of western funds). Also prominent is the existence and active participation of bourgeois parties which promote private enterprise. In these ways Chinese revisionism and Eurocommunist revisionism stand strong.

Q56: Did a Proletarian Dictatorship ever exist in China?

A56: No, though the Communist party fought against Japanese Imperialism and homegrown nationalism and took state power a proletarian dictatorship never existed. The communist party established itself as the central state power and called itself a proletarian dictatorship but the class content was substantially different.

Q57: Describe, or quote, what relationship the Eurocommunist revisionists have with the Soviet state.

A57: To answer this properly I shall quote the final paragraph from Hoxha in this section…

“In regard to the contradictions the Eurocommunists have with the Soviet revisionists over the character of the state in socialism, these are not in the least of a principled nature. They attack the revisionist Soviet state, presenting it as a distortion which, as they put it, neither Marx nor Engels would approve, and indeed, even Lenin would not consider many things right. But this is a vulgar speculation. The present Soviet state is not a socialist state. It has been transformed into a dictatorship of the revisionist bourgeoisie which oppresses and exploits the working masses. With this speculation, the Eurocommunists want to prove that their pluralist line is the only ‘scientific Marxist’ line, the only line suitable for the construction of true socialism. According to them, this line is a dialectical consequence of the materialist development of history, which allegedly Marx and Engels "did not foresee" and which allegedly ‘Lenin did not foresee’, either. However, it has been allegedly discovered by Berlinguer, Marchais, Carrillo and the other revisionists of Western Europe who are beating their breasts and saying: ‘It is we who envisage the genuine transformation of society and who analyze the phenomena of the present-day world to their roots’. In fact, they are opposed to any kind of revolutionary transformation….”

On the surface it may seem that these two revisionist currents are at odds with one another to a certain degree but in reality they exist well within the same family.

· The Eurocommunist “Independence” is Dependence on Capital and the Bourgeoisie

Q58: Name the ways in which the Eurocommunist Parties abandoned their anti-imperialist platform.

A58: In France nationalism ran rampant with the French Communist Party endorsing the same position the bourgeois parties took in regards to defending “French Africa” and the expansion of U.S capital into French borders. In Italy, meanwhile, the revisionists unofficially allied with the Christian Democratic government thereby showing their undying alliance to U.S capital’s transformation of Italy into a military base. Finally, in regards to Spain, since the only objective here was legalization of the Communist Party the Spanish revisionists naively thought that American imperialism, in wishing to remove the obstacle of Franco’s effects, would help them in democratizing. The results from all of these positions were that American hegemony expanded dramatically.

Q59: During this time of submission to the western Imperialist regimes what was the Eurocommunist stance towards the Soviet Union’s international activities?

A59: Much like how the Eurocommunist positions lead to their own nations being fully suppressed by their own bourgeoisie with little resistance, on the national scale, the Eurocommunist position lead to approval of the social-imperialist activities of the soviet union (selling weapons to Africa, the soviet fleets in the Mediterranean). Though they condemned soviet aggression in Czechoslovakia the Eurocommunists never reached a higher conclusion (social-imperialism) and generally sanctioned wholesale expansion of the imperialist system in both the national and international spheres.

Q60: Describe the Eurocommunist position on the national problem as its relation towards NATO and European capital.

A60: European and American capital are inextricably bound together. So much so that it is impossible to discern where one ends and another begins. NATO’s effect in this thread is powerful as well since its vital position in the maintenance of capital through means of the military industrial complex means that all the armies of the NATO occupied countries have, in addition to being a deterrent against soviet aggression, become weapons against the internal socialist revolutions. However, since Eurocommunists, by their very political program, refuse to see capital’s penetrating influence, they ignore this vital national problem-of how to conduct revolution while foreign capital has such a grip-and opt instead for delusions concerning bourgeois freedoms.

Q61: How do the Eurocommunists view NATO’s existence?

A61: When in their heyday the Eurocommunist saw NATO not as an imperialist bloc which was meant to be confronted but as a tool to “preserving the peace.” Ignoring the national interests of their own people, and deciding instead to submit to foreign capital, the Eurocommunists see only the need to maintain the balance between the two superpowers. They see NATO and other imperialist constructs as this means-to-an end and expectedly push for their own countries inclusion in the treaty.

Q62: Why do the Eurocommunists view Imperialist entities through the lenses they do?

A62: The Eurocommunists see the bourgeoisie in the ways that they do because “…according to their ‘theories’, big capital, which is its foundation, is being "democratized", is becoming "people's" capital, because the big bourgeoisie is being ‘integrated into socialism’.” Here they fail to see the unchanging nature of capital as well as the aggressive nature of Imperialism.

Q63: The Eurocommunist line of class conciliation equals submission to bourgeois rule and promulgation of their international empires. In what way do the revisionists justify this anti-Marxist line?

A63: Using the theory of Non-Alignment as a crutch they never interfere with their home bourgeoisie’s oppression of foreign persons for fear of disrupting peaceful development. This method proclaims that neo-colonialism as a way for the economically oppressed nations to develop, yet is in reality a red herring. Ultimately this is in line with their reformist aspirations for its shared belief that with some slight retouching all imperialist ventures can be retooled for collective benefit.

Q64: Describe the way that Eurocommunism might have been used by the Soviet Union to strengthen their own political conquest and describe how it also could have been used against the USSR.

A64: In response to the possibility that Eueocommunism might be a tool of the Soviet revisionists Hoxha explains…

“It is by no means impossible that this could be a manoeuvre on the part of the Soviet revisionists to create the impression of the existence of allegedly profound differences and contradictions of "principle" between them and the communist parties of Western Europe… If this could be achieved, this would be in the interests of Soviet social-imperialism… because it weakens its rivals while increasing its influence and hegemony in different countries.”

This point also reinforces the reformist line that power can be taken through parliamentary means.

However, it was more likely that the latter of these two points was true and that Eurocommunism was a revisionist plot firmly under the control of the Western European bourgeoisie so as to be used offensively against the Soviet Union.

Q65: Once the organ Pravda attacked the theory of Eurocommunism what was the fallout?

A65: The result of the CPSU’s organ publically breaking ties with the Eurocommunists was that Carrillo sharply retorted with powerfully revisionist lines and that in the ensuing political melee the Yugoslav revisionist took the Spanish’s side and supported Carrillo. The French and Italian revisionists, meanwhile, were cautious for anxiety of disrupting their own profits and positions. In the end, however, they eventually did as they always did and “saved face” by performing a “dog and pony show” with the USSR in which each side accepted some points of the others in order to confuse the international bourgeoisie.

Q66: As we have read up to this point we see that the various revisionist parties, especially those of the Eurocommunists, are split tactically. Does this weaken them?

A66: No, it does not weaken them. This is because their ideology is so similar that no breaches in end-goals can be found. In fact this is done nearly on purpose in order for them to better consolidate their strategy and reach their goal of holding snare over global revisionism for all of the world’s working class.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm pretty sure everyone on here should be in agreement on this issue. Eurocommunism is nothing more than post-WWII social democracy under another name.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Also, nice job writing this. Your anti-revisionist analysis isn't the method I'd use, but good job anyways.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

III: Reformist Ideology and Political Opportunism-Fundamental Characteristics of the Eurocommunist Parties.

· The Constitution of the Bourgeois State-the Basis of Togliatti’s “Socialism”

Q67: Why is the theory of structural reform impossible to achieve?

A67: The theory of structural reform is the same as the “Italian Road to Socialism.” It is this ideology which believes socialism can be forced peacefully from monopoly capitalism via parliamentary reforms. This is in opposition to the fact that monopoly capitalists “…have in their hands the wealth of the country, the weapons, and the running of parliament and the administration.” It is an ideology doomed to failure.

Q68: Why did the Italian revisionists favor a coalition with the Christian Democrats?

A68: This has its roots in Allende’s Chile where his opposition to the Christian Democratic Party of Frey. Seeing that the end-result of this was a coup the Italian revisionists promoted what they called “The Historic Compromise” where they collaborated with the Italian bourgeoisie in hopes of avoiding bloodshed, preventing the rise of fascism, and building their reformist dream of gradual socialism. Needless to say all three goals failed tremendously.

Q69: What was the Italian Revisionists opinion towards Italy’s constitution?

A69: As expected from their previous beliefs the Italian revisionists’ naïvely thought that the constitution of Italy was a document which would naturally lead to socialism. To this extent they ignored that, “The Italian Constitution, like the other fundamental laws of bourgeois countries, sanctions the undivided political, legislative and executive rule of the bourgeoisie in the country, sanctions the protection of its property and its power to exploit the working masses.” And that in addition to this major cornerstone the constitution also “…gives a legal basis for the organs of violence to restrict the freedom and democracy of the people, to suppress all and rule over everything.” Obviously using the constitution as your basis for which to usher in socialism is hardly a tactful idea.

In promotion of this constitution the revisionists believed that they would eventually be invited to administer as government officials but such, expectedly, never happened.

· The Successors of Proudhon in France

Q70: In what way does Marchais mimic the Yugoslav revisionists as well as the ideas of Proudhon?

A70: Through workers self-administrations, idea which were sternly opposed by Marx and Lenin as petty-bourgeois concepts. Marchais attempted to cloak this thesis of his by placing it under the banner of so-called “creative” Marxism but in reality is nothing but a reactionary tool that, much like the struggle to increase wages, serves the bourgeoisie by prolonging the class conflict.

Q71: In what way do the French Revisionists mirror the tactics of the Italian revisionists?

A71: Through their class collaboration. As the Italian revisionists had their great “historic compromise” that sanctioned alliances with reactionary parties so the French revisionists have their “union of the left” which is a replica of the Italian compromise. Both were steeped in reformism and social-democratic language.

· Revisionism with the Gloves Off

Q72: According to the Spanish revisionist Carrillo the state has become not the representative of the bourgeois class but a sort of hybrid which represents all classes. To “legitimize” this point he attempts to say that the proletariat has changed, what is the nature of this change?

A72: Carrillo propagates the belief that the proletariat has advanced to such a point where they are elevated in their class position and are, hence, not the only ones who are interested in establishing socialism. To Carrillo the intelligentsia, which historically has been alongside the proletariat, has advanced with the working class to where they are also interested in establishing socialism (thus blurring class distinctions). Riding on this theory Carrillo then goes on to expand on the belief that capital has become progressive, the state is more inclusive, and the courts and police sympathize with the revolutionary cause, thus Carrillo links every thread into a single anti-Marxist whole.

Q73: Carrillo inadvertently makes a reference to why communists must ditch dogma. To display this he uses the Church. What is this exact reference?

A73: Karl Marx once said that “religion is the opium of the masses.” For all the truth this short statement holds Carrillo evidently disagrees for comrade Hoxha elucidates…

“According to Carrillo, even the church makes its contribution to the social transformations towards socialism! Basing himself on this fantasy, he arrives at the conclusion that the top clerical hierarchy, without as yet going so far as to accept socialism and Marxism, has allegedly begun to, raise doubts about the possibilities of capitalism as a way to solve the problems for the future. He declares that he takes his hat off to the clergy since they have made an evolution in their dogmas, therefore the Eurocommunists must reject their own ‘dogmas’, i.e., Marxism-Leninism, in order to be more ‘progressive’ than the church and the Vatican.”

Such is anathema to everything that revolutionaries have worked towards.

Q74: In what way is Carrillo a “tool for imperialism”?

A74: Carrillo expounds the belief that revolutions should not be violent because the resulting chaos would attract American intervention and thus squash the revolution. This mindset, however, ignores the triumphant struggles of many national liberations struggles the world over. From Iran to Vietnam and beyond the world’s proletariat has shown that even American reaction can be defeated. Violent revolution is a necessity while saying anything else is implying support for the current bourgeois order and thus for imperialism itself.

Q75: It is no surprise that Carrillo maintained the status quo of the military but what was his general view on them and the police force?

A75: His views on the suppressive state were that the military should change its mindset so that coups, wars, and plots are firmly kept out of mind and regulated towards an idealist state of inappropriate activity. He believes that the military can be democratized and that the police can do the same (using the pretext that many of them supposedly cast their votes for his party). This runs counter to all orthodox Marxist thinking.

Q76: In short: who was Carrillo?

A76: Carrillo is the head of the revisionist Spanish communist party. He is a reformist Eurocommunist leader who believes in the gradual transformation of present day society until it reaches a socialist condition. He takes his theory from all sorts of counterrevolutionary ideologies (from Anarchism to Trotskyism) and openly asserts that Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were incorrect about revolution as well as the state. To sum up “Santiago Carrillo, the General Secretary of' the Communist Party of Spain, is a bastard of' revisionist bastardy.” Who “took all the vilest and most counterrevolutionary things from modern revisionism and made himself the apologist of utter betrayal and capitulation.” Above all he was an opponent of proletarian revolution.

· Only the Marxist-Leninist Hold High the Banner of Revolution and Carry it Forward

Q77: What is the purpose of true Marxist-Leninists?

A77: A great deal of energy and effort is expended on this segment by Hoxha explaining the meaning of the Marxist-Leninist party, how it arises not by coincidence, but by purposeful intent. To this end Hoxha also explains about how no one can be a true Marxist-Leninist without fighting against the Khrushchevite ideology, revisionism, and all forms of social-imperialism. To Hoxha, any communist who failed to uphold these truths were not “true” Marxist-Leninists.

Q78: To the end of being a true Marxist-Leninist what role does the Marxist-Leninist party provide?

A78: To quote Hoxha, “The Marxist-Leninist party can never be such a party. It is not a party of words, but a party of revolutionary action. If its members are not engaged in concrete actions and struggle it will not be a genuine Marxist-Leninist party, but a Marxist-Leninist party only in name.”

And…

“A revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party cannot reconcile itself either to reformism or to anarchism and terrorism. It is against all these counterrevolutionary trends in whatever form they present themselves. The party must always bear in mind that it is impossible for the bourgeoisie not to attack it, that it is impossible that it will not call its actions the actions of anarchists and terrorists. However, this does not make the party tail behind events and the movement of the masses, give up actions and enter the vicious circle of revisionist and reformist parties.”

To this end Hoxha also explains that the Marxist-Leninist party is one of violent action, one which advocates that the proletariat is not afraid of direct civil conflict with the ruling capitalist class.

Q79: Hoxha spoke of how the European proletariat was, during his time, split. What was the force which split them?

A79: At the time, where many of the trade-unions were led by social-democrats and reformists of all stripes, these figures infected the working class with bourgeois ideology which eventually caused the workers to be split on ideological direction.

Q80: Are Marxist-Leninists opposed to Trade Unions?

Q80: Comrade Hoxha has this question covered…

“To fight against the so-called traditional trade-unions does not mean that you are opposed in principle to the existence of unions as organizations of the masses with a broad character, as centres of the organization and resistance of the working class, historically inevitable and essential in the conditions of capitalism for uniting the working class and throwing it into the class struggle against the bourgeoisie.”

So, no, Marxist-Leninists are not opposed to Trade Unions, only those with reactionary characters. Hoxha was in favor of creating revolutionary trade unions which would not fall into the clutches of sectarianism which the reformist ones where known for.

“Of course, the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist party within the reformist and revisionist trade-union centres does not have the aim of correcting or educating the trade-union bosses, or improving and reforming them. Such a stand would be a new reformism. The Marxist-Leninist work with the masses of trade-unionists in order to educate and prepare them for anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist revolutionary actions. The unity and cohesion of the proletariat is brought about in the process of work and struggle.”

With these systems of assistance the working class would be better organized and better prepared to carry out their overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Q81: What two great problems does the revolution face?

A81: As Hoxha explained not only does the revolutionary party have the wholesome burden of winning over the working class but they also “…must demoralize and disintegrate the bourgeois army which suppresses the revolution.” This latter step is important for the bourgeois army is one of the fiercest foes which the proletariat will encounter; to turn solider against his commanding officer, to ensure that the armies’ revolt is the principal task of the Marxist-Leninist party.

Q82: In regards to the latter of the “two great problems” what strategy is necessary to bring about the occurrence of such a fate to a vital bourgeois fulcrum?

A82: Since the passage comrade Hoxha is of such richness I will quote it in full to answer this question…

“…the disorganization of the bourgeois army is a component part of the strategy aimed to ruin the war-mongering plans of the capitalist bourgeoisie, to sabotage its predatory wars and transform them into revolutionary wars. This is how the bolsheviks acted with the czarist army in the time of Lenin. The overthrow of Kerensky and his government which wanted to continue the imperialist war, Lenin's policy on peace, on the agrarian question and the distribution of the land among the poor peasants, etc., brought the soldiers over to the side of the revolution, while the officer caste remained with the White Guards, on the side of the counter-revolution.”

It was using this method that Russia, Albania and many other nations freed themselves from bourgeois rule.

Q83:Passingly Hoxha comments on a method which can be utilized which helps the Marxist-Leninist party in remaining free of bourgeois control, what is this method that is tightly held up in legal jurisdictions?

A83: Essentially comrade Hoxha speaks that the Marxist-Leninist party must fuse legal and illegal methods of operation in order to remain on a tactile combat footing with the bourgeoisie. He says, “On all occasions and under all conditions, the genuine revolutionary parties know that they must combine the organization and development of illegal and legal struggle correctly, using only those forms of work and revolutionary tactics which do not obscure their strategy with illusions about bourgeois legality and democracy.” Such words mirror Lenin’s own thoughts to a resolute degree.